Monkey Riding Dragon
25th September 2009, 20:55
DISCLAIMER: The subject of this thread is a joke, so don't take it too seriously. I wasn't actually sure what forum to post this in (it might be too political for this one; couldn't tell), but thinking it basically non-serious, I decided on this one. If it needs to be moved, then alright.
Anyhow, so I was randomly searching the web one day when I ran across this site called Red Vocabulary (http://reds.linefeed.org/vocab.html), the apparent goal of which was to provide brief definitions principally of various schools of "communist" and socialist thought from a blatantly Trotskyist point of view. I must concede to finding it entertaining. The most amusing aspect of it, however, I thought, was the graph provided at the top of the page. As you can see at the link, the graph, following the example of the ever-popular Political Compass, attempts to concretely measure the "leftness" and democratic character of each school. I find this funny because, of course, it's impossible to objectively measure the subjective. The entire exercise is thus inevitably tinted with with the bias of the graph's creator. Conveniently enough, it happens that Trotskyism (clearly the view being promoted here) appears in the 'rational center' of the upper-left quadrant. Titoism, Eurocommunism, and even ordinary reformist socialism also appear to the left of Maoism. Councilism and De Leonism also seem to be interestingly located outside the "left wing communism" box.
In the spirit of good fun though, and recognizing the superficial nature of such an exercise, I challenge you to provide your own idea of the imaginary left-right spectrum of communist or socialist thought. Provide your biased spectrum and briefly explain your reasoning behind the positions you placed the various schools in.
I'll start us off with my spectrum of "communist" thought as an example:
RDR'S GREAT LEFT-RIGHT SPECTRUM OF COMMUNIST THOUGHT:
Ultra-Leftism<--Trotskyism--Maoism--Hoxhaism--Castroism--Titoism--"Khrushchevism"--Eurocommunism-->JucheEXPLANATION: My standard of measure is based mainly on that of the "communists" who identify themselves as farthest left. I combined their "no compromises" standard of leftness with my personal bias as to what constitutes a principle compromise and what constitutes an open, socialist society.
Juche ("Kim Il Sungism") falls on the rightmost end of the spectrum because it corresponds to feudal monarchism, which is the opposite of real communism. Eurocommunism at least corresponds to some form of democracy (bourgeois democracy).
I doubt there is any organization in the world willing to formally call itself Khrushchevist, but that's nevertheless the reality of many parties and organizations (such as the Communist Party, USA and the Communist Party of Canada, for example, both of which simply describe themselves as 'Marxist-Leninist'). Khrushchevism argues against the need for ongoing revolution in socialist society, contending that communism can be reached from there simply by developing the productive forces and peacefully competing with capitalist nations in the economic arena. In terms of getting to socialism, Khrushchevists argue for a "peaceful transition" through "democratic revolution". The difference between this school and the Eurocommunists is that the latter oppose any rupture ever with bourgeois parliaments and other bourgeois state machinery, putting forward the need for a wholly 'evolutionary' path to socialism and communism, at least in their respective countries. We might say then that Khrushchevism corresponds to democratic socialism and Eurocommunism to more commonplace social democracy. Both are essentially reformist and that's the point.
Titoists put forward the need for each country to pursue an independent course to communism, in opposition to the campist approach of the socialist countries working together to defeat the enemy and transcend national borders. The "independent" course taken by Tito quickly saw Yugoslavia privatize (in the form of cooperatives) most industry, de-collectivize agriculture, move under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, open up to foreign direct investment, and create a stock market while becoming ever more indebted to the imperialist countries until a series of IMF crises forced generalized privatization (manifesting foreign domination). All these things together ultimately yielded the sharply uneven development that caused civil conflicts which finally dissolved the country altogether. Basically, Titoism is patriotism. At least, however, Tito managed to lead an actual revolutionary war. (Juche is essentially a religious version of Titoism.)
Castroism is basically revolutionary social democracy. "Socialist" Cuba has never ruptured with heavy reliance on commodity production and the corresponding strong dependence on imperialist and other great-power nations.
Hoxhaism is the school of thought virtually all contemporary "Stalinists" belong to. It recognizes the need for continuing the revolution under socialism, but retains Stalin's mechanical approach to handling the contradictions of socialist society.
Maoism, particularly in its contemporary forms, is consistently revolutionary and internationalist. Maoism ruptures with mechanical and deterministic conceptions in favor of handling contradictions in a genuinely dialectical way (the mass line). Maoists support revolutions within the revolution, as well as the actual promotion of (not merely tolerance for) open debate and criticism.
Trotskyists, unlike all the aforementioned groupings, view the united front as a tactic, not a strategy for getting to communism. As such, they argue against a lasting unity with non-working class strata and contend that real socialism can only be achieved in a sustainable way in an individual nation if revolutions quickly take hold elsewhere to prop it up. This more sectarian conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat and comparatively limited view of revolutionary possibilities qualifies Trotskyism as "left" of Maoism because it is more opposed to deal-striking, more narrow in its definition of socialism, and, as a direct result, consistently less politically relevant. (Trotskyism is politically relevant nowhere in the world today.)
Ultra-Leftists, also known as "left communists" (an umbrella term for Luxemburgists, councilists, autonomists, situationists, De Leonists, Bordigists, and others likewise more nearly anarchist than Marxist), are defined by their complete opposition to communist leadership and united fronts. This directly results in extreme sectarianism and total political irrelevance. Far more often than not, ultra-left groups function as mere humanist debating societies that do no practical work whatsoever. Indeed, many of them even oppose political parties and trade unions in principle. This type of dogmatism positions them on the leftmost end of my spectrum.
