Marxism-Leninism carries these 3 foundations forward, and analyzes Capitalism as it reaches Imperialism, as well as numerous expansions on the foundations of revolutionary theory and practice.

They are not "the same," but the vast majority of Marxists are Marxist-Leninists, because Lenin's application of Marxism to higher stages of Capitalism are invaluable to Marxism.

[+] rainynight65@feddit.org -12 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Marxism-Leninism was not actually thought out by Lenin, but by Stalin. The Stalin.

And how invaluable were Lenin's ideas about violently suppressing opposition, resistance, and unwanted societal classes?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, yes. He did so on the basis of Lenin's theoretical advancements on Marxism. Stalin himself wasn't that much of a theoretician, hence why it's Marxism-Leninism, though Stalin has a few works under his belt. Yes, the Stalin. You're free to read my introductory reading list if you want to learn more about Marxism.

Secondly, you have no idea what you're talking about if you're pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie. Such ideas came from Marx and Engels, who always advocated for revolution. From Marx:

"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

I suggest you take the advice of @Edie@lemmy.ml and read up on Marxist theory and history before speaking nonsense from a pedestal.

[+] rainynight65@feddit.org -8 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

That quote is extremely hinged on context in which it was made, and it would serve you well to internalise that context before throwing this quote around pretending it to have been something Marx lived by.

Secondly, you have no idea what you’re talking about if you’re pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie.

That was not my claim, but thank you for so generously misinterpreting what I said. Lenin implemented the violent oppression of dissenters and opposition in a socialist system. That was carried further by Stalin, under whom 'counter-revolutionary' became an extremely malleable term that could mean anything not fully aligned with his ideas. The fact that you think political violence and terror is a core tenet of Marxism tells me that you're the one who might need to brush up on their history a little bit.

In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels. The people we have to thank for creating the violent authoritarianism that pervaded communist countries in practice are Lenin and Stalin. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" may have been a phrase used by Marx, but he never fully elaborated on what that should or could look like. And fascism as created by Mussolini and unleashed upon the world by Hitler didn't even exist during Marx's lifetime. Even Marx's views on religion were a lot more complex and multifaceted than what Marxist-Leninist governments turned them into.

I don't know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I've seen the before and after, first-hand. That's my pedestal. How's the weather up there on yours?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels.

Do you mean the Engles who said this:

[T]he anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction

...or is there some other Engles I should know about?

[–] rainynight65@feddit.org -3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't know of any person called Engles who would be significant in this context, so I can't tell you if there is one you should know about. The Engels who said what you quoted above, also said - literally in the sentence preceding your quote:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.

As always, context matters. And I'll trust the context created by the words and interpretations of respected historians way more than I'll trust some randos on Lemmy who only excel at selective quoting.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Right, and the part you quoted is in the context of what immediately followed. The clarification that he was talking about the eventual ideal, and that in the meantime, using authoritarian measures were necessary to the point that anyone who opposed them was supporting reactionaries.

It should of course be noted that Marx expected a spontaneous, worldwide revolution, starting from the most developed countries. This was something that he got completely wrong, (he was not a prophet) and the socialists who put his ideas into practice had to adapt to the real circumstances that they found themselves in. In the case of a worldwide revolution, of course it would be easier to persue the phasing out of authoritarian measures sooner, since they wouldn't be necessary to protect against foreign threats and subversion (something presumably included in the not-yet-destroyed "social conditions that gave birth to the political state"). Even in such a scenario, Engles was extremely clear that he considered such measures absolutely necessary.

What "respected historians" are you referencing? I haven't seen you cite any. Care to share with the class?

[–] Naadan@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

I don't know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I've seen the before and after, first-hand.

Could you please name those countries? And share your experiences, if possible? Were they not Marxist?

[–] rainynight65@feddit.org -2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The countries were the German Democratic Republic, where I was born; and Cuba, where I lived from 1985 to 1990.

And what are experiences? By all accounts what I grew up in was normal, because I didn't know any different. We grew up like any kids really, playing, riding bikes, watching TV, getting up to mischief. I have a lot of good memories from both the GDR and Cuba, and even getting started on them would take me hours.

Sure, we knew about the West. Some of my friends had relatives in the West and occasionally got packages with sweets and other things. We watched Western TV and were exposed to Western toys, comics and music, to a degree. In Cuba there were a lot of Western movies and series on TV. But we also knew that you could get into trouble for being too open about that.

But after it all came down, we learned a lot about what went on. The oppression, the secret police, the lack of basic freedoms.

