What's the best communism?

[SacRedMan]

We all know what communism is and the political movements that are developed out of the fundaments that Marx created in his works. Each political movement haves his party, and their supporters.

But, if we want a communist state wich isn't divided, wich political movement should we take?

Here are the most famous political movements:
-Marxism
-Leninism
-Stalinism
-Maoism
-Trotskism
-Anarcho-Communism
-Juche



Please argue after you've voted, so we can learn from eatchother and convince others of your political movement.

[mosfeld]

Please argue after you've voted, so we can learn from eatchother and convince others of your political movement.

Hey, welcome to the board :)

RevLeft is pretty notorious for its sectarian shitfests and hardcore tendency wars where one group of people gather together to bash on another group, creating huge debates. I'm just going to give you a heads up that this (the bolded part I quoted) won't happen and, if anything, this thread will degenerate or get derailed into another tendency war, especially if someone starts trying to explain why their variant of communism is better than another variant.

EDIT: Don't feel bad though, every thread is like that and it's generally what makes RevLeft an awesome forum.

[SacRedMan]

Hey, welcome to the board :)

RevLeft is pretty notorious for its sectarian shitfests and hardcore tendency wars where one group of people gather together to bash on another group, creating huge debates. I'm just going to give you a heads up that this (the bolded part I quoted) won't happen and, if anything, this thread will degenerate or get derailed into another tendency war, especially if someone starts trying to explain why their variant of communism is better than another variant.

But, if we don't argue and convince and so on, we will remain uninformed and we can't pick wisely wich one the best is. I don't say that we have to spread propaganda and so on, but just convince or say a reason why you think that's the best one. You understand what I'm saying and want with this?

It's actually more for new members and so on that can learn from these discussion, see wich one haves the most supporters, wich people have good arguments and so on, so we can learn from it.

[Enragé]

Anarcho-communism, because freedom without solidarity is privilege and exploitation, and solidarity without freedom is like an army barracks.

Moreover, you can question to what extent solidarity really is solidarity if it is forced, and whether it is possible to be free under conditions of exploitation (even, i would say, for those doing the exploiting because they are trapped themselves in the systemic necessity of exploitation and competition). Also, in army barracks/'stalinism' you always have the officers/bureaucrats who are a 'more equal', just as in capitalism the rich are more free than the poor.

[The Man]

Oh.. Here comes the tendency wars...

This is not a good idea of a thread :laugh:.. But I'll vote Maoism (Furthering of Stalinist ideals) since I'm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist..

[SacRedMan]

Oh.. Here comes the tendency wars...

That's actually not the reason why I made this thread. The reason was to learn, convince, argue on a polite way and maybe change from ex. Maoïsm to Leninism or somthing.

[mosfeld]

It's actually more for new members and so on that can learn from these discussion, see wich one haves the most supporters, wich people have good arguments and so on, so we can learn from it.

Alright,

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, or simply Maoism, because it's a qualitative development of Marxism-Leninism, has summed up the mistakes and shortcomings of the ML movement and has provided solutions to them. MLM has also proved itself to be, in practice, the ideology of the proletariat since it's the only tendency which is actually leading the proletariat to victory in countries such as the Philippines, India and Peru -- whereas parties of other tendencies do not, with a few notable exceptions like the FARC-EP, anarchists of Greece, etc, take class struggle and revolution seriously or participate in and usually prefer to sit idly by on the sidelines and criticize those who are actually engaged in revolution.

If you're interested in MLM, and since you've already joined the MLM group, I recommend that you stay in touch with the Maoists on this board if you have any questions or are interested.

[The Man]

That's actually not the reason why I made this thread. The reason was to learn, convince, argue on a polite way and maybe change from ex. Maoïsm to Leninism or somthing.


I know. But on this forum, it's inevitable.

[Sadena Meti]

http://www.sadena.com/tx/anarcho_communist.gif

I've had this Dremeled/stenciled to the back of my riding jacket. People ask me what gang it is.

[SacRedMan]

If you're interested in MLM, and since you've already joined the MLM group, I recommend that you stay in touch with the Maoists on this board if you have any questions or are interested.

I'm here for 2 days, so maybe later :D

[The Man]

http://www.sadena.com/tx/anarcho_communist.gif

I've had this Dremeled/stenciled to the back of my riding jacket. People ask me what gang it is.


It's from the RAAN. The sworn enemies of RevLeft basically..

http://www.redanarchist.org/

[The Man]

Anarcho-communism, because freedom without solidarity is privilege and exploitation, and solidarity without freedom is like an army barracks.

Moreover, you can question to what extent solidarity really is solidarity if it is forced, and whether it is possible to be free under conditions of exploitation (even, i would say, for those doing the exploiting because they are trapped themselves in the systemic necessity of exploitation and competition). Also, in army barracks/'stalinism' you always have the officers/bureaucrats who are a 'more equal', just as in capitalism the rich are more free than the poor.

Anarchism is simply a leftist wet dream. I would love for such an ideology to take place, in which we immediately go to Communism.... But it won't. History has proven that when ever a group does not take hold of the state, they fail.

I do, however, have somewhat more sympathy for the Anarcho-Syndicalists, which in my opinion, have a better shot at their goal.

As a Stalinist, I believe in a 'People's Army' with officers, because without them, it will be a disaster just as 1936 Spain. But when the whole world is finally Socialist, these 'Officers' will wither away, and in the end, THEY are the ones that fought for freedom along with the other revolutionaries across the world. I also have no idea where you got the idea that under Stalinism, people will be living in 'Barracks'. I would also love to hear about where you got the idea that there is no freedom in Communism, unless it's through Anarchism? I support freedom, and I'm a Stalinist. (With the exception of Repression of Fascists.)

