Is Communism an ideology?

[Redistribute the Rep]

So, we generally agree that Marxism is a methodology, not an ideology. But sometimes I hear people say things like "the communist ideology." Is communism really an ideology? I always thought of more as a social epoch. Does this preclude it from being an ideology? It would be strange to say "the capitalist ideology ", I would think. Your thoughts?

[Lord Testicles]

Ideology
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.


Capitalism and communism are both ideologies.

[Creative Destruction]

well, capitalism is the base of society -- the mode of production. ideology is the superstructure that justifies the mode of production; so, neoliberalism, social democracy, etc. are ideologies of capitalism. should communism ever become the main mode of production, i'm sure ideologies would arise to reinforce it.

[The Feral Underclass]

IT IS A HAMMER WE USE TO CRUSH THE ENEMY!

It probably is an ideology by dictionary definition and I have used the word ideology to describe it often, but I like to see it as a social relationship more than anything else.

[G4b3n]

If you look at some of the conservative writings of the mid-late 20th century, you will see a good deal of them are aimed at placing conservatism on some moral high ground above ideology. In reality, this can be done for communism or any other set of political principles, it really just comes down to semantics and wanting to appear superior to your political opponents, quit pointless really.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Dictionary definitions are not holy writ. In this case, that definition actually seems to put the effect before the cause. We didn't climb out of the primordial slime, wander around for a while, suddenly exclaim "Eureka!" and put ideas into practice as economic policy. Social practices existed in some primitive form before anyone wrote about "ideology".

If both are ideologies, the difference between the two is that one (communism) recognizes the origin of ideas in a historical material context out of which ideas are derived in class consciousness, while the other (capitalism) treats ideas as metaphysical forces, spontaneously appearing out of some inherent "human nature", that we impose on our environment (indeed doesn't admit to being "ideological", as G4b3n just pointed out).

In short, while "materialist idealism" is an oxymoron, maybe "materialist ideology" is not, but materialist ideology does not carry the connotations that the word ideology seems to for many people of being blind, quasi-religious, idealists.

[RedWorker]

Principles of Communism, F. Engels. "What is communism?" - "Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat."


well, capitalism is the base of society -- the mode of production. ideology is the superstructure that justifies the mode of production; so, neoliberalism, social democracy, etc. are ideologies of capitalism. should communism ever become the main mode of production, i'm sure ideologies would arise to reinforce it.

... and this is the kind of nonsense that we often see used when people try to say that communism isn't an ideology. Yes, capitalism is a mode of production, in the same way communism is, but someone who upholds capitalism has a capitalist ideology, and someone who upholds communism has a communist ideology. These ideologies, ideas in people's minds, are, obviously, reflections of the world in the people's mind ultimately determined materially, and thus are part of the superstructure.

[Tim Cornelis]

Draft, thoughts, kinda rambling.

Marx: “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”1 The Stalinist proposes a system that amounts to nothing more than the state monopolisation of the management of capital, or state-capitalism. This system lacks an internal dialectical process that would carry it to communism on its own. The development of communism is then contingent on the will of the leadership to implement reforms that would transform state-capitalism into its opposite. And inversely, the leadership of a socialist government can will socialism in and out of existence, apparently through mere subtle reforms, as the anti-revisionists purport. Communism, to the Stalinist, inadvertently, independently of the Stalinist's pronounced convictions or will, becomes merely an idea to which society has to adjust itself, an idea, moreover, that appears to be placed permanently beyond the horizon. Stalinism is eternally condemned to govern capital, and the ideological dynamics of Stalinism are tied to this peculiar type of capital management; it is locked within this framework, reproducing the logic of capitalism under the veil of socialism. For this reason, Stalinism, and its various derivatives, cannot accurately be regarded as communist if we choose to define it in materialist terms.

...

Nor can we simply assert that there is a communism, as real movement. There needs to be distinction between communism as movement, and the theoretically derived communism from this movement. Marx did not conceive of communism as ideology – ideology functions as class veil; it hides reality, communism does not, it exposes the reality of class society. A 'communist ideology' would be a contradiction in terms to Marx, and he nor Engels spoke of socialist or communist ideology.

