What is the difference between marxism and Leninism ?

Lenin was a recvolutionary and was ruthless for very good reasons.

Stalin made that cult of personality and told people to ignore living in shitty conditions and to feel good about being socialists which is as bad as saying "ignore your conditions, feel good for being white and totes superior".

Yeah he might have results but that wasn't true communism because it wasn't for everyone, he ended up living in luxuries and being worshiped

He absolutely did wrong (I've got mounds of good pieces that critique him if you'd like), but he was principled to the communist movement and revolutionary theory. His fuck ups were majority either terrible miscalculations or poor judgement, not conscious deviations from what he knew to be consistent with the communist horizon.

how will you prevent it from happening again?

It really hasn't. While party politics (ultimately the only politics that did anything, including in Spain, but don't tell the anarchists who will call their party not a party) have managed to topple bourgeois regimes and prop up a space for building alternative economic systems, this was rarely the first order of the day. Despite circumstances making it difficult (most revolutions being born out of either civil wars or massive revolutionary waves of destruction and the looming threat of reactionaries) the focus has always first been on establishing superstructural reforms to ensure a toppling thus not occur. While this is also important, a vital change in the base should always accompany this. Post-1917 Russia probably came closest to this, with almost 6 years of Soviet worker's councils dictating most of the economic life, but then the pressing need for mass industrialization arrived and we all know what happened next. Really, I still fault Lenin in spite of this, but he had only one shot, and he took it. That's where my admiration of Lenin comes from, on top of his really good theory.

Then, you'd need a direct socialist revolution without interfering factors which allow for civil war or other kinds of revolutions, how will something like that ever happen as long as other nations and power hungry groups exist?
Also, how did the need to industrialize started to opress the people? This would've been the best opportunity to show how effective and useful socialism was, as they were given a nation which failed to industrialize properly even though the rest of the modern world had done so already, all the workers should've easily come to the conclusion that massive industrialization is needed and they would've worked their asses off to make it happen, what stopped them?

It can't; chaos is the very nature of revolutionary activity. The point is to have a proper revolutionary programme; one that properly accounts for what's to come, and learns from what has passed.

It didn't, at least not directly. The point is that war communism came incredibly close to the socialist mode of production, which puts use before exchange in terms of production. Lenin instituted New Economic Policy, or "state capitalism" as he called it, in sacrifice for the sanctitity of the socialist mode of production to ultimately actually have the means to save the whole of Soviet Russia from reaction. Had he not taken this wager, Russia would have been annihilated for usre. On the flip side, his bargain took the risk of recreating the capitalist mode of production with a vengeance, and 1990 proves that it was indeed the start of the end; one which failed to be abated in favor of a proper socialist mode of production once its initial use had passed.

Nothing. The worst part about it all is that Lenin was held in such high esteem by the Soviets that they all pretty much unanymously agreed to NEP. First this was believed to be a myth, but records and accounts show this. NEP was the necessary evil they all undertook, and ultimately Lenin is both to blame for its vicious and its salvating qualities.

youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM

Woah great analysis 10/10.

nice explanation, what do the terms use and exchange mean exactly?
So are people actually not smart enough to rule themselves? Does the appearance of single leader makes people drop the complete equality by themselves?
what are your views on the fact that wall street and even the us president helped the bolshevik revolt in Russia, that'd be capitalists/cronies who helped communists in the seat

actual answer by Chomsky youtube.com/watch?v=Xzze5VLuG78

The proper terms are use value and exchange value. Under a capitalist economy, production follows the law of value, which is dictated by exchange value which is in turn governed by socially necessary labor time. This is what lets capitalism be so exploitatively expansive and productive; the impersonal market forces at play constantly discipline labor to produce more than the previous cycle of compound growth provided/s. Lenin's NEP was thus an attempt at modernizing and industrializing Russia through a controller state capitalism, one that would harness the explosive power of capital but more or less guided by a state ruled by the communist party.

A tricky question. People are first and foremost never truly governed themselves; they act upon an ideological perogative and the impulses of an economic base and what these two dictate them to do. This is why humanity was once accepting of slave society in spite of its immiseration, just like feudalism and now capitalism. Our goal, as communists, is to alter the economic base of society as such that we solve the death drive capital brings upon us with its contradiction. This means that we need to emancipate the masses.

