this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
808 readers
4 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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
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
Right in the fuck where you insist Marxism-Leninism is not a valid term. I don't fucking care if you use "Marxist" with your friends and family, but I do fucking 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. This is a cease and desist message on this discussion, do not insist any further if you don't want to get muted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Borderline liberal take, bro. 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?