Thus, communisms that have developed to theoretically accommodate the movement of and toward communism, and communisms that correspond, in its theory, to the real development of history (Bordiga), can be qualified as communist. The theoretical framework consistent with communism as the real development of history (Bordiga). Those self-styled communisms that do not, are bourgeois-socialist.

[Lord Testicles]

Dictionary definitions are not holy writ.

Obviously not. The reason I posted the dictionary definition is that it was the simplest way to highlight that communism is an ideology.

As I understand it, everyone is ideological whether they know it or not because an ideology is the framework through which you view and understand the world around you, it defines how you interpret an event.

[Dodo]

Very key question.
The first thing is to define ideology of course. In the social-sciences and especially Marxist context, we define ideology as something bigger than whats written in the dictionary(thanks to western Marxism tradition). An ideology is a whole set of thoughts you have regarding how norms of a society should be. Believing that you have to wake up everyday and go to work and viewing this as the "normal state" of things is an ideology.
An ideology is not necessarily fascism, communism, socialism, liberal....etc.
Ideology is in everything you do/believe...etc. The whole set of social constructs that you have adjusted yourself to in physical and intellectual way makes up your ideology.

Now like you said, calling Marxism an ideology would be wrong. Its more of a philosophical stance to look at things. I would not even call it a method, Marxist-methods arose from Marxism but they do not make the essence of Marxism.
Communism on the other hand, the way it is referred to in Marxist rhetoric is a "state of nature", a -potential- negation of today. That communism is not an ideology in-itself.

HOWEVER, communism&socialism as concepts have also became ideological. Check my signature, Marx clarifies this whole question there.
Communism as an abstract term, a definition for a state of nature is one thing.
Communism AS TAUGHT by this or that guy is an ideology and essentially a dogma. Ideologies are dogmas. You believe a set of values-ethics-how things should work etc....in that sense, there are communist ideologies. Multiple communism(s) that had been created as ideologies with sets of values on how things should be viewed, how things should work...there are debates over whether a person is a socialist or not based on his/her life choices. That is an ideology. You judge with values/beliefs of a particular "ideology".

So there are 2 communisms. Communism as a definition, and communism(s)-as well as socialism(s) as ideology.

[Rafiq]

Communism is an ideology. Engels may have referred to it as a "doctrine" but this is not necessarily contradictory. It simply represents consciousness of this ideology, or recognition of its distinct character. If he meant something else - then this is all the more testament to Communism as an ideology - which does not recognize itself as an ideology as such. Marx himself spoke of Communism as a tendency and a movement, not a set of beliefs to be adhered to. That's why categorization as a doctrine is misleading - there is no Communism today we can identify as a doctrine, and adhering today to Communism as a doctrine as it existed during Engel's time would not be Communism.

Communism is an ideology - but Marxism is not. Communism, while being ideological, is also the embodiment of the struggle against ideology as such. Speaking of mao quotes being used in the thread, "We abolish the gun only with the gun" - this is all the more true - we abolish ideology with ideology.

[Rafiq]

Marx did not conceive of communism as ideology – ideology functions as class veil; it hides reality, communism does not, it exposes the reality of class society. A 'communist ideology' would be a contradiction in terms to Marx, and he nor Engels spoke of socialist or communist ideology.


This is alien to the Marxist conception of ideology, though. Ideology as such is not simply a veil which hides reality - it is the manifestation of class interests. You cannot be outside of ideology so long as class society exists - and speaking of a classless society, while possible (I mean, who knows) still does not even exist within proximity of our condition, unless it is utilized ideologically as to characterize the nature or coordinates of the struggle derived from our condition.

Marxism is not synonymous with Communism, even though they may be predisposed to each other. I think that it's very possible for "theoretical" Fascists to incorporate Marxist ideas, you know, about "mediating" class conflict in a way independent of Communism, or abolishing it as such - one thing that may be interesting to is the fact that some Fascist theorists in Italy were staunch Hegelians whose criticism of Marx went beyond him being Jewish and was far less hostile (albeit critical) than the German fascists who didn't even think Marx existed beyond their anti-Semitic fantasies...

