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.
I’ve interacted with several people who referred to themselves as Leninists, and every single one of them turned out to actually be Trotskyists.
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.
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.
Although I can understand this argument, I don’t think it’s realistically so. Leninism COULD mean that, but in practice, it’s used only to exclude Marxist Leninists from the group. When someone says Leninist, they are so often referring to it in opposition to “Stalinists” that the umbrella model can’t really work.
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.
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.
In the same way, people didn’t call themselves Hegelians or Darwinians when Hegel and Darwin were alive.
Explain Swifties then.
Cult like behavior
Some Swifties are based. Emphasis on some. Some Swifties prevented ICE from kidnapping Latinos.
Where do I read about that?
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
You can’t just say Leninist because people might think you’re a Beatles fan
Imagine…what is to be done…
What was the joke?
I am the walrus.
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.
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”.
To be fair, one normally says “Marxism Leninism with MZT”
What a mouthful 🤣
It’s a mouthful but often with these things it’s better to be precise
How else would we know who splits where, why, and when!?
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.
I don’t think the OP disagrees.
Edit: that “Marxism is not complete without Lenin. Period.”
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.
there are non-Leninists Marxists
therefore, saying “Marxist-Leninist” seems redundant.
If there are non-Leninist Marxists, then Marxism-Leninism is not a redundancy, it’s reaffirmation of a position. Isn’t that clear?
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.
Sorry, but your argument is so silly that I simply cannot take it seriously. I have respect for you as a person, but I have no respect for the arguments you’re giving so far.
If there are non-Leninist Marxists, then Marxism-Leninism is not a redundancy
If all Leninists are Marxists then it is redundant. Since Lenin was a Marxist who built on top of Marxism then Leninism is Marxist. Just saying Leninist shall suffice.
Marxism has different branches to it, yes, but hyphenating a term that already includes Marxism makes the first word redundant. It is like saying that there are modes of transportation. A car is already a mode of transportation, but instead of saying “car” to refer to the mode of transportation that is a car, people just say “mode of transportation-car” every time.
Sorry, but your argument is so silly that I simply cannot take it seriously.
Mocking someone and laughing at them is such an unbecoming and unprofessional behavior for a Marxist admin. You should really change your attitude and treat others with respect.
If you disagree with someone, just say a counter argument, downvote them or ignore them, but if they are talking to you in good faith, being disrespectful is just a nasty attitude that turns people off and away from these spaces, specially if it is from someone in a position of power as yourself.
Maybe think of it as more like engine than car. There are circumstances where you would add a qualifier to be more specific: jet engine, combustion engine, steam engine, etc.
I’m an ML but I’ll call myself ML, Marxist, or Leninist depending on the company and environment. Usually for emphasis and specificity. Marxist or Leninist aren’t quite accurate but they can be useful.
If I’m trying to bring someone along who might be converted, I’ll use Marxist. It’s softer. In some circles, Marx is only known as a generic philosophical thinker. The revolutionary aspect is forgotten or not known. It can be less threatening, which can get someone to listen. Engels can work like this, too. This also explains why ‘Marxist’ isn’t quite accurate – it includes too many revisionists, western Marxists, etc.
Leninist is good for conservatives who don’t know wtf they’re talking about but who are unrepentant libs. Putting the Leninist up front puts the revolutionary element right in their face. It can be a relatively hostile manoeuvre with those who will not give an inch even to progressive liberal reforms, nevermind revolution. Sometimes that’s needed and if there’s a crowd it can be fun to get onto it.
Leninist is also good for all types of libs who might hear the M of ML and think of tame western academic Marxism. Some people need to know that sensible people have read and respect Lenin. But then I’ll need to go back and explain the diamat and himat of Marx and Engels. I.e. ‘Leninist’ on it’s own feels incomplete because it only really refers to Lenin’s contributions to Marxism, rather than to the whole of Marxism.
With anyone, the full ML description must come at some point, when they’re ready for it and it’s subtleties. Lenin is still safer than Stalin and Mao despite the obvious connection to revolution. Lenin is slightly more rehabilitated because he didn’t live through the mid and late USSR. (Have a look at Tucker’s editorial comments in his Reader on Lenin to see how ‘Leninist’ might imply a distance from Stalin’s USSR.)
If you start with ML and have to talk about Stalin to explain the synthesis, you might just lose people. But if you can first explain some Marx and/or Lenin, you can get round to Stalin later and people might actually read all three – or promise to do so, anyway.
It does depend. I’ve had some luck starting with a critical defense of the purges but only after developing a relationship entirely without talking about politics until they already think I’m ‘normal’. That way they can’t dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist/extremist.
