differences between marx, trotsky, etc

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>urban 75

Where you will end up more confused than ever.

There may be differences but the end result is the same - a dictatorship.

at least a lively debate will ensue, with dare i say it an element of oomph!

It's not so much about the nature of the system but more to do with organisational stuff like how the revolution is gonna happen. So, in the biggest nutshell in the world:

Leninism: small ideological elite begin the struggle and pick up supportets as they go along (similar to the guerrilla tactics of the Cuban lot). Also, on a theoretical level, Lenin believed that the capitalist period varies in length in different countries, hence the fact that he decided the Russian one was only meant to last a few months!

Trotskyism: 'World revolution', i.e. when one state becomes socialist, they must incite revolutions around the world. This is supposed to prevent socialist countries from being victimised or invaded by capitalist ones. Trotskyists are well up for Internationals- they reckon that these are the best way for revolutions to happen.

Stalinism: 'Socialism in one country', i.e. you've got to form revolutionary movements in separate countries. So if (and it is a very big if) socialism actually works in one country, they must stabilise their system before even thinking of helping other struggles. This also means stalinists don't really believe in Internationals.

Maoism (as a bonus): 'Permanent revolution', i.e. in order to prevent stagnation or corruption you've got to 'refresh' the revolution every now and again. There are famous examples in maoist china where students went about spontaneously throwing their teachers out of high buildings. It's a (dramatically failed) reaction to the inevitable onset of totalitarianism in socialist states.

Marxism- broadly speakng, a school of thought based on dialectics and the labour theory of value. Tho to be honest its better to read marx and various thinkers than trying to get a broad idea of what ''marxism'' is because ''marxism'' is a word used to cover for a whole load of drivel as well as some useful ideas and movements.

Leninism- Lenin abandoned some of the basic principles of marxism by the time he wrote state and revolution and invented the idea of a '' Vangaurd party'', which was a professional network of ''revolutionaries'' which seizes control of state, to change things ''on behalf of'' the rest of us creating a ''transitional state'' which then sadly ends up administrating capitalism.

Trotskyism- Like leninism, except a bit more mental, including such fun things as the militarisation of labour, and now much more sectarian, leninists tending to stick to one or two parties, trots seeming to enjoy the fact that their are hundreds of different factions. It would be a dead and non-existant current except unfortunately it was refounded in the US.

Stalinism-depends do you mean stalinsim or official communism? Stalnism is considerably more mad, you don't too get many of them, its largely based around a personality cult.

ps suggested text

http://libcom.org/library/LeninismMarxismRosaLuxemburg

Dialectics: Attempting to discover what is true by considering opposite theories.

eh there's more stalinists and maoists in the world than anarchists!

Not in Marxist terms, the basic Marxist dialectic is the class struggle, with society being between a constant tension between two basic forces - from the capitalist and working classes

is it, i thought this was just one of them, there were others in the past and there will potentially be others in the future? or is it more hegel who does all that continual stuff, preserve, negate & advance, it was called aufbhen was it not?

"preserve, negate, advance" is a great way of summarising "aufheben." *Makes a note of that*

Which leads me to my favourite Hegelian joke, which nicely captures the sense of "determinate negation," so important to an understanding of dialectics.

Q: What's red & invisible.

A: No tomatoes.

Laugh? I nearly did.

Oh yeah that was an example to point out that they were material, rather than Saii "two opposing theories" statement

To be fair, I don't think that invalidates the dictionary definition I used, just adds that it is usually said in a specific context on these boards.

Yeah I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, just help nightowl with its use on these 'ere boards 8)

i've known that joke for ages, i always thought it was fuckin brilliant, no idea of it's hegelian heritiage though

That is the greatest joke ever.

i actually typed that wrong, i meant to say negates, transcends, conserves but it's pretty much the same thing

There are several answers to that.

First, all of those are kinds of "Marxism".

Second, they are all (except "Marxism", of course) forms of Leninism.

Third, they all have specific historical roots and making sense of them requires knowing something about what actual historical conditions they grew out of. Not only that, they related to specific level of development of capital on a world scale. To get at what they are, to the extent it is useful, requires more than flip quips. For my part, I think the differences are theoretically largely uninteresting because their commonalities are deeper.

Fourth, if this is looking for another discussion of "betrayal', it is a boring waste of time. None of it answers why Leninism "succeeded" where communism failed. Gilles Dauve and Theorie Communiste (critiquing Dauve), among others, have tried to answer this question recently.

Fifth, disinterring Marx from Leninism is essential to understanding anything about Marx.

For my part, I find Debord's analysis of the history of the workers' movement in Society of the Spectacle a nice overview with a solid appreciation of all sides, handled briefly.

cheers,

chris

I just read that chapter of the Society of the Spectacle!..and I agree although he's got a weird writing style once I got used to it I found a number of excellent points regarding the transformation of the "workers' movent" and even, if briefly, towards anarchism. There's one or two things I would IMHO disagree with, but on the whole good stuff.

Preliminaries on Councils and Councilist Organization by René Riesel was also tre bon. Do you recommend the rest of the SotS, since that's the only part I've read?

I recommend SOTS highly, both for its content and for its style.

This is not to say it is without problems. The SI never went beyond councilism on some level, they engaged in a pretty crappy practice, esp with the growing dominance of the French section (not that I have found anything to like in most of the people they expelled), and Debord's work still retains a sort of paradigmatic approach. That said, it was one of the brightest spots of lucid, creative "marxist" (I put that in quotes because the SI was not simply trying to "apply Marx" or "Marx's method", but to be radical, to get at the root of their time) analysis in the post WW2 period, and stylistically without peer.

There are not many thoughtful appraisals of the SI as a whole, and only a few of Debord in particular. Gilles Dauve's two pieces on the SI, the Luther Blisset commentary on the SI (Guy Debord is Really Dead, I think), Anselm Jappe's biography of Debord, an article by Adam Barnard in Capital and Class from 2004 and some commentary on them by various groups like Aufheben and Theorie Communiste, are about the only intelligent commentary i have read.

Len Bracken is an idiot. Sadie Plant's book is meandering avante-garde/pomo crap. After that, there isn't much worth discussing that isn't from the time.

Cheers,

Chris

ps - reading both the Donald Nicholson-Smith (an ex-pro-situ in England) and the Ken Knabb translation is a nice combination. both are infinitely superior ot the 1972 (or is it 74?) translation, which is worthless.