[Dan]

Just a request for the communists in this forum. Could you explain to me the differences between the various types of communism? Such as the differences between Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maosim, Leninism, Marxism, and such. Just wanting to learn more about this, and thought this would be a good place to ask.

Thanks in advance.

[Ombrageux]

They're going to nail you for terminology now even though they understand perfectly what you're talking about.

A few pointers:
- There is only one true faith/communism
- Trotskyist and/or Stalinists are reactionaries
- Communism develops depending on the circumstances within each nation
- That wasn't Communism, it was deformed worker's state/state capitalism blahblahblah

If I were to attempt phrase the question in such a way that these commies will compute it might be something like this: "If the various socialist states and nationali communist philosophies of the world whether Maoist, Leninist, Stalinist, Titoist or Trotskyist represent various roads to socialism, how do they differ?"

Apologies if my question is still incomprehensible to you, I'm not fluent in commie-speak.

[ComradeRick-CL]

pointers for what? what you think communism is? well i and the other communists as well dont appreciate, why would you, someone who who i believe called himself a "progressive Globalist" respond to a thread in which he knows nothing about.

Stalinism= Isnt really an ideology. expanded on leninism, but advocated nationalism, socialism in one country, very distrustful of anyone who isnt a communist
Leninism-First to appear with the vanguard notion of a revolution, the peasants take a big role in the revolution, also said that workers dont have revolutionary class consciousness like marx said.
Trotskyism-I dont know too much bout this, but a main issue is the permanent revolution, and a country not necessarily need to be advanced as long as it has help from post-industrialized socialist nations
Marxism-Historical Materialism, Bourgeois are illegitimate, violent overthrow of capitalism, and the socialism, which still has a state but is needed to ensure those capitalist scum, dont try take back power. this would wither away into communism, a stateless, classless, moneyless society, in which rights are enjoyed by all, and there is a true freedom for all people

thats just basically summarizing all of it

btw will answer the maoist one later, im quite tired

[PolarBear]

- There is only one true faith/communism

Actually this concept is very untrue, when Marx wrote Communist Maniefesto and Das Kapital, he did not mention specifics of communism, just briefly. He focused more on the idea of why and how the capitalist system would collapse.

There are many forms of communism, many came up with their own ideas (ex. Lenin).

What Stalin, Mao, and Trotsky came up with were not theorys of communism, they were different types of socialism that would eventually lead to a form of communism.

[Red_Army]

Stalinism is how Stalin ruled Russia according to Trotksyites, and 'Stalinists' believe that 'Stalinism' is really Marxist-Leninism.

Trotskyism is where it gets complicated in my opinion There are two main facets of Trotskyism. one of which has about 4 bazillion splinters. The first is the school of thought espoused by Trotsky after (this is important) his expulsion from Russia. This strain formed after Trotsky's death, during WWII, and they believe that all existing 'socialist' states are deformed workers states. 'Stalinists' would say they buy too much into bourgeois propaganda. The other facet of Trotskyism believes in unconditional defence of the worker's state even if they believe it to be infected with a 'bureaucratic caste'.

Maoism is a school of Marxism where the peasant becomes the class that leads all the other exploited calsses into revolution. This is most prevalent in underdeveloped countries.

Most communists believe that Marx and Lenin were both followers of the same ideology. Marxist-leninists would call people who don't use Lenin as an example 'Social Democrats'. Where as Leninists would be seen as revolutionary murderers.

I tried my best sorry if it is shitty.

[Loaf32]

I think you did an OK job, Red Army, as far as the synopsis given. there are a number of nuances that I'm sure you're already familiar with that were glossed over, though.

[quote=ComeradeCL]Leninism-First to appear with the vanguard notion of a revolution, the peasants take a big role in the revolution, also said that workers dont have revolutionary class consciousness like marx said. [/quote]

Not true at all. Leninism states a number of things. One of these (as crudely as CL states) is that the prolitariat is not able to establish revolutionary class conciousness spontaneously (as given by the Russian matrial conditions in Lenin's case), and the idea of a revolutionary vanguard who was able to develop and distribute class orientation to a degree that the working class could not on their own (mostly through profesional revolutionary orentation, i.e. total devotion to the cause without having to work the extent of exploitation that the norm of the working class was subjected to, or that they were freed from their 'wage slavery' in the sense that they were able to freely devote themselves to truely full-time revolutionary practise).

Leninist ideology details the activities of those who can devote every waking moment to the revolutionary cause to be able to educate and inspire the working class. This can manifest in a variable of ways, mostly that of total commitment, and the idea of understanding properties vs. application of the individual, while understanding the greater historical push of the collective.


