"Communism"?

[Hermes]

Sorry for the REALLY really stupid thread, hopefully it won't last too long. It's just that although I've been reading some texts by Marx and some by Lenin, I've discovered when talking with other people that I don't really know terms that well. If anyone could just give me a hand on the definitions, it'd be great.

Socialism, and its branches, is the attempt to gain a state of communism through peaceful party politics in a democratic system, right? So, using the current state system and parties to institute a socialist government that would from there wither away to communism? Or is socialism simply welfare capitalism, with no end-goal of communism?

Communism, then, seems to be the violent (or, at the least, willing to use violence) uprising of the proletariat (either international or by country, depending on who you believe) in order to institute a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (which is a socialist state, right?) which is focused on removing all remainders of bourgeois peoples and ideals. Then the state withers away and you're left with communism, right?

It seems like (in America, at least) Communism is used almost exclusively to define Marxist-Leninist countries. Is this the real definition? Couldn't Anarcho-Communists be considered communists, as well as any group that has an end-goal of communism?

Sorry again for the really really incredibly ignorant question.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Socialism is the "lower phase of communism" in which workers control the workplace but monetary currencies are still used and bourgeois devices are slowly being rendered obsolete. Communism is the stateless,classless,moneyless society, the closest humanity will reach in building a utopia. Communism is reached once the socialist state has "withered away" and collapsed into communism.

[Hermes]

Socialism is the "lower phase of communism" in which workers control the workplace but monetary currencies are still used and bourgeois devices are slowly being rendered obsolete. Communism is the stateless,classless,moneyless society, the closest humanity will reach in building a utopia. Communism is reached once the socialist state has "withered away" and collapsed into communism.

Thanks! The only question I have then is why there would be socialist parties, then? Isn't that rather defeatist, when there are communist parties?

What is the difference in their political ideologies (although I recognize that many here view politics as irrelevant and meaningless)?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Thanks! The only question I have then is why there would be socialist parties, then? Isn't that rather defeatist, when there are communist parties?

What is the difference in their political ideologies (although I recognize that many here view politics as irrelevant and meaningless)?

Well socialism hasn't as bad of a name as communism. But you can argue that any communists or socialists party, and i'm talking about the ones that are voteable in elections, id basically irrelevant because the only way to change anything is revolution so they're actually social-democrats or just wan't to spread their views to a broader audience.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thanks! The only question I have then is why there would be socialist parties, then? Isn't that rather defeatist, when there are communist parties?

What is the difference in their political ideologies (although I recognize that many here view politics as irrelevant and meaningless)?

This is a question I had when I was learning about the revolutionary left: it has to do with politics. Communist parties are often Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist) while socialist parties are often either some form of Democratic, or Revolutionary Democratic socialist, or Trotskyist (Marxist-Bolshevik as some would call them).

Marxist-Leninists (communists) uphold,usually, Stalin, anti-revisionism while Trotskyists (socialists) oppose Stalin.

Parties are a good way to organize,meet comrades and develop your skills and knowledge. Usually a decent way to spread propaganda and acheive socialism (though there are many ways this could be done and parties are just one form). I wouldn't say it is counter-productive as it is a matter of taste in how one reaches a goal.

[Comrade Samuel]

Sorry for the REALLY really stupid thread, hopefully it won't last too long. It's just that although I've been reading some texts by Marx and some by Lenin, I've discovered when talking with other people that I don't really know terms that well. If anyone could just give me a hand on the definitions, it'd be great.

Socialism, and its branches, is the attempt to gain a state of communism through peaceful party politics in a democratic system, right? So, using the current state system and parties to institute a socialist government that would from there wither away to communism? Or is socialism simply welfare capitalism, with no end-goal of communism?

Communism, then, seems to be the violent (or, at the least, willing to use violence) uprising of the proletariat (either international or by country, depending on who you believe) in order to institute a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (which is a socialist state, right?) which is focused on removing all remainders of bourgeois peoples and ideals. Then the state withers away and you're left with communism, right?

It seems like (in America, at least) Communism is used almost exclusively to define Marxist-Leninist countries. Is this the real definition? Couldn't Anarcho-Communists be considered communists, as well as any group that has an end-goal of communism?

Sorry again for the really really incredibly ignorant question.


