 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Strates
|
 |
Apolyton Socialist Labour Party
Jun 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
Maoist: "Damn it! We need a revolution! Lets build up our guerrilla forces and take over the government. The government should control the means of production for the benefit of the people."
Trotskyist: "The workers are being abused by the burgeoise and their ideology. The capitalist system cannot further the means of production anymore with out sacrificing the dignity of the people. Let us educate the workers and form strong unions all around the world so that the revolution may spread. Once the we our in power we should democratically control the means of production."
The chinese revolution what characterised it that it had an enormous effect in the subsequent development of the colonial revolution. But this revolution did not take place on the classical lines of the Russian revolution in 1917 or the Chinese revolution of 1925-27. The working class played no important role. Mao came to power on the basis of a mighty peasant war, in the traditions of China. The only way Mao was able to win the civil war of 1944-49 was by offering a programme of social liberation to the peasant armies of Chiang Kai-shek, who was armed and backed by American imperialism. But the Stalinist leaders of the peasant Red Army had no perspective of leading the workers to power as did Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. When Mao's peasant armies arrived at the cities, and the workers spontaneously occupied the factories and greeted Mao's armies with red flags, Mao gave the order that these demonstrations should be suppressed and the workers were shot.
Leninism is really nothing more than the extension of Marx's ideas into the age of imperialism (the age of the domination of finance capital and monopolies, and the total subjugation of the colonial world to the will of the major powers).
But there is still some confusion as far as Marxism/Leninism goes. There are those who follow Stalin, Mao, or Trotsky. Stalin and Mao were NOT Marxists, they were actually quite anti-Marxist in that they led regimes based not on democratic control of the state by the workers, but rather based on totalitarian control by an elite stratum of bureaucrats who were a parasite on the workers' state.
Trotskyism, or those who follow Leon Trotsky (who led the opposition to Stalin's reactionary policies after Lenin's death in 1924) is actually a continuation of Marxism/Leninism, but many people use the word Trotskyism to distinguish themselves from the Stalinists. Personally, I am in agreement with Trotsky, and see him as the continuer of Marxism/Leninism, but due to the negative connotations associated with Trotskyism (due to the fanatical and often ultra-left tactics and policies of many of his followers), I am content to stick with calling myself Marxist/Leninist, as Trotsky's ideas are an extension of that. Among Trotsky's most important contributions to Marxist theory are are his scientific analysis of the nature of Stalinism, and his ideas on the permanent revolution especially as regards the colonial world.
Last edited by Strates on 03-07-2002 at 02:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sixchan
|
 |
Sole member of the Apolyton 'let's all get along' club
Jun 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
If I had to pick, I'd rather have:
quote:
STALINISM: A degenerate form of Marxism-Leninism. While claiming to uphold the traditions of the ideologies, Stalinism institutes a vast bureaucratic hierarchy, stunt or destroy free speech and liberties, and completely centralizes the executive structure of the nation — usually around one demagogue. Socially, economically, and politically, Stalinism shifts chaotically from purist, ultra-leftism (violent collectivization of farms and other property, purging of non-Stalin leftists, the "Third Period", etc.) to reactionary conservatism (militarism, patriotism, anti-Semitism, the Popular Front, and strong persecution of civil dissent). Stalinism is one of the two main forms of Leninism (the other being Trotskyism). Economically, Stalinism relied on Five-Year Plans, a highly centralized and collectivist strategy of production planning. Politically, Stalinism practiced nationalism, believing in "Socialism in one country" (as opposed to Trotsky’s world Permanent Revolution). Strong Stalinist governmental policies were the norm in the USSR from 1923 until 1954, when Nikita Khrushchev began attempts to "de-Stalinize" Russia — causing a split with Maoist China. After Stalin was criticized by Khrushchev, many Stalinists changed their labels; these new lables included Maoist, Hoxhaist, Kimist, or simply Marxist-Leninist. Many Marxists of the world’s Left blame Stalinism for beginning the chain of events which eventually led to the destruction of the Soviet Union. Today, Stalinist political parties include the Russian Communist Party, the British Socialist Labour Party, and the Belgian Labour Party are all Stalinist. In America, the Communist Party USA, the Workers World Party, and the League of Revolutionaries for a New America all have Stalinist currents within them. |
Which is a far cry from the Idealistic Communist I once was.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stefu
It would seem to me that main differences between different communist factions is how to get in the end point.
Considering that none of their approaches seem to be working in United States, this disagreement seems to be self-defeating.  |
You are basically correct. There are also doctrinal differences, such as the nature of various revolutionary states, whether or not members have a right to publically disagree with a party, etc. A number of them have degenerated into cults-of-personality.
Some differences are more sever than others. For example, Maoists in the USA feel that the working class has been bought out by capitalism and are a reactionary class. Therefore they look to the lumpen proletariat, i.e., the Black underclass, gangs, the permanently unemployed, etc. as the force to overthrow capitalism. There really isn't any ground for common work between the rest of the left and Maoists except on specific occasions, such as anti-war work.
A lot of the differences are factional fights that are more than 50 years old.  One group accuses the other of having made the incorrect decision in 1956, another says that that party's conception of the People's Democracies were wrong, etc. and this is a reason why they can't work together. Idiots.
On the other hand, when it matters, most of these groups can forget their differences and work together, such as anti-war work, labor solidarity, etc.
What most people looking at the left fail to understand is that the growth of the left isn't dependent on what the left says or does, but by larger forces in society. The left didn't create the 60s, but they certainly helped guide it, and grew because of it. The left was growing again in the 1990s, and the Bush Administration looked to be a great recruiter for the left . . . and then 9/11. We'll recover, because the underlying problems in American capitalism haven't disappeared and have even gotten worse. But fighting the government while at war with a hidden enemy is not something that most folks are up for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I am none of those main three
Diffrences in different movements deal with what the end goal is as well as the method of going there
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
I was thinking about the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments in particular.
Here they are
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sixchan
|
|
Sole member of the Apolyton 'let's all get along' club
Jun 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
I can be convinced the other way, but considering that I was once an Idealistic Communist with all the 'freedom to the masses', 'nothing to lose but your chains' and such, and also ferociously Anti-American that it took a VERY good argument and lots of personal experience to change me, and to change me back, though not impossible, would be difficult because I see what was wrong with my viewpoint back then.
Ever read Plato's book, 'The Republic'? The Fascism I want is something quite similar, and have coined the term 'Sunetocracy' (meaning Intelligent Power). If you want, I could dig up my social system proposal, but if not, I don't want to bore you.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2002 02:02
The stalinist project failed in Eastern Europe. And Stalin was anti-Marxist after all. Surely the old USSR can´t be anything worth striving for?
|