Hello from terribly conservative state of Arizona

[jed8333]

So as the title says I am a communist from Arizona(It could only be worse if I was in Texas) currently studying at Arizona State University.

I have been very leftist my whole life, but I have only recently decided on communism(I decided to read the Communist Manifesto). Currently I would describe myself as a Leninist, but I honesty haven't decided yet.

Anyways I'm excited about being a part of this forum, because as one might guess, there aren't many communists here in Arizona :rolleyes:

[EvilRedGuy]

I feel sorry you, but all places can't sadly be like Greece. :(

[Q]

Welcome :)

That's a nice logo you have in your avatar. Where is it from?

[jed8333]

@evilredguy: very true, I hope to someday visit places with more open minds

@Q: Thanks, actually I made it myself

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Welcome! as said, nice avatar!

[Bright Banana Beard]

actually I would rank Utah as the worst reactionary state, while Arizona in the second and Texas in the third.

[Nachie]

Please don't become a Leninist... be a real communist plz.

But otherwise hey what's up.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Please don't become a Anarchist... be a real communist plz.

Fixed.

[AK]

It's opposite day.
Fixed.

[jed8333]

@Tavarisch_Mike: Thanks, I haven't finished the design yet, but I still like the concept

@Gran Rojo: Yea, you're probably right. Everyone I know here thinks Texas is worse though :lol:

@Nachie: Whats wrong with being a Leninist

[Nachie]

Just to be clear I'm not saying "be an anarchist".

As a communist myself I think communism is awesome and there is no need to "be an anarchist" to see that Lenin was a dictator whose ideas of a centralized Party structure and political machinations were responsible for the removal of power from the working class after the revolution of 1917.


The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

Oops guess Lenin didn't get the memo.


3. In most of the world, however, we face a serious problem in using the word 'communist.' Due in part to the propaganda of the ruling-class, based on Leninist deviations, this word has become synonymous with state-controlled capitalism, and the totalitarian tendencies and structures therein. Thus, people have thought of several adjectives to use to modify the term, so that it takes on its true character: "anti-state", "libertarian", "anarchist", "free", "autonomist", etc. This hyphenation is good for shorthand when there isn't the time to explain that one is "not that kind of communist", or that "what people normally call communism isn't really communism in any way, shape or form."

4. There is no such thing as 'authoritarian communism', nor an 'authoritarian communist.' As the root of the word communism suggests, communism must have at its heart communal activity. In other words activity, free from the constraints of authoritarianism, in which each person is involved directly and equally. Thus, 'authoritarian communists' (Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, Bolsheviks, etc.) are not communists at all. Their ideas, based as they are in the capitalist social relation of hierarchies, which culminate in the state, have only reproduced in the former Soviet Union, China, etc., capitalism in a state-controlled form.

5. Communism, due to its anti-authoritarian nature, means the destruction of the state. Even Marx, from whom Leninists and others claim to take their cue, knew this fact. Thus it is unnecessary to modify the word communism with such adjectives as anarchist, libertarian, anti- state, free, autonomist, etc. Communism includes all of these when understood in its true meaning. Unfortunately, we face a situation in which the deliberate obscuring of the term by the ruling-classes and their various states, based in the deviations perpetuated by Leninists and others, forces us to use these redundant words to emphasize what we stand for. Thus it is really important as part of theoretical and propaganda work to undermine the ruling-class/Leninist misuse of the word and re-appropriate 'communism' for its proper use. However, among us are people who identify as anarchist, libertarian Marxist, council communist, just communist, or none of these terms. But we are, and must be, united by (as far as we understand it at this point) truly communist (anti-)politics.

So yeah.

[jed8333]

Isn't it also true that Marx stated that there must be a transition of power from a capitalist state to a communist one that involves some kind of central government(a socialism). Or have I been misled(which is entirely possible)?

[Nachie]

I think what you're talking about is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html)

[jed8333]

Well I more specifically, Marx stated that there will be a socialist government in order to combat the remaining Bourgeois. However, I do see your point on how Lenin treated other working-class parties. I do still believe that the system Lenin implemented would have successfully dissolved into a communist state if Stalin had not taken over, and corrupted Lenin's work.

I have always been on the boundary between Marxism and Leninism, and only lean towards Leninism because it has actually been implemented, Marxism has not been successfully implemented into a society as of yet. And of course, as I said I still haven't really chosen yet.

[Coyote]

Central Pennsylvania is pretty horrible to when it comes to a reactionary population, there aren't many leftists here either.

[AK]

Isn't it also true that Marx stated that there must be a transition of power from a capitalist state to a communist one that involves some kind of central government(a socialism).
No... For Marx and Engels, communism and socialism meant the same thing (a global, stateless, classless, moneyless society) - they just chose "communism" because it wasn't associated with any utopian socialist movements.


Or have I been misled(which is entirely possible)?
Yes, or more accurately, you have confused socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat (which just means rule of the working class). The working class itself must have all power in its hands - which is why centralised government must be rejected (centralised government - as in a system where political, social, and always some economic power is in the hands of government officials or bureaucrats - is a complete negation of socialism).

[AK]

I have always been on the boundary between Marxism and Leninism, and only lean towards Leninism because it has actually been implemented, Marxism has not been successfully implemented into a society as of yet. And of course, as I said I still haven't really chosen yet.
Because something has been implemented, it does not mean you should support it. Think about the class nature of the Bolshevik government - it served a new bureaucratic class, not the working class.

