Another question, concerning parties.

[superborys]

This will sound highly abbreviated, but it's because something happened that threw out my previous question (concerning my browser).

I was looking up the active Communist parties in America, with the intent to align myself with one. I had finally decided to become active and at least try to show people why Communism is an attainable Utopia, as opposed to being a wishful closet-commie.

I saw, out of the ones present, that the Progressive Labor Party, or PL, were the only ones I could agree with, at least from what I read there. They seemed the most sincerely Communist. I also read about the PSL, which sounded like a load of rubbish, what they believed.

They aligned themselves with current/previous 'Communist' governments, which are in reality just state capitalisms run by dictators who lead their people into believing it's a Communism because there isn't any unemployment.

Am I correct in my views? :
I think that Communism is just people agreeing democratically how to run themselves, and working to perpetuate or obtain a classless, money-less society.
Certainly that's not all I think, but that should give a view of what I think it is.

Do the people here who label themselves as Maoist, Hoxhaists, Leninists, Stalinists, what have you, actually believe in state capitalism with required labor and a totalitarian-esque regime, or are they applying these people's ideals concerning Communism into what they think would be the best form for a Communist society?

I disdain the parties that viewed these state capitalisms as Communist, namely because they seemed false to me. PL seemed very sincerely Communist, and very proactive and concerned with keeping it that way.

I also think I may have a obfuscated view on Marxism. Is it the proletariat eventually overthrowing the burgeoisie and establishing a socialist transition-state, and eventually abolishing the state due to non-necessity, or am I wrong? If I'm right, I don't see why so many people appear to be against it.

Am I deluded, or am I just a really purist Communist?

[ContrarianLemming]

I can't really help you with you're party question, I don't support any of them. I posted a response in your other thread giving the names of al the far left/communist tendencies




I also think I may have a obfuscated view on Marxism. Is it the proletariat eventually overthrowing the burgeoisie and establishing a socialist transition-state, and eventually abolishing the state due to non-necessity, or am I wrong? If I'm right, I don't see why so many people appear to be against it.

Am I deluded, or am I just a really purist Communist?

Your right, that's basic marxism, and there are very good reasons why so many people are against it.

[superborys]

From what I understand, I may be a Trotskyist.

I think democracy is the best route to Communism, and that the proletariat aren't going to have enough time to learn about everything they need to in order to become rational and such, so a vanguard party is necessary, sort of like in Germany just prior to Hitler's reign; people went to these places to learn why Nazism was right and the other ideas weren't.

THOUGH, I do not think a permanent revolution is quite necessary, though it would be ideal. I think a Communist nation could preserve itself against hostile, invasory capitalists if it had a well-informed, intelligent, and rational population that knew it had to defend its freedom.

I guess that would put me as a Trotskyist, which by extension also makes me a Leninist, right?

I don't, however, think that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary; the people just have to spend a large lump-sum start-up time to organize themselves, and then it should just evolve from there. How can you explain spontaneous organization on islands when people are marooned there, or when children are let loose and play 'government'? All they're doing is spending time to engineer how they think it should work, and then they do it. I think it would take far more time to organize the socialist state and then break it down than to just go straight to the Communist society.

I also agree that Communism cannot be achieved through reform; we would all just be living in a Communized Capitalism, still constrained by money and classes, just to a lesser degree, and though I wish it were possible to just expurgate the bourgeois and set it up from there, it probably isn't.

I know little about this.
Based on that, am I a Trotskyist, or am I some sort of Anarchist due to my belief that the dictatorship of the proletariat is unnecessary?

[ContrarianLemming]

From what I understand, I may be a Trotskyist.

I think democracy is the best route to Communism, and that the proletariat aren't going to have enough time to learn about everything they need to in order to become rational and such, so a vanguard party is necessary, sort of like in Germany just prior to Hitler's reign; people went to these places to learn why Nazism was right and the other ideas weren't.

THOUGH, I do not think a permanent revolution is quite necessary, though it would be ideal. I think a Communist nation could preserve itself against hostile, invasory capitalists if it had a well-informed, intelligent, and rational population that knew it had to defend its freedom.

I guess that would put me as a Trotskyist, which by extension also makes me a Leninist, right?

