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
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
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.
Regardless of which tendency is “orthodox”—a fruitless conversation given that each tendency claims orthodoxy—the great majority of Marxists in the world are Marxist-Leninists, and the only successful communist projects to date have been Marxist-Leninist ones.
that’s because “orthodox” in the case of marxism is largely a matter of optics. the mensheviks could be considered orthodox simply because of their ties to russia, the bolsheviks, and so on, but when we analyze their policies we realize they were simply opportunistic and reactionary. today the term is widely used in the sense i describe. essentially to differentiate between actual revolutionary movements that did not abandon class struggle, and eurocommunism which is essentially red liberalism in circlejerk academia groups.
Marxism-Leninism strongly rejects classic/orthodox Marxism, no?
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
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
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.
It seems you do not know the history of Marxism very well or we are using differing definitions.
The Mensheviks were largely orthodox Marxists e.g.
Regardless of which tendency is “orthodox”—a fruitless conversation given that each tendency claims orthodoxy—the great majority of Marxists in the world are Marxist-Leninists, and the only successful communist projects to date have been Marxist-Leninist ones.
that’s because “orthodox” in the case of marxism is largely a matter of optics. the mensheviks could be considered orthodox simply because of their ties to russia, the bolsheviks, and so on, but when we analyze their policies we realize they were simply opportunistic and reactionary. today the term is widely used in the sense i describe. essentially to differentiate between actual revolutionary movements that did not abandon class struggle, and eurocommunism which is essentially red liberalism in circlejerk academia groups.