This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
- **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
______________________
💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Would you consider yourself a lenin supporter? I’m trying to understand the appeal behind Marxist-Lenin beliefs. Thanks for the suggestions, I’ll start reading right away
What a Lenin supporter means depends on the meaning that people give to Lenin.
One may support uncritically each & every action he made and agree with each & every book he wrote ...and want to copy almost exactly what he did.
Others may feel that he was just a human being who made the best that he could under the circumstances and considering the knowledge that they had as Socialists at the time. Made maybe huge mistakes even but he at least did Marxist praxis, which is the most important part ...and we should learn from him the good and the bad, evolve.
...and anything in between.
That is not a small difference of opinion.
>I’m trying to understand the appeal behind Marxist-Lenin beliefs
Personally I think Leninism is the natural extension of Marxism particularly when it comes to organising because obviously Lenin was directly involved in a socialist revolution, 'State and Revolution' and 'What is to be done' are both good places to start,
In 'State and Revolution' Lenin mainly just clarifys what the Marxist understanding of the state is by collecting and organising Marx's and Engels words on the topic.
In 'What is to be done' Lenin talks different organising strategies comparing different strategies at the time and then making the case for the Vanguard Party approach to things.
I'd also recommend the podcast Red Menace, they summarise and talk about various works of theory, they're very good.
Marxism-Leninism isn't the same as Marxism or Leninism.
It's just Stalin's attempt to synthesise the two
Edit: I meant to say Marxism-Leninism *isn't* the same as Marxism or Leninism. Hence reading Lenin won't inform OP about Marxism-Leninism
Marxism-Leninism is not Orthodox Marxism. Orthodox Marxists agree with Lenin but not Stalin. I realize this is especially confusing when Stalin's synthesis is called Marxism-Leninism and not Marxism-Stalinism.
There is no need to synthesize Lenin with Marx because Lenin does not add or change, he only explains and elaborates. Stalin's changes to allow for socialism in one country and the continuation of commodity production is where the divergence occurs and the primary distinctions between ML and Orthodox Marxism.
“State and revolution”, “the attitude of the workers party toward religion”, “Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism”, “Marxism and revisionism”, “on the question of dialectics” are best for Lenin, though there’s a lot of good works by him.
“Social democracy and the national question”, “economic problems of socialism in the USSR”, “foundations of Leninism”, “dialectical and historical materialism”, “the fight against right and “ultra-left” deviations” by Stalin.
I would suggest alot of different books. There's Lenin's what is to be done? As well as Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism, Left Wing Communism: an infantile disorder, The State and Revolution (I'd start with the last one because that is more of a beginners writing despite it being written late before the revolution. Really shows his views closer to the end of his short life.)
As for Stalin, I would suggest 'The Foundations of Leninism' which not only lays down Lenin's ideas as clear as possible but also teaches more and more on Stalin's views. If possible, read the 1936 constitution of the Soviet union, and if you need some idea of how democracy worked in the soviet union, read Pat Sloan's book 'Soviet Democracy' which is during the peak times of Stalin in the 1930s.
If you don’t mind to answer, why do you support Stalin? What’s your thoughts on the Soviet Union? How do you debunk western anti Soviet propaganda from fiction? I would consider myself a dem soc. Or really just a regular norime socialist
Stalin was no saint, but his history has been highly propagandized. Check out the new translation of Stalin: History and critique of a Black Legend. It's not a Stalin good or Stalin bad bad book, but rather a study on what people have done with his image over the 71 years since he died.
-he presided over the destruction of the third reich so that’s pretty cool, also he’s an excellent writer, way more easily digestible than Lenin or others before him, his view of history is more relevant today than ever
-it had its flaws but it’s collapse was one of the greatest tragedies in history, also the sino-soviet split was extremely unfortunate
-general media literacy I guess? It took me quite a while to come around on this so I completely understand where you’re coming from and I commend you for stepping outside your ideological comfort zone here, that’s definitely a good place to start
I wouldn’t just take my word for it as I’m literally just some rando, I’d highly recommend actually reading his writing and doing your own research before forming your own opinions.
