Misunderstanding on RevLeft

[Valdemar]

I have been lurking and reading quite a few post here on RevLeft and I have noticed that there is great Misunderstanding among RevLeft.

I have been on RevLeft for some time, and I have had read a lot of Topics, so i'll just write my observations and try to clarify some things.

To put it in rough:
Some of you RevLefters (i'll call you New Socialist), believe that there is no country today (at present) that is Socialist. Those who believe that, have tendency to believe that Socialism is same as Communism. You believe that Socialism is classless and stateless and therefore is oxymoron if used together with state, since state can't be socialist. You also believe that after successful revolution, state is abolished etc.

And there are others (Old Communists) who believe that, i'll again put it in rough, that Socialism can be built in one country, that socialism is economic system. Believe that socialism is different from Communism and that Communism is endstage and Socialism is only transitional phase. They believe that in socialism there are classes and there is state which is ruled by Dictatorship of Proletariat who rules and oppresses the revionsits elements in state (ex-capitalists, bourgeoisie) with help of mechanism and tools provided by state.

I must say that i mostly agree with (Old Communist) group. But before I end my post i have questions for the (New Socialists) group of people who believe that Socialism = Communism.

To better Ilustrate my question Lets say:
There is state named Lapandia, in that state, workers gain enough conscience, organize and make revolution. Is state abolished? But there are still other countries who are neighbors to Lapandio who wish to see Lapandia fail, they exploited Lapandia for years and they want to do it again and are supporting that goal. In Lapandia there are still counter-revolutionary elements, there are still people who wish to get back to the power or to gain wealth they loss. There are still some workers who are not fully conscience. There are still some workers who still hate neighbor countries/ nations or people who are different then themselves , there are still homophobes in society.

In that case, we can clearly see we need a state to defend rights of the workers, to use its tools to drive revolution forward. It might happened that Lapandia needs to adjust to the current environment and make economic changes that might look capitalist in order to survive in hostile environment. Did revolution fail? Why?

So in New Socialists thinking, only way of the revolution is simultaneous socialist revolution around globe? Only in that case i MIGHT see state abolished and of course people would need to gain full conscience so that there would be no backward thinking?

* I would write in allready created topics/posts, i really would but sadly I'm the one of the allegedly one with the backward thinking and therfore restricted :( *

[Caj]

Some of you RevLefters (i'll call you New Socialist), believe that there is no country today (at present) that is Socialist. Those who believe that, have tendency to believe that Socialism is same as Communism. You believe that Socialism is classless and stateless and therefore is oxymoron, since state can't be socialist. You also believe that after successful revolution, state is abolished etc.

Why are we the "New Socialists"? What you've just described is authentic Marxism.


And there are others (Old Communists) who believe that, i'll again put it in rough, that Socialism can be built in one country, that socialism is economic system. Believe that socialism is different from Communism and that Communism is endstage and Socialism is only transitional phase. They believe that in socialism there are classes and there is state which is ruled by Dictatorship of Proletariat who rules and oppresses the revionsits elements in state (ex-capitalists, bourgeoisie) with help of mechanism and tools provided by state.

"Old Communists"? How about just capitalists, since that's what they advocate.

They don't advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship over the proletariat.


I must say that i mostly agree with (Old Communist) group. But before I end my post i have questions for the (New Socialists) group of people who believe that Socialism = Communism.

You do realize that socialism and communism were considered synonymous until 1917, right?


It might happened that Lapandia needs to adjust to the current environment and make economic changes that might look capitalist in order to survive in hostile environment.

You lost me here. What do you mean "look capitalist"?

In the scenario you described, the revolution wasn't finished, and thus the state would still be necessary.


So in New Socialists thinking, only way of the revolution is simultaneous socialist revolution around globe? Only in that case i MIGHT see state abolished and of course people would need to gain full conscience so that there would be no backward thinking?

Not simultaneous. The revolution just has to spread before it becomes isolated and degenerates back into bourgeois tyranny.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well..there is a great misunderstanding in your post.

What you call new socialists are actually the classical, for lack of a better word, socialists. Like Marx for example. Who didnt think the state should continue to exist.'...and who do not make a distinction between socialism and communism. ...at least not in the way you describe it

The distinction between socialism how you describe and interpet it was only made later by Marxist-Leninists...