In the end, we ALL fight for Freedom and Equality.

[Sadena Meti]

It's from the RAAN. The sworn enemies of RevLeft basically..

http://www.redanarchist.org/

They use the symbol (actually a cleaner version of it). That doesn't mean they own it.

[Sadena Meti]

Anarchism is simply a leftist wet dream. I would love for such an ideology to take place, in which we immediately go to Communism.... But it won't. History has proven that when ever a group does not take hold of the state, they fail.

I do, however, have somewhat more sympathy for the Anarcho-Syndicalists, which in my opinion, have a better shot at their goal.

Other forms of anarchism are possible, just not pretty. Take Primitivist Anarchism. All it takes is a World War III.

[Robespierre Richard]

Anarcho-Juche. Because the Dear Leader knows best, except when he doesn't.

[The Man]

They use the symbol (actually a cleaner version of it). That doesn't mean they own it.

No, it doesn't mean they own it.. But they use it as their official symbol.

[El Chuncho]

Hmmm, a tendency thread...

"Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial."

[The Man]

Other forms of anarchism are possible, just not pretty. Take Primitivist Anarchism. All it takes is a World War III.

Everything is possible. But your making the wrong point. The Capitalists will destroy any Anarchist Militias in their path.. You need a Vanguard, and you need a DOTP.

[Dimentio]

In general, I prefer the anarcho-communist model amongst those listed above. At the same time, different systems are probably good for different areas.

[Agent Ducky]

*sits down with popcorn* Ooh, impending tendency war!

Interesting. I'm too much of a derp to actually choose a tendency.... Although I'm leading towards anarcho-communism because... idk. Lol.

[Stand Your Ground]

I voted anarcho communism, but honestly if any other (true) socialist, communist or anarchist revolution started up I'd be quick to join up. I hate the tendency wars, we need to unite and stop petty fighting.

[The Man]

I voted anarcho communism, but honestly if any other (true) socialist, communist or anarchist revolution started up I'd be quick to join up. I hate the tendency wars, we need to unite and stop petty fighting.

I'd gladly fight alongside the Anarchists. I just think their ideology isn't the best path for us to get to Communism.

[SacRedMan]

I hate the tendency wars, we need to unite and stop petty fighting.

I didn't make this thread for a tendency war.

[Agent Ducky]

I'd gladly fight alongside the Anarchists. I just think their ideology isn't the best path for us to get to Communism.

This is the key. We have to be willing to fight alongside whoever we end up with. The revolution can never succeed if everyone is too busy having tendency wars. This is the right path. =]

[The Man]

I didn't make this thread for a tendency war.

We know that... But again, it's gonna happen one way or another.. Then 'Black Sheep's Law' Will come into effect.

Black Sheep's Law: When the post count of any thread on RevLeft goes up by one, the chance of someone calling someone 'Stalin' goes up by 1.

[Enragé]

Anarchism is simply a leftist wet dream. I would love for such an ideology to take place, in which we immediately go to Communism.... But it won't. History has proven that when ever a group does not take hold of the state, they fail.

I do, however, have somewhat more sympathy for the Anarcho-Syndicalists, which in my opinion, have a better shot at their goal.

As a Stalinist, I believe in a 'People's Army' with officers, because without them, it will be a disaster just as 1936 Spain. But when the whole world is finally Socialist, these 'Officers' will wither away, and in the end, THEY are the ones that fought for freedom along with the other revolutionaries across the world. I also have no idea where you got the idea that under Stalinism, people will be living in 'Barracks'. I would also love to hear about where you got the idea that there is no freedom in Communism, unless it's through Anarchism? I support freedom, and I'm a Stalinist. (With the exception of Repression of Fascists.)

In the end, we ALL fight for Freedom and Equality.


Ofcourse, you dont reach utopia in one day, its something that must be built and probably will never be reached. However, you cannot even come close to either freedom or equality if you try to do so through means of external force and hierarchy. There is a relation between the means you use and what you wind up with. For example, revolutionary terror leads to thermidorean reaction and a disgust of revolution.

as for spain, i dont have time to go into all that but dont you think people are put off from fighting with all their heart against fascism if they are treated just the same as under fascism? Or at least in an ordinary bourgeois-authoritarian way?

As for the barracks metaphore, its that, its a metaphore -_-' not to be taken literal but indicative (and perhaps a charicature) of certain aspects of stalinism. anyway, i need to go do shit in rl. maybe i'll come back later if i have time.

[Impulse97]

We know that... But again, it's gonna happen one way or another.. Then 'Black Sheep's Law' Will come into effect.

Black Sheep's Law: When the post count of any thread on RevLeft goes up by one, the chance of someone calling someone 'Stalin' goes up by 1.


Only a Stalinist would say this. :p

[SacRedMan]

We know that... But again, it's gonna happen one way or another.. Then 'Black Sheep's Law' Will come into effect.

Black Sheep's Law: When the post count of any thread on RevLeft goes up by one, the chance of someone calling someone 'Stalin' goes up by 1.

Don't forget Godwinn's law.

[Sadena Meti]

I'm a Stalinist.
Funny the way things changed. Back when I joined 5 years ago, Stalinists were banished to OI. Never really agreed with that.

[Impulse97]

Funny the way things changed. Back when I joined 5 years ago, Stalinists were banished to OI. Never really agreed with that.

Oh the comments I could make on this...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The role of a socialist in this period is to do whatever raises the level of class consciousness of the working class, to raise the level of awareness of the working class as a class for itself. This is how the "isms" should be evaluated. How effective are they in this and effective have they been historically?

I think it goes without saying we can rule out juche, which is essentially a caricature of something, I'm not sure exactly what.