What does the world even look like independent of ideology? How is perception even possible in a world which is fundamentally composed of classes, without assuming the perspective of one of those classes?

[Rafiq]

HOWEVER, communism&socialism as concepts have also became ideological. Check my signature, Marx clarifies this whole question there.
Communism as an abstract term, a definition for a state of nature is one thing.
Communism AS TAUGHT by this or that guy is an ideology and essentially a dogma. Ideologies are dogmas. You believe a set of values-ethics-how things should work etc....in that sense, there are communist ideologies. Multiple communism(s) that had been created as ideologies with sets of values on how things should be viewed, how things should work...there is a whole set of debate whether one is a socialist or not based on his/her life choices. That is an ideology.

But ideology is not defined as being a rigid dogma or theory which is to be adhered to. Ideology is more than this, too. When ideology becomes completely explainable, it is no longer adhered to. Ideology, as Althusser said, does not say "I am ideology".

[Dodo]

But ideology is not defined as being a rigid dogma or theory which is to be adhered to. Ideology is more than this, too. When ideology becomes completely explainable, it is no longer adhered to. Ideology, as Althusser said, does not say "I am ideology".

I don't think we are conflicting on this one. I do not think you can point to an ideology exactly and say, "this is my ideology". Ideology is in everybody's mind, it is a product of each individuals dialectical interaction with the existing state of nature around him/her- conscious and unconscious.
That is why I said there are communist "ideologies", not just a communist ideology. It is not identical for everyone, they all have different understanding of the anti-thesis of capitalism in their minds. In the case of radical left however, there are some bulk categories which people try to follow such as Trotskyism, Leninism, Maoism...etc. They make their definitions and create their values on the world-view presented in these particular "tendencies"- that is because there isn't any "natural reactions" like before "communist" ideology now, all reactions today are influenced by the already created -communist- ideologies in the past. One such example would be the Communist Manifesto, it is an ideological work. Thats the thing with "communists", they tend to categorize and organize their "ideological forms"....When Marx was analyzing capitalism, he saw communism in the struggle of people, an ideological bulk in the making, it was not as established like today. After him, it was put on paper countless times...and now, no reaction to capitalism forms without these on paper "communisms" that come along with already established values(approximately). That is something you can point to..not the whole ideology of a person, but it can make-up a great deal of political orientation in a person.

I do not think we can say there is a "communist ideology in-itself", it is all relative and on the flow, thus there are relative ideologies. In the case of radical left, there is an obvious common pool of communism, but like you said, we cannot pinpoint to one set of universal beliefs everyone adheres to.

[Tim Cornelis]

This is alien to the Marxist conception of ideology, though. Ideology as such is not simply a veil which hides reality - it is the manifestation of class interests. You cannot be outside of ideology so long as class society exists - and speaking of a classless society, while possible (I mean, who knows) still does not even exist within proximity of our condition, unless it is utilized ideologically as to characterize the nature or coordinates of the struggle derived from our condition.

Marxism is not synonymous with Communism, even though they may be predisposed to each other. I think that it's very possible for "theoretical" Fascists to incorporate Marxist ideas, you know, about "mediating" class conflict in a way independent of Communism, or abolishing it as such - one thing that may be interesting to is the fact that some Fascist theorists in Italy were staunch Hegelians whose criticism of Marx went beyond him being Jewish and was far less hostile (albeit critical) than the German fascists who didn't even think Marx existed beyond their anti-Semitic fantasies...

What does the world even look like independent of ideology? How is perception even possible in a world which is fundamentally composed of classes, without assuming the perspective of one of those classes?

Ideology is 'simply' (I wouldn't say it's simple) a veil that hides the reality of class society, at least how it was originally conceived. Nowadays I would prefer a more neutral definition of ideology. Ideology may be a manifestation of class interests, but more to this point, ruling class interests. The crux of ideology is is that it represents those class interests of the ruling class as universal, as trans-class. Liberalism doesn't admit to it being in the interests of the ruling class, it veils this behind 'life, liberty, and property'. Communism, in contrast, openly admits that it is a manifestation of class interests, of the working class. The point of communism is to expose the reality of class society, not to veil it behind ideological constructs. It doesn't claim to be equally in the interests of the ruling class, to pursue a general will. This is the fundamental difference.

