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.