Nachie Comments On ELI5 - What Are The Differences Between The Branches of Communism Leninism, Marxism, Trotskyism, Etc

10/24/2014
Nachie comments on ELI5:What are the differences between the branches of Communism; Leninism, Marxism, Trotskyism, etc?
FRONT - ALL - RANDOM | LIFEPROTIPS - GIFS - FITNESS - SHOWERTHOUGHTS - ART - SPORTS - SPACE - TODAYILEARNED - UPLIFTINGNEWS
comments
related
other discussions (2)
ELI5:What are the differences

2997 between the branches of
Communism; Leninism,
Marxism, Trotskyism, etc?
want to join? login or register in seconds | English
explained
unexplained
reset
search
submitted 11 days ago by

DuceGiharm
request an explanation
927 comments share pocket
sorted by: best
you are viewing a single comment's

thread.
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2014
2,997 points (91% upvoted)

shortlink:
http://redd.it/2j19ed
[] 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 top comment
and adopting the same format. I don't
think anyone will read this 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
into place. Rather, communism
(little c!) is a term used to
describe the tendency in human
history towards community.
This is somewhat confused by
the fact that we can also use
"primitive communism" to
describe specific tribal societies
in which property was held in
common yet the means of
production were not sufficiently
developed to produce complex
global culture. Nevertheless,
"communism" was used by Marx
primarily to describe an ongoing
historical tendency:
"Communism is for us not a state of
affairs which is to be established,
an ideal to which reality will have to
adjust itself. We call communism
goodredditor
remember me
reset password
login
UNSUBSCRIBE
3,578,730 readers
4,943 online
E is for explain.
This is for concepts you'd like to understand
better; not for simple one word answers,
walkthroughs, or personal problems.
LI5 means friendly, simplified and laymanaccessible explanations.
Not responses aimed at literal five year olds
(which can be patronizing).
report spam post or comment
important information
Read the rules before commenting or
submitting.
Search before submitting with 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
controversial topics.
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j19ed/eli5what_are_the_differences_between_the_branches/cl7wy12
1/26
10/24/2014
the real movement which abolishes

the present state of things. The
conditions of this movement result
from premises now in existence." Karl Marx
Marxism = aka "Scientific
Socialism" is the body of
thought first developed by Karl
Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Unfortunately the top
commenter has identified
Marxism primarily as an
"economic critique" of
capitalism, which doing Marx a
terrible disservice. Marxism is
not merely an anti-capitalist
theory: it is a fully worked-out
scientific philosophy that
engages with the material world
on rational terms. It is literally
the most powerful synthesis of
human thought ever assembled,
predating modern discoveries in
everything from evolution to
quantum mechanics, and that is
what it needs to be since it aims
to supplant the dominant
ideology in society (bourgeois
ideology; capitalism, the free
market, etc.)
The core of Marxism can roughly be
described in three parts: Dialectical
Materialism, Historical Materialism, and
the Labor Theory of Value. I'll attempt
to describe them:
Direct replies to the original post (aka

"top-level comments") are for serious
responses only. Jokes, anecdotes, and
low effort explanations, are not permitted
and 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 to
discussion!
ELI5 isn't a guessing game; if you aren't
confident in your explanation, please don't
speculate.
Have an idea to improve ELI5? Click here!
ELI5 Tip: Do not forget to include the ELI5: tag at the

beginning of your submission!
created by bossgalaga
a community for 3 years
MODERATORS
message the moderators
bossgalaga
Dr_Merkwurdigliebe
stinkylibrary
anonymous123421
sje46
Amarkov
Mason11987
LondonPilot
kouhoutek
Al-Fayyad
...and 30 more
Dialectical Materialism is the

philosophy of Marxism. It teaches us to
look at the world so that rather than
seeing things as abstracted concepts,
we may appreciate them in all their life
and movement. At the same time,
Marxs assertion that our consciousness
is determined by the material
conditions of our lives acts as a
grounding anchor in communist political
work.
Historical Materialism is the
application of Marxism to the study of
human history. Through this lens it
becomes clear that the evolution of
culture and civilization arises not from
the great ideas of a chosen few, but
rather as a direct consequence of the
means by which the reproduction of
society is organized.
The Labor Theory of Value is at the
core of Marxist Economics. Although
Marxism can hardly be reduced to an
2/26
10/24/2014
economic discipline, many have best

