Log in

View Full Version : How Can We Make A



RedAnarchist
14th January 2004, 14:27
What bits of various "communisms" would work together to create a perfect Communism?

For instance, maybe the perfect Communism would be an hybrid of Marxism and Maoism, or Leninism and Trotskyism

ÑóẊîöʼn
14th January 2004, 14:46
How about Marxism and Anarchism? :P

crazy comie
14th January 2004, 14:47
Pure marxist-lenninism.

RedAnarchist
14th January 2004, 14:47
Anarcho-Marxism?

but waht parts of Anarchism and what parts of Marxism?

ÑóẊîöʼn
14th January 2004, 14:56
They're basically the same;

Marxism(Not marxism-leninism) requires a stateless society, as does Anarchism.

The difference lies in how this is acheived.

Marx said the State would 'wither away' he was wrong.

Anarchists say the state apparatus should be smashed completely; this is in direct opposition to Leninism, which says the state apparatus should be taken over. This is why there is emnity between 'marxists' and anarchists.

RosaRL
14th January 2004, 15:20
I dont think you can take bits and peices of this and that and create something better than 'Marxism'.

Marxism is, itself, a scientif ideology that is applied to the current conditions in order to figure out what is the best way forward.

Over the years, what we understand from applying marxism has increased. Lenin, Stalin and Mao all both applied and deepened Marxism. Maoism is the highest suthesis of that understanding to date. (Maoist are Marxists)

There were new breakthroughs that can only be gained through testing theory in practice.

This is not unlike what happens with other sciences. Theories are tested in practice, built or or disproven.

Marxism remains today the "science of revolution'.

If you want to check out some of this and see for yourself - then Check out Bob Avakian's work (this is only a small part of it -btw) at http://rwor.org/chair_e.htm

SonofRage
14th January 2004, 16:56
I think Marxism went in the wrong direction with Marxist-Leninism. My ideas are a blend of Marxist-DeLeonism and Libertarian Municipalims (the ideas of Anarchist Murray Bookchin which has influenced the Green Movement).

RebeldePorLaPAZ
14th January 2004, 17:16
Well first you need to have the communist party in power. Once that have been done than whatever style of communism you choose can begin to form to its full potential. I don't think there is one perfect but I think that every style everyone said can work as long as it is build up to the fullest. Wether it's Marxism, Maoism, or Anarchy it has to take time to get to the best it can be. Once it's there it only gets better. :D


--Paz

The Feral Underclass
14th January 2004, 17:21
By not transfering state power from the ruling class to a vanguard and smashing the state right from the state.

monkeydust
14th January 2004, 21:17
I differ with most here that have replied in that I wouldn't prefer one formally established ideology, or even group of ideologies, I merely follow the general principles of Marx, and left wing thinkers whilst adding my own personal slant upon any ideology.

I would argue that all ideologies can be to an extent 'flawed' in that they are all toooo rounded or 'neat' to apply to a such a complex and diverse society that we have. They are too 'regular' for our 'irregular' and unpredictable concerns.

Hence I would personaly, once a form of leftism has been achieved act somewhat pragmatically to situations, rather than following our abstract ideologies to the word.

I don't think we can form the 'perfect' society by simply blending different forms of marxism, that would be far too easy.

redstar2000
14th January 2004, 21:41
What bits of various "communisms" would work together to create a perfect Communism?

Short answer: none.

"Perfect" communism is, like "perfect" anything else, an idealist concept...disconnected from the real material world.

What we want is a revolutionary theory that is both grounded in social reality and points the way towards what we really want.

It has to be both of those things; there are plenty of reformist groups who assert that they are "grounded in social reality" and plenty of utopian groups ready to promise all kinds of marvelous futures once they convince people of the possibilities.

At this time, I think the most promising option is a combination of Marxist historical materialism and the anarcho-syndicalist traditions of the most radical elements of the European working class.

Of course, I would borrow from lots of other critiques of capitalism as well. Many "unfamous" people have offered useful insights which we should add to our theory.

A new "revolutionary synthesis" is a "work-in-progress"...and there is still a long way to go.


Lenin, Stalin and Mao all both applied and deepened Marxism. Maoism is the highest synthesis of that understanding to date. (Maoist are Marxists)

No, actually they have more in common with Confucius than they do with Marx. They are primarily concerned with selecting "a good emperor for the people" whereas Marx was concerned with the emancipation of the working class.