[Fakeblock]

This is alien to the Marxist conception of ideology, though. Ideology as such is not simply a veil which hides reality - it is the manifestation of class interests. You cannot be outside of ideology so long as class society exists - and speaking of a classless society, while possible (I mean, who knows) still does not even exist within proximity of our condition, unless it is utilized ideologically as to characterize the nature or coordinates of the struggle derived from our condition.

Marxism is not synonymous with Communism, even though they may be predisposed to each other. I think that it's very possible for "theoretical" Fascists to incorporate Marxist ideas, you know, about "mediating" class conflict in a way independent of Communism, or abolishing it as such - one thing that may be interesting to is the fact that some Fascist theorists in Italy were staunch Hegelians whose criticism of Marx went beyond him being Jewish and was far less hostile (albeit critical) than the German fascists who didn't even think Marx existed beyond their anti-Semitic fantasies...

What does the world even look like independent of ideology? How is perception even possible in a world which is fundamentally composed of classes, without assuming the perspective of one of those classes?

While we should recognise that ideology grows out of class struggle, I think you're taking the notion too far. For ideology is not simply a veil, neither is it merely a manifestation of class struggle as such. Rather it grows organically out of our social practice in general. The 'abolition of ideology' would mean the end of society. Ideology reaches down to the very core of the social formation, it's what makes society tick, what makes individuals act according to their given social roles. Abolition of class society would not mean the end of ideology, as such, but the end of class ideology. Not the abolition of the subject in general, but merely the abolition of the class subject. Communist ideology is an ideology like any other, it's ultimate aim being the constitution of 'communist subjects'. It is not a critique of ideology in general, but a critique of bourgeois and reactionary ideology. It does not aim for the 'abolition of ideology', but for the hegemony of Communist ideology.

The world without ideology is the world of the animals (though our conception of them and their relation to us is, of course, also profoundly ideological).

[Dodo]

I agree very much with Fakeblock's definition though I have differing opinions on what communist ideology is. Foremost, I do not see it as one united ideology.

[Tim Cornelis]

I have a different definition of ideology, one I think is more accurate.
More or less coherent view on how the world works, what one wants it to be like, and how to reach it.
Then indeed, ideologies would disappear when socialism exists. If you're saying there'll be ideologies in socialism, then you first need to explain how even feudalism didn't have political ideologies.

[Fakeblock]

I have a different definition of ideology, one I think is more accurate.
More or less coherent view on how the world works, what one wants it to be like, and how to reach it.
Then indeed, ideologies would disappear when socialism exists. If you're saying there'll be ideologies in socialism, then you first need to explain how even feudalism didn't have political ideologies.

By ideology, I mean the conscious and unconscious ideal (i.e. in the domain of ideas) representations of the world that govern the practices and concrete actions of individuals. There has always been a more or less explicit assumption in Marxist discourse that ideology is, to an extent, illusory and that there is a certain disconnection between ideology and the 'real world'. Historical materialism has a 'circular' concept of ideology, in that ideology governs practice, yet is itself derived from the practice it governs (in the last instance from productive practice, i.e. the mode of production).

Social practice, in all its forms, is thus what shapes ideology. Contradiction and antagonism within social practice creates contradictions and antagonisms within ideology, thus leading to the general class nature of specific ideologies. Abolition of class society would therefore not lead to the 'abolition of ideology', but merely to the abolition of class ideology and the class subject.

Communist ideology derives organically from the contradictory nature of capitalist production. However, it is only through political practice, from the Communist movement, that Communist ideology can 'find itself', develop to become the real expression of proletarian interests. The development of Communist ideology, as an independent ideology, thus presupposes the Communist movement. I don't think we can speak of this ideology as an adherence to the prospect of 'communism' as a potential mode of production. Rather Communist ideology is a sort of mass 'ideological universe', which doesn't merely exist in the political field, but in the fields of the arts, morality, family relations, sciences, philosophy and so on.