come to understand it through these
principles. For Marx, value is a social
relationship, a living interaction
between people. Understood as such,
the most basic truth about capitalism is
laid bare: that it fundamentally relies
on the exploitation of human labor.
(please note that what the current top
commenter is describing as Dialectical
Materialism is actually Historical
Materialism)
Of course, Marxism has been developed
further since the 1800's and there are
many strands out there. Guy Debord's
Society of the Spectacle, for instance,
has been called "the Das Kapital of the
20th Century" and forms the Marxist
basis of the critiques of mass culture
we see in films/books like Fight Club.
Leninism = We need to get
something straight: much as
Marx never called himself a
Marxist, there was no
"Leninism" until after Lenin was
dead and the Soviet
bureaucracy under Stalin
needed to invent a state religion
to justify its own existence
(think of Juche in North Korea,
except that "Leninism" was
imported to Marxist
organizations all over the
world).
The basis of "Leninism" as we see it
applied today is chiefly based on a
caricature of the Bolshevik party as it
existed in the darkest days of the
Russian Civil War, i.e. at its most
centralized, militarized, and
authoritarian. In particular the type of
"follow Moscow's lead" fauxinternationalism that was imported to
the global communist movement played
a major role in destroying revolutions in
Spain, Greece, France, Italy, etc. (and
that's just in the first half of the last
century!)
This caricature (Leninism) consists
primarily of two ideas: firstly, that the
working class in and of itself cannot
reach revolutionary consciousness in
the brief window of time offered by
revolutionary situations caused by
material conditions in the breakdown of
capitalism, and so in order for socialism
to prevail there must be an organized
intervention by an intellectual class. I'll
leave the debate there, but suffice to
3/26
10/24/2014
say that questions of leadership are

very important in Marxist strategy.
The other pillar of "Leninism" is the socalled theory of imperialism, in which
Lenin lays out his belief that in the
"final stage" of capitalism, conflict will
take place not so much between
classes, as between "imperialist" states
and non-imperialist states (see:
colonialism, USA in South America, so
on and so forth). This ideology has
unfortunately led to all sorts of (IMHO)
ridiculous and anti-Marxist politics, as
the Marxist position has always been
that the ruling and working classes are
both international and as such
resistance to capitalism should always
be based along class, not national,
lines.
Stalinism = after the defeat of
the Western revolutions in the
wake of the Russian revolution in particular the German
revolution of 1918, the soviet
state was isolated and forced to
survive in material conditions
completely inhospitable to
socialism. Socialism can only be
international, since it relies on
the idea that all of humanity will
have common access to the
latest technology and
techniques. Russia was left with
an embryonic workers' state
without the sophistication and
development to actually
implement socialism (Russia
had not fully developed its
capitalist economy prior to the
revolution).
As a result, a bureaucratic class arose
to manage the state economy and
dictate what would be produced and
where, typically with very little
emphasis on the production of
consumer goods. This style of economic
management and political
authoritarianism is what is commonly
known as "Stalinism". The ability to
concentrate all state resources into the
development of industry allowed for
tremendous economic growth that has
never been matched by any capitalist
economy, allowing Russia to become a
superpower almost overnight, but this
type of state-managed capitalism has
never been able to solve fundamental
problems of the boom and bust cycle.
And obviously, it has never created a
4/26
10/24/2014
true workers' state.

We should also mention that much as
the Stalinists are the only ones who
speak of "Marxism-Leninism", so too is
it mostly the Trotskyists who critique
anyone as "Stalinist".
Trotskyist = The top
commenter's information here is
pretty spot-on.
Maoism = There was a failed
revolution in China in 1928,
after which the defeated
communist party fled to the
countryside and established a
base among the peasantry, who
were the largest class in
Chinese society at the time.
Over enough years, "Maoism"
developed - the idea that the peasants
could be the actual revolutionary class,
and that power could be taken through
a protracted "people's war" in the
countryside, eventually capturing
enough territory to surround the cities
and take power. The ongoing civil war
in India is probably the best presentday example of Maoism in action (see
Nepal, as well).
How Maoism plays out in the first world
is sort of too ridiculous to explore since
its peasant-based ideology is turning
Marxism on its head in the first place,
but it will often center heavily around
aesthetics and armed struggle of some
kind. The cult of personality is always
huge, and curiously a positive attitude
towards Stalin is present since the
Sino-Soviet Split (where Chinese and
Soviet foreign policy began to clash)
happened after Stalin's death. The
Chinese dressed their interests up in
the veil of "anti-imperialism" and a sort
of "third world revolution" across
Africa, Asia, and South America. A very
handy strategy for gaining access to
those markets and raw materials, of
course.
This clash in foreign policy is also the
reason why some people will speak of
"Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" as opposed
to "Marxism-Leninism": they represent
the official state religions of Maoist
China and Stalinist Russia respectively,
each in competition with each other as
a capitalist nation managed by a
bureaucratic elite but competing in the
world capitalist market according to its
rules, and neither representing anything
5/26
10/24/2014
close to the true definition of Marxism

