Placing and Identifying tendencies

[∞]

This diagram is full reflection of my views, and disagreements on their position seem to be the central reason for misunderstanding. I will give full information why I believe where these tendencies belong. If you find something wrong, notify me, If I am convinced, I will change the position. Some ideologies never truly been implemented, and I only place them according to what the subscribers say. The spectrum used is the political compass...http://politicalcompass.org/

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs633.snc4/59332_156331531061848_100000550072104_422543_84874 2_n.jpg

IDENTIFYING TENDENCIES

:hammersickle: Authoritarian Left :hammersickle:
Stalinism : as authoritarian socialist it is, Stalinism still finds place in the "slight" right. Even of the midst of his reign, he was somewhat responsible for center-right governments. The Stalinist pressure in the Spanish Civil war had created some bourgeoisie "democracies" in place of revolutionary hot-beds. Also consider that he, Kim-Jong-Il, and Mao lived rather lavishly.

Pol Pot-"ism":Focusing so much on agrarian collectivism and executing all suspected dissent gets the best of the two. While uncle Joe may have had the Gulag and the KGB, Brother No.1 would kill you immediately. It really has a Maoist/cultist mentality. With quasi-religious beliefs like "year zero".

Maoism: Maoism has the feel of an agrarian Stalinism. Though his police measures were not as "secret", he remained a staunch authoritarian. He also gets pushed a little bit to the right for his theory of Third-Worldism.


Trotskyism: Since Trotskyism has never been implemented, I'll place this idea somewhere near where I believe Leninism resides.


:star: Libertarian Left :star:

Left Communism: This is based on the writings of Rosa Luxemburg and you Revleftcoms. Some however, are also Trotskyists, others are "libertarian syndicalist" and support Anarchism.

Anarcho Communism: Self Explanatory...

Anarcho Syndicalism: Slightly "up" because of the some decisiveness in unionism.
Slightly right (compared to Anarcho-Communism) because of the wage that exists.



Economic Right/less authoritarian
Anarcho Capitalism: (Based on what they blabble on about).

Authoritarian Right
Unregulated Corporatism (Pinochetism, Pure corporatism): We argue it all the time...
Republicanism: Same as above, center-right authoritarain
Liberatarianism: Not so left for its support of pro-life and immigration laws.


THE THIRD WAY/THIRD POSITION/KEYNESIANISM(LEFT AND RIGHT WING).....................
The third way is the the third position but with less authority.

FDRism: this is really an American style of unionism and social-democracy, however it can't eliminate private power.

Peronism: Has emphasis on corporations at home and some nationalizing. Also some nationalism and strong-esque state rule.

Chinese Keynesian: Involves having a high tax, corporation management, but strict rule and big corporate power.

American Keynesianism: Democrats basically, bail-outs, stimulus packages etc. (can vary)

Third positionism: Claims to neither be socialist or capitalist but unintentionally ignores its trade unions and has the state and corporations rule it out. So it can shift to the right. (That dark blue spot is National Syndicalism, if 3rd position had worked).

[Apoi_Viitor]

I would place Maoism farther up on the totalitarian side; and push US Republicanism, FDRism, and the US Keynesian ideologies way farther to the bottom.

Because, despite the Republicans insistence on banning abortion, their refusal to legalize gay marriage, etc., they don't rely on genocidal youth "thugs" to remain in power. As much as I disliked George Bush, I could sleep pretty well assured that I wouldn't wake up to find my family brutally murdered, because they were guilty of being "class-traitors".

Also, it took Bush a whole 2 years to convince America to go to war with Iraq, and he only resided over the killing of like 200,000 ~ (I don't know where the numbers stand now) people. In short, he doesn't have shit on Mao.

[Queercommie Girl]

Because, despite the Republicans insistence on banning abortion, their refusal to legalize gay marriage, etc.,


Sounds like you don't consider these issues to be so important, probably because you are a heterosexual cis-gendered white male.



Also, it took Bush a whole 2 years to convince America to go to war with Iraq, and he only resided over the killing of like 200,000 ~ (I don't know where the numbers stand now) people. In short, he doesn't have shit on Mao.
I always feel somewhat suspicious when people who call themselves socialists begin to apologise for Uncle Sam.

There is no universal human rights. Killing a capitalist and killing a worker aren't the same thing. That's something you don't understand. I consider the mass slaughter of bureaucratic capitalist elements within the communist party (doesn't mean I necessarily agree with that) to be more acceptable than bombing innocent working class children in the Third World.

[Zanthorus]

To begin with, I'm not entirely sure what the point of this was?

Also, Trotskyists would generally consider the Russian revolution as an implementation of 'Trotskyism', or at least the theory of permanent revolution (Which, in actual fact, is not a theory exclusive to Trotsky or Trotskyism).

I'm also not sure what it means to say that some Left-Communists are Trotskyists. The Italian Left did support Trotsky and the Left Opposition internationally during the late 20's and even believed that Russia was a 'degenerated workers' state'. However their rejection of United Fronts, parliamentary participation and belief that Trotsky and the Opposition had crossed a class line after they ceded into the Social-Democratic parties in the 'French Turn' would certainly put them outside of 'Trotskyism' as such. The belief that Trotsky was a great revolutionary leader prior to 1917 also does not really qualify as 'Trotskyist'.

[HEAD ICE]

I'm sorry but [email protected] "FDRism." lord.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Sounds like you don't consider these issues to be so important, probably because you are a heterosexual cis-gendered white male.

I always feel somewhat suspicious when people who call themselves socialists begin to apologise for Uncle Sam.

There is no universal human rights. Killing a capitalist and killing a worker aren't the same thing. That's something you don't understand. I consider the mass slaughter of bureaucratic capitalist elements within the communist party (doesn't mean I necessarily agree with that) to be more acceptable than bombing innocent working class children in the Third World.

Thank you for the borderline ad hominem attack, but: I'm not heterosexual, I just value life more than the "right to marriage". Sure, gender equality, gay marriage, etc. should be sought after, but I consider the right to not be killed by murderous goons more fundamentally important. Really, how can women exercise their newly found gender equality, if they're dead?

Sure, the mass slaughter of bureaucratic capitalist elements is more justifiable than bombing innocent workers, but Maoism in practice is "anarchy" in its derogatory sense. "Constant Revolution", "Cultural Revolution" were just excuses for Mao to stay in power (after he had presided over the worst famine in human history); and excuses for China's citizens to settle grudges and old-scores with guns and violence.

And I am not apologizing for Uncle Sam. I don't like it when America kills thousands of innocent civilians, but that doesn't excuse Mao for killing thousands of innocent civilians. I think if you really believe in the emancipation of the working class, you believe in it universally. I know contemporary historians inflate the number of victims of Mao for idealogical purposes, but he still led to the deaths of millions of innocent workers. And while the destalinization of Russia has led to severe inequalities in wealth distribution, starvation (not as harsh as it previously had been under Stalinist-Soviet rule), declining medical service, etc. - There isn't continual mass murder, and overt oppression. Saying that South Korea is better than North Korea doesn't make me a capitalist apologist, I'm simply stating a factual observation. And sure I find China's embracing of neoliberal reforms a step in the wrong direction, but at least its a step away from how it was in Mao's days.

