many stupid questions, please help to solve

[redfox]

Ok, I am a highschooler, I grew up in a very conservative right-wing family. My father is a docter and is in pretty much a Libritarian. He is always telling me about how bad Obama's socialist moves have been and has been feeding me this point of view ever since I can remember. Now I am old enough, and smart enough to take a stand about what I believe.
I watched a history chanel presentation of on Che and am extreamly entriuged. I have always been extreamly curious about Anarchism and all types of Socialism, Marxism, you name it. I really want to learn, but have no one to ask. So I am turning here.

Please, explain to me what is Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, and any other parties and views that are important.

One of the things that is the most disenchanting to me in regards to socialism is how a docter is expected to be payed as much as a plummer. A docter seriously puts in faaar more work then a plummer in the relm of eduaction. A docter has to compleate years of medical school and years of some of the hardest work there is to even begin his career, is it not only fair that he gains a higher salery then someone who learned how to mop middle school hallways in a week? Seriously.

Another thing is Anarchism. It's a very romantic idea for any thinking teenager, but honestly, it hardly seems practical. How could a country exist with no leader? There would be . . . Anarchy! No control what so ever, which would mean rampant crime, and all manner of hell. It's obvious that as it is now men can not work perfectly peacefully side by side even with rules to help keep eachother safe, so without those rules, who knows what would happen? Compleate disorder, America would fall, poverty would spread, sickness would profilorate, what a mess. So, Anarchism, what's the big idea, eh?

Ok, I am not attacking any groups here, just honestly, sincereley interested.
Thank you so much.

[Dust Bunnies]

Please note I am a total novice at Communism but I will try to answer this.



Ok, I am a highschooler, I grew up in a very conservative right-wing family. My father is a docter and is in pretty much a Libritarian. He is always telling me about how bad Obama's socialist moves have been and has been feeding me this point of view ever since I can remember. Now I am old enough, and smart enough to take a stand about what I believe.
I watched a history chanel presentation of on Che and am extreamly entriuged. I have always been extreamly curious about Anarchism and all types of Socialism, Marxism, you name it. I really want to learn, but have no one to ask. So I am turning here.


Great decision, I recommend you read Engel's Communist FAQ (which I believe you can find on this site) and the Communist Manifesto.


Please, explain to me what is Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, and any other parties and views that are important.

Marxism: The Communist ideal laid out by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels. He is the "father" of Modern Communism.

Socialism: Used interchangeably by Marx with Communism many Communist defines this period as the time after the workers seize control but they are still moving onto Communism.

Anarchism: A view by many that is similar to Communists in some regard but they do not believe in parties too much or the stage known as Socialism.

Vanguard Party: A Party that is lead by a workers elected council instead of a general workers movement.

Trotsky: A Bolshevik politician who founded a spin off of Marxism, Trotskyism.

Lenin: A Bolshevik leader who was the first leader of the USSR, he was an inspiration to Stalin and Trotsky.

Stalin: A Bolshevik successor of Lenin, second leader, made an ideal called Stalinism, anti-revisionist, or Marx-Leninism.

Bolshevik: Major Communist Party of Russia in the 20th century, was in contest with Mensheviks.

Mensheviks: A Russian Communist Party that lost for control of the USSR.

Communism: A place where workers own the business, the workers own the government, the workers own everything, there are no CEOs or Paris Hiltons.

Left-Communism: A spin off of Marxism that disagreed with Lenin.

Hoxhaists: Very similar to anti-revisionists, Hoxha was the Albanian leader.

Maoists: A person who is a supporter of Mao's ideals, Mao Zedong was the person who brought Communism to China but many Maoists say Communism ended when Mao died and Capitalists seized power.


One of the things that is the most disenchanting to me in regards to socialism is how a docter is expected to be payed as much as a plummer. A docter seriously puts in faaar more work then a plummer in the relm of eduaction. A docter has to compleate years of medical school and years of some of the hardest work there is to even begin his career, is it not only fair that he gains a higher salery then someone who learned how to mop middle school hallways in a week? Seriously.