-Loaf

[Dan]

Thank you for your contributions. Any more would be appreciated.

[jaakko]

I think it would be most helpful to get into the actual origins of these labels.

All the people of which these labels are used of, claim adherence to Marxism.

"Stalinism" is with little exceptions a derogatory word. Basically no person who respects Stalin calls himself a 'Stalinist', as most Marxist-Leninists agree that Stalin's theoretical contributions don't elevate the theory of scientific socialism to a qualitatively new stage. The two main origins of the term 'Stalinism' are Trotsky & co and bourgeois media. The former usually define 'Stalinism' as "the ideology of the bureaucracy standing on top of a degenerated workers' state" or something to that effect. In this meaning, any non-Trotskyite communist or communist party at some point associated with CPSU is "Stalinist". In bourgeois use the definitions vary greatly, where it's usually employed in an emotional manner, as a word with a purpose of lumping together everything deemed "evil" or otherwise negative about the USSR (or anything, nowadays). It was also, atleast briefly, used by Khrushchev and other cult-builders in the 30's.

'Trotskyism' has become to be used by both the opponents and the claimed supporters of Trotsky's line. One of its main features is the presentation of 'world revolution' and 'building socialism in one country' as somehow mutually exclusive ("permanent revolution").

'Maoism' probably originated during the great debates in the world communist movement in the 60's. It was used by pro-Moscow parties to label the line of the so-called anti-revisionist parties (Chinese Communist Party, the Party of Labour of Albania and their followers). "Maoists" referred to their line as Marxism-Leninism or in some cases 'Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung thought'. Only fairly recently those who uphold Mao have began to call themselves 'Maoist'. Usually these consider Mao's contributions to consitute a qualitatively new stage of Marxism in qualitatively new historical conditions. Thus they call the totality of their ideology as 'Marxism-Leninism-Maoism'. One such party is the CP of Nepal (Maoist). So some Maoists actually do call themselves Maoists, but this certainly wasn't so before the Sino-Albanian split in the late 70's.

'Leninism' is often described as the Marxism in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution (qualitatively different situation from that of Marx's and Engel's time). It's called 'Leninism' because its theoretical content was mainly the work of V. I. Lenin. The opponents of Lenin's theoretical work and political line describe 'Leninism' as Marxism implemented in Russian conditions.

Edit: replies added.

Maoism is a school of Marxism where the peasant becomes the class that leads all the other exploited calsses into revolution.

Mao did consider the poor peasantry be the main force in revolutions in the semi-colonial and dependent countries. But he did not consider it to be the leading class, which he like other Marxists considers that only the proletariat is capable of being.

Stalinism= Isnt really an ideology. expanded on leninism, but advocated nationalism, socialism in one country, very distrustful of anyone who isnt a communist

This is highly debatable. Not the most objective possible approach.

Leninism-First to appear with the vanguard notion of a revolution, the peasants take a big role in the revolution, also said that workers dont have revolutionary class consciousness like marx said.

Could you back this up with something? Marx and Engels didn't think the workers had some class-consciousness gene, nor were they anarchists advocating a revolution without a vanguard.

[ComradeRick-CL]

I think you are misinterpreting what i said

Leninism-was the first to advance the idea of a vanguard party that would lead the revolution. Secondly Marx and Engels believed that the working class because of their place in society were revolutiony, as i they had revolutionary class consciousness. Lenin didnt believe this was so, and thought that they only had trade union consciousness, and people had to teach the workers their rightful class conscioussness. and i didnt say anything about anarchists

[ComradeRick-CL]

marx has said much on that authoritarian structure of a revolutionary party or one that tries to lead the revolution, was bluntly bs. HE also said that that the revolution must be carried out with the might of the united working class, themselves!

[jaakko]

Firstly, don't double-post. Use the 'edit' button instead.

Leninism-was the first to advance the idea of a vanguard party that would lead the revolution.

It's true that Lenin contributed a lot to the theory about the revolutionary party, but the idea of the party was from Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels themselves were working to build a revolutionary party with the most advanced possible theory. What is that, if not the vanguard of the revolution?

Secondly Marx and Engels believed that the working class because of their place in society were revolutiony, as i they had revolutionary class consciousness.

If Marx and Engels thought that the working class had a revolutionary class consciousness, why did they spend so much effort fighting against petty-bourgeois and reformist trends inside the working class movement? I don't think your interpretation is correct.

marx has said much on that authoritarian structure of a revolutionary party or one that tries to lead the revolution, was bluntly bs.