Thegodlessutopian pretty much hit your question spot on but I would like to clear up this bit here. In America most people just like to use the phrase "communist country" (which is a contradiction by the way) when they mean "country America's government doesent like" because countries north Korea, Cuba and china are not Marxist whatsoever (and certainly not Marx-lenininst) but this is a common misconception.

[Caj]

Socialism, and its branches, is the attempt to gain a state of communism through peaceful party politics in a democratic system, right? So, using the current state system and parties to institute a socialist government that would from there wither away to communism? Or is socialism simply welfare capitalism, with no end-goal of communism?

Socialism is a broad term that encompasses a wide range of thought, from reformist liberalism to revolutionary communism.

When referring to a particular stage of human society, Marx used the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably.


Communism, then, seems to be the violent (or, at the least, willing to use violence) uprising of the proletariat (either international or by country, depending on who you believe) in order to institute a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (which is a socialist state, right?) which is focused on removing all remainders of bourgeois peoples and ideals. Then the state withers away and you're left with communism, right?

Communism does indeed advocate the violent uprising of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and the creation of a proletarian dictatorship (with some exceptions, e.g. anarchism, and even the anarchist opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat stems from semantics, in my opinion).

I disagree that the proletaroan dictatorship is a "socialist state." Socialism emerges after the withering away of the state.


It seems like (in America, at least) Communism is used almost exclusively to define Marxist-Leninist countries. Is this the real definition? Couldn't Anarcho-Communists be considered communists, as well as any group that has an end-goal of communism?

Yes, anarcho-communists are communists. Marxist-Leninists, on the other hand, are not.

[Hermes]

Ah, alrighty, that clears it up a lot. Thanks, all of you!

[Hermes]

I disagree that the proletaroan dictatorship is a "socialist state." Socialism emerges after the withering away of the state.

Yes, anarcho-communists are communists. Marxist-Leninists, on the other hand, are not.

Ah, thank you. My mistake.

Could you explain a bit more why Marxist-Leninists aren't communists? I thought that Stalin sought, in the end, to achieve a state of worldwide communism through the influence and expansion of one socialist state (I'm not saying I agree, but I thought that was the theory)?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

ML are communists.

[Caj]

Ah, thank you. My mistake.

Could you explain a bit more why Marxist-Leninists aren't communists? I thought that Stalin sought, in the end, to achieve a state of worldwide communism through the influence and expansion of one socialist state (I'm not saying I agree, but I thought that was the theory)?

Every Marxist-Leninist regime hitherto, no matter how draped in red flags, was capitalist from the materialist standpoint.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

ML are communists.

No, we're reptilians.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Every Marxist-Leninist regime hitherto, no matter how draped in red flags, was capitalist from the materialist standpoint.

Totally. Proof, please.

Kthanx.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Ah, thank you. My mistake.

Could you explain a bit more why Marxist-Leninists aren't communists? I thought that Stalin sought, in the end, to achieve a state of worldwide communism through the influence and expansion of one socialist state (I'm not saying I agree, but I thought that was the theory)?

Marxist-Leninists are communists, Caj is a Ultra-Leftist and wouldn't consider such as actual communists but ideologically speaking M-L's are communists, fact.

One can't reach socialism while a state is still around. Stalin had a theory of Socialism in One Country in which he thought that socialism could be achieved independently in a single country/nation without outside influence.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Every Marxist-Leninist regime hitherto, no matter how draped in red flags, was capitalist from the materialist standpoint.

You could argue that they were state-capitalist but you first must need to provide why.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No, we're reptilians.

Quit on the spam. Thanks.

[Caj]

No, we're reptilians.

I knew it!


Totally. Proof, please.

Generalized commodity production, wage labour, capitalist social relations, etc., etc.

[Grenzer]

Every Marxist-Leninist regime hitherto, no matter how draped in red flags, was capitalist from the materialist standpoint.

I wouldn't be quite so harsh on them.. they do have a distorted idea of what constitutes socialism, but I'd say that there are many Marxist-Leninists who are genuine communists.

As a mode of production cannot be spontaneously abolished, of course no Marxist-Leninist regime could have surpassed capital. The main question is whether they were heading in the direction of socialism, which is debatable.(you already know my stance on this subject)

Of course there are many Marxist-Leninists who I would say are not communists, namely the ones that praise Juche and Fidel Castro to the heavens. You gotta watch out for those Brezhnevites..