[Amphictyonis]

I have a question for the OP regarding placing your position. Why, on your youtube page, do you recommend the videos by Brainpolice, a market anarchist?

[anticap]

I like my graph better than the typical Nolan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart)-based graphs. :p

[∞]

I have a question for the OP regarding placing your position. Why, on your youtube page, do you recommend the videos by Brainpolice, a market anarchist?

Mainly so people can see some distinctions...he is a market socialist anarchist.
His philosophical criticism of capitalism is admirable. Even though hes a over-hypothetical slanderer.

Hes a mutualist...and so was proudhon...nbd.

[∞]

I'm sorry but [email protected] "FDRism." lord.

Yes worker programs, new deals, and development-ism is the left-wing Keynesianism I call "FDRism".


I like my graph better than the typical Nolan-based graphs.

Its a rather biased graph, and ideas of People like Pol Pot wouldn't belong anywhere...

EDIT:Though it does some make sense from a leftist perspective.

[Amphictyonis]

Mainly people can see some distinctions...he is a market socialist anarchist.
His philosophical criticism of capitalism is admirable. Even though hes a over-hypothetical slanderer.
I remember him from the Mises forums. That guy....he has nothing to say of any interest outside of pseudo intellectual grandstanding. . I've watched him go from a Tea Party type American libertarian to a twister of Proudhon and supporter of Rothbard to some strange new "market anarchist" position. He doesn't understand Marxism or anarchism. He thinks wage labor for a boss could be voluntary. I can go on....at one point he rejected the LTV then accepted it. The guy is full of it.

I'm waiting till he starts to call himself a Marxist. I'll give him about 3 years. He'll have to adopt some actual anarchist positions first. All those supporters of private property, wage slavery rent and interest bother me. Their justifications are all empty.

[∞]

I would place Maoism farther up on the totalitarian side; and push US Republicanism, FDRism, and the US Keynesian ideologies way farther to the bottom.

Because, despite the Republicans insistence on banning abortion, their refusal to legalize gay marriage, etc., they don't rely on genocidal youth "thugs" to remain in power. As much as I disliked George Bush, I could sleep pretty well assured that I wouldn't wake up to find my family brutally murdered, because they were guilty of being "class-traitors".

Also, it took Bush a whole 2 years to convince America to go to war with Iraq, and he only resided over the killing of like 200,000 ~ (I don't know where the numbers stand now) people. In short, he doesn't have shit on Mao.

And aren't you lucky to be American? Pinochet, Contras, and many other coupes and dictatorships are a result of the "not so bad" republicanism. Oh and the death toll in Iraq is 750,000+ BY THE WAY.

[∞]

I remember him from the Mises forums. That guy....he has nothing to say of any interest outside of pseudo intellectual grandstanding. . I've watched him go from a Tea Party type American libertarian to a twister of Proudhon and supporter of Rothbard to some strange new "market anarchist" position. He doesn't understand Marxism or anarchism. He thinks wage labor for a boss could be voluntary. I can go on....at one point he rejected the LTV then accepted it. The guy is full of it.

I'm waiting till he starts to call himself a Marxist. I'll give him about 3 years. He'll have to adopt some actual anarchist positions first. All those supporters of private property, wage slavery rent and interest bother me. Their justifications are all empty.

Hmmm... didn't know that, guess I'll delete him and the Buddhist dude. Buddhagem just makes videos of pointlessness, really...just videos of random things.

[Apoi_Viitor]

And aren't you lucky to be American? Pinochet, Contras, and many other coupes and dictatorships are a result of the "not so bad" republicanism. Oh and the death toll in Iraq is 750,000+ BY THE WAY.

America's domestic policy, and Pinochet's domestic policy are far from being the same. Taking foreign policy issues off the table modern day American Republicanism is "not so bad" when compared to Maoism. The most common estimate is 100-200 thousand civilians killed. But I don't want to come off as trying to minimalize the Iraqi-war, its effects have been disastrous, but the 750,000 figure is on the high-end. It's possible though. Just like the 40-50 million death toll figure ascribed to Mao might be true, but its likely non-confirmable.

[∞]

America's domestic policy, and Pinochet's domestic policy are far from being the same. Taking foreign policy issues off the table modern day American Republicanism is "not so bad" when compared to Maoism. The most common estimate is 100-200 thousand civilians killed. But I don't want to come off as trying to minimalize the Iraqi-war, its effects have been disastrous, but the 750,000 figure is on the high-end. It's possible though. Just like the 40-50 million death toll figure ascribed to Mao might be true, but its likely non-confirmable.

The policies are laissez faire capitalism BACKED by mainly republican idealists and our cia. I'm speaking of republicanism as a whole which 'til this day backs regimes (so do democrats).

And as far as Maoism goes, millions of people died due to economic inefficiencies much more than purging,terror, and genocide. (Yes Genocide only reason they say Stalin didn't commit genocide is because he urged the UN not to classify genocide as also killing people of a certain political belief).

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq

[Apoi_Viitor]

The policies are laissez faire capitalism BACKED by mainly republican idealists and our cia. I'm speaking of republicanism as a whole which 'til this day backs regimes (so do democrats).

And as far as Maoism goes, millions of people died due to economic inefficiencies much more than purging,terror, and genocide. (Yes Genocide only reason they say Stalin didn't commit genocide is because he urged the UN not to classify genocide as also killing people of a certain political belief).

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq

I think most scholarly figures say that Maoism's economic inefficiencies killed 30 million people, with millions of others dying from torture, cannibalization, etc. The US has committed its fair-share of genocidal atrocities, but only Mao was capable of killing 30 million people in a three year span.

Edit: I have my own definition of genocide, and to me, every event from the holocaust, to the killing of native americans, european slavery, khemer rhouge, maoism, british imperialism, stalinism, etc. counts as genocide. I mean, over the course of 3 years, (according to genocide historian Adam Jones), 1 in 5 Tibetans starved to death.

Basically

Near the end of his account, Mr. Becker tries to estimate the number of people who died unnatural deaths as a result of the policies imposed during the Great Leap, citing one scholar's figure of 30 million to be the most believable. But Mr. Becker says that ''from a moral perspective'' the debate over numbers is ''meaningless.'' China managed to hide the very fact of the famine for 20 years, and even now, its extent and real causes are glossed over in official accounts as part of the effort to protect Mao's already tarnished reputation.

