10 /2 4/ 20 14 Nach ie co mmen ts o n EL I5 :Wha t a re t he dif fe rences be tween th e bra nch es of Commu nism; Le nin ism, Ma rxism, Trot skyism, e tc? http://w ww. r eddi t.com /r /ex pl ai nl ikei mfi ve/com ments/2j1 9ed/el i5wh at_ar e the dif fere nces_betw een the_bra nc hes/c l7w y12 1/26 remember me reset password login search this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2014 2,997points(91% upvoted) shortlink: http://redd.it/2j19 goodredditor •••••••••••• 3,578,730 readers 4,943 online E is for explain. This is for concep ts you' d like tounderstand better; not for simple one word answers, walkthroug hs, or persona l prob lems. LI5 means friendly, simplified and layman- accessible explanations. Not responses aimed at literal five year olds (which can be patronizing). important information sorted by: you are viewing a single comment's thread. view the rest of the comments → [–]Nachie 530 points 10 days ago* Shit. When I saw this pop up on the front page I swore I wouldn't click and see what kind of responses were in it, but now I've looked and can't go back. I'm piggybacking on the topcomment and adopting the same format. I don't think anyone will read t his since the topic is already hours old, but here we go: Communism = NOT a system, a state, a type of government , or an economy that one puts into place or forces others to put intoplace. Rather, communism (little c!) is a term used to describe the . Thisi s somewhat confused by the fact thatwe can also use "primitive communism" to descri be specific tribal societies in whi ch property was held in common yet the means ofproduction were not sufficiently developed to produce complex global culture. Nevertheless, "communism" was used by Marx primarily to describe an ongoing historical tenden cy: "Communism is for us not a state ofaffairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism UNSUBSCRIBE rep ort spam post or comment Read the rulesbefore commenting orsubmitting. • Search before submittingwith keywords from your topic. The search box is in the upper right corner of the subreddit. • Please be neutral in your explanations, and note your personal bias in contro versial t opics. • explained unexplained reset ELI5:What are the differences between the branches ofCommunism; Leninism, Marxism, Trotskyism, etc? submitt ed 11 days ago by DuceGiharm 927 comment s share pocket best tendency in human history towards communityre l ate d other d i scu ssi ons (2 ) comments request an explanation
Transcript
8/17/2019 Nachie Comments on ELI5_What Are the Differences Between the Branches of Communism; Leninism, Marxism, T…
This is for concepts you'd like to understandbetter; not for simple one word answers,walkthroughs, or personal problems.
LI5 means friendly, simplified and layman-acces si ble explanatio n s .
Not responses aimed at literal five year olds(which can be patronizing).
important information
sorted by:
you are viewing a single comment'sthread.view the rest of the comments →
[–] Nachie 530 points 10 days ago*
Shit. When I saw this pop up on thefront page I swore I wouldn't click andsee what kind of responses were in it,but now I've looked and can't go back.I'm piggy backing on the top commentand adopting the same format. I don't
think anyone will read t his since thetopic is already hours old, but here wego:
Communism = NOT a system, astate, a type of government, oran economy that one puts intoplac e or forces others to putinto place. Rather, communis m(litt le c!) is a term used todes cribe the
.
This i s some what confused bythe f act that we can also use"primitive communism" todescri be specific tribal societiesin whi ch property was held incommon yet the means of production were not sufficientlydeveloped to produce complexglobal culture. Nevertheless,"communism" was used by Marxprimarily to describe an ongoinghistorical tendency:
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established,an ideal to which reality will have toadjust itself. We call communism
UNSUBSCRIBE
rep ort spam post or comment
Read the rules before commenting or submitting.
•
Search before submitting with keywordsfrom your topic. The search box is in theupper right corner of the subreddit.
•
Please be neutral in your explanations,and note your personal bias incontroversial topics.
•
explained unexplained resetELI5:What are the differencesbetween the branches of Communism; Leninism,Marxism, Trotskyism, etc?
the real movement which abolishesthe present state of things. Theconditions of this movement resultfrom premises now in existence." -Karl Marx
Marxism = aka "ScientificSocialism" is the body of thought first developed by KarlMarx and Friedrich Engels.Unfortunately the topcommenter has identifiedMarxism primarily as an"economic critique" of capitalism, which doing Marx aterrible disservice. Marxism isnot merely an anti-capitalisttheory: it is a fully worked-outscientific philosophy thatengages with the material world
on rational terms. It is literallythe most powerful synthesis of human thought ever assembled,predating modern discoveries ineverything from evolution toquantum mechanics, and that iswhat it needs to be since it aimsto supplant the dominantideology in society (bourgeoisideology; capitalism, the freemarket, etc.)