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Of course there are many Marxist-Leninists who I would say are not communists, namely the ones that praise Juche and Fidel Castro to the heavens. You gotta watch out for those Brezhnevites..

So true, but you know what else bothers me (and I'm being serious), Marxist-Leninists who focus more on an individual's contribution rather than the ideology itself.

[Grenzer]

Well socialism hasn't as bad of a name as communism. But you can argue that any communists or socialists party, and i'm talking about the ones that are voteable in elections, id basically irrelevant because the only way to change anything is revolution so they're actually social-democrats or just wan't to spread their views to a broader audience.

Was Lenin a social-democrat?

Elections are a good way to gauge support amongst the workers. The Bolsheviks did not make revolution until they had solid support. The main thing is that they do not form coalitions with the bourgeoisie and form popular fronts, as parties like the KKE do.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Was Lenin a social-democrat?

Elections are a good way to gauge support amongst the workers. The Bolsheviks did not make revolution until they had solid support. The main thing is that they do not form coalitions with the bourgeoisie and form popular fronts, as parties like the KKE do.

In my last sentence I said that it could also be to spread to a broader audience.

[Grenzer]

So true, but you know what else bothers me (and I'm being serious), Marxist-Leninists who focus more on an individual's contribution rather than the ideology itself.

That does seem to be true among some people, but to be honest I think it's more of a problem among Trotskyists than Marxist-Leninists. Marxism-Leninism doesn't just revolve around Stalin and Lenin, it revolves around the Soviet policy as a whole up to Stalin's death. That involves a good deal more people than just Stalin and Lenin.

Trotskyism on the other hand, pretty much revolves entirely around Trotsky. There's nothing wrong with that by itself, but it sometimes seem as though some people focus more on Trotsky the man rather than the actual theories. It's easy to fall into the trap of hero worship, but most of the Trotskyists(now that Daft Punk is gone) around here are pretty good about it.

Well.. now that I think about it, it may be the biggest problem among some of the Maoists. Make way for Chairman Bob's bold new synthesis (http://revcom.us/a/129/New_Synthesis_Speech-en.html)!

[Grenzer]

In my last sentence I said that it could also be to spread to a broader audience.

That's true, but the key thing to keep in mind is that simply participating in a parliamentary body is not reformism. In fact, advocating a reform is not by default reformism unless it's pointless and does nothing to advance the political position of the proletariat, and is reached through compromise with the bourgeoisie; in addition, it can only really be reformism if they believe that capitalism can be gradually eased into socialism. The problem is that participating in Parliament can oftentimes be a dangerous road that leads to reformism, if sufficient caution and practice is not taken. (see the KKE again)

Many of the famous Marxists of old advocating participating in Parliament, like Daniel De Leon and Rosa Luxemburg. They saw it as just another avenue of struggle, and there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Letter I wrote to a fellow RevLeft comrade explaining communism in general:


Dear BLEEP,

Marxism is an ideology that analyzes humanity through the worldviews of class struggle and materialism. It states that there are two major classes in the industrialized capitalist world: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. After the establishment of industrialized capitalism, these two classes have been in constant struggle. The proletariat, being the class that actually creates all of the wealth on the planet (along with the peasantry, which Marx did not pay too much attention to), is the only class that has the potential to perfect society. Marx said that the world proletariat should rise in revolution against the oppressive bourgeoisie and their state apparatus, establish a dictatorship of their own class (i.e. the proletariat will be the only class with power; power gained through proletarian democracy), and destroy any remnants of capitalism. This will be called the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat must first liberate itself before anything else can occur. Eventually, the state as we know it will wither away and humanity will usher in a classless, moneyless, and stateless society that will be based on the motto: "From each according to his talents; to each according to his needs." Society will return to a more natural state, such as was seen with early humanity (i.e. primitive communism). Also, there will be no more private property or division of labor. I think that Marx once said that people in communism will wake up, work in the morning on whatever they or their community needs, and then have the rest of the day for recreation. It might sound utopian, but it is not. Marx laid out a scientific path for reaching this goal of communism and used historical precedent, mainly from pre-civilization humanity, to support his theory. Marxism utilizes materialism, historical materialism (the viewing of history through material conditions and class relations; often used to analyze the future as well as the past), and dialectical materialism (the viewing of history and the future as a struggle between theses and anti-theses; dialectical materialism claims that when a thesis and an anti-thesis clash, they form a synthesis, which takes the best of both of these things and joins them into one; dialectical materialism is the basis of the Marxist concept of class struggle).