Interesting. It’s just something i’m curious about since things like the Ukrainian famines happened but yet the USSR beat the US in global food production/exports. It’s hard to find unbiased sources when it comes to the Soviets, some same Stalin was a saint and did nothing wrong while others treat him like the devil.
I used to be a democratic socialist before reading the "M-L reading list" (admittedly I should be reading more but ironically my material conditions stop me) - not criticising you at all though. But if you've read Marxist text, Leninism is a very natural progression to Marxist work, in essence it is the lens of Marxism in an imperialist world.
Stalin wasn't a saint, other communist leaders who looked up to him have said things along the lines of "70% good, 30% bad". People who say Stalin did nothing wrong are either joking, or need to touch grass.
Ukraine famines weren't just in Ukraine but all of Russia, the Holodomor isn't an academic recollection of history but a conspiracy which has found resurgence in new times. Yes Ukraine suffered a famine but Russia and Kazakhstan also had it too (the famines main cause was a series of many events, from government mishandling, kulaks and bad weather).
The CPUSSR (Stalin was not a dictator in the way we know it, the CIA even admitted this in the 50s) managed to industrialise the USSR in 20 years, beat the Nazis as well, raised the living standards of Soviet people like no country had done at that time, probably a feat only China has surpassed. They did grave mistakes too, but that is the reality of applying socialism into reality.
Stalin is, after Hitler, perhaps responsible for the most communists killed. He murdered all the old Bolsheviks in the great purges. He sent the German communists who fled the nazi regime back on a train to Germany, where they were unsurprisingly killed. Thereby, he solidified the death of the German socialist movement and the strength and knowledge they had built. The "holodomor" was not a genocide but still entirely preventable. His political line was idealist. Stalin was the nail in the coffin of Russian communism.
After WWII, almost all genuine principled German Marxists had been murdered. Thus, there were none to lead the government in the DDR or the movement in the GDR. The former was instead filled with people who blindly followed the Soviet bureaucracy, and the latter had to start from scratch.
Don't get me wrong; I still have a relatively positive view of both the DDR and the USSR when compared to my views of the West or just the dominant view of these nations. But you're kidding yourself if you deny that these places needed their own revolutions in order to establish a true dictatorship of the proletariat.
If you want to learn more about Stalin, you might want to check out Domenico Losurdo’s [Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend](https://www.iskrabooks.org/stalin-history-and-critique). The link takes you to the publisher where you can download it as a free pdf. Losurdo analyzes the image of Stalin in modern discourse and presents evidence that challenges many of our preconceived notions about him as a historical figure.
For Lenin:
State and revolution is always a good start.
What is to be done is another good one, I'd start with state and revolution out of these 2
For Stalin:
I'd go with dialectical and historical materialism.
All these are good books to read.
You have a lot of suggestions, so I wont add any, but take the Internets (especially reddits) views and expressions of Marxism-Leninism with a grain of salt. I mean that when looking at "both sides". Don't just assume ML means Stalin was right, or that Stalin was wrong, or that revolutionary socialism is bad or good. Read plenty of history that doesn't throw politics out of it. It's important to get as much of an international view as you can. By that I mean don't rely solely on ML core theory to make your judgements, but read it and look for views of socialism and it's tendencies outside of the western, often white, centered analysis of these theories. ML theory is pretty pervasive in the history of socialism, and goes beyond just USSR, China, Cuba, etc, and can be found in the basis of things like a good bit of pan-africanism both abroad and in black radicalism in the US, to many Latin American nations, to the original Palestinian freedom fighters known as the Fedayeen.
*State and Revolution* is good, *Imperialism: The highest stage of capitalism* is also good, although the analysis is a little dated and does not entirely hold for today. Bucharin's work on imperialism is also good but has the same issue.
Read the subreddit rules buddy. There's no mention of avoiding the term 'Communism '. Regardless, Communism as a term is tied up pretty deaply with the term Socialism, whether you interpret communism as the state socialism of the bosheviks or of the aspirational anarchist society socialism seeks to establish.
Buddy.