The core of Marxism can roughly bedescribed in three parts: DialecticalMaterialism, Historical Materialism, andthe Labor Theory of Value. I'll attemptto describe them:Dialectical Materialism is thephilosophy of Marxism. It teaches us tolook at the world so that rather thanseeing things as abstracted concepts,we may appreciate them in all their lifeand movement. At the same time,Marx’s assertion that our consciousnessis determined by the materialconditions of our lives acts as agrounding anchor in communist politicalwork.Historical Materialism is theapplication of Marxism to the study of human history. Through this lens itbecomes clear that the evolution of culture and civilization arises not fromthe great ideas of a chosen few, butrather as a direct consequence of themeans by which the reproduction of society is organized.The Labor Theory of Value is at thecore of Marxist Economics. AlthoughMarxism can hardly be reduced to an
Direct replies to the original post (aka"top-level comments") are for seriousresponses only. Jokes, anecdotes, andlow effort explanations, are not permittedand subject to removal.
•
Don't post just to express an opinion or argue a point of view.
•
After receiving an adequate explanation,
OP should mark the post Explained .Explained posts are still open todiscussion!
•
ELI5 isn't a guessing game; if you aren'tconfident in your explanation, please don'tspeculate.
•
ELI5 Tip: Do not forget to include the ELI5: tag at the
economic discipline, many have bestcome to understand it through theseprinciples. For Marx, value is a socialrelationship, a living interactionbetween people. Understood as such,the most basic truth about capitalism islaid bare: that it fundamentally relieson the exploitation of human labor.(please note that what the current topcommenter is describing as DialecticalMaterialism is actually HistoricalMaterialism)Of course, Marxism has been developedfurther since the 1800's and there aremany strands out there. Guy Debord's
, for instance,has been called "the Das Kapital of the20th Century" and forms the Marxistbasis of the critiques of mass culturewe see in films/books like Fight Club.
Leninism = We need to getsomething straight: much asMarx never called himself aMarxist, there was no"Leninism" until after Lenin wasdead and the Sovietbureaucracy under Stalinneeded to invent a state religionto justify its own existence(think of in North Korea,except that "Leninism" wasimported to Marxistorganizations all over theworld).
The basis of "Leninism" as we see itapplied today is chiefly based on acaricature of the Bolshevik party as itexisted in the darkest days of theRussian Civil War, i.e. at its mostcentralized, militarized, andauthoritarian. In particular the type of "follow Moscow's lead" faux-internationalism that was imported tothe global communist movement playeda major role in destroying revolutions inSpain, Greece, France, Italy, etc. (andthat's just in the first half of the lastcentury!)This caricature (Leninism) consistsprimarily of two ideas: firstly, that theworking class in and of itself cannotreach revolutionary consciousness inthe brief window of time offered by
revolutionary situations caused bymaterial conditions in the breakdown of capitalism, and so in order for socialismto prevail there must be an organizedintervention by an intellectual class. I'llleave the debate there, but suffice to
Society of the Spectacle
Juche
8/17/2019 Nachie Comments on ELI5_What Are the Differences Between the Branches of Communism; Leninism, Marxism, T…
say that questions of leadership arevery important in Marxist strategy.The other pillar of "Leninism" is the so-called theory of imperialism, in whichLenin lays out his belief that in the"final stage" of capitalism, conflict willtake place not so much betweenclasses, as between "imperialist" statesand non-imperialist states (see:colonialism, USA in South America, soon and so forth). This ideology hasunfortunately led to all sorts of (IMHO)ridiculous and anti-Marxist politics, asthe Marxist position has always beenthat the ruling and working classes areboth international and as suchresistance to capitalism should alwaysbe based along class, not national,lines.