Let's talk hypothetically, if there was no janitors or sanitation workers what would happen? Things would get dirty, no one would clean them, people would be unhealthy all the time. What makes a doctor more valuable?


Another thing is Anarchism. It's a very romantic idea for any thinking teenager, but honestly, it hardly seems practical. How could a country exist with no leader? There would be . . . Anarchy! No control what so ever, which would mean rampant crime, and all manner of hell. It's obvious that as it is now men can not work perfectly peacefully side by side even with rules to help keep eachother safe, so without those rules, who knows what would happen? Compleate disorder, America would fall, poverty would spread, sickness would profilorate, what a mess. So, Anarchism, what's the big idea, eh?


That is false and a typical idea. Anarchism as far as I know is not complete Anarchy as in running around blowing up buildings. Rather it is when people run things, the people don't need kings and corrupted politicians. According to Anarchists the Paris Commune in France and Anarchist Catalonia were examples that unfortunately was overran by Capitalist armies.


Ok, I am not attacking any groups here, just honestly, sincereley interested.
Thank you so much.

Welcome to Revleft, please register so you can have more discussions! :)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

One of the things that is the most disenchanting to me in regards to socialism is how a docter is expected to be payed as much as a plummer. A docter seriously puts in faaar more work then a plummer in the relm of eduaction. A docter has to compleate years of medical school and years of some of the hardest work there is to even begin his career, is it not only fair that he gains a higher salery then someone who learned how to mop middle school hallways in a week? Seriously.

This isn't necessarily part of socialism. Nothing about the definition of socialism says that people can't decide to reward doctors more than janitors.


Another thing is Anarchism. It's a very romantic idea for any thinking teenager, but honestly, it hardly seems practical. How could a country exist with no leader? There would be . . . Anarchy! No control what so ever, which would mean rampant crime, and all manner of hell. It's obvious that as it is now men can not work perfectly peacefully side by side even with rules to help keep eachother safe, so without those rules, who knows what would happen? Compleate disorder, America would fall, poverty would spread, sickness would profilorate, what a mess. So, Anarchism, what's the big idea, eh?
Anarchy doesn't mean no control whatsoever, it means the leaders are directly responsible to the people below them, in which case they cease to be leaders and just administrators. The leaders are bound to the decisions of their electors, as opposed to being bound only by their conscience.

[Robespierre2.0]

Well I'm not going to answer all your questions now, as I'm quite pooped, but I feel I have to confront this 'doctor getting paid much as a janitor' myth, as it's one of the more irritating lies about communism I keep hearing.

First of all, while it does take a lot more time and energy to train a doctor than it does to train a janitor, that doesn't mean that the janitor's role in society is any less important than that of the doctor. Medical operations are just as important as keeping things clean.

The problem is that our media bears the ideological stamp of the bourgeoisie (the capitalists), and therefore creates this elitist attitude that it's the janitor's fault he has a low-paying job, or that he is somehow less important a member of society. This creates friction between skilled and unskilled labourers, which obscures the fact that they have common interests: they are both exploited by the capitalists-

As someone may have pointed out, Marxists view revolutionary change as society passing between different stages- slavery to feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism.
The idea is that, in the communist stage of history, work will have lost its exploitative character (you will be working for the benefit of society as a whole, which includes you, rather than for the purpose of making your boss a profit), and therefore people will actually want to work, and find the concept of being 'paid a wage' for their work odd, as everyone 'contributes according to their ability, and takes according to what they need'.

If this seems far-fetched, keep in mind that the way humans think can change a LOT over time or due to different circumstances. For example, there was no concept of 'wage labour' in the Middle Ages, and during the colonization of Africa, the white settlers were able to screw over the natives, because the native Africans never developed the concept of 'land ownership'.

