Leninism: Creating deformed worker states and dictatorships since 1917.
Leninism is a dangerous and ill-advised recipe for political revolution. It is a revision to Marxism that states that, to better adapt Marxism to the conditions of undeveloped countries, a strong political party that supposedly represents the working class (the revolutionary vanguard) needs to be established and given a huge amount of power post-revolution, which is justified by the need to purge dissenters and "protect" the proletariat from counter-revolutionary forces (which, under the authoritarian rule of the party or the party leader, can mean anyone who disagrees with the party).
What happens in practice is the political party wields excessive power over the state, is highly susceptible to corruption and leads to a new class comprised of party officials. Keep in mind that throughout the 20th century, the state has not been the most repressive institution as many anti-state ideologues claim - it has been political parties that controlled, either directly or indirectly, decisive organs of the state and government (in the case of fascist countries, decisive non-state institutions as well).
To protect against such corruption, you would need a movement of intellectuals; not uneducated wage-workers who are will easily fall for an ideology that promises them hope. But we don't have a population of intellectuals, due to the degenerate, anti-intellectual culture of capitalism that has been imposed upon and adopted the majority. The result is a movement akin to uneducated nationalists who will follow their leader(s) to do what they are told is necessary to succeed, both before and after the revolution.
Be skeptical of Marxist-Leninism and Leninism. One only needs to look at what happened in practically every country that was founded on Marxist-Leninist revolutionary methods (what most common people refer to as "communist countries"). In order for a socialist economy to flourish and function optimally, a stable, non-corrupt political environment where people can offer constructive suggestions and criticism is needed, where managers and other officials can report accurate figures without fear of being persecuted or purged for making the official party policy look ineffective. Flexibility and adaptability is more important than rigid dogmatism, which can choke the dynamism of an economy and stifle the true potential of a socialist planned or mixed economy.
Here are a few short clips from a documentary about China under Maoism, which illustrate the ill-fated political and authoritarian nature of Maoist single-party rule (in the interest of the peasants and proletariat, of course) and how that (as well as excessive competition to produce higher output amongst communes, which refutes the neoclassical economic schools claim that there is a lack of incentives under such a system) led to poor economic management and decision-making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd2oUdH5SqAhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xip3Ck4uRzo&feature=related 
Reply