Stalinism = after the defeat of the Western revolutions in thewake of the Russian revolution -in particular the Germanrevolution of 1918, the sovietstate was isolated and forced tosurvive in material conditionscompletely inhospitable tosocialism. Socialism can only beinternational, since it relies onthe idea that all of humanity willhave common access to the
latest technology andtechniques. Russia was left withan embryonic workers' statewithout the sophistication anddevelopment to actuallyimplement socialism (Russiahad not fully developed itscapitalist economy prior to therevolution).
As a result, a bureaucratic class aroseto manage the state economy and
dictate what would be produced andwhere, typically with very littleemphasis on the production of consumer goods. This style of economicmanagement and politicalauthoritarianism is what is commonlyknown as "Stalinism". The ability toconcentrate all state resources into thedevelopment of industry allowed fortremendous economic growth that hasnever been matched by any capitalisteconomy, allowing Russia to become asuperpower almost overnight, but thistype of state-managed capitalism hasnever been able to solve fundamentalproblems of the boom and bust cycle.And obviously, it has never created a
8/17/2019 Nachie Comments on ELI5_What Are the Differences Between the Branches of Communism; Leninism, Marxism, T…
true workers' state.We should also mention that much asthe Stalinists are the only ones whospeak of "Marxism-Leninism", so too isit mostly the Trotskyists who critiqueanyone as "Stalinist".
Trotskyist = The topcommenter's information here ispretty spot-on.Maoism = There was a failedrevolution in China in 1928,after which the defeatedcommunist party fled to thecountryside and established abase among the peasantry, whowere the largest class inChinese society at the time.
Over enough years, "Maoism"developed - the idea that the peasantscould be the actual revolutionary class,and that power could be taken througha protracted "people's war" in thecountryside, eventually capturingenough territory to surround the citiesand take power. The ongoing civil warin India is probably the best present-day example of Maoism in action (seeNepal, as well).How Maoism plays out in the first worldis sort of too ridiculous to explore sinceits peasant-based ideology is turningMarxism on its head in the first place,but it will often center heavily aroundaesthetics and armed struggle of somekind. The cult of personality is alwayshuge, and curiously a positive attitudetowards Stalin is present since theSino-Soviet Split (where Chinese andSoviet foreign policy began to clash)happened after Stalin's death. TheChinese dressed their interests up inthe veil of "anti-imperialism" and a sortof "third world revolution" acrossAfrica, Asia, and South America. A veryhandy strategy for gaining access tothose markets and raw materials, of course.This clash in foreign policy is also thereason why some people will speak of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" as opposedto "Marxism-Leninism": they representthe official state religions of MaoistChina and Stalinist Russia respectively,each in competition with each other asa capitalist nation managed by abureaucratic elite but competing in theworld capitalist market according to itsrules, and neither representing anything
8/17/2019 Nachie Comments on ELI5_What Are the Differences Between the Branches of Communism; Leninism, Marxism, T…
close to the true definition of Marxismor communism.I hope this has been useful to someone.
permalink parent pocket
[–] Jokeydjokovic 17 points 10 days ago
Appreciate the deeper diving.permalink parent pocket
[–] Nachie 19 points 10 days ago
Thanks for reading! I was prettysure it was going to be pointlessto type all that out, but it'sawesome if even one personfound it useful.permalink parent pocket
[–] D-Hex 8 points 9 days ago
At last someone who actuallyknows what they're talking
about when it comes toMarx.. that's a rarity onReddit.permalink parent pocket
[–] pulpified 3 points 9 daysago
That's a rarity in a lot of places.permalink parent pocket
[–] EmperorXenu 1 point9 days ago
Yeah, tell me aboutit. I live in Texas. Ikeep my mouthfucking SHUT aboutpolitics. Try tellingpeople you're aMarxist in Texas. Itdoesn't go well.permalink parent
pocket
[–] Ra inholly42 56 points 10 days ago* /u/Nachie is probably gonna get aton of flak for saying
It is literally the most powerfulsynthesis of human thought everassembled
the way he phrasedit, but I think I have an idea as towhat he was referring to.If you read the first chapter of DasKapital, you'll see that what Marxwas working on was a thoroughtheory of capitalism, in a verymathematical style. The manner of writing in Das Kapital is something
