Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Can Somebody explain 'Socialism in One Country'?

POST REPLY
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Feb 2012, 12:37
Quote:
I love how both of you consider it highly relevant whether or not Stalin followed Lenin's directions on how to manage the NEP.

Well,as you already know,one of the basics of Trotskyst "discourse" is that Trotsky was the true follower of Lenin,a true Leninist while Stalin perverted Leninism and so on. Of course,here it is useful to bring up Lenin's own comments on Trotsky as well as his political career which is for a big part marked by anti-Bolshevism.
To quote Trotsky himself (1913):
"The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay."

Therefore by expanding on this it is possible to critically approach the Trotskyte "dogmas" (which are also perpetualized by bourgeois education system).
Since Trotskysm is largely incapable of providing real critique (much less so any alternative or constructive proposals) of socialist construction (constant blabbering about "bureaucracy",which is the favorite argument of many Trotskites doesn't really count,especially considering Trotsky's own propensity for bureaucratic methods and the fact that Stalin was always aware of the dangers of bureaucraticism) under Stalin,it has to resort to dogmatic demagoguery which even isn't built on any solid evidence.

Quote:
Therefore it's quite irrelevant what Lenin's ideas actually were, the relevant question is whether or not Soviet economic development was a success under Stalin. Of course it was.

Agreed.Another relevant thing is whether the Soviet economic development was a socialist development,whether it meant that the country was reaching socialism.I think it was.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 14 Feb 2012, 12:46
Quote:
Well,as you already know,one of the basics of Trotskyst "discourse" is that Trotsky was the true follower of Lenin,a true Leninist while Stalin perverted Leninism and so on.


Same goes for ML discourse on Trotsky. Everybody wants to be the true Leninist. In fact, the hilarious thing here is that Trotskyists are relying on the Lenin cult that was created by Stalin. It was Stalin who came up with "Leninism" (Lenin never thought of himself as anything other than a Marxist), and it was Stalin who started judging people based on how faithfully they adhered to Leninism. Stalin forced everybody to be a "good Leninist" - Trotsky fell for it, and then tried to use Stalin's own line of reasoning against him - suddenly, Stalin himself supposedly wasn't a "good Leninist!"

It's quite amusing.

Quote:
To quote Trotsky himself (1913):
"The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay."


At least he had the balls to think for himself back then.

Quote:
Another relevant thing is whether the Soviet economic development was a socialist development,whether it meant that the country was reaching socialism.I think it was.


Definitely.

edit: oh, you edited:

Quote:
Therefore by expanding on this it is possible to critically approach the Trotskyte "dogmas" (which are also perpetualized by bourgeois education system).


...excuse me? Trotskyism and bourgeois ideology are quite incompatible. Trotskyism is a proletarian ideology.

Quote:
Since Trotskysm is largely incapable of providing real critique (much less so any alternative or constructive proposals) of socialist construction (constant blabbering about "bureaucracy",which is the favorite argument of many Trotskites doesn't really count,especially considering Trotsky's own propensity for bureaucratic methods and the fact that Stalin was always aware of the dangers of bureaucraticism) under Stalin,it has to resort to dogmatic demagoguery which even isn't built on any solid evidence.


true!! Hey daft punk, what's your opinion on Kronstadt? Smashing worker's resistance is only bad when "Stalinists" do it, eh?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Feb 2012, 13:13
Quote:
Same goes for ML discourse on Trotsky. Everybody wants to be the true Leninist. In fact, the hilarious thing here is that Trotskyists are relying on the Lenin cult that was created by Stalin. It was Stalin who came up with "Leninism" (Lenin never thought of himself as anything other than a Marxist), and it was Stalin who started judging people based on how faithfully they adhered to Leninism. Stalin forced everybody to be a "good Leninist" - Trotsky fell for it, and then tried to use Stalin's own line of reasoning against him - suddenly, Stalin himself supposedly wasn't a "good Leninist!"