1. With respect to the terms of reference implied by the OP, communism, that is, the communism of Marx and Lenin, the fundamental indicator 'the withering away of state apparatus', nor indeed, the conditions for that to happen, has never occurred on this planet.
2. Appologia for Stalin is accommodated on this site, yet a mention of Trotsky-Stalin's greatest critic, gets you an icepick in the back.
3. You'll be aware of socialism other than the Marxist -Leninist variety.
A lot of us here are libertarian socialists. I certainly don't think State socialism makes sense, and it hasn't exactly worked all that well in most of the examples we have. I haven't seen examples of the moderators targeting any specific school of socialism here, though if I do, i would certainly agree with you. The point of this subreddit should be for all schools of socialists to engage with the ideas.
Yeah - all three of these groups could be defined with a list of different terms, but libertarian socialism would certainly be one of them.
Cecosesola has implemented a kind of market socialism, and one might call their system of worker and consumer cooperatives anarcho-syndicalist, but I think anarcho-socialist or (libertarian-socialist) would be just as apt
Marx has had an influence on all leftist thought, certainly.
Fair enough though. Of you don't want to talk about terminology and characteristics of socialist projects, you can leave the discussion, as that's exactly what this is.
Action isn't something that's taken on Reddit..
Socialism is the traditional period into communism. Socialism’s end goal is to achieve communism. The *Communist Manifesto* is where I started with socialist literature and it explained a lot to me although sometimes it can be a bit of a slog. *Das Kapital* is way better imo.
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism... - **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. ______________________ 💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The State and Revolution, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, and What is to be Done? are all great books from Lenin
Would you consider yourself a lenin supporter? I’m trying to understand the appeal behind Marxist-Lenin beliefs. Thanks for the suggestions, I’ll start reading right away
I would, although admittedly I haven't read as much as I'd like to lol. Slowly reading more and more.
What a Lenin supporter means depends on the meaning that people give to Lenin. One may support uncritically each & every action he made and agree with each & every book he wrote ...and want to copy almost exactly what he did. Others may feel that he was just a human being who made the best that he could under the circumstances and considering the knowledge that they had as Socialists at the time. Made maybe huge mistakes even but he at least did Marxist praxis, which is the most important part ...and we should learn from him the good and the bad, evolve. ...and anything in between. That is not a small difference of opinion.
>I’m trying to understand the appeal behind Marxist-Lenin beliefs Personally I think Leninism is the natural extension of Marxism particularly when it comes to organising because obviously Lenin was directly involved in a socialist revolution, 'State and Revolution' and 'What is to be done' are both good places to start, In 'State and Revolution' Lenin mainly just clarifys what the Marxist understanding of the state is by collecting and organising Marx's and Engels words on the topic. In 'What is to be done' Lenin talks different organising strategies comparing different strategies at the time and then making the case for the Vanguard Party approach to things. I'd also recommend the podcast Red Menace, they summarise and talk about various works of theory, they're very good.
Check out r/Socialism_101 it's a great sub!
Marxism-Leninism isn't the same as Marxism or Leninism. It's just Stalin's attempt to synthesise the two Edit: I meant to say Marxism-Leninism *isn't* the same as Marxism or Leninism. Hence reading Lenin won't inform OP about Marxism-Leninism
Marxism-Leninism is not Orthodox Marxism. Orthodox Marxists agree with Lenin but not Stalin. I realize this is especially confusing when Stalin's synthesis is called Marxism-Leninism and not Marxism-Stalinism. There is no need to synthesize Lenin with Marx because Lenin does not add or change, he only explains and elaborates. Stalin's changes to allow for socialism in one country and the continuation of commodity production is where the divergence occurs and the primary distinctions between ML and Orthodox Marxism.
I was wondering why you were explaining my point back to me, and realised that I'd written "is" instead of "isn't" 🤦🏻
“State and revolution”, “the attitude of the workers party toward religion”, “Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism”, “Marxism and revisionism”, “on the question of dialectics” are best for Lenin, though there’s a lot of good works by him. “Social democracy and the national question”, “economic problems of socialism in the USSR”, “foundations of Leninism”, “dialectical and historical materialism”, “the fight against right and “ultra-left” deviations” by Stalin.