or 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 pretty

sure it was going to be pointless
to type all that out, but it's
awesome if even one person
found it useful.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] D-Hex 8 points 9 days ago
At last someone who actually

knows what they're talking
about when it comes to
Marx.. that's a rarity on
Reddit.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] pulpified 3 points 9 days

ago
That's a rarity in a lot of

places.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] EmperorXenu 1 point
9 days ago
Yeah, tell me about

it. I live in Texas. I
keep my mouth
fucking SHUT about
politics. Try telling
people you're a
Marxist in Texas. It
doesn't go well.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] Rainholly42 56 points 10 days ago*
/u/Nachie is probably gonna get a

ton of flak for saying
It is literally the most powerful
synthesis of human thought ever
assembled
I don't like at all the way he phrased
it, but I think I have an idea as to
what he was referring to.
If you read the first chapter of Das
Kapital, you'll see that what Marx
was working on was a thorough
theory of capitalism, in a very
mathematical style. The manner of
writing in Das Kapital is something
6/26
10/24/2014
you hardly come across these days,

aside from physics or math
textbooks. I highly recommend just
checking out the first page of the
first chapter (scroll to pg. 26).
In the first chapter, he defines and
describes use value, exchange
value, and value, and it looks very
much like he is laying out the
fundamental units for the theory of
capitalism. Further up in chapter 4,
he makes an abstraction of capital:
M -> C -> M'. This is an important
axiom in the Labour theory of value.
And it doesn't stop there: there's
book 1, and 2 and he Died before he
could finish his work, which should
give you an idea of the magnitude of
the work he was attempting.
You cannot read the Communist
Manifesto and infer that that's
how Das Kapital is written. The
Communist Manifesto was written
with literary flourishes aplenty
designed to rouse the passions of
the common man, the proletariat.
His main work, Das Kapital, on the
other hand, is arguably closely
modelling the analytical rigour of
Euclid's Elements.
edit: some corrections
Source: In college, I had to study
the actual text in Das Kapital and the
Communist Manifesto, not just some
author summarising the gist of the
text or reading a summary of
"Marxism".
permalink
parent
pocket
[] DiscordiasFavoredSon 28 points 10
days ago
I don't see where the flak is, but

that line did stand out as
remarkably biased and
unfounded compared to the
informative tone of the rest of
the writing.
I assumed he was referring to
the potential of Marxism to
cause change more than
anything else. Still it reads as
incredibly sensationalized and
heavy-handed.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] Rainholly42 9 points 10 days

ago
Apologies. His comment was

posted onto another sub, and
it was getting flak over
7/26
10/24/2014
there. I typed my comment

with the original intention to
post it there, but i thought it
might best be posted here
instead.
permalink
parent
pocket
[+] [deleted] 9 days ago* (6 children)

[] Ponderay 6 points 10 days ago
Leninism = We need to get

something straight: much as
Marx never called himself a
Marxist, there was no "Leninism"
until after Lenin was dead and
the Soviet bureaucracy under
Stalin needed to invent a state
religion to justify its own
existence (think of Juche in
North Korea, except that
"Leninism" was imported to
Marxist organizations all over
the world).
Lennin lays out his views very
clearly in What is to Be Done and
the State and Revolution. Given that
Stalin certainly idolized Lenin you all
of the views you say are caricatures
of Lenin were clearly stated in his
writings.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] RickRussellTX 14 points 9 days ago
Labor Theory of Value

While I'll be the first to admit that I
know little about Marx beyond his
economic contributions, the labor
theory of value has been soundly
debunked by about a century of
economic study. In addition to some
fairly significant logical problems in
Marx's own writings, the labor
theory has been widely discredited
as it makes predictions that are not
supported by empirical data.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] EmperorXenu -4 points 9 days ago
So, what you're saying is, you

don't really know anything about
Marx, but you're very sure his
theories are wrong.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] RickRussellTX 1 point 9 days

ago
I wrote what I intended.

