Socialism and communism are different things

This is by far the worst kind of revisionism that M-Ls have pushed, and everyone buys it. Anarchists speak of 'state socialism', socdems call themselves 'socialist but not communist' and right-wingers say 'socialism leads to communism'.

How you can actually read Marx and Lenin and end up as a 'Marxist'-'Leninist' is something I don't understand.

Other urls found in this thread:

Because they lack the nuanced position early Marxists had on capitalism and see it as pure evil. The mere notion of admitting that they want to put capitalism under the controll of a communist movement to transition later is horrifying for them, it would mean that they are just socdems or demsocs that dont want to risk being voted out of power.

noob here

was Lenin a Marxist-Leninist or not?

ML refers to Stalin's policies and deviations of them, like Khrushchev or Castro.

Would you mind providing actual arguments? Oh, wait. You don't have any.

If you believe LeftComs, not only Lenin wasn't Leninist, even Marx wasn't Marxist.

I thought it was accepted that Castro was Stalinist, no?

Lenin was a leninist. Marxism-Leninism is an euphemism for stalinism.

Nice, real nice. Marx makes no distinction between socialism and communism. The transitionary stage is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is not socialism.

"communism is the movement that abolishes the present state of things"
"It's not our job to construct the cook books of the future"
It would seem like communism and socialism are whatever would abolish exchange value
But can we agree there is a theoretical difference between two societies:
"Socialism": no exchange value, but distribution is still meted out based on contribution to society. In order to entice people into important positions requiring skill and talent, you still have hierarchies of access to material wealth
"Communism" where production is undertaken freely by individuals for it's own sake for the good of the community without systems of remuneration or uneven distribution

What about that?

Prescriptivism can go fuck itself, but I was always under the impression that the word "Communism" refers to the stateless, classless and moneyless society which is brought about by switching/evolving from a capitalist economic mode to one of socialism (common ownership/control of MoP by proles)

Dude wasn't even a communist, much less a communist prior to the American gov kicking its fuckery into overdrive
These were the exact words used by Castro. And the capitalist bourgeois-owned media of the USA confirmed his assertions:
"Dr. Castro . . . has stated repeatedly that his movement is not Communist and that if Cuba can obtain some degree of prosperity, Communism cannot grow there.” (Newspaper Times, 20th April 1959, edition in English)
"Dr. Fidel Castro . . . went before the National Press Club here today to repeat his assurances made so often during his visit to the capital that he means nothing but friendship to the United States, that there are no Communists in his Government, that he has no plans to expropriate any foreign holdings in Cuba.” (Newspaper Times, 21st April 1959, edition in English)
"Castro … is not only not a Communist, but decidedly anti-Communist.” (Herbert Matthews, New York Times, 16th July 1959, edition in English)
Indeed, Castro even managed to get CIA’s help in the struggle in favor of the greedy class interests of Cuban national bourgeoisie due to his ardent anti-communism which, of course, charmed CIA’s fascist leaders:
“(…) Castro was prevailed on to meet the CIA's chief expert on Communism in Latin America, a Central European named Droller: the two talked privately for three hours, and afterwards Droller told Lopez Fresquet: 'Castro is not only not a Communist, he is a strong anti-Communist fighter." (Hugh Thomas, The Cuban Revolution, London, 1986, edition in English)
And those who think that Castro could have only pretended to be an anti-communist in order to temporarily please American imperialists for strategical purposes are equally mistaken. In Cuba, Castro used to tell his colleagues and friends of the “26th July movement” how much he hated communism and everything related with it. He reached the point of declaring to them that:
"(…) Our revolution is not red, but olive-green, the color of the rebel army.” (Fidel Castro cited in: Guia del Pensiamento politicoeconomico de Fidel, (Guide to the Politico-economic Thought of Fidel), Havana, 1959, edition in English)
"Communism is a system that suppresses liberties, the liberties which are so dear to man." (Fidel Castro cited in: Theodore Draper, Castroism: Theory and Practice, 1965, edition in English)
"Communism is the dictatorship of a single class and I . . . have fought all my life against dictatorship.” (Fidel Castro cited in: Hugh Thomas, The Cuban Revolution, London, 1986, edition in English)

He also wrote this in 1992:

It goes on but the fact he goes into Gorbachev apologetics is amazing–first day communist kids do better.Castro never stood with the pro-Stalin current in the communist movement, even in words, be it of the Maoist or Hoxhaist variety. Calling him a Stalinist seems manifestly untrue.

