If there are non-Leninist Marxists, then Marxism-Leninism is not a redundancy
If all Leninists are Marxists then it is redundant. Since Lenin was a Marxist who built on top of Marxism then Leninism is Marxist. Just saying Leninist shall suffice.
Marxism has different branches to it, yes, but hyphenating a term that already includes Marxism makes the first word redundant. It is like saying that there are modes of transportation. A car is already a mode of transportation, but instead of saying “car” to refer to the mode of transportation that is a car, people just say “mode of transportation-car” every time.
Sorry, but your argument is so silly that I simply cannot take it seriously.
Mocking someone and laughing at them is such an unbecoming and unprofessional behavior for a Marxist admin. You should really change your attitude and treat others with respect.
If you disagree with someone, just say a counter argument, downvote them or ignore them, but if they are talking to you in good faith, being disrespectful is just a nasty attitude that turns people off and away from these spaces, specially if it is from someone in a position of power as yourself.
Maybe think of it as more like engine than car. There are circumstances where you would add a qualifier to be more specific: jet engine, combustion engine, steam engine, etc.
I'm an ML but I'll call myself ML, Marxist, or Leninist depending on the company and environment. Usually for emphasis and specificity. Marxist or Leninist aren't quite accurate but they can be useful.
If I'm trying to bring someone along who might be converted, I'll use Marxist. It's softer. In some circles, Marx is only known as a generic philosophical thinker. The revolutionary aspect is forgotten or not known. It can be less threatening, which can get someone to listen. Engels can work like this, too. This also explains why 'Marxist' isn't quite accurate – it includes too many revisionists, western Marxists, etc.
Leninist is good for conservatives who don't know wtf they're talking about but who are unrepentant libs. Putting the Leninist up front puts the revolutionary element right in their face. It can be a relatively hostile manoeuvre with those who will not give an inch even to progressive liberal reforms, nevermind revolution. Sometimes that's needed and if there's a crowd it can be fun to get onto it.
Leninist is also good for all types of libs who might hear the M of ML and think of tame western academic Marxism. Some people need to know that sensible people have read and respect Lenin. But then I'll need to go back and explain the diamat and himat of Marx and Engels. I.e. 'Leninist' on it's own feels incomplete because it only really refers to Lenin's contributions to Marxism, rather than to the whole of Marxism.
With anyone, the full ML description must come at some point, when they're ready for it and it's subtleties. Lenin is still safer than Stalin and Mao despite the obvious connection to revolution. Lenin is slightly more rehabilitated because he didn't live through the mid and late USSR. (Have a look at Tucker's editorial comments in his Reader on Lenin to see how 'Leninist' might imply a distance from Stalin's USSR.)
If you start with ML and have to talk about Stalin to explain the synthesis, you might just lose people. But if you can first explain some Marx and/or Lenin, you can get round to Stalin later and people might actually read all three – or promise to do so, anyway.
It does depend. I've had some luck starting with a critical defense of the purges but only after developing a relationship entirely without talking about politics until they already think I'm 'normal'. That way they can't dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist/extremist.
Deviating from the label ML is just a way of indoctrinating people with whatever rhetoric will be most useful. The deviation does mean implying a difference from ML as M and L are different to ML. For me, that might be to lure people into it with a false sense of security. Depends on how much you will interact with someone and how much you're willing to work with them.
Mocking someone and laughing at them is such an unbecoming and unprofessional behavior for a Marxist admin. You should really change your attitude and treat others with respect.
I do. I'm usually the one who insists on doing so. I took an exception in this thread and discussion because the arguments of those who say it's "redundant" are very flawed, yet they are repeating themselves every time. The same way you're insisting on your position, I'm insisting on giving the "redundants" this treatment.
If all Leninists are Marxists then it is redundant. Since Lenin was a Marxist who built on top of Marxism then Leninism is Marxist. Just saying Leninist shall suffice.
Marxism has different branches to it, yes, but hyphenating a term that already includes Marxism makes the first word redundant. It is like saying that there are modes of transportation. A car is already a mode of transportation, but instead of saying “car” to refer to the mode of transportation that is a car, people just say “mode of transportation-car” every time.
That example was extraordinarily silly lol. What's your point? Do you want to convince us not to call ourselves Marxists? Or do you not want to call ourselves Leninists, only Marxists? Vice-versa? What's your point? What are you trying to accomplish with this discussion? Why do you care so much about this? What difference does it make what you call yourself, why do you want us to agree with you? You wouldn't be insisting on this scholastic and irrelevant "issue" if you didn't have a purpose. So if you want to be taken seriously, please be clear on what you're trying to accomplish, because I can only see someone in confusion and trying to confuse others in the process.