you hardly come across these days,aside from physics or mathtextbooks. I highly recommend justchecking out the first page of thefirst chapter (scroll to pg. 26) .In the first chapter, he defines anddescribes use value, exchangevalue, and value, and it looks verymuch like he is laying out thefundamental units for the theory of capitalism. Further up in chapter 4,he makes an abstraction of capital:M -> C -> M'. This is an importantaxiom in the Labour theory of value.And it doesn't stop there: there'sbook 1, and 2 and he Died before hecould finish his work, which shouldgive you an idea of the magnitude of the work he was attempting.You cannot read the CommunistManifesto and infer that that'show Das Kapital is written. TheCommunist Manifesto was writtenwith literary flourishes aplentydesigned to rouse the passions of the common man, the proletariat.His main work, Das Kapital, on theother hand, is arguably closelymodelling the analytical rigour of Euclid's Elements.edit: some corrections
Source: In college, I had to studythe actual text in Das Kapital and theCommunist Manifesto, not just someauthor summarising the gist of thetext or reading a summary of "Marxism".permalink parent pocket
[–] DiscordiasFavoredSon 28 points 10days ago
I don't see where the flak is, butthat line did stand out asremarkably biased andunfounded compared to theinformative tone of the rest of the writing.I assumed he was referring tothe of Marxism tocause change more thananything else. Still it reads asincredibly sensationalized andheavy-handed.permalink parent pocket
[–] Rainholly42 9 points 10 daysago
Apologies. His comment wasposted onto another sub, andit was getting flak over
there. I typed my commentwith the original intention topost it there, but i thought itmight best be posted hereinstead.permalink parent pocket
[+] [deleted] 9 days ago* (6 children)
[–] Ponderay 6 points 10 days ago
Leninism = We need to getsomething straight: much asMarx never called himself aMarxist, there was no "Leninism"until after Lenin was dead andthe Soviet bureaucracy underStalin needed to invent a statereligion to justify its ownexistence (think of Juche inNorth Korea, except that
"Leninism" was imported toMarxist organizations all overthe world).
Lennin lays out his views veryclearly in What is to Be Done andthe State and Revolution. Given thatStalin certainly idolized Lenin you allof the views you say are caricaturesof Lenin were clearly stated in hiswritings.permalink parent pocket
[–] RickRussellTX 14 points 9 days ago
Labor Theory of Value
While I'll be the first to admit that Iknow little about Marx beyond hiseconomic contributions, the labortheory of value has been soundlydebunked by about a century of economic study. In addition to somefairly significant logical problems inMarx's own writings , the labortheory has been widely discreditedas it makes predictions that are notsupported by empirical data .permalink parent pocket
[–] EmperorXenu -4 points 9 days ago
So, what you're saying is, youdon't really know anything aboutMarx, but you're very sure histheories are wrong.permalink parent pocket
Great post, thanks. Could you pleasedo some explaining on modern daysouth american socialism?permalink parent pocket
[–] Nachie 24 points 10 days ago
Sure! I am a Brazilian and havespent some time in Venezuelastudying the revolution downthere, which I assume is a bigpart of what you're askingabout?Venezuela is an interesting case.There was a massive uprising in1989 that was put down harshlyby the state and afterwardsalmost everyone turnedcompletely against the two-partysystem that had ruled there for
decades (much like in the US).Over the 1990's the socialmovements grew more radicaland you started to see thingslike feminism,environmentalism, gay rights,etc. being discussed in thestreet. By and large, all of thesemovements were rejectingelectoral politics.Enter Hugo Chavez and his
Movement for a Fifth Republic, awildly populist and bombastictype of politician who only manyyears into his term(s) begandescribing himself as "socialist"or talking about what thatactually meant.So South American socialismright now has two chief characteristics: it has usedmoney from hydrocarbons andother natural resources to feedmassive social programs (health,literacy, etc.) that are incrediblypopular and secure a social basein the working classes.At the same time, this is thevehicle through which populistbureaucrats have been able todivert the social movementsback into electoral politics.Venezuela's government today isrife with opportunist capitalistsat every level, working covertlyand overtly to stifle the progressof the revolution (make nomistake - there was an actualrevolution, it's just taking an
electoral detour) away fromsocialism. Dissatisfaction withthe way the revolution has beenhandled is very high inVenezuelan society and thelikelihood of some type of civilwar erupting is totally real.The problem is this: you cannotlegislate capitalism out of existence. Sure, a "workersgovernment" can take powerdemocratically, but at somepoint that same government isgoing to need to expropriate allthe "levers" of the economy(banks, big farms, factories,etc.) that actually make i t run.Even in the oil industry, theChavistas had to fight a long anddrawn out battle to gain control