I think you would be closer to Leninist then Trotskyist, there both ideologically democratic. trootskys denouncing on Stalin makes people think trots (trotskyists) are more democratic, there about equal in my opinion.
And trotskyism is technically a subset of Leninism


I don't think that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary; the people just have to spend a large lump-sum start-up time to organize themselves, and then it should just evolve from there. How can you explain spontaneous organization on abandoned islands, or when children are let loose and play 'government'? All they're doing is spending time to engineer how they think it should work, and then they do it. I think it would take far more time to organize the socialist state and then break it down than to just go straight to the Communist society.

I also agree that Communism cannot be achieved through reform; we would all just be living in a Communized Capitalism, still constrained by money and classes, just to a lesser degree, and though I wish it were possible to just expurgate the bourgeois and set it up from there, it probably isn't.

I know little about this.
Based on that, am I a Trotskyist, or am I some sort of Anarchist due to my belief that the dictatorship of the proletariat is unnecessary?Well..The major seperation between Marxism (trotskyism in this case) and anarchism is that a dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary, anarchists say it isn't and that we should go straight to communism without the use of the state as a tool. Most marxist believe the state must be used as a tool to bring about communism (dictatorship of the proletariat)
If you don't believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat the you're either an anarchist or a "Libertarian" Marxist. Libertarian Marxists don't believe in DoP (Dictatorship of the proletariat) but, as far as I know, do believe in using parties and believe in various marxist philosophical ideas.
Libertarian Marxist tendencies are Council Communism, Luxemburgism and Situationism (there the ones I know of)

The difference between Anarchists and Libertarian Marxists is not great, In practice they are very alike, there are some minor philsophical differeneces, different idea about class

[Spencer]

Your right, that's basic marxism, and there are very good reasons why so many people are against it.
Whilst I’d agree there are very good reasons to be against it, it’s anything but basic Marxism.

For example, in “A New Catechism For Socialism”, written in 1903 by two SDF members:

What do you understand by SOCIALISM?


By Socialism we understand the system of society the material basis of which is social production for social use; that is, the production of all the means of social existence — including all the necessaries and comforts of life — carried on by the organised community for its own use collectively and individually.

And

Then do you propose that all these means of production which are now owned by individuals, by this class, as you say, should be made the property of the Government, like the Post Office and the telegraph system are in this country, and the railways as well in some others, or that they should be owned by municipal bodies, as water-works, tramways, gas-works, and so on, are in many cases already?


No, Socialism does not mean mere Governmental ownership or management. The State of to-day, nationally or locally, is only the agent of the possessing class; the Post Office and the other State-owned businesses are run for profit just as outer businesses are; and the Government, as the agent of the possessing class, has, in the interests of its employers, to treat the employees just as other employees are treated. The organised democratic society contemplated by Socialists is a very different thing from the class State of to-day. When society is organised for the control of its own business, and has acquired the possession of its own means of production, its officers will not be the agents of a class, and production will be carried on for the use of all and not for the profit of a few.


Likewise in “Socialism and Nationalisation”, Paul Lafargue wrote (in 1882):


This method of utilising the social means of production could only be a passing one, imposed by the difficulties amidst which the workers’ party will have to struggle on the morrow of the revolution. But we can perceive a period wherein, with the needs of consumption and the powers of production scientifically calculated, consumption as well as production will be free. There will be neither wages nor market prices. Human society will then once more enter the period of communism.


Indeed, only a 'possibilist' professor, ignorant of social conditions and steeped in bourgeois prejudices, could offer the nationalisation of public services as the Socialist ideal.


(I have no idea what's going on with the quote boxes, it keeps automatically inserting them between each paragraph)

[superborys]

Re-iterating one of my questions due to the thread sort of spinning away from the questions I asked.

Are Maoists and Stalinists, even though the leader who invented these ideals was just a dictator with state capitalist processes, applying these leaders ideas to a real Communist scenario?

And aren't Stalinists not even generally considered Marxists?

For example, a Maoist would incite insurrection and unification of the peasentry namely, with the urban workers coming next. After the revolution had taken hold and ousted the bourgeois/feudal lords/what have you, they would establish a true Communist democracy, as opposed to what Mao actually set up, a totalitarian centrally-planned vanguard-party dictated state, with Mao's ideals taking hold. What exactly is New Democracy? From What I read on Wikipedia it just sounds like political reforms to prevent violent revolt.


