Communism and Marxism

[Ultra-Violence]

Is ther a difference between communism and marxism and if there is whats the difference?

[KptnKrill]

Communism is supposed to be an end result. Marxism is the process of how you get there. That said there are other processes besides marxism that are used to achieve communism. It's important to note that fact.

[Clarksist]

Karl Marx, bless his heart, does not have a philosophical patent on communism. In fact the "idea" isn't even his. That being said, he did do a lot to clarify it.

Marxism is the idea that after class struggle socialism should come to rise and also the dictatorship of the proletariat (one of the most confused terms in Marx's entire lexicon). Once that occurs the state will magically turn into a communist society in the dead of night by way of pixie dust and fairy-angels.

Communism is not just the outcome of Marxist progression, but also a completely seperate entity. Under Communism all dictating government organs are ultra-democratic unions or councils. And the means of production are entirely in the hands of the people. (I refrained from using proletariat... because we all know classes will cease by then. ;) )

[Hiero]

Marxism is also used in modern sociology, but not to the revolutionary side of things or using people like Lenin.

[encephalon]

a lot of the time in sociology they call the marxist theory "conflict theory" in order to distance it from the more political side of it.

Basically, Communism is a political extension of Marxism. Although "communism" was more unified back in the late 1800s, it now has a lot of different meaning. One can be a marxist without being a communist, and to an extent one can be a communist without being a marxist.

Things became a lot more confusing with the russian revolution and the bolshevik-menshevik split.. around then, communists started disagreeing with one another about what constitutes as "communism" a lot more than they did beforehand. In essence, though, all communist ideologies stem from marxism.. many add a lot more to it, however.

[Hiero]

a lot of the time in sociology they call the marxist theory "conflict theory" in order to distance it from the more political side of it.


Yeah that is what i have noticed, they also water it down with some other post modern ideas.

[Black Dagger]

In International Political Economy they use 'neo'-marxism, which they usually call 'critical theory', and there's also 'dependency theory'- which is another 'neo'-marxist theory used in politics/IPE, basically used to explain the relationship between states within the international system. 'Core' states consisting of the advanced capitalist countries, 'semi-periphery' states making up sort of a middle class of nation states, nations like India and China, and then 'periphery' states- which are the 'undeveloped' LA, African, Asian countries. 'Core' states exploit the semi and periphery states etc.

[Palmares]

I believe these terms differ in this way:

Communism is a general term referring to the ideologies linked to Marxism. That is, all ideologies that have generally the same means and end goal as Marxism. This is where socialism is different, as it is even more board, referring to all ideologies accepting a communistic economic system, yet with the presence of a constant state.

Marxism is a narrow term referring to a strict (or at least more strict) adherence to the political beliefs the Marx espoused.

For example, a Maoist is a communist, but not Marxist. Someone who believes in a fair amount of Marxism but differs on a major issue, like the dictatorship of the proletariat, et cetara, is not a Marxist, but is communist.

[cph_shawarma]

Communism = "a movement for the abolition of the present state of things" (Karl Marx's German Ideology)

Marxism = in some cases a closed, ideological system used in the stalinist parties and countries, but also in left communist sects. But also a term to define a link to Marx and certain marxists and in this sense it is an anti-ideological anti-systemic thought, which is out to "change the world".

Communism has historically arisen in several forms, from anarcho-communism (most of the "great" anarchists have called themselves communists: Bakunin, Durruti, the platformists etc.) to authoritarian(1) communism (with persons like Marx, Engels, Bordiga and myself).

In my honest opinion anarcho-communism suffers from several delusions, which authoritarian(1) communism does not suffer.

Notes
1. authoritarian is here the acknowledgement that the proletariat must use authority and coercion in the process of its own dissolution.

[Hiero]

For example, a Maoist is a communist, but not Marxist

How so? Maoist still use the basics of Marxism and Mao always referred to Marx. Being a Maoist is that you agree with Maoist extension on Marxism.