We need to evaluate the history of the fSU and China. What were the gains of these societies? What were the social relations ?Who managed the means of production in these societies? Why did they abandon socialism? What were the things they got right and what were the things they got wrong?

The same with anarchism. What did they get right in Ukraine, Spain, Argentina, and Mexico and what did they get wrong?

Use the scientific method. What approach seems best to you?

Your assignment is to write a 500 word essay on "why I am a _____ist" This will be evaluated by a secret staff of RevLeft administrators. Depending on how correct your answers are, you will be contacted at 3AM, your local time, and you will be informed of your usefulness to the Revolution.

[Omsk]

Marxism Leninism and Leninism.Stalinism was a term used by the Trotskyists when they wanted to find a name for comrade Stalin's ideologies.

Now,i really don't want to participate in a tendency war,as they tend to be pointless and boring,as people tend to use wrong argumentation and facts alongside creating strawmen.

However,i,as a Marxist-Leninist do not like the idea of 'tendency' enmity,as we should concentrate on the same enemy that we all share.I understand if a Trotskyist and a Marxist Leninist cant reach a agreement or are in a heated discussion,although,people who blindly attack someone ( in a argument that has nothing to do with politics) for having of a different tendency than the one they follow are,completely idiotic.

[SacRedMan]

Marxism Leninism and Leninism.Stalinism was a term used by the Trotskyists when they wanted to find a name for comrade Stalin's ideologies.

Now,i really don't want to participate in a tendency war,as they tend to be pointless and boring,as people tend to use wrong argumentation and facts alongside creating strawmen.

However,i,as a Marxist-Leninist do not like the idea of 'tendency' enmity,as we should concentrate on the same enemy that we all share.I understand if a Trotskyist and a Marxist Leninist cant reach a agreement or are in a heated discussion,although,people who blindly attack someone ( in a argument that has nothing to do with politics) for having of a different tendency than the one they follow are,completely idiotic.

I told at page one that I didn't made this thread for indency's... ;)

[El Chuncho]

I told at page one that I didn't made this thread for indency's... ;)

Don't worry, I am sure everyone here knows that, but people have to comment because tendency wars are a big thing round here. I personally have never really cared for them and I think the petty. If people want to criticize other leftist ideologies harshly, they should do it in their tendency board, and if they want to discuss them they should do it politely and calmly. Anti-social socialism is worthless. ;)

[Geiseric]

Anything except for Stalinism for me. It was worse to the leftist movement than the capitalists could ever be.

[The Man]

Anything except for Stalinism for me. It was worse to the leftist movement than the capitalists could ever be.

Absolutely! Because Stalinism helped bring Socialism to China! That was absolutely horrible for the Left!

[Ostrinski]

Luxemburgism. But since it isn't up there I'll go with Trotskyism.

[Gorilla]

Anything except for Stalinism for me. It was worse to the leftist movement than the capitalists could ever be.

See, this was supposed to not be tendency wars. Go read the OP again and then try to answer it honestly, or else there's a sticky thread on Comrade Stalin in the History section that you can whale away on to your heart's delight.

[SacRedMan]

Luxemburgism. But since it isn't up there I'll go with Trotskyism.

Sorry, but Luxemburgism isn't that famous here in Europe.

[Agent Ducky]

Anarcho-communism because it's not named after someone =P

[Ostrinski]

Anarchism is simply a leftist wet dream. I would love for such an ideology to take place, in which we immediately go to Communism.... But it won't. History has proven that when ever a group does not take hold of the state, they fail.

I do, however, have somewhat more sympathy for the Anarcho-Syndicalists, which in my opinion, have a better shot at their goal.

As a Stalinist, I believe in a 'People's Army' with officers, because without them, it will be a disaster just as 1936 Spain. But when the whole world is finally Socialist, these 'Officers' will wither away, and in the end, THEY are the ones that fought for freedom along with the other revolutionaries across the world. I also have no idea where you got the idea that under Stalinism, people will be living in 'Barracks'. I would also love to hear about where you got the idea that there is no freedom in Communism, unless it's through Anarchism? I support freedom, and I'm a Stalinist. (With the exception of Repression of Fascists.)

In the end, we ALL fight for Freedom and Equality.
Why would they wither away?

[robbo203]

This is the key. We have to be willing to fight alongside whoever we end up with. The revolution can never succeed if everyone is too busy having tendency wars. This is the right path. =]

All very well but that presupposes a general agreement on the basics. Do people here generally endorse as their objective, a communist society - a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism? I suspect not. Many do but many others do not. That being the case I think it is a misnomer to talk of a "tendency war". What we have instead is a clash of qualitatively different and opposed political movements

[psgchisolm]

It's actually more for new members and so on that can learn from these discussion, see wich one haves the most supporters, wich people have good arguments and so on, so we can learn from it.
Please stop turning this into a tendency war guys. It's only on page 3 ffs.

[The Man]

Why would they wither away?

Well, it's basically the same concept as Dictatorship of the Proletariat. When the whole world is Socialism, and our end goal is on the Horizon (Communism), there is no need for Officers and Armies, or Borders or Boundaries..

As one of my favorite posters, Rjevan put it:



How do we make sure that the State and the centralized government dies off and not stays in power?
Good question. The only way to ensure that is following genuine Marxist(-Leninist) policies during socialism to transform and eliminate the remnants of capitalism. Marx and Engels believe that the state originally emerged not so much for the defence of the people against outer enemies but for the defence of the privileged minority against the oppressed majority. Therefore the state always is an instrument of class rule, used by one class to oppress another class. The difference in socialism is that for the first time the huge majority, all working people, will use that instrument to oppress a minority, the former exploiters and reactionaries. The aim of the dictatorship of the proletariat was and is always the elimination of all classes, including the proletariat itself. The means of production, formerly private property of individual capitalists and source of their wealth and power over others, are socialised and now the property of the whole people and the source of the public wealth. If we achieve this, if the capitalist mentality and sources of capitalism (small production, wage labour, exploitation of man by man) are eliminated and if people are becoming more and more democratic and self-reliant there will be no simply no way whatsoever to exploit anybody anymore. Therefore there is no longer a progressive class needing to oppress a reactionary class, all classes will cease to exist and the state will have no use anymore.