Mr. Becker's remarkable book, which firmly establishes the Great Leap and the resulting famine as one of the worst atrocities of all time, strikes a heavy blow against willed ignorance of what took place. - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CE3D71E3DF936A35751C0A9619582 60&pagewanted=2

[sanpal]

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs337.ash2/61782_155246811170320_100000550072104_414839_16245 71_n.jpg

IDENTIFYING TENDENCIES



With the purpose to learn tendenses, how to use your diagramme? What is with the axis of abscissa? What is the gradation from a 'starfish' to a 'dollar'? What between them? Half a dollar & half a starfish? Analogically, what is with the axis of ordinate? Gradation from an inherited dictatorship to a direct democracy? What between them? Representative democracy?

In what units these gradations should be measured?

[Queercommie Girl]

Thank you for the borderline ad hominem attack,


How so?



Sure, the mass slaughter of bureaucratic capitalist elements is more justifiable than bombing innocent workers, but Maoism in practice is "anarchy" in its derogatory sense. "Constant Revolution", "Cultural Revolution" were just excuses for Mao to stay in power (after he had presided over the worst famine in human history); and excuses for China's citizens to settle grudges and old-scores with guns and violence.
Your view of Mao is excessively cynical. The Cultural Revolution was a genuine attempt at fighting the emergence of bureaucratic capitalism, not Mao's hypocritical attempt at consolidating his own power. And Mao can't be blame for bad weather, he can't control weather.

Sure, in practice the CR went out of hand, but that's not Mao's primary fault. Mao explicitly said that people are not to use the CR as an excuse to settle personal grudges violently, but many people did anyway. The general education level in China those days was pretty low, but what can you expect in a country that has endured more than a century of Western imperialist plundering since 1840?

You've just read too many bourgeois propaganda regarding Mao. I'm not an Orthodox Maoist and I won't deny that Mao made many mistakes, but to try to paint him as a semi-Hitler-like figure doesn't work at all.



And I am not apologizing for Uncle Sam. I don't like it when America kills thousands of innocent civilians, but that doesn't excuse Mao for killing thousands of innocent civilians.
When did Mao directly kill thousands of innocent proletarians? People dying in the famine is not Mao's direct fault. As I said, Mao can't control the weather. Most people Mao killed were landlords, capitalists and revisionists, not workers and peasants.



I know contemporary historians inflate the number of victims of Mao for idealogical purposes, but he still led to the deaths of millions of innocent workers.
Many people did die in the famine, but that's not his direct fault. Even if China was an anarchist "country" at that time, many people would still have died.



And while the destalinization of Russia has led to severe inequalities in wealth distribution, starvation (not as harsh as it previously had been under Stalinist-Soviet rule), declining medical service, etc. - There isn't continual mass murder, and overt oppression.
Many left Maoists heavily criticise Stalin's great purges, but it doesn't change the fact that objectively more innocent people have perished directly and indirectly due to economic inequality than due to political purges. Base determines super-structure, not the other way around.



Saying that South Korea is better than North Korea doesn't make me a capitalist apologist, I'm simply stating a factual observation. And sure I find China's embracing of neoliberal reforms a step in the wrong direction, but at least its a step away from how it was in Mao's days.
Actually, I get even more suspicious when socialists begin to apologise for neo-liberal China today, because frankly it's even worse than US (and South Korean) capitalism. China today is a kind of ultra-corrupt crony bureaucratic capitalism that operates according to naked social darwinist principles of "might makes right" which would make US Republicanism look "socialist". Workers have absolutely no rights in China now. Mao introduced the right to strike during the Cultural Revolution but that was taken away in 1982. In Mao's days there were comprehensive public welfare in terms of healthcare and housing. Today if you are seriously ill and can't afford treatment the only option is to literally wait to die, and most people in China today, even the majority of white-collar workers, can't afford to buy their own house. In Mao's days China had the "iron rice bowl" which means no matter how little workers do, they get the same salary, so in those days Chinese workers had a reputation for being somewhat "lazy". Today the majority of Chinese workers toil for 10-14 hours a day for their capitalist bosses.

If you think neo-liberal China today is somehow better for workers than Mao's China, then you are totally delusional. Why don't you try to tell this to the workers who committed suicide to escape over-work at Foxconn? Or are you going to join the right-wing press in mainland China and blame these workers for their own suicides because they are apparently "weak-willed"?

[∞]

I think most scholarly figures say that Maoism's economic inefficiencies killed 30 million people, with millions of others dying from torture, cannibalization, etc. The US has committed its fair-share of genocidal atrocities, but only Mao was capable of killing 30 million people in a three year span.

Edit: I have my own definition of genocide, and to me, every event from the holocaust, to the killing of native americans, european slavery, khemer rhouge, maoism, british imperialism, stalinism, etc. counts as genocide. I mean, over the course of 3 years, (according to genocide historian Adam Jones), 1 in 5 Tibetans starved to death.

Basically

Near the end of his account, Mr. Becker tries to estimate the number of people who died unnatural deaths as a result of the policies imposed during the Great Leap, citing one scholar's figure of 30 million to be the most believable. But Mr. Becker says that ''from a moral perspective'' the debate over numbers is ''meaningless.'' China managed to hide the very fact of the famine for 20 years, and even now, its extent and real causes are glossed over in official accounts as part of the effort to protect Mao's already tarnished reputation.

Mr. Becker's remarkable book, which firmly establishes the Great Leap and the resulting famine as one of the worst atrocities of all time, strikes a heavy blow against willed ignorance of what took place. - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CE3D71E3DF936A35751C0A9619582 60&pagewanted=2

Well this is not a debate of casualties...
I'm merely saying republicans backed totalitarianism, so they are almost on the same level as Mao.

[Weezer]

Shit graph.

[∞]

Shit graph.

hmm..can you tell me why?

[∞]

With the purpose to learn tendenses, how to use your diagramme? What is with the axis of abscissa? What is the gradation from a 'starfish' to a 'dollar'? What between them? Half a dollar & half a starfish? Analogically, what is with the axis of ordinate? Gradation from an inherited dictatorship to a direct democracy? What between them? Representative democracy?

In what units these gradations should be measured?

You kind of answered your own question...

[AK]

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs337.ash2/61782_155246811170320_100000550072104_414839_16245 71_n.jpg



"Totalitarianism" is a bullshit concept.
Aren't anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism the same thing?
Why is Left Communism so far up the totalitarian scale? Especially considering the Dutch-German Council Communist tradition?

I've always found the political compass to be utter bullshit. It is better to categorise ideologies and tendencies based on what class they serve.

EDIT: Anarcho-capitalism should actually be extremely far up the "totalitarian" scale :p

[∞]

"Totalitarianism" is a bullshit concept.
Aren't anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism the same thing?
Why is Left Communism so far up the totalitarian scale? Especially considering the Dutch-German Council Communist tradition?

I've always found the political compass to be utter bullshit. It is better to categorise ideologies and tendencies based on what class they serve.

EDIT: Anarcho-capitalism should actually be extremely far up the "totalitarian" scale :p

1. ???
2. No, as they would tell you. The Libertarian party are quite different than the Austrians.
3. I think its better to classify them in comparison to other ideologies.