Now as for socialism- the transitional stage- we realize that immediately after the revolution, there will not be enough industry to provide as much consumer goods as needed, and many of the peoples' minds will still be stuck in the old capitalist ways, and they will still expect 'wages'.
Well, that's what we had to do. The difference, however, is that unlike in capitalist society, everyone had to pull their weight- you cannot make money by buying a factory, hiring workers, and sitting in an office while your workers do all the hard work.

There will be differences in income, because we need doctors and rocket scientists, and since many will still have a capitalist mindset, we will have to give them a monetary incentive to do these jobs.
However, despite these differences in income, we mean to make the point that everyone's work, regardless of whether it is skilled or unskilled labour, is important, and therefore a janitor has as much a right to health care, housing, and food as a doctor.
For example if you look at the countries we call 'socialist' (whether you agree with them or not) you'll notice that the state used its resources to fund programs that benefit the whole of society or build things that everyone uses- like the Cuban health care system, which provides the best health care in Latin America (even though they're under economic embargo and only have a shoestring budget, everyone can count on free medicine), or the elaborate public transportation system in the USSR (look at some photos of the Moscow subway).

I can't find the article right now, but Stalin wrote a great piece called 'Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR' where he attacks this false idea that 'everyone will be paid equally regardless of how much they work'. Look it up on www.marx2mao.com (http://www.marx2mao.com) if you get a chance.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ok, I am a highschooler, I grew up in a very conservative right-wing family. My father is a docter and is in pretty much a Libritarian. He is always telling me about how bad Obama's socialist moves have been and has been feeding me this point of view ever since I can remember. Now I am old enough, and smart enough to take a stand about what I believe.
Obama's socialist moves? He hasn't made any 'socialist moves', whatever that may mean, and he will not, either.


Please, explain to me what is Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, and any other parties and views that are important.
Socialism: Synonym for 'communism'. A classless, stateless society.
Initial phase of socialism: A classless, stateless society in which labour credits are used. Basic necessities such as food, water, refrigerators, electricity, appliances, cooking stoves, etc, would be subject to 'free access', that is, they can be accessed for free, at least until a certain amount. 'Luxury' items (including basic necessities accessed over a certain amount) would require labour credits, which would, in modern times, be fully digitalized. Labour credits would not circulate, and cease to exist when submitted to a shop to buy something. See here (http://www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/fif_ques.pdf) and here (http://deleonism.org/v.htm) for information on their functioning. Note that labour credits are neither money, nor wages. I wouldn't call this a 'transitional stage', since it's communism anyways.
Higher phase of socialism: Term coming from Marx, like the preceding one, with him saying that it could come only "after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly". It would have 'free access' for all goods, though with possibly some rationing here and there if necessary. Some groups, such as, most notably, the World Socialist Movement, advocate this immediately after revolution, more or less, and often get into debates on the subject. You can see some debates here (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/29603), here (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/28966), here (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/34611), here (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/29267), here (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/28917) and here (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/29539) (Note that the links were just copied and pasted from links that I had saved, so they will represent a De Leonite perspective (well, the view shared by most of us, though not by a few De Leonites, such as Frank Girard), but you can just click on other posts in the discussions to find posts by WSM members). This post (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/message/4299) comes from the World In Common forums, and soon enough the discussion turns into a fairly short debate on it, and there's also this longer one (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/message/3082).
Bourgeoisie (capitalist class): The class that owns the means of production, and derives their wealth from this ownership.
Proletariat (working class): The class that is separated from the means of production, and, as such, must sell off its labour power to make a living (certainly, to get a good standard of living).
Theory of value: See here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/index.htm).
Class rule of the proletariat: Commonly known as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. The enforcement of the expropriation of the expropriators, that is, revolution, in which the class interests of the bourgeoisie are subjugated to the will of the proletariat. Lasts only as long as the revolution (it's not called the 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' for nothing), and as soon as the revolution is over, the state ceases to exist, due to the absence of class rule. In summary, the forceful (not necessarily using violence, etc, 'forceful' here is used in the sense of enforcing something) subjugation of the interests of the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, in which the proletariat can only eliminate its character as salariat, as its separation from the means of production eliminates its potential as new ruling class, and hence eliminate its own class rule.
Anarchism: A movement against all hierarchal authority. Translates to 'no ruler', not 'no rules', because there can be rules, as decided either by consensual or direct democracy (depending on which anarchist you talk to). Any people elected to perform certain functions would be immediately recallable by the electorate.
Anarcho-syndicalism: Advocates the use of unions, or a single industrial union, to bring about socialism, usually through a general strike.
Anarcho-communism: Note that all anarchists are communists in the sense of wanting a clasless, stateless society. However, the term 'anarcho-communism' only refers to a specific current of anarchism, generally focussing on immediate entrance to 'free access' (give or take some rationing). A (rather imperfect, but good enough) introduction is here (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html).
De Leonism: See here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/de-leonismi-t100202/index.html?p=1341927#post1341927) and here (http://deleonism.org/). All of De Leon's works are here (http://slp.org/litera2.htm#anchor437650) (note that he only became a De Leonist by 1904, before that he was practically the opposite).
Council communism: A form of socialism that focuses on workers' councils to bring about socialism (as opposed to anarcho-syndicalist unions), often opposed to political organization. See Pannekoek (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/).