According to the Maoists (and all Leninists for that matter), "correct leadership" is what determines the outcome of everything.

Marxists understand that it is really the masses that "make history". The masses create the climate, while "great leaders" come and go like sunshine and storms.

Who today remembers the "great leaders" that overthrew feudalism? Yes, people have heard a few names and dimly remember that the French chopped off the heads of the aristocrats. But the details of the transition from feudalism to capitalism are, for the most part, of interest only to historians.

In three or four centuries, the same will be true of the leaders--great or otherwise--of proletarian revolutions.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

SonofRage
15th January 2004, 12:33
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 04:41 PM
At this time, I think the most promising option is a combination of Marxist historical materialism and the anarcho-syndicalist traditions of the most radical elements of the European working class.

Of course, I would borrow from lots of other critiques of capitalism as well. Many "unfamous" people have offered useful insights which we should add to our theory.

A new "revolutionary synthesis" is a "work-in-progress"...and there is still a long way to go.

Interesting, my thinking has been along these lines as well. When you say "combination of Marxist historical materialism and the anarcho-syndicalist traditions," I take this as essentially being DeLeonism. I'm curious, what are your thoughts on Marxist-DeLeonism?

redstar2000
15th January 2004, 12:59
DeLeon had some interesting ideas, but his "fixation" on bourgeois electoral politics--understandable at the time--has left his followers "in the soup".

DeLeon died, I believe, shortly before World War I and the collapse of the 2nd International...had he lived a bit longer and seen the consequences of electoral strategies, perhaps he would have changed his mind.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

crazy comie
15th January 2004, 14:58
Moaoism isn't marxism it is derived from stalinism.

RedAnarchist
15th January 2004, 15:01
China became Communist at the time of Stalin and was pro-Moskva at the time, so Maoism grew out of Stalinism

crazy comie
15th January 2004, 15:02
stalinism isn't communism but beuracratic socialism.

RedAnarchist
15th January 2004, 15:04
Stalinism isnt even left-wing is it? Its maybe authoritarian left, but its not anything like Marxism or Anarchism

The Feral Underclass
15th January 2004, 15:22
Redstar2000


"Perfect" communism is, like "perfect" anything else, an idealist concept...disconnected from the real material world.

This statement is confusing. perfect communism would be a stateless, non governmental, non hierarchical society with people working according to ability and recieving according to need. I do not think this idealistic in the sense you are wanting it to mean, I think it is a logical conclusion based on material history and an understanding of human ability.

What do you mean by this statement?


At this time, I think the most promising option is a combination of Marxist historical materialism and the anarcho-syndicalist traditions of the most radical elements of the European working class.

Is this a revision redstar? What aspects would you combine?

STI
15th January 2004, 20:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 04:04 PM
Stalinism isnt even left-wing is it? Its maybe authoritarian left, but its not anything like Marxism or Anarchism
Economically, it's *sorta* left- wing. Not so much so as Marxism or Leninism, though. It's also very authoritarian.

"stalinism isn't communism but beuracratic socialism."

Well, as Noam Chomsky put it, the Soviet Union wasn't really socialist. Here's what he had to say on it:

"One can debate the meaning of the term "socialism," but if it means anything, it means control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions, whether in capitalist enterprises or an absolutist state.

To refer to the Soviet Union as socialist is an interesting case of doctrinal doublespeak. The Bolshevik coup of October 1917 placed state power in the hands of Lenin and Trotsky, who moved quickly to dismantle the incipient socialist institutions that had grown up during the popular revolution of the preceding months -- the factory councils, the Soviets, in fact any organ of popular control -- and to convert the workforce into what they called a "labor army" under the command of the leader. In any meaningful sense of the term "socialism," the Bolsheviks moved at once to destroy its existing elements. No socialist deviation has been permitted since.

These developments came as no surprise to leading Marxist intellectuals, who had criticized Lenin's doctrines for years (as had Trotsky) because they would centralize authority in the hands of the vanguard Party and its leaders. In fact, decades earlier, the anarchist thinker Bakunin had predicted that the emerging intellectual class would follow one of two paths: either they would try to exploit popular struggles to take state power themselves, becoming a brutal and oppressive Red bureaucracy; or they would become the managers and ideologists of the state capitalist societies, if popular revolution failed. It was a perceptive insight, on both counts.

