What is the difference between maoism and stalinism?

I checked on Google, but I found nothing valuable. It only said it had 'minor differences'. Which exactly?
I forgot leninism in the Title. What heck is that?
Also, why is there not a break-your-own-country-policy to be named Gorbachevism?

Both Maoism and Stalinism are essentially personalized versions of totalitarian communism.
Leninism is somewhere between the idealized version of communism and the totalitarian.

Though it might be a bit more accurate to say they're impersonalized!

Marxism Leninism is the idea that the revolution should be made by "professional revolutionaries" and there should be a "vanguard" to prepare the revolution.
There are ideological subtleties between Stalinism and Maoism (potentially the Maoist ideology has to do with the cultural revolution), but I don't know enough to reply to your question.
USSR was already deeply broken, Gorbachev did what he had to do with the crap his predecessors left to him. He launched a policy of restructuration that indeed eventually lead to the end of the USSR, but that was necessary given the circumstances.

@absicht_MAUERzuBAUEN
Read them separately.
This may help you:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies

@clousems said in #2:
> Both Maoism and Stalinism are essentially personalized versions of totalitarian communism.
> Leninism is somewhere between the idealized version of communism and the totalitarian.

I know, that is what the websites are saying, but what difference exactly?

@Akbar2thegreat said in #5:
> @absicht_MAUERzuBAUEN
> Read them separately.
> This may help you:
> en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies

Tried. They only say stuff that are common for communism.

@FC-in-the-UK said in #4:
> Marxism Leninism is the idea that the revolution should be made by "professional revolutionaries" and there should be a "vanguard" to prepare the revolution.
Are you sure? After all, Lenin used the workers to actually do a revolution.
> There are ideological subtleties between Stalinism and Maoism (potentially the Maoist ideology has to do with the cultural revolution), but I don't know enough to reply to your question.
Exactly. I do not know either.
> USSR was already deeply broken, Gorbachev did what he had to do with the crap his predecessors left to him. He launched a policy of restructuration that indeed eventually lead to the end of the USSR, but that was necessary given the circumstances.
He opened way too much. Should have simply shot demonstrations.

@absicht_MAUERzuBAUEN said in #6:
> I know, that is what the websites are saying, but what difference exactly?
I said I don't know.

> Are you sure? After all, Lenin used the workers to actually do a revolution.
Yeah I'm sure. And the Russian revolution was organised by the Revolutionary Military Committee of the Bolshevik party, in line with the ideology I described.
> He opened way too much. Should have simply shot demonstrations
Are you out of your mind?

tl;dr: Proletariat hegemony through workers in Russia and peasants in China.

Marx said that true democracy could permanently be actuallized only through communism, which proposes proletariat dictatorship until a classless society is achieved and maintained because when all the people own the means of production and any privilege due to inheritance that maintains the status quo is removed, a society becomes classless and with equal stakes come equal opportunities and also the incentive to maintain those opportunities would then be equal, as it's the much bigger portion of all societies that have the short end of the stick and for them such change would be much welcome.(class consciousness)

This is just a very rough summary of the idea.

The way to put this idea into practice varies with each society and depends on their mode of production, and means and thus what establishes the class that produces everything and gets very little.

Because Russia, too, had already started its industrial revolution, the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolurion were able to foresee that who were once peasants would have to become workers. That's not how narodniks planned it when they had been uniting against the Tzarist Russia but with Lenin, afaik, the outline for the adaptation of this economy was thus set. So it's really Lenin and not Stalin that made a plan.

Mao's China however relied on peasants and their production. They were behind the industrial revolution. So if there was any revolution to be done, it was going to have to be done with these people.

This implies that China's ruling elite were just aristocracy before Mao and there was no bourgeoisie as a class and bourgeoisie is when there's capitalism. (it's ofc more detailed than this and could rather be explained by thw French Revolution but suffice it to say that it was the newly emerging class of bourgeoisie then who put an end to monarchy so they coyld be the new rulers and used pent up public frustration to that end and that was the French revolution: 1) 30 years war, the reformation and westphalia 2) Reneissance 3) Science blossoms like crazy 4) Advances in science cause advances in tech big enough to change the means of production, thus workers are needed so come the French Revolution and finally the advances culminate in industrial revolution, today info age, AI and robots establish another and so many people fail to take seriously what that means)

and the way Marx saw it is that communism only follows capitalism and is succeded by democracy (one that is often called a utopia)

edit- Classless societies is when the state has served its purpose and is to be dissolved. Forgot to add this very important bit.-

I've only read a couple of books by Marx, Engels and Lenin and the last one was long ago so and I am not trying to be meticulous right now but this I would say is the gist.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Marx was (is) one of the most mis-understood thinkers of past 200(0) years. Because that what he was: a thinker, ie. philosopher, not (in my opinion) a political demagogist. This of course open for debate, but until anybody gives me clear-cut proof that he intended any kind of revolution, i'm not convinced otherwise.