[Thirsty Crow]

Capitalism and communism are both ideologies.
That would make sense if "capitalism" refered to a system of ideas, and not to a set of practices and mutually enforced rules which obtain in social production. Capitalism isn't an ideology.

In one sense of the word, communism isn't either since it refers to a postulated, possible mode of production. If we use this broad sense of "ideology", then this other facet of the term does indeed represent an ideology.

[RedWorker]

A person who refers to himself as a capitalist (as in ideas, not class) is a person who upholds this system and thus has a capitalist ideology.

[Thirsty Crow]

A person who refers to himself as a capitalist (as in ideas, not class) is a person who upholds this system and thus has a capitalist ideology.
That is a completely ambiguous self-reference since I think people would normally assume that the person who refers to themselves in such a way owns a business of a kind. I think it is more clear to talk about pro-capitalist ideologues and apologists.

[RedWorker]

I've seen anti-communists referring to themselves as 'capitalists'. I have, however, not seen members of the bourgeoisie describing themselves as 'capitalists'.

[Celtic_0ne]

no its a geology

[Dodo]

I've seen anti-communists referring to themselves as 'capitalists'. I have, however, not seen members of the bourgeoisie describing themselves as 'capitalists'.

Capitalism is not an ideology "in-itself", however what we have is capitalism induced-based-created ideologies of the subject.

What I mean is that, by living in a capitalist mode of production, the subjects gets into a dialectical interaction with their surrounding nature that makes up their un-static and constantly changing ideology, i.e his/her take on life, values, norms, beliefs...etc. That could be pro or anti capitalism. But like Rafiq said, its not something you can really "point" to.
At least Marxists view ideology similar to this way.


There is the more simple understanding of ideology like dealing with general concepts such as fascism, nationalism, social democrat....etc. While of course there are big connections, Marxist analysis of ideology generally goes deeper.

[RedWorker]

Upholding capitalism makes capitalism part of your ideology. Obviously. Yes, materially-induced ideology part of the superstructure. Why do people in RevLeft miss simple points?

[Creative Destruction]

I have a different definition of ideology, one I think is more accurate.
More or less coherent view on how the world works, what one wants it to be like, and how to reach it.
Then indeed, ideologies would disappear when socialism exists. If you're saying there'll be ideologies in socialism, then you first need to explain how even feudalism didn't have political ideologies.

In the Marxist conception of what is an "ideology," feudalism did have an ideology, and it largely rested on religion.

[Dodo]

Upholding capitalism makes capitalism part of your ideology. Obviously. Yes, materially-induced ideology part of the superstructure. Why do people in RevLeft miss simple points?

When dealing with an issue like that, a reductionist approach or a simplification can cause so much trouble...especially since there is already a great deal of mis-information regarding Marxist world-view, even Marxists understand Marxism through pop-culture understanding.

Marxist view of the world is not about being followers of some "socialist ideology" while being ultimately against a so-called "capitalist ideology".

Its not an issue of capitalism vs socialism as pop culture reduces it to.
None of these are static terms.
Rather, the deal is that system creates people and people constantly create the system. Some, as we Marxists say, through false-conciousness reproduce the system(where they create their ideology) and some create the anti-thesis of the system(creating their ideology). The ideology however is not static or united-one(hence one of the great issues among Marxists is to unite the global struggle which is divided in many ideologies, whether it be native resistance, sexual liberations, racism, worker's struggles, fight for democracy....etcetc....like fakeblock says, it forms up in the process and practice.

Marx did not create socialism or communism...he analyzed the social problems and saw the creation of a new ideology, a reacting force to the system. Those people did not come out and say "we are of socialist ideology" here to destroy "capitalist ideology".

These details are worth discussing imo in revleft....the point of the forum is our intellectual masturbation after all :D

[RedWorker]

"People" don't "create capitalism". The material forces create capitalism. The given ideas at any time - which adapt to fit these material forces - only alter its particular expression, its form.