Now...as to the situation of Lapandia. Why would we need a state to defend the right of the workers? Explain to me that the existence of counter revolutionaries immediately leads to the conclusion that there needs to be a state.


Also I would like to point out that according to a lot of what you call "new" socialists...there can not be a socialism in one country. So the question you are asking is answered with a simple: there will be no communism/socialism in Lapandia until it becomes internationalist and a self sufficient area of the globe has had its revolution. Untill then it is either stuck in the earliest phases of the DOPT or in some bastardised form of capitalism like market socialism or state capitalism.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Try using the term "non-pragmatic, idealistic ultra-leftists" instead of "New Socialists."

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Don't let the ultra-leftists bully you into thinking their ideology is superior and classical, while ours is capitalist and evil.

[Caj]

Try using the term "non-pragmatic, idealistic ultra-leftists" instead of "New Socialists."

Well, at least we are socialists.

And I'm pretty sure that blaming "REVISIONISTS!!" when confronted with the countless historical failures of Marxism-Leninism is a lot more idealistic than looking at the material conditions that led to these failures.


Don't let the ultra-leftists bully you into thinking their ideology is superior and classical, while ours is capitalist and evil.

It's not evil. It's just a bourgeois ideology.

[Positivist]

As much as I'd like to say otherwise, Valdemar is right. Unfortunately just granting everyone absolute freedom immediately does not cure all social ills, and on the contrary leaves the revolution exposed to the threat of capitalist restoration. The communist 'base' (relations of production) requires the support of a corresponding 'superstructure' (culture, social institutions) in order to survive, as is true in any society. (Feudalism needed the Catholic religion to maintain its system of distribution of wealth to the Aristocracies across Europe.)

[Zealot]

We're supposed to sit around singing Kumbaya while we wait for a world-wide revolution, or at least, a revolution that can spread. However, Stalin pointed out in The Foundations of Leninism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch03.htm):


Where will the revolution begin? Where, in what country, can the front of capital be pierced first?

Where industry is more developed, where the proletarian constitutes the majority, where the proletariat constitutes the majority, where the there is more culture, where there is more democracy-that was the reply usually given formerly.

No, objects the Leninist theory of revolution, not necessarily where industry is more developed, and so forth. The front of capital will be pierced where the chain of imperialism is weakest, for the proletarian revolution is the result of the breaking of the chain of the world imperialist front at its weakest link; and it may turn out that the country which has started the revolution, which has made a breach in the front of capital, is less developed in a capitalist sense than other, more developed, countries, which have, however, remained within the framework of capitalism.

Getting a world-wide revolution to spread from somewhere that Imperialism is at its weakest to a highly developed capitalist country is almost impossible. However, we don't object to a worldwide revolution; but we aren't utopians either.

[Geiseric]

It isn't impossible, you tool, it nearly happened! They had to end the world war because things were becoming so dangerous back at home, and the capitalists were threatened internally! They wouldn't need the Freikorps if Germany wasn't on the verge of revolution, and the Stalinist party WAS ultraleft, even with 3,600,000 votes in the Reichstag, when they called the Social Dems "Social Fascists," and ruined any chance for a working class united front against fascism.

Before Germany, Comintern took an ultra menshevist path in China, when the CCP was made subservient to Chaing Kai Shek, who was a member of Comintern!

[Raúl Duke]

Those who believe that, have tendency to believe that Socialism is same as Communism. You believe that Socialism is classless and statelessThat's a rather simplistic, even "Strawman" view of so-called "new socialists" which are for the most part not new but have been around since the 19th century in one form or another.

They don't exactly argue that socialism is "classless" exactly (there's still the working class, but no capitalist class; slowly their position of working class begins to fade due t the non-existence/displacement of the bourgeoisie and the phasing out of capitalist economic relations: accumulative currencies/capital/cash, etc which will occur post-revolution as we begin to move towards communism out of the shell of the forms of old classist society), although a state-less one yes (or one with a state, if by state one means an arrangement that is rhetorically "the dictatorship of the working class" stamping out the remaining vestiges of capitalism within society, rebuilding, and working towards communism; but not a state that involves a group of people, whether an alleged 'vanguard of the working class' or not, placed in a position over the working class as a whole and with a different relation to the productive forces/politically than the working class).