One of the things that is the most disenchanting to me in regards to socialism is how a docter is expected to be payed as much as a plummer.
Socialism does not equate to 'equal compensation' (and certainly not 'equal wages', which would still be capitalism).


Another thing is Anarchism. It's a very romantic idea for any thinking teenager, but honestly, it hardly seems practical. How could a country exist with no leader? There would be . . . Anarchy! No control what so ever, which would mean rampant crime, and all manner of hell.
It's called 'democracy'. It's apparently a good idea.
I mean, seriously, why would you think that without a leader, a society couldn't manage itself, or enforce rules, etc?
(Though, to be exact, if there were no rules, there could be no crime, but I don't know of many anarchists who actually advocate there being no rules, so yeah)


It's obvious that as it is now men can not work perfectly peacefully side by side even with rules to help keep eachother safe, so without those rules, who knows what would happen?
Anarchy means 'no ruler', not 'no rules'.


Compleate disorder, America would fall, poverty would spread, sickness would profilorate, what a mess.
Also, zombies. Don't forget zombies.


So, Anarchism, what's the big idea, huh?
The abolition of hierarchal authority.

[NecroCommie]

Please, explain to me what is Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, and any other parties and views that are important.

Well, I personally think that if you accept and view history through the marxist definition of class, and accept/take part in the theory of class struggle you can call yourself a communist allright. There are just several ways to interpet those theories (some more straight and some more far fetched), ranging from: "abolish all leaders and authority!"-anarchists to hardcore worker organization: "its we or the capitalists!"-Maoists.

Explaining each school of communism would be time consuming to say the least, so this nutshell explanation will have to do in this particular thread. If interested in some particular school of thought: search the forum and perhaps start a thread. The "theory" subforum is extremely handy in this regard.


One of the things that is the most disenchanting to me in regards to socialism is how a docter is expected to be payed as much as a plummer. A docter seriously puts in faaar more work then a plummer in the relm of eduaction. A docter has to compleate years of medical school and years of some of the hardest work there is to even begin his career, is it not only fair that he gains a higher salery then someone who learned how to mop middle school hallways in a week? Seriously.

First of all: Communists are not a borg. This means simply that there are many views regarding wage and work compensation in the communist circles, and this is just one of them.

I personally think that the entire monetary system should be abolished already in the socialist phase of society, so the entire issue is pointless on my behalf. You should propably study alternative economical systems and see which one would best describe your own view. As long as it is not free market capitalism, you are welcome in this forum.