Well,the question is whether "Leninism" can even be considered alegitimate "ideology."I would say that it can,since Leninism is practical,applied Marxism and a futher development and expansion of Marxism.It is Marxism of the modern,imperialist era.

Quote:
At least he had the balls to think for himself back then.

Though his phrase is quite meaningless in the terms of real struggle for proletarian revolution considering his political position at that time,that is,Menshevism.
Anyway,i'd say that pretty much everything contains in itself "poisonous elements of its own decay",that is the law of nature after all.
Did Marxism not "contain poisionous elements" of Kautskysm? I would say it did,however it just meant that the struggle against revisionism had to be intensified.

Quote:
...excuse me? Trotskyism and bourgeois ideology are quite incompatible. Trotskyism is a proletarian ideology.

That's not what i meant,i said that the bourgeois educational (etc) system promotes and perpetualizes the idea that Trotsky was somehow the "true" Leninist and so on.
While Stalin is vilified even decades after his death,Trotsky is presented in a much more favorable way.Which is normal,because Stalin actually created a powerful socialist state,while Trotsky found refuge in bourgeois Mexico from where he wrote articles against the Soviet Union.


Quote:
true!! Hey daft punk, what's your opinion on Kronstadt? Smashing worker's resistance is only bad when "Stalinists" do it, eh?

Good point,although both Trotskites and Stalinists would agree on Kronstadt.
Anyway,Kronstadt sailors' demands were quite bourgeois in nature (remember that thread where i talked about their "demands" in Kronstadt Pravda) The rebellion also had some ties with the White forces and a good part of sailors retreated to bourgeois Finland afterwards.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 14 Feb 2012, 13:27
Quote:
Well,the question is whether "Leninism" can even be considered alegitimate "ideology."I would say that it can,since Leninism is practical,applied Marxism and a futher development and expansion of Marxism.It is Marxism of the modern,imperialist era.


Leninism is Marxism applied to the concrete situation in Russia, 1905-1924. It is Marxism for feudal countries in an imperialist world - and only for such countries, as its spectacular failure as a revolutionary ideology in non-feudal countries has proven. Even today, Marxism-Leninism is successful mainly in India and Nepal. Not quite what I would call "modern."


The fact that it's MLs and not Trotskyists who are successful shows that it's the MLs who are the "good Leninists", though. It's quite obvious. Praxis has long settled the ML vs. Trotskyism dispute.

Quote:
Anyway,i'd say that pretty much everything contains in itself "poisonous elements of its own decay",that is the law of nature after all.


That is an awesome point.


Quote:
That's not what i meant,i said that the bourgeois educational (etc) system promotes and perpetualizes the idea that Trotsky was somehow the "true" Leninist and so on.


Yeah, that's true. It's interesting to note however that back then, the bourgeoisie liked Stalin much more than they liked Trotsky.

Quote:
Good point,although both Trotskites and Stalinists would agree on Kronstadt.


Even I agree with you guys on Kronstadt. It's just that Kronstadt can be seen as a direct equivalent of the uprisings in the GDR in 1953, which daft punk vehemently supports.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Feb 2012, 18:27
Quote:
Leninism is Marxism applied to the concrete situation in Russia, 1905-1924. It is Marxism for feudal countries in an imperialist world - and only for such countries, as its spectacular failure as a revolutionary ideology in non-feudal countries has proven. Even today, Marxism-Leninism is successful mainly in India and Nepal. Not quite what I would call "modern."

Well,to quote Stalin: "Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular."
What do you think of this Stalin's definition?
Anyway,i think that Leninism is not just limited to feudal countries.Russia,for all its backwardness and feudalism on the countryside also had the most advanced proletariat of all countries.The concentration of workers in big factories was much higher than in Germany for example.
It was,after all,the 5th industrial power in Europe.
ML today is,as you mentioned,is today successful mainly in India and Nepal (although there are debates about whether Prachanda or the Naxalites can even be considered as ML in the first place) ,but ML in Greece,or Germany or France is also a hundred times more successful than ML in Congo,Bangladesh or Nigeria.