[AK]

1. ???
totalitarian
adj
of a political system in which there is only one party, which allows no opposition and attempts to control everything, a totalitarian state,

Whilst there have been very authoritarian regimes in the past, no such thing as "totalitarianism" has ever existed.

[∞]

totalitarian
adj
of a political system in which there is only one party, which allows no opposition and attempts to control everything, a totalitarian state,

Whilst there have been very authoritarian regimes in the past, no such thing as "totalitarianism" has ever existed.

We can't judge the state's intentions, but we can see it's measures. And said states did accomplish and move towards such measure to control everything.

Left Communism has some state apparatus, it is however not authoritarian, it may seem so to an Anarchist

[Weezer]

hmm..can you tell me why?

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs337.ash2/61782_155246811170320_100000550072104_414839_16245 71_n.jpg

1. Why the hell is Pol Pot to the furthest left and authoritarian? Pol Pot was hardly a full blown leftist, he belongs further to right.

2. Anarcho-capitalism is hardly a libertarian ideology, as a social anarchist, you should know that! Anarcho-capitalism would lead to some of the worst totalitarianism the world would ever see.

3. "Third Position" is not a literally one, the Third Position is synonymous with fascism. It does not belong that close to the center-authoritarianism point of the graph.

4. Trotskyism, Left Communism, Maoism, hell even Stalinism does not belong on that far on the authoritarian scale, they all want to abolish the state sometime.

5. American Republicanism and American Libertarianism belong closer together, but the American Libertarian ever so closer to the left, as they are somewhat more free with social liberties.

6. How is Anarcho-syndicalism more authoritarian that anarcho-communism?

7. Juche is not that authoritarian, but it's up there.

[anticap]

The problem with any graph that allows for the placement of a non-coercive capitalism is that it takes Nolan's right-"libertarian" assumptions for granted. He deliberately selected axes that allowed for such placement. The Nolan Chart was designed as a right-"libertarian" propaganda tool.

Better axes are needed.

Two of the oldest measures of social life, predating both anarchism and Marxism, are the distribution of wealth, and the distribution of power. Those might make good axes for a diamond-shaped graph:

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8307/wealthpower.png

At the bottom point, all wealth and power are in the hands of one person. At the top point, wealth and power are evenly distributed among all people. Nothing realistic or historical will be plotted at either of those points, but the 'good stuff' will be nearer to the top (I don't mean to suggest that the goal of, e.g., socialism, is perfect equality; it isn't).

One could even plot governments using available indices such as the Gini coefficient and the Democracy Index (or whatever).

It's just a suggestion; I haven't tried to plot anything on it yet.

[∞]

1. Why the hell is Pol Pot to the furthest left and authoritarian? Pol Pot was hardly a full blown leftist, he belongs further to right.

His mass killings repression, and terror put him on top, but his ideology
was extreme (authoritarian) collectivism.


Anarcho-capitalism is hardly a libertarian ideology, as a social anarchist, you should know that! Anarcho-capitalism would lead to some of the worst totalitarianism the world would ever see.

"Based on what they blabble on about." I know its a hierarchal society but I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. I feel like I don't understand them.


"Third Position" is not a literally one, the Third Position is synonymous with fascism. It does not belong that close to the center-authoritarianism point of the graph.

Its not, and 3rd positionism doesn't necessarily have to be totalitarian. It is MOST of the time, and as it gets more authoritarian, it gets more right wing.
But it does have some unions and claims to not be left or right.


Trotskyism, Left Communism, Maoism, hell even Stalinism does not belong on that far on the authoritarian scale, they all want to abolish the state sometime.
This is deplorable, but I think the KGB, Cheka, the Cultural Revolution are authoritarian. And I'll repeat... I made Left Communism very, very libertarian.



American Republicanism and American Libertarianism belong closer together, but the American Libertarian ever so closer to the left, as they are somewhat more free with social liberties.

Stop associating lower quadrants of authority as "left", this is an unbiased graph.


How is Anarcho-syndicalism more authoritarian that anarcho-communism?
Because Anarcho Communism hasno currency or structure at all.


Juche is not that authoritarian, but it's up there.
Then what is?

EDIT: I should put Anarcho Capitalism higher than Syndicalism though

[Queercommie Girl]

Left Communism has some state apparatus, it is however not authoritarian, it may seem so to an Anarchist

I find it funny when anarchists dismiss left communism as "not truly state-less" just because it has some formal structure.

I don't know what anarchists actually mean by their "worker's democracy" if even left communist versions aren't good enough for you. Do you seriously think "democracy" is just some kind of "tribal natural instinct" that requires no formal structure?

Unless you are a primitivist, communism is not just a simple return to the primitive tribal era by any means, and proletarian democracy is a socially acquired trait, not a "natural instinct". Democracy will never become "second nature" in a communist society. And actually the existence of some degree of formal democratic structure would act to prevent authoritarianism rather than to promote it. A totally structureless society would objectively tend to get "alpha males" into positions of power "naturally", as some feminists have pointed out.

[Amphictyonis]

I find it funny when anarchists dismiss left communism as "not truly state-less" just because it has some formal structure.

I don't know what anarchists actually mean by their "worker's democracy" if even left communist versions aren't good enough for you. Do you seriously think "democracy" is just some kind of "tribal natural instinct" that requires no formal structure?

Unless you are a primitivist, communism is not just a simple return to the primitive tribal era by any means, and proletarian democracy is a socially acquired trait, not a "natural instinct". Democracy will never become "second nature" in a communist society. And actually the existence of some degree of formal democratic structure would act to prevent authoritarianism rather than to promote it. A totally structureless society would objectively tend to get "alpha males" into positions of power "naturally", as some feminists have pointed out.

I think us left Marxists have more in common with anarchists than most people want to admit. The only problem I have with them is the idea of abolishing the state in one fell swoop. It would be a disaster.

[anticap]

One could even plot governments using available indices such as the Gini coefficient and the Democracy Index.

Just for fun I did just that with a few arbitrarily-selected countries:

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/2539/ginidemocracy.png

I'm not suggesting that either of those indices are worth shit. (The Democracy Index is a poor measure of the distribution of power since that's not really what it measures, but it's the only index that I could think of.)

Plotting tendencies will be utterly arbitrary on any graph since there are no common measures for such a thing. I'd be interested to see where the OP would plot tendencies on a wealth/power graph.

[Queercommie Girl]

Just for fun I did just that with a few arbitrarily-selected countries:

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/2539/ginidemocracy.png

I'm not suggesting that either of those indices are worth shit. (The Democracy Index is a poor measure of the distribution of power since that's not really what it measures, but it's the only index that I could think of.)

Plotting tendencies will be utterly arbitrary on any graph since there are no common measures for such a thing. I'd be interested to see where the OP would plot tendencies on a wealth/power graph.

Yep, I agree with your placement of China as it stands today.

[Zanthorus]

Why is Left Communism so far up the totalitarian scale? Especially considering the Dutch-German Council Communist tradition?