Even in Soviet Russia, post October revolution, there was no such thing as a single leader. There were party politics in which its members constantly critiqued one another as to make the party go the right way. As said before, the NEP was not only majority agreed upon by the masses, but ultimately within the CCCP itself. Therein lies the tragedy.

First of all, US funding came directly from loans the Reds themselves took for building. Secondly, the US has always had the geopolitcal strategy of funding dissidents (in case of Russia enemies of the Tsar) to do the cleanup job for them and then hawk themselves on the void of power. This failed with Russia, as the Bolsheviks quickly took autonomy themselves, soon to become enemies of the US by refusing to repay it for its efforts whatsoever ("the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them!", etc.).

(Second part of WEBM on use vs. exchange value)

One more, on the value from labor time.

...

Ask a former K street neoliberal cuck anything.

So what happened that the soviet government couldn't utilise the capitalist strategy? sounds like a reasonable plan, right? do you think trotsky was a capitalist double agent? there were accounts of him enjoying luxuries in New York, i believe?

Why merely an economic base? Culture in the sense of social grouping would have a definite inpact and still has on us. This is not part of the ideological prerogative?

What happened is that it used it too well. In being one of the only moments in history where communists had full power, they were forced to come up with a modernization and industrialization strategy, but ultimately created a monster they failed to tame. The USSR was, until post-Great Depression, the most productive economy on the planet. If you stick around ITT I will find the references for this and post them; the USSR, when Stalin took over the reigns from Lenin, hyper-drove the state capitalist model to such levels that it managed to create the largest and best equipped standing army of WW2 away from the eyes of the world in the Russian industrial planes. Never mind their terrible military strategy; the amount of firepower and resources Russia had because of state capitalism was enough to annihilate both the Nazis and the Japanese empire three times over.

No, and no. Trotsky ended up being well-received in the west after he was exiled from Russia, as western powers thought inviting him over could subvert Bolshevism. Trotsky ultimately never really sang any praise about western liberal democracies and remained true to his cause, even though he did little more than write and critique the USSR (and there is some fairly good critique of his).

Because the base is dominant; it is from which the superstructure springs and reifies itself. It is the most crucial part.

No difference really. Both ideologies advocate totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat. Leninism is just more honest about it.

Meme terms a go.

I'd love references
Why did such an extremely productive country fall apart? Every government would try to keep it intact, right?
Why must said base be economical in nature? What exactly is the base?

New here, Can anyone explain what is nep exactly?

And what do you mean by forced to industrialize? Because Stalin just seemed like it got many powers, made a cult of personality and then told people to work into overdrive and even dangerous limits and to ignore their bad living conditions, which it is understnabdle in some cases for example US having nukes, you couldn't let that happen but most of the time it felt like he was just trying to push people hard without really caring about the idea of a better future for all

Because I really have read a few things but still don't get what what the technical reason behind lenin not being able t o fulfill his dream.

Pic.

It really didn't. State capitalism ultimately served its purpose and the country liberalized its capitalism, ultimately transferring power to the new Russian Federation.

The relation of production. WEBMs above outline this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

(Rest is answered there)

dO YOU HAVE A FULL ARCHIVE OF THOSE SMALLER kAPITALISM 101 VIDS?

Download the Holla Forums WEBM torrent collection (it's stickied). Included is all of Kapitalism 101, but many more WEBMs.

are you saying the ussr remained more productive than the rest of the west yet dissolved and became the russian federation? how can a superproductive country like that not feed its people atleast some of the time? why did Russia not suffer under the great depression? Not merely because of the fact that they were now communists, but because they didnt allow the international banking taking them along in their crash?

No, what I am saying is that state capitalism managed to outperform liberal capitalism for 30 to 40 years before it lost its planning steam. The transfer to the RF happened because liberalization was due dilligence, and this could not happen without a formal change of national identity (away from the communist idea, towards the capitalistic one).

It did. The only famines that occurred in the USSR occurred because of a combined intent to starve and conditions that made not helping them out free politics. Holodomor was a way of damaging Ukrainian separatism and punishing the peasants that resisted collectivization into state capitalist system.

Because it was not integrated in the world market; the market of liberal capitalism. However, as I just told you, once it fully built in things on a national level, capital's sytemic need to grow inevitably forced liberalization into it.

This has little to do with anything.

Are you capable of defending you opinion?

its true though

What is? Stalin's cult of personality?

Did Trotsky even refer to it?

stalin betrayed the revolution ideologically

I just fucking realized Yuri is meant to look like Lenin.

Indeed

...