Deviating from the label ML is just a way of indoctrinating people with whatever rhetoric will be most useful. The deviation does mean implying a difference from ML as M and L are different to ML. For me, that might be to lure people into it with a false sense of security. Depends on how much you will interact with someone and how much you’re willing to work with them.
Mocking someone and laughing at them is such an unbecoming and unprofessional behavior for a Marxist admin. You should really change your attitude and treat others with respect.
I do. I’m usually the one who insists on doing so. I took an exception in this thread and discussion because the arguments of those who say it’s “redundant” are very flawed, yet they are repeating themselves every time. The same way you’re insisting on your position, I’m insisting on giving the “redundants” this treatment.
If all Leninists are Marxists then it is redundant. Since Lenin was a Marxist who built on top of Marxism then Leninism is Marxist. Just saying Leninist shall suffice.
Marxism has different branches to it, yes, but hyphenating a term that already includes Marxism makes the first word redundant. It is like saying that there are modes of transportation. A car is already a mode of transportation, but instead of saying “car” to refer to the mode of transportation that is a car, people just say “mode of transportation-car” every time.That example was extraordinarily silly lol. What’s your point? Do you want to convince us not to call ourselves Marxists? Or do you not want to call ourselves Leninists, only Marxists? Vice-versa? What’s your point? What are you trying to accomplish with this discussion? Why do you care so much about this? What difference does it make what you call yourself, why do you want us to agree with you? You wouldn’t be insisting on this scholastic and irrelevant “issue” if you didn’t have a purpose. So if you want to be taken seriously, please be clear on what you’re trying to accomplish, because I can only see someone in confusion and trying to confuse others in the process.
To call oneself a Leninist, while a historical term, Marxist-Leninist, already exists, seems like trying to diminish Marx. To call oneself a Marxist claiming “Leninism” is a redundancy seems like trying to diminish Lenin. The term, Marxism-Leninism, a historical term, already exists, and based on that, many revolutionary theories were developed. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
Both Marx (and Engels by extension) and Lenin were extraordinarily important in developing a revolutionary worldview. It’s important to preserve their names as they are both an unavoidable source of knowledge. Removing one or the other completely scars both. Just so you see how this is important, there are a lot of Marxists who ignore Engels’ contribution, I’d say simply because Marx is more known than Engels, and thus, more prone to be read. The fact that our science is called “Marxism” undoubtedly has contributed to this. So preserving Marxism-Leninism is important to not diminish the contributions of one or the other.
Notice how there are people who call themselves Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. Don’t they attach to Mao a greater importance than most Marxists-Leninists? Again, it’s not a coincidence, it’s a reaffirmation of a position, like I mentioned, and also a reaffirmation of the theoretical body of work responsible for that position.
Both Marx (and Engels by extension) and Lenin were extraordinarily important in developing a revolutionary worldview. It’s important to preserve their names as they are both an unavoidable source of knowledge. Removing one or the other completely scars both. Just so you see how this is important, there are a lot of Marxists who ignore Engels’ contribution, I’d say simply because Marx is more known than Engels, and thus, more prone to be read. The fact that our science is called “Marxism” undoubtedly has contributed to this. So preserving Marxism-Leninism is important to not diminish the contributions of one or the other.
This paragraph alone would have been enough to answer OP’s question.
I don’t understand why such an innocent question can generate so much hostility, we’re all here to share and to learn.
I do.
You don’t. You have done everything, but that this far.
I’m usually the one who insists on doing so.
Doesn’t seem like it at all, with how you have conducted yourself in this convo so far.
I took an exception in this thread and discussion because the arguments of those who say it’s “redundant” are very flawed, yet they are repeating themselves every time.
You could have literally said: “Your arguments are flawed, for x, y and z” instead of mocking me and saying something totally unrelated to the point which made me think that you misunderstood my point and had me re-phrasing it for the sake of clarity.
The same way you’re insisting on your position, I’m insisting on giving the “redundants” this treatment.
I don’t understand how you are honestly rationalizing being patronizing and disrespectful to someone who is talking to you in good faith, by saying that is just redundant. This is literally no way to have a constructive conversation. This is purely childish behavior.
I really don’t think that this conversation is going anywhere because you are being very bad faith about it.
I just rather don’t engage with you, honestly. Please feel free to ignore me from now on, unless I break the rules or something.
I would say my points about the arguments you stated below, but you obviously have 0 respect for me and as you said, you don’t take me seriously, so I rather not engage with someone who is bad faith like that.
Yes, we heard you: you think it sounds redundant. You’ve said your piece, repeatedly. Feel free to think that. But that’s still what we call it, and we’re not going to change what we call ourselves because you think it sounds redundant. It’s like you’re looking for the most poindexter, praxisless hill to die on.