[Geiseric]

This guy is a troll. Ignore.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It isn't impossible, you tool, it nearly happened! They had to end the world war because things were becoming so dangerous back at home, and the capitalists were threatened internally! They wouldn't need the Freikorps if Germany wasn't on the verge of revolution, and the Stalinist party WAS ultraleft, even with 3,600,000 votes in the Reichstag, when they called the Social Dems "Social Fascists," and ruined any chance for a working class united front against fascism.

Before Germany, Comintern took an ultra menshevist path in China, when the CCP was made subservient to Chaing Kai Shek, who was a member of Comintern!

Well the reason the "Stalinists" took an "ultra-left" position is because the German Social-Democrats had done Everything to keep the bourgeoisie alive during the period of 1919-1923, they had gone directly against the working class of germany and were collaborative with the fascists, that makes sense seeing as they had the same goal: Keep the capitalist system. The KPD was the only party that called for national Antifascist action in the Reichstag while the Social-Democrats played the nationalist game with the Nazis, "reforming".

[TrotskistMarx]

Well my friend most people in USA, in Greece, in Nigeria, in Pakistan, in Haiti, in many countries of Africa are living a hell on earth. And most leftists shouldn't really care about labels right now. What we should really care is about uniting all leftist parties into large leftist fronts in each country of this world. As a vehicle to get out of poverty, health care denial, and the hell of bills, taxes, dollar devaluation, currency-devaluations, the destruction of real salaries, destruction of real wages which leads to hunger in even working class households, and many many other problems like wars, police-terrorism, mood disorders, mental depression, sadness, emotional pain and existential vacuum in millions and millions of humans. Psychologic and emotional pain is a lot worse than physical pain.


Thanks


.




I have been lurking and reading quite a few post here on RevLeft and I have noticed that there is great Misunderstanding among RevLeft.

I have been on RevLeft for some time, and I have had read a lot of Topics, so i'll just write my observations and try to clarify some things.

To put it in rough:
Some of you RevLefters (i'll call you New Socialist), believe that there is no country today (at present) that is Socialist. Those who believe that, have tendency to believe that Socialism is same as Communism. You believe that Socialism is classless and stateless and therefore is oxymoron if used together with state, since state can't be socialist. You also believe that after successful revolution, state is abolished etc.

And there are others (Old Communists) who believe that, i'll again put it in rough, that Socialism can be built in one country, that socialism is economic system. Believe that socialism is different from Communism and that Communism is endstage and Socialism is only transitional phase. They believe that in socialism there are classes and there is state which is ruled by Dictatorship of Proletariat who rules and oppresses the revionsits elements in state (ex-capitalists, bourgeoisie) with help of mechanism and tools provided by state.

I must say that i mostly agree with (Old Communist) group. But before I end my post i have questions for the (New Socialists) group of people who believe that Socialism = Communism.

To better Ilustrate my question Lets say:
There is state named Lapandia, in that state, workers gain enough conscience, organize and make revolution. Is state abolished? But there are still other countries who are neighbors to Lapandio who wish to see Lapandia fail, they exploited Lapandia for years and they want to do it again and are supporting that goal. In Lapandia there are still counter-revolutionary elements, there are still people who wish to get back to the power or to gain wealth they loss. There are still some workers who are not fully conscience. There are still some workers who still hate neighbor countries/ nations or people who are different then themselves , there are still homophobes in society.

In that case, we can clearly see we need a state to defend rights of the workers, to use its tools to drive revolution forward. It might happened that Lapandia needs to adjust to the current environment and make economic changes that might look capitalist in order to survive in hostile environment. Did revolution fail? Why?

So in New Socialists thinking, only way of the revolution is simultaneous socialist revolution around globe? Only in that case i MIGHT see state abolished and of course people would need to gain full conscience so that there would be no backward thinking?

* I would write in allready created topics/posts, i really would but sadly I'm the one of the allegedly one with the backward thinking and therfore restricted :( *

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

...And one should note that it was Noske and the rest of the German SPD that gave the orders and edged on the murders of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg.

[Caj]

They don't exactly argue that socialism is "classless" exactly (there's still the working class, but no capitalist class; slowly their position of working class begins to fade due t the non-existence/displacement of the bourgeoisie and the phasing out of capitalist economic relations: accumulative currencies/capital/cash, etc which will occur post-revolution as we begin to move towards communism out of the shell of the forms of old classist society), although a state-less one yes (or one with a state, if by state one means an arrangement that is rhetorically "the dictatorship of the working class" stamping out the remaining vestiges of capitalism within society, rebuilding, and working towards communism; but not a state that involves a group of people, whether an alleged 'vanguard of the working class' or not, placed in a position over the working class as a whole and with a different relation to the productive forces/politically than the working class).

