Ask Lemmygrad

809 readers

2 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Why do people say "Marxist-Leninist" since Lenin was a Marxist; therefore, just saying Leninist would include the teachings of Marx, wouldn't it? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Other nations had different approaches but agree that they are currently ML with differences in conditions and therefore differences in concrete tactics.

Those differences can be large enough, that it fall into contradiction with all those groups and parties claiming to be ML. Split between China and SU was the same thing.

But regardless, you are changing a word unecessarily. Everyone who knows anything about it knows what one means with ML.

I do know it too, or did I make a different a impression? And it is not unecessarily for me, since even Trotsky used ML in his writings and also Stalin, Lenin only talked about marxism itself (self evident). Of course ML was associated with the SU over time.

What purpose is there to changing the label for something concrete and existing to which it refers?

Stalin had his own additions to Lenin and Marx, which differs from others. ML is not giving attention to this, that's why I call it the way how it is referred to a person (At least I learned that I am not ML anymore because of it from the person before you lol). Same way you can talk about Leninism, which refers to Lenin.

Call it a Camel for all I care, as long as we know we're referring to the foundation of historical materialism applied to material conditions, it doesn't matter.

So what's up with your mood right now, how often should I say that this is how I use it? So where does the "we" come from? I mean, its not like that I agitated for it. As long as I am talking with people who use ML seriously, I am using it as well. If I had a discussion with trotskiest (ML not used there), I don't don't have discussion about labels, but I there would be no problem to explain why Stalin would be the continuation of Lenin.

So changing it should have some benefit, which I'm not convinced exists.

As I said, it makes sense for me and that's why I use it. And it has benefits to order the amount of historically important splits, merges and infights in my head. ML is therefore still not a valid term in my opinion. If you think I am just relabeling it, its fine.

Edit: Added a sentence I forgot at the end.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Stalin had his own additions to Lenin and Marx, which differs from others. ML is not giving attention to this, that’s why I call it the way how it is referred to a person (At least I learned that I am not ML anymore because of it from the person before you lol). Same way you can talk about Leninism, which refers to Lenin.

Borderline liberal take, bro. Stop focusing on Stalin, Marxism-Leninism was developed by many peoples from many nationalities.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Stop focusing on Stalin, Marxism-Leninism was developed by many peoples from many nationalities.

I am not focusing on Stalin at all. It has simply the same validity for me as to having a term for Luxemburg and I wouldn't call her ML at all (Her theory regarding imperialism was not so good in my opinion).

ML, was developed by many peoples from many nationalities. Some of them had important influence on several revolutions which happened. The thoughts, theory and praxis where sometimes unique in way, that Marxism-Leninism is not enough. So I may call it in a way specially referring too it. Where is the borderline liberal take because of this?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

When the contradictions grow and sharpen, there is a dialectical process where the positions then become clear afterwards, and one of those positions sincec Stalin has, up until this point, always been the consensus "ML" position. Right now, there is broad agreement on many positions. I think China is the main one currently, where some ML are saying that it's not going fast enough. But ML still means something clear in this situation, just something with a growing contradiction (like everything else).

ML is a term which Stalin used to describe Lenin's additions. Of course that's how Stalin described it, not how Trotsky wanted people to understand it. That contradiction built up very quickly and made a split, and Trotsky dropped the term and so it's meaning was no longer split. But again, it's just a label. You are just opposed to ML and then feel like it shouldn't be called that because you disagree with it but feel like you still agree with Marx and maybe Lenin.

If it sounds like I had an attidude, I had no intention for that. I was actually paraphrasing a famous speech of Parenti.

If you want to be an island with your own terms, I do have a problem with that. It is a 'we' because you are using language and it's meaningless to create your own language for only yourself. You confuse the terms tin relation to each othergenerally as it exists in a social context and language. That's why there needs to be a good reason that a person takes such an action, and they must be clear in that. I don't think you did either of those.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Hi, I cant continue this discussion any longer, because of some message in a comment somewhere, that I will be muted if I keep engaging. Like, seriously discussing the validity of this term. That's a pity, since a long comment appeared which tries to explain why my position is wrong, but there is probably not much one can do about it here. I wrote this message already to someone else. At least I can say, that the Trotsky thing is new to me and some things as well. I will keep this in mind and think about it, thank you for your comment!