permalink
parent
pocket
8/26
10/24/2014
[] raajneesh 3 points 10 days ago
Great post, thanks. Could you please

do some explaining on modern day
south american socialism?
permalink
parent
pocket
[] Nachie 24 points 10 days ago
Sure! I am a Brazilian and have

spent some time in Venezuela
studying the revolution down
there, which I assume is a big
part of what you're asking
about?
Venezuela is an interesting case.
There was a massive uprising in
1989 that was put down harshly
by the state and afterwards
almost everyone turned
completely against the two-party
system that had ruled there for
decades (much like in the US).
Over the 1990's the social
movements grew more radical
and you started to see things
like feminism,
environmentalism, gay rights,
etc. being discussed in the
street. By and large, all of these
movements were rejecting
electoral politics.
Enter Hugo Chavez and his
Movement for a Fifth Republic, a
wildly populist and bombastic
type of politician who only many
years into his term(s) began
describing himself as "socialist"
or talking about what that
actually meant.
So South American socialism
right now has two chief
characteristics: it has used
money from hydrocarbons and
other natural resources to feed
massive social programs (health,
literacy, etc.) that are incredibly
popular and secure a social base
in the working classes.
At the same time, this is the
vehicle through which populist
bureaucrats have been able to
divert the social movements
back into electoral politics.
Venezuela's government today is
rife with opportunist capitalists
at every level, working covertly
and overtly to stifle the progress
of the revolution (make no
mistake - there was an actual
revolution, it's just taking an
9/26
10/24/2014
electoral detour) away from

socialism. Dissatisfaction with
the way the revolution has been
handled is very high in
Venezuelan society and the
likelihood of some type of civil
war erupting is totally real.
The problem is this: you cannot
legislate capitalism out of
existence. Sure, a "workers
government" can take power
democratically, but at some
point that same government is
going to need to expropriate all
the "levers" of the economy
(banks, big farms, factories,
etc.) that actually make it run.
Even in the oil industry, the
Chavistas had to fight a long and
drawn out battle to gain control
even when PDVSA (the state oil
company) was already
nationalized!
As you can imagine, such
expropriations would be serious
qualitative leaps in the situation
and would be geopolitical game
changers. The exciting thing is,
we really are living in a period
where a genuine socialist
revolution only needs to pop off
in one corner of the globe and,
through the internet and mass
media, the lessons will spread
faster than they ever could
before.
But anyway, neither Chavez (and
now Maduro) in Venezuela nor
Morales in Bolivia, etc. have
been able to go beyond the legal
structures, market relations, and
class stratification that defines
capitalism. In order to do so
they would have to openly break
the global "consensus" (by which
I mean capitalist dictatorship)
that property ownership is
sacred and you cannot just steal
all the millionaires' shit when
they aren't directing the mass of
societal resources towards the
betterment of humanity.
Here are some countries where
it is worth looking at what is
happening in the communist
movement right now, because
it's important to the politics of
the whole globe:
South Africa - there is an open
10/26
10/24/2014
split now between members of

the government (ANC, South
African "Communist" Party, etc.)
and more radical elements, and
we're probably going to see
some huge turbulence in their
political system as the majority
of workers realize that the
promise of a just society after
the end of Apartheid was totally
squandered for the sake of
capitalist development and
access to the world market.
Greece - SYRIZA is essentially a
communist party whose
leadership has begun to sell out
majorly as soon as it started to
get into power. This sell-out
means they will not do as well in
the next elections, but it's still
worth looking at. The Greek
Communist Party (KKE) also
remains a mass movement with
influence in society.
Spain - Look at the rise of
PODEMOS. Actually this is an
important example of the
restructuring of European politics
in general as the mass
movements against austerity
(their equivalent to Occupy) try
to find some political purchase.
Ukraine - the uprising in the East
of the country has been called
"Pro-Russia" but is really more
correctly described as "proSoviet" with heavily antioligarchic leanings. As always,
the narrative on the ground is
more complex than the one
offered by the media.
Kurdistan - All those badass
Kurds fighting ISIS and basically
serving as the only point of hope
in a situation gone fucked? Well,
they're commies. Look up the
Workers Party of Kurdistan
(PKK) and their history,
especially in terms of Turkey
trying to wipe them out.
There are others of course...
actually the whole world is going
crazy right now politically.
Marxism offers the only rational
and complete method by which
to look at capitalism in its period
of wild decay - inefficiency,
waste, and war becoming
widespread - and try to turn
11/26
10/24/2014
things around into a future that

doesn't totally suck.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] blackbootz 6 points 10 days