Leninism is the most popular addition to Marxist theory. It states that the proletariat revolution will be led by a group of the most politically active and class conscious members of the working class: the vanguard. The vanguard will make decisions using democratic centralism. Lenin described democratic centralism as "freedom of discussion, unity of action." Things are decided on democratically within the party, but the party unites behind the final decisions. After the revolution, the vanguard has the task of protecting the liberated working class from capitalist restoration and imperialist attack. Yet, the vanguard will not have a paternalistic role over the proletariat and it will not liberate the working class all by itself (even though it itself is a branch of the working class). Just as Che Guevara said, only the working class can liberate itself. Lenin also formulated the now mainstream Marxist position on imperialism and colonialism. He said that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and advances the power of the bourgeoisie and global capital. Here is his famous work on imperialism: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/pref01.htm. Leninism also expanded the Marxist view on class struggle by suggesting that there should be an unbreakable union between the working masses and the peasantry, with the working class leading the way.

Grigory Zinoviev popularized the use of the term Leninism to denote “vanguard-party revolution”. He was basically correct, yet the way he worded it forgot to put the all-important emphasis on the working class.

Marxism-Leninism is an extension of Marxism and traditional Leninism, yet it also takes the theories of Stalin into account. It is indubitably a hybrid of Marxism and Leninism. There is still the same materialism, same analysis of imperialism, same view on history, same attention to class struggle (as a matter of fact, we Marxist-Leninists go further by saying that class struggle continues even in socialism, as the working class and the peasantry struggle with the leftover remnants of the bourgeoisie), same concept of a union between the working class and peasantry (something that Trotsky abandoned), and same end-goal of stateless communism to be found in Marxist-Leninist theory as in Marxism. The only concepts added to Marxism and traditional Leninism by Marxism-Leninism are socialism in one country, which states that socialism can be achieved in one country; aggravation of class struggle as the development of socialism progresses, which I explained above; the importance of responsible industrialization (versus Leon Trotsky’s psychotic “super-industrialization” theory, which would have killed millions of more Soviet workers and peasants); and the emphasis on the collectivization of agriculture as a way to set the peasantry on the path to property-less communism.

The hatred of revisionism is not something uniquely Marxist-Leninist. Lenin also warned about the dangers of the revisionism of Marxism (i.e. first few pages of What Is To Be Done) and even Marx warned about the dangers of Bernsteinist, revisionist social democracy. The appreciation of centralism is also not something uniquely Marxist-Leninist. It is taken from Lenin and Leninism. And, trust me; the use of tough state terror against counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries is definitely not something unique to Marxism-Leninism. It is only dumb ultra-leftists, like “Orthodox” Marxists (LOL), who say that Marxism-Leninism is not Marxist, and crazy Trotskyites, like daft punk (I wrote this a few weeks ago), who say that it is not Leninist. They never really have any solid proof to prove their points. You should really read up more on these three issues to expand your knowledge. I can only explain so much. I hope that I at least helped you out a little bit with understanding these concepts.

Sincerely,
Comrade Commistar


Dissect and discuss.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Socialism, and its branches, is the attempt to gain a state of communism through peaceful party politics in a democratic system, right?

Wrong; Politicians do not conform to democracy due to the binding of laws. Every decision is made by their personal decision and not that of the community via democratic vote.


Communism, then, seems to be the violent (or, at the least, willing to use violence) uprising of the proletariat (either international or by country, depending on who you believe) in order to institute a Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Wrong again. Dictatorship of the Proletariat isn't the main goal, a classless and stateless society is. DoTP is a dictatorship by a clique over the proletariat.

What you see as communism is Marxist Leninism, which is a form of Communism, but exclusively doesn't embody the ideology as a whole. I lean towards Libertarian Socialism (Anarchism and Council Communism).

[Caj]

DoTP is a dictatorship by a clique over the proletariat.

No.


I lean towards Libertarian Socialism (Anarchism and Council Communism).

Council communists advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat and often reject the "libertarian-authoritarian" dichotomy.

[Manic Impressive]

Sorry for the REALLY really stupid thread, hopefully it won't last too long. It's just that although I've been reading some texts by Marx and some by Lenin, I've discovered when talking with other people that I don't really know terms that well. If anyone could just give me a hand on the definitions, it'd be great.

