rostselmasch

It is really a shame that this is supposed to be the quintessence of the entire discussion and your actions. But based on all your other comments in this post, I definitely believe that no other answer is possible on your part.

OK, let's try.

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 can tell me if I am wrong, but continuation is a word for me which holds heavy weight. I had people said they were Marxists, but they didn't acknowledged Lenin. Meaning, Lenin bastardised (I don't know if this is the correct word?) Marxism and was not a Marxist at all. You know probably this people, its like you said, that they remove a bit for a bit Lenin, then Engels (This happens quite often) and then it ends in the Marx, when he was a idealist. So in the end, it is something absolute reactionary. I often had to explain and explain, that Lenin is not anywhere a contradiction at all to Marx, but a continuation. Meaning, he is a Marxists and he's works are Marxism. You cant (edit: typo) be against Lenin and say you are a Marxist, this wont work.

I admit, maybe I am wronged if I say continuation, but how else can I describe that?

You seem to only focus on what people responded to you, and seem to be uninterested in the rest of the thread

OK, then let me put it this way. I made a comment to explain myself regarding ML, because the OP asked. Then I got answers and answers, so I keeped answering and I indeed didn't follow other discussions.

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.

This is something I didn't know. In comment maybe by you simply was written, that I should stop focussing on Stalin, but I wasn't even focussing on him - At least not in the way how it was implied. Other reply to a comment of mine told me, that Marxism-Leninism was the way how Stalin described the work of Lenin. My knowledge was, that the term ML was established by him, this is why I even mentioned him. That it was used before him is something I haven't know, like I said.

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.

Look, I will try to explain my thought sincerely. The works from Stalin I have are from the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin Institute. I also encountered russian sites that use Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. So I came to the conclusion that names of important figures in the history of Marxism are being added.

Meaning, you especially make it clear that your position aligns with those persons. Which would also mean, if you remove, in the example I gave, Stalin from the long word, then you are not aligning with him. Especially the Institute is way to much.

This is way I said, that I rather mention something by the name of the person, because on the other hand I would have to add the persons before. Like, if a group describes themself as Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, I would say only the later an.

Looking now it into other comments in additions, my though seemed to be not that right.

Why I said it in the comments, that it is not valid, is because ML would mean, following my thought I described, that it stops with Lenin and won't go further what was after him, meaning ignoring it. I didn't mean, that Lenin's importance has to be removed. Like it looks like ML has another significant impact in Theory then I thought.

And then you ignored that

I would have been muted, that is why I didn't answer it, but rather explained, that I am unable engage any further. Didn't see it was you. But even if I saw it, it was clearly said, that I will be muted if I keep discussing. Why should ignore a warning from an admin?

Instead of deflecting and crying about your tone, I proceeded to respond to you.

I don't know why you are behaving this way, this I something I really have the emphasise:

After the first replies of sarcasm, mockery and that I should stop calling myself a Marxist at all and that some replies only took reference of only a fraction sometimes what I wrote, I indeed started a sentence with the words"Well, I don’t want to be rude, but where the fuck". When did I mentioned your tone? In the comment you actually answered right now. And what did I before that? I responded every time, even when I took you for another person - only to write that, I cant engage further. Where did I deflect now or cry?

You warned me, that I would be muted if I keep discussing, I even stopped after that. Then you suddenly had a better mood today or something like that, since there wasn't any explanation, and you decided "I take it back". I replied to you mentioning, that I don't want to reply only to receive again mockery and that you will maybe again decIde to write some "cease-and-desist" message, that you will mute me if I dont stop discussing. Considering this in addition you really simply called my comment regarding this "deflecting and crying", don't seeing anything wrong with that how you reacted before and now.

I would expect you to do the same.

Well, as I already showed, I did it the whole time.

I'm giving you all the liberty to respond.

