• Camarada ForteA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Marxist-Leninist is not valid term in my opinion, because Lenin is the continuation of Marx.

    You underestimate the relevance and importance of Lenin. No, Lenin is not a continuation of Marx, Lenin is Marx in practice. It’s clear by your rambling that, by stripping “Lenin”, that you have no care for revolutionary practice. What you call yourself is irrelevant, but to claim the term is invalid is just an spectacle of ignorance. At this point, you should very well stop calling yourself a “Marxist”, even. 😉

    • Soviet Pigeon
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You underestimate the relevance and importance of Lenin

      Do I? Where? By saying that I would call myself Marxist and not add more things because to it or just by talking about “Marxism” and not “Marxisim-Leninism” in general? That’s stupid.

      Lenin is not a continuation of Marx, Lenin is Marx in practice

      And therefore not a continuation? Mutual exclusive? Some would argue, that Lenin had nothing to do with Marx, like some pseudo-left might do it, but I don’t. Lenin is the continuation of Marx and of course Marx in practice.

      It’s clear by your rambling that, by stripping “Lenin”, that you have no care for revolutionary practice.

      I just always talk about Marxism as generally term, not adding Engels or Lenin. If this is your proof, that I don’t care for revolutionary practice, then revolutionary praxis probably means not much for you.

      What you call yourself is irrelevant, but to claim the term is invalid is just an spectacle of ignorance.

      I already explained often enough, that ML is still not a valid term for me, it doesnt even stop by Lenin and goes beyond the developments that occurred after his death. Where is the ignorance? That I use a different words which probably makes no difference at all and means the same?

      At this point, you should very well stop calling yourself a “Marxist”, even. 😉

      Thanks for the advice, great analysis at all. By thinking that ML is not valid term and others are better, while I am using ML in discussions, I am probably not a Marxist at all, but a full blood liberal. I will now throw everything away, immigrate to the USA as fast as I can, so I can vote for a party which supports genocide.

      • Camarada ForteA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Do I? Where? By saying that I would call myself Marxist and not add more things because to it or just by talking about “Marxism” and not “Marxisim-Leninism” in general? That’s stupid.

        By insisting on saying the term was invalid, so it’s not about what you call yourself. I’m explaining to you that is not only valid, but essential. It’s not just a label, it’s a political orientation. “Marxism” is broad, Marxism-Leninism is more specific and to the point.

        I already explained often enough, that ML is still not a valid term for me, it doesnt even stop by Lenin and goes beyond the developments that occurred after his death. Where is the ignorance?

        The fact that you are insisting on this discussion and your position is a political statement. The fact that you insist it’s an “invalid term” is either a presentation of your ignorance or cynicism. You could argue Marx is a continuation of Hegel and call yourself a Hegelian for what it’s worth. Why don’t you call yourself a Hegelian? Why call yourself Marxist at all?

        • Soviet Pigeon
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          “Marxism” is broad, Marxism-Leninism is more specific and to the point.

          It is broad, ML being more concrete still has the lack of being broad, since it tries to cover other historical splits which occurred.

          The fact that you are insisting on this discussion and your position is a political statement.

          I am just answering comments, simply not ignoring the replies. Since there is also the way to be proven wrong, I don’t see the need to ignore.

          You could argue Marx is a continuation of Hegel and call yourself a Hegelian for what it’s worth. Why don’t you call yourself a Hegelian? Why call yourself Marxist at all?

          Because there is an important breaking point between Marx and Hegel which also falls into contradiction between each other. So why not Marxist-Leninist? Because in my understanding this would mean, that it simply stops by the later one and is not going beyond this. My collected works of Stalin are even from the soviet “Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin” Institute and this to much in my opinion, by simply adding every name. So I came to the conclusion, that ML is not valid term, because it stops at an point, including the absolute importance or Lenin but not what was after that.

          • Camarada ForteA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            So why not Marxist-Leninist? Because in my understanding this would mean, that it simply stops by the later one and is not going beyond this.

            Does Marxism stop at Marx? 😒

            • Soviet Pigeon
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Hi, I cant continue this discussion any longer, because of some message in a comment somewhere, that I will be muted if I keep engaging. Like, seriously discussing the validity of this term. That’s a pity, since a long comment appeared which tries to explain why my position is wrong, but there is probably not much one can do about it here.

              • Camarada ForteA
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 hours ago

                I said myself you’d be muted if you continued, but I take that back. If you want to continue insisting on your flawed reasoning, go ahead.

                • Soviet Pigeon
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  19 hours ago

                  Oh so it was you the most time? I am not looking at names when I answer.

                  If you want to continue insisting on your flawed reasoning, go ahead.