I know this is a very difficult subject. Some anarchist tendencies think the state is the root of the problem, Marxist(-Leninists) say "No, the state is, like racism, sexism, militarism, etc. just an effect, the cause of all of this is the economic system! Change the economic system and you change the state and people's minds. Slave society relied on slavery and even a brilliant philosopher like Aristotle saw nothing wrong about slavery, thought it was natural and couldn't imagine a society without slaves. The feudal lords laughed at the idea of democracy and republicanism. They didn't laugh anymore when the French bourgeoisie rose in the revolution and today we laugh (or rather shudder) at the thought of slavery or absolute monarchy."

Lenin's "State and Revolution" deals with the historical forms of the state, its role under capitalism and socialism and its final "withering away" and excessively quotes Marx and Engels on this subject. Some even say he's too much focusing on readers already well-versed in Marxism, personally I think you should get the idea, though you might of course miss something here and there.

As always you're more than welcome to ask if you have problems with some concepts of M-Lism and I really hope my ramblings made some sense. You can of course also use the Learning forum and join our Marxist-Leninist usergoup to ask questions, in case you want to hear some different opinions than mine. ;)

[Geiseric]

I oppose stalinism because it's counter revolutionary. if you didnt learn from the failure of socialism in one country and the re instatement of classes in the ussr and china, and how moscow handled all of the world revolutions to destruction, then you need to re evaluate your view on history. it led to the reinstatement of capitalism in both countries, and the mismanagement of both countries by mao and stalin led to several million deaths. not saying capitalists are better, but the stalin and mao regimes fucked up.

[The Man]

I oppose stalinism because it's counter revolutionary. if you didnt learn from the failure of socialism in one country and the re instatement of classes in the ussr and china, and how moscow handled all of the world revolutions to destruction, then you need to re evaluate your view on history. it led to the reinstatement of capitalism in both countries, and the mismanagement of both countries by mao and stalin led to several million deaths. not saying capitalists are better, but the stalin and mao regimes fucked up.

Not trying to start a war, but I will dissect this with as little words as possible.

1. It's not counter revolutionary, it started a revolution in China. In fact, Maoism is the only revolutionary ideology today IN EFFECT. Philippines, India, Nepal, Afghanistan.. etc
2. SIOC never failed.. Have you heard of Revisionism? Stalin only strengthened the USSR... Plus the Capitalist countries around the world didn't help it stay up either.
3. These 'Millions of deaths' have been refuted easily by me, and other people on this forum. I suggest you do a quick search on the forum alone, or read 'Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union'
4. Your last post literally said the Maoism and Stalinism was worse than Capitalism (And I quote from Syd Barrett)
Anything except for Stalinism for me. It was worse to the leftist movement than the capitalists could ever be... Plus, if Maoism is so 'fucked up' I guess ol' man Marx 'fucked up' as well..

[Gorilla]

I oppose stalinism because it's counter revolutionary. if you didnt learn from the failure of socialism in one country and the re instatement of classes in the ussr and china, and how moscow handled all of the world revolutions to destruction, then you need to re evaluate your view on history. it led to the reinstatement of capitalism in both countries, and the mismanagement of both countries by mao and stalin led to several million deaths. not saying capitalists are better, but the stalin and mao regimes fucked up.

No, that's not an answer to the OP's question. Tell him about Tortskyism and how awesome it is or stop trolling.

[Geiseric]

i give up, i really dont fucking care at this point.

[Ostrinski]

Well, it's basically the same concept as Dictatorship of the Proletariat. When the whole world is Socialism, and our end goal is on the Horizon (Communism), there is no need for Officers and Armies, or Borders or Boundaries..

As one of my favorite posters, Rjevan put it:



Good question. The only way to ensure that is following genuine Marxist(-Leninist) policies during socialism to transform and eliminate the remnants of capitalism. Marx and Engels believe that the state originally emerged not so much for the defence of the people against outer enemies but for the defence of the privileged minority against the oppressed majority. Therefore the state always is an instrument of class rule, used by one class to oppress another class. The difference in socialism is that for the first time the huge majority, all working people, will use that instrument to oppress a minority, the former exploiters and reactionaries. The aim of the dictatorship of the proletariat was and is always the elimination of all classes, including the proletariat itself. The means of production, formerly private property of individual capitalists and source of their wealth and power over others, are socialised and now the property of the whole people and the source of the public wealth. If we achieve this, if the capitalist mentality and sources of capitalism (small production, wage labour, exploitation of man by man) are eliminated and if people are becoming more and more democratic and self-reliant there will be no simply no way whatsoever to exploit anybody anymore. Therefore there is no longer a progressive class needing to oppress a reactionary class, all classes will cease to exist and the state will have no use anymore.

I know this is a very difficult subject. Some anarchist tendencies think the state is the root of the problem, Marxist(-Leninists) say "No, the state is, like racism, sexism, militarism, etc. just an effect, the cause of all of this is the economic system! Change the economic system and you change the state and people's minds. Slave society relied on slavery and even a brilliant philosopher like Aristotle saw nothing wrong about slavery, thought it was natural and couldn't imagine a society without slaves. The feudal lords laughed at the idea of democracy and republicanism. They didn't laugh anymore when the French bourgeoisie rose in the revolution and today we laugh (or rather shudder) at the thought of slavery or absolute monarchy."