Another thing is Anarchism. It's a very romantic idea for any thinking teenager, but honestly, it hardly seems practical. How could a country exist with no leader? There would be . . . Anarchy! No control what so ever, which would mean rampant crime, and all manner of hell. It's obvious that as it is now men can not work perfectly peacefully side by side even with rules to help keep eachother safe, so without those rules, who knows what would happen? Compleate disorder, America would fall, poverty would spread, sickness would profilorate, what a mess. So, Anarchism, what's the big idea, eh?

Anarchists do not believe in "anarchy" as far as the mainstream understanding of the word goes. Perhaps more effective word would be "extreme direct democracy". Though I have studied only little anarchism, and some anarchist could propably explain a lot better.

[bailey_187]

One of the things that is the most disenchanting to me in regards to socialism is how a docter is expected to be payed as much as a plummer. A docter seriously puts in faaar more work then a plummer in the relm of eduaction. A docter has to compleate years of medical school and years of some of the hardest work there is to even begin his career, is it not only fair that he gains a higher salery then someone who learned how to mop middle school hallways in a week? Seriously

The idea that everyone is paid the same in Socialism is a myth

Socialism= The means of production (factories, farms etc) being publicly owned and production being for use not profit

So as Marx said "It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity as natural privileges. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.”---Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program

Equality in socialism is the fact that no one owns the means of production and therefore lives of anyone elses labour. People are still rewarded according to their effort.


Socialism is generally thought of as the first stage of Communism.
In Communism, as everyone is created in abundance, the concept of pay no longer exists as everyone is rewarded according "to their needs"
Of course none of us will see Communism, the highest stage of human development in our lifetime


Besides, doctors are only paid more in capitalism due to their being less of them. Capitalism couldnt care less about your contribution to society.


Thats my view anyway, someone will disagree probably.

[teenagebricks]

One of the things that is the most disenchanting to me in regards to socialism is how a docter is expected to be payed as much as a plummer. A docter seriously puts in faaar more work then a plummer in the relm of eduaction. A docter has to compleate years of medical school and years of some of the hardest work there is to even begin his career, is it not only fair that he gains a higher salery then someone who learned how to mop middle school hallways in a week? Seriously.
I believe that if people saw these professions in a different light, they would disagree with you. They are just as important as each other, getting rid of one or the other would ultimately result in something completely awful, imagine a world with no plumbers, in the current state of the world everyone would just keel over and die, the same goes for doctors, just because someone had to study for any number of years to become a doctor, that doesn't make them any more deserving of a higher form of living. Remember, the doctor chose to be a doctor, they made that decision when they enrolled at medical school, if they chose to be a doctor because of the financial perks they are working for the wrong reasons and should probably choose a different career.

Another thing is Anarchism. It's a very romantic idea for any thinking teenager, but honestly, it hardly seems practical. How could a country exist with no leader? There would be . . . Anarchy! No control what so ever, which would mean rampant crime, and all manner of hell. It's obvious that as it is now men can not work perfectly peacefully side by side even with rules to help keep eachother safe, so without those rules, who knows what would happen? Compleate disorder, America would fall, poverty would spread, sickness would profilorate, what a mess. So, Anarchism, what's the big idea, eh?
No leaders does not necessarily mean no control, in fact anarchism is perhaps the most democratic form of governance in existence. I'd recommend you watch a documentary film called The Take, while not strictly anarchist it serves as an excellent introduction to self management in the workplace, implement self management on a larger scale, into society as a whole, and you have a very basic form of anarchism, self governance. Anarchism is the philosophy, anarchy is the action of the philosophy, but unfortunately the latter has become a synonym for chaos, when in fact genuine anarchists seek to bring about a free society which is self regulating, people are quite capable of making decisions for themselves if needs be, we don't need babysitting.

[Bilan]

Please, explain to me what is Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, and any other parties and views that are important.

