What is a communist?

[Elect Marx]

While putting this together for a post, I realized how many people keep asking what a communist is and people giving so many different responses. I know this is answered a lot but I shall answer it some more. So I am giving one that has valid sourses.

:marx: :engles:
According to Marx and Engels:
"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
"They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.
"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:
(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
"The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
"The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
"They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.

Manifesto of the Communist Party

To summarize: A communist is a person that understands and participates in class struggle. :marx: :engles:

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Good quote. Everyone who has not read the Manifesto should.

[Goldfinger]

Just so true. Marx/Engels have never said anythng I disagree with,

[Urban Rubble]

What about when they said to take over the world and burn all the Jews ?

Oh wait, that was Hitler. Nevermind.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 5 2003, 05:56 PM
What about when they said to take over the world and burn all the Jews ?

Oh wait, that was Hitler. Nevermind.
what was the point of that?? <_<

[Urban Rubble]

I don&#39;t know, I was just joking. He said he never disagreed with anything they said, hence my comment.

O.K, it was a lame ass joke, sorry.

[Rastafari]

I thought it was pretty fucking funny, myself. It reminds me of some shit I pulled in the Hitler thread when I was pissed. But its all good now

[Vinny Rafarino]

I agree comrade Rubble. It was a good joke.

I also enjoyed your&#39;s comrade Rasta.


I particularly enjoy this portion;


In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

One statement among many others in the manifest that I have been quoting for years that directly refutes
the straight to communism ideal as being even remotely marxist.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 6 2003, 01:20 AM

In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

One statement among many others in the manifest that I have been quoting for years that directly refutes
the straight to communism ideal as being even remotely marxist.
Refutes what?

How does a paragraph in the Manifesto that clearly refers to the pre-revolutionary struggle of the working class "refute" the argument that we should proceed at once to building communism after the proletarian revolution?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Durruti]

You quote Marx, but what about Libertarian Communism? What about Bakunin&#39;s Stateless Socialism? I think your question should be "What is a Marxist?" A communist may very well be something quite different. For example, some communists would argue that a communist also must be an anti-authoritarian. "Liberty without Socialism is exploitation; Socialism without liberty is tyranny" - Bakunin (I believe)

Perhaps a communist could be someone who recognizes the greater importance of local struggles toward the greater solidarity of the movement. Perhaps a communist could be someone who recognizes that a party gets in the way of the people and that unity over humanity is a capitalist/fascist goal.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 9 2003, 02:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redstar2000 @ Aug 9 2003, 02:25 AM)
COMRADE [email protected] 6 2003, 01:20 AM

In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

One statement among many others in the manifest that I have been quoting for years that directly refutes
the straight to communism ideal as being even remotely marxist.
Refutes what?

How does a paragraph in the Manifesto that clearly refers to the pre-revolutionary struggle of the working class "refute" the argument that we should proceed at once to building communism after the proletarian revolution?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
It says: &#39;struggle... against the bourgeoisie&#39;

That is the context of this statement, that there are various stages in the struggle against the bourgeoisie.

Marx talked of the &#39;dictatorship of the proletariat&#39; as the first phase of communism. We can&#39;t argue as to whether there are stages. But I imagine redstar2000 has a different view of what the dictatorship of the proletariat entails. I don&#39;t think you would deny there were different stages to communism, but whilst we see the first stage following revolution as socialism (as described by Lenin) - you see it as something entirely different.

Marx did mention with a set of points what should be implemented in a communist society immediately following the proletarian revolution:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. *****
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. **
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. *****
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. ****
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.**
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.**
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. ***
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.****
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. ****
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children&#39;s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. *****
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

In these points there is nothing that contradicts Lenin&#39;s idea of the first phase of communism and furthermore I think it is rather different from the communist society you see as being constructed following the revolution, redstar2000. Marx does not ascribe any time period to these details however, and of course as Leninists we generally assume socialism to last hundreds of years.

[redstar2000]

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state...

These early formulas are probably the "best" quotes that can be located to justify the "transitional socialist stage" in the writings of Marx and Engels.

Frankly, I think it&#39;s a matter of what appeared to be "progressive" or "communist" in 1847 and what I see as communist now.

If you look at the other early goals of the Manifesto, you see things that have become irrelevant in the advanced capitalist countries. Not even the most servile reformist would suggest, for example, that "a heavily graduated income tax" is a "step towards socialism or communism".

Indeed, in institutions like the Federal Reserve Bank or the Bank of England, we already have "Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

Therefore, I submit we are in a position to see the shape of post-capitalist society more clearly than Marx and Engels...we are closer to it.

Our appreciation of the nature of class society is also superior to that of Marx...because we have more practical examples to learn from.

I know it is uncomfortable to you to be constantly reminded of this, but I don&#39;t see any way for the rulers of a "socialist" society to avoid becoming a new ruling class...and, eventually, a new capitalist class.

After all, where you have privilige, luxuries, rationing by disposable income, actual control of the means of production by a minority, appropriation of the social surplus to benefit a minority, no ability for the proletarian majority to participate in public life, etc., etc., what else can be the consequence but a new ruling class?

The totality of Marx&#39;s historical materialism points to this outcome, regardless of some lines in the Manifesto.

And when you suggest or imply that the new rulers "won&#39;t act like that" because they are "truly benevolent" or "truly faithful to Leninist principles"...that&#39;s just idealism. It&#39;s one of the earliest myths of class society...the "benevolent" despot.