And another question: Is the vanguard party meant to represent the proletariat as the whole? My idea of an established party for the Communist revolution would be to inform and enlighten the proletariat where some either don't want to, don't have the time or energy, or are too dim to realize that it's important to become aware of your position, however well-disguised, at the bottom of the ladder. I certainly wouldn't want it to take complete control like it did in the USSR, I would want 1917-1922 Russia, which to my understanding had actual worker councils deciding how to do things.

[Invincible Summer]

Re-iterating one of my questions due to the thread sort of spinning away from the questions I asked.

Are Maoists and Stalinists, even though the leader who invented these ideals was just a dictator with state capitalist processes, applying these leaders ideas to a real Communist scenario?

And aren't Stalinists not even generally considered Marxists?

All these questions really depend on whom you ask.

Mostly Anarchists and Trotskyists use the term "Stalinist," although this tendency doesn't really exist. Stalin adhered to Marxism-Leninism, thus supporters of the USSR and PRC (up to a certain point) are Marxist-Leninist-(Maoist sometimes).



For example, a Maoist would incite insurrection and unification of the peasentry namely, with the urban workers coming next. After the revolution had taken hold and ousted the bourgeois/feudal lords/what have you, they would establish a true Communist democracy, as opposed to what Mao actually set up, a totalitarian centrally-planned vanguard-party dictated state, with Mao's ideals taking hold. What exactly is New Democracy? From What I read on Wikipedia it just sounds like political reforms to prevent violent revolt.

Central planning and a vanguard party are essential to building a socialist state, and you yourself agree with the concept of the vanguard, so I don't understand why you're slagging it.

Building a "true communist democracy" doesn't happen in one day. The PRC and USSR had to modernize themselves from basically feudal societies into industrial ones. Socialism and communism where "from each according to their need" is the rule of the land isn't exactly possible with 5 farmers per 100km with wooden tools being exploited by land owners. These states wanted to build themselves up in order to spread and aid revolution to other states - this is what "socialism in one country" is... the building of one socialist country first in order to maintain a strong "base" so to speak for revolution to spread.

Also, I don't think that most people who identify as Marxist-Leninists or Maoists would advocate and exact repeat of the USSR or PRC. Technology and society has changed a lot, so obviously we can only adapt Marxist-Leninist/Maoist theory. In the Third World however, Maoist theory is still very much applicable, given the social conditions.

New Democracy, as I understand it, is the uniting of the peasantry, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie ("Bloc of four classes") in overthrowing the previous ruling class. It fulfills the duties of a bourgeois revolution without the rule of the bourgeoisie. However, the communist party is supposed to have the nationalist bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie under its thumb, pretty much using them to maintain and develop productive forces. I dont' see how this is "reform to quell violent revolt."



And another question: Is the vanguard party meant to represent the proletariat as the whole? My idea of an established party for the Communist revolution would be to inform and enlighten the proletariat where some either don't want to, don't have the time or energy, or are too dim to realize that it's important to become aware of your position, however well-disguised, at the bottom of the ladder. I certainly wouldn't want it to take complete control like it did in the USSR, I would want 1917-1922 Russia, which to my understanding had actual worker councils deciding how to do things.
The Vanguard Party is the segment of the working class that is most educated in revolutionary theory. Ideally, this will comprise the majority of the working class anyway, so it's not really separate.

[superborys]

Thanks much Helios+, finally someone who just answered my questions and didn't try to over-explain it.

The reason New Democracy sounded reformist to me was because it allowed the Marxist-banned bourgeoisie to participate in it. After reading it intensively, it actually seems like the most feasible path to Communism. Everyone, even the petty and national bourgeoisie, want to be more wealthy and better off, so it makes sense to recruit them with their moderate industrial power, to the formation of the Communist entity.
If I understand it right: Revolution including peasents, proletariat, petty, and national (I don't think I clearly understand this term) bourgeoisie. They become a socialist state in which the bourgeoisie are kept under strict regulation, until the state dissolves itself into Communism.

It seems to me that Maoism is the most rational one of the tendencies, and the most practical. Mao promoted participatory governments, recognized the USSR's betrayals to Communism, and such. Can it be posited that Mao was for Communism, he just pedestaled the vanguard party much higher up than most would think?

I'm still learning, and I'm reading as I ask questions, so please bear with me.