I've got to disagree with you here. As Marx said, the existence of the proletariat is defined by and presupposes the corresponding existence of the bourgeoisie. The workers control the means of production, not in socialism, which is classless, but during the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the "revolutionary transformation" of capitalism into socialism. Once the entirety of the MoP are held in common, there are no longer classes (including the working class), the state "withers away", and socialism begins.

[Raúl Duke]

I agree with you in essence, thus why I myself am wondering of why we even bother to make the difference between socialism and communism; since in both the working class is in control and the bourgeoisie is displaced/non-existent. However, I'm calling the DotP a socialist period (workers are in control of the means of production, working to do away with the vestiges of capital such as accumulative money) while the socialism you speak of as communism.

The only reason I make the difference is that certain forms of capital might still be in used under socialism/DotP although we're working to do away with them (thus putting the relation between working class and capital/capitalist economic relations itself, particularly labor paid in salary/wage & money; although we could already cultivate non-capital based forms of labor remuneration pre-revolution and during revolution, I've heard of an example of this occurring in Greece right now.). I'm not disagreeing with Marx per se, just that I've seen people still state that a working class exists in socialism despite that the bourgeoisie/elites don't.

[Caj]

I agree with you in essence, thus why I myself am wondering of why we even bother to make the difference between socialism and communism;

I don't. The act of doing so is of Leninist origin.

[Geiseric]

There were huge strike waves and a radicalising base in the SPD that was leaving the party and either going to the Communists or the Nazis, because the SPD was so unpopular with the working class.

Your example of the SPD supporting the murders is a strawman, and i'm not even going to argue it. The deaths were some of the worst blows to the German working class in decades, and I doubt that the SPD rank and file supported the Freikorps.

The politics taken in Germany contradict entirely the Chinese model of what the Stalinists did, as well as the disastrous Popular Front strategy with Liberals that was done in Spain and France, meaning that there wasn't any Leninist theory behind it, but the fSU supported whoever seemed like they would be most favorable to the foreign policy of the U.S.S.R.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't. The act of doing so is of Leninist origin.

I thought it was a Marxist one; although the Leninists have historically used the difference to put in place something un-socialist (no disrespect intended to my Leninist friends :D ).

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Once the entirety of the MoP are held in common, there are no longer classes

I disagree very much. Classes are not formed solely by whether one owns property or not, but also what the organisation of prodution is. So in socialism i do not understand why the proletariat cannot become the ruling class and select its subsumed classes of production process and non-classes. This sahould be the struggle of socialism IMO, the fight for the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" in making everyone subservient to the producers of material wealth. Then when the productive forces are heightened and the gap between think and hand work is closed, then there can be the beginning of talk about a truly "classless society" where everyone rules. Socialism to Communism.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

and I doubt that the SPD rank and file supported the Freikorps
They did not just support the bourgeoisie and their mercenary Freikorpstrups, but called on them to smash down the working class when they could not take control of the Bavarian Soviet Republic! There is a saying in Germany: "Wer hat uns Verraten? Sozial-Demokraten!" 'Who betrayed us? Social-Democrats!' and that saying comes from the time that the SPD and Noske did everything in their strategic power to dupe the working class and kill them in last resort! The German Social Democrats are real scum i tell you, they're known for it, now they're openly a liberal party and brought in the "Hartz IV Reformen" basically making everyone who is underemployed and unemployed a slave to the bourgeoisie and capitalist state. SPD...

[Caj]

I thought it was a Marxist one; although the Leninists have historically used the difference to put in place something un-socialist (no disrespect intended to my Leninist friends :D ).

No, Marx used the terms synonymously.

[Caj]

I disagree very much. Classes are not formed solely by whether one owns property or not, but also what the organisation of prodution is. So in socialism i do not understand why the proletariat cannot become the ruling class and select its subsumed classes of production process and non-classes. This sahould be the struggle of socialism IMO, the fight for the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" in making everyone subservient to the producers of material wealth. Then when the productive forces are heightened and the gap between think and hand work is closed, then there can be the beginning of talk about a truly "classless society" where everyone rules. Socialism to Communism.