The world's two major propaganda systems did not agree on much, but they did agree on using the term socialism to refer to the immediate destruction of every element of socialism by the Bolsheviks. That's not too surprising. The Bolsheviks called their system socialist so as to exploit the moral prestige of socialism.

The West adopted the same usage for the opposite reason: to defame the feared libertarian ideals by associating them with the Bolshevik dungeon, to undermine the popular belief that there really might be progress towards a more just society with democratic control over its basic institutions and concern for human needs and rights.

If socialism is the tyranny of Lenin and Stalin, then sane people will say: not for me. And if that's the only alternative to corporate state capitalism, then many will submit to its authoritarian structures as the only reasonable choice.

With the collapse of the Soviet system, there's an opportunity to revive the lively and vigorous libertarian socialist thought that was not able to withstand the doctrinal and repressive assaults of the major systems of power. How large a hope that is, we cannot know. But at least one roadblock has been removed. In that sense, the disappearance of the Soviet Union is a small victory for socialism, much as the defeat of the fascist powers was. "


... Anyway, hope that helps.

redstar2000
16th January 2004, 08:54
This statement is confusing. perfect communism would be a stateless, non governmental, non hierarchical society with people working according to ability and receiving according to need. I do not think this idealistic in the sense you are wanting it to mean, I think it is a logical conclusion based on material history and an understanding of human ability.

What do you mean by this statement?

I mean it in a "common sense" fashion: humans are not "perfect" and nothing we ever do is "perfect".

I'm also taking a "swipe" at those who think that communism will be "Heaven"...it will not.

A working and functioning communist society will still have short-comings, fuck-ups, etc. We may not be able to predict what they will be...but I find it simply unimaginable that they will not exist.

In a broad sense, I agree with your definition of the framework and shape of communist society...but I hope you and others will understand that there will inevitably be unexpected problems along the way.

If we proceed on the basis of "everything will be perfect after the revolution", then we will be in for some very nasty surprises.

We should be communist realists...striving for what we really want but being prepared to face the complicated problems that will emerge.

The transition from capitalism to communism is not "a piece of cake".


What aspects would you combine?

The principle contribution of the most radical of the anarcho-syndicalists was/is that the transition to communism must begin on day one of the revolution and, moreover, must be undertaken by the working class itself.

No "temporary workers' state", no matter how "radical" or "democratic" it may appear to be, should be constructed to replace the old shattered bourgeois state. No "political center of gravity" can be allowed to form...not even for "good reasons" or from "the highest motives".

And that's going to be a tough idea to get across to a lot of people; even after a huge revolution, there will be well-intentioned folks who will "spontaneously" want a new government--led by "good people" of course--and who will argue vehemently that human society "can't survive" without "centralized power". They have the weight of 10,000 years of class society "on their side".

But the anarcho-syndicalists knew better...and proved it.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

crazy comie
16th January 2004, 15:11
There are various meanings of socialism one is where the means of prouduction is in the hands of the state but the ussr wasn't socialist in the marxist sence. The reassons for the reduction of power of the soviets in russia was becuse of the civl war wich lenin died short after. It could have carried on on a socialist path after the nep if only stalin hadn't interviend and later formed the ussr.

FlightOfTheYuriGagarin
16th January 2004, 15:57
I may be mistaken since I am still a novice on the subject, but after listening in on a meeting of his followers did Marx say, "I am not a Marxist?" If that is true, what did he mean?

redstar2000
16th January 2004, 23:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:57 AM
I may be mistaken since I am still a novice on the subject, but after listening in on a meeting of his followers did Marx say, "I am not a Marxist?" If that is true, what did he mean?
Never exactly well-known for being patient with fools, Marx grew even more short-tempered in his old age.

He did indeed say "As for me, I am no Marxist"...probably in exasperation at some of the follies of his youthful "followers" who called themselves "Marxists".

Considering some of the things that have been said and done "in his name" since then, one can only imagine his fury.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

crazy comie
20th January 2004, 15:04
yes there are probbably a few pepole he might wan't to kill for caming yo use his ideas.