Quote:
Yeah, that's true. It's interesting to note however that back then, the bourgeoisie liked Stalin much more than they liked Trotsky.

Well,that might be true,although Trotsky was given a villa and 10 armed guards (how many bodyguards does Angela Merkel have today?
) by the Mexican government and got some nice money from his articles (published,among other places,in newspapers owned by pro-fascist Hearst).
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 14 Feb 2012, 18:43
Loz wrote:
"So decades later Molotov says the paragraph is missing. It does not say the editors were responsible. He could not know whether it was deliberate. To assume it was anything other that Stalin's instructions would be incredibly naive"
I don't know what your problem is,it clearly says that the paragraph was there in Stalin's original.Obviously it was later removed by the editors.

yeah, on Stalin's instructions ffs. Are you for real?

Loz wrote:
"And the paragraph is crucial because it shows what a liar Stalin was and that his accusations against Trotsky were all lies. It was left out so thousands of communists could be killed in Stalin's purge."
No it doesn't lol,and not only for the fact that Stalin recognized Trotsky's merits during the October in the paragraph that made it to his Collected Works.

Are you this fragging incapable of understanding simple logic all the time of just relating to the Stalin thing?

Tell me, why do yo think it was missed out?

Tell me, if Stalin went round repeating what was in the missing paragraph, do you think he would have found it so easy to kill the Trotskyists?

The paragraph you produced was wishy washy, backhanded, nothing compared to the missing one. In fact it was lies. It was not a compliment it was lies. It said he did well, but all he did was followed orders. He fragging led the revolution.



Loz wrote:
"Bukharin's claim is supported by his death. "
No,unless Bukharin was sentenced to death for clapping.

Ever heard of correlation vs. causation? It is absurd that he was killed for clapping.

Try understanding a simple explanation, Trepper clearly understood what Bakhunin was saying.


Loz wrote:
"These are facts, quite simple plain ones."
No they aren't,otherwise you'd be able to prove them.

Well the Trepper article is proof. They were all killed werent they? This didnt happen overnight. They worried about it for years.


Loz wrote:
"I keep telling you, read the platform of the Opposition. "
You can keep telling me,but i'm asking you to prove (quote the relevant passage from your sources) that Stalin denied and refuted Lenin's advice and guidemarks regarding the development during the NEP. Or that Stalin was the first one responsible for the policies inacted during that time.

And I keep saying read it. The whole thing is a detailed description of what Stalin was doing wrong. It's not long. Stop typing drivel and get it read. I already pasted some small bits but i cant paste the whole thing. I keep telling you, indirect taxes rose relative to direct ones, and this makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. But there is much more. If you dont read it the debate will go nowhere. You slag Trotsky and praise Stalin but you havent even read the key document. You have no clue about any of this.


Loz wrote:
"What the £@%$ do you think it says? Do you know what the word curb means? Do you need a dictionary?"
Do you know what tactics and strategy is?

Explain how putting the brakes on a revolution in full flow is strategy. Actually don't because you will just write some meaningless waffle. Try reading up on the revolution in 1923.

C L R James
The World Revolution 1937-1936
Chapter 7
STALIN KILLS THE 1923 REVOLUTION
http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-c ... d/ch07.htm




Loz wrote:
"the first purge of the Joseph Stalin era was performed only in 1929–1930 according to the resolution of the XVI Party Conference. Over 10% of the Party members were purged. " etc,etc"
Even your own quotes refute your lie about "half the party",why are you even bothering?

It might have been less than half the party its hard to tell. That figure of 10% is just for 2 years isnt it? The purge went on to 1938 and beyond. We know the overall figure is maybe around a million or more, I'm not sure how big the party was. Does it matter? It was a lot of people anyway.