Socialism, and its branches, is the attempt to gain a state of communism through peaceful party politics in a democratic system, right? So, using the current state system and parties to institute a socialist government that would from there wither away to communism? Or is socialism simply welfare capitalism, with no end-goal of communism?

Communism, then, seems to be the violent (or, at the least, willing to use violence) uprising of the proletariat (either international or by country, depending on who you believe) in order to institute a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (which is a socialist state, right?) which is focused on removing all remainders of bourgeois peoples and ideals. Then the state withers away and you're left with communism, right?

It seems like (in America, at least) Communism is used almost exclusively to define Marxist-Leninist countries. Is this the real definition? Couldn't Anarcho-Communists be considered communists, as well as any group that has an end-goal of communism?

Sorry again for the really really incredibly ignorant question.
Never be sorry for asking questions, we all start somewhere. The best advice I could possibly give to anyone learning about communism/socialism is to forget everything you know about it and to start reading Marx. Those who don't, end up trying to repeat the mistakes of failed movements. Most of what you have been told in this thread is complete and utter rubbish which is biased by their individual politics. Marx and Engels both used the term communism and socialism interchangeably. Until Lenin came along there was no difference. The people who have told you otherwise know this yet continue to lie to you in order to justify their own distorted learning, it really makes me sick.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Wow, you guys all ignored me. I just want to hear opinions. Godddd.

[Manic Impressive]

Wow, you guys all ignored me. I just want to hear opinions. Godddd.
Actually it's quite objective and well written well done :D

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Actually it's quite objective and well written well done :D

KTHANX: Dissect and discuss whenevers you feel likee. :)

[Caj]

Marxism is an ideology that analyzes humanity through the worldviews of class struggle and materialism.

Marxism analyzes human history and society, not humanity in general. Also, I wouldn't use the term "ideology" to describe Marxism.


the only class that has the potential to perfect society.

Communism isn't about perfecting society. It's about destroying it. We're concerned about the materialist class interests of the proletariat, not idealist notions such as "perfection."


Eventually, the state as we know it will wither away and humanity will usher in a classless, moneyless, and stateless society that will be based on the motto: "From each according to his talents; to each according to his needs."

Well, Marx, in Critique of the Gotha Programme, thought that there would be a "first phase" of communism after the withering away of the state in which workers would receive unequal remuneration in the form of "certificates[.]" The "higher phase" of communism, in which production and distribution is orchestrated along the maxim of "from each according to his [or her] ability, to each according to his [or her] needs[,]" would be instituted later after the further development of the productive forces among other preconditions.


Society will return to a more natural state, such as was seen with early humanity (i.e. primitive communism).

I think the "return to nature" aspect of Marx's communism was more characteristic of the early Marx whose works were tainted with idealism.


Also, there will be no more private property or division of labor.

Private property, no, but division of labor to some degree is an inevitability in all societies.


Lenin also formulated the now mainstream Marxist position on imperialism and colonialism. He said that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and advances the power of the bourgeoisie and global capital.

I wouldn't say Lenin's theory of imperialism is "mainstream" within the Marxist movement. Also, Lenin never said it was the "highest" stage of capitalism; rather he said it was the "latest" stage of capitalism. The title was re-worded after his death for propaganda purposes.


Marxism-Leninism is an extension of Marxism and traditional Leninism,

I strongly disagree with both of these claims, as you probably know.


yet it also takes the theories of Stalin into account.

I don't think Stalin really made any theoretical contributions to, well, anything.


It is indubitably a hybrid of Marxism and Leninism.

I'd say it's a distortion of both.


There is still the same materialism, same analysis of imperialism, same view on history, same attention to class struggle

And don't forget an obsessively idealist fear of "revisionism" in all of its forms.


The only concepts added to Marxism and traditional Leninism by Marxism-Leninism are socialism in one country, which states that socialism can be achieved in one country;

At least you admit that Socialism in One Country was absent from "traditional Leninism."


The hatred of revisionism is not something uniquely Marxist-Leninist. Lenin also warned about the dangers of the revisionism of Marxism (i.e. first few pages of What Is To Be Done) and even Marx warned about the dangers of Bernsteinist, revisionist social democracy.