[jed8333]

Because something has been implemented, it does not mean you should support it. Think about the class nature of the Bolshevik government - it served a new bureaucratic class, not the working class.

A good point, and again I cant say I have really decided, Leninism has just appealed to me more, I have a great respect for his way of trying to bring communism to Russia.

[AK]

A good point, and again I cant say I have really decided, Leninism has just appealed to me more, I have a great respect for his way of trying to bring communism to Russia.
What, you mean implementing a bureaucracy and demolishing workers' democracy?

[jed8333]

I wouldn't say that. I would say that he inspired the people, and started Russia on the road to a real communism, and adapted communist to his situation. certainly his time as leader is one of the brighter moments of communist history. I would also say that it was ruined by Stalin more than anything Lenin did.

But i do agree in many respects to what you are saying. I suppose in look to help create a communism, I would agree that Marxism is probably the best way to go.

[∞]

Jailed Anarchists, Jailed social democrats. (Lenin^)

Anyway welcome to the shithouse, where you'll have shit thrown at you 24/7

[AK]

I wouldn't say that. I would say that he inspired the people, and started Russia on the road to a real communism, and adapted communist to his situation. certainly his time as leader is one of the brighter moments of communist history. I would also say that it was ruined by Stalin more than anything Lenin did.
Think about it, there must have been something wrong with the Bolshevik system if any individual could come to power and repress the working class. It should be noted that the bureaucracy - whilst more noticeable under Stalin - was steadily growing under Lenin. You can't just say nearly everything was Stalin's fault, because it's simply not true.


But i do agree in many respects to what you are saying. I suppose in look to help create a communism, I would agree that Marxism is probably the best way to go.
:thumbup1:

[Nachie]

A lot of times we have been fooled by our educations or just the general outlook handed down to us by class society that historical events are the work of great men (and it is almost always men) leading the unwashed masses towards certain goals. This type of thinking actually reinforces capitalist relations and the dependence on rulers because it leads one to believe that one of the greatest events in human history - the Russian revolution - was "led" by Lenin as opposed to being a massive collective effort by the working class in struggle, when the latter viewpoint is actually much more inspiring and powerful from a communist viewpoint, not to mention more accurately represents what actually happened.

When you speak of Leninism having been implemented (with disastrous results the world over!) whereas Marxism hasn't, you need to realize that Marxism is not a political doctrine dictating a certain type of social organization but rather a methodology of analyzing the communist movement - the autonomous, recurring and decentralized struggle of the working class for control over its own conditions of existence. Thus communism is not something to be "implemented" but an existing fact concurrent with the existence of capitalism which by its very nature creates a class of exploited who struggle against their material conditions. Insofar as it seeks to recuperate those struggles back into a hierarchal and capitalist framework, Leninism is decidedly anti-communist.

[EvilRedGuy]

Just become a Anarchist-Technocrat. We need more of them here anyways.

[Bright Banana Beard]

What, you mean implementing a bureaucracy and demolishing workers' democracy?

But Lenin really want this?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Think about it, there must have been something wrong with the Bolshevik system if any individual could come to power and repress the working class. It should be noted that the bureaucracy - whilst more noticeable under Stalin - was steadily growing under Lenin. You can't just say nearly everything was Stalin's fault, because it's simply not true.
:thumbup1:

Really? It was centralized and yet it failed to do much of it objective until 1991? Wow!

[Aesop]

Jailed Anarchists, Jailed social democrats. (Lenin^)

Anyway welcome to the shithouse, where you'll have shit thrown at you 24/7

Do you ever get tired of spurting out shite, when the russian revolution occured the bolsheviks allowed both the mensheviks and anarchists operate with total freedom and they did. Hence the mass demos at the funerals of prince kropotkin and plekhanov

[Q]

This topic is rapidly growing so far offtopic that is gets near the "closed" border.

I suggest people take somewhat more interest in the OP as this thread is about him/her.

[∞]

Do you ever get tired of spurting out shite, when the russian revolution occured the bolsheviks allowed both the mensheviks and anarchists operate with total freedom and they did. Hence the mass demos at the funerals of prince kropotkin and plekhanov

Good Job bro! You read the wikipedia. Kropotkin died in the early beginnings of the Russian SFSR, allowing people to come to his funeral isn't very special. Nestor Makhno had to NEGOTIATE with Lenin to free anarchist prisoners. Oh and do you know what Lenin and Trotsky did? They killed representatives of the Black Army who were sent to negotiate with the Bolshevists.

EDIT: This is typical... on RL. But welcome anyway. Good luck with college. Say, are you taking anything related to economics and politics?

[jed8333]

Yea , well debate is usually a good thing.

Anyways, not this semester, i got in to late, but i want to take some classes like that next semester

[∞]

Oh cool :)

[L.A.P.]

Where's a Marxist-Leninist when you need one?

[AK]

But Lenin really want this?
That's anyone's guess.

Really? It was centralized and yet it failed to do much of it objective until 1991? Wow!
You of all people should know it's failure had nothing to do with centralisation. It was economic warfare, bankruptcy, revisionism, etc.

[IndependentCitizen]

I feel sorry you, but all places can't sadly be like Greece. :(
I don't think Greece is a good situation...