Lenin's "State and Revolution" deals with the historical forms of the state, its role under capitalism and socialism and its final "withering away" and excessively quotes Marx and Engels on this subject. Some even say he's too much focusing on readers already well-versed in Marxism, personally I think you should get the idea, though you might of course miss something here and there.

As always you're more than welcome to ask if you have problems with some concepts of M-Lism and I really hope my ramblings made some sense. You can of course also use the Learning forum and join our Marxist-Leninist usergoup to ask questions, in case you want to hear some different opinions than mine. ;)
I'm relatively familiar with the Leninist stance on the state and I've read S&R.
But if you have a vanguard, you still have hierarchy. So naturally the state is used by the supreme class of this hierarchy, and not by the majority of the population. The state will always have a use, so long as there is hierarchy. Why would those with power and privilege want to discard it? A dictatorship of the vanguard is not a dictatorship of the proletariat. Terms aside, you've traded capitalist exploitation and tyranny for socialist exploitation and tyranny.

Just my thoughts, I've yet to find a tendency myself.

[The Man]

I'm relatively familiar with the Leninist stance on the state and I've read S&R.
But if you have a vanguard, you still have hierarchy. So naturally the state is used by the supreme class of this hierarchy, and not by the majority of the population. The state will always have a use, so long as there is hierarchy. Why would those with power and privilege want to discard it? A dictatorship of the vanguard is not a dictatorship of the proletariat. Terms aside, you've traded capitalist exploitation and tyranny for socialist exploitation and tyranny.

Just my thoughts, I've yet to find a tendency myself.

In my opinion, we should have some sort of system that the USSR had.. Soviets > CC

And then something like the CPSU, with a Politburo, and other things... However, I have to agree with Stalin that the GenSec post should be abolished, and their should just be a Congress of the Soviets.. Again, it's the representation of the Proletariat that is the Vanguard, the Proletariat should and have to elect the Politburo of the Vanguard..

You say I have traded Capitalist exploitation and tyranny for Socialist exploitation and Tyranny.. Yet, only one of them actually leads to destroying exploitation and tyranny.

[☭The Revolution☭]

There will be no revolution without a vanguard party.

[The Man]

There will be no revolution without a vanguard party.

I disagree with this Statement. I believe there can be a Revolution without a Vangaurd Party..But a successful one? That I am not so sure about.

[Ostrinski]

In my opinion, we should have some sort of system that the USSR had.. Soviets > CC

And then something like the CPSU, with a Politburo, and other things... However, I have to agree with Stalin that the GenSec post should be abolished, and their should just be a Congress of the Soviets.. Again, it's the representation of the Proletariat that is the Vanguard, the Proletariat should and have to elect the Politburo of the Vanguard..

You say I have traded Capitalist exploitation and tyranny for Socialist exploitation and Tyranny.. Yet, only one of them actually leads to destroying exploitation and tyranny.
If it's a representation of the proletariat then why is there a necessity for a vanguard at all? It seems as though the vanguard would be comprised of bourgeois elements (military professionals, well-versed intellectuals, charismatic political scientists, those with access to resources that the proletariat doesn't, etc). If the vanguard has direct and immediate access to the state, don't they have the resources to suppress any democratic institution at any time?

[TC]

They use the symbol (actually a cleaner version of it). That doesn't mean they own it.

Under international copyright law, they do, literally, own it.

[The Man]

If it's a representation of the proletariat then why is there a necessity for a vanguard at all? It seems as though the vanguard would be comprised of bourgeois elements (military professionals, well-versed intellectuals, charismatic political scientists, those with access to resources that the proletariat doesn't, etc). If the vanguard has direct and immediate access to the state, don't they have the resources to suppress any democratic institution at any time?

We need a Vanguard in order to conduct a successful Revolution.

[csquared]

I don't understand why anyone would be a Stalinist anymore!

[L.A.P.]

The best communist or socialist system will not be according to any specific tendency but according to what is most suitable for the material conditions of which that socialist or communist system will be established.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

I went with anarcho-communism because it's the most harmless, and all the good options were missing.

I'm not getting on the solidarity love-fest bandwagon. If a Stalinist or ML was on the verge of seizing power, I'd try to kill them. I'd rather have capitalism. Going backwards to a system that doesn't work, and resembles feudalism more than capitalism, will make it take even longer to get to a real socialism.

This poll was interesting, but I don't feel like arguing something as general as "councilism versus bureaucracy", so save your typing, this will probably be my last post in this thread.

[Triple A]

Juche!!!Are you serious?


2010 Regime accepts 10,000 tonnes of corn from South Korea. The official behind the currency revaluation is executed
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7069225.ece

[SacRedMan]

What's a ML?

[red cat]

I disagree with this Statement. I believe there can be a Revolution without a Vangaurd Party..But a successful one? That I am not so sure about.

I think there cannot be a vanguardless revolution when the masses are not already in power, because if we have a such a revolution, that would mean the masses are equally developed politically and militarily, because there are no matured and more experienced comrades acting as vanguards. This would also imply that as the masses are fully class-conscious, the bourgeoisie cannot recruit from them. Or in other words, the bourgeoisie has no or very small armies. Keeping these points in mind we can conclude that even if half or a third of the oppressed masses become class-conscious some day, the situation will be so favourable that they will form a vanguard and make revolution. To put matters simply, a vanguardless revolution won't occur because even if the situation turns partially as favourable, a vanguardist revolution will happen.