To call oneself a Leninist, while a historical term, Marxist-Leninist, already exists, seems like trying to diminish Marx. To call oneself a Marxist claiming "Leninism" is a redundancy seems like trying to diminish Lenin. The term, Marxism-Leninism, a historical term, already exists, and based on that, many revolutionary theories were developed. There's no need to reinvent the wheel.
Both Marx (and Engels by extension) and Lenin were extraordinarily important in developing a revolutionary worldview. It's important to preserve their names as they are both an unavoidable source of knowledge. Removing one or the other completely scars both. Just so you see how this is important, there are a lot of Marxists who ignore Engels' contribution, I'd say simply because Marx is more known than Engels, and thus, more prone to be read. The fact that our science is called "Marxism" undoubtedly has contributed to this. So preserving Marxism-Leninism is important to not diminish the contributions of one or the other.
Notice how there are people who call themselves Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. Don't they attach to Mao a greater importance than most Marxists-Leninists? Again, it's not a coincidence, it's a reaffirmation of a position, like I mentioned, and also a reaffirmation of the theoretical body of work responsible for that position.
You don't. You have done everything, but that this far.
I'm usually the one who insists on doing so.
Doesn't seem like it at all, with how you have conducted yourself in this convo so far.
I took an exception in this thread and discussion because the arguments of those who say it's "redundant" are very flawed, yet they are repeating themselves every time.
You could have literally said: "Your arguments are flawed, for x, y and z" instead of mocking me and saying something totally unrelated to the point which made me think that you misunderstood my point and had me re-phrasing it for the sake of clarity.
The same way you're insisting on your position, I'm insisting on giving the "redundants" this treatment.
I don't understand how you are honestly rationalizing being patronizing and disrespectful to someone who is talking to you in good faith, by saying that is just redundant. This is literally no way to have a constructive conversation. This is purely childish behavior.
I really don't think that this conversation is going anywhere because you are being very bad faith about it.
I just rather don't engage with you, honestly. Please feel free to ignore me from now on, unless I break the rules or something.
I would say my points about the arguments you stated below, but you obviously have 0 respect for me and as you said, you don't take me seriously, so I rather not engage with someone who is bad faith like that.
I literally argued instead of simply dismissing you and you call that patronizing? Since you rather focus on my tone than my arguments, I can only conclude that you are not in fact arguing in good faith, only pretending to do so. Then using this as a shield to dismiss everything I've said because I adopt a different form of conversation in this silly discussion.
The fact that I took time to write to you and respond to your arguments is already a sign of respect, which you chose to ignore in your response. We are communists, we are used to be confronted and to confront, to be criticized and to criticize. If that's too much for you, I'm so sorry, but you need to get out of your bubble and learn to stand for what you believe instead of acting like a coward.
I took you seriously, and responded to your arguments, didn't I? But you chose to focus on something outside of the argument.
What? You literally want someone to dismiss being disrespected and being mocked on, and just concentrate on the rest that you say?
Why don't you then don't say it in the first place? If you want to have a constructive conversation with someone why are you disrespectful and then complain that the other person is calling you out for being disrespectful?
Your lack of accountability and your victim blaming is so unreal. You cannot take any criticism at all. Your attitude is just so entitled and patronizing that is just scary. Your attitude is just un-Marxist, honestly. You are literally un-fit to be an admin.
What? You literally want someone to dismiss being disrespected and being mocked on, and just concentrate on the rest that you say?
How do you want me to treat you when you are repeating the same arguments over and over, after I've constantly responded to them? I took patience and time to answer each one of them.
Why don’t you then don’t say it in the first place? If you want to have a constructive conversation with someone why are you disrespectful and then complain that the other person is calling you out for being disrespectful?
There's nothing constructive about your arguments so far.
Your lack of accountability and your victim blaming is so unreal. You cannot take any criticism at all. Your attitude is just so entitled and patronizing that is just scary. Your attitude is just un-Marxist, honestly. You are literally un-fit to be an admin.
Oh, now you're a victim? 😒 And I'm unfit to be an admin based on this single interaction with you? But I'm entitled, right. You are the one fit to be admin. Seriously, I can't tell if you're trolling at this point.