See, the disagreement here is our definitions. I'm using socialism synonymously with communism. You're using it synonymously with the DotP.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Well the reason the "Stalinists" took an "ultra-left" position is because the German Social-Democrats had done Everything to keep the bourgeoisie alive during the period of 1919-1923, they had gone directly against the working class of germany and were collaborative with the fascists, that makes sense seeing as they had the same goal: Keep the capitalist system. The KPD was the only party that called for national Antifascist action in the Reichstag while the Social-Democrats played the nationalist game with the Nazis, "reforming".
It's not so simple, comrade. The KPD was also engaging in military alliances with the fucking Nazis to attack SPD rallies and meetings. They also had the idiot slogan "After Hitler, us." Yes, the leadership of the SPD was treacherous, DUH. They killed Luxembourg and Liebnicht, and did everything they could to stabilize capitalism in Germany. But they were not the Nazis. Read the collection of Trotsky's writings called, The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany. It is chilling, because he was able to predict what the Nazi's coming to power would mean for the German and international proletariat.

And what about the complete turnaround in 1935 to supporting entering governments of the bourgeoisie? That was a panicked response to the debacle in Germany by Stalin and the CI. And ooops, they forgot to analyze or even discuss their errors. Just made a 180 degree turn. "Before, we rightly refused to have common actions with the treacherous social dems, because they supported the bourgeoisie. Now we are entering governments. . . with the bourgeoisie. Because comrade Stalin said both policies were right, we won't even discuss it." Lovely.

[Geiseric]

Classes are developed solely by who owns it, whoever owns it makes the decision and if it' owned by a workers state, it ceases to be capitalism.

[Amal]

Actually, to me it's like a problem of vision. Instead of a state, if we view the country as a stronghold of workers i.e. a "non-state" surrounded by states, then that can certainly be possible. Afterall, only a pure idiot can think that all state will abolish in one fine morning.

[Caj]

only a pure idiot can think that all state will abolish in one fine morning.

The DotP is not a state in the traditional sense. It is an organ controlled directly and democratically by the proletariat as a class for the sole purpose of seizing the means of production. Once that task is accomplished, the state no longer has a purpose and "withers away", meaning the proletariat ceases to use it.

[RGacky3]

I don't believe calling something socialist is black of white, I disagree with people that say you need world wide revolutoin or its all nothing.

But for anything to be called socialist at the very least it has to be democratic, and economically democratic, thats the VERY least.

[Geiseric]

We don't "need" worldwide revolution any more than capitalists "need" globalization of the economy. It is necessary for socialism to destroy the capitalist order worldwide or else it will restore itself inside any island of socialism. That is what we witnessed with the U.S.S.R.

[#FF0000]

lol @ losers w/ ussr and stalin avatars betraying the fact that they don't know anything

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Try using the term "non-pragmatic, idealistic ultra-leftists" instead of "New Socialists."

Great post. You should really be proud of that. :rolleyes:

[Manic Impressive]

To better Ilustrate my question Lets say:
There is state named Lapandia, in that state, workers gain enough conscience, organize and make revolution. Is state abolished? But there are still other countries who are neighbors to Lapandio who wish to see Lapandia fail, they exploited Lapandia for years and they want to do it again and are supporting that goal. In Lapandia there are still counter-revolutionary elements, there are still people who wish to get back to the power or to gain wealth they loss. There are still some workers who are not fully conscience. There are still some workers who still hate neighbor countries/ nations or people who are different then themselves , there are still homophobes in society.

In that case, we can clearly see we need a state to defend rights of the workers, to use its tools to drive revolution forward. It might happened that Lapandia needs to adjust to the current environment and make economic changes that might look capitalist in order to survive in hostile environment. Did revolution fail? Why?

So in New Socialists thinking, only way of the revolution is simultaneous socialist revolution around globe? Only in that case i MIGHT see state abolished and of course people would need to gain full conscience so that there would be no backward thinking?
Why would there be a world revolution within a short amount of time?