even when PDVSA (the state oilcompany) was alreadynationalized!As you can imagine, suchexpropriations would be seriousqualitative leaps in the situationand would be geopolitical gamechangers. The exciting thing is,we really are living in a periodwhere a genuine socialistrevolution only needs to pop off
in one corner of the globe and,through the internet and massmedia, the lessons will spreadfaster than they ever couldbefore.But anyway, neither Chavez (andnow Maduro) in Venezuela norMorales in Bolivia, etc. havebeen able to go beyond the legalstructures, market relations, andclass stratification that definescapitalism. In order to do sothey would have to openly breakthe global "consensus" (by whichI mean capitalist dictatorship)that property ownership issacred and you cannot just stealall the millionaires' shit whenthey aren't directing the mass of societal resources towards thebetterment of humanity.Here are some countries whereit is worth looking at what is
happening in the communistmovement right now, becauseit's important to the politics of the whole globe:
- there is an openSouth Africa
8/17/2019 Nachie Comments on ELI5_What Are the Differences Between the Branches of Communism; Leninism, Marxism, T…
split now between members of the government (ANC, SouthAfrican "Communist" Party, etc.)and more radical elements, andwe're probably going to seesome huge turbulence in theirpolitical system as the majorityof workers realize that thepromise of a just society afterthe end of Apartheid was totallysquandered for the sake of capitalist development andaccess to the world market.
- SYRIZA is essentially acommunist party whoseleadership has begun to sell outmajorly as soon as it started toget into power. This sell-outmeans they will not do as well inthe next elections, but it's still
worth looking at. The GreekCommunist Party (KKE) alsoremains a mass movement withinfluence in society.
- Look at the rise of PODEMOS. Actually this is animportant example of therestructuring of European politicsin general as the massmovements against austerity(their equivalent to Occupy) try
to find some political purchase. - the uprising in the Eastof the country has been called"Pro-Russia" but is really morecorrectly described as "pro-Soviet" with heavily anti-oligarchic leanings. As always,the narrative on the ground ismore complex than the oneoffered by the media.
- All those badass
Kurds fighting ISIS and basicallyserving as the only point of hopein a situation gone fucked? Well,they're commies. Look up theWorkers Party of Kurdistan(PKK) and their history,especially in terms of Turkeytrying to wipe them out.There are others of course...actually the whole world is goingcrazy right now politically.Marxism offers the only rationaland complete method by whichto look at capitalism in its periodof wild decay - inefficiency,waste, and war becomingwidespread - and try to turn
Greece
Spain
Ukraine
Kurdistan
8/17/2019 Nachie Comments on ELI5_What Are the Differences Between the Branches of Communism; Leninism, Marxism, T…
things around into a future thatdoesn't totally suck.permalink parent pocket
[–] blackbootz 6 points 10 daysago
I'm fascinated and want tolearn more about theseexamples.
- the uprising inthe East of the countryhas been called "Pro-Russia" but is reallymore correctly describedas "pro-Soviet" withheavily anti-oligarchicleanings. As always, thenarrative on the groundis more complex than theone offered by themedia.
- All thosebadass Kurds fightingISIS and basicallyserving as the only pointof hope in a situationgone fucked? Well,they're commies. Lookup the Workers Party of Kurdistan (PKK) and theirhistory, especially in
terms of Turkey trying towipe them out.There are others of course... actually thewhole world is goingcrazy r ight nowpolitically. Marxismoffers the only rationaland complete method bywhich to look atcapitalism in its period of wild decay - inefficiency,waste, and war becomingwidespread - and try toturn things around into afuture that doesn't totallysuck.
I guess I want to ask for asource to learn more fromabout Marxism. Especially inthe way you've beenpresenting it.
two chief characteristics:it has used money fromhydrocarbons and othernatural resources to feedmassive social programs(health, literacy, etc.)that are incrediblypopular and secure asocial base in theworking classes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking economics, how doesthat work?
permalink parent pocket
[–] VT-Sensational 3 points 9 daysago
wild decay - inefficiency,waste, and war becoming
widespread - and try toturn things around into afuture that doesn't totallysuck.