...Okay, your turn! :D
Anyhow, so I was randomly searching the web one day when I ran across this site called Red Vocabulary (http://reds.linefeed.org/vocab.html), the apparent goal of which was to provide brief definitions principally of various schools of "communist" and socialist thought from a blatantly Trotskyist point of view. I must concede to finding it entertaining. The most amusing aspect of it, however, I thought, was the graph provided at the top of the page. As you can see at the link, the graph, following the example of the ever-popular Political Compass, attempts to concretely measure the "leftness" and democratic character of each school. I find this funny because, of course, it's impossible to objectively measure the subjective. The entire exercise is thus inevitably tinted with with the bias of the graph's creator. Conveniently enough, it happens that Trotskyism (clearly the view being promoted here) appears in the 'rational center' of the upper-left quadrant. Titoism, Eurocommunism, and even ordinary reformist socialism also appear to the left of Maoism. Councilism and De Leonism also seem to be interestingly located outside the "left wing communism" box.
In the spirit of good fun though, and recognizing the superficial nature of such an exercise, I challenge you to provide your own idea of the imaginary left-right spectrum of communist or socialist thought. Provide your biased spectrum and briefly explain your reasoning behind the positions you placed the various schools in.
I'll start us off with my spectrum of "communist" thought as an example:
RDR'S GREAT LEFT-RIGHT SPECTRUM OF COMMUNIST THOUGHT:
Ultra-Leftism<--Trotskyism--Maoism--Hoxhaism--Castroism--Titoism--"Khrushchevism"--Eurocommunism-->JucheEXPLANATION: My standard of measure is based mainly on that of the "communists" who identify themselves as farthest left. I combined their "no compromises" standard of leftness with my personal bias as to what constitutes a principle compromise and what constitutes an open, socialist society.
Juche ("Kim Il Sungism") falls on the rightmost end of the spectrum because it corresponds to feudal monarchism, which is the opposite of real communism. Eurocommunism at least corresponds to some form of democracy (bourgeois democracy).
I doubt there is any organization in the world willing to formally call itself Khrushchevist, but that's nevertheless the reality of many parties and organizations (such as the Communist Party, USA and the Communist Party of Canada, for example, both of which simply describe themselves as 'Marxist-Leninist'). Khrushchevism argues against the need for ongoing revolution in socialist society, contending that communism can be reached from there simply by developing the productive forces and peacefully competing with capitalist nations in the economic arena. In terms of getting to socialism, Khrushchevists argue for a "peaceful transition" through "democratic revolution". The difference between this school and the Eurocommunists is that the latter oppose any rupture ever with bourgeois parliaments and other bourgeois state machinery, putting forward the need for a wholly 'evolutionary' path to socialism and communism, at least in their respective countries. We might say then that Khrushchevism corresponds to democratic socialism and Eurocommunism to more commonplace social democracy. Both are essentially reformist and that's the point.
Titoists put forward the need for each country to pursue an independent course to communism, in opposition to the campist approach of the socialist countries working together to defeat the enemy and transcend national borders. The "independent" course taken by Tito quickly saw Yugoslavia privatize (in the form of cooperatives) most industry, de-collectivize agriculture, move under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, open up to foreign direct investment, and create a stock market while becoming ever more indebted to the imperialist countries until a series of IMF crises forced generalized privatization (manifesting foreign domination). All these things together ultimately yielded the sharply uneven development that caused civil conflicts which finally dissolved the country altogether. Basically, Titoism is patriotism. At least, however, Tito managed to lead an actual revolutionary war. (Juche is essentially a religious version of Titoism.)
Castroism is basically revolutionary social democracy. "Socialist" Cuba has never ruptured with heavy reliance on commodity production and the corresponding strong dependence on imperialist and other great-power nations.
Hoxhaism is the school of thought virtually all contemporary "Stalinists" belong to. It recognizes the need for continuing the revolution under socialism, but retains Stalin's mechanical approach to handling the contradictions of socialist society.
Maoism, particularly in its contemporary forms, is consistently revolutionary and internationalist. Maoism ruptures with mechanical and deterministic conceptions in favor of handling contradictions in a genuinely dialectical way (the mass line). Maoists support revolutions within the revolution, as well as the actual promotion of (not merely tolerance for) open debate and criticism.
Trotskyists, unlike all the aforementioned groupings, view the united front as a tactic, not a strategy for getting to communism. As such, they argue against a lasting unity with non-working class strata and contend that real socialism can only be achieved in a sustainable way in an individual nation if revolutions quickly take hold elsewhere to prop it up. This more sectarian conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat and comparatively limited view of revolutionary possibilities qualifies Trotskyism as "left" of Maoism because it is more opposed to deal-striking, more narrow in its definition of socialism, and, as a direct result, consistently less politically relevant. (Trotskyism is politically relevant nowhere in the world today.)
Ultra-Leftists, also known as "left communists" (an umbrella term for Luxemburgists, councilists, autonomists, situationists, De Leonists, Bordigists, and others likewise more nearly anarchist than Marxist), are defined by their complete opposition to communist leadership and united fronts. This directly results in extreme sectarianism and total political irrelevance. Far more often than not, ultra-left groups function as mere humanist debating societies that do no practical work whatsoever. Indeed, many of them even oppose political parties and trade unions in principle. This type of dogmatism positions them on the leftmost end of my spectrum.
...Okay, your turn! :D