                  Look, I tried to explain it quite often, with no bad intention at all. But you ignored most of the time what I wrote, because didn’t really took reference to it, you rather mock, being sarcastic. Even since I wrote, that I am simply answering and not insisting on a discussion and also may be proven wrong, your attitude is still the same. If this is the way how you would treat someone that you would like to agitate, I don’t think you would be successful, but its of course your decision.

                  Especially warning to mute one then spontaneously “I take that back”, won’t made me wanting to discuss with you at all and also not at this thread or however it called on this platform, because you will probably change your opinion on muting however you want. A longer comment made me think about this topic in another way and I will look at it deeper now, because I didn’t know few things.

                  However, there is no need to reply to this comment because it will likely be something sarcastic in a derogatory tone anyway and I will then ignore it then.

                  • Camarada ForteA
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    18 hours ago

                    Look, I tried to explain it quite often, with no bad intention at all.

                    So did I, comrade, but I’ve only received insistence, not counter-arguments on your part. Let’s review the conversation.

                    You said:

                    I personally only use “Marxist” and this is how I describe myself. Marxist-Leninist is not valid term in my opinion, because Lenin is the continuation of Marx

                    Many people all over the topic highlighted the importance of Lenin and how it’s not only a “continuation” of Marx, but a massive improvement of his works, and the first time Marx’s theories were put into practice. You seem to only focus on what people responded to you, and seem to be uninterested in the rest of the thread, so you replied,

                    As I said ML is not a valid term in my opinion and historically it was used after the establishing and banning of the “left opposition”, especially by Stalin.

                    Simply reiterating your position. Which, by the way, is FALSE, because Stalin did not coin or invent the term “Marxism-Leninism”, throughout the left opposition struggles, Stalin mostly used the term “Leninism”. The earliest instance of “Marxism-Leninism” I could find in a written work was in 1929, after the struggle against the so-called “left” opposition was already won. By that time, some Latin American parties such as the Communist Party of Peru, had already adopted Marxism-Leninism:

                    El capitalismo se encuentra en su estadio imperialista. Es el capitalismo de los monopolios, del capital financiero, de las guerras imperialistas por el acaparamiento de los mercados y de las fuentes de materias brutas. La praxis del socialismo marxista en este período es la del marxismo-leninismo. El marxismo-leninismo es el método revolucionario de la etapa del imperialismó, y de los monopoilos. El Partido socialista del Perú lo adopta como método de lucha.

                    Capitalism is in its imperialist stage. It is the capitalism of monopolies, of finance capital, of imperialist wars for the monopolization of markets and sources of raw materials. The praxis of Marxist socialism in this period is that of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is the revolutionary method of the stage of imperialism, and of monopolies. The Socialist Party of Peru adopts it as its method of struggle.

                    Notice it was published in 1929, but it was written in October 1928 by Mariátegui, before the earliest recorded usage of “Marxism-Leninism” by Stalin, which as far as I’ve researched, is from December 1928 in a speech The Right Danger in the German Communist Party. It’s possible other Soviet party members apart from Stalin used “Marxism-Leninism” before him. What’s important is that the term developed independently from the Soviet sphere and from Stalin itself, so stop associating the term “Marxism-Leninism” with Stalin, because Stalin mostly used the term Leninism until the late 1930’s.

                    Let’s proceed with your replies. I explained the importance of preserving the name of Lenin in the political orientation of a party or person, and I said that to claim the term “Marxism-Leninism” is invalid is just ignorance. You only repeated yourself and insisted:

                    I already explained often enough, that ML is still not a valid term for me, it doesnt even stop by Lenin and goes beyond the developments that occurred after his death.

                    Later, I argued,

                    What you call yourself is irrelevant, but to claim the term is invalid is just an spectacle of ignorance.

                    Does Marxism stop at Marx?

                    And then you ignored that and proceeded to focus on my tone, calling me mocking and sarcastic. Let’s review the tone you used beforehand:

                    Do I? Where? By saying that I would call myself Marxist and not add more things because to it or just by talking about “Marxism” and not “Marxisim-Leninism” in general? That’s stupid.

                    Well, I don’t want to be rude, but where the fuck did I want remove especially Lenin in his importance?

                    Instead of deflecting and crying about your tone, I proceeded to respond to you. I would expect you to do the same. So please proceed from where you left of.

                    You claimed “Marxism-Leninism” is not valid because it implies it “stops at Lenin”, and I questioned, “Does Marxism stop at Marx?”. Now please, go on, I’ve responded to all your arguments, I did not mock or was sarcastic to you, and I’m giving you all the liberty to respond. And once again, it’s not about what you call yourself, it’s about your claim that the term is invalid.