*much less a Marxist

Yeah but what constitutes the state? when all interactions are "voluntary"? When there is a government but no ruling class using it against an oppressed class?
If there are no capitalists and the state isn't corrupted by nepotism and kleptocracy, are leaders and highly skilled not a separate class?
Does no money just mean no commodity money or market exchange? Does tierd access to goods through vouchers money?

You deserve this and more. Why are there no arguments in OP? You did not provide any. Neither did any of the "true" Marxists I ever talked here with.

You didn't read shit, did you?

Marx does make a very pointed distinction between first-stage Communism and second-stage Communism. If you take offence at Soviets referring to first-stage Communism as Socialism, you should also consider talking about Marxism in non-German language to be Revisionism.

Stop strawmanning. ML do not consider DotP alone enough for Socialism. Did Bolsheviks call NEP Socialist? No, they did not.

It is the Planned Economy under DotP that is the basis of Socialism.

The Soviet Union was not a DotP.

Fun fact: Marxism-Leninism is actually a subtle way of implying that a) Lenin is the only one who didn't make a break from Marx, which is why it's called Marxism-Leninism rather than Leninism, compare negatively used epithets like Kautskyism rather than Marxism-Kautskyism or Luxemburgism rather than Marxism-Luxemburgism and b) Stalin merely following Lenin's bblueprints while Trotsky distorted him, thus being neither a proper Marxist nor a proper Leninist. This is why Trots refrain from calling MLs MLs because that would be indirectly admitting they are not MLs but rather filthy revisionists.
For a similar reasons one might sometimes find MLs calling themselves communists while referring other groups by their names, implying that they are not communists(something like "we Communists, as opposed to them Trotskyists")

No, there is not. They aren't different. Stop trying to rehabilitate Stalin's justifications of his policies in Marx's theory.

It's all very Orwellian. I hate the term Marxism-Leninism, just be honest and say Stalinism.

Alternatively, call it Taylorism-Blanquism.

Lmao I love the fact that my comments explaining the facts that:

1. Marx explained and Engels made it crystal clear that the law of value exists across the whole period of commodity production and is therefore not specific to capitalism, and therefore saying the USSR was capitalist because the law of value existed does not fucking follow.

2. Marx clearly endorsed the concept of a transitional society and furthermore he was against the simple-minded socialism-in-one-factory an-syndicalist rhetoric that the worker should get back "the full value of his labour" as both impractical and unscientific.

See here:

Stay BTFO Holla Forums

Well, out of my two hypothetical societies, (call them society A and society B) which one is communism

How were Lenin and Stalin different, other then the fact they had different writing styles? Why do anti-Stalinists have to hide the fact that they are opposed to policies and concepts advanced first by Lenin? At least the anarchists are honest that their quibble is with Bolshevism and not with Stalin or "Stalinism"

Need I remind anyone that most of the land was still in private hands and there was free-market in grain around the time that Lenin died. It was Stalin who decided to move forward with the work of creating a socialist society where private property was abolished. Lenin would have done it if he were alive, he didnt like the NEP but he did it, maybe you can claim he would have done it better then Stalin and Stalin himself wouldn't disagree. But at the same time they followed the same aims and goals, the same theories etc.

Stop listening to RDWolff and go read something.

Castro did not die in 1960s, did he? So let's not pretend that this was the case.

