Communism/Socialism/Anarchism

[Deep_Thought]

in my personal opinion of communism socialism and anarchism, they are all relatively the same, or at least strive to be the same. will some one clear this up?

[More Fire for the People]

In a sense, they all are relatively the same as socialism -- the dictatorship of the proletariat -- leads to communism / anarchism. Social anarchist and Communist desire the same type of society but disagree on methodology.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 09:08 AM
In a sense, they all are relatively the same as socialism -- the dictatorship of the proletariat -- leads to communism / anarchism. Social anarchist and Communist desire the same type of society but disagree on methodology.

In a sense, they all are relatively the same as socialism -- the dictatorship of the proletariat -- leads to communism / anarchism.


wrong, god awful wrong. the dictatorship of the proletariat wont solve shit. it wont lead to a better day. there is no light at the end of that tunnel. it is just that same exploitation that the capitalist system has in it. the dictatorship of the prol, only comes about when there is a vanguard, fighting for the rights of others. i say fuck vanguards, fuck the dictatorship of the prolitariat, lets all fight, and overthrow capitalism.

[Roses in the Hospital]

In a theoretical sense Communism and Anarchism are broadly the same, ie. stateless, egalitarian societies with some form of direct democracy. The only major difference is how you get to them: Communists generally belive that there should be some form of significant transitional stage between Capatalism and Socialism, wheras Anarchists belivie that the transitional stage should be as small as possible, or non-existant.
Socialism generally refers to the transitional stage to Communism, including elements from both Capataism and Communism, but can also refer to a left-leaning society which is not in a transition to Communism. For example Britain in the late forties/fifties could be said to have a socialist agenda...

[More Fire for the People]

wrong, god awful wrong. the dictatorship of the proletariat wont solve shit. it wont lead to a better day. there is no light at the end of that tunnel.
Wrong, the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to stop a resurgence of bourgeois ideology -- aka counter revolution.


it is just that same exploitation that the capitalist system has in it. the dictatorship of the prol, only comes about when there is a vanguard, fighting for the rights of others.
The dictatorship of the proletariat puts the proletariat at the level of the ruling class, our suppression of bourgeois ideology will be much more humane than bourgeois suppression of proletarian ideology.

Like Trotsky once suggested, we should send all the bourgeois to an island for life to shut them up.


i say fuck vanguards,
I entirely agree


lets all fight, and overthrow capitalism.
Once again, I entirely agree.

[Forward Union]

Wrong, the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to stop a resurgence of bourgeois ideology -- aka counter revolution.

Do we need a dictatorship in order to fight the bourgeois? are people incapable without a totalitarian state?


The dictatorship of the proletariat puts the proletariat at the level of the ruling class, our suppression of bourgeois ideology will be much more humane than bourgeois suppression of proletarian ideology.

That's a lovely promise, can you write it down? Also, I would like to add, what makes one group of people better at ruling than another group? If the people are ready to overthrow capitalism, then they can surly deal with the remaining forces themselves. There is no need for more totalitarian horror.

[More Fire for the People]

Do we need a dictatorship in order to fight the bourgeois? are people incapable without a totalitarian state?
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a "totalitarian state", but however an inverse of the dictatorship of the bourgeois over the proletarian. In a sense, it is the censorship of an "elitist parasitical minority" by removing them from our society by placing them away from us or censoring their hate speech.


That's a lovely promise, can you write it down? Also, I would like to add, what makes one group of people better at ruling than another group? If the people are ready to overthrow capitalism, then they can surly deal with the remaining forces themselves. There is no need for more totalitarian horror.
Once again, you are equating Marx's concept of a dictatorship with totalitarianism, and this is why you raise objections to it.


This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class — that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people. -- Rosa Luxemburg

[sanpal]

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 18 2005, 04:05 PM
In a theoretical sense Communism and Anarchism are broadly the same, ie. stateless, egalitarian societies with some form of direct democracy. The only major difference is how you get to them: Communists generally belive that there should be some form of significant transitional stage between Capatalism and Socialism, wheras Anarchists belivie that the transitional stage should be as small as possible, or non-existant.
Socialism generally refers to the transitional stage to Communism, including elements from both Capataism and Communism, but can also refer to a left-leaning society which is not in a transition to Communism. For example Britain in the late forties/fifties could be said to have a socialist agenda...
This thought seems to be interesting. Would you, pls, clear up in more details this point, i.e. << Socialism as transitional stage to Communism includes elements from both Capitalism and Communism>>?

[black]

In a theoretical sense Communism and Anarchism are broadly the same

Socialism, Communism and Anarchism ARE the same. In their original and most meaningful sense they do not differ in the slightest. That is as an ideology which rejects in turn hierarchy of power and wealth and works to realise a society where the ordinary people have the greatest control over their own lives and destinies. The latter-day Orthodox Marxists and Authoritarian "Socialists" have misappropriated the terms of the proletarian movement and distorted their definitions to the extent that they don&#39;t mean shit.