Marxism is an analytical frame work, which explains the nature of capitalist society, its internal mechanics, etc. and places it within the historical development of modes of production (i.e. Capitalism, etc).
Socialism is a period between capitalism and communism, a transitional period, if you will, in which the state begins to whither until it disappears. It is manifested as the Dictatorship of the proletariat - which essentially means that power is exercised collectively by the working class (through organs which exert its power - i.e. Workers Councils).
Anarchism is a diverse political ideology, with many differing factions, from communist anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, individualists, etc. The differences manifest both in tactics and goal.


One of the things that is the most disenchanting to me in regards to socialism is how a docter is expected to be payed as much as a plummer. A docter seriously puts in faaar more work then a plummer in the relm of eduaction. A docter has to compleate years of medical school and years of some of the hardest work there is to even begin his career, is it not only fair that he gains a higher salery then someone who learned how to mop middle school hallways in a week? Seriously.

Two things. Firstly, this is under the presumption that socialism (or communism) is a wage system, which it is most certainly not. This is merely an act of seeing communist society through bourgeois spectacles (bourgeois = capitalist societies dominant class, ideology, etc). Socialism abolishes the wage system. It is not 'equal wages for all', but the abolishment of the wage system, and the socialisation of distribution and production.



Another thing is Anarchism. It's a very romantic idea for any thinking teenager, but honestly, it hardly seems practical. How could a country exist with no leader? There would be . . . Anarchy! No control what so ever, which would mean rampant crime, and all manner of hell. It's obvious that as it is now men can not work perfectly peacefully side by side even with rules to help keep eachother safe, so without those rules, who knows what would happen? Compleate disorder, America would fall, poverty would spread, sickness would profilorate, what a mess. So, Anarchism, what's the big idea, eh?


Anarchy doesn't mean no organisation, it means no state. It means society is organised democratically - from the grass roots.
I'd recommend Malatesta's [I]L'anarchia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1891/xx/anarchy.htm) for an introduction to anarchism.

[BobKKKindle$]

One of the things that is the most disenchanting to me in regards to socialism is how a docter is expected to be payed as much as a plummer.This is a common myth but actually has nothing to do with the kind of society that Marx endorsed after a socialist revolution. In a socialist society - that is, in the immediate aftermath of a socialist revolution, when the state is still in the process of withering away, when the remnants of the bourgeoisie are still seeking to restore capitalism, and when the forces of production are still being developed to the level required for the abolition of material scarcity and the attainment of a communist society - workers will be payed according to how much work they do, such that, if someone is willing to produce more units of output within a given period of time, or if someone decides to take on more intensive and difficult tasks, they should be payed more than someone who does less work. Marx argued against those who favored a completely egalitarian distribution of output or a distribution based on need and ability by pointing out that the people who are living in a post-revolutionary society are still influenced by the ideology of capitalism and are therefore liable to need material incentives in order to ensure that production does not simply collapse due to a lack of motivation. This system of payment differs from that under capitalism in that the means of production are subject to collective ownership and control, such that workers are working for themselves, and not to accumulate capital for the ruling class. This, combined with the elimination of the reserve army of labour (i.e. the unemployed, who are used to maintain downwards pressure on wages and working conditions under capitalism) means that wage-labour does not exist under socialism.

If you're interested, the text in which Marx discusses these issues is Critique of the Gotha Program.


Please, explain to me what is MarxismThis is a very contentious question, because how Marx understood capitalism, and the kind of society he envisaged once capitalism had been overthrown by the working class are issues that have always been hotly debated by those who have called themselves Marxists ever since Marx became a revolutionary. At a basic level, though, Marx's most important contribution to human knowledge was his theory of history. The starting point of Marx's analysis is the simple fact that in order to gain access to the things they need to survive humans must labour together, by entering into social relations with each other, and the degree to which we are successful in doing this determines everything else we can do. For Marx, the material interaction of human beings lies at the heart of all social change and development and if we do not begin with this premise history cannot be understood in its totality. Marx's conception of production as the basis of all human existence contains two mutually dependent components. Firstly, Marx described the technology and resources that humans have at their disposal to control the external world as the “forces of production”, and argued that these forces expand through history once class divisions have emerged within society, as the ruling class invests surplus product instead of using it for immediate consumption. Secondly, and following on from this component, Marx contended that as this process of expansion takes place, changes in the way production is organized and the relationships humans have with each other also occur, and once the productive forces have expanded to a certain point, further expansion cannot occur without a radical change in the “relations of production”, whereby an aspirant ruling class will take the place of the current ruling class, which Marx understood as a social revolution. In a given epoch, the sum total of the relations of production comprise the “mode of production”, of which capitalism is an example. This demonstrates that, for Marx, class struggle is the driving force behind historical change, expressed most famously as follows:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle”