Gosh, you are just an intransigent bully. I really wish that I could block you so I didn’t get any more notifications with your toxic replies. But, I will just be the one doing the ignoring now. I will only reply to you if it is due to administrative concerns or something about rules, but otherwise, I am not going to keep damaging my mental health talking to you.
I will ignore everything we've discussed so far and consider you are indeed acting in good faith.
I'm sorry that I mocked you and acted dismissively. At first, I answered your thread without this tone, check my first response to your topic. But after I saw many others arguing similarly, while you and a few others were insisting on it with the same arguments over and over, I completely lost my respect for those who were arguing this.
It reminded of the struggles I had within my previous party, where the leadership there were arguing similar things, that we should abandon the term "Marxism-Leninism" altogether. It got personal, and I could no longer maintain a respectful and professional tone, and I apologize for that.
That being said, please answer this, and I promise I won't disturb you any longer:
What’s your point? What are you trying to accomplish with this discussion? Why do you care so much about this? What difference does it make what you call yourself, why do you want us to agree with you?
Nothing, I just wanted to put forth my semantics realization and see if there were any counter arguments as to why just calling oneself a Leninist would be any different than calling oneself a Marxist Leninist.
What are you trying to accomplish with this discussion?
Same answer
Why do you care so much about this?
I don’t care that much. I just wanted to hear the reasons that other people had and presented my own. I don’t have any horse in the race.
What difference does it make what you call yourself, why do you want us to agree with you?
People can call themselves whatever they want. I just wanted to discuss if Leninism would be the most semantically correct term, and put forth my reasoning as I explained previously.
These questions honestly feel like a serious interrogation just for a question about word accuracy and semantics.
Edit: That is how conversation works. Someone says an argument and if another person doesn’t agree they say a counter argument. Not agreeing about the usage of one term or thinking that it could be shortened doesn’t mean that someone has a hidden agenda.
Both Marx (and Engels by extension) and Lenin were extraordinarily important in developing a revolutionary worldview. It’s important to preserve their names as they are both an unavoidable source of knowledge. Removing one or the other completely scars both. Just so you see how this is important, there are a lot of Marxists who ignore Engels’ contribution, I’d say simply because Marx is more known than Engels, and thus, more prone to be read. The fact that our science is called “Marxism” undoubtedly has contributed to this. So preserving Marxism-Leninism is important to not diminish the contributions of one or the other.
This paragraph alone would have been enough to answer OP's question.
I don't understand why such an innocent question can generate so much hostility, we're all here to share and to learn.
I don’t understand why such an innocent question can generate so much hostility, we’re all here to share and to learn.
Because OP and a few others have been repeating the same arguments over and over in this thread after many people argued a similar thing than I did. And also because it's a trend to try and dismiss the importance of "Marxism-Leninism" as a theoretical framework all over the world. It happened with Soviet and post-Soviet revisionists, and it happened recently in Brazil, where revisionists and toxic abusers of PCB were forcing people to dissociate from "Marxism-Leninism", adopting instead "Marxism and Leninism" in their documents. They are snakes like that.
I don't think OP is this kind of people. I think they are confused, but they insist on their confusion, and they push their confusion onto others. Then they repeat the same things over and over after several people have responded to them, and they continue to insist on it. I asked what's their point, what they are trying to accomplish, and they completely ignored it. I'm this close to consider they are in fact not confused, but they are dishonest, and they are not "here to share and to learn".
If all Leninists are Marxists then it is redundant. Since Lenin was a Marxist who built on top of Marxism then Leninism is Marxist. Just saying Leninist shall suffice.
Marxism has different branches to it, yes, but hyphenating a term that already includes Marxism makes the first word redundant. It is like saying that there are modes of transportation. A car is already a mode of transportation, but instead of saying “car” to refer to the mode of transportation that is a car, people just say “mode of transportation-car” every time.
Mocking someone and laughing at them is such an unbecoming and unprofessional behavior for a Marxist admin. You should really change your attitude and treat others with respect.
If you disagree with someone, just say a counter argument, downvote them or ignore them, but if they are talking to you in good faith, being disrespectful is just a nasty attitude that turns people off and away from these spaces, specially if it is from someone in a position of power as yourself.
Maybe think of it as more like engine than car. There are circumstances where you would add a qualifier to be more specific: jet engine, combustion engine, steam engine, etc.
I'm an ML but I'll call myself ML, Marxist, or Leninist depending on the company and environment. Usually for emphasis and specificity. Marxist or Leninist aren't quite accurate but they can be useful.