And nothing you said refutes what I said; you went after some invented points, not actual ones - as if I had said something I actually didn't. To say that there are "several ideologies in capitalism, of which capitalism is not one" makes no sense. Somebody could as well be a liberal in communism, just like someone can advocate a return to feudal times in capitalism. And somebody can have a capitalist ideology in capitalism, by advocating for the current system.

Now, obviously, capitalism and communism are modes of production, and these modes of production form the base, yes, nobody disputes that. The word 'communism' can refer to three things: a) the communist society and mode of production, b) the communist movement, and c) the ideology of the communist movement.

I haven't said details shouldn't be discussed; I said people are missing basic points, which need to be-started and re-formulated several times. It's like we're boxing and you people start punching empty space or the wall.

[Rafiq]

Ideology is 'simply' (I wouldn't say it's simple) a veil that hides the reality of class society, at least how it was originally conceived. Nowadays I would prefer a more neutral definition of ideology. Ideology may be a manifestation of class interests, but more to this point, ruling class interests. The crux of ideology is is that it represents those class interests of the ruling class as universal, as trans-class. Liberalism doesn't admit to it being in the interests of the ruling class, it veils this behind 'life, liberty, and property'. Communism, in contrast, openly admits that it is a manifestation of class interests, of the working class. The point of communism is to expose the reality of class society, not to veil it behind ideological constructs. It doesn't claim to be equally in the interests of the ruling class, to pursue a general will. This is the fundamental difference.

Right, just as nationalists admit that they are a manifestation of their specific "national" interests and so on. Communism may be true (i.e. Marxism), or a more accurate representation of the world, but it is not adhered to because it is accurate or because it is true. It is ideological. Communism is more than just class-consciousness: Understanding the nature of power, understanding the world does not equip you with the vitality to change it. Communism is thus an affirmative belief, a cause which has driven men and women to die for.

At face value, we categorize Communism simply as "an understanding of the world" - or the strive for a "better society". However this can only ever be a categorization at face value. What matters about Communism is not a matter of doctrine, but the implications of this doctrine and its relationship to the real world and our current condition. What does it mean that we are class-conscious? It means we pursue and adopt specific demands, be they immediate or revolutionary, we adopt specific positions - the true mark of a real ideology deriving from present conditions is its ability to have a place and a say in all issues which are pertinent to the circumstances of its development as an ideology. A Romanian nationalist, for example, would be unable to account for anything that does not pertain to Romania.

Which is precisely why Communism has been so strong throughout the past two centuries: Communism is a truly universal ideology in that it can consistently account for the whole world, despite other ideologies claiming to cross national lines. What can, for example, an Islamist, who would claim that Islam is trans-national, account for in these niches of 'cultural/identity -political' conflict in the developed world? We can then assess that Islamism's prominence in the countries from which it derives works, but its function in the west is different: Be it as an expression of immigrant-community isolation or conservatism, or a degenerate fad comparable to Eastern spiritualism. Communism, ideologically, is the same everywhere (IF it were to exist - which I claim it does not presently).

Communism projects a completely whole universe, a world - Communism is not simply a single identifiable idea, it is a caravan of ideas with an understanding of the world. All of the prevailing trends today: liberal-feminism, the gay rights movement, anti-racism, all of these single-issue campaigns, only Communism consistently binds them to the same world.

Another thing: Communism itself would be as true (In that it truly represents a class interest) as any other ideology if not for Marxism. Within the confines of academia, of study-halls and research institutes, humans may try as best as they can to speak the language of truth. But when it comes to what motivates us to challenge the existing order, to beat back dominant ideological forces and to get on the streets, truth alone can never suffice. Humans do not speak the language of truth, humans quite simply do not care for it. We are not spectators equipped with the mechanisms to understand objective reality. All we have is ideology, collectively, socially refined systems of ideas deriving from our relationships to each other and the relations of power. Without this, we are animals.

... Unless of course, we understand truth as a human concept and not synonymous with objective reality, but the correct interpretation or conception of objective reality (in a way that makes it more than being relative). Which is very possible, though we should save it for another discussion.



The world without ideology is the world of the animals (though our conception of them and their relation to us is, of course, also profoundly ideological).