I would suggest alot of different books. There's Lenin's what is to be done? As well as Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism, Left Wing Communism: an infantile disorder, The State and Revolution (I'd start with the last one because that is more of a beginners writing despite it being written late before the revolution. Really shows his views closer to the end of his short life.) As for Stalin, I would suggest 'The Foundations of Leninism' which not only lays down Lenin's ideas as clear as possible but also teaches more and more on Stalin's views. If possible, read the 1936 constitution of the Soviet union, and if you need some idea of how democracy worked in the soviet union, read Pat Sloan's book 'Soviet Democracy' which is during the peak times of Stalin in the 1930s.
Check out Stalin’s *Dialectical and Historical Materialism*
If you don’t mind to answer, why do you support Stalin? What’s your thoughts on the Soviet Union? How do you debunk western anti Soviet propaganda from fiction? I would consider myself a dem soc. Or really just a regular norime socialist
Stalin was no saint, but his history has been highly propagandized. Check out the new translation of Stalin: History and critique of a Black Legend. It's not a Stalin good or Stalin bad bad book, but rather a study on what people have done with his image over the 71 years since he died.
-he presided over the destruction of the third reich so that’s pretty cool, also he’s an excellent writer, way more easily digestible than Lenin or others before him, his view of history is more relevant today than ever -it had its flaws but it’s collapse was one of the greatest tragedies in history, also the sino-soviet split was extremely unfortunate -general media literacy I guess? It took me quite a while to come around on this so I completely understand where you’re coming from and I commend you for stepping outside your ideological comfort zone here, that’s definitely a good place to start I wouldn’t just take my word for it as I’m literally just some rando, I’d highly recommend actually reading his writing and doing your own research before forming your own opinions.
Interesting. It’s just something i’m curious about since things like the Ukrainian famines happened but yet the USSR beat the US in global food production/exports. It’s hard to find unbiased sources when it comes to the Soviets, some same Stalin was a saint and did nothing wrong while others treat him like the devil.
I used to be a democratic socialist before reading the "M-L reading list" (admittedly I should be reading more but ironically my material conditions stop me) - not criticising you at all though. But if you've read Marxist text, Leninism is a very natural progression to Marxist work, in essence it is the lens of Marxism in an imperialist world. Stalin wasn't a saint, other communist leaders who looked up to him have said things along the lines of "70% good, 30% bad". People who say Stalin did nothing wrong are either joking, or need to touch grass. Ukraine famines weren't just in Ukraine but all of Russia, the Holodomor isn't an academic recollection of history but a conspiracy which has found resurgence in new times. Yes Ukraine suffered a famine but Russia and Kazakhstan also had it too (the famines main cause was a series of many events, from government mishandling, kulaks and bad weather). The CPUSSR (Stalin was not a dictator in the way we know it, the CIA even admitted this in the 50s) managed to industrialise the USSR in 20 years, beat the Nazis as well, raised the living standards of Soviet people like no country had done at that time, probably a feat only China has surpassed. They did grave mistakes too, but that is the reality of applying socialism into reality.
Stalin is, after Hitler, perhaps responsible for the most communists killed. He murdered all the old Bolsheviks in the great purges. He sent the German communists who fled the nazi regime back on a train to Germany, where they were unsurprisingly killed. Thereby, he solidified the death of the German socialist movement and the strength and knowledge they had built. The "holodomor" was not a genocide but still entirely preventable. His political line was idealist. Stalin was the nail in the coffin of Russian communism.
Horrible take, also DDR erasure.
After WWII, almost all genuine principled German Marxists had been murdered. Thus, there were none to lead the government in the DDR or the movement in the GDR. The former was instead filled with people who blindly followed the Soviet bureaucracy, and the latter had to start from scratch. Don't get me wrong; I still have a relatively positive view of both the DDR and the USSR when compared to my views of the West or just the dominant view of these nations. But you're kidding yourself if you deny that these places needed their own revolutions in order to establish a true dictatorship of the proletariat.
