Marxism/Leninism(or not)

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Marxism/Leninism(or not)

I don’t want to go into a long personal biography, but it will provide some background to the question, so indulge me please.

As a lad I grew up on the Amazon river in South America. My parents were both from Poland and came from fairly wealthy families. The dream of many people living in such Northern climes is to live in the tropics, so my dad ventured forth, leaving my mom behind, and bought a hotel and tourist boat on the river. Once the deal was done mom came over and then my family started a family.

There wasn’t much to complain about. I met lots of people and went on quite a number of adventures with my dad and his associates. I always had substandard language skills, but I managed to get along pretty well with the Indians living in the area.

I found that the average Indian to be fairly amazing in their friendliness, fairness, innocents, but not stupidity, and hard work. So, I tended to feel a great deal of pity for the people in the area. Also, there was less than kindness shown to any of the people that had mixed with the Spaniards, and that didn’t seem fair.

Jumping ahead, I ended up getting involved in some communist activity with the locals and then in a more far-reaching manner. If you ever read Sun Tzu you’ll find that he focused heavily on supplies in his instructions, and I did a lot of that kind of thing.

I believed that I was helping good-hearted poor people fight against rich people that were, based on my observation, exploiting them. It was also the case that the tribes there as in North America had a kind of communist system, for I assume the last 12,000 years.

So, I envisioned Marxism as a kind of return to what had been, rather than some kind of crazy new idea. My motivations were pretty innocent, but there’s a saying about good intentions.

Much, much later it dawned on me that I had never been fighting for Marxism at all, but rather Leninism which was a violent poorly planned version. Marxism is a true democracy while Leninism presumes the need for a military dictatorship as it makes the world safe for democracy.

Question:

Leninism is centred on military and fighting for the goal of human rights. This fight cannot and will not end until all the world has been successfully conquered.

Vast resources are necessary to wage the continued war. Sun Tzu mentions that you’ve already lost when you have to put so much into a war, and that’s one reason why I see Leninism as having been the cause of its own failure.

The second, reason that it was a failure was because it was not attractive to the common person. A country like America attracts people with dreams of prosperity, and a strange kind of equality, but what does an autocratic war-state have that attracts people? Not much, as time proves.

So, as you can tell by this time, that I question if the philosophical approach of Lenin didn’t ruin the chances for the ideals of communism to come to fruition.

Please discuss.

2

I must say that I wrote the above post pretty late at night, and then the great movie Miller’s Crossing came on and I got distracted.

Allow me to restate:

I view Marxism as an attempt to create a true democratic government designed to create equality, by including everyone able in the planning process.

It is my belief that this model has never even been tested, to any extent. I also believe that if it were put into place that it would be far more attractive to insiders and outsiders, and so it would be more successful.

I view Leninism as being the thing that somehow masked itself as communism, but was really a violent and wasteful process that had little of democracy about it. The war ready stance that it took was frightening to people and offered little that was attractive. So, it ran out of cash and public support, both internal and external.

I ask, am I correct?

Also, I am curious if the goal of communism needs to maintain a war ready revolutionary government.

3

I am glad you made a distinction between Leninism
and Marxism. Not many are educated enough to make that
understanding. Leninism is about being a dictatorship
(as is stalinism) marxism has never been tried and as
such is an unknown quantity, and thus you are correct in
this. What is it you are going for in this line of questioning.

Kropotkin

4

Peter (good name by the way)

I think that you’ve asked the question for me. You basically mentioned that most people do not know the difference between Marxism and Leninism.

Question:

Are the differences important and do you, or anyone, think that they spoiled the movement.

side question:

What can be done to clear up the problem.

Question 2:

Does communism need to be an active military force for it to work as Lenin thought, or as I think, it should be started quietly and rely on attractiveness to gain interest and population.

If none of those are good enough, then how about just discussing your ideas about Marxism and Leninism.