Now let us consider the situation when the masses are in power, but the bourgeoisie is continuously trying to conduct coups and come back. At this point, the masses develop themselves and stop the bourgeoisie while eliminating it as a class. As the masses develop, the vanguard party spreads through more and more of the population, which increasingly transforms into the proletariat. At a point, when the bourgeoisie is finally eliminated and the society transits into communism, we have a vanguard party comprising of the whole population, or in other words, no vanguard party. That final revolution will be vanguardless.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

What's a ML?

Marxist-Leninist aka Stalinist aka Maoist aka vague term for all Bolshevik-family tendencies as far as I'm concerned.

[The Man]

What's a ML?
ML is short for Marxist-Leninist

[Gorilla]

Before the revolutions of the 19th century no one would have thought to put Marxist or anarchist in a poll like the above.

Before the October revolution no one would have thought to put Leninism, nor would credulous people have proposed Luxemburgism as an alternative.

Before the first 5 year plan, no Stalinism or Trotskyism. Before 1949 Maoism would have sounded ridiculous.

When the revolution comes, something new will emerge and all existing tendencies will split within themselves around it, as they have in e.g. Venezuela.

[El Chuncho]

Absolutely! Because Stalinism helped bring Socialism to China! That was absolutely horrible for the Left!

...and was one of the only forms of Leftism with a great degree of success and power. :closedeyes:

[Red Future]

Juche!!! :laugh:

[China studen]

Juche!!!Are you serious?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7069225.ece

Idiot lackeys of imperialism always so ignorant.

Suffered imperialist sanctions, natural disasters, revisionist betrayal ... ... world country can still stand?

North Korea has the ability to force the South take the initiative to send supplies. That North Korea has the wrist. Other African countries capable of?

[The Man]

Marxist-Leninist aka Stalinist aka Maoist aka vague term for all Bolshevik-family tendencies as far as I'm concerned.

So Trotskyists are Stalinists? :confused:

[SacRedMan]

Marxist-Leninist aka Stalinist aka Maoist aka vague term

Since when are they all the same? Did I missed something here?

[El Chuncho]

Maoism is an offshoot of Marxism-Leninism (hence it is Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), and thus a form of what people would call ''Stalinism''...same with Hoxhaism.

[SacRedMan]

Maoism is an offshoot of Marxism-Leninism (hence it is Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), and thus a form of what people would call ''Stalinism''...same with Hoxhaism.

Huh:confused:

[Omsk]

Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideological stream that emerged as the mainstream tendency among the Communist parties in the 1920s as it was adopted as the ideological foundation of the Communist International during the era of Joseph Stalin.
However, in various contexts, different (and sometimes opposing) political groups have used the term "Marxism–Leninism" to describe the ideology that they claimed to be upholding.

Stalinism usually defines the style of a government rather than an ideology. The ideology was "Marxist–Leninist theory"

Hoxhaism is a word used to describe a variant of anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism that developed in the late 1970s due to a split in the Maoist movement, appearing after the ideological row between the Communist Party of China and the Party of Labour of Albania in 1978.

Maoism, also known as the Mao Zedong Thought (mao zedong sixiang 毛泽东思想), is an anti-Revisionist form of Marxist communist theory, derived from the teachings of the Chinese political leader Mao Zedong (1893–1976).

You could start with wikipedia articles,but that is just for starters.

Ask if you want to find out more.

[Pretty Flaco]

This is why we have sectarianism.

[Anarchrusty]

Tendency wars? Really? I have no idea why we should do this. After all, what is important is the ideals we stand behind. If you really can't see that, why the hell are you even on the left?
Creating division is something that belongs to the right, to capitalists, to fascists.
I was thinking we were all the same, creating a world with solidarity. Change the world and begin with yourself. If we will ever create a difference, we will have to start closing ranks right NOW!

Those that do not agree upon this and further seek to divide us, should have an outright ban. We either unite, or will be divided forever. And isn't that exactly what capitalists want? To have us fighting eachother so we will not direct our righteous anger at THEM?

Think for yourselves nd you will see the true enemy is in front of our eyes.

[PhoenixAsh]

Anarchism is simply a leftist wet dream. I would love for such an ideology to take place, in which we immediately go to Communism.... But it won't. History has proven that when ever a group does not take hold of the state, they fail.

yes..that is kind of the reason why it always fails.


In the end, we ALL fight for Freedom and Equality.

I agree...but forgive me for being somewhat sceptically cautious towards those tendencies who previously had little pause over prosecuting other tendencies for being counter revolutionary.

[GallowsBird]

Anything except for Stalinism for me. It was worse to the leftist movement than the capitalists could ever be.

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff517/Comrade_Number_One/flame-wars-wars-demotivational-poster-1228596137.jpg

.....

[Anarchrusty]

I agree...but forgive me for being somewhat sceptically cautious towards those tendencies who previously had little pause over prosecuting other tendencies for being counter revolutionary.[/QUOTE]


What you seem to forget that's ALL we are fighting for, and even if I may not agree upon everyone's tactics, we have to find the similarities and they are ABOUND.

What matters, is that we all stand on the same issues. And we do. I see what unites us, not what divides us.

[PhoenixAsh]

Tendency wars? Really? I have no idea why we should do this. After all, what is important is the ideals we stand behind. If you really can't see that, why the hell are you even on the left?
Creating division is something that belongs to the right, to capitalists, to fascists.
I was thinking we were all the same, creating a world with solidarity. Change the world and begin with yourself. If we will ever create a difference, we will have to start closing ranks right NOW!

Those that do not agree upon this and further seek to divide us, should have an outright ban. We either unite, or will be divided forever. And isn't that exactly what capitalists want? To have us fighting eachother so we will not direct our righteous anger at THEM?

Think for yourselves nd you will see the true enemy is in front of our eyes.


ok...I'll play...

So how exactly do you propose to unite the political thought that there should be no government with the one that goes for authoritarian government?