U wot m8?We're better off than everand practically everything isgetting better everywhere byany measurable statistic.There's less war and lessdeaths to violence than therehas ever been before.Capitalism and the globaleconomy is expanding fasterthan ever and becomingmore efficient every day.permalink parent pocket
[–] untaken-username 1point 9 days ago
I agree that capitalism,property rights, a(relatively) fair andimpartial justice systemand many more thingshave worked in tandemto allow for an incredibleincrease in standard of living and aggregatewealth.However, the currenteconomic model falters abit once you no longerhave scarcity. One wayto stop the end of scarcity is to do soartificially (copyright lawfor electronicinformation, for
instance), but imagineone day that food orother real goods can beproduced at virtuallyzero cost and in virtuallyunlimited abundance.What then?And make no mistake,
we are heading in thatdirection and will have tograpple with thesechallenges someday.permalink parent pocket
[–] VT-Sensational 2points 9 days ago
What then?
Then the consumersenjoy an unlimitedabundance of saidgoods?permalink parent
pocket
[–] untaken-username 1 point 9days ago
That's presumingscarcity isn'timposedartificially. Howare we going totransition to apost scarcityeconomic modeland sociologicalworldview?permalink parent
pocket
[–] VT-Sensational 2points 9 days ago
That'spresumingscarcityisn'timposedartificially
Yep.
How arewe goingtotransitionto a postscarcityeconomicmodel
You seem to missthe point.When there is anunlimitedquantity of aresource, in thissystem inparticular, saidresource losesvalue quickly. Novalue means noincentive toproduce (becauseit's worthless)and thus noenjoyment for"consumers."Does that help?permalink parent
pocket
[–] VT-Sensational 3points 9 daysago*
Whenthere isanunlimitedquantityof aresource,
in thissystem inparticular,saidresourcelosesvaluequickly.No valuemeans noincentivetoproduce(becauseit'sworthless)and thus
So why are foodprices rising? Are weexpecting a newgreen revolution?permalink parent
pocket
[–] untaken-username 1 point 9
days agoIncreaseddemand due tobiofuels?The world growsfar more thanenough food tofeed everyone onthis planet threesquare meals aday. And only a
fraction of thepopulation indevelopedcountries work inagriculture.permalink parent
pocket
[–] raajneesh 2 points 10 days ago
Yes, I'm brazil ian too andI've been recently toVenezuela on vacations,that's why I'm asking. Thingslook really bad there, I'vestayed only for a week andbeen through 5 powershortages and saw the longlines people make to buydeodorant and other basichygiene stuff. The value of the dollar in the blackmarket is brutal, and most of the people I've talked wantto leave (normally toPanama). It's really sadwhat's going on there, it's abeautiful country with lovelypeople, I hope they recover,but there's not much hope
Hey Nachie, thank you forthese posts, they are veryinformative. What is youranalysis of other SouthAmerican countries such asBrazil, Ecuador, Argentinaand Chile?permalink parent pocket
[–] softmaker 1 point 2 days ago
What you wrote of Venezuelais very true, and is used bymany of us as one of themain arguments againstChávez's revolution:
But anyway, neitherChavez (and nowMaduro) in Venezuela norMorales in Bolivia, etc.have been able to gobeyond the legalstructures, marketrelations, and classstratification that definescapitalism. In order to doso they would have toopenly break the global
"consensus" (by which Imean capitalistdictatorship) thatproperty ownership issacred
My perception is that after15 years of class tug of warand struggle that hasdefinitely exhausted anentire generation, thedeliverable is a half baked
implementation of statecapitalism that simplyresulted in power andeconomical switch fromtraditional to new oligarchs.What do you, as asympathizer of Communismwould have seen donedifferently in Venezuela?What would be the timeframe and metrics of a
"successful revolution"? Whatmaterial and human costsare acceptable for a changein your views?O que você faz da vida?primeira vez que vejo um
Brasileiro escrevendoinformação de primeira mão,sem generalizações, do queacontece no meu país.permalink parent pocket
[–] zimoc 3 points 9 days ago*
I'm way too late, but my two centsfor the discussion..I belive that a central part of theMaoist ideology is not presentedhere. It is probably because itbecames apparent years after therevolution where Mao got to power.In the core of Maoism is the idea of constant revolution. Note that this isnot the same as Trotskian idea of permanent revolution.Maoist ideology rests on the ideathat society must be constantly in arevolutionary movement and thatthis is the only way to reallyequalize people. This isrevolutionazing underline isrepresented in all of Maos "projects"e.g. The Great Leap Forward, and itis even in the name of the CulturalRevolution. The dark side of revolutions are of course the humancosts they usually require, whichwere also present in Maos
"projects." Maoist idea was to keeprevolutionazin different parts of society in turns to keep things fromstabilizing and forming new socialclasses and structures and thuskeeping the communist revolution inmovement towards the mysticalbright future.This constant revolution is whatmakes Maoism radically differentfrom say Stalinism. A communistgoverment is usually depicted(espicially in west) as somethingstatic, being against change, andpromoting stability over everything.Maoist ideology throws all this out of the window and replaces stabilitywith idea of constant radical change(this might be why Maoismsurprisingly found supporters inyouth movements of Western Europein the late 1960's as they were alsofor radical change in society).