If I'm trying to bring someone along who might be converted, I'll use Marxist. It's softer. In some circles, Marx is only known as a generic philosophical thinker. The revolutionary aspect is forgotten or not known. It can be less threatening, which can get someone to listen. Engels can work like this, too. This also explains why 'Marxist' isn't quite accurate – it includes too many revisionists, western Marxists, etc.
Leninist is good for conservatives who don't know wtf they're talking about but who are unrepentant libs. Putting the Leninist up front puts the revolutionary element right in their face. It can be a relatively hostile manoeuvre with those who will not give an inch even to progressive liberal reforms, nevermind revolution. Sometimes that's needed and if there's a crowd it can be fun to get onto it.
Leninist is also good for all types of libs who might hear the M of ML and think of tame western academic Marxism. Some people need to know that sensible people have read and respect Lenin. But then I'll need to go back and explain the diamat and himat of Marx and Engels. I.e. 'Leninist' on it's own feels incomplete because it only really refers to Lenin's contributions to Marxism, rather than to the whole of Marxism.
With anyone, the full ML description must come at some point, when they're ready for it and it's subtleties. Lenin is still safer than Stalin and Mao despite the obvious connection to revolution. Lenin is slightly more rehabilitated because he didn't live through the mid and late USSR. (Have a look at Tucker's editorial comments in his Reader on Lenin to see how 'Leninist' might imply a distance from Stalin's USSR.)
If you start with ML and have to talk about Stalin to explain the synthesis, you might just lose people. But if you can first explain some Marx and/or Lenin, you can get round to Stalin later and people might actually read all three – or promise to do so, anyway.
It does depend. I've had some luck starting with a critical defense of the purges but only after developing a relationship entirely without talking about politics until they already think I'm 'normal'. That way they can't dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist/extremist.
Deviating from the label ML is just a way of indoctrinating people with whatever rhetoric will be most useful. The deviation does mean implying a difference from ML as M and L are different to ML. For me, that might be to lure people into it with a false sense of security. Depends on how much you will interact with someone and how much you're willing to work with them.
I do. I'm usually the one who insists on doing so. I took an exception in this thread and discussion because the arguments of those who say it's "redundant" are very flawed, yet they are repeating themselves every time. The same way you're insisting on your position, I'm insisting on giving the "redundants" this treatment.
That example was extraordinarily silly lol. What's your point? Do you want to convince us not to call ourselves Marxists? Or do you not want to call ourselves Leninists, only Marxists? Vice-versa? What's your point? What are you trying to accomplish with this discussion? Why do you care so much about this? What difference does it make what you call yourself, why do you want us to agree with you? You wouldn't be insisting on this scholastic and irrelevant "issue" if you didn't have a purpose. So if you want to be taken seriously, please be clear on what you're trying to accomplish, because I can only see someone in confusion and trying to confuse others in the process.
To call oneself a Leninist, while a historical term, Marxist-Leninist, already exists, seems like trying to diminish Marx. To call oneself a Marxist claiming "Leninism" is a redundancy seems like trying to diminish Lenin. The term, Marxism-Leninism, a historical term, already exists, and based on that, many revolutionary theories were developed. There's no need to reinvent the wheel.
Both Marx (and Engels by extension) and Lenin were extraordinarily important in developing a revolutionary worldview. It's important to preserve their names as they are both an unavoidable source of knowledge. Removing one or the other completely scars both. Just so you see how this is important, there are a lot of Marxists who ignore Engels' contribution, I'd say simply because Marx is more known than Engels, and thus, more prone to be read. The fact that our science is called "Marxism" undoubtedly has contributed to this. So preserving Marxism-Leninism is important to not diminish the contributions of one or the other.
Notice how there are people who call themselves Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. Don't they attach to Mao a greater importance than most Marxists-Leninists? Again, it's not a coincidence, it's a reaffirmation of a position, like I mentioned, and also a reaffirmation of the theoretical body of work responsible for that position.
You don't. You have done everything, but that this far.
Doesn't seem like it at all, with how you have conducted yourself in this convo so far.
You could have literally said: "Your arguments are flawed, for x, y and z" instead of mocking me and saying something totally unrelated to the point which made me think that you misunderstood my point and had me re-phrasing it for the sake of clarity.
I don't understand how you are honestly rationalizing being patronizing and disrespectful to someone who is talking to you in good faith, by saying that is just redundant. This is literally no way to have a constructive conversation. This is purely childish behavior.