ago
I'm fascinated and want to

learn more about these
examples.
Ukraine - the uprising in
the East of the country
has been called "ProRussia" but is really
more correctly described
as "pro-Soviet" with
heavily anti-oligarchic
leanings. As always, the
narrative on the ground
is more complex than the
one offered by the
media.
Kurdistan - All those
badass Kurds fighting
ISIS and basically
serving as the only point
of hope in a situation
gone fucked? Well,
they're commies. Look
up the Workers Party of
Kurdistan (PKK) and their
history, especially in
terms of Turkey trying to
wipe them out.
There are others of
course... actually the
whole world is going
crazy right now
politically. Marxism
offers the only rational
and complete method by
which to look at
capitalism in its period of
wild decay - inefficiency,
widespread - and try to
turn things around into a
future that doesn't totally
suck.
I guess I want to ask for a
source to learn more from
about Marxism. Especially in
the way you've been
presenting it.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] SubhumanShit 3 points 9 days

ago
So South American
socialism right now has
12/26
10/24/2014
two chief characteristics:

it has used money from
hydrocarbons and other
natural resources to feed
massive social programs
(health, literacy, etc.)
that are incredibly
popular and secure a
social base in the
working classes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
Fucking economics, how does
that work?
permalink
parent
pocket
[] VT-Sensational 3 points 9 days

ago
wild decay - inefficiency,

widespread - and try to
turn things around into a
future that doesn't totally
suck.
U wot m8?
We're better off than ever
and practically everything is
getting better everywhere by
any measurable statistic.
There's less war and less
deaths to violence than there
has ever been before.
Capitalism and the global
economy is expanding faster
than ever and becoming
more efficient every day.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] untaken-username 1
point 9 days ago
I agree that capitalism,

property rights, a
(relatively) fair and
impartial justice system
and many more things
have worked in tandem
to allow for an incredible
increase in standard of
living and aggregate
wealth.
However, the current
economic model falters a
bit once you no longer
have scarcity. One way
to stop the end of
scarcity is to do so
artificially (copyright law
for electronic
information, for
13/26
10/24/2014
instance), but imagine

one day that food or
other real goods can be
produced at virtually
zero cost and in virtually
unlimited abundance.
What then?
And make no mistake,
we are heading in that
direction and will have to
grapple with these
challenges someday.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] VT-Sensational 2
points 9 days ago
What then?
Then the consumers
enjoy an unlimited
abundance of said
goods?
permalink
parent
pocket
[] untakenusername 1 point 9
days ago
That's presuming
scarcity isn't
imposed
artificially. How
are we going to
transition to a
post scarcity
economic model
and sociological
worldview?
permalink
parent
pocket
[] VTSensational 2
points 9 days ago
That's
presuming
scarcity
isn't
imposed
artificially
Yep.
How are
we going
to
transition
to a post
scarcity
economic
model
14/26
10/24/2014
and
sociological
worldview?
Hopefully not
too violently?
permalink
parent
pocket
[] Daimoneze 1
point 9 days ago
You seem to miss

the point.
When there is an
unlimited
quantity of a
resource, in this
system in
particular, said
resource loses
value quickly. No
value means no
incentive to
produce (because
it's worthless)
and thus no
enjoyment for
"consumers."
Does that help?
permalink
parent
pocket
[] VTSensational 3
points 9 days
ago*
When
there is
an
unlimited
quantity
of a
resource,
in this
system in
particular,
said
resource
loses
value
quickly.
No value
means no
incentive
to
produce
(because
it's
worthless)
and thus
15/26
10/24/2014
no
enjoyment
for
"consumers."
Does that
help?
They lose
value
because
supply is
higher than
demand, they
don't become
worthless as
long as
there's a
demand for
them. If
production
stops and
demand
persists,
value rises
and
production
resumes.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] Daimoneze
-1 points 9
days ago
I would
normally
reply
here, but
you seem
completely
lost. It's
cool, it's
late. I get
it.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] VTSensational
1 point
9 days
ago*
I
would
normally
reply
to
your
response
with a
counterargument
16/26
10/24/2014
but
that
was
exceedingly
difficult
here.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] rospaya 1 point 9
days ago
So why are food

prices rising? Are we
expecting a new
green revolution?
permalink
parent
pocket
[] untakenusername 1 point 9
days ago
Increased
demand due to
biofuels?
The world grows
far more than
enough food to
feed everyone on
this planet three
square meals a
day. And only a
fraction of the
population in
developed
countries work in
agriculture.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] raajneesh 2 points 10 days ago
Yes, I'm brazilian too and