The Cultural Revolution depicts thisrevolutionary theme wery well as itwas probably the largest undertakingof its kind ever. The CulturalRevolution of course had its politicalgoals as Mao was working to get
back to the center of power in China.but that aside the CulturalRevolution's ideological idea wasthat China in that time had a wholegeneration that had no experiece of revolution and thus could not reallyunderstand or be part of thecommunist ideology. So CulturalRevolution was Mao's route back topower and it was to provide arevolutionary movement to shakethe society out of the newly formedsocial structure to keep Chinamoving towards the undefined truecommunism. In a sense it was Maosproject of re-revolutinazing China tomake sure that the socialreformation process keeps moving.Projects like the Cultural Revolutionor the Great Leap Forward are often
depicted as complete madness, butwhen thought in terms of revolutionary activity they can beunderstood at least in some sense.permalink parent pocket
[–] MeowSchwitzInThere 2 points 9 daysago
This was both useful and a greatread. Thank you!permalink parent pocket
[–] Denny_Craine 2 points 8 days ago
Hey man, great summary. Good tosee someone with actual knowledgeof socialist theory on reddit. I'm ananarchist, I've always been veryinterested in Marxism (particularlyLibertarian Marxism like theSituationists) and definitely describemyself as "Marxian" in my analysisof politics and history. Anywho I waswondering if you're familiar withanarchist history and theory? And if so what you think of groups likeNestor Makhno's Black Army and theCNT and the EZLN (not explicitlyanarchist nor Marxist, but come on,it's both)?Also as a South American, what'syour opinion of Che? I've alwaysfound South American views of himas much more interesting andnuanced. Obviously me and himhave some fundamental
disagreements in regards tosocialism, but I respect who he wasand what he did deeply.permalink parent pocket
Hey!Yes, I'm familiar with thosegroups, thanks for asking. Mygreat grandfather was actually inthe CNT :)Many years ago I wrote anaccount of my time in Venezuelafor a group called RAAN whichwas a union of Marxists andanarchists (look it up!)I'll quote you a section from thattext that deals with Che, becauseI think you'd appreciate it:
As was put to me by one of the lead personalities in thecrew, "Here in Latin Americawe have our own heroessuch as Marti, Guevara, and
Miranda."To elaborate on this, I'd liketo say that Ernesto "Ché"Guevara definitely deservesto be put into his owncategory. To begin with,North American anarchistsrarely understand theimportance of this man as ahistorical figure for socialstruggles in the global South.The "untouchability" of hisimage remains a point of frustration to those who seehim only as either anauthoritarian responsible forCastroism, or acommercialized silhouettedevoid of all revolutionarycontent. To label Ché as anorthodox Leninist is anoversimplification given hisown preference for violent
guerrilla struggle, not tomention that it is difficult tolabel him an authoritarianwhen he willingly renouncedhis position in the higheststrata of the Cubanbureaucracy in order to fightand die in isolated foreigncampaigns. To the majorityof oppressed people in SouthAmerica and around theworld, Ché remains anincredibly accessible point of reference as a revolutionarydriven by deep personal lovefor humankind and thestruggle for liberation; it is
8/17/2019 Nachie Comments on ELI5_What Are the Differences Between the Branches of Communism; Leninism, Marxism, T…
this non-ideological aspectthat is usually completelylost on anarchists.To be sure, there is plenty inboth Ché's thought andactions that must be exposedand rejected. But an analysisof his evolving ideology andpersonal writings reveals aman who was evolvingdirectly away from theSoviet Union's conception of "communism", even going sofar as to realize in hislifetime that the USSR wasitself imperialist, anduncommitted in any way tothe liberation of peoples inthe global South. Had helived, it would be my
assertion that we would belisting him alongside namessuch as Luxemburg,Dunayevskaya, and Negri asMarxists who over the courseof their lives came toradically differentconclusions about the natureof revolutionary struggle andfully rejected the Leninistparadigm.
