You’re certainly correct that “Marxism-Leninism” is a deviation from Marxism. I find that a welcome concession, because Stalin would certainly have never admitted that. The cynic in me says that you simply slipped, but I hold on to a glimmer of hope that it’s a realization that will lead toward your cult deprogramming one day. I’m not holding my breath though.
Lenin, however, didn’t create Marxism-Leninism, and never said anything that deviated from Marx. I dare you to find anything in his writings that contradicts Marx or claims to “update” Marx.
Lenin applied Marxism to Russia’s conditions- a backward, pre-capitalist agrarian country, and wrote about his challenges and experiences. He did not change the historical content of the communist programme.
Your term “mixed economy” is not a Marxist term, it is a bourgeois one. Marx never used such a term. A “mixed economy” is a capitalist welfare economy.
Additionally, the move towards this “mixed-economy” you refer to, and the move closer and closer to capitalism signified a retreat, not a step towards socialism. Lenin says this in multiple speeches and reports.
The statements made in this report towards the further and further retreat towards capitalism stand it stark contrast to the positive portrayal of the policies painted by later “communist” leaders. “Marxism-Leninism” paints the actions taken by the soviet government at the time as strategic, deliberate steps towards socialism, when it was in fact, the opposite.
In addition Lenin never once suggested that socialism could be built in absence of the successes of the revolutions in Europe (the key Marxist-Leninist content of “socialism in one country”), the international revolution. Again, I dare you to find anything in Lenin’s writings to suggest that he thought such a thing.
Marxism, Lenin’s programme, and the content of “Marxism-Leninism” are not reconcilable.
Just because Stalin stimulated economic growth through a mixed economy doesn’t make him a ‘traitor’ or a ‘capitalist’, as it helped develop the industries the USSR needed to fend off the fascist threat during WW2, as the Chinese and Vietnamese are doing today. Also, what was so ‘nationalist’ about the USSR’s foreign policy? It promoted local languages and cultures in all the Soviet republics, and just because Russian was the lingua franca, that doesn’t mean that Stalin was ‘Russifying’ the many republics. Lastly the USSR started collectivization of farms and nationalization of the many industries (Increasing the quality of life dramatically) during his time along with an alliance with independent politicians (Bloc of Communists and Non-Partisans),
These words could have come from any Bernstein enjoyer. Nationalization of industries and the implementation of a welfare state does not signify any step towards socialism. By the time this was all happening the Soviet governing body had betrayed and lost all connection with the international working class movements. The collectivization of farms signified a capitalist primitive accumulation.
as for the Red Guard, some of them were opportunists or traitors (Like Trotsky, Yezhov, or Bukharin)
Many of the people targeted were Lenin’s old friends and associates. Many were heroes of the civil war. These were people who were heavily involved in the revolution- people who risked everything to bring about revolution in Russia. You’re saying that you honestly believe that Lenin died and that caused hundreds of thousands of them all to transform into anti-communist traitors? That’s easier to believe for you then the simple fact that Stalin was actually the opportunist and traitor, and needed to purge threats to his power? If you believe that, then I might as well be arguing with a cultist.
Lenin, however, didn’t create Marxism-Leninism, and never said anything that deviated from Marx.
He didn’t create it, he created the principles for it, expanding on Marx.
Additionally, the move towards this “mixed-economy” you refer to, and the move closer and closer to capitalism signified a retreat, not a step towards socialism. Lenin says this in multiple speeches and reports.
The New Economic Policy was adopted because, in the spring of 1921, after our experience of direct socialist construction carried on under unprecedentedly difficult conditions, under the conditions of civil war, in which the bourgeoisie compelled us to resort to extremely hard forms of struggle, it became perfectly clear that we could not proceed with our direct socialist construction and that in a number of economic spheres we must retreat to state capitalism. We could not continue with the tactics of direct assault, but had to undertake the very difficult, arduous and unpleasant task of a long siege accompanied by a number of retreats. This is necessary to pave the way for the solution of the economic problem, i. e., that of the economic transition to socialist principles - V.I Lenin
Many of the people targeted were Lenin’s old friends and associates. Many were heroes of the civil war. These were people who were heavily involved in the revolution- people who risked everything to bring about revolution in Russia
It was Yezhov who executed them, he was later executed himself for his crimes. Many of them were committed to Stalin and his ideas for socialist development, for example Lazar Kaganovich, and only a few of them were putchists (Like Trotsky) or traitors. I’d like to see your source for the supposed ‘hundreds of thousands’ killed by these purges.
It is an insult to the socialist system to say that an “opportunistic and traitorous” Stalin would be able to become a “dictator” within it.
He didn’t create it, he created the principles for it, expanding on Marx.
He did not add to Marx, he only applied Marx to the specific conditions of 20th century Russia. The challenge remains for you to show that Lenin updated Marx or believed that he was.
…This is necessary to pave the way for the solution of the economic problem, i. e., that of the economic transition to socialist principles
Do you understand the context of what you posted? Apparently not. He’s alluding to the ongoing international struggles. He knows that socialism will be impossible in Russia without those victories.