I've been recently to
Venezuela on vacations,
that's why I'm asking. Things
look really bad there, I've
stayed only for a week and
been through 5 power
shortages and saw the long
lines people make to buy
deodorant and other basic
hygiene stuff. The value of
the dollar in the black
market is brutal, and most of
the people I've talked want
to leave (normally to
Panama). It's really sad
what's going on there, it's a
beautiful country with lovely
people, I hope they recover,
but there's not much hope
17/26
10/24/2014
from the people.

permalink
parent
pocket
[] dcueva 1 point 9 days ago
Hey Nachie, thank you for

these posts, they are very
informative. What is your
analysis of other South
American countries such as
Brazil, Ecuador, Argentina
and Chile?
permalink
parent
pocket
[] softmaker 1 point 2 days ago
What you wrote of Venezuela

is very true, and is used by
many of us as one of the
main arguments against
Chvez's revolution:
But anyway, neither
Chavez (and now
Maduro) in Venezuela nor
Morales in Bolivia, etc.
have been able to go
beyond the legal
structures, market
relations, and class
stratification that defines
capitalism. In order to do
so they would have to
openly break the global
"consensus" (by which I
mean capitalist
dictatorship) that
property ownership is
sacred
My perception is that after
15 years of class tug of war
and struggle that has
definitely exhausted an
entire generation, the
deliverable is a half baked
implementation of state
capitalism that simply
resulted in power and
economical switch from
traditional to new oligarchs.
What do you, as a
sympathizer of Communism
would have seen done
differently in Venezuela?
What would be the time
frame and metrics of a
"successful revolution"? What
material and human costs
are acceptable for a change
in your views?
O que voc faz da vida?
primeira vez que vejo um
18/26
10/24/2014
Brasileiro escrevendo
informao de primeira mo,
sem generalizaes, do que
acontece no meu pas.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] zimoc 3 points 9 days ago*
I'm way too late, but my two cents

for the discussion..
I belive that a central part of the
Maoist ideology is not presented
here. It is probably because it
becames apparent years after the
revolution where Mao got to power.
In the core of Maoism is the idea of
constant revolution. Note that this is
not the same as Trotskian idea of
permanent revolution.
Maoist ideology rests on the idea
that society must be constantly in a
revolutionary movement and that
this is the only way to really
equalize people. This is
revolutionazing underline is
represented in all of Maos "projects"
e.g. The Great Leap Forward, and it
is even in the name of the Cultural
Revolution. The dark side of
revolutions are of course the human
costs they usually require, which
were also present in Maos
"projects." Maoist idea was to keep
revolutionazin different parts of
society in turns to keep things from
stabilizing and forming new social
classes and structures and thus
keeping the communist revolution in
movement towards the mystical
bright future.
This constant revolution is what
makes Maoism radically different
from say Stalinism. A communist
goverment is usually depicted
(espicially in west) as something
static, being against change, and
promoting stability over everything.
Maoist ideology throws all this out of
the window and replaces stability
with idea of constant radical change
(this might be why Maoism
surprisingly found supporters in
youth movements of Western Europe
in the late 1960's as they were also
for radical change in society).
The Cultural Revolution depicts this
revolutionary theme wery well as it
was probably the largest undertaking
of its kind ever. The Cultural
Revolution of course had its political
goals as Mao was working to get
19/26
10/24/2014
back to the center of power in China.

but that aside the Cultural
Revolution's ideological idea was
that China in that time had a whole
generation that had no experiece of
revolution and thus could not really
understand or be part of the
communist ideology. So Cultural
Revolution was Mao's route back to
power and it was to provide a
revolutionary movement to shake
the society out of the newly formed
social structure to keep China
moving towards the undefined true
communism. In a sense it was Maos
project of re-revolutinazing China to
make sure that the social
reformation process keeps moving.
Projects like the Cultural Revolution
or the Great Leap Forward are often
depicted as complete madness, but
when thought in terms of
revolutionary activity they can be
understood at least in some sense.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] MeowSchwitzInThere 2 points 9 days

ago
This was both useful and a great

read. Thank you!
permalink
parent
pocket
[] Denny_Craine 2 points 8 days ago
Hey man, great summary. Good to

see someone with actual knowledge
of socialist theory on reddit. I'm an
anarchist, I've always been very
interested in Marxism (particularly
Libertarian Marxism like the
Situationists) and definitely describe
myself as "Marxian" in my analysis
of politics and history. Anywho I was
wondering if you're familiar with
anarchist history and theory? And if
so what you think of groups like
Nestor Makhno's Black Army and the
CNT and the EZLN (not explicitly
anarchist nor Marxist, but come on,
it's both)?
Also as a South American, what's
your opinion of Che? I've always
found South American views of him
as much more interesting and
nuanced. Obviously me and him
have some fundamental
disagreements in regards to
socialism, but I respect who he was
and what he did deeply.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] Nachie 1 point 8 days ago