This is a good point. In general it is an error to lump all 'Left-Communists' together, as a lot of groups going under that description differ on a number of issues. The Italian Left would certainly be a lot further up the 'authoritarian' scale, probably in the same place as the Trotkyists, whilst the German-Dutch Left in it's latter 'Councillist' phase is almost indistinguishable from some variants of anarchism apart from in theoretical analysis.

[anticap]

Incidentally, I believe that the Political Compass claims to be based on Eysenck's work (http://ditext.com/eysenck/politics.html) (and the questions at that link seem to suggest so), and that Eysenck is one of the only people to have done any serious work on political spectra. So, for all its faults, the Political Compass appears at least to be grounded in actual research -- though they don't use the Radical/Conservative, Tough/Tender axes, which seem to have been selected for good reason.

P.S. The psychological-schoolers have a quiz (http://mises.org/quiz.aspx?QuizID=5). :D (The question "Are You an Austrian?" illustrates why I can't bring myself to call them "Austrians": not all Austrians are "Austrians"! To call the psychological school the "Austrian school" is to besmirch the Austrian people!)

Edit: I scored 0/100 on the Mises quiz, and evidently selected the "socialist answer" on every question. :D

[Weezer]

"Based on what they blabble on about." I know its a hierarchal society but I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. I feel like I don't understand them.

Regular capitalists claim to have a world of equal opportunity, are they right too?




This is deplorable, but I think the KGB, Cheka, the Cultural Revolution are authoritarian. And I'll repeat... I made Left Communism very, very libertarian.

KGB huh? And yet US Republicanism, the ideology of the CIA and FBI, is more libertarian than the KGB?

You're a sad little infantile anarchist.





Stop associating lower quadrants of authority as "left", this is an unbiased graph.

So unbiased graph means you can make up what shit fits your beliefs? :rolleyes:



Because Anarcho Communism has no currency or structure at all.

...



Then what is?

It's authoritarian.

[∞]

I find it funny when anarchists dismiss left communism as "not truly state-less" just because it has some formal structure.

I don't know what anarchists actually mean by their "worker's democracy" if even left communist versions aren't good enough for you. Do you seriously think "democracy" is just some kind of "tribal natural instinct" that requires no formal structure?

Unless you are a primitivist, communism is not just a simple return to the primitive tribal era by any means, and proletarian democracy is a socially acquired trait, not a "natural instinct". Democracy will never become "second nature" in a communist society. And actually the existence of some degree of formal democratic structure would act to prevent authoritarianism rather than to promote it. A totally structureless society would objectively tend to get "alpha males" into positions of power "naturally", as some feminists have pointed out.

I made LC very libertarian, an LC can be even less if he is in the vicinity of that dot. The dot is like a capital, it represents what is around it.

[∞]

I find it funny when anarchists dismiss left communism as "not truly state-less" just because it has some formal structure.

I don't know what anarchists actually mean by their "worker's democracy" if even left communist versions aren't good enough for you. Do you seriously think "democracy" is just some kind of "tribal natural instinct" that requires no formal structure?

Unless you are a primitivist, communism is not just a simple return to the primitive tribal era by any means, and proletarian democracy is a socially acquired trait, not a "natural instinct". Democracy will never become "second nature" in a communist society. And actually the existence of some degree of formal democratic structure would act to prevent authoritarianism rather than to promote it. A totally structureless society would objectively tend to get "alpha males" into positions of power "naturally", as some feminists have pointed out.

As long as labor is presented to revolutionary, and free unions, and wage starts to decay, patriarchy and elitism tends to crumble. First off humans are not wolves and can acquire communal society with correct means and control of production. A state can never prevent such things, because the state is based on the notions of such things.




I think us left Marxists have more in common with anarchists than most people want to admit. The only problem I have with them is the idea of abolishing the state in one fell swoop. It would be a disaster.

Yes they do, graphically they be -1 to -8 when it comes to authority. Like Zanthrous said, it could be anywhere dpending on what kind of LC you are.


Incidentally, I believe that the Political Compass claims to be based on Eysenck's work (http://ditext.com/eysenck/politics.html) (and the questions at that link seem to suggest so), and that Eysenck is one of the only people to have done any serious work on political spectra. So, for all its faults, the Political Compass appears at least to be grounded in actual research -- though they don't use the Radical/Conservative, Tought/Tender axes, which seem to have been selected for good reason.

P.S. The psychological-schoolers have a quiz (http://mises.org/quiz.aspx?QuizID=5). :D (The question "Are You an Austrian?" illustrates why I can't bring myself to call them "Austrians": not all Austrians are "Austrians"! To call the psychological school the "Austrian school" is to besmirch the Austrian people!)

Edit: I scored 0/100 on the Mises quiz, and evidently selected the "socialist answer" on every question. :D

I like the logic behind your graph, I just can't seem to fit some tendencies on it.


You're a sad little infantile anarchist.
I'm done talking to a buffoon like you. Honestly, you just say things without thinking about them.

[28350]

I think a lot of confusion here is between the means and goals of ideologies. In other words, when we talk about "Anarcho-communism," we're talking about a society that is, in terms of structure and economics and what not, anarcho-communist. When we talk about "Stalinism," we talk about a society that is ideologically stalinist, and is not, in terms of structure and economics and what not, communist.
It's kind of a double standard, and I think it stems from the fact that there has never been an an ideological implementation of Anarcho-communism (except for Makhno, or whatever), whereas there has been an ideological implementation of "Stalinism."

[Reznov]

Sounds like you don't consider these issues to be so important, probably because you are a heterosexual cis-gendered white male.

I always feel somewhat suspicious when people who call themselves socialists begin to apologise for Uncle Sam.

There is no universal human rights. Killing a capitalist and killing a worker aren't the same thing. That's something you don't understand. I consider the mass slaughter of bureaucratic capitalist elements within the communist party (doesn't mean I necessarily agree with that) to be more acceptable than bombing innocent working class children in the Third World.

Ah yes, because it can only be heterosexual cis-gendered white males that have these beliefs. No, we are not sterotyping and making broad generalizations here!

While I would agree with you in this statement if everything was so black and white but, what is a capitalist and what is a worker in the real world?

If you saw a heterosexual cis-gendered white male who is American would you call him a capitalist?

I mean, who exactly is a capitalist? Is it all the American soliders over in the Middle East? Is it the Commanders? Is it the president? The Democrats? White Americans?

So I guess I dont understand you exactly, so please enlighten me.

[anticap]

I think a lot of confusion here is between the means and goals of ideologies.

A decent political quiz in that regard is Moral Politics (http://www.moral-politics.com/).

As they explain here (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Moral_Dimensions):


The Moral Matrix has two Dimensions:

1. The Moral Order dimension defines your ideal view of the world. Achieving that ideal order is the goal of politics.

2. The Moral Rules dimension defines the rules you think are best to achieve your ideal moral order. Implementing those rules is the object of politics.

In short, your political opinions reflect what moral rules you think society should follow to reach or maintain your ideal moral order.

You can see all possible results here (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Ideologies&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalIdeologies.All).

