definition of theories

[lolo]

Hi there,

In the manifesto of the communist party, Karl Marx defined the communism as follow: "Abolition of private property."
I like that this definition is perfectly clear and there is no possible confusion.

Does any body know where i could find a definition of socialism, capitalism and anarchy as well?
I have found a few here and there, but i'm not happy with it...
I'm looking for definitions that would be as clear as this one, that would be perfect.
If you have references, that would be appreciated a lot.

Thanks.

Lolo

[Brosip Tito]

Capitalism -> Private control over the means of production. Production based on profit.

Socialism -> Democratic worker control over the means of production. (abolition of private property applies here as well since the workers control it. Communism refers to the final stage, in most cases, in which the state has withered away, and classes and money is no longer existent). Production based on need.

Anarchy -> a societal model where hierarchy is eliminated. usually based on direct democracy. (Anarchists can probably define it better).

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Anarchism- the libertarian form of socialism.(basicly socialism without government)

[Ostrinski]

Capitalism- Private control over the means of productivity, capital is accumulated through extracting surplus value of unpaid labor through wage, exchange-based commodity production

Socialism- Public control over the means of productivity, production oriented toward use rather than exchange, economy democratically planned, moneyless

Anarchism- Stateless society

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Socialism--System where the workers, peasants, etc. run their workplaces through direct democratic councils. Private property is abolished but personal property is allowed. For example, your watch is yours while the factory that the watch is made in belongs to the workers who made it and their communities. The economy is planned democratically by the workers and their communities and the market is abolished (although, this is just my definition. There are market socialists out there). Any system that advocates the abolition of classes and control of the workplace by the workers is socialist while socialism is it's own theory at the same time. For example, while every anarchist and communist is a socialist not every socialist is a communist or anarchist. The main currents of socialism are Marxism, Marxism-Leninism (and it's variations), Council Communism, Democratic Socialism, and Libertarian Socialism.

Capitalism--System where an elite group run the workplace and give orders to the workers. This ruling class owns the means of production and accumulate capital. Profit, rent, and interest (known as surplus value) are used to exploit workers. Economy runs through a market and price signals indicate what is made, how much is made, etc. This system is prone to a boom and bust cycle because capitalists make economic decisions based on what they think future demand will home and invest in this way. If their predictions are wrong and there is more supply than demand, they have spent too much on development of their product and it effects their profit margins. They will fire workers to make up for the lost profit and these workers, without the benefit of having an income, cannot buy more products. This will lead to lower demand in other companies, putting them in a crisis. The main currents are Keynesianism, Laissez-Faire, Neo-Liberalism, and Reaganomics. (The last three are VERY similair).

Anarchism--System where society is run through direct democracy or consensus decision making without a state. There is either no transition to this society or a small transition without the guidance of a state. Some anarchists consider the revolution itself to be the transition period. The police force is based on voluntary action from individuals (so a worker can one day work in a factory and than the next day is a police officer) to break the elitism of police work. The main currents of Anarchism are Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Collectivism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, or Anarcho-Mutualism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Anti-capitalist

"Some anarchists consider the revolution itself to be the transition period"

How is a revolution not a transition period?
If the people made the revolution that means they are already prepared for society to change, they don't need dictatorship to force them into socialism if they already picked socialism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

TheRedAnarchist's introduction to the theories of anarchism!

Anarcho-communism- Is a system of anarchism that involves no currency, no salaries, no value of labour (For example: a doctor does not gain more than a janitor), all property is public and every worker can take what he needs from production.

Anarcho-syndicalism- Is a system that works in the same manner as anarcho-communism, but it envolves worker unions and committees as the main form of organization, whereas anarcho-communism states that a community can organize itself without those.

Anarcho-colectivism- is the system of anarchism which works simillar to socialism, because there are wages and money, so it is like a transition state, but if you know anything of anarchist theory you most realize that this form of organization would not go well.

Anarcho-mutualism- Works like colectivism, but is more complicated.

Anarcho individualism- There are many theories of anarcho-individualism, many of them involve money.

Anarcho-capitalism- capitalism without a government=(HELL!)

[Caj]

Socialism - synonymous with communism; means of production held in common, classless, stateless, ideally market-less and money-less, etc.

Capitalism - means of production controlled by the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat through surplus value extraction, generalized commodity production, markets, etc.

Anarchism - a method of revolutionary struggle that repudiates the state as a means to bring about socialism (Anarchism understands the state as being hierarchical with regards to the proletariat. Not all Marxists accept this as being necessarily so.)

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Caj

You don't need to explain anarchism, I have already explained it in great detail.

[Caj]

@Caj

You don't need to explain anarchism, I have already explained it in great detail.

I disagree with your definitions though. I don't think we should regard anarchism as a kind of society but as a revolutionary method.

EDIT: Also, anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism are synonymous theoretically. Their differences are purely historical.