This is not an attempt byRAAN to "reclaim" theimagery of Ché Guevara, butrather a very necessarymove towards placing him inthe proper historical context-- one that has remainedunintelligible to many anti-authoritarians and deservesan especially close study if one is to fully understand theVenezuelan situation.
Ultimately, the tragedy of Ché Guevara's life is that hedid not live to see the failureof his own tactics as globalcapital and the United Statesin particular quickly adaptedto guerrilla warfare andlearned how to fight the"Guevarist" movements to astandstill in which theyeventually starved
themselves of momentumand popular support. It is myassertion that this led to thebiggest -- and really, only --backdoor of legitimacy forMaoism in this hemisphere,
8/17/2019 Nachie Comments on ELI5_What Are the Differences Between the Branches of Communism; Leninism, Marxism, T…
and exploring the universaland romantic appeal of ChéGuevara is key tounderstanding why groupslike the Black Panthers andeven modern US hip-hopculture as a whole haveremained much moreinfluenced by authoritarianand vanguardist left-wingtendencies than they shouldhave been, a fact thatfrustrates orthodoxanarchists to no end.
permalink parent pocket
[–] antaries 3 points 10 days ago
This is much better than the, franklyshit, response currently at the top.permalink parent pocket
[–] PyroNavi 2 points 9 days ago
No gold? Let's fix that.permalink parent pocket
[–] Bartweiss 2 points 10 days ago
Thanks for this - know that it's beenuseful to another person, and Icurrently have it saved. I've beendragged through American educationand some teachers forcing abad version of Marxist literaryanalysis on me. The result is that Iwas clear on the fundamentalprinciples of Marxism (which the topcomment gets wrong) but viewed itas an incoherent and fundamentallymistaken system.It's a great experience to get a solidsummary of how Marxism can beconsistent and competently wielded,and raises the point that a lot of it'smost obvious "follies" are betterviewed as points of contrast withprevailing ideology.permalink parent pocket
[–] mdedwards 2 points 9 days ago
Where has Marxism as youdescribed ever been demonstratedto flourish in a nation or among apeople? Appreciate the depth youbrought.permalink parent pocket
[–] G-Bombz 1 point 9 days ago
You seem to know yer shit, so may Iask, what do you think is the best"way" for the world to operate?permalink parent pocket
To call this a civil war is tocall racism in Americaslavery. Let's avoidhyperbolizing the truth tofurther out viewpoints.permalink parent pocket
[–] SteelChicken -2 points 10 days ago
It is literally the most powerfulsynthesis of human thought everassembled!
permalink parent pocket
[–] WarriorHealer -4 points 10 days ago
This explanation fucked the topcomment in the fucking ass. Great
job, and thanks!permalink parent pocket
[–] ExPwner -3 points 9 days ago
You had a great explanation goinguntil you said this:
It is literally the most powerfulsynthesis of human thought ever
assembledEven the most basic of minds canunderstand that value is subjective,which blows the labor theory of value completely out of the water.permalink parent pocket
[–] Uchuujin_Haryuhdo -2 points 9 days ago
most powerful synthesis of though ever assembled.
Dude, just no. Its a silly system,nothing morepermalink parent pocket
![Notes on the History of Spanish Marxism-Leninism...Notes on the History of Spanish Marxism-Leninism —Gnidn de Lucha Marxista-Leninista [Marxist-Leninist CInion of Struggle] (formerly](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5f0a0e1d7e708231d429cc33/notes-on-the-history-of-spanish-marxism-leninism-notes-on-the-history-of-spanish.jpg)