5

hi! :stuck_out_tongue:
let me introduce myself, I’m a Peruvian that is meztiza, I mean, I look more like a spaniard in race, but I know I have indian roots also…
eventhough as far as I can tell my whole family ( parents, grandparents) look white to me, I’m 100% sure that I have at least some indian ancestors somewhere…
and I’m a capitalist… and it’s not because I’m privileged, I too feel sorry for the people that lack a confortable life… but then again, what is confortable?
I bet a kid in the amazon jungle is far happier than me because he is connected to nature and doesn’t have as much stressors as I do…
but then again, he might not be because education isn’t that good over there… but also… who says education makes you happier, and not on the contrary?
I mean, the more you know about the coldness of the world, the more hopeless you feel… that kid is only exposed mostly to his close circle of relatives and friends and I bet his surroundings are warmer than mine… I mean, that kid would have warmer and closer relationships while mine may be superficial and leave me with a sense of emptiness.

so my point is, I support capitalism, because it makes the world progress and go faster, and it’s an expression of the ‘will to power’ of humanity, the power to always create and overcome.
and that kid over there actually has more life chances than in a communist world, because he now has vaccines available cheaply, he has materials to build a decent house and all…
I believe capitalism actually benefits the whole of humanity…some less, some more, but it certainly is better for poor people than comunism.

but that’s just my opinion, I’m not an economist…hehe.
I just wanted to say that I live in this reality you speak about (I’ve been to the jungle on trips) and it’s not as harsh, people are no less happy than in the city… happiness depends on the person…
I may have a lot of stuff, but I feel it’s not enough and I get stressed out, while that kid in the jungle is happy with what he has.

6

Well, I think it is tricky right now. The well of Marxism has been pretty well poisoned by Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Ect., and further so by Western propaganda against any form of Marxism.

On top of that, I would argue that in any class-upheval, a revolution of some sort is necessary. Look at America – who controls the democracy? The wealthy. Revolutions have almost always been about the second most powerful group grabbing power from the most powerful group. So, you’ve got aristocrats stealing power from monarchs, merchants stealing power from aristocrats and possibly next labourer stealing power from merchants.

But then you have to get into the idea of competence to rule. Even if labour can wrest the power from the merchant-class, what then? Is labour educated enough to actually rule itself? Is that sort of society what we want? Right now America (and much of the Western world) is moving away from the labour-based economy to a service based economy. Should the service-class rise up? I hardly think the kid taking my coat has the education to rule, or what about the elderly greeters at Wal-Mart?

Had America not prevented democratic Communism from arising in South America, I would have been very curious to see how it would have developed, but alas that opportunity has passed us by. So now we have the choice between corporate welfare states run by the merchant class (such as America), or personal welfare states run by the merchant class (such as in Europe).

Heck, in America we are (if anything) moving backwards. How many people are rich and famous because of their parents? Is this phenomenon increasing? Is power concentrating? Are we experiencing a revolution (in its original meaning) towards the return of the aristocracy?

7

Define not many.
Do you have any statistics? If so, what statistics do you have to support your distinction?
Or are you basing your “not many” on your own experiences?

-Thirst

8

I need only point out your massive ignorance about communism
to make my point. IMP and aspecia also have no idea about
communism/ Marxism. As you all lump it into a one big happy
family without knowing (or realizing) that communism, stalinism,
socialism, marxism, leninism, political matter, economics,
are different things. And until you understand they are different
things, you don’t really know what you are talking about.

Kropotkin

9

-Imp

10

Peter, I wonder how you use the word “democracy”. There is direct, or “town meeting” democray, there is representational democracy - in several forms. Every democratic nation has it’s own style, its own nuances and variations. Even more local governments come in several flavors. Can we ever use the term “democracy” in an unqualified way?

11

Hello there and thanks for responding!

Firstly, let me tell you that I’m generally referring to a time period in your part of he world that existed from the 50s to the 80s and was very dependent on region.