I repeated it because I got an answer totally unrelated to what I stated. So I was not sure if the replier understood my point. No need to get hostile here comrade. Discussing about this stuff is dialectical and has brought tons of interesting perspectives about it. Getting defensive about someone questioning a naming convention and saying something along the lines of “that is just the way it is and nothing that you say will change it” sounds very dogmatic and anti-Marxist honestly.
Do you happen to know if there are any books or articles that detail all of Lenin’s contributions, as you’ve outlined here? I know it’s all contained within State & Revolution, Imperialism, et al, but I’ve been looking for one source that summarizes it all.
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin
The ProleWiki article provides an overall summary, but the article is mostly biographical and unfortunately unfinished. The famous Stalin work, Foundations of Lenininsm provides an outline of Lenin’s contributions to Marxism in general
That’s great, thank you.
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.
I wouldn’t know: I’m a GNU Marxist.
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).
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.
So the naming convention is a respectful gesture to Marx?
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.
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.
thats how i call it 🤷
I would guess he died way to early to just leave a mark of his own. Hegelist-Marxist was never a thing.
You must look at the 20s and 30s in the Soviet Union, especially after Lenin died. I personally only use “Marxist” and this is how I describe myself. Marxist-Leninist is not valid term in my opinion, because Lenin is the continuation of Marx. If I encounter someone who is d’accord with Stalin, Trotsky or maybe Mao, I call them stalinist, trotskyist or whatever. I do it, because they are important differences in what those people think.
Let’s say I would think, that Bukharin/Stalin/Trotsky is the man I think has the right thoughts. For me, this would be the continuation of marxism and everything else would be revisionist, reactionary and non-marxist. Don’t making difference would be the same as naming everything “tankie”.
So I still say I am a Marxist, but if anyone would ask me what my opinion is regarding those figures, I would then say, that I am trotskyist/stalinist/bukharist. I hope it is understandable what I am trying to say.
I know that many here call themself Marxist-Leninist and seriously use this term, but I don’t, I don’t think it is a valid term. After Stalin there were enough figures who used it anyway. After “sino-soviet split” they both claimed to be the continuation of Marxism-Leninism.
So I always like to ask more questions. While probably Trotskyism is maybe for many the same thing, there are many differences. In this way I can know if I have it to do with a person who is actually a liberal in disguise or someone who is “orthodox”. The same thing goes for other factions.
“stalinist” is only used by those opposed to ML tho.
As I said ML is not a valid term in my opinion and historically it was used after the establishing and banning of the “left opposition”, especially by Stalin. After splits here and there between the soviet union and other countries, where everyone claimed to be the true continuation of ML, I prefer to differ this way. And since other splits after Lenin’s dead also claimed to be the true successors of Lenin, I think it is more accurate to handle it this way
As I said ML is not a valid term in my opinion and historically it was used after the establishing and banning of the “left opposition”, especially by Stalin.
Stalin, you say? The Cuban, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean and many African revolutions were all led by people who called themselves Marxists-Leninists. Strange coincidence, huh? It’s like “Lenin” had a massive importance in terms of revolutionary practice, perhaps?
And? Lenin had and has still massive importance even for groups who splitted with the SU or those opposition right or left which where there for a while. So answer me, what are you trying to imply? And of course Stalin, because he is an important figure. ML simply don’t just refer to Marx and Lenin and I already wrote about that more concrete in another comment of mine
So answer me, what are you trying to imply?
I’m implying that those who care too much about trying to remove the “Leninist” from Marxist-Leninist are people who do not understand the importance of Lenin. Or perhaps they do and they are doing on purpose like classic revisionists. First comes “why Leninism?” before “why Marxism?”
Well, I don’t want to be rude, but where the fuck did I want remove especially Lenin in his importance? I am talking about, that ML is simply not concrete enough and therefore not a term I can work with, only use it in a vague definition, where I ignore the others important figures after him, which added unique thoughts and theories. Referring to myself and talking about communism, the term “marxism” is still something I prefer to use, you can not think about marxism without Lenin. In another comment I explained, that I still use ML where it is needed so someone can still understand me. I don’t see any proof, that the way how I handle it is anywhere some revisionist move, where I want to remove Lenin and then probably Marx. The only thing I see is, that I use marxism or some term which can cover the uniqueness of a important person in the history of ML
Well, I don’t want to be rude, but where the fuck did I want remove especially Lenin in his importance?
Right in the fuck where you insist Marxism-Leninism is not a valid term. I don’t care if you use “Marxist” with your friends and family, but I do care if you claim it’s not a valid term and use the shittiest explanation ever to defend that. We’ve seen revisionists and opportunists everywhere in history trying their best to distance themselves from Lenin, only to distance themselves from Marx later on. Fuck off with that bullshit.
