Ranting Disconnected Questions for Marxist-Leninists
Materialism vs. Idealism, Dualism vs. Libertarianism vs. Hard Determinism
The Marxist-Leninists insist that they are materialists, and that in their materialism they differ sharply with the utopian socialists, who are based only in the world of ideas and are therefore impotent in real struggle.
Materialism being the belief that the interactions of “Matter” is the source of all of out ideas, and that our ideas, and therefore ideals, cannot exist apart from matter.
I don’t object. I live in the material world afterall. I am a material being.
However, “Marxism” without ideals appears to be a very harsh ideology, which I find a hard time visualizing entirely apart from ideals.
Go on any, website of the extreme left, and read any standard article, and you will find them expressing “Ideals” since after all, we as human being speak in terms of ideals.
Isn’t this a contradiction?
Seeing, as I understand that living in the material world, I am the subject of forces I cannot control, pre-determined forces, I am certainly no libertarian, but that doesn’t mean I give up on all self-determination towards liberty, as small as I may be against the tide of economic determination. I have always been, therefore, a dualist of some sort, supporting both the individuals struggle for liberty, and the laws of determinism.
How does Marxist materialism differ, from all the other philosophers who uphold dualism, and materialism?
Philosophies which combine contradictions, as there is no other way of resolving them, other than by tolerating both.
Do Marxist-Leninists realize, that although they might object to the Bourgois-liberal historian categorizing them as being no different than Fascists, that despite important differences, they do in fact, on a merely amateur level share much more in common with Nationalists, Fascists, Populists, Social-democrates, Trotskites, Left-Anarchists and the like?
Furthermore, why does it seem that the “Correct line” is so difficult for Orthodox Marxist-Leninists to uphold? Why is is, that even the successor of Enver Hoxha, the icon and symbol of anti-revisionism, Ramiz Alia, restored capitalism in Albania?
Other than merely predicting failure, in the form of “counter-revolutions” and “betrayals” can those who defend Marxist-Leninism, have some kind of eternal moral by which they can justify all of the actions and reactions, which are taken in this process of philosphy through action?
Nevertheless, as much as I can respect both democracy itself and the crushing of ruling-class democracy in the name of a desired objective, it does seem to me that the very structure of the system itself requires this very two-faced expression, “Democratic centralism.”
Take for example the “democratic” question on the subject of Stalin’s “Aggravation of class struggle under socialism” or Trotsky’s line, “Continuation of class struggle within the party.”
Which is correct?
If I am right the Trotskites equate the Marx-Lenin-Stalin line, with Fascism because it holds “the Party” together as a united unit or “nation.” (Even while it isn’t actually a nation, but a cross-national party, acting as a united-nation.)
While the Marx-Lenin-Trotsky line would claim that the divisions which continue to exist within the party should be taken as a continuation of class struggle?
In practice, what is the difference?
Stalin holds a system together after a revolution, and plans to continue changing certain things gradually, when that change is possible. Meaning he first has to deal with the outside threats of the capitalists, and the internal threats of dissent and the growing uncomfortableness of those dissenting.
Trotsky on the other hand, wants to continue revolution directly without regard, to disagreement within, and the coming threats of other states without.
Is my assessment correct?
So why, is it that those of us who originate on the populist-nationalist anti-liberal right wing are more willing to identify nationalism with Stalin’s Communism, and consider it a positive thing, while Trotskites take it as negative, and M-L’ers themselves deny it.
My thought?
Stalin is a “Community-ist” and a “Party-ist” and in this, preserves nations, institutions and peoples, while Trotsky is a “Break-up-ist” who insists on changing the definition of class, in order to meet some ill-defined objective of perfect human equality.
Would the Marxist-Leninist please respond, as I am trying to understand what exactly your view is, and why you justify, Stalin’s position behind his actions, on behalf of that portion of the worlds “working class” which fell under their political control?
August 27th, 2009 at 12:58 am
[...] Don’t Hate the Player – Hate the Game | Free Media Productions « Ranting Disconnected Questions for Marxist-Leninists Afghan election used to justify more war – Maoist Rebel News [...]
August 27th, 2009 at 1:26 am
Let’s be honest. Stalin’s ideology was Machiavellian socialism combined with cold calculation and his talk of believing the predictions Marx made were still relevant in a precise sense was window dressing. Trotsky’s “ideology” was just to fight as much war as he could. Everything else is window dressing, including his poorly defined definition of class warfare. That’s just a justification. People pretend to believe things that they don’t really believe. It is no different than watching atheists pray in a church at a wedding, and then mock the prayer on the outside. Watching students pledge to the flag, and then spit on it when nobody who cares is looking. Everyone by then knew Marx’s predictions were imprecise (still groundbreaking but imprecise), but nobody openly admitted that Marx’s line required alteration to work in their modern societies. They all knew it though. When Trotsky and Stalin accused each other of revisionism, they were both correct. They should have looked in the mirror too because Marx’s line was dead by then.
Trotsky’s line was just lying and deception aimed at fighting as much war as he could so that he could gain as much power as he could, and Stalin’s line was just brute force authoritarian socialism where he could do it, and knowing his limitations where he couldn’t.
The fact that Stalin wasn’t a retarded and delusional fool makes me favor him over Hitler or Trotsky. It also convinces me that he had to have known that Marx’s predictions were off and turned to authoritarianism because he knew “bullying” is the only way to make socialism, not fatalistic uprisings of the masses based on international class conflict and crying for starving children in Palestine.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Could you perhaps provide a list of the works of Stalin and Marx you have read to back that up?