Just stop with that. Really. Like, I read the first sentences of your comment and decided to answer, because you seemed different now. I mean, by "So did I, comrade" I had the impression that we just ignore the stuff from before and simply start from new - Since maybe you thought I had bad intentions and this is now cleared and we can talk normally.

I took time back and forth, its not that often that I try to discuss such topics in english and it was interesting looking into the sources you provided, I learned something. But there it is again. Like, thank you very much, that you will not mute me if my answer should make your mood bad. Usually this is something self-evident I am used to. Very much crying I guess, but I simply didn't expect something like this

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.

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. I wrote this message already to someone else. At least I can say, that the Trotsky thing is new to me and some things as well. I will keep this in mind and think about it, thank you for your comment!

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.

"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.

Well, I don't want to be rude, but where the fuck did I want remove especially Lenin in his importance? I am talking about, that ML is simply not concrete enough and therefore not a term I can work with, only use it in a vague definition, where I ignore the others important figures after him, which added unique thoughts and theories. Referring to myself and talking about communism, the term "marxism" is still something I prefer to use, you can not think about marxism without Lenin. In another comment I explained, that I still use ML where it is needed so someone can still understand me. I don't see any proof, that the way how I handle it is anywhere some revisionist move, where I want to remove Lenin and then probably Marx. The only thing I see is, that I use marxism or some term which can cover the uniqueness of a important person in the history of ML

Stop focusing on Stalin, Marxism-Leninism was developed by many peoples from many nationalities.

I am not focusing on Stalin at all. It has simply the same validity for me as to having a term for Luxemburg and I wouldn't call her ML at all (Her theory regarding imperialism was not so good in my opinion).

ML, was developed by many peoples from many nationalities. Some of them had important influence on several revolutions which happened. The thoughts, theory and praxis where sometimes unique in way, that Marxism-Leninism is not enough. So I may call it in a way specially referring too it. Where is the borderline liberal take because of this?

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.

And? Lenin had and has still massive importance even for groups who splitted with the SU or those opposition right or left which where there for a while. So answer me, what are you trying to imply? And of course Stalin, because he is an important figure. ML simply don't just refer to Marx and Lenin and I already wrote about that more concrete in another comment of mine

Other nations had different approaches but agree that they are currently ML with differences in conditions and therefore differences in concrete tactics.

Those differences can be large enough, that it fall into contradiction with all those groups and parties claiming to be ML. Split between China and SU was the same thing.

But regardless, you are changing a word unecessarily. Everyone who knows anything about it knows what one means with ML.

I do know it too, or did I make a different a impression? And it is not unecessarily for me, since even Trotsky used ML in his writings and also Stalin, Lenin only talked about marxism itself (self evident). Of course ML was associated with the SU over time.

What purpose is there to changing the label for something concrete and existing to which it refers?

Stalin had his own additions to Lenin and Marx, which differs from others. ML is not giving attention to this, that's why I call it the way how it is referred to a person (At least I learned that I am not ML anymore because of it from the person before you lol). Same way you can talk about Leninism, which refers to Lenin.

Call it a Camel for all I care, as long as we know we're referring to the foundation of historical materialism applied to material conditions, it doesn't matter.

So what's up with your mood right now, how often should I say that this is how I use it? So where does the "we" come from? I mean, its not like that I agitated for it. As long as I am talking with people who use ML seriously, I am using it as well. If I had a discussion with trotskiest (ML not used there), I don't don't have discussion about labels, but I there would be no problem to explain why Stalin would be the continuation of Lenin.

So changing it should have some benefit, which I'm not convinced exists.

As I said, it makes sense for me and that's why I use it. And it has benefits to order the amount of historically important splits, merges and infights in my head. ML is therefore still not a valid term in my opinion. If you think I am just relabeling it, its fine.

Edit: Added a sentence I forgot at the end.

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. After splits here and there between the soviet union and other countries, where everyone claimed to be the true continuation of ML, I prefer to differ this way. And since other splits after Lenin's dead also claimed to be the true successors of Lenin, I think it is more accurate to handle it this way