[chegitz guevara]

Mine is the best communism.

[Anarchrusty]

ok...I'll play...

So how exactly do you propose to unite the political thought that there should be no government with the one that goes for authoritarian government?


How exactly I don't know - I never claimed to be a political thinker. What I do know though is, that when hierarchal institutions have been banished, over 90% of people will see that freedom can only be obtained by completely abolishing laws, religion, racism, sexism, class opressions, privileges that work for some but not for others.
It will not be easy working up to the revolution. First we will have to show eople that they need no masters and gods, this could take a while. Capitalism has taught people we belong to tribes, which off course we don't. Tribes = class or race or religion. To achieve this, we need to create solidarity and NOT put people against eachother (Tendency wars). We all think the same, have the basic ideals and THAT is what we should focus on. Not what the best leader on USSR was, Trotskey or Lenin.

[PhoenixAsh]

How exactly I don't know - I never claimed to be a political thinker. What I do know though is, that when hierarchal institutions have been banished, over 90% of people will see that freedom can only be obtained by completely abolishing laws, religion, racism, sexism, class opressions, privileges that work for some but not for others.
It will not be easy working up to the revolution. First we will have to show eople that they need no masters and gods, this could take a while. Capitalism has taught people we belong to tribes, which off course we don't. Tribes = class or race or religion. To achieve this, we need to create solidarity and NOT put people against eachother (Tendency wars). We all think the same, have the basic ideals and THAT is what we should focus on. Not what the best leader on USSR was, Trotskey or Lenin.


I agree ...but tendency wars are not over who the best leader was but what the best system is to reach the ideal / wanted situation. And that is not always the same situation and the system to reach that situation may run counter to ideals of other tendencies.

Stalinists/Hoxahist/Maoists...generally propose an entirely different outcome and way to reach that outcome than Anarchists much of which directly contradicts each others ideology.

In the past this led to bloodshed and open war between the factions and brutal repression.

Those differences are way beyond whose leader was better....its about huge gaps between each others ideologies....and that needs very strudy bridges indeed....ones that are not easilly built and require a lot more debate.

[Dumb]

Luxemburgism. But since it isn't up there I'll go with Trotskyism.

Same here on both counts - though, at heart, I'm a pan-Leftist. It seems to me that so many of the tendencies were developed as adaptations to specific contexts, that most tendencies have an appropriate time and place, and that therefore they're all of some use to us at some point.

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/262/4/4/Marx_Lenin_Engels_by_systemdestroyer.jpg

[The Man]

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/262/4/4/Marx_Lenin_Engels_by_systemdestroyer.jpg

This.

[Dire Helix]

Juche is the best communism. North Korea is the best Korea. Kim Jong-Il is the best Kim.

[CleverTitle]

This thread does a good job of highlighting how annoying some of this sectarianism can be.

I understand that sectarianism exists for valid reasons - ideological differences and all that - but I feel like some of it is way more antagonistic than it needs to be. Argument for the sake of argument and such. At any rate, I generally label myself a Marxist-Leninist.

[Zav]

I think Anarcho-Communism is the best ideology because it is the only one to have achieved something close to Communism. Personally I see the sectarianism of the Left originating in the Authoritarian/Libertarian approaches.
When I decided to become Vegan, I was able to do it instantaneously. I simply stopped eating animal products. I had no difficulties with dairy addiction, regression, or bodily illness. Many others simply cannot do this. Those people need a slow transition. Anarchist-Communism works for many people, and in many places it could lead directly to pure Communism. Some people and places will require a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
These polls only serve to emphasise our differences and minimise our similarities. Do we not all believe in freedom and justice for everyone? Do we not all despise the Capitalist system and its many abuses? Do we not share the same histories? Do we not all rally behind the red flag?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Juche is the best communism. North Korea is the best Korea. Kim Jong-Il is the best Kim.

Maybe but I've always thought Kim Basinger wasn't so bad, although I can't say I know how she stands on the theory of the military as an organic outgrowth of the working class.

Seriously though I think its more productive to think of the current situation. Capitalism is in the worst crisis its been in since the 1930s and the forces of the left are not very effective and in places like the US barely exist. So what is the way forward?

While I think Lenin's strategy was correct in 1917 Russia today I think the era of vanguardism is over. (and I say this as a "Leninist") Russia was unique in that the working class was small in relation to the population, but it was highly aware and concentrated in important urban areas.Developed countries today are far more complex and diverse.What I see for the US may be a resurrection of the US Labor Party project in the 90s. This would be a broad social democratic effort with a revolutionary core, or several revolutionary cores.The main focus of this would be education.This would be supplemented by intense work place organising, and a break from business unionism and development of a radical union movement.

There will be a lot of work for people from every faction and tendency.Activists will have to explain to workers what strategies work and what don't. Trial and error will quickly prove what approach is best, although in a fast moving situation we won't always have time for mistakes.

I am a Trotskyist and as such I have strong criticisms of Stalin, his regime, and his heritage. Nevertheless I think we have to get beyond Stalin vs. Trotsky vs. Makhno and move on to the present. One thing we should be very critical of is any "two stage" theory or "bloc of four classes" theory of revolution. Whatever applicability these may have had, they don't apply in the developed world today. We have to focus on the working class and only that class.

[Joe Payne]

psh, it's actually Anarchist Communism, get it right! And obvs it's the best! Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine FTW! Kickin' White and Bolshie ass all over the fuckin' place!

[Zav]

psh, it's actually Anarchist Communism, get it right! And obvs it's the best! Revolutionary Insurgent Army of the Ukraine FTW! Kickin' White and Bolshie ass all over the fuckin' place!
Both 'Anarcho-' and 'Anarchist' Communism are correct, and yes, Makhnovchina was awesome.