Proof?

HE also said that that the revolution must be carried out with the might of the united working class, themselves!

Of course.

[The Immortal Goon]

As touched on before, Stalinists and Trotskyists both define themselves as Leninists.

Communism is the idea that everyone should live as a community. Primitic communism was a more or less tribal system; Catholic monks are communists - though they wouldn't use that term any more.

Marxism is Scientific-Socialism based on the idea of Material-Dialectic. The idea is, very briefly, that Communism as a world system is something that's bound to happen based on conditions in the material world; and they way that certain opposing forces in the world interact.

Leninism is the idea that a form of capitilistic imperialism exists after a stage of monopoly capital. There are various arguments as to his accomplishments and place according to the following two:

"Stalinism" is the official line of the USSR after Lenin. It rested on Bukharin's idea that Socialism In One Country was possible, which extended after WWII in to Peaceful-Co-Existance with Capitalist powers. They traditionally beleive in a "Stage Theory" of development, in which one must enter from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism. They tend to advocate strong unity to the party. "Stalinists" often cite revision as their great internal enemy; hiddent foreign agents externally

"Trotskyisim" is a term coined by "Stalinists" to mean about anything bad. It rests on the idea of Permenent Revolution, that is, the idea that one can jump from a feudalistic point of development to a socialistic system without getting caught in the capitlistic system inbetween. Trotskyists consider themselves to the left of Stalinists. They supported democratic rights in the USSR, opposed political deals with the imperialist powers, and advocated a spreading of the revolution throughout Europe and the East. Also, they believed that beurocracy inside of an extablished worker's state could prove fatal to the revolution. Historicaly, their greatest internal enemy has been schism; external enemy, they'd say, has been bureaucracy.

Mao Tse-tung Thought - Whereas the theories above focus heavily upon the Urban Proletariat, Maoists say that the peasant can be led by the communist party as a revolutionary force. Militerism and the political ideology usually are seen as the same - not divided segments of teh struggle as often advocated by the others. Interestingly, if I'm not mistaken, they, like the Trots, saw beurocracy as a possible fatality to the revolution, though had the strong, militeristic party unity of the Stalinist as a way to combat this. Their greatest internal enemy has been revision through the bureaucracy; this has also their great external enemy.

Nobody on this site is impartial, though I tried to be and probably failed.

Best is to look it up yourself. Wikipedia is not a good source for hard information, but it's as good as place as any to start.

-TIG

[jaakko]

Taking the risk of sounding arrogant, I think my explanations have been the most objective so far. Any comments?

Leninism is the idea that a form of capitilistic imperialism exists after a stage of monopoly capital.

I don't understand this sentence.

"Stalinism" is the official line of the USSR after Lenin.

Depends on who you ask. Certainly it wasn't officially called that.

It rested on Bukharin's idea that Socialism In One Country was possible, which extended after WWII in to Peaceful-Co-Existance with Capitalist powers.

I think you're seeing an evolutionary branch where there isn't one. The policy of peaceful existence was adopted during Lenin already. The exact term was used by Lenin. But it only became famous when Khrushchev & co. revised it as an integral part of their "3 peacefuls" (co-existence, competition, transition to socialism) strategy.

They traditionally beleive in a "Stage Theory" of development, in which one must enter from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism.

Who doesn't?

"Trotskyisim" is a term coined by "Stalinists" to mean about anything bad.

Not true. Usually it's used to mean the line of those who uphold or claim to uphold Trotsky. Most Trotskyites use the term themselves.

It rests on the idea of Permenent Revolution, that is, the idea that one can jump from a feudalistic point of development to a socialistic system without getting caught in the capitlistic system inbetween.

I don't think this is the case. If it was, it would mean resting on non-proletarian classes, which is categorically condemned by Trotskyites. How can you have a "workers' revolution" without workers?

Nobody on this site is impartial, though I tried to be and probably failed.

Not on the general.

Wikipedia is not a good source for hard information, but it's as good as place as any to start.

As long as one remembers that when it comes to anything dealing with communism, wikipedia is hopelessly bourgeois (occasionally flirting with Trotskyism).

[The Immortal Goon]

I don't understand this sentence.

Lenin:

Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... ct/x01.htm

This represented a split from other socialists at the time, Kautsky in particulor. It also represents Lenin's great contribution to Marxism and provides the crux as to the reason why the revolution didn't happen exactly as Marx predicted:

Not that I have to cite this, but:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... 6/imp-hsc/
---

Depends on who you ask. Certainly it wasn't officially called that.