Does you highly suspicious source mention the fact that his brother (Raul Castro) was member of Cuban Communist Party since the early 1950s? And was one of members of 26th July movement? Because I see a certain problem here.

Either way, let direct you to this article:

Once you substantiate your opinion, we may discuss it. Otherwise: go fuck yourself, liberal scum

Fun fact: you don't have a single argument, except for your butthurt.

Except for the fact that Bolsheviks usually referred to themselves as Marxists and started calling themselves Leninists as well after mid-20s, at which point the formula "Marxist and Leninist" emerged and got shortened to Marxism-Leninism by the 1930.

Trots were always in opposition to Leninists, you fucking liar. Trotsky and his groupies joined Bolsheviks in 1917 and were challenging Lenin's authority since that point. Everybody would laugh at them, if they tried to call themselves "Leninists".

In addition to this, there is a fact of Trots being kicked out of the Party before 1930, i.e. the period when the term "Marxism-Leninism" came to use.

I suppose that's a valid argument although some of those quotes are from public statements by Castro in the foreign press. Typically communists, especially communist leaders follow the Marx in "communists disdain to conceal their views" though you can't expect them to do that openly under a dictatorship. It's kinda odd that if he was a communist sleeper cell that the Cuban Communist Party did not support the uprising and was in-fact reformed under new Castroist leadership in 1965.

Maybe you're right and he was a sleeper cell or some kind of margarine communist, maybe he saw the error of his ways. But I still think I'm on firm grounds in saying that he was not a Stalinist. The pro-Stalin segment of the international communist movement rejected Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin etc. Castro considered them his friends. Mao and Hoxha tried to win Castro to their side but never could maybe its cause they couldn't provide aid or protection like the USSR could but to receive that you had accept their line which was generally anti-Stalinist.

Spooky semantic non arguments.

I'm pointing out that his rabidly anti-Communist views are just as fake as the Castro's plans to send Cuban children to USSR to have them there butchered for meat.

For example ("My Life"):

Obviously, Castro had some conflicts with the leadership of the Party (Anibal Escalante) later due to Escalante's sectarianist position, but at no point was he as anti-Communist as your sources suggest. Similarly enough, while Castro did not immediately proclaim his Socialist views and intent to socialize economy, I find it quite believable that he didn't do it because he couldn't risk it before securing power.

We can't judge Castro for not being openly hostile to Moscow. Unlike Albania or China Cuba was hardly in position to challenge Khrushchev (and then Brezhnev). There was no other option but to "smile and wave" so as to get absolutely vital support from USSR. Otherwise Cuba would've been overrun within months - and how that would've helped anyone?

Keeping that in mind, I do not consider that there is "Stalinism" separate from Communism. Any real Communist is both Marxist, Leninst, and Stalinist. Imo, Castro fits the bill.

Come on. This is just laughable. Castro's disdain for Khrushchev - especially his handling of Cuban Crisis - is an open secret.

Except during financial debates Castro supported Che's position of centralized budgets (associated with Stalinist ideas), and rejected the ideas of self-financing that were part of the Soviet Revisionism initiated by Khrushchev and then developed by Kosygin and Brezhnev.

There's a difference between the law of value existing in some parts of the economy and the law of value determining the function of the entire economy, you stalinist cretin. Capital preceded capitalism as a mode of production.
It's perfectly valid to say that the USSR was capitalist if capital accumulation and the law of value were still governing the majority of production.

Jesus christ you're an idiot, the people you've been arguing with are opposed to co-ops as well. If "socialism in one country" is a contradiction is terms, then "socialism in one enterprise" certainly is. Co-ops engaging in market exchange is just as capitalist as privately owned firms doing the same. Or state owned firms for that matter.
Anywhere the M-C…P…C'-M' cycle exists so does capital, and when capital is dominant capitalism exists.

Marx was neither the first socialist or the first communist. Communism is socialism, socialism is not necessarly communism.