20/26
10/24/2014
Hey!
Yes, I'm familiar with those
groups, thanks for asking. My
great grandfather was actually in
the CNT :)
Many years ago I wrote an
account of my time in Venezuela
for a group called RAAN which
was a union of Marxists and
anarchists (look it up!)
I'll quote you a section from that
text that deals with Che, because
I think you'd appreciate it:
As was put to me by one of
the lead personalities in the
crew, "Here in Latin America
we have our own heroes
such as Marti, Guevara, and
Miranda."
To elaborate on this, I'd like
to say that Ernesto "Ch"
Guevara definitely deserves
to be put into his own
category. To begin with,
North American anarchists
rarely understand the
importance of this man as a
historical figure for social
struggles in the global South.
The "untouchability" of his
image remains a point of
frustration to those who see
him only as either an
authoritarian responsible for
Castroism, or a
commercialized silhouette
devoid of all revolutionary
content. To label Ch as an
orthodox Leninist is an
oversimplification given his
own preference for violent
guerrilla struggle, not to
mention that it is difficult to
label him an authoritarian
when he willingly renounced
his position in the highest
strata of the Cuban
bureaucracy in order to fight
and die in isolated foreign
campaigns. To the majority
of oppressed people in South
America and around the
world, Ch remains an
incredibly accessible point of
reference as a revolutionary
driven by deep personal love
for humankind and the
struggle for liberation; it is
21/26
10/24/2014
this non-ideological aspect

that is usually completely
lost on anarchists.
To be sure, there is plenty in
both Ch's thought and
actions that must be exposed
and rejected. But an analysis
of his evolving ideology and
personal writings reveals a
man who was evolving
directly away from the
Soviet Union's conception of
"communism", even going so
far as to realize in his
lifetime that the USSR was
itself imperialist, and
uncommitted in any way to
the liberation of peoples in
the global South. Had he
lived, it would be my
assertion that we would be
listing him alongside names
such as Luxemburg,
Dunayevskaya, and Negri as
Marxists who over the course
of their lives came to
radically different
conclusions about the nature
of revolutionary struggle and
fully rejected the Leninist
paradigm.
This is not an attempt by
RAAN to "reclaim" the
imagery of Ch Guevara, but
rather a very necessary
move towards placing him in
the proper historical context
-- one that has remained
unintelligible to many antiauthoritarians and deserves
an especially close study if
one is to fully understand the
Venezuelan situation.
Ultimately, the tragedy of
Ch Guevara's life is that he
did not live to see the failure
of his own tactics as global
capital and the United States
in particular quickly adapted
to guerrilla warfare and
learned how to fight the
"Guevarist" movements to a
standstill in which they
eventually starved
themselves of momentum
and popular support. It is my
assertion that this led to the
biggest -- and really, only -backdoor of legitimacy for
Maoism in this hemisphere,
22/26
10/24/2014
and exploring the universal

and romantic appeal of Ch
Guevara is key to
understanding why groups
like the Black Panthers and
even modern US hip-hop
culture as a whole have
remained much more
influenced by authoritarian
and vanguardist left-wing
tendencies than they should
have been, a fact that
frustrates orthodox
anarchists to no end.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] antaries 3 points 10 days ago
This is much better than the, frankly

shit, 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 been

useful to another person, and I
currently have it saved. I've been
dragged through American education
and some teachers forcing a really
bad version of Marxist literary
analysis on me. The result is that I
was clear on the fundamental
principles of Marxism (which the top
comment gets wrong) but viewed it
as an incoherent and fundamentally
mistaken system.
It's a great experience to get a solid
summary of how Marxism can be
consistent and competently wielded,
and raises the point that a lot of it's
most obvious "follies" are better
viewed as points of contrast with
prevailing ideology.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] mdedwards 2 points 9 days ago
Where has Marxism as you

described ever been demonstrated
to flourish in a nation or among a
people? Appreciate the depth you
brought.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] G-Bombz 1 point 9 days ago
You seem to know yer shit, so may I

ask, what do you think is the best
"way" for the world to operate?
permalink
parent
pocket
23/26
10/24/2014
[] wandering_T 1 point 9 days ago
Hi. I enjoyed reading this, but could

you perhaps suggest some books?
I've always really wanted to
understand these topics as I find
them fascinating, but I'm very dense
when it comes to politics or
ideologies. To put it in perspective, I
couldn't even summarize what
capitalism is. In other words,
where's a good place to start from?
permalink
parent
pocket
[] GoAheadShoot 1 point 9 days ago
He typed that on his phone at a

stoplight.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] Cheque_Mate 1 point 3 days ago
My parents antique store was called

