this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
30 points (96.9% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

809 readers
2 users here now

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Lenin was very serious about staying true to Marx, to the point of quoting entire pages to be sure he's not taking things out of context. His work is Marx's thought applied to economical and political developments Marx couldn't have foreseen, but it's in no way revisionist. I think this is why Stalin called it "Marxism-Leninism", to make sure it's clear this is Marxism.

Still you have "orthodox Marxists" who will claim ML is not really Marxism but I think if it was called just "Leninism" it would've been even easier for them to claim Leninism isn't even Marxism.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago

I've interacted with several people who referred to themselves as Leninists, and every single one of them turned out to actually be Trotskyists.

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

Still you have "orthodox Marxists" who will claim ML is not really Marxism but I think if it was called just "Leninism" it would've been even easier for them to claim Leninism isn't even Marxism.

I wonder if nowadays I can just call myself a Leninist and people will get the message since nobody questions Lenin’s adherence to Marxism anymore.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Apparently Leninism is a wider term including ML, Trotskyism, and other tendencies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

So it wouldn't be wrong call MLs Leninist, or just Marxist if you want to cast an even wider net.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

I don't like adding up more isms as more authors add their knowledge to it, like after Mao added his contributions, then some people started calling it afterwards Marxism-Leninism-Maoism... Marxism is a broad field of science that encompasses economics, history, sociology, revolutionary organization etc...

That said, I love Mao and Lenin's additions to the theory. But for simplicity, I just call the field of study as Marxism.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Stalin coined the term Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism was already in practice in Lenin's time, though Lenin didn't say his application of Marx's theories was Leninist, the same way Marx didn't call himself a Marxist. It was only after the fact that Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism by combining Lenin's and Marx's theories. In the same way, people didn't call themselves Hegelians or Darwinians when Hegel and Darwin were alive.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In the same way, people didn’t call themselves Hegelians or Darwinians when Hegel and Darwin were alive.

Explain Swifties then.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Some Swifties are based. Emphasis on some. Some Swifties prevented ICE from kidnapping Latinos.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

Where do I read about that?

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 weeks ago

Marx and Lenin focused on different things. The primary focus of Marx was on economic theory while Lenin's primary focus was on how to organize an effective revolution. This is an excellent take on the subject incidentally

https://web.archive.org/web/20200410214430/https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/1248728086834601984

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You can't just say Leninist because people might think you're a Beatles fan

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

I am the walrus.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Imagine...what is to be done...

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

Not at all, Lenin is so important complement to Marxism that you cannot ignore him.

Lenin's contributions include the understanding of imperialism, a more systematic approach towards understanding national liberation movements, his contributions to revolutionary praxis, the theory and practice of the dictatorship of the proletariat, many contributions of political tactics and strategy, tactics of revolutionary organization, his philosophy of organization (democratic centralism), his contributions towards a systematic dialectical materialist understanding...

Lenin's contributions far exceed any other Marxist in terms of revolutionary praxis. So Marxism is the philosophical worldview which instructs our understanding of the capitalist system, while Leninism is the body of work detailing strategy and tactics towards revolutionary action. So yes, Marxism-Leninism is an appropriate description of the current state of Marxist development.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I meant that saying “Leninism” includes Marxism the same way Mao Zedong Thought includes Leninism. Therefore, just saying “Leninism” would suffice without having to include “Marxism”.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To be fair, one normally says "Marxism Leninism with MZT"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's a mouthful but often with these things it's better to be precise kril-drained

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

How else would we know who splits where, why, and when!?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Are you insisting on that? lol

Marxism is not complete without Lenin. Period.

Yes, Lenin's contributions are in the Marxist camp. But they are so important that some people who care about revolution realized he is not merely a complement, Lenin's works are an essential part of Marxism. If you want to remove that label from yourself and call yourself a red cuddly bear, go ahead. But Marxism-Leninism is clear about the origins of the theoretical basis of a person or organization, while "Marxist" alone is not that much. Many "respectable" academics who are absolutely alienated from the actual problems of working class, organization and revolution, call themselves Marxist. But I never saw a "Marxist-Leninist" academic.

This is the political line that separates the scholastic from the revolutionary. So it's not a small thing, and not simply a label you call yourself.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I don't think the OP disagrees.

Edit: that "Marxism is not complete without Lenin. Period."

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (15 children)

You misunderstood what I meant. I meant that there are non-Leninists Marxists, but that all Leninists are Marxists; therefore, saying “Marxist-Leninist” seems redundant.

Edit: Also can you please not laugh at what I say? That is just patronizing and rude. This is supposed to be a place of respect, and I in no way have disrespected you or infantalized you by mocking what you say, thanks.

I don’t know you in a personal level and we are not friends in any way, so that was just uncalled for.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago

Lenin led the foundation of the world's first socialist republic. In doing so he, in part, expanded on and deviated from Marx's original conceptualisation of capitalism and socialist organising.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

I wouldn’t know: I’m a GNU Marxist.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Leninists were, at a time, what trotskyists called themselves in opposition to "Stalinists", where as Stalin outlined the philosophy of "Marxism-Leninism" so it's defined in that old polemic I believe. Don't hear Leninism too often anymore though. I think Marxism is emphasized mostly because of how he able to outline dialectical materialism as opposed to his other socialist/communist contemporaries, and even if we say Marx was more incorrect than those who came after him he's still foundational or at least inspirational to a lot of the work that came after him. Mao built on Lenin's theories in incredibly important ways as well but calling myself a Maoist has different connotations like Leninist might have, and ppl generally accept MZT as part of ML so it's been an effective way of communicating the contemporary communist position (siding with Stalin over Trotsky, Sino over Soviet, MZT over Maoism).

Considering the many great communists that have existed, even those who never took inspiration from Marx, or who saw his work as accurate and useful but not central to their communist thought (Frantz Fanon comes to mind, never feeling a need to call himself a Marxist) I generally prefer a simple "communist" as it gives a bit less eurocentrism and doesn't pay special attention to anyone in a movement that belongs to the masses. However, "Marxism" as a name for the eternal science of dialectical materialism and it's application is very effective as a means of communicating this school of thought and valuable contribution he made in outlining it, where as terms like "Leninism" "Maoist" "Hoxhaist" "Marxism-Leninism" "Dengist" often refer to a specific polemic outlined by an influencial figure in the overall movement as opposed to the quality of the named people's contributions to this science or its application.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

From my understanding of the contemporary use of the term, a "Leninist" is someone who believes that the political party is the way for the proletariat to organise itself and exercise its will, the party acts as a vanguard. This is in contrast to some "left communists" who think that the working class can spontaneously organise itself, without the leadership of a vanguard party. But then you have some other left communists, like Bordiga and the ICP who are "Leninists" because they believe the international proletariat should organise itself in a world-encompassing communist party. So Bordiga cannot be considered a "Marxist-Leninist" (socialism in one country, socialism with *-characteristics), but is a "Leninist" (working class should be organised into a communist party).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Because Lenin’s works fundamentally builds off of Marx’s foundational writings, and other communists such as Stalin thought it would be incredibly disrespectful to sweep Marx under the rug and attribute all of Marxism-Leninism to Lenin alone.

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

So the naming convention is a respectful gesture to Marx?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Essentially. But also in the sense that there would be no Leninism without Marx or his thought since a massive portion of Leninist thought is essentially just evolved Marxist arguments.

For example that's why in physics entire fields are named after the people who radically developed them, such as Einsteinian physics, since there would be no further discoveries or innovations related to Einsteinian physics without Einstein and his thought.

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

thats how i call it 🤷

load more comments
view more: next ›