As the world market is more integrated now than it ever has been and will continue to become even more so. So recessions have a global impact and it is from one of these crisis in capitalism that a revolution will most likely occur.
As we've seen last year in North Africa, once people see that they can make change occur others who share a common oppression gain hope and confidence from that. I would also assert that this "Arab Spring" as it has been dubbed was influenced by protest movements in other countries which lead up to it and in turn reignited those same movements which were dying out. The occupy movement say that they were directly influenced by the people in North Africa.

So here's a scenario for you lets say we've got a recession worse than this one. There's high unemployment and rising poverty in all the G8 countries. Workers are getting majorly pissed even the previously affluent ones are finding they cannot make ends meet.
There's a revolution in one or two of these states workers come to power and want to implement socialism. What can they do to help the other countries along?
First is to organize production in their own country so that it does not grind to a halt and people don't end up starving. This isn't exactly difficult as the workers already do this.

Second Abolish Money.

We've seen the impact of banks making stupid loans and the effect that has had on capitalism. It started with one major bank going down. Now think how markets already under duress would react if money were abolished in a couple of the worlds largest economies.
It would create a domino effect crippling governments and capitalists as they tried to work out wtf was going on and just how much money they'd lost. It would give the more reluctant workers the extra motivation they need to topple their own governments.

Oh and as for the state being needed to enforce the law or defend against reactionary elements or capitalist counter revolutions. I hold the position that a majority must be in favour of implementing socialism, forcing it on people will not work or it will be extremely messy, it would certainly be undemocratic. With a majority any capitalist last gasp efforts would be fairly futile even if they did try something as they would be heavily outnumbered. Crime should not be much of an issue if people's needs are being met, this is evidenced both in Spain '37 and the Paris commune where crime fell dramatically even in their short lived experiments.

As for Lapandia it seems to be a very small country which would have little impact on the world so a revolution is probably going to be unsuccessful whatever they do. Now if you'd said the United States of Apendia then that would be a different story ;).

All this is obviously highly hypothetical but it's just one example of how you could give the rest of the world a nudge in the right direction or maybe a kick up the arse is more appropriate if you found yourself being in the first country to seize the state.

[Tim Cornelis]

Those who say that it was Lenin who invented a distinction between socialism and communism are wrong. Lenin merely named the distinctions Marx formulated differently. Lenin called lower-phase communism socialism and higher-phase communism communism.

Another misrepresentation, many here are saying that Marx used the words "socialism" and "communism" synonymously. He didn't, he used them interchangeably, which is a subtle difference. You can use socialism and communism interchangeably, but at the same time recognise that socialism encompasses more than just communism.

Even if Marx used them synonymously, he would be wrong.

[Caj]

Those who say that it was Lenin who invented a distinction between socialism and communism are wrong. Lenin merely named the distinctions Marx formulated differently. Lenin called lower-phase communism socialism and higher-phase communism communism.

The distinction Marx made between the lower and higher phases of communism concerned iself solely with the question of distribution in a post-revolutionary society. Clearly the distinction Lenin made between socialism and communism amounted to far more than just differences in distribution.


Another misrepresentation, many here are saying that Marx used the words "socialism" and "communism" synonymously. He didn't, he used them interchangeably, which is a subtle difference. You can use socialism and communism interchangeably, but at the same time recognise that socialism encompasses more than just communism.

Well, it depends upon the context. If Marx was talking about socialism and communism as movements, then yes, he would regard socialism as encompassing more than just communism. The socialist movement would include the utopian socialists, anarchists/Bakuninists, Lassalleans, Blanquists, and other sects in addition to the communists or Marxists. When he talked of socialism as a particular stage of human society, however, he made no distinction between that and communism. In the latter context, Marx used socialism and communism synonymously.

[RGacky3]

Its rediculous to talk about a "correct" definition of socialism, when most people nowerdays talk about socialism they are talking about some sort of social control over the economy, thats what matters, if you want to discuss something else, use a different word or just expand what you mean.

[Valdemar]

Why are we the "New Socialists"? What you've just described is authentic Marxism.

Maybe acording to you and your felow "New Socialist" thinkers. People who read same Kapital came to diffrent conclusions. And beside that, Marx is only a humman and so he can be wrong, so no need to start quote wars. (Quote wars = Quoting Kapital)



"Old Communists"? How about just capitalists, since that's what they advocate.

What argument is that? They are also Communist with diffrent views then you, they do not think you are right, so no need to talk like that.



They don't advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship over the proletariat.

Again, who said that, maybe you view those things like that...