BTW, Rotmutter brings up Rosa Luxemburg and her oft-quoted definition of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Incidentally, Rosa split from the Bolsheviks and their practice of the Dictatorship, which very much was totalitarianism. She was to many extents a libertarian and more in agreement with the Anarchists than you&#39;d think.

[Donnie]

Wrong, the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to stop a resurgence of bourgeois ideology -- aka counter revolution.
This needs to be said. The only reason why there is such a big counter revolutionary force is because the Marxists don&#39;t take on board the workers views, I mean obviously the Marxists know the workers want to get rid of capitalism but some workers may have different views and opinions on things and unfortunately a hierarchical "red" army and state does not allow that, so unfortunately some workers get annoyed because their views on how to do things are represented and so they turn on the counter revolutionary.

The revolutionary proletariat and peasantry are completely capable of driving a social revolution to communism without the need of using the state as a tool.

Also if you’re resistance is placed and concentrated in one area you’re much more easily going to be destroyed. However if you organised into autonomous militias and are spaced out all over the country and then federated you’re less likely to be defeated because if you’re resistance is concentrated in one are then you’re more likely to be defeated however if you’re resistance is spread out all over the country and everywhere it’s difficult to attack because you’re resistance is everywhere.

Deep thought this may interest you because this is a fundamental disagreement between a social anarchist and a Marxist.

[Roses in the Hospital]

This thought seems to be interesting. Would you, pls, clear up in more details this point, i.e. << Socialism as transitional stage to Communism includes elements from both Capitalism and Communism>>?

Socialism as a transitional stage is, by definition, the stage between Capatism and Communism, logically therefore it represents something of an amalgamation between the two, the balance between them shifting depending how close to one or the other the society is. As a very broad example, however, it&#39;s probably safe to view transitional Socialism as retaining the State (the level of democracy/workers&#39; control in this State being a massavive area of division on the left) and also retaining a vague class system (i.e. rich and poor would still exist) though a gradual equalisation of wages would hopefully be in progress. Also in socialism concepts such as currency would still be in existance as probably would be national borders whereas under the full implementation of Communism they would be abolished totally. Hope this helps...

[Roses in the Hospital]

This thought seems to be interesting. Would you, pls, clear up in more details this point, i.e. << Socialism as transitional stage to Communism includes elements from both Capitalism and Communism>>?

Socialism as a transitional stage is, by definition, the stage between Capatism and Communism, logically therefore it represents something of an amalgamation between the two, the balance between them shifting depending how close to one or the other the society is. As a very broad example, however, it&#39;s probably safe to view transitional Socialism as retaining the State (the level of democracy/workers&#39; control in this State being a massavive area of division on the left) and also retaining a vague class system (i.e. rich and poor would still exist) though a gradual equalisation of wages would hopefully be in progress. Also in socialism concepts such as currency would still be in existance as probably would be national borders whereas under the full implementation of Communism they would be abolished totally.
Hope this helps...

[sanpal]

Roses in the Hospital wrote:


Socialism as a transitional stage is, by definition, the stage between Capatism and Communism, logically therefore it represents something of an amalgamation between the two, the balance between them shifting depending how close to one or the other the society is. As a very broad example, however, it&#39;s probably safe to view transitional Socialism as retaining the State (the level of democracy/workers&#39; control in this State being a massavive area of division on the left) and also retaining a vague class system (i.e. rich and poor would still exist) though a gradual equalisation of wages would hopefully be in progress. Also in socialism concepts such as currency would still be in existance as probably would be national borders whereas under the full implementation of Communism they would be abolished totally.
Hope this helps...


You have stated in your previous post about elements of Capitalism and Communism in transitional period but in your last post you explain it as something the third one which is not Capitalism and not Communism though close to them (sth Socialism=Capitalism+Communism / 2 ) Where elements were gone to?

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by organic revolution+Aug 18 2005, 03:18 PM--> (organic revolution @ Aug 18 2005, 03:18 PM)
[email protected] 18 2005, 09:08 AM
In a sense, they all are relatively the same as socialism -- the dictatorship of the proletariat -- leads to communism / anarchism. Social anarchist and Communist desire the same type of society but disagree on methodology.

In a sense, they all are relatively the same as socialism -- the dictatorship of the proletariat -- leads to communism / anarchism.


wrong, god awful wrong. the dictatorship of the proletariat wont solve shit. it wont lead to a better day. there is no light at the end of that tunnel. it is just that same exploitation that the capitalist system has in it. the dictatorship of the prol, only comes about when there is a vanguard, fighting for the rights of others. i say fuck vanguards, fuck the dictatorship of the prolitariat, lets all fight, and overthrow capitalism. [/b]
well, i got something to say here: let&#39;s say: dictatorship of the mases, in theory i arnt always proletarians, only in the real world the "mass" always tends to be workers.

and "dictatorship" is sutch an ungly word here, lets say they are in charge ;)

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 18 2005, 04:27 PM

Wrong, the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to stop a resurgence of bourgeois ideology -- aka counter revolution.

