Are There Any Political Philosophies That Fit In With The Revolutionary Left That...

[Aleenik]

aren't Communism or Anarchism? If there are, I haven't heard of them. Still, I figured I should ask anyway as I have been wondering.

[Red Rabbit]

Socialists, I would think.

[Aleenik]

Socialists, I would think.In the Marxian sense Socialism is Communism though I thought. And in the non Marxian sense, they wouldn't be revolutionary leftist, would they? Like Social Democrats for example.

[Iron Felix]

Not at all, Socialism and Communism are seperate things, it's just that Marx predicted that a Socialist society would eventually advance to become a Communist one.

[Susurrus]

Utilitarianism probably.

[Nox]

Stalinism-Maoism-Polpotism-Kimilsungism

[Aleenik]

Stalinism-Maoism-Polpotism-KimilsungismDon't they consider themselves to be Communist though?

[Smyg]

They do, yes.

[Nox]

The Revolutionary Left is divided into Anarchists, who immediately get rid of the state, and Marxists, who use the state to achieve world revolution and then rid of the state (if that makes sense).

Both groups are Communists, there are no other 'Communist' types you can be.

[Aleenik]

The Revolutionary Left is divided into Anarchists, who immediately get rid of the state, and Marxists, who use the state to achieve world revolution and then rid of the state (if that makes sense).

Both groups are Communists, there are no other 'Communist' types you can be.Not all Anarchist are Communist though from my understanding.

[The Douche]

And not all Marxists are statists.

OP, it kind of depends on how you define "communism". Certain primitivist/deep ecological ideas can find common ground with revolutionaries, though on here that will be strongly denied.

If you define "communism" as being related to the ideas of Marx, its pretty unlikely you'll find any sort of ideology which critiques capitalism that doesn't borrow from/share with Marx.

[Rooster]

There's a critique of various other modes of leftist thought at the back of the communist manifesto that you can read about.


Marx predicted that a Socialist society would eventually advance to become a Communist one.

Where?

[Rafiq]

Communism and Anarchism are not political philosophies nor are they something different. Marxists and Anarchists are different, though.

[Rafiq]

Communism and Anarchism are not political philosophies nor are they something different. Marxists and Anarchists are different, though.

[smk]

Utopian Socialism is basically what marx derides in the communist manifesto for a chapter or two:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism

people like prudhon ("property is robbery") or thomas more (wrote 'Utopia') are the most well known of the "utopian socialists."

[Property Is Robbery]

Proudhon said property is theft

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Forkliftism.

[Seth]

If you are a Marxist you are a socialist and a communist. Either does.

Utopianists like More would be leftists, but that type of thinking didn't survive into the twentieth century because it was completely eclipsed by scientific socialism and anarchism. And it's a good thing it didn't.

Proudhon though still has a lot of indirect influence, but mixed with Bakunin or Stirner.

[The Man]

Not at all, Socialism and Communism are seperate things, it's just that Marx predicted that a Socialist society would eventually advance to become a Communist one.

Marx actually never said that.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Not all Anarchist are Communist though from my understanding.
"All anarchists are socialist, but not all socialists are anarchists." - Bakunin

All class-struggle anarchists (the broad anarchist movement, the only ones worth mentioning, I wouldn't describe primitvists, anarcho-capitalists, individual anarchists as "anarchists") are all communists, as they seek to have a classless, stateless, wageless society i.e. communism. Some, such as anarcho-syndicalists, stray from usage of the word, but it's essentially what we want as well.

[Geiseric]

Isnt it generally assumed that socialism will one day end in communism?

[Susurrus]

Socialism wasn't considered a phase of society in Marx's time, it was an ideological description that included everyone from proudhon to Fourier. As the definition changed Marx said that if socialism was taken to mean the same thing as communism(ideology, not phase of society) than he would call himself a socialist. It was never taken to meant a phase of society in his day.