Loz wrote:
"I see I am wasting my time. Support or retract "Trotskyit-Fascists" It is mentioned below actually, it was a lie invented by Stalin and NKVD operatives who had pretended to be Trotskyists. Needless to say he killed them after their false confessions. The CIA knew about it. To them it was quite strange that Trotsky wasn't more alert to espionage as several MKVD penetrated his circle of contacts."
Maybe,maybe not,but you should create a separate thread about Spain because it is off-topic here.
Also you can quote 6 page articles as much as you want,but claims such as "...This position suited Stalin, who in Spain aimed for the impossible: victory for neither Franco nor the armed workers..." only serve to further discredit you.

No, you have failed to grasp even the basics of this thread. Nothing has sank into your brain. Spain is not off topic it is a vital piece in a fairly straightforward jigsaw. All you see is bits of cardboard and an image of what you want to see. Just put the pieces together ffs.



Loz wrote:
"No, I think this debate is pretty much concluded. Read the stuff I gave you, think about it. If you don't want to understand it or absorb it that's up to you. Remain ignorant."
I don't know why you think that this is the first time i heard about Trotskysm?
Your sources are dubious but still miles ahead of the false and absurd "conclusions" you somehow derive from them.
The "clapping story" is especially dumb,needless to say such a theory is nonexistant even in the most reactionary works about Soviet history.
Good job there!


Nobody is saying you got killed for being clapped. You got killed for being a socialist. And the applause was from socialists, listening to socialists talk about socialism. Bukharin believed it brought him closer to his death. It's more a figurative thing than literal, but it is both. Trepper understood what he meant, I understood it, the people who wrote the article understood it, and his death proved it, so why you cant grasp such a simple concept is beyond me. The people doing the applause also came to fear death. and Trepper's boss was killed. Trepper got jailed, he was out of the country during the purges.


"Trepper describes how; “at night in our university…headlights would pierce the darkness… “They’re here! They’re here! When we heard that cry a wave of anxiety would run through the dormitories…stomachs knotted in insane terror, we would watch for the cars of the KNVD to stop… “They’re coming.” The noise got louder…shouts doors slamming. They went by without stopping. But what about tomorrow?”"

All the socialists feared for their lives.

Only the Trotskyists had the perspective to understand the situation fully.


Mabool wrote:
I love how both of you consider it highly relevant whether or not Stalin followed Lenin's directions on how to manage the NEP.

I would think the important question is whether he did it right or not. Lenin's directions could have been wrong, you know. Therefore it's quite irrelevant what Lenin's ideas actually were, the relevant question is whether or not Soviet economic development was a success under Stalin. Of course it was. So, the only thing that's left to criticize is that it might possibly have been different than what Lenin wanted. Who cares? And why care?


True, but of course Stalin and Stalinists make a huge deal about Lenin's differences with Trotsky, digging up private letters from before the revolution and such. And no Stalin wasnt a success. Millions died because he collectivised too fast, too late, in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons. Obviously after collectivisation (Trotsky's policy) they had the advantages of the planned economy, but they also had the disadvantages of the Stalinist dictatorship, so eventually it folded, as Trotsky predicted it would, if not replaced by workers democracy - mass involvement in planning.

It evolved in the wrong direction. Stalin only collectivised because he had to.

Loz wrote:
"I love how both of you consider it highly relevant whether or not Stalin followed Lenin's directions on how to manage the NEP.

Well,as you already know,one of the basics of Trotskyst "discourse" is that Trotsky was the true follower of Lenin,a true Leninist while Stalin perverted Leninism and so on."
And Stalinists do the same. But while the Trots narrative is based on history, your is lies.



Loz wrote:
Of course,here it is useful to bring up Lenin's own comments on Trotsky as well as his political career which is for a big part marked by anti-Bolshevism.
To quote Trotsky himself (1913):
"The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay."

I'm sick of listening to this garbage, I already discussed this.


Loz wrote:
Therefore by expanding on this it is possible to critically approach the Trotskyte "dogmas" (which are also perpetualized by bourgeois education system).
Since Trotskysm is largely incapable of providing real critique (much less so any alternative or constructive proposals) of socialist construction (constant blabbering about "bureaucracy",which is the favorite argument of many Trotskites doesn't really count,especially considering Trotsky's own propensity for bureaucratic methods and the fact that Stalin was always aware of the dangers of bureaucraticism) under Stalin,it has to resort to dogmatic demagoguery which even isn't built on any solid evidence.