Once in art class, we were tasked with drawing something we had seen or experienced. Just a short time prior to that, we had gone to see a well known boat lift east of Berlin. The boat that came through the lift was a freight barge flying the West German flag. So that's what I drew. Only years later my parents told me that they had subsequently been summoned by the school and had to explain that it was nothing more sinister than that - a child drawing a picture of something they had seen.

Another thing that struck me as odd at the time was this. Most of the socialist countries we knew as 'friendly' had state-run youth organisations. Ours were called the pioneers. Once there was an afternoon activity with a little quiz, and one of the quiz questions was 'name three friendly youth organisations'. So I named three that I remembered from my pioneer calendar - and one of them was Finnish. My quiz came back with the correction 'friendly youth organisations'.

I will always remember and defend the good aspects about the countries I grew up in. By the same token I will always vociferously criticise the bad things, and anyone who wants to try them again.

[–] Naadan@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 weeks ago

West German flag. So that's what I drew. Only years later my parents told me that they had subsequently been summoned by the school and had to explain that it was nothing more sinister than that - a child drawing a picture of something they had seen.

That seems like a normal response.
I'm from India and if a child suddenly drew and submitted a Pak flag for an assignment, teachers would be alarmed.

What are some positives and negatives you saw in those countries?

It'd also be very cool if you could share how the education there is like?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

That quote is extremely hinged on context in which it was made, and it would serve you well to internalise that context before throwing this quote around pretending it to have been something Marx lived by.

Correct, Marx wasn't just randomly terrorizing people. He was referring to the Proletariat making no apologies for revolution and taking up arms against the bourgeoisie and their enablers, something Lenin and the people of the USSR carried into reality. Lenin descibed what you're doing to Marx and Engels right now quite well:

"What is now happening to Marx's teaching has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the teachings of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes struggling for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their teachings with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to surround their names with a certain halo for the "consolation" of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time emasculating the essence of the revolutionary teaching, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. At the present time, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the working-class movement concur in this "doctoring" of Marxism. They omit, obliterate and distort the revolutionary side of this teaching, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now "Marxists" (don't laugh!). And more and more frequently, German bourgeois scholars, but yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the "national-German" Marx, who, they aver, educated the workers' unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of conducting a predatory war!"

Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution

That was not my claim, but thank you for so generously misinterpreting what I said. Lenin implemented the violent oppression of dissenters and opposition in a socialist system. That was carried further by Stalin, under whom ‘counter-revolutionary’ became an extremely malleable term that could mean anything not fully aligned with his ideas. The fact that you think political violence and terror is a core tenet of Marxism tells me that you’re the one who might need to brush up on their history a little bit.

Lenin implemented the world's first Socialist state, and this state violently oppressed the bourgeoisie, fascists, the White Army, rebels, and so forth. The fact is, political violence is often sadly necessary against those who would crush the Socialist state, like the 14 Capitalist countries that jointly invaded the USSR after its founding. A Marxist project that rolls over and dies the second fascists and the bourgeoisie fight against it isn't Marxist. Blackshirts and Reds is a good quick read on the tangible benefits AES states achieved despite brutal opposition from the outside.

In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels. The people we have to thank for creating the violent authoritarianism that pervaded communist countries in practice are Lenin and Stalin. “Dictatorship of the proletariat” may have been a phrase used by Marx, but he never fully elaborated on what that should or could look like. And fascism as created by Mussolini and unleashed upon the world by Hitler didn’t even exist during Marx’s lifetime. Even Marx’s views on religion were a lot more complex and multifaceted than what Marxist-Leninist governments turned them into.

This is nonsense. First of all, what separates "authoritarian" Socialism from "non-authoritarian" socialism? All Marxist-Leninist states practice democracy and allow more participation in the way society is run than Capitalist states for the average person. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is a good resource on this. Secondly, the idea that Marx and Engels never had a clear idea of what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would look like is further nonsense - Marx described the Paris Commune as the first implementation of the DotP in reality. Marx and Engels knew quite well that violent suppression of bourgeois elements was required.

Furthermore, whether Marx or Engels really observed fascism is utterly irrelevant, unless your point is that they would not have been anti-fascist, which is nonsense.

I don’t know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I’ve seen the before and after, first-hand. That’s my pedestal. How’s the weather up there on yours?

A non-sequitor. Spending early childhood in an AES state does not mean you know how it works, nor what it deals with on a daily basis. Even people who live their entire lives in Capitalist states go without knowing how they function.

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?

It won't do!

You must investigate!

You must not talk nonsense!

Oppose Book Worship