What is it and why does every "communist" seem to be it? Im a brainlet sorry
Marxist-Leninism
Brandon Stewart
Brandon Long
What is Marxist-Leninism?
Xavier Nguyen
It's Stalin and his successors justifying the control of the bureaucracy over the Soviet society and economy by pretending that this is somehow socialism and exactly what Lenin and Marx would have wanted.
Jackson Edwards
bullshit conjured up by stalin to retroactively justify his blatant revisionism of everything marx and lenin ever wrote
it doesn't deserve the name it bears
Justin Russell
But isn't there an actual major contribution that Lenin made to Marx? And what about the subsequent revolutions (such as Cuba) that took so much inspiration from Lenin?
Blake Barnes
Marxism-Leninism has basically fuck all to do with either Marx or Lenin. It's red bureaucracy and state capitalism plain and simple. Lenin himself had more in common with council communists like Rosa than he did with Stalin.
Owen Allen
It's the combination of the theories of Marx and Lenin formalized with some personal touches by Stalin. It's what people think of when they hear "Communist" because Marxism-Leninism was the official state ideology of the USSR and Cuba, and laid the groundwork for Mao's theory later on.
It's kind of a controversial subject because many leftists don't consider Marxist-Leninist regimes to even be socialist in the first place, but rather a form of "state capitalism," in which the government controls industry, but still relies on wage labor and produces commodities for exchange, which also happen to be the two things Marx hated the most about capitalism.
Yes. But Leninism and Marxism-Leninism are different.
Leninism can describe any flavor of Communism focused on seizing the state though violent revolution spearheaded by what's called a Vanguard party.
Marxism-Leninism on the other hand is the specific brand of Communism employed by the USSR during and after Stalin, as well as in Cuba.
tldr; don't let Marxism-Leninism ruin Leninism for you.
Wyatt Anderson
These later revolutions did not take place in a vacuum. They all took to Stalin's example because that was the way to get the support of the Soviet Union, which was the best or even only way to resist the inevitable US-backed reactionary response. Declaring a socialist revolution on a Trotskyist or Council Communist basis or whatever would mean that you became an enemy of both camps in the Cold War, and you'd never receive any of that juicy Soviet funding and support that USSR-affiliated groups did. Thus, practical necessity meant that Stalin's cancer became virtually the only leftist current with the means to achieve much. That doesn't make it any less of a total perversion of everything Marx and Lenin stood for.
Wyatt Nguyen
It's the ideology associated with the socialist states, mostly until Stalin's death and perhaps a little after. It's the natural result of Leninism in that the remnants of the revolutionary vanguard become the new ruling class for the new state.
I'm not sure if most communists are MLs, but MLs, Maoists, together seem to make up most parties so they're going to be the largest organized leftist groups, dubious honor that is.
Gabriel Adams
marxism leninism is trash. I'm not the biggest fan of Lenin, but honestly I think it's unfair to lenin that he's so often associated with that trash. ML is peak pseudocommunism and should be discarded immediately
Colton Edwards
This. If you want to see what happens to communists that didn't tow the Soviet line look at Ukraine, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Spain, etc. They were all either thrown to the fascists or actively crushed. The only people that managed to pull of non-ML socialism was Yugoslavia, and the Soviets were gunning for Tito for a long time, he was like their Castro.
Andrew Ramirez
But Cuba received support from Khrushchev, not Stalin.
Aaron Reyes
Kruschev was not some great ideological mastermind who broke the power of the bureaucracy and completely altered the way the Soviet system worked. He was just a Marxist-Leninist who kept operating the Soviet Union in accordance with the system which had been put in place by Stalin, just with less repression and more corn.
Owen Harris
Tbh I don't understand why tankies hate him so much. I think it's just because he said mean things about Daddy Joe.
Carson Murphy
Except for the whole privatization and ideological revisionism, yeah, sure. Why not. That's just details.
Why read books when you can post 2 liner shit like this on the online vanguard board, amirite?
Jacob Long
Back to Reddit, newfag tankie.
Jayden Bennett
p much
Andrew Clark
thats
>>>/marx/
you need to go back there
and drop the fucking lenin hat, stalinist scum
Owen James
edgy af
Jose Lewis
kys reddit scum
Jonathan Powell
Social democracy at the barrel of a gun
Benjamin Richardson
kek
Cooper Morgan
The irony.
Owen Hernandez
He changed economics of soviet union on fundamental level by removing production quotas and replacing them with demands for economically viable production.
Adrian Murphy
Stalin is the king of communism. Prove me wrong.
Nathaniel Bailey
Does this mean Muke was right and libertarian Leninism is not just a meme>
Gabriel Hughes
reported faggot
Charles Mitchell
Yes.
Cameron Perez
YES
E
S
Hunter Jackson
Because most people who become communists do so because they found the soviet union cool, because it has tanks, and bombastic songs, and bears, and isn't afraid of anything.
There's an overlap between neo-nazi's and marxist-leninists, easily switching sides. I have one nazi friend who used to be ML, when I asked him about it, he told me the standard stuff about lenin being brilliant, the invincible red army (he admires them for sending hundreds of men to their death in human waves against machine gun nests, which according to him was a tactic to break german morale by showing their numerical overweight), getting rockets into space and so on. It's pretty much the such same stuff for which he is now a nazi.
To sum it up, ML offers the subjective experience people who are into extreme, alienated, ideologies are looking for.
John Morgan
They are the main tendency on the left to really export their ideology aggressively, and have the legacy of several nation states standing against western capital for bragging rights.
Compare this to for example:
And this is just the formally socialist side of things. Other left wing ideologies like social democracy and democratic socialism (rebranded SocDems if you ask me, but I digress) may have mass support, but it has massively been waning and its support always came from being the standard left-reformist option.