Er, Trotsky and Lenin both warned of the dangers of bureaucracy in 1922 and 1923 onwards. Stalin based himself on the bureaucracy and used it against Trotsky. Stalin's regime was a one man dictatorship based on the bureaucracy, ie the bureaucracy backed Stalin in return for their privileges. Lenin lived in a partitioned room, Stalin in luxury dachas with swimming pools.

[/quote="Loz"
Agreed.Another relevant thing is whether the Soviet economic development was a socialist development,whether it meant that the country was reaching socialism.I think it was.[/quote]
fragging dismal analysis. It was approaching socialism, but that meant advocating capitalism for all other countries?

Mabool wrote:
Same goes for ML discourse on Trotsky. Everybody wants to be the true Leninist. In fact, the hilarious thing here is that Trotskyists are relying on the Lenin cult that was created by Stalin. It was Stalin who came up with "Leninism" (Lenin never thought of himself as anything other than a Marxist), and it was Stalin who started judging people based on how faithfully they adhered to Leninism. Stalin forced everybody to be a "good Leninist" - Trotsky fell for it, and then tried to use Stalin's own line of reasoning against him - suddenly, Stalin himself supposedly wasn't a "good Leninist!"

I think Trotsky may have used the phrase Leninism before Stalin actually. Anyway, don't let facts get in the way of your waffle. Trotsky was advocating the same policies from 1924-8 that Lenin had in 1922 because he agreed with them.

[/quote="Mabool"
At least he had the balls to think for himself back then.
[/quote]
er, the Stalinists like to make a bit deal of Trotsky arguing with Lenin in 1921-2 on the trade union question.

I suppose from 1923 onwards Trotsky didnt think for himself, that was why he was expelled and killed?



Mabool wrote:

...excuse me? Trotskyism and bourgeois ideology are quite incompatible. Trotskyism is a proletarian ideology.

frag me you got something right

Mabool wrote:

true!! Hey daft punk, what's your opinion on Kronstadt? Smashing worker's resistance is only bad when "Stalinists" do it, eh?


You know my opinion. There were a few days left til the ice melted. Then British warships could sail up to Petrograd and fire on it. The mutiny had to be stopped. Trotsky sent people to talk to them. He told the to put down their weapons. They had seized a fortress ffs! They refused so the Reds attacked, but actually much of the suppression of the White-organised mutiny came from within Kronstadt itself. The Reds were joined by member of the Workers Opposition and some anarchists supported them.

There was no parallel to this in the 1930s when Stalin purged the best communists.

Mabool wrote:

Even I agree with you guys on Kronstadt. It's just that Kronstadt can be seen as a direct equivalent of the uprisings in the GDR in 1953, which daft punk vehemently supports.


Rubbish. Kronstadt was defence of the revolution. Stalin then destroyed the revolution. 1953 was about getting back to attempting socialism. Again the Stalinists destroyed it.

frag me.
Last edited by daft punk on 14 Feb 2012, 19:09, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 14 Feb 2012, 19:04
Quote:
I suppose from 1923 onwards Trotsky didnt think for himself, that was why he was expelled and killed?


No, he was expelled and killed because Stalin made thinking for yourself a crime.

Quote:
And no Stalin wasnt a success. Millions died because he collectivised too fast, too late, in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons.


That doesn't mean it wasn't a success. The goal was never to do it as humanely as possible. Also Stalin successfully ended starvation in the entire territory of the former Russian Empire. You really do need to see this in perspective.

Quote:
Well,to quote Stalin: "Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular."
What do you think of this Stalin's definition?


I think it's completely wrong. I disagree that Leninism has ever produced a proletarian revolution, and I don't think Leninist socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Leninism has consistently acted against attempts of the working class to construct its dictatorship (Kronstadt, GDR).

