Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, yes. He did so on the basis of Lenin's theoretical advancements on Marxism. Stalin himself wasn't that much of a theoretician, hence why it's Marxism-Leninism, though Stalin has a few works under his belt. Yes, the Stalin. You're free to read my introductory reading list if you want to learn more about Marxism.

Secondly, you have no idea what you're talking about if you're pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie. Such ideas came from Marx and Engels, who always advocated for revolution. From Marx:

"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

I suggest you take the advice of @Edie@lemmy.ml and read up on Marxist theory and history before speaking nonsense from a pedestal.

[+] rainynight65@feddit.org -8 points 3 days ago (7 children)

That quote is extremely hinged on context in which it was made, and it would serve you well to internalise that context before throwing this quote around pretending it to have been something Marx lived by.

Secondly, you have no idea what you’re talking about if you’re pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie.

That was not my claim, but thank you for so generously misinterpreting what I said. Lenin implemented the violent oppression of dissenters and opposition in a socialist system. That was carried further by Stalin, under whom 'counter-revolutionary' became an extremely malleable term that could mean anything not fully aligned with his ideas. The fact that you think political violence and terror is a core tenet of Marxism tells me that you're the one who might need to brush up on their history a little bit.

In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels. The people we have to thank for creating the violent authoritarianism that pervaded communist countries in practice are Lenin and Stalin. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" may have been a phrase used by Marx, but he never fully elaborated on what that should or could look like. And fascism as created by Mussolini and unleashed upon the world by Hitler didn't even exist during Marx's lifetime. Even Marx's views on religion were a lot more complex and multifaceted than what Marxist-Leninist governments turned them into.

I don't know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I've seen the before and after, first-hand. That's my pedestal. How's the weather up there on yours?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels.

Do you mean the Engles who said this:

[T]he anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction

...or is there some other Engles I should know about?

[–] rainynight65@feddit.org -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't know of any person called Engles who would be significant in this context, so I can't tell you if there is one you should know about. The Engels who said what you quoted above, also said - literally in the sentence preceding your quote:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.

As always, context matters. And I'll trust the context created by the words and interpretations of respected historians way more than I'll trust some randos on Lemmy who only excel at selective quoting.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Right, and the part you quoted is in the context of what immediately followed. The clarification that he was talking about the eventual ideal, and that in the meantime, using authoritarian measures were necessary to the point that anyone who opposed them was supporting reactionaries.

It should of course be noted that Marx expected a spontaneous, worldwide revolution, starting from the most developed countries. This was something that he got completely wrong, (he was not a prophet) and the socialists who put his ideas into practice had to adapt to the real circumstances that they found themselves in. In the case of a worldwide revolution, of course it would be easier to persue the phasing out of authoritarian measures sooner, since they wouldn't be necessary to protect against foreign threats and subversion (something presumably included in the not-yet-destroyed "social conditions that gave birth to the political state"). Even in such a scenario, Engles was extremely clear that he considered such measures absolutely necessary.

What "respected historians" are you referencing? I haven't seen you cite any. Care to share with the class?

load more comments (4 replies)