You do realize that socialism and communism were considered synonymous until 1917, right?

I would really hard to agree with you, last time i read Kapital, Even Marx made difference betwen Communism and Socialism. But again, diffrent people see same colors different... And even in Manifesto you have whole chapter about different socialism's which are according to marx are wrong ones. So they were not synonymous to Communism at all until 1917, right?



In the scenario you described, the revolution wasn't finished, and thus the state would still be necessary.

So state would be still necessary, so Revolution faild because Socialism was not established in your terms? Or you think it wasn't finished and it is still going on? So even if people/working class/plore get to the state power, Revolution isn't over becasue???

I tought that revolution is when people, working class take power via voilent means-actions power of the state aka overhrow "demoraticly" elected or not despots? And if thats is revolution then Lapadia had its revolution and it is finished?




Not simultaneous. The revolution just has to spread before it becomes isolated and degenerates back into bourgeois tyranny.

Why would that happen? Why would degenrate back to the bourgeois tyranny if society goal and ideology is Communism. If rulling class ideology is Communism. Their goal is to defend, support other Revolutions, to battle Imperialism around and help other opressed States/Nations? Meanwhile global revolution happens they can steer its people in right directions and teach the "correct" values and opress reacitionary thiking and other deviations which are not welcomed in new society.


This guy is a troll. Ignore.

http://bit.ly/GXrFoA





Now...as to the situation of Lapandia. Why would we need a state to defend the right of the workers? Explain to me that the existence of counter revolutionaries immediately leads to the conclusion that there needs to be a state.

Like i said, there are other neibhour states which want to access Lapandia resources(working force, earth resources etc.), there also people who do not want to take part in new society and who have different views. State has its mechanism and tools to defend against forign powers and domestic. It has power to defend worker gains.

My point is, people have no right then to call Lapadia non-Socialist, Communist state or even to degrade it and call it to Capitalist to be same like other Capitalist states. (Or even support or be indifrent toward Invasion of Lapadia)

I'm very sorry if I insulted you with term "New Socialist", its mainly because its something new (at least for me), its new way of thinking to me and the term Socialism as ending stage and not communism is also new to me. Maybe it will be more correct to call you "Utopian Socialist".

[Manic Impressive]

I'm very sorry if I insulted you with term "New Socialist", its mainly because its something new (at least for me), its new way of thinking to me and the term Socialism as ending stage and not communism is also new to me. Maybe it will be more correct to call you "Utopian Socialist".
No! it would be more appropriate to call some of the Leninist tendencies Utopian. It's quite obvious that you don't understand what the term refers to when discussing socialism read Socialism Utopian and scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm). Many of the Leninists advocate reforming capitalism this is what we call Utopian.

[Thirsty Crow]

To better Ilustrate my question Lets say:
There is state named Lapandia, in that state, workers gain enough conscience, organize and make revolution. Is state abolished?How would I know that? Did the Lapandian workers organize the basis of their political power in the sociopolitical form of workers' councils and mass assemblies, or are we talking about a party-state apparatus?


In that case, we can clearly see we need a state to defend rights of the workers, to use its tools to drive revolution forward. It might happened that Lapandia needs to adjust to the current environment and make economic changes that might look capitalist in order to survive in hostile environment. Did revolution fail? Why? You're confusing the state - the bourgeois state in fact - for any structure of political organization.
As far as the question of "economic changes that might look capitalist" go, well yes, considering the fact that most probably the Lapandian state is not based on the notion of it being a transitory element, and based on internationalism in the sense of this state actually functioning as one of the catalysts of worldwide revolution, then we can say that the revolution failed (especially if there is no actual international revolutionary wave).


So in New Socialists thinking, only way of the revolution is simultaneous socialist revolution around globe?No, that's a common straw man argument.
What you call New Socialists do not argue for a simultaneous world revolution - a blatant impossibilty, but for the definite worldwide spreadout of social revolution.

Only in that case i MIGHT see state abolished and of course people would need to gain full conscience so that there would be no backward thinking?In this situation, yes, a healthy political basis, as well as economic and cultural (also in the sense of international relations), for communism is a possibility.

[Rooster]

I would really hard to agree with you, last time i read Kapital, Even Marx made difference betwen Communism and Socialism.

Where? :lol:

Jeez, I'd love to reply to all of this but I have to go to a stupid party tonight :(