The "anti-revisionism" of today's M-Ls is quite different from opposition to Bersteinism and similar reformist deviations from Marxism.


The appreciation of centralism is also not something uniquely Marxist-Leninist. It is taken from Lenin and Leninism. And, trust me; the use of tough state terror against counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries is definitely not something unique to Marxism-Leninism.

The centralism and state terror of Stalinism is incomparable to that of Leninism. The Bolsheviks used centralism and revolutionary terror as a way to combat counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries. The same can't be said of the Stalinist regime which itself was counter-revolutionary and reactionary.


It is only dumb ultra-leftists, like “Orthodox” Marxists (LOL), who say that Marxism-Leninism is not Marxist, and crazy Trotskyites, like daft punk (I wrote this a few weeks ago), who say that it is not Leninist.

So basically everyone except M-Ls. . . .

And Orthodox Marxists are not "ultra-leftists" unless you're a fucking internet Stalinist, in which case, everybody but your fellow non-revisionist M-Ls are ultra-leftists. (And remember that nine-tenths of M-Ls are actually Trotskyite conspirator revisionists.)


They never really have any solid proof to prove their points.

Yep, never. I think it's more you just deny all evidence against glorious comrade Stalin.

[Manic Impressive]

wow ok that's quite a dissection.


It is only dumb ultra-leftists, like “Orthodox” Marxists (LOL), who say that Marxism-Leninism is not Marxist, and crazy Trotskyites, like daft punk (I wrote this a few weeks ago), who say that it is not Leninist.
I also noticed this, you do know that you are an Orthodox Marxist as well right? Orthodox Marxism is basically Leninism as opposed to classical Marxism which is Marx without the revisions of Lenin.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Marxism analyzes human history and society, not humanity in general. Also, I wouldn't use the term "ideology" to describe Marxism.



Communism isn't about perfecting society. It's about destroying it. We're concerned about the materialist class interests of the proletariat, not idealist notions such as "perfection."



Well, Marx, in Critique of the Gotha Programme, thought that there would be a "first phase" of communism after the withering away of the state in which workers would receive unequal remuneration in the form of "certificates[.]" The "higher phase" of communism, in which production and distribution is orchestrated along the maxim of "from each according to his [or her] ability, to each according to his [or her] needs[,]" would be instituted later after the further development of the productive forces among other preconditions.



I think the "return to nature" aspect of Marx's communism was more characteristic of the early Marx whose works were tainted with idealism.



Private property, no, but division of labor to some degree is an inevitability in all societies.



I wouldn't say Lenin's theory of imperialism is "mainstream" within the Marxist movement. Also, Lenin never said it was the "highest" stage of capitalism; rather he said it was the "latest" stage of capitalism. The title was re-worded after his death for propaganda purposes.



I strongly disagree with both of these claims, as you probably know.



I don't think Stalin really made any theoretical contributions to, well, anything.



I'd say it's a distortion of both.



And don't forget an obsessively idealist fear of "revisionism" in all of its forms.



At least you admit that Socialism in One Country was absent from "traditional Leninism."



The "anti-revisionism" of today's M-Ls is quite different from opposition to Bersteinism and similar reformist deviations from Marxism.



The centralism and state terror of Stalinism is incomparable to that of Leninism. The Bolsheviks used centralism and revolutionary terror as a way to combat counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries. The same can't be said of the Stalinist regime which itself was counter-revolutionary and reactionary.



So basically everyone except M-Ls. . . .

And Orthodox Marxists are not "ultra-leftists" unless you're a fucking internet Stalinist, in which case, everybody but your fellow non-revisionist M-Ls are ultra-leftists. (And remember that nine-tenths of M-Ls are actually Trotskyite conspirator revisionists.)



Yep, never. I think it's more you just deny all evidence against glorious comrade Stalin.

At least you answered me and corrected me on key points. And, I do know that I used the term "perfect" incorrectly, but I did not know what to put instead. Also, yeah, I forgot that Marxism is a science and not an ideology in the traditional sense. One place that I put in the word "society," it should have really been the word "humanity". The last few things you wrote were just for the lolz.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

wow ok that's quite a dissection.


I also noticed this, you do know that you are an Orthodox Marxist as well right? Orthodox Marxism is basically Leninism as opposed to classical Marxism which is Marx without the revisions of Lenin.

:confused::confused: Brainfart. What?