I really don't think that this conversation is going anywhere because you are being very bad faith about it.
I just rather don't engage with you, honestly. Please feel free to ignore me from now on, unless I break the rules or something.
I would say my points about the arguments you stated below, but you obviously have 0 respect for me and as you said, you don't take me seriously, so I rather not engage with someone who is bad faith like that.
I literally argued instead of simply dismissing you and you call that patronizing? Since you rather focus on my tone than my arguments, I can only conclude that you are not in fact arguing in good faith, only pretending to do so. Then using this as a shield to dismiss everything I've said because I adopt a different form of conversation in this silly discussion.
The fact that I took time to write to you and respond to your arguments is already a sign of respect, which you chose to ignore in your response. We are communists, we are used to be confronted and to confront, to be criticized and to criticize. If that's too much for you, I'm so sorry, but you need to get out of your bubble and learn to stand for what you believe instead of acting like a coward.
I took you seriously, and responded to your arguments, didn't I? But you chose to focus on something outside of the argument.
What? You literally want someone to dismiss being disrespected and being mocked on, and just concentrate on the rest that you say?
Why don't you then don't say it in the first place? If you want to have a constructive conversation with someone why are you disrespectful and then complain that the other person is calling you out for being disrespectful?
Your lack of accountability and your victim blaming is so unreal. You cannot take any criticism at all. Your attitude is just so entitled and patronizing that is just scary. Your attitude is just un-Marxist, honestly. You are literally un-fit to be an admin.
How do you want me to treat you when you are repeating the same arguments over and over, after I've constantly responded to them? I took patience and time to answer each one of them.
There's nothing constructive about your arguments so far.
Oh, now you're a victim? 😒 And I'm unfit to be an admin based on this single interaction with you? But I'm entitled, right. You are the one fit to be admin. Seriously, I can't tell if you're trolling at this point.
Gosh, you are just an intransigent bully. I really wish that I could block you so I didn’t get any more notifications with your toxic replies. But, I will just be the one doing the ignoring now. I will only reply to you if it is due to administrative concerns or something about rules, but otherwise, I am not going to keep damaging my mental health talking to you.
I will ignore everything we've discussed so far and consider you are indeed acting in good faith.
I'm sorry that I mocked you and acted dismissively. At first, I answered your thread without this tone, check my first response to your topic. But after I saw many others arguing similarly, while you and a few others were insisting on it with the same arguments over and over, I completely lost my respect for those who were arguing this.
It reminded of the struggles I had within my previous party, where the leadership there were arguing similar things, that we should abandon the term "Marxism-Leninism" altogether. It got personal, and I could no longer maintain a respectful and professional tone, and I apologize for that.
That being said, please answer this, and I promise I won't disturb you any longer:
Nothing, I just wanted to put forth my semantics realization and see if there were any counter arguments as to why just calling oneself a Leninist would be any different than calling oneself a Marxist Leninist.
Same answer
I don’t care that much. I just wanted to hear the reasons that other people had and presented my own. I don’t have any horse in the race.
People can call themselves whatever they want. I just wanted to discuss if Leninism would be the most semantically correct term, and put forth my reasoning as I explained previously.
These questions honestly feel like a serious interrogation just for a question about word accuracy and semantics.
Edit: That is how conversation works. Someone says an argument and if another person doesn’t agree they say a counter argument. Not agreeing about the usage of one term or thinking that it could be shortened doesn’t mean that someone has a hidden agenda.
This paragraph alone would have been enough to answer OP's question.
I don't understand why such an innocent question can generate so much hostility, we're all here to share and to learn.
Because OP and a few others have been repeating the same arguments over and over in this thread after many people argued a similar thing than I did. And also because it's a trend to try and dismiss the importance of "Marxism-Leninism" as a theoretical framework all over the world. It happened with Soviet and post-Soviet revisionists, and it happened recently in Brazil, where revisionists and toxic abusers of PCB were forcing people to dissociate from "Marxism-Leninism", adopting instead "Marxism and Leninism" in their documents. They are snakes like that.
I don't think OP is this kind of people. I think they are confused, but they insist on their confusion, and they push their confusion onto others. Then they repeat the same things over and over after several people have responded to them, and they continue to insist on it. I asked what's their point, what they are trying to accomplish, and they completely ignored it. I'm this close to consider they are in fact not confused, but they are dishonest, and they are not "here to share and to learn".