[enigma2517]

A lot of it is semantics really.

First off, all Marxists are communists, but not all communists are marxists (like anarcho-communists for instance) ;)

I'm not sure about the Mao thing but yes it would be an extension rather than just not Marxist. He made some additions yes, like peasant revolution and all that, but I still think its along the same path. Your definition would probably depend on how "purist" you feel about Marxism.

Hope that helps

[OleMarxco]

Marxism is the theoratical way of thinking that led to Communism, and Communism is the practical model based of Marxism - As simple as that :P

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 09:53 PM
Karl Marx, bless his heart, does not have a philosophical patent on communism. In fact the "idea" isn't even his. That being said, he did do a lot to clarify it.

Marxism is the idea that after class struggle socialism should come to rise and also the dictatorship of the proletariat (one of the most confused terms in Marx's entire lexicon). Once that occurs the state will magically turn into a communist society in the dead of night by way of pixie dust and fairy-angels.

Communism is not just the outcome of Marxist progression, but also a completely seperate entity. Under Communism all dictating government organs are ultra-democratic unions or councils. And the means of production are entirely in the hands of the people. (I refrained from using proletariat... because we all know classes will cease by then. ;) )
Under communism there is no democracy because there is no state.

[Holocaustpulp]

Communism is both the end result of socialism and anarchy. Socialism is advocated by Marx. Marxism is one form of attaining communism, but there is no difference.

- HP

[Hiero]

I'm not sure about the Mao thing but yes it would be an extension rather than just not Marxist. He made some additions yes, like peasant revolution and all that, but I still think its along the same path. Your definition would probably depend on how "purist" you feel about Marxism.

Maoism is class war and dailectical and historical materialism. Maoism is applying marxism to todays third world. Mao didn't create the basics of Maoism.

[encephalon]

irst off, all Marxists are communists, but not all communists are marxists (like anarcho-communists for instance)

This is wrong, at least half-wrong.. not all marxists are communists. Most American Marxists wouldn't call themselves communists. But you are right in the second part: not all communists are marxists.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:00 PM

For example, a Maoist is a communist, but not Marxist

How so? Maoist still use the basics of Marxism and Mao always referred to Marx. Being a Maoist is that you agree with Maoist extension on Marxism.
Extension is the operative word. It deviates, or seperates itself in one way or another from the strict writings of Marxism.

Afterall, it is quite abitrary to say one ideology is the "extension" of Marxism, due to how many actually say it.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Rotmutter+Jun 11 2005, 03:55 PM--> (Rotmutter @ Jun 11 2005, 03:55 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 09:53 PM
Karl Marx, bless his heart, does not have a philosophical patent on communism. In fact the "idea" isn't even his. That being said, he did do a lot to clarify it.

Marxism is the idea that after class struggle socialism should come to rise and also the dictatorship of the proletariat (one of the most confused terms in Marx's entire lexicon). Once that occurs the state will magically turn into a communist society in the dead of night by way of pixie dust and fairy-angels.

Communism is not just the outcome of Marxist progression, but also a completely seperate entity. Under Communism all dictating government organs are ultra-democratic unions or councils. And the means of production are entirely in the hands of the people. (I refrained from using proletariat... because we all know classes will cease by then. ;) )
Under communism there is no democracy because there is no state. [/b]
Aha, so you mean freedom to choose "the ruler" is impossible because there is no "the government"? You need to clarify this, because else it could be misunderstood. What you are meaning is that you can&#39;t vote in a new party leading the state, correct? Therefore it is not (indirect) democracy in THAT sense, it would still be direct democracy with communes (hence the name) because of we&#39;re not removin&#39; democracy like that, heck, democracy is independant of the state or so. It&#39;s just freedom of choosing how and who runs things... only we&#39;re removing the latter, since everyone&#39;s in charge always, just not always in the same positions <_<