Quote:
Russia,for all its backwardness and feudalism on the countryside also had the most advanced proletariat of all countries.


Firstly I don't believe that (source?), secondly it doesn't really matter because the proletariat of a modern Western nation will obviously be a million times more advanced than the Russian proletariat of 1917.

Quote:
ML today is,as you mentioned,is today successful mainly in India and Nepal (although there are debates about whether Prachanda or the Naxalites can even be considered as ML in the first place) ,but ML in Greece,or Germany or France is also a hundred times more successful than ML in Congo,Bangladesh or Nigeria.


Well if ML does lead to a proletarian revolution in Greece, I'm ready to change my mind.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 15 Feb 2012, 10:02
Mabool wrote:
"I suppose from 1923 onwards Trotsky didnt think for himself, that was why he was expelled and killed?"

No, he was expelled and killed because Stalin made thinking for yourself a crime.


True, but also because Trotsky represented socialist ideas an they were becoming less popular in Stalin's "enrich yourselves" privatised economy. And because Stalin was going off the idea of socialism.



Mabool wrote:
And no Stalin wasnt a success. Millions died because he collectivised too fast, too late, in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons."

That doesn't mean it wasn't a success. The goal was never to do it as humanely as possible. Also Stalin successfully ended starvation in the entire territory of the former Russian Empire. You really do need to see this in perspective


No. Read the thread. Stalin's goal was not socialism. He abandoned that and carried out a political counter revolution to stop any chance of socialism. Then he tried to stop all revolutions around the world, starting with Spain 1936-7. Even in 1928 he only collectivised because he had to.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 15 Feb 2012, 16:31
Quote:
No. Read the thread. Stalin's goal was not socialism. He abandoned that and carried out a political counter revolution to stop any chance of socialism. Then he tried to stop all revolutions around the world, starting with Spain 1936-7. Even in 1928 he only collectivised because he had to.


no thats wrong

besides, even if it wasn't a socialist industrialization, it was still successful.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 15 Feb 2012, 18:25
No it is not wrong it is easy to demonstrate. Stalin was very scared of socialism.

It was not successful either, and as a result no longer exists.

The economy did grow quickly in the 1950s, but that was despite the bureaucracy, not because of it. Just imagine how a real socialist economy could perform, with as much involvement in decision making as possible by the maximum number of people, a real workers democracy. You see something that needs doing. You do it. This is what Lenin was on about in his 1922 speech to congress, end red tape before it ends the revolution.

But you cant have a one man dictatorship without red tape, and Stalin go to be dictator by representing the interests of the bureaucracy, several tens of thousands of privileged people they inherited from the Tsar.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 30
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jan 2012, 17:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 15 Feb 2012, 18:44
Mabool wrote:
Leninism is Marxism applied to the concrete situation in Russia, 1905-1924. It is Marxism for feudal countries in an imperialist world - and only for such countries, as its spectacular failure as a revolutionary ideology in non-feudal countries has proven. Even today, Marxism-Leninism is successful mainly in India and Nepal.


But no other revolutionary ideology has shown any spectacular successes in "non-feudal" countries either.
It would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet. - Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 16 Feb 2012, 05:42
Quote:
Well,the question is whether "Leninism" can even be considered alegitimate "ideology."I would say that it can,since Leninism is practical,applied Marxism and a futher development and expansion of Marxism.It is Marxism of the modern,imperialist era.


"Leninism" can't really be considered a valid line of Communist Thought, but "Marxism-Leninism" is. Granted, it's a semantic argument, but to me, the term "Leninism" is an attempt to separate Lenin from Marx, in order to justify making Lenin to be a revisionist.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 16 Feb 2012, 05:48
Quite on the contrary. I think the conflation of Lenin and Marx that is implied by the term "Marxism-Leninism" is highly dangerous. You've got to be able to tell them apart.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 16 Feb 2012, 12:42
Marxist-Leninist is a rubbish term because it means Stalinist which is neither Marxist nor Leninist.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 16 Feb 2012, 12:53
What are the most important characteristics of "Stalinism" , what is its origin and theoretical basis?
How does Stalin as a theoretician relate to Marx and Engels?
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 16 Feb 2012, 19:04
I've just explained it all in the thread.