Ethan Ward
Actually ML is still very popular in the third world because it has practical applications. I'm talking about guerrilla insurgencies that keep and control territory in India, Philippines, and Turkey. But hey, keep on being racist, I'm sure that's going to work out for you.
Henry Bennett
Why are so many LGBT people M-Ls given the way they were treated under their beloved Stalin?
Jace Scott
stalinsociety.org
Because
1. despite what propaganda will tell you, Stalinist USSR was far more progressive on the issue than anywhere else at the time, see: stalinsociety.org
2. Most MLs have recanted anti-homosexual positions through their policy of self-criticism, something alien to the ultraleft.
Grayson Johnson
That's ameriKKKan propaganda, they build statues bigger than lady liberty in honor of transsexuals.
Adam Butler
Because they don't actually know anything about it. They just like the atheisticfeel they get from .gifs in the marxism tag on Tumblr.
Nathan Watson
because the bolsheviks actually seized power and consolidated it, unlike the german communists or the hungarians, who had a different ideological framework but ultimately failed. So the young worldwide communist movement looked to Russia to emulate the success and the comintern did the rest. By the early 30's the bolshevization of most of the communist movement was complete.
Angel Ward
checks out
Christopher Bennett
This
The Stalinist state was simply another device, no less than those of bourgeois liberal democracy, by which revolutionary sentiment was redirected into harmless channels, and genuine communist revolution thwarted where it would not be deflected.
The natural result of Leninism is a withering away of the state as "the proletariat organized as the ruling class" gradually ceases to have any real tasks. Bureaucracy, rather, is unaccountable to the proletariat and inertial, and as such no less self-justifying through acts of policy than the bourgeoisie. He discusses this in State and Revolution.
Khrushchev was a left-Stalinist. By this I mean he upheld bureaucratism and "socialism in one country," denying the fundamentally international nature of capitalism's contradictions to advocate for "peaceful coexistence," while merely wishing to put a liberal-permissive, human face on state repression. He's a Stalinist who believed Stalin "went a little too far."
That Tankiddies nonetheless associate him with thinkers like Trotsky is a sign both of their theoretical poverty and confused personality cult. I've been told "there is nothing in his Secret Speech that Trotsky himself wouldn't have written," and that's true - because it's purely a critique of Stalinist repression, and opposition to that is as big a tent as anti-idpol is today, here.
Yes.
I know what you mean, one of my best friends is exactly this type. He had a "communist phase" during high school which he thinks I simply "never grew out of." He can't tell you what historical materialism is, or identify a contradiction in capitalism, but damn if he didn't love playing with tanks and other aesthetic elements
Ethan Hill
All libertarian socialists (libertarian Marxist varieties such as DeLeonism and Luxembergism and left communism, along with all types of anarchists) want to destroy the state ASAP and maximize individual freedoms. There is no such thing as libertarian Leninism, it's retarded on the face of it.
And State And Revolution is a deviation from the rest of his works, more in line with the likes of Luxemberg than the actual Lenin in terms of action. Before Trotsky became a Bolshevik, he wrote a response to Lenin's "Chto Delat", almost exactly predicting Stalinism. Never mind that Bakunin also did as well in critiquing Marx in "Statism and Anarchy".
intersci.ss.uci.edu
marxists.org
Matthew Lopez
You're either a marxist-leninist or an anti-communist counter revolutionary.
Jose Jackson
Woops, forgot to take off my shitposting flag
Christian Williams
Lenin basically shot his revolutionary wad too early and had to completely betray his ideals in order to keep the only socialist country alive. After his death, his comrades enshrined his desperate ad hoc measures as universal truth, effectively destroying all chance for popular, democratic, libertarian socialism. We have been paying the piper ever since. The End.
Anthony Moore
Wait, so would it have worked out if Rosa lived and started German revolution?
Oliver Richardson
Dunno how sarcastic you're being, but regardless, if the German Revolution had won, the world would be a much better place today, that much I can guarantee you.
Ian Howard
Wasn't being sarcastic
Tyler Turner
Dude is fucking trash.
You can make excuses for Stalin, but not for this guy.
Isaiah Brown
...
Adrian Collins
This happens when you don't do your research, kids. Stalin was ML, Khrushchev a market reformer.
Brayden Flores
This is a good fucking explanation
youtu.be
(even thou they are conservatives)
Owen Thompson
The communists weren't kidding when they said they wanted worldwide revolution. Lenin hoped several European countries would go red, and said Red Russia was just a springboard to Germany, which was the big prize, as it was the most industrialized country on Earth, thus the perfect place for the revolution as Marx envisaged it, and from there it could much more easily spread elsewhere. If memory serves, Lenin flat-out said the workers' capital should be moved to Berlin as soon as possible; it's a fair bet he had no interest in running socialist Russia as a traditional country, but was forced into it after the rest of Europe failed to go red (due in no small part to fucking socdems supporting WW1, who would go on to fuck things up again years later by getting Rosa killed).
It's unarguable that he had to betray his old promises regarding democracy, freedom, soviet power, the Constituent Assembly etc. thus helping set the stage for Stalin, but he might be excused as he was dealing with an absolutely cataclysmic situation. Triumph in Germany and Europe were likely to ease the situation and allow for more libertarian policies. More to the point, Rosa would likely become the world's communist leader, and she had been more libertarian than Lenin, criticizing his authoritarianism regularly. Then again, I suppose she too might end up betraying her ideals, but we will never know. If nothing else, it would likely have eliminated both the chance and the need for a Stalin to emerge, to say nothing of sparing the world from Nazi-fascism.