[Caj]

The last few things you wrote were just for the lolz.

I couldn't resist.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I couldn't resist.

But seriously, thanks.

Yay, we are not fighting. (Because it is a holy day).

[Manic Impressive]

:confused::confused: Brainfart. What?
Orthodox Marxism = the politics of the 2nd and 3rd International as a Marxist Leninist you wouldn't reject the politics of those internationals would you?

[Ostrinski]

>Orthodox Marxism
>ultra left

well folks I just dont know

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

>Orthodox Marxism
>ultra left

well folks I just dont know


I haz made the May Day resolution to stop saying the term "ultra-leftist" so much.

[Ostrinski]

You can be an ML, Trotskyist, or take the occasional left communist position like Rafiq and be an Orthodox Marxist.

Orthodox Marxism is more about revolutionary theory and methods of organization than historical stances.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

No.



Council communists advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat and often reject the "libertarian-authoritarian" dichotomy.
Council Communism is a current of libertarian Marxism that emerged out of the November Revolution in the 1920s, characterized by its opposition to state capitalism/state socialism as well as its advocacy of workers' councils as the basis for workers' democracy.
Chief among the tenets of Council Communism is its opposition to the party vanguardism and democratic centralism of Leninist Ideologies and its contention that democratic workers' councils arising in the factories and municipalities are the natural form of working class organization and authority. Council Communism also stands in contrast to Social Democracy through its formal rejection of both the reformism and Parliamentarism.

[Caj]

Council Communism is a current of libertarian Marxism that emerged out of the November Revolution in the 1920s, characterized by its opposition to state capitalism/state socialism as well as its advocacy of workers' councils as the basis for workers' democracy.
Chief among the tenets of Council Communism is its opposition to the party vanguardism and democratic centralism of Leninist Ideologies and its contention that democratic workers' councils arising in the factories and municipalities are the natural form of working class organization and authority. Council Communism also stands in contrast to Social Democracy through its formal rejection of both the reformism and Parliamentarism.

Wikipedia is not a good source for these things.

Council communism, which developed from the German-Dutch school of left communism in the 1920s, is not a current of "libertarian Marxism," an ambiguous neologism coined by Daniel Guerin much later. In fact, many, if not most, council communists would reject the libertarian label, as they advocate proletarian dictatorship.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Have you read Anton Pannekoek's book Workers' Council? In how he loathes the notion of any form of DoTP (Page 35 AK Press Edition]"And once the workers have beaten down capitalist power and won freedom, why should they give it up and submit to new masters [a socialist state or DoTP]? A council communist wants nothing to do with another state or 'dictatorship of the proletariat'

[Caj]

Have you read Anton Pannekoek's book Workers' Council? In how he loathes the notion of any form of DoTP (Page 35 AK Press Edition]"And once the workers have beaten down capitalist power and won freedom, why should they give it up and submit to new masters [a socialist state or DoTP]? A council communist wants nothing to do with another state or 'dictatorship of the proletariat'

Pannekoek was opposed to what emerged in Russia precisely because it wasn't a dictatorship of the proletariat (by the time Workers' Councils was written, anyway). Pannekoek never abandoned the notion of the workers seizing state power and forming a dictatorship of the proletariat. He was, by the 1920s, opposed to Leninist vanguardism, which, in his view, led to anything but the dictatorship of the proletariat.

What you're doing is equating the DotP with what emerged in Russia in the 1920s: a bourgeois dictatorship. Council communists do the opposite. They reject the notion that the USSR was a proletarian dictatorship and advocate an authentic proletarian state organized on the basis of democratic workers' councils.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Pannekoek was opposed to what emerged in Russia precisely because it wasn't a dictatorship of the proletariat (by the time Workers' Councils was written, anyway). Pannekoek never abandoned the notion of the workers seizing state power and forming a dictatorship of the proletariat. He was, by the 1920s, opposed to Leninist vanguardism, which, in his view, led to anything but the dictatorship of the proletariat.

What you're doing is equating the DotP with what emerged in Russia in the 1920s: a bourgeois dictatorship. Council communists do the opposite. They reject the notion that the USSR was a proletarian dictatorship and advocate an authentic proletarian state organized on the basis of democratic workers' councils.
We had a disagreement on what I perceived what the DoTP was. When I hear someone say DoTP, I automatically think of the SU, sorry.