Summary

abandon socialism

"socialism" in one country

popular fronts

sabotage revolutions
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 16 Feb 2012, 20:05
daft punk wrote:
Marxist-Leninist is a rubbish term because it means Stalinist which is neither Marxist nor Leninist.



Actually Stalinism is the rubbish term, there is no such thing as actual stalinism. It's just a pejorative used to label certain people that call themselves communists that worship Stalin with the likes of a God, (and just because my avatar is Stalin doesn't mean so) and that he made no errors, and was a superb leader. Far from the truth. But he is a doer, and Marxist Leninists are doers, and have accomplished far more than you leftists have ever done.
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht.
The Party is always right.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 16 Feb 2012, 20:51
The bourgeoisie has accomplished far more than MLs have ever done, HURR DURR

also daft punk's arguments have consistently revealed a complete and utter lack of understanding for the basics of historical materialism. i should therefore doubt his qualifications in judging whether "stalinism"

a) exists
b) is marxist or leninist
c) is wrong.

protip: it's the fragging DEFINITION of leninism...
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 16 Feb 2012, 21:54
Man In Grey wrote:
"Marxist-Leninist is a rubbish term because it means Stalinist which is neither Marxist nor Leninist."


Actually Stalinism is the rubbish term, there is no such thing as actual stalinism. It's just a pejorative used to label certain people that call themselves communists that worship Stalin with the likes of a God, (and just because my avatar is Stalin doesn't mean so) and that he made no errors, and was a superb leader. Far from the truth. But he is a doer, and Marxist Leninists are doers, and have accomplished far more than you leftists have ever done.


Yes, he was very busy killing communists and sabotaging revolutions


Mabool wrote:
The bourgeoisie has accomplished far more than MLs have ever done, HURR DURR

also daft punk's arguments have consistently revealed a complete and utter lack of understanding for the basics of historical materialism. i should therefore doubt his qualifications in judging whether "stalinism"

a) exists
b) is marxist or leninist
c) is wrong.

protip: it's the fragging DEFINITION of leninism...


is this supposed to have any meaning?

Do you know what historical materialism is? You think it somehow relates to Stalin's anti socialist policies? You are right, but wrong the wrong reasons. Historical materialism predicts the degeneration of a revolution in a isolated backward country.

Marx:

“A development of the productive forces is the absolutely necessary practical premise [of Communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must revive.”

The old crap revived in 1924 onwards. Trotsky warned about it, Stalin nurtured it, stirred it, embraced it.

Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 16 Feb 2012, 23:19
Quote:
Yes, he was very busy killing communists and sabotaging revolutions


Right. That's arguable, in fact 3 pages worth, so far (you and Loz).

Trotsky was a narcissist with great oratory skills. Stalin was a great organizer and lead the underground, he served as part of the backbone for the Bolsheviks getting arrested countless times, actually partaking in struggle for over a decade. He lead the Bolsheviks of Georgia and organized various strikes there too, however this is barely recognized in any history book it seems. He's also made nice contributions to Marxism-Leninism with his written works. But you don't believe in that ideology do you, so it doesn't matter. My point is, he was both a teacher and a soldier. He played a much bigger part than you might think.

The reason why I say leftists have not accomplished anything is because you are too sectarian and not organized or disciplined with any concrete goals. I mean look at the anti-thesis to SIOC, Permanent Revolution. Holding absolutely no material basis. And even at the time there were Revolutions that sparked, but they all failed. Hungarian Soviet Republic lasted less than a year, the German and Italian uprisings in 1918-1919 both failed. According to PR they would had to wait for them to succeed, correct? Thankfully the winds did not blow in such a direction.
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht.
The Party is always right.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.