marxism and communism?

[ComradeRed]

OK, I just wanted to double check that I had the definitions correct.
Marxism- The theory that the oppressed will rise up against the bourgeoisie and share the capital equally.

Communism- the socio-economic theory pertaining to a classless society.

[Anarchist Freedom]

they are the same...



:che:


CGLM! (http://www.cglm.net)

[Morpheus]

They are not the same. Communism is older than Marxism. Marxism is a philosophy based on the ideas of Karl Marx. It includes a heck of a lot more than "that the oppressed will rise up against the bourgeoisie and share the capital equally." There's labor theory of value, materialism, a theory of history and other stuff.

Communism is the theory that classes, money and markets should be abolished in favor of a society organized along the lines of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." All Marxists are communists but not all communists are marxists.

[redstar2000]

I always try to advise people not to attempt "short" definitions of "big" terminology.

It usually ends up being so confusing or misleading or both that you end up having to give the "long" definition anyway.

If someone presses you to "define communism", make them sit down and participate in a lengthy discussion. Ask them what they think it means. Then, they'll at least leave with a decent idea of what they're against...or perhaps what they may decide they're for.

"Sound bites" just don't get the job done.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

Marxism is a misonomer. Marx said he was not a Marxist. We should follow him if only that example alone. Marx advocated communism. In this simple form all of my politics are derived from the consequences.
From Marx. I dont remember which book or letter it was in.


I am selfish I want the world
I am selfless I want to share it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Marxism is a wide ranging set of political, social and eonomic theories. I accept some, such as his theory on labour and historical materialism and to some extend dialectical materialism. But then there are theories sucha s the dictatorship of the proletariat, which he was very very vague about, which I reject altogether.

Communism was Marx's theory of an ideal society but as it has been said it was not him which conceptualized the idea first. Marx just turned it into something of a science. He worked out why soceity was it the way it was, how it developed, the position of the working class, and what it should be like. He did attempt to work out how to get there but the theory was very dated and he wasnt very sure on it himself. What you also have to remember is that he was German, and at the time the concept of the State for germans was a good thing. Hegel was a huge statist but probably regarded himself as quite radical. Also remember than the state as a modern entity was quite new then and the idea that a state could do anything else but be useful was not widly accepted then...Except for Bakunin, Malatesta and Kropotkin who really were advanced thinkers for their times.

[peaccenicked]

Here we have in chapter 3 of the 'State and revolution' a extremely not out of context quote from marx estimating his own contribution.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...rev/ch02.htm#s3 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch02.htm#s3)

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:30 AM
Here we have in chapter 3 of the 'State and revolution' a extremely not out of context quote from marx estimating his own contribution.
I don't know whether or not it's out of context becuase i havn't read the full letter but if that letter contains any reference to the dictatorship of the proletariat other than that one then it is out of context. Lenin quotes marx as supporting 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' then goes on to apply the quote to his (lenin's) definition of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat.' This is something Lenin does throughout 'state and revolution' as well as refusing to recognise that marx and engles were not the same person and that they did both change their opinions over time.

[peaccenicked]

The passage is abundantly clear. Why does anyone need to pussy about with the facts. Marx did not believe that the State would be abolished without a transitional period. Also Anarchists seem to be under the dire illusion that Marx and Engels (and Lenin) were refferring to a national revolutions. How can one talk about failed revolution if there has never been one on a world scale.
Why deliberately misread something to justify ones own quasi religious fantasies.

[Morpheus]

Also Anarchists seem to be under the dire illusion that Marx and Engels (and Lenin) were refferring to a national revolutions. How can one talk about failed revolution if there has never been one on a world scale.

Please explain how the failure of the revolution to spread caused:
-The creation of a centrally planned economy in late 1917
-The raids on Anarchists in April 1918
-The beginning of the dismantling of the Factory Committees in March 1918
-The Gerrymandering of the Soviets in Spring & Summer of 1918

These things began prior to the civil war & prior to the end of WW1. World Revolution was still a real possibility at this time. If the revolution was to spread it would have done so after these things already started (1919 was the height of unrest).

[peaccenicked]

The failure of the revolution to spread was a disaster in the minds of the revolutionaries. It meant those regions liberated from Tsarism and nascent bourgeios rule had to become fortresses in a holding opperation which would inevitably fail if the revolution did not indeed spread. The bolsheviks knew this.
Central planning was certainly a feature of the world first successful taking of power by workers councils{soviets}. The revolution forces gave power away to the bolsheviks under the guise whether you believe it or not of dealing with the armed invasion of 22 armies. It was inevitable that what was ideal could not be made real and democracy was severely damaged
as Lenin himself recognised. He described the young soviet republic as a "workers and peasants state with gross bureaucratic distortions.
I cannot defend raids on anarchists because it is simply undemocratic not to say brutal. Yet I suspect were tarnished by their bourgeios individualist traditions as Engels describes in Bakuninists at work. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/) Not that makes it justifiable.
The Soviets gave their power away. Ask Chomsky. He descibes it as the first time in history that power has been given away. In hindsight it was a mistake. Yet considering the severity of the armed invasion and our lack of experience of democratic armies. I would have voted for the temporarary passover myself. Yet as we know the passover was anything but temporary.
As to gerrymandering. I dont tink that case has been proved.

[SittingBull47]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 06:25 AM
I always try to advise people not to attempt "short" definitions of "big" terminology.

It usually ends up being so confusing or misleading or both that you end up having to give the "long" definition anyway.


yep. some summaries just can't do a true idea justice. Some just end up bastardizing the theory.
(no offense to the creator of the topic).

[Dune Dx]

Why did they name marxism after Marx if he said (as u will see in my sig) "all I know is that I am not a Marxist"

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Because they are his ideas, that comment is in relation to the social democrats who Marx didnt believe understood his ideas.

You can rip anything out of context and thats an excellent example.

Although perhaps Marxism-Engelism is the proper title.

[Subversive Rob]

Why did they name marxism after Marx if he said (as u will see in my sig) "all I know is that I am not a Marxist"

Because Marx said it in specific circumstances in reference to a [/I]specific[I] organisation. He was talking about the French Marxists whose interpretations he disagreed with.

[peaccenicked]

Subversive Rob.
You are correct factually, in the historical circumstances that Marx referred
to those using his name to put forward ideas he had no truck with.
I think though he was making or at least conatating a wider witticism about
the fetishisation of heroes.