[Q]

I couldn't make up my mind, so I've voted for both anarcho-communism and juche.

[ellipsis]

They use the symbol (actually a cleaner version of it). That doesn't mean they own it.

I am fairly certain that the "sickle-a" was drawn by a RAANISTA for the network, but u are right that they don't "own" it.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I couldn't make up my mind, so I've voted for both anarcho-communism and juche.

It was a tough call for me as well.I wish there could have been an anarcho-juche category

[The Douche]

Both 'Anarcho-' and 'Anarchist' Communism are correct, and yes, Makhnovchina was awesome.

"Anti-authoritarian" extra judicial executions rule!

[Magón]

Fuck them motha fuckin' Leninists. Fuck them motha fuckin' Stalinists. Fuck them motha fuckin' Maoists. Fuck all them Authoritarian motha fucka's, of all colors and creeds. And most of all, fuck them motha fuckin' Juche sum*****es, because none of them got anythin' on us stand up, motha fuckin' Anarchists. With our black flags, home made riot gear, and motha fuckin' punk music blastin' while we're smokin' the 'erb, there ain't nobody in the world that can fuck with a motha fuckin' Anarchist.


(Now, people with a stick up their ass, take it away. :))

[StalinFanboy]

Fuck them motha fuckin' Leninists. Fuck them motha fuckin' Stalinists. Fuck them motha fuckin' Maoists. Fuck all them Authoritarian motha fucka's, of all colors and creeds. And most of all, fuck them motha fuckin' Juche sum*****es, because none of them got anythin' on us stand up, motha fuckin' Anarchists. With our black flags, home made riot gear, and motha fuckin' punk music blastin' while we're smokin' the 'erb, there ain't nobody in the world that can fuck with a motha fuckin' Anarchist.


cept the feds lol

[Magón]

cept the feds lol

They knock one of us down, only to have two more take his/her place. It's the cycle of life, homie. It's the cycle of the Black Bloc!

[The Douche]

They knock one of us down, only to have two more take his/her place. It's the cycle of life, homie. It's the cycle of the Black Bloc!

They'll never defeat our bike sharing co-op!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Joe Payne]

Both 'Anarcho-' and 'Anarchist' Communism are correct, and yes, Makhnovchina was awesome.

Actually in Italian there's a difference. Anarcho refers to a specific Kropotkinist tendency that is very determinist. Anarchist I suppose refers to everyone else.


"Anti-authoritarian" extra judicial executions rule!

As long as they're rapists, priests, fascists, and Cheka (really all the same thing).

[TheVoiceOfTheVoiceless]

There will be no revolution without a vanguard party.
Where are the vanguard parties in the Middle East today? The revolutions appear rather diverse.

Whether that will be their undoing remains to be seen.

[TheVoiceOfTheVoiceless]

If it's a representation of the proletariat then why is there a necessity for a vanguard at all? It seems as though the vanguard would be comprised of bourgeois elements (military professionals, well-versed intellectuals, charismatic political scientists, those with access to resources that the proletariat doesn't, etc). If the vanguard has direct and immediate access to the state, don't they have the resources to suppress any democratic institution at any time?
Sounds like like a communist revolution than a fascist movement.

[TheVoiceOfTheVoiceless]

ok...I'll play...

So how exactly do you propose to unite the political thought that there should be no government with the one that goes for authoritarian government?
If we adopt a decentralized confederacy, then each community may govern itself in as authoritarian or liberal a manner as the people of that community wish.

[TheVoiceOfTheVoiceless]

Camarada Kalashnikov

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

i wish the man would piss off saying that 'stalinism' brought socialism to china. stalinism didn't bring socialism anywhere, mass movements are what will (not that they ever really have as yet). stalin didn't ever theorise on the revolution itself and how a mass movement can build a socialist society, so stop saying dumb things. i'm pretty sure you've changed tendencies like 3 times anyway.

i am an anarcho-communist. i also consider myself a materialist and thus take a lot from marx on matters of analysis, class struggle, history and the understanding of capitalism. i reject unjustifiable authoritarian institutions and relationships and am concerned with the complete liberation of oppressed people, recognising capitalism or more broadly class rule as the primary object in the way of egalitarianism, socialism, liberty and freedom. hence the complete abolition of capitalism is the first goal.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Fuck them motha fuckin' Leninists. Fuck them motha fuckin' Stalinists. Fuck them motha fuckin' Maoists. Fuck all them Authoritarian motha fucka's, of all colors and creeds. And most of all, fuck them motha fuckin' Juche sum*****es, because none of them got anythin' on us stand up, motha fuckin' Anarchists. With our black flags, home made riot gear, and motha fuckin' punk music blastin' while we're smokin' the 'erb, there ain't nobody in the world that can fuck with a motha fuckin' Anarchist.


(Now, people with a stick up their ass, take it away. :))

i love you.

[DrStrangelove]

I was laboring under the impression that the best communism was a stateless and classless society, but that isn't an option in the poll:(.

But, to answer the OP, I personally prefer Leninism. Oh and Stalinism isn't an actually tendency, because Stalin was a Leninist.

[Comrade J]

Although I have always been reluctant to describe myself as anything more specific than a Marxist, I voted anarcho-communism, been reading Kropotkin and it seems to be a fairly logical and reasonable branch of communism. Also, it's less dogmatic and overtly-nostalgic like some varieties, which is often off-putting for potential "recruits" to the left I think.

[Leftsolidarity]

I vote Marxism because it is not a rigid dogmatic ideology. We cannot say only one variant is the best because they all have their place in different situations. I would personally vote for all of these (except for Stalinism and Juche) because I feel they all have a capability to work for different countries.

[bcbm]

primitivism