I consider where you live to be a “clean” part of the world, that is if you live in the mountains. The rainforest was, and I believe still is, a fairly rugged environment and that affects human behaviour. It is difficult for the average person to maintain a clean community and to remain physically health. I recall that Caesar said that he never felt as healthy as when he camped out during a winter campaign.

My point is that its easier to maintain neighbourly feelings when living in a stable environment.

It’s also interesting that you still identify by your racial mix despite the fact that you no longer have the Indian appearance. So, is that still a factor in evaluating a person’s quality, or has it become a simple conversation piece like I’ve noted in the US?

Will To Power:

You might want to rethink that particular philosophical concept. My family made a lot of money in Europe in the mining of amber. Then, we were able to establish our very exclusive life in South America, which was astoundingly more advanced, than any of the locals. These advantages allowed me to actually join in and help a movement that ran counter to the life that allowed me to help to begin with.

Instead of viewing myself as a person that used his magical will to move through life I see myself as a kind of leaf on the water. All of my youthful advantages were made for me well before my birth and had nothing to do with my talents or desires.

If I’m wrong, then I’m a superman.

12

you may be right, I don’t live in those conditions so I can’t really speak about them with any authority, I just think that the more science advances, and the more the western world advances, it’s also good for us , 3rd world countries, cause that’s a thing I live and know by experience, so that’s why I’m thankful for capitalism.

also, about the race thing, I only talked about my situation but didn’t say anything about anyone being mistreated and discriminated…
though I didn’t quite get understand what you said in your post, I don’t know if you said that the decendants of the spaniards are the ones discriminated or are the decendants of the natives the ones discriminated?
what I can say from experience is that there is discrimination… and I hate it, I find it stupid… but it’s there and it’s something I don’t follow and try to debate and change as much as I can when I have the chance, but it’s hard because it’s something more implicit than explicit.
I mean…just cause I have lastnames in spanish ( 2 lastnames, cause we use 2 over here) that doesn’t mean I’m not decended form native peruvians also… I’m just a little bleached but my eyes are dark and my hair too, so… I mean, racial disrcimination is ignorant and it makes the world regress instead of progress…
but…there’s another thing… here , there exists an economical discrimination too… like everywhere else in the world… and this is sad… but differences exist always…they have to exist and I mean, there will always be people that have more advantages and others that have less advantages but that’s the ‘chaos’ that keeps the world moving, as hard as it may seem…
I’m heartbroken when I see a poor person, in the streets… and I give them a little money when I can, but it’s such a big problem that can’t be fixed I guess… cause comunism wouldn’t be helping them, just eliminating the people that are ‘better off’…
I mean, if I have money, I can help, like you did.
if I don’t I can’t and we are all stuck in the same thing…
that’s why I like capitalism, cause it gives the ones on top a chance to do something good for the world.
and comunism just makes everyone stay in mediocre conditions for the sake of equality…

13

Xunzian,

I enjoyed your thoughts quite a bit.

The thing that I question is a mild status quo feel that I get from your post. I noticed this, not with you, but in a thread that I declined to partake in about the power of mutilation. It’s very conservation to think that new forms of government can’t work because they haven’t had a trial yet.

It was just a few hundred years ago that intellectual nobodies proposed living by the system proposed by ancient Mediterraneans. I’m sure that was pretty outlandish stuff in a world where breeding and divine right were a given.

Also, the concept of being governed is not that simple. A goal could be one of terrestrial coexistence that’s not focused on much beyond making a comfortable life, or it could be one that is driven by the need to create innovations, as you find in the US.

There can be many goals for a society and I favour one that is focused on existential goals and looks to advance for the sake of human convenience, but not at the expense of the people.

14

You have no fucking clue about what I know in regards to communism. In terms of political and economic issues you are one of the most confused and least knowledgable people I’ve ever met. And I lived in the ghetto. So you proclaiming to point out my ignorance is absolutely valueless.

I also like how you avoided defining “not many”.