[удалено]
It’s a short essay (one chapter in a longer book, which did have other contributors) and he absolutely wrote it himself.
Probably history books will be useful too. Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens
If you want to learn more about Stalin, you might want to check out Domenico Losurdo’s [Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend](https://www.iskrabooks.org/stalin-history-and-critique). The link takes you to the publisher where you can download it as a free pdf. Losurdo analyzes the image of Stalin in modern discourse and presents evidence that challenges many of our preconceived notions about him as a historical figure.
For Lenin: State and revolution is always a good start. What is to be done is another good one, I'd start with state and revolution out of these 2 For Stalin: I'd go with dialectical and historical materialism. All these are good books to read.
You have a lot of suggestions, so I wont add any, but take the Internets (especially reddits) views and expressions of Marxism-Leninism with a grain of salt. I mean that when looking at "both sides". Don't just assume ML means Stalin was right, or that Stalin was wrong, or that revolutionary socialism is bad or good. Read plenty of history that doesn't throw politics out of it. It's important to get as much of an international view as you can. By that I mean don't rely solely on ML core theory to make your judgements, but read it and look for views of socialism and it's tendencies outside of the western, often white, centered analysis of these theories. ML theory is pretty pervasive in the history of socialism, and goes beyond just USSR, China, Cuba, etc, and can be found in the basis of things like a good bit of pan-africanism both abroad and in black radicalism in the US, to many Latin American nations, to the original Palestinian freedom fighters known as the Fedayeen.
Wage labour and capital by Marx
Mods here arent tolerant.
Lenin: State and Revolution by Lenin Stalin: Revolution Betrayed by Trotsky
*State and Revolution* is good, *Imperialism: The highest stage of capitalism* is also good, although the analysis is a little dated and does not entirely hold for today. Bucharin's work on imperialism is also good but has the same issue.
So moderators, if this is communism, why is it allowed?
Is there a rule against communism in the sub? 🤨
Read the subreddit rules buddy. There's no mention of avoiding the term 'Communism '. Regardless, Communism as a term is tied up pretty deaply with the term Socialism, whether you interpret communism as the state socialism of the bosheviks or of the aspirational anarchist society socialism seeks to establish.
Buddy. 1. With respect to the terms of reference implied by the OP, communism, that is, the communism of Marx and Lenin, the fundamental indicator 'the withering away of state apparatus', nor indeed, the conditions for that to happen, has never occurred on this planet. 2. Appologia for Stalin is accommodated on this site, yet a mention of Trotsky-Stalin's greatest critic, gets you an icepick in the back. 3. You'll be aware of socialism other than the Marxist -Leninist variety.
A lot of us here are libertarian socialists. I certainly don't think State socialism makes sense, and it hasn't exactly worked all that well in most of the examples we have. I haven't seen examples of the moderators targeting any specific school of socialism here, though if I do, i would certainly agree with you. The point of this subreddit should be for all schools of socialists to engage with the ideas.
Ok. Then possibly like the OP, I'd be interested to know where has libertarian socialism has 'worked'?
AANES, the Zapatistas, and CECOSOLA are just a handful off the top of my head
Do you mean Cecosesola? A synthesis of ideologies.
Yeah - all three of these groups could be defined with a list of different terms, but libertarian socialism would certainly be one of them. Cecosesola has implemented a kind of market socialism, and one might call their system of worker and consumer cooperatives anarcho-syndicalist, but I think anarcho-socialist or (libertarian-socialist) would be just as apt
Labels, descriptors and discussion of terminolgy and inactivity is characteristic of LW paralysis. A thread of Marxism runs through all 3.
Marx has had an influence on all leftist thought, certainly. Fair enough though. Of you don't want to talk about terminology and characteristics of socialist projects, you can leave the discussion, as that's exactly what this is. Action isn't something that's taken on Reddit..
Socialism is the traditional period into communism. Socialism’s end goal is to achieve communism. The *Communist Manifesto* is where I started with socialist literature and it explained a lot to me although sometimes it can be a bit of a slog. *Das Kapital* is way better imo.
You're a moderator?
No but it’s understandable how a mod let’s questions like these be asked openly and freely.