[anticap]

I usually get libertarian socialism, sometimes international socialism or international communism, depending how I'm leaning when I take it.

It's pretty accurate. Try taking the quiz as Hitler and see if you get Fascism. ;)

(Just FYI, that image may break eventually, as it's automatically generated in a temp directory.)

[Ocean Seal]

I have never really been fond of the political compass, but if there are a few things wrong with your left side it is that Maoism and Stalinism are too far apart and that "Pol-Pot"ism shouldn't be so far to the left. Pol-Pot was not honestly a leftist.

[28350]

A decent political quiz in that regard is Moral Politics (http://www.moral-politics.com/).

I know of it, I scored int.com.
The thing is though, Marxism isn't about morality.

[anticap]

I know of it, I scored int.com.
The thing is though, Marxism isn't about morality.

I don't think they equate communism with Marxism.

You can't please everyone, but it's still a decent quiz as they go.

[AK]

International Socialism, bruh.

Also, how is "activism" an ideology on its own? It's a means of action, not a defined set of political beliefs.

[anticap]

how is "activism" an ideology on its own? It's a means of action, not a defined set of political beliefs.

Yeah, I just assumed that the quiz maker had an empty block there and couldn't think of anything better to call it.

They define it as a composite ideology:


Activism can be dedicated to many causes: animal rights, environment, civil rights, global poverty...

I agree that it doesn't make sense; those concerns could fall anywhere in the socialist quadrant.

[revolution inaction]

Because Anarcho Communism hasno currency or structure at all.


do you know anything about anarchism?

[revolution inaction]

A decent political quiz in that regard is Moral Politics (http://www.moral-politics.com/).

As they explain here (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Moral_Dimensions):



You can see all possible results here (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Ideologies&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalIdeologies.All).

with things like this i cant answer a lot of the questions because i disagree with the premise


Your scored -4 on Moral Order (http://www.moral-politics.com/xPolitics.aspx?menu=Moral_Dimensions&action=Draw&choice=MoralDimensions.Moral_Order) and 5.5 on Moral Rules (http://www.moral-politics.com/xPolitics.aspx?menu=Moral_Dimensions&action=Draw&choice=MoralDimensions.Moral_Rules).

The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible):


System: Socialism (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Systems&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalSystems.Socialism)
Ideology: International Socialism (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Ideologies&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalIdeologies.International_Socialism )
Party: No match.
Presidents: Jimmy Carter (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Maps&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalMaps.US_Presidents&Choices=Jimmy%20Carter)
04' Election: David Cobb (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Maps&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalMaps.US_2004_Elections&Choices=David%20Cobb)
08' Election: Dennis Kucinich (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Maps&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalMaps.US_2008_Elections&Choices=Dennis%20Kucinich)



Of the 634,466 respondents (11,493 on Facebook):


2% are close to you.
74% are more conservative (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Systems&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalSystems.Conservatism).
13% are more liberal (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Systems&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalSystems.Liberalism).
3% are more socialist (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Systems&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalSystems.Socialism).
3% are more authoritarian (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Systems&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalSystems.Authoritarianism).



so i'm more authoritarian than 97% of people? :laugh:

[AK]

Because Anarcho Communism hasno currency or structure at all.
Structure? It has structure. Autonomous communes. As the currency, it has labour vouchers as a temporary measure in times of scarcity and for scarce goods and resources so they can be managed effectively and carefully until we have them in abundance - when people can use however much they want whatever the hell they want them for.

[AK]

so i'm more authoritarian than 97% of people? :laugh:
Don't you know? Stressing workers' autonomy makes you a totalitarian dictator.

[∞]

Structure? It has structure. Autonomous communes. As the currency, it has labour vouchers as a temporary measure in times of scarcity and for scarce goods and resources so they can be managed effectively and carefully until we have them in abundance - when people can use however much they want whatever the hell they want them for.

I made a mistake, by structure I meant no subversive form of wage would exist.
Work is solely voluntary if one wants access to a community's resource. This is the purest form of Anarchism due to its negligence to authority. So it is less than Anarcho Syndicalism....

[Queercommie Girl]

Ah yes, because it can only be heterosexual cis-gendered white males that have these beliefs. No, we are not sterotyping and making broad generalizations here!


I didn't say that, but don't you think that objectively those people who are in a more privileged position in terms of their race, gender and sexuality would tend to be statistically speaking somewhat more bigoted?

It's not a sweeping generalisation, it's just a statistical slant.



While I would agree with you in this statement if everything was so black and white but, what is a capitalist and what is a worker in the real world?


Anyone who is familiar with Marxist class analysis would not ask this question.



If you saw a heterosexual cis-gendered white male who is American would you call him a capitalist?


What a ridiculous point you are making, my anarchist friend. Most of "heterosexual cis-gendered white males" are working class.



I mean, who exactly is a capitalist? Is it all the American soliders over in the Middle East? Is it the Commanders? Is it the president? The Democrats? White Americans?

So I guess I dont understand you exactly, so please enlighten me.


Soldiers generally are working class, officers, commanders and bureaucrats generally are bourgeois. The latter category for me is basically "free game".

[anticap]

This is kind of interesting: http://www.revleft.org/vb/album.php?albumid=770&pictureid=6625

[sanpal]

If I would have to answer these questions I would imagine the chart something like that:

http://i51.tinypic.com/t523up.jpg


(field 1) Here I see a zone of initial capitalism. Under the laws of capitalist development this initial
capitalism gradually get the form of monopolistic capitalism (field 2). It is caused by the natural aspiration
for getting maximum profit by capitalists and economic competition between them when
strong capitalists absorb weak ones. Final of such development could look like oligarchic capitalism (field 3)
which is characterized by the most violent exploitation of the working class by small group of oligarches.
In such kind of society there is the maximal rupture between richest minority and poorest majority.

But the historical development of capitalism as we know, always was accompanied by the struggle of
the working class for their better position in the society. This struggle of the working class let to achieve
definite successes what now we can see as modern societies of social-democratic type with strong social policy.
Of course some influence on the advancement in this direction was achieved because of influence of
the f. USSR and the camp of socialist countries, during cold war, during the competition of two ideologically opposite
systems when bourgeois countries were forced to follow a policy of social character to prevent social revolution
(coup) as like in Russia in 1917. The place for modern social-democratic society I see as field 5.

I suppose, the tendencies which push capitalist society towards the social-democratic society and
further have its idealistic model as "market socialism" which I placed in the field 9. Ideologists of this
'ideal market' dream that their market would have no defects inherent in 'capitalist' market.
They dream about fair wage, fair prices, a position when demand corresponds to supply and supply
correspond to demand, the 'clearing prices', absence of exploitation and the presence of
actively upcoming economy, etc. But these requests are in contradiction with the nature of
market mechanism as such. The main in market mechanism is the function of 'economic governor'
with the principle of feedback or in other words, it is a self-stabilization of economy through its fluctuations,
through periodic crises, through enrichment of ones and bankruptcy of others, through the liquid streams of
capital and labour power from the area where benefit is less to the area where benefit is bigger, etc.
So this kind of society is idealistic and it is possible only in the minds of some socialist- utopianists but not in the reality.
Someone can object me saying that the humans have invented the means of regulating of market economy.
I agree but I still don't see any results of such regulating like ideal market socialism. To say more, I think if
to create this kind of society with the help of a magic wand it will not be stabilized because of the contradictions
in it as I've said it above and it will be transformed into something else, perhaps into the social-democracy (field 5)
or into the kind of socialism like in former Yugoslavia which I see in the field 8 or so.