-Thirst

15

Thirst, I wouldn’t worry about what you know and don’t know, but what you can find out.

If you read my initial post you can see that I thought that I knew a lot about a certain life that I was living, but in the end didn’t know quite enough.

We don’t know it all.

16

Mr. Kropotkin attacked me.
I asked him simple questions and he attacked me.

My response to his attack was appropriate.

-Thirst

17

A Russian friend of mine once complained about living in the USSR, he said:

It was terrible, everyone got a two bedroom apartment, and when someone came over you had to be nice and drink vodka with them; it was terrible.

18

How does one make the transfer from Capitalism to Communism without a temprorary proletariat dictatorship?

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “Lenninism isabout being a dictatorship”, with out some explaining this is on the face incorrect.

Off the top of my head the only major difference between the two is volunteerism. Lenin proposes the Proletariat needs to be led and/or catalyzed by intelligentsia. Although Lenin’s actions did differ greatly from his ideology.

19

Peter Kropotkin"]I am glad you made a distinction between Leninism
and Marxism. Not many are educated enough to make that
understanding. Leninism is about being a dictatorship
(as is stalinism) marxism has never been tried and as
such is an unknown quantity, and thus you are correct in
this. What is it you are going for in this line of questioning.

N: How does one make the transfer from Capitalism to Communism without a temprorary proletariat dictatorship?

K: Ah, someones done their homework.
That has always been the issue in communism.
How does the transfer (as you say) go from capitalism
to communism. I maintain (in opposition to most thinkers)
that a revolution is won’t be needed to overthrow the entrench
forces of capitalism. That has been the major issue.
How to remove the capitalist who benefits greatly from
the inequality of capitalism. I think the answer lies in sheer
numbers. If we know that 5% of the population owns
95% of the wealth and the population is 300 million, then
the number of of the 5% is about 15 million people, (lets
give it a benefit of a doubt and say 20 million people) So if
200+ million people say to those 20 million “time is up
we must have equality”, I believe the 20 million would turn
over their assets to the people. We can achieve the peaceful
transition of capitalism to communism if people understand
what is at stake. It is about leadership and convincing people
what is the right thing to do."

NI: I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “Lenninism isabout being a dictatorship”, with out some explaining this is on the face incorrect.

K: Lenin did not rule that long 1918 to 1923 at which point
stalin took power and lenin spent most of his rule fighting
both the west and the civil war in russia. (For those who don’t know
history, the west the U.S. included invaded Russia in an attempt
to overthrow the Bolshevist, this attempt in 1920 or so failed)
Lenin reaction to this was a consolation of power and this is what
I meant.

““Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program”]“between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.””

NIL: Off the top of my head the only major difference between the two is volunteerism. Lenin proposes the Proletariat needs to be led and/or catalyzed by intelligentsia. Although Lenin’s actions did differ greatly from his ideology. "

K: in reaction to civil war and invasion. But leading the proletariat
in words and the actions are quiet different. He created the
bureaucracy that stalin used so effectively in stifling dissent.
Dam gotta go be back in a bit.

Kropotkin

20

I’m not sure the criticism of Lenin is justified. I think we can both acknowledge that the civil war necessitated consolidation of power, and what has been deemed war-communism. Lenin had no intentions of keeping it that way forever.

As for Lenin creating the bureaucracy, I’ll let Lenin answer that himself.

Trotsky saw what Lenin was unable to see, that the offices set up to defeat the Bur. were actually making it worse. Had Lenin been healthy, I fully would have expected him to crush Stalin, but from his sick-bed when he finally realized what Stalin and the Bur. was donig he wrote

Lenin fought “with all his heart” against Stalin in the months before he died. He however kept it a secret, fearing that putting it into the public domain would fracture the party.

Read some of Lenin’s letters and speeches in the months before he dies. He rails against Stalin, the RABKRIN and Bur. in general.

If only Trotsky had taken over!!!