Our backwardness has put us in the forefront, and we shall perish unless we are capable of holding out until we receive powerful support from workers who have risen in revolt in other countries."
Source: “Letters on Tactics,” 1917
“We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism.”
Source: “The Tax in Kind,” 1921
“We always staked our play upon an international revolution and this was unconditionally right… We counted upon a revolution of the world proletariat and were of the opinion that Europe after the war would rise so rapidly that either the spark of our revolution would kindle it, or that it would kindle our damp squib.”
Source: Speech at the 4th Congress of the Comintern
These statements stand in stark contrast to the policy of “Socialism in one Country” of Marxism-Leninism. ML has nothing to do with Marx or Lenin.
It is an insult to the socialist system to say that an “opportunistic and traitorous” Stalin would be able to become a “dictator” within it.
Not even Lenin thought they had reached socialism yet. Even the quote you posted said as much, so I can only assume you can’t read.
You’re certainly correct that “Marxism-Leninism” is a deviation from Marxism. I find that a welcome concession, because Stalin would certainly have never admitted that. The cynic in me says that you simply slipped, but I hold on to a glimmer of hope that it’s a realization that will lead toward your cult deprogramming one day. I’m not holding my breath though.
Lenin, however, didn’t create Marxism-Leninism, and never said anything that deviated from Marx. I dare you to find anything in his writings that contradicts Marx or claims to “update” Marx.
Lenin applied Marxism to Russia’s conditions- a backward, pre-capitalist agrarian country, and wrote about his challenges and experiences. He did not change the historical content of the communist programme.
Your term “mixed economy” is not a Marxist term, it is a bourgeois one. Marx never used such a term. A “mixed economy” is a capitalist welfare economy.
Additionally, the move towards this “mixed-economy” you refer to, and the move closer and closer to capitalism signified a retreat, not a step towards socialism. Lenin says this in multiple speeches and reports.
Read Lenin’s Report On The New Economic Policy.
The statements made in this report towards the further and further retreat towards capitalism stand it stark contrast to the positive portrayal of the policies painted by later “communist” leaders. “Marxism-Leninism” paints the actions taken by the soviet government at the time as strategic, deliberate steps towards socialism, when it was in fact, the opposite.
In addition Lenin never once suggested that socialism could be built in absence of the successes of the revolutions in Europe (the key Marxist-Leninist content of “socialism in one country”), the international revolution. Again, I dare you to find anything in Lenin’s writings to suggest that he thought such a thing.
Marxism, Lenin’s programme, and the content of “Marxism-Leninism” are not reconcilable.
These words could have come from any Bernstein enjoyer. Nationalization of industries and the implementation of a welfare state does not signify any step towards socialism. By the time this was all happening the Soviet governing body had betrayed and lost all connection with the international working class movements. The collectivization of farms signified a capitalist primitive accumulation.
Many of the people targeted were Lenin’s old friends and associates. Many were heroes of the civil war. These were people who were heavily involved in the revolution- people who risked everything to bring about revolution in Russia. You’re saying that you honestly believe that Lenin died and that caused hundreds of thousands of them all to transform into anti-communist traitors? That’s easier to believe for you then the simple fact that Stalin was actually the opportunist and traitor, and needed to purge threats to his power? If you believe that, then I might as well be arguing with a cultist.
He didn’t create it, he created the principles for it, expanding on Marx.
The New Economic Policy was adopted because, in the spring of 1921, after our experience of direct socialist construction carried on under unprecedentedly difficult conditions, under the conditions of civil war, in which the bourgeoisie compelled us to resort to extremely hard forms of struggle, it became perfectly clear that we could not proceed with our direct socialist construction and that in a number of economic spheres we must retreat to state capitalism. We could not continue with the tactics of direct assault, but had to undertake the very difficult, arduous and unpleasant task of a long siege accompanied by a number of retreats. This is necessary to pave the way for the solution of the economic problem, i. e., that of the economic transition to socialist principles - V.I Lenin
It was Yezhov who executed them, he was later executed himself for his crimes. Many of them were committed to Stalin and his ideas for socialist development, for example Lazar Kaganovich, and only a few of them were putchists (Like Trotsky) or traitors. I’d like to see your source for the supposed ‘hundreds of thousands’ killed by these purges.
It is an insult to the socialist system to say that an “opportunistic and traitorous” Stalin would be able to become a “dictator” within it.
He did not add to Marx, he only applied Marx to the specific conditions of 20th century Russia. The challenge remains for you to show that Lenin updated Marx or believed that he was.
Do you understand the context of what you posted? Apparently not. He’s alluding to the ongoing international struggles. He knows that socialism will be impossible in Russia without those victories.
Source: “Letters on Tactics,” 1917
Source: “The Tax in Kind,” 1921
Source: Speech at the 4th Congress of the Comintern
These statements stand in stark contrast to the policy of “Socialism in one Country” of Marxism-Leninism. ML has nothing to do with Marx or Lenin.
Not even Lenin thought they had reached socialism yet. Even the quote you posted said as much, so I can only assume you can’t read.