Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 18:47:49 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Jukka Laari <jlaari-AT-tukki.jyu.fi>
Subject: Re: marxism-leninism/stalinism



On the problem of relations between marxism, marxism-leninism, and 
stalinism:

When and where doctrines of marxism-leninism was produced? Under what 
circumstances? 

As far as I know - correct me, please, if I'm wrong: I'm not historian 
of ideas - marxism-leninism has been produced in Soviet Union in 1930's. 
What that means?

First of all, it means that marxism-leninism is the official 
philosophico-political doctrine of stalinism: (a) it's tuned to support 
'socialism in one country' (against Lev Trotsky's politics); (b) it wasn't 
'critical theory' in a sense of marxism in western societies (marxism as 
oppositional force), because it was aimed to legitimize communist 
party's leading role (basically: Stalin's dictatorship); (c) in implied 
deep interpretative tuning concerning the writings of Marx ('dogmatic' 
splitting into historical materialism and dialectical materialism). I 
believe here's the major characteristics of marxism-leninism in general.

I believe Andy Daitsman and Eugene Holland are right in reminding us, that 
Lenin is crucial character in order to grasp marxism-leninism. So it's a 
bit too quick move to blame Marx for the sins of stalinism (like mr. 
Glucksman & al do). But what is exactly Lenin's role in marxism-leninism? 
(After all, one can interpret Lenin differently than according to 
marxism-leninism.)

Philosophically Lenin didn't gave anything - it's better to read Hegel 
and Marx directly, without Lenin's 'deep' notices (for example in his 
philosophical notebooks). Rather he was a practical politician. Very 
lucky one, I believe.

But back to marxism-leninism: in it one can find a very specific 
interpretation of the writings of Marx, interpretation which is 
fundamentally influenced by Lenin. Secondly, there's a 1930's 
interpretation of Lenin (leninism, esp. leninistic revolution theory). 
These two interpretations are closely intertwined in order to produce 
the total theory of marxism-leninism.

Compare that Soviet process to German development: from late 1920's on 
there emerged several marxist attempts to theorize what's going on and 
what should be done with it - esp. Karl Korsch (who influenced deeply 
Brecht) and 'Frankfurt school' are still significant figures when 
considering marxist thinking of this century.

Philip Goldstein says, that there's close connection between Marx and 
stalinism and that "the Soviet experience requires us not just to prune 
growths that we don't like but to reconfigure the basic model or plant."

In my opinion the whole 'western marxism(s)' (from 'young Lukacs', Korsch, 
Frankfurt school and Gramsci to Althusser and post-althusserian marxists 
like Laclau - and, perhaps, Slavoj Zizek?) has been that reconfiguring! 

Perhaps my general point is that let's not put too much emphasis on 
marxism-leninism/stalinism because of it's different road. There are 
better sources for contemporary theory, sources that have roots in the 
real experiences of what it is to be 'humans under capitalism' (as Klaus 
Ottomaier once put it). After all, aren't we now witnessing a new stage, 
that of global, 'multinational' capitalism, which eats states and 
societies like fat, piggish capitalist in old agit-prop posters?

Jukka Laari