Historical Materialism.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] tach 1 point 9 days ago
And here's when he went astray, on

page 28.
A use value, or useful article,
therefore, has value only because
human labour in the abstract has
been embodied or materialised in it.
How, then, is the magnitude of this
value to be measured? Plainly, by
the quantity of the value-creating
substance, the labour, contained in
the article. The quantity of labour,
however, is measured by its
duration, and labour time in its turn
finds its standard in weeks, days,
and hours.
The rest of the castle built into this
flimsy sand went down whenever the
real world touched it.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] UristLemonz 1 point 8 days ago
And now Marxism can be laid to

rest because of a Reddit
comment.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] fausto2278 1 point 9 days ago
Thank you, this was incredibly

educational to say the least.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] its4thecatlol 1 point 9 days ago
What civil war in India?

permalink
parent
pocket
[] throwaway4537809507 1 point 5
days ago
24/26
10/24/2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite
permalink
parent
pocket
[] its4thecatlol 0 points 5 days

ago
To call this a civil war is to

call racism in America
slavery. Let's avoid
hyperbolizing the truth to
further out viewpoints.
permalink
parent
pocket
[] SteelChicken -2 points 10 days ago

assembled!
head explodes
permalink
parent
pocket
[] WarriorHealer -4 points 10 days ago
This explanation fucked the top

comment in the fucking ass. Great
job, and thanks!
permalink
parent
pocket
[] ExPwner -3 points 9 days ago
You had a great explanation going

until you said this:
assembled
Even the most basic of minds can
understand 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 more
permalink
parent
pocket
25/26
10/24/2014
about
help
tools
<3
blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs
wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us
mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget
reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. 2014 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
26/26

Nachie Comments On ELI5 - What Are The Differences Between The Branches of Communism Leninism, Marxism, Trotskyism, Etc

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nachie Comments On ELI5 - What Are The Differences Between The Branches of Communism Leninism, Marxism, Trotskyism, Etc

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

10/24/2014

other discussions (2)

ELI5:What are the differences

want to join? login or register in seconds | English

submitted 11 days ago by

927 comments share pocket

sorted by: best

you are viewing a single comment's

this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2014

2,997 points (91% upvoted)

[] Nachie 530 points 10 days ago*

Shit. When I saw this pop up on the

the real movement which abolishes

Direct replies to the original post (aka

Have an idea to improve ELI5? Click here!

ELI5 Tip: Do not forget to include the ELI5: tag at the

a community for 3 years

message the moderators

Dialectical Materialism is the

economic discipline, many have best

say that questions of leadership are

true workers' state.

close to the true definition of Marxism

[] Jokeydjokovic 17 points 10 days ago

Appreciate the deeper diving.

[] Nachie 19 points 10 days ago

Thanks for reading! I was pretty

[] D-Hex 8 points 9 days ago

At last someone who actually

[] pulpified 3 points 9 days

That's a rarity in a lot of

Yeah, tell me about

/u/Nachie is probably gonna get a

you hardly come across these days,

I don't see where the flak is, but

[] Rainholly42 9 points 10 days

Apologies. His comment was

there. I typed my comment

[+] [deleted] 9 days ago* (6 children)

Leninism = We need to get

[] RickRussellTX 14 points 9 days ago

Labor Theory of Value

[] EmperorXenu -4 points 9 days ago

So, what you're saying is, you

[] RickRussellTX 1 point 9 days

I wrote what I intended.

[] raajneesh 3 points 10 days ago

Great post, thanks. Could you please

[] Nachie 24 points 10 days ago

Sure! I am a Brazilian and have

electoral detour) away from

split now between members of

things around into a future that

[] blackbootz 6 points 10 days

I'm fascinated and want to

[] SubhumanShit 3 points 9 days

two chief characteristics:

[] VT-Sensational 3 points 9 days

wild decay - inefficiency,

I agree that capitalism,

instance), but imagine

You seem to miss

So why are food