It&#39;s never happened...and it never will.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 09:30 PM
You quote Marx, but what about Libertarian Communism? What about Bakunin&#39;s Stateless Socialism? I think your question should be "What is a Marxist?" A communist may very well be something quite different. For example, some communists would argue that a communist also must be an anti-authoritarian. "Liberty without Socialism is exploitation; Socialism without liberty is tyranny" - Bakunin (I believe)

Perhaps a communist could be someone who recognizes the greater importance of local struggles toward the greater solidarity of the movement. Perhaps a communist could be someone who recognizes that a party gets in the way of the people and that unity over humanity is a capitalist/fascist goal.
Libertarian Communism? That would be Libertarianism + Communism, right? Bakunin&#39;s Stateless Socialism? that is Stateless Socialism&#33; In accordance with the quote, you can be a communist and an anarchist, what is your point? Being a Marxist is a much more complicated concept, this would be more than being a communist.
Your last point doesn&#39;t make sense, a communist can be all of those things and is most of them. My qoute dosn&#39;t argue with that.

[Durruti]

My statement doesn&#39;t argue with your statement. It does however point out that this debate has defined communism within the bounderies of Marxism, and I suggest it can be more than that. Communism may not always equal Marxism, in fact I propose that Marxism can be perverted into something which is quite the opposite of communism.

If one asks a question one should expect an answer. As I see it people have generally made statements which point to a general conclusion (independant of the direction those statements intended to point) that a communist is a Marxist. My definition of communism (as I see it) largely fits within your stated definition, but I argue with the unstated conclusion that a Communist and a Marxist (Maoist, lennist, ect..) are all the same thing all the time.
Quite simply, a communist is someone who believes in the collective ownership of the means of production by the workers. I think everything else is just expounding on this basic idea.
That&#39;s what my comment pointed to.... and one CAN be a communist and an anarchist. Some would argue, in fact, that one cannot be a communist without being an anarchist.

[Elect Marx]

Great, then we are in agreement. I would say that this is the basic idea of what a communist is, there is more to it. I do diagree though that "Marxism can be perverted into something which is quite the opposite of communism." To misenturpret Marx, would not be truly communistic but instead a horrible lie, like what is promoted in the US (where I live, eck). The opposite of communism would be a sort of totalitarianism, which Marx was clearly against. Marx, being an anarchist, was against state control and only wanted to use a communist state to reshape society and give power back to the people. Therby Marxism cannot be so perverted but only falsified.

Quote Durruti "Some would argue, in fact, that one cannot be a communist without being an anarchist."

There are state communists, this is an example of a communist that is not a Marxist. Though my Marx quote does not specify all of those Marxist concepts, as it is a simple description of communist practice. I believe a communist state should be dismantled after it&#39;s purpose is served (Marxist model). To be a state communist seems to me, either irrational or hypocritical although this is just theoretical so I cannot be certain. I would say you cannot be a Marxist without being an anarchist on a basic level.

[Durruti]

Then yes, it would appear we are in agreement. Yet, would you consider one who organized society within the structure of the state (but agianst it) then, after the new society was well under way abolished the old state, to be an anarchist? That is, would you consider an Anarcho-Syndicalist to be a communist?

[Elect Marx]

By the ideas proposed by Marx I generally would. Although they must be advocating the best intrests of the working class. In a communist society, they would work democraticaly with other communists to try to make the best descions. In this way, they would be only one part of the movement, to help with that particular stage (abolishing the communist state).

[Elect Marx]

This thread din&#39;t last very long :( Where did you go Durruti?

[YKTMX]

According to Marx and Engels:
"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
"They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.
"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:
(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
"The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
"The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
"They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.


Is it just me or could that paragraph have came straight from Lenin :)

[Marxist in Nebraska]

YKTMX,

I would agree. I think Lenin was an orthodox Marxist...

[redstar2000]

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

Leninist parties have been and are very separate from "other working class parties" and have on many occasions directly opposed other working class parties.

If that makes Lenin an "orthodox Marxist", then I&#39;m the rightful heir to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 12:35 AM

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

Leninist parties have been and are very separate from "other working class parties" and have on many occasions directly opposed other working class parties.

If that makes Lenin an "orthodox Marxist", then I&#39;m the rightful heir to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Examples?

[redstar2000]

Examples?

Sure. The whole split in the 2nd International and the formation of the 3rd International contradicts Marx&#39;s hypothetical formula.

The "right thing to do", if you accepted that formula, was to stay within the 2nd International (where pro-Leninists were in a minority) and struggle to win a majority.

Of course this is all moot; Marx himself was directly involved in the split in the 1st International...contradicting his own formula of two decades earlier.

Indeed, even the formation of an explicitly communist party contradicts the literal meaning of that formula.

My point is really that some of the stuff in The Communist Manifest really is obsolete.

Whether someone is or is not a Marxist cannot usually be settled by referring to a few quotations...particularly obsolete ones.

You have to look deeper.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Oct 18 2003, 01:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Oct 18 2003, 01:29 AM)
[email protected] 17 2003, 12:35 AM

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

Leninist parties have been and are very separate from "other working class parties" and have on many occasions directly opposed other working class parties.

If that makes Lenin an "orthodox Marxist", then I&#39;m the rightful heir to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Examples? [/b]
The Russian Revolution, the Spainish Civil war, France 1968.
Need more?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 12:35 AM

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

Leninist parties have been and are very separate from "other working class parties" and have on many occasions directly opposed other working class parties.

If that makes Lenin an "orthodox Marxist", then I&#39;m the rightful heir to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
I love Lenin but this is one thing I disagree with.

I may be a Democratic Socialist but i SUPPort all communists, maoists, anarchists, or any other type of leftist.


The main point is to fuckin get the cappies out of power, we can settle our little squables later.