this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2026
44 points (65.1% liked)

Memes

57247 readers
204 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Marxism-Leninism strongly rejects classic/orthodox Marxism, no?

[–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

no, marxism leninism is considered the "orthodox" reading by many. the orthodox being not abandoning class struggle as the main moving force of history. which is essentially what eurocomunnism introduced in the west. rejection of class struggle. introduction of communist parties into electoralism. abandoning armed struggle. supporting liberal policies and the liberalization of the party.

[–] ClathrateG@hexbear.net 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's subjective view, personally I would call Marxism-Leninism an extension of Marx's Marxism rather than a rejection, their main difference being that Marx predicted that Socialist revolution would begin at the in the most advanced capitalist nations(such as Britain and France and the time both were writing) Leninism emphasizes the particular role imperialism plays alongside global capitalism, and thus that revolution may begin in a society such as the Tsarist Russia Empire which while capitalist in many respects still retained many feudal characteristics, which according to your own views on the socialist character of the October revolution, August Revolution etc has been proven correct

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 week ago

yes, you can individually choose to redefine widely agreed/used on terms when talking about the history of Marxism. It just makes conversation with others so much harder, as with all subjective definitions