You are correct, but your also wrong. The composition or the function of ideology will always remain among humans - this I have always held. However, in a hypothetical society free of class antagonisms, this would not be called ideology but our "human biases" - because the only antagonism in the domain of truth there on out would be between our perception as humans and objective reality. Ideology only exists because of class antagonism and different relationships to production: Otherwise there would be only one ideology, just as there would only be one class: There would be no ideology and there would be no class.

Of course as animals with definite mode(s) of survival and organization, our consciousness and objective reality will never be synonymous. What separates man from animal is man's ability to change the world around him, rather than adapt to it. "Communism" would not be a static mode of production, not the end of history, but history from then on as men and women's will, the process of change will become a conscious matter.

I only refer to "Communism" in this matter, however, not because I seek to describe a potential hypothetical future, but I seek to, through an abstract scenario, present the nature and function of ideology today.


Marx was analyzing capitalism, he saw communism in the struggle of people, an ideological bulk in the making, it was not as established like today. After him, it was put on paper countless times...and now, no reaction to capitalism forms without these on paper "communisms" that come along with already established values(approximately). That is something you can point to..not the whole ideology of a person, but it can make-up a great deal of political orientation in a person.

Which is precisely why the idea of Communism presented by communists today is an impossibility: the Communist movement as such does not exist, we are therefore unable to even conceptualize what a "post-capitalist" society might look like if the forces to supersede the conditions of capitalism do not exist. For Marx Communism was never a state of affairs to be achieved. This wasn't simply a matter of dialectics for him. When Marx described Communism (i.e. in the German ideology), he did so in order to express the ideological character of Communism as it existed during his time as a movement. Communism as a movement is ideological because it represents a specific projected universe completely distinct from others. It was a hypothetical abstraction for him meant to characterize the movement to supersede the present state of things: Or more specifically, as a means to explain our society.

When Marx said "fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." He wasn't trying to make the idea of a post-capitalist society sound appetizing. He was trying to allow us to understand our present condition, that is, the presence of fixed roles, or duties consuming the entirety of our livelihoods, rendering us unable to live our lives the fullest was not natural, but an imposition.

We must not forget what the word means, after all: it refers to the Commons, the movement of the commons as it exists in capitalist society.

[Dodo]

well rafiq, thats a pretty awesome explanation the way I see it

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The best way I find to explain this is that capitalism and communism are both over-arching social systems. They do not change from one to the other with an election or change of government. They are the systems that are defined by the social, political, and economic relationships between the people that live in said social system.

Within capitalism and communism, there are ideologies. These may change between governments, and elections. Within capitalism you have ideologies like conservatism, centrism, liberalism, social democracy etc. Within communist thought you have ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism, Anarchism, Maoism, Trotskyism.

There is probably a better way to explain this but I think the point still stands that capitalism and communism both contain ideologies, but are not themselves ideologies in the sense that they are greater than mere ideas/ideals.

[Illegalitarian]

"People" don't "create capitalism". The material forces create capitalism. The given ideas at any time - which adapt to fit these material forces - only alter its particular expression, its form.

And nothing you said refutes what I said; you went after some invented points, not actual ones - as if I had said something I actually didn't. To say that there are "several ideologies in capitalism, of which capitalism is not one" makes no sense. Somebody could as well be a liberal in communism, just like someone can advocate a return to feudal times in capitalism. And somebody can have a capitalist ideology in capitalism, by advocating for the current system.

Now, obviously, capitalism and communism are modes of production, and these modes of production form the base, yes, nobody disputes that. The word 'communism' can refer to three things: a) the communist society and mode of production, b) the communist movement, and c) the ideology of the communist movement.

I haven't said details shouldn't be discussed; I said people are missing basic points, which need to be-started and re-formulated several times. It's like we're boxing and you people start punching empty space or the wall.


Yeah, this makes sense to me.

Capitalism and communism are socioeconomic systems that encompass entire historical epochs, they are not simply ideologies.


As others have said, there is the capitalist base and the ideologies that shape and define it that rise out of it - which are part of the superstructure - (neoliberalism, social democracy, all modern economic theories, etc), then there is communism as a base, with its own ideologies and economic theories.