[Ocean Seal]

Essentially it divides itself into a four square


Marxists are both communists and socialists. Anarchists can either be socialists or communists.
Socialist |Communist
State |Marxist |Marxist
No-State|Anarcho-Collectivist|Anarcho-Communist

With anarcho-collectivist being the ideology of Bakunin. There are other leftist ideologies out there like utopian socialism, democratic socialism, and religious leftism (ie: Christian Left). Usually religious leftist groups more or less resemble anarchists although many of them are pacifists. Democratic socialists are more radical social democrats. And utopian socialists just kind of hang around educating people about the morality of socialism.

[Tim Cornelis]

people like prudhon ("property is robbery") or thomas more (wrote 'Utopia') are the most well known of the "utopian socialists."

Proudhon was not a utopian socialist at all.

--------------------------------------------
@OP
Guild Socialism, syndicalism, Communalism.

[A Marxist Historian]

And not all Marxists are statists.

OP, it kind of depends on how you define "communism". Certain primitivist/deep ecological ideas can find common ground with revolutionaries, though on here that will be strongly denied.

If you define "communism" as being related to the ideas of Marx, its pretty unlikely you'll find any sort of ideology which critiques capitalism that doesn't borrow from/share with Marx.

Technically speaking at least, no Marxists whatsoever are statists. Even Stalinists do say that one of these days the state needs to be abolished, in the sweet bye and bye.

As to primitivists and deep ecologists, they certainly want to transfer society fundamentally. The question is whether they should be considered revolutionaries or counterrevolutionaries. Since they want to bring society back to the past, they technically have to be considered reactionaries.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Socialism wasn't considered a phase of society in Marx's time, it was an ideological description that included everyone from proudhon to Fourier. As the definition changed Marx said that if socialism was taken to mean the same thing as communism(ideology, not phase of society) than he would call himself a socialist. It was never taken to meant a phase of society in his day.

Right. The essential ideological distinction being the very same that we have now in the 20th century.

The classic utopian socialists, people like Fourier and Robert Owen, believed that the way to obtain socialism was create socialist communities as examples of how much better socialism was, and then to persuade everybody, and especially the ruling classes, that socialism was a better idea than capitalism.

The communists however, starting with Babeuf's "Conspiracy of the Equals" during the French Revolution, believed in establishing a just society by overthrowing the ruling classes through revolution.

Proudhon was a very odd duck by the way. A socialist of sorts, and a progenitor of anarchism, he was also a gross male chauvinist, an enthusiastic supporter of slavery and white supremacy who wanted to see the South win during the Civil War, and an anti-Semite of the "exterminationist" persuasion, who wanted all the Jews to die.

-M.H.-

[Aleenik]

"All anarchists are socialist, but not all socialists are anarchists." - Bakunin

All class-struggle anarchists (the broad anarchist movement, the only ones worth mentioning, I wouldn't describe primitvists, anarcho-capitalists, individual anarchists as "anarchists") are all communists, as they seek to have a classless, stateless, wageless society i.e. communism. Some, such as anarcho-syndicalists, stray from usage of the word, but it's essentially what we want as well.Was that quote referring to Socialism in the sense of Socialism=Communism?

[$lim_$weezy]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the glorious theoretical successor to Marxism that is Juche. (It can't be called communism, maybe not even legitimately leftism).

[Commissar Rykov]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the glorious theoretical successor to Marxism that is Juche. (It can't be called communism, maybe not even legitimately leftism).
Glorious Juche needs no mention it speaks for itself!

[Obs]

Isnt it generally assumed that socialism will one day end in communism?

No. This is what happens when you mix up socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Also Stalin.

[The Douche]

Technically speaking at least, no Marxists whatsoever are statists. Even Stalinists do say that one of these days the state needs to be abolished, in the sweet bye and bye.

As to primitivists and deep ecologists, they certainly want to transfer society fundamentally. The question is whether they should be considered revolutionaries or counterrevolutionaries. Since they want to bring society back to the past, they technically have to be considered reactionaries.

-M.H.-

The assertions that primitivists want to "bring society back to the past" is an often repeated mistruth. The reality is that they want a "future primitive" and not a return to the past.