[Rooster]

I don't it's that easy to make a quick definition of these things.

I like Marx's thing about socialism though. It's a free association of men, working with the means of production held in common.

Oh, and socialism and communism are the same thing.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Caj

"Also, anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism are synonymous theoretically."

Anarcho-colectivism uses a wage system, anarcho-communism regects this.

[Caj]

@Caj

"Also, anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism are synonymous theoretically."

Anarcho-colectivism uses a wage system, anarcho-communism regects this.

That's a common misconception.

The difference between anarcho-communism and collectivism is purely historical. The anarchists of the First International referred to themselves as collectivists to distinguish themselves from the Marxists, who were often simply referred to as communists. Anarcho-communism emerged after the fall of the First International and the alienation of the anarchist movement from the labor movement.

Although Kropotkin made a few of his own contributions to anarcho-communism (e.g. mutual aid), theoretically, the two ideologies were essentially indistinguishable. Regarding the question of remuneration, both the communists and collectivists were concerned, above all, with what was practical. The collectivists Bakunin and Guillaume, for example, said that a system of "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs" would be adopted in a post-revolutionary society if possible. A system of remuneration for labor would only be necessary if this wasn't a practical possibility in a post-revolutionary society. Many anarcho-communists, such as Errico Malatesta, said that a system of remuneration may be rendered necessary, if only temporarily, in regions without an abundance of certain essential resources. Neither the collectivists nor the communists adhered dogmatically to any position regarding the question of remuneration or the lack thereof.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

@Anti-capitalist

"Some anarchists consider the revolution itself to be the transition period"

How is a revolution not a transition period?
If the people made the revolution that means they are already prepared for society to change, they don't need dictatorship to force them into socialism if they already picked socialism.

I never said it wasn't a transition period. The question to me is will that society be able to defend itself against counter-revolutionary attack adequately with the absence of a state? I don't think an anarchist society would be able to.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Anti-capitalist

I think it could, it would just organize itself diferently.
Lack of government does not mean lack of organization, it means different organization.

[bricolage]

Anarcho-communism- Is a system of anarchism that involves no currency, no salaries, no value of labour (For example: a doctor does not gain more than a janitor), all property is public and every worker can take what he needs from production.
there won't be janitors under communism.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

@Anti-capitalist

I think it could, it would just organize itself diferently.
Lack of government does not mean lack of organization, it means different organization.

This argument is a valid and understandable one, and I just wanted to say that I understand where you are coming from before I disagree with you.

Every revolution, from the October Revolution in Russia to the July 26th Movement in Cuba to the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua, etc. etc. every successful socialist orientated revolution has faced intense counter-revolutionary and/or imperialist attack. The Bolsheviks in Russia faced the Whites who were being supplied with heavy aid from imperialist countries, Cuba and Nicaragua are the same way as well. With such harsh attack being historically inevitable it seems to me the only way for the revolution to properly defend itself is through the efficient use of the state apparatus.

At the same time, I do not agree with the policies of many "socialist":rolleyes: countries and do not support their crushing of dissent, etc. I see the state after the revolution as a very libertarian state in which society is run direct democratically through community and workers councils while maintaining a standing army to fight off counter-revolutionary attack. This would allow for an efficient defense of the revolution while allowing the revolution to maintain a democratic form. Actually, the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, even while facing harsh counter-revolutionary and imperialist attack from the Contras allowed free-elections and allowed virtual freedom of the press (although, towards the end of their fight with the Contras the freedom the press had taken an understandable beating. The Sandinistas closed down newspapers supporting the Contras and openly calling for assassination of government figures).

[Caj]

I see the state after the revolution as a very libertarian state in which society is run direct democratically through community and workers councils while maintaining a standing army to fight off counter-revolutionary attack.

This wouldn't constitute a state from an anarchist perspective.

EDIT: And also, what do you mean by a "libertarian" state? All states, as organs of class rule, are authoritarian in nature with regards to at least one class and libertarian with regards to the ruling class. The terms libertarian and authoritarian describe relationships and only have meaning when a certain class perspective is specified. The DotP, from the bourgeois perspective, is authoritarian. From the proletarian perspective, it is libertarian.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

This wouldn't constitute a state from an anarchist perspective.

EDIT: And also, what do you mean by a "libertarian" state? All states, as organs of class rule, are authoritarian in nature with regards to at least one class and libertarian with regards to the ruling class. The terms libertarian and authoritarian describe relationships and only have meaning when a certain class perspective is specified. The DotP, from the bourgeois perspective, is authoritarian. From the proletarian perspective, it is libertarian.

I disagree that my version of the state would not constitute a state from an anarchist perspective. I still support the use of prisons and other things. I will agree though that my version of the state is VERY close to the anarchist vision of society.

I meant libertarian for the workers, obviously :D