I presume slight differences in how the socialist concepts are carried out, but seriously, what?

There is no ‘nutshell’ answer for this one. It would take a book to reply to it. But I can recommend some books for you.

‘Revolution Besieged’ Tony Cliff

‘Russia’ From Workers State To State Capitalism’ Cliff, Binns, Harman

‘Arguments for Revolutionary Socialism’ John Molyneux

‘International Struggle and the Marxist Tradition’ Tony Cliff

‘The ABC of Socialism’ John Rees

‘Marxism and History’ Chris Harman

‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific’ Frederick Engels

‘Left Wing’ Communism’ An Infantile Disorder’ Lenin

‘State and Revolution’ Lenin

‘The Revolution Betrayed’ Trotsky

And of course, the old standards. ‘Communist Manifesto’ Marx, and The History of the Russian Revolution’ Trotsky

Sorry but cannot think of any on Maoism, I’m not a Maoist.

I suggest you read some of these books in order to find out the true nature of the philosophies. Most of the answers you’ve recieved so far are downright bizarre. For example, Lenin and Stalin were ideological opposites, there is no philisophical connection whatsoever.

Because i can understand Marxist, and Leninism, but why would people follow Maoism? it was created by Mao, who’s great leap forward killed at least 20 million people.

The Maoist strain of Marxism took the notion of equality, already central to Marxism, and tried to enforce completely through society. As with all attempts to enforce equality it didn’t liberate and bring everyone upwards, it instead made life into a living hell. Its appeal was the fairness of equality, which meant in practice everyone had to live a humble life in the gutter. It was just a more viral strain of the equality of conditions promised by Marxism and in practice just another way to reduce all humans to the lowest level of existence possible.

International Communism.
There are no differences between Bolsheviks on policy!

For the Hammer and Sickle, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_and_sickle .

“The Communist Party of China uses it as the party symbol. It is also used by Communist Parties in most countries.”

If is somewhat more strongly connected with Russia and Russian communism. Variants of the symbol are used by some national communist parties.

For the Hammer and Sickle, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_and_sickle .

“The Communist Party of China uses it as the party symbol. It is also used by Communist Parties in most countries.”

If is somewhat more strongly connected with Russia and Russian communism. Variants of the symbol are used by some national communist parties.

For the Hammer and Sickle, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_and_sickle .

“The Communist Party of China uses it as the party symbol. It is also used by Communist Parties in most countries.”

If is somewhat more strongly connected with Russia and Russian communism. Variants of the symbol are used by some national communist parties.

Marxism: Marx once said that he is not a Marxist– Marx introduced dialectical materialism, that is the core of his thought, but he is against a scientization of his views, as truth changes dialectically from epoch to epoch.

Lenin brought communism to the peasants of Russia, and had arguments to justify forgoing the ‘necessary’ evolution of communist states from capitalist ones. Mao and every other poor nation has also implemnted Lenin’s strategies, passions, and reasoning. I see no great difference between Leninism and Marxist-Leninism.

Trotskyists, as fashionable today, proclaim a lack of solidarity with ‘communist’ states that are bureaucratic Stalinist enterprises which do not engender democracy and are not products of the revolutionary proletariat.. They believe the revolution must happen in developed capitalist societies.

They’re all points on the collectivist spectrum, but apparently they differ enough ideologically to be differentiated.

Ask Obama, he is proficient in all… don’t ask him about Democracy tho.. he doesn’t like that.

They’re all points on the collectivist spectrum, but apparently they differ enough ideologically to be differentiated.

Ask Obama, he is proficient in all… don’t ask him about Democracy tho.. he doesn’t like that.

They’re all points on the collectivist spectrum, but apparently they differ enough ideologically to be differentiated.

Ask Obama, he is proficient in all… don’t ask him about Democracy tho.. he doesn’t like that.