Not, it wasn't called that. But I never said that it was, I said it was the official line of the USSR after Lenin. Which it was. It depends on whom you ask as to how far after Lenin, though I'd say today most people would agree it came to an end with Stalin.
---

I think you're seeing an evolutionary branch where there isn't one. The policy of peaceful existence was adopted during Lenin already. The exact term was used by Lenin.

Perhaps a fair criticism, I should have drawn things out a little bit more. In action, Lenin set up another International; Stalin disbanding the Communist International in 1943. I would argue that this represented a vast change in policy, but I concede your point that it can be seen as otherwise.

Who doesn't? [Believe in Stage Theory]

The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long as this government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.

Lenin, 1917 - http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... apr/04.htm

ie - an immediate shift from a feudal form of government and agriculture to a socialist one.

Which differs considerably from:

In the first period of the Chinese revolution, at the time of the first march to the North -- when the national army was approaching the Yangtse and scoring victory after victory, but a powerful movement of the workers and peasants had not yet unfolded -- the national bourgeoisie (not the compradors) sided with the revolution. It was the revolution of a united all-national front.

This does not mean that there were no contradictions between the revolution and the national bourgeoisie... The struggle between the Rights and the Lefts in the Kuomintang at that period was a reflection of these contradictions. Chiang Kai-shek's attempt in March 1926 to expel the Communists from the Kuomintang was the first serious attempt of the national bourgeoisie to curb the revolution. As is known, already at that time the C.C., C.P.S.U. considered that "the line must be to keep the Communist Party within the Kuomintang," and that it was necessary "to work for the resignation or expulsion of the Rights from the Kuomintang" (April 1926).

This line was one directed towards further development of the revolution, close co-operation between the Lefts and the Communists within the Kuomintang and within the national government, strengthening the unity of the Kuomintang and, at the same time, exposing and isolating the Kuomintang Rights, compelling them to submit to Kuomintang discipline, utilising the Rights, their connections and their experience, if they submitted to Kuomintang discipline, or expelling them from the Kuomintang if they violated that discipline and betrayed the interests of the revolution.

Stalin -
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/QCR27.html#s2

ie - the masses must not recognise "the only possible form of revolutionary government" as the communists and should instead must submit to the bourgeois. Thus, going directly through an extended stage of revolution to another extended stage of revolution.
---

Not true. Usually it's used to mean the line of those who uphold or claim to uphold Trotsky. Most Trotskyites use the term themselves.

A number of times Khrushchev is referred to as a "Trotskyist"
(http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/r ... rotsky.htm is an example); though I cannot think of a single similarity between the two aside from the fact that neither were particulor admirers of Stalin.

There's an example, and there are a few more people during purges and whatnot who are called Trotskyists who clearly have no ideological connection with Trotsky in the least.

And I use the term "Trotskyist" myself, though I consider myself a Leninist. But I loath the dance around of terms, because you consider yourself a Leninist first also - but we disagree as to what that means - so instead of saying, "You're a Leninist who feels that Stalin was a direct ideologic descendent from Lenin;" and "I'm a Leninist who feels that Trotsky was a direct ideologic descendent from Lenin" I just use the two words and am done with it. Basically, since I use the word "Stalinist," I feel it's a courtesy to you if I use the same kind of smear with myself.
---

I don't think this is the case. If it was, it would mean resting on non-proletarian classes, which is categorically condemned by Trotskyites. How can you have a "workers' revolution" without workers?

You can't have one without the workers - but you don't have to follow the bourgeois stage of development:

2. With regard to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of the permanent revolution signifies that the complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses.

3. Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry—the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries—an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie.

4. No matter what the first episodic stages of the revolution may be in the individual countries, the realization of the revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry is conceivable only under the political leadership of the proletariat vanguard, organized in the Communist Party. This in turn means that the victory of the democratic revolution is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat which bases itself upon the alliance with the peasantry and solves first of all the tasks of the democratic revolution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... v/pr10.htm

Which is nothing akin to a:

further development of the revolution, close co-operation between the Lefts and the Communists within the Kuomintang and within the national government, strengthening the unity of the Kuomintang

as Stalin proposed for the same condition.

As long as one remembers that when it comes to anything dealing with communism, wikipedia is hopelessly bourgeois (occasionally flirting with Trotskyism).

I agree with this - as I said, it's usually a good place to start but not a good place for hard information. If you knew nothing about anything and had to start somewhere, it would at least get some of the names and everything sorted so you knew what you were looking at.

-TIG