In every one of those cases, the “minority” position group eventually named themselves something else. Left-opp called themselves leninists and then trotskyists (if they were that particular flavor or left opp). Left deviationists of late Mao eventually settled at MLM to distinguish between the majority opinion there of ML (ML MZT if you want to get fancy, but not necessary because it isn’t distinguished from ML in any real scenario relevant to today).
Other nations had different approaches but agree that they are currently ML with differences in conditions and therefore differences in concrete tactics.
But regardless, you are changing a word unecessarily. Everyone who knows anything about it knows what one means with ML. What purpose is there to changing the label for something concrete and existing to which it refers? 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 changing it should have some benefit, which I’m not convinced exists.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
Marxist-Leninist is not valid term in my opinion, because Lenin is the continuation of Marx.
You underestimate the relevance and importance of Lenin. No, Lenin is not a continuation of Marx, Lenin is Marx in practice. It’s clear by your rambling that, by stripping “Lenin”, that you have no care for revolutionary practice. What you call yourself is irrelevant, but to claim the term is invalid is just an spectacle of ignorance. At this point, you should very well stop calling yourself a “Marxist”, even. 😉
You underestimate the relevance and importance of Lenin
Do I? Where? By saying that I would call myself Marxist and not add more things because to it or just by talking about “Marxism” and not “Marxisim-Leninism” in general? That’s stupid.
Lenin is not a continuation of Marx, Lenin is Marx in practice
And therefore not a continuation? Mutual exclusive? Some would argue, that Lenin had nothing to do with Marx, like some pseudo-left might do it, but I don’t. Lenin is the continuation of Marx and of course Marx in practice.
It’s clear by your rambling that, by stripping “Lenin”, that you have no care for revolutionary practice.
I just always talk about Marxism as generally term, not adding Engels or Lenin. If this is your proof, that I don’t care for revolutionary practice, then revolutionary praxis probably means not much for you.
What you call yourself is irrelevant, but to claim the term is invalid is just an spectacle of ignorance.
I already explained often enough, that ML is still not a valid term for me, it doesnt even stop by Lenin and goes beyond the developments that occurred after his death. Where is the ignorance? That I use a different words which probably makes no difference at all and means the same?
At this point, you should very well stop calling yourself a “Marxist”, even. 😉
Thanks for the advice, great analysis at all. By thinking that ML is not valid term and others are better, while I am using ML in discussions, I am probably not a Marxist at all, but a full blood liberal. I will now throw everything away, immigrate to the USA as fast as I can, so I can vote for a party which supports genocide.
Do I? Where? By saying that I would call myself Marxist and not add more things because to it or just by talking about “Marxism” and not “Marxisim-Leninism” in general? That’s stupid.
By insisting on saying the term was invalid, so it’s not about what you call yourself. I’m explaining to you that is not only valid, but essential. It’s not just a label, it’s a political orientation. “Marxism” is broad, Marxism-Leninism is more specific and to the point.
I already explained often enough, that ML is still not a valid term for me, it doesnt even stop by Lenin and goes beyond the developments that occurred after his death. Where is the ignorance?
The fact that you are insisting on this discussion and your position is a political statement. The fact that you insist it’s an “invalid term” is either a presentation of your ignorance or cynicism. You could argue Marx is a continuation of Hegel and call yourself a Hegelian for what it’s worth. Why don’t you call yourself a Hegelian? Why call yourself Marxist at all?
“Marxism” is broad, Marxism-Leninism is more specific and to the point.
It is broad, ML being more concrete still has the lack of being broad, since it tries to cover other historical splits which occurred.
The fact that you are insisting on this discussion and your position is a political statement.
I am just answering comments, simply not ignoring the replies. Since there is also the way to be proven wrong, I don’t see the need to ignore.
You could argue Marx is a continuation of Hegel and call yourself a Hegelian for what it’s worth. Why don’t you call yourself a Hegelian? Why call yourself Marxist at all?
Because there is an important breaking point between Marx and Hegel which also falls into contradiction between each other. So why not Marxist-Leninist? Because in my understanding this would mean, that it simply stops by the later one and is not going beyond this. My collected works of Stalin are even from the soviet “Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin” Institute and this to much in my opinion, by simply adding every name. So I came to the conclusion, that ML is not valid term, because it stops at an point, including the absolute importance or Lenin but not what was after that.
So why not Marxist-Leninist? Because in my understanding this would mean, that it simply stops by the later one and is not going beyond this.
Does Marxism stop at Marx? 😒
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 said myself you’d be muted if you continued, but I take that back. If you want to continue insisting on your flawed reasoning, go ahead.