I think Social-democratic society (field 5) is not quite stabilized as well. When socialist tendencies in
social-democratic society are prevail its political-economical conditions go towards market socialism (field 9).
It causes definite harm to market mechanism (to self-regulating function, to motivation to capitalist circulation,
to developing of new industries, engender unprofitableness economy, stagnation, etc.)
Then, to rise up the economy from stagnation, the anti-socialist tendencies begin to prevail, right-wing leaders are
appear in the political scene (for example M. Thatcher) and the policy and economy are becoming closer to traditional
capitalism. Someone think that social-democracy would exist as the only acceptable kind of society in perspective,
as compromise between capitalism and socialism, and so the human society is doomed to oscillate between traditional
capitalism and market socialism infinitely. Sure they mistake, they forget that 'market' society contain dialectic contradictions
which need its resolution in another area -- nonmarket (communist) area. This diagramme not contain communist area, so,
to explain transition into the communist area, I need to draw one more diagramme later. Now I have to mention that
the transition from capitalism to communism, according marxism, goes through the Proletarian State named as the DotP.
In the field 7 I can place it but not completely, only the state-capitalist sector of economy of the DotP which means only
a part of the whole market sector of the Proletarian State.
It goes without saying the communist (nonmarket) economic sector which is included into the economy of the Proletarian State,
couldn't be placed into market area of this diagramme. In one word wait a next diagramme if you have a patience,
I promise it will be less than a year :-)

The former USSR and the countries of socialist camp I've placed in the field 6 also needs in additional explanation and
in the one more diagramme. What I have to mention that the former Soviet society was built according
the utopian scheme a la Duhring so it is not quite right for market area.
What is undoubtedly that the Utopian society is unable to exist for a long time because of its unstability,
early or later (later if to apply violence for keeping the power) this utopian society will collapse or
will be transformed into something else.
The Russian society in my opinion has come (or goes toward)
to the oligarchic capitalism (perhaps with potency to elements of fascism).

Fascist society (field 4) I understand as combination of monopolistic or oligarchic capital in one side
and good social policy mixed on the propaganda for regular population in another side
(nonregular population undergo annulment or forced works).
Fascism could be as a protecting course of oligarchic or monopolistic capital from
anti-monopolistic/anti-oligarchic movement of the working class.
(the nature, rootes, etc. of fascist society is off-topic here. It's rather difficult question.)

To complete this diagramme:

The field 11 I see as anarcho-syndicalist society. I placed it at the bottom because of
antimonopolized character of anarchism and syndicalism. In my opinion it is doomed
to small-scale commodity production and perhaps there is danger to returning to traditional capitalism.

The societies of the type of kibbutz I placed in the field 10. But as a market participant,
kibbutz has only outside market economic relations. Inside of the kibbutz the money is used
as a 'labour certificate' i.e. the money have double purpose what makes a hint on Duhring's scheme.
Kibbutzes seems don't able more than small-scale commodity production as well.

For the comrades who got used to write from right-hand side of the sheet to left-hand side
I've prepared the picture "in mirror":

http://i52.tinypic.com/117cmlk.jpg

Of course the scales in this diagramme are relative and have no definite meanings.
I intended to find only approximate places for some of tendenсies, another ones you can place
without assistance.



This diagramme represent only my opinion.

[sanpal]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2z4x101.jpg

As I mentioned in the previous post the description of the Proletarian State aka DotP needs a separate diagramme since it contains in its structure the combination of two different economic sectors: market (state-capitalist + traditional bourgeois) sector of economy and nonmarket (communist) sector of economy.

So "area" of the Proletarian state (DotP) belong simultaneously to two areas: to market area and to non-market area. These two economic sectors interact between them on the market base i.e. the communist sector is here as an independent economic unit in the general market area of the Proletarian state.

During the transition period (during the period of revolutionary transformation of capitalism into communism) it is supposed the communist sector will be increased owing to free moving labour power from market sector of economy to communist sector of economy (positive result of economic competition between capitalist sector and communist sector of economy). More than obviously that the state-capitalist sector and traditional capitalist sector with theirs state-governing will be diminished through the time and simultaneously communist sector with its self-management will be increased. In such a way the process of "withering away of the State" will occur.


Of course the means of production will be handed to members of communist sector by proletarian government without any ransom. These means of production could be (must be) taken from the state ownership or from bankrupt enterprises in the traditional capitalist sector and be passed to the ownership of the members of communist sector as soon as they (workers) are ready for communist relations.

I'd like to do the special emphasis on the problem of abolishing the monetary system during the transition period (DotP). Marx/Engels always warned future revolutionaries against different utopian schemes of such abolishing. The most temptation lays in the attempts to adapt money/currency for non-market relations. It was illustrated by them on the example of Duhring's scheme in the work "Anti-Duhring". In the next picture I intend to continue this theme. Wait a bit ....

[sanpal]

I'd like to do the special emphasis on the problem of abolishing the monetary
system during the transition period (DotP). Lack of clear conception of
the transition period led the communist movement in the 20-th century
to crisis and sectarianism.

http://i56.tinypic.com/nys17t.jpg

Marx/Engels always warned future revolutionaries against different utopian
schemes of such abolishing. The most temptation lays in the attempts
to adapt money/currency for non-market relations.
It was analysed by them on the example of Duhring's scheme in the work
"Anti-Duhring" where this model was subjected to criticism as an utopian,
a 'lacking vitality' model of society, a model which has inevitably to collapse.

http://i51.tinypic.com/28hh8pk.jpg


After Lenin's unsuccessful attempts to build communist (non-money/non-monetary)
economy outright after the Great October Revolution (the coup of 1917) he (Lenin)
has made conclusion to come back to market economy under control
of the Proletarian power what we know as NEP. It was the way in correct direction
and it not contradicted marxism. The thought which Lenin had to add to his
New Economic Policy might be next: to create communist sector of economy within
of the Proletarian State and it must be made on the base of state-owned means
of production what is shown and explained in the diagramme
in my previous post # 56.

But Lenin's illness and his death let Stalin to turn economic policy and
close Lenin's NEP and replace it with Duhring's scheme.
Of course bolsheviks and revolutionaries who fought against capitalists
in 1917 and who didn't understand danger of applying of Duhrin's scheme
were dissatisfied with Lenin's NEP what also gave carte blanche to Stalin.