These relations, Marx goes on to argue, then “condition” what he describes as the “superstructure”, as distinct from the “base” - the main political, cultural, and social institutions of a society. The nature of the relationship between the base and superstructure is one of the most contentious issues within Marxism but the key term is “condition” - Marx did not, as many of his critics have attempted to show, ever suggest that there was an automatic or mechanical causation. I think that Alex Callinicos, a contemporary Marxist, has a good idea of how this "conditioning" takes place. Callinicos roots his understanding firmly in the class struggle by arguing that, because the ruling class is economically dominant, it has the ability to shape the superstructure in a way that sustains the existing mode of production and prevents the working population from developing a revolutionary consciousness. However we interpret this model, it is clear that Marx put forward a dynamic and materialist conception of history. The materialist element is important here because it is oppossed to the conception of history that was put forward by the most influential intellectual of Marx's period, and indeed one of Marx's biggest intellectual influences - Hegel, who argued that history was simply the worldly manifestation of a metaphysical idea which exists outside human experience or understanding, otherwise known as the "absolute idea". Marx described himself as having extracted the “rational kernel” from Hegel by turning him “right side up”, thereby allowing Marx to incorporate the notions of historical progression and dialectical conflict into his own thought on a sound materialist basis. Marx's relation to Hegel is expressed clearly as follows:

“To Hegel [...] the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of "the Idea." With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought”

Marx's theory of history challenges the bourgeois understanding because he saw history as depending not on the decisions of people at the top of society, the politicians, monarchs, and generals, but on the struggles and ideas of ordinary people. I think that someone can be described as a Marxist if they agree with this theory, which is generally described as historical materialism.

[k2007]

what means SPK ?

[teenagebricks]

Socialist Patients' Collective, it was a leftist group in Germany who viewed sickness as a means of revolution, to be honest I don't know much about them.

[Jack]

Since most of the questions about State Socialism have been answered, I'll give OP some anarchist stuff:

An Anarchist FAQ: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Anarchist history: http://www.libcom.org/history (http://www.libcom.org/history)

Anarchist/ libertarian communist books and articles (by author): http://libcom.org/library/authors

[mikelepore]

Please, explain to me what is Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, and any other parties and views that are important.

Beginners should realize that no one will answer questions like these objectively, myself included. Everyone who answers will be giving only the personal opinion of the person who writes it. Likewise, the "dictionary" or "encyclopedia" features at marxists.org and revleft.com and other online sites, my own included, are all the personal opinions of the various writers.

[punisa]

Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism .. the red zone comrade :)
Although you'll see many of us vigorously debating about which sub genre is the best option, or what scholar/leader was right/wrong, but in the end we all love each other :lol:. And what is even more important, our goals are the same - a new progressive world without capitalism, united working people and overall a great planet to be living on :)

I won't go into details about your questions, as I see comrades have already done a great job. But I will encourage you to join this board, it's probabbly the best political place on the web regarding the intelligence and progressive views of its members.
Don't want to brag, but just a quick glance at various political boards on the net will show you that it constitutes of mainly dumb childish individuals who use them purely as an outlet for their frustrations (ahm, S.Front).
Welcome :)

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Redfox, i urge you to join the forum. Even if you are unsure about what your politics are then the forum is a great place to learn more about the class war. Any other questions you want answered we will help you with.