Do we need a dictatorship in order to fight the bourgeois? are people incapable without a totalitarian state?


The dictatorship of the proletariat puts the proletariat at the level of the ruling class, our suppression of bourgeois ideology will be much more humane than bourgeois suppression of proletarian ideology.

That&#39;s a lovely promise, can you write it down? Also, I would like to add, what makes one group of people better at ruling than another group? If the people are ready to overthrow capitalism, then they can surly deal with the remaining forces themselves. There is no need for more totalitarian horror.
There is no need for more totalitarian horror.
--&#62; Stalin gave the dictatorship or the proletatiat a bad name :( but in the future, we can learn from the mistakes in the past, and have a similar systhem without the horrors.

[black]

Stalin gave the dictatorship or the proletatiat a bad name

No, it gave itself a bad name the moment it was established by a top-down counter-revolutionary Party against the wishes of the Proletariat, the masses.

Lenin and Trotsky had already got it sussed before Stalin rose to power.

[TheReadMenace]

But if you don&#39;t have the rule of the proletariat to suppress the former capitalists and oppressors, how are things to proceed. I want as much as anyone to have the whole of the people fighting, but at the same time, is it really feasible? Wouldn&#39;t a type of vangaurd be needed to at least motivate the masses?

This is something I&#39;ve always had trouble with, but no one has ever really offered an in-depth analysis, it&#39;s just been either, &#39;We need to repress the capitalists,&#39; or, &#39;the people will work together, we don&#39;t need authority.&#39; Honestly, I want something more logical than either of those explanations, but I don&#39;t know. It&#39;s a tough question...


Andrew

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:08 PM

Stalin gave the dictatorship or the proletatiat a bad name

No, it gave itself a bad name the moment it was established by a top-down counter-revolutionary Party against the wishes of the Proletariat, the masses.

Lenin and Trotsky had already got it sussed before Stalin rose to power.
dont tell me - dont know if your a communist - you think lenin was a bad thing for left in general....he started the big changes... he made the path clear for... all leftist. (he dint invented it, but took the first step) giving critic on figurs that are dead is easy...
or , thats atleast my opinion, no offence.

[More Fire for the People]

Lenin had some relatively good ideas before the October Revolution.
Especially his concept of the need of a First World socialist revolutions and democratic-capitalist (that is land reform, secular state, workers&#39; councils) revolutions in developing countries.

[black]

But if you don&#39;t have the rule of the proletariat to suppress the former capitalists and oppressors, how are things to proceed.

Sure, rule by the proletariat of the proletariat, which negates the existence of a hierarchy that excludes the majority of that proletariat. Popular militias in place of ranked Army, direct democracy in place of no consultation, leadership of "ideas" in place of the few.


you think lenin was a bad thing for left in general

Lenin was a neo-beourgeois dick who murdered and crushed the real workers&#39; movements for a bureaucracy and totalitarian state. Saying he was a bad thing is a bit of understatement. It isn&#39;t easy criticising this guy merely because he&#39;s dead, it&#39;s easy just looking objectively at what happened in Russia in his name. Countless revolutionaries "criticised" him and the Bolsheviks when they were in power, and ofcourse that was a one way ticket to the Cheka&#39;s torture chambers.

"Lenin had some relatively good ideas before the October Revolution."

He appealed to the masses using semi-ANARCHISTIC concepts and ideas that had been around for decades. He was a crappy theoretician in nearly every area except that where he managed to gain support from the "Left", effectively duping them -never putting the libertarianish ideas of the State and Revolution into practice. Before that he held a considerably crude, authoritarian plan for the leadership of a revolution which completely missed the spontaneous mass revolts in Russia.

[*PRC*Kensei]

Mate, without lenin there would be a forum like this now. And ive been in russia last week -sint petersburg-, saw how it was before the revolution there, if you see how the tsaar lived, lenin was damn right by his revolution. The fact that he supported the revolution is Good without doubt for me, How he did it are things that can be discussed.

[Roses in the Hospital]

You have stated in your previous post about elements of Capitalism and Communism in transitional period but in your last post you explain it as something the third one which is not Capitalism and not Communism though close to them (sth Socialism=Capitalism+Communism / 2 ) Where elements were gone to?

If I&#39;m understanding you right you&#39;re quering what how the capatalist elements dissapear from Socialism to create Communism? Yes?

Well, to a certain extent we don&#39;t know for sure &#39;till it happens, and a lot of different people will have different views about how they think it should happen. To give you a very broad example, when the revolution brings about a Socialist government (whatever form that may take)there&#39;s still likely to be an element of economic equality as under Capatalism. However, a Socialist Government would bring in a progressive system of taxation against the rich, and will gradually equalise wages, so that equality eventually dissappears almost completely. Speaking broadly, all the other elements would dissapear in a similar way, being gradually phased out by the government untill the State itself &#39;whithers away&#39; but how or indeed if that that can happen is another and much more complex question...