What distinguish STALINism from Duhring's model (or DUHRINGism as
I name it for myself) is repressions which are needed to prevent inevitable collapse
of utopian model of society.
Hence the formula "Stalinism = (Duhringism + Repressions)" seems to me fitted
for this kind of society.

http://i52.tinypic.com/noty87.jpg


The interesting situation everyone can see in modern China which now stays
at the crossroads. This country has made almost a successful analog of Lenin's NEP.
What is needed to do further:
1) to abolish the Party
2) to organize the Power of the Proletariat and
3) to organize the communist sector of economy on the base of the state property
and don't abolish the state-capitalist and traditional capitalist sector of economy
to let them to be in competition with communist sector of economy.
If China won't choose this marxist way now then tomorrow this nation be forced
to follow arising capitalism and then to be transformed into ordinary bourgeois
nation.
If the Communist party of China will continue to keep the Power and
communist ideology without organisation of a communist sector of economy
then leaders of China will be forced to close NEP and … WHAT then?
... to pass to Duhrins scheme? And then new Stalin and then new Gorby?


So the problems of working out a true model of Socialism of the 21st century come to us from
20st century completely, and there is danger to get stuck on the same stones, i.e., what I mean,
to repeat Duhrin's scheme again.
Of course development of science and technology give us wonderful tools for calculating,
communicating, etc. what creates illusion of easiness to reach goals of socialism.
For example, like credit card which creates illusion of absence of money. Modern authors of model
of the 21st century Socialism with easiness manipulate (theoretically of course) money, market laws,
demand and supply (plan under market), etc. etc. adapting them for needs and aims of Socialism.
But isn't it the same course which Stalin and Co (the USSR and all countries of socialist camp last century)
were carrying out (or tried to carry out) in 20st century? Isn't it the same Duhring's scheme?
Or they (modern theorists) think that computer magically would solve these tasks?


http://i52.tinypic.com/2l8j783.jpg


Maybe I'm wrong but the next description is how I understand theirs scheme:

1) cleaning market prices or otherwise the influence upon market by getting it in equilibrium
when demand equal supply and vice versa ;

2) in the case when the prices are in equilibrium and as they suppose as if
the social necessary labour time correspond to money equivalent hence
the definite labour time could be marked on every banknote;

3) Next is actions on personification of money, translation them
into 'labour notes' with the intention to get possibility in order to money not to circulate;

4)installation of planned economy for the whole society at once.

But what could be seen right now:

1) cleaning market prices or otherwise the influence upon market by getting it in equilibrium
when demand equal supply and vice versa;
What is it? Ideal market socialism? Or otherwise utopia? Then why to abolish money if it is ideal?


2) in the case when the prices are in equilibrium and as they suppose as if the social necessary labour time
correspond to money equivalent hence the definite labour time could be marked on every banknote;
But how to keep prices in equilibrium if they always oscillate because of even a small reasons:
expectation or fears of people, false information, etc. , even not to say about a big reasons?
Exchangeable price is essential part of work of market mechanism, without its principle of feedback
the market mechanism becomes a certain theoretical scheme in statics but not a practically workable mechanism.

3) next is actions on personification of money, translation them into 'labour notes'
with the intention to get possibility in order to money not to circulate;

4)installation of planned economy for the whole society at once.
Leading in plan economy in production and distribution for the whole society at once
is non-dialectical way. Non-market/communist society as a whole must be developed on the base
first as a part of society, as a sector of economy amounting to multy-sector economy of the Proletarian state.
And this first sector of nonmarket economy must be created on the base of means of production
which could be handed over as gratis from state-capitalist sector
by Proletarian government and then communist sector would grow as a result of
antagonistic competition between two modes of production: between communist mode
of production in nonmarket sector and capitalist mode of production in state-capitalist
and traditional capitalist sector of economy.
And money must not to carry out both functions simultaneously in the whole society:
as real money and as labour certificate. This scheme leads to abuse like in Duhring's scheme.
Money have to circulate only in the state-capitalist and in the traditional capitalist sectors
of economy and in the economic relations between communist sector and capitalist/state-capitalist
sector until the economy of communist sector to become autonomous.


To be continued… (something about socialism of 21-th century)...

[sanpal]

One more example of utopian way of transformation of capitalism into communism:

http://i53.tinypic.com/20v0xa9.jpg


These guies risk to burst theirs pants in the very interesting place.

[Paulappaul]

As I mentioned in the previous post the description of the Proletarian State aka DotP needs a separate diagramme since it contains in its structure the combination of two different economic sectors: market (state-capitalist + traditional bourgeois) sector of economy and nonmarket (communist) sector of economy. Except it doesn't. You've just made that up. How Marxist of you.

How bout being a Materialist and looking at the actuality of the Situation. The Educational systems and the technology of the 21st Century (particularly in 1st world countries) draw a sharp contrast to Russia in 1917 where the majority of people couldn't read or write.

The need for the "state" in Marxism came from the need not to bridge a gap between the Lower Phase of Communism to the higher phase, but from the reality that in Marx's time Capitalism's development hadn't finished, so a "workers' state" -Marx never used the term, but for purpose sake, I'll use it to describe the Communist Party winning elections and seizing government - was necessitated to raise the economic capacity of countries through the most ethical way - i.e. State Capitalism - and to provide things like free education, communication, transportation, etc. all through a progressive income tax.

It was so acknowledged by Marx and Engels that this was not the Lower or Higher Phase of Communism, but one of the stepping stones towards advancing Capitalism and drawing out class distinctions.

Such a notion today is unnecessary. Capitalism is worldwide and advanced. The vast majority of people are educated through a progressive income tax in most countries.

The State which was needed to necessitate a worker's revolution to bring about the lower phase of Communism is no longer needed.

Everyday people can manage their workplace's and the economy through a system of Workers' associations (communes, councils, unions).



After Lenin's unsuccessful attempts to build communist (non-money/non-monetary)
economy outright after the Great October Revolution (the coup of 1917) he (Lenin)
has made conclusion to come back to market economy under control
of the Proletarian power what we know as NEP. It was the way in correct direction
and it not contradicted marxismExcept for the fact that Lenin went right out and said the NEP was not Socialistic. But It doesn't matter, the conditions is Russia are so vastly different then the conditions now it's pointless to draw conclusions from it.


One more example of utopian way of transformation of capitalism into communism: *Anarchist and Left Communist Satire* Was that really necessary? Or do you prefer to be a dick to illustrate your point?

[Ovi]

One more example of utopian way of transformation of capitalism into communism:

Actually, authority comes with property. Thus, there is no such thing as authoritarian/state socialism, since it doesn't abolish property, but converts it to state property and no such thing as libertarian capitalism, since private property means private authority. The state is simply a company that maintains social classes/property relations with force, so capitalism will always have a state, whether it calls itself a state or a property protection company, and as long as there's a state there will be a company whose main purpose is to protect the existence of social classes. So actually, Nolan charts are redundant since it has 2 axis and if you'd ask me, your views are actually highly right wing.