Define my ideology

[Geddan]

Hi comrades, now it’s time for me to write again, and this time I would like to you label something. The thing I want you to label is my ideology!!! I hear a damn lot about trotskism, stalinism, kimism, maoism and so on, and in order to label myself I hereby summarize my ideology, for you to label:

I believe that the only way to form a classless society is by revolution. The power of reforms shall not be underestimated and they can be used, however reforms aren’t sufficient. A communist society can’t grow forth from within a capitalist society if one shall use the rules set up by the capitalists. The argument against a revolution is that it might cost human lives, but that isn’t necessary, a “violent revolution” doesn’t necessarily mean killing.

I believe in a special sort of democratic centralism which I have “invented” or whatever you call it. To summarize my democratic centralism one could mention a sort of constitution which is set up before the revolution which the party has to follow (the constitution should be something like that when the central committee of the party does something un-democratic such as stunting free opinions, then it should be seen as contra-revolutionary and be expelled), and that a sort of parliament is set up within the party, where every commune which has joined the revolution is represented. The central committee and the party shall not have absolute power over local communes, only in certain questions such as defence questions, some economy and justice questions, and so on… Centralised power on certain questions, decentralised on others, a strong local commune is what I promote. I do, however, see the party as necessary. Militant trade unions serve the purpose of taking over individual corporations during the revolution so that the economy can be organized directly after the revolution. The party shall be a political arena which every commune, group, individual and so forth supporting a revolution can join.

I believe that a single socialist country can’t exist if it doesn’t become isolationist, and isolationist socialist countries would in almost all cases lead to authoritarianism (which I see as contra-revolutionary) and/or starvation, since not many countries can support themselves without trade. If the country starts trading, the country’s resources will become of interest of the outside imperialist forces and the country will have to adapt itself to outside the bourgeoisie for maximum “aid” from foreign corporations, which will make the country revert to capitalism. The revolutionary party should cooperate with other revolutionaries in other countries to make sure that the rest of the world capitalism can be overthrown about the same time. Thus I speak for a world revolution.

In industrial countries I don’t see that the peasant class shouldn’t be focused on as much as the workers. Here in Sweden, the peasants are conservative since their farms are effectively corporations. If a peasant wants to join the revolution he won’t, of course, be denied it, but focus must always be on the proletariat.

Every commune shall effectively be a government, with the party having more power on certain questions which every, as defence. In the party parliament, chosen representatives should decide for each commune (he/she should however be under the direct control of the commune, if they don’t like him, he will be kicked).

My constitution I have invented, which the party leadership has to follow or be considered contra-revolutionary, says this:

1.Only when a majority of the population supports a revolution the party shall revolt.
2.Only revolutionaries can be members of the party, but ALL revolutionaries should be able to be members of the party (and democratic socialists and reform communists should be allowed in if they want to), not just those who support a specified branch of socialism (Castroism, Stalinism, Trotskyism…)
3.If any member of the leading powers of the party (central committee, parliament) should support acts which are hostile towards people rights, such as genocide, then the person(s) in question should have their authorities taken from them.
4.If free speech and free opinion is violated by any member of the leading powers of the party, then these members should have their authority taken from them.
5.The parliament members should be chosen by every party member (and thus revolution supporter) throughout the country. Each geographic unit chooses their representative. If a single representative should violate other people’s rights or his commune’s rights, then he should have his authority taken from him.
6.The parliament should have veto rights against the central committee, and the people should have veto rights against the parliament. This could only be done in bigger questions, but are necessary.
7.The leading powers of the party shall only have authority in certain questions (as mentioned).
8.The revolutionary army should include every revolutionary, even if they fight or not. Those in the army who doesn’t fight shall have a right to decide with other members of the army. This is to prevent the army from becoming a lobbyist organ of a single greedy person.

The army should obey the parliament and thus be under the people’s indirect command.

So now, what do you think? What ideologies can you trace in my ideology? Please help me out

[TXsocialist]

Leninist-lite - more democracy, yet some of the same principals...

[Geddan]

Democracy is essential :)

[Larissa]

Sorry 'bout this stupid post, but It's good to know I'm not the only one who's lost regarding labelling one's own ideology!

[redstar2000]

Reminds me a little of Rosa Luxembourg.

Also a little of the very early communist parties...say 1918 to 1920. They were initially very democratic...possibly because Lenin's "hard" centralism hadn't been translated into other European languages yet.

I'm biased towards the label "communist"--inspite of all the bad historical associations, I think Marx and Engels would have had no serious problem with your views.

:cool:

[TXsocialist]

Yea - I would definitely join a 1920's-30's CPUSA; however, not today :(

The 'label' of communist now connotates "Stalinist," So i go with socialist or Marxist...

[Geddan]

Wow Redstar2000, Rosa Luxemburg, the leader of the Spartakusbund with Karl Liebknecht? Well, I don't know much about her, but am I right in assuming it is not an insult being compared to her? ;)

Could someone tell me about Rosa Luxemburg? I am eager to know about her :]

[redstar2000]

NOT an insult.

http://marxists.org is the place to go. Follow the links to Rosa Luxembourg and you will find a ton of stuff.

Good reading! :cool:

[Saint-Just]

Your view seems to be basic Marxism-Leninism.
Apart from these:

'1.Only when a majority of the population supports a revolution the party shall revolt.'

-The majority of the population will most likely not be politicised to support it until the bourgeoisie is overthrown.

'4.If free speech and free opinion is violated by any member of the leading powers of the party, then these members should have their authority taken from them.'

-For this I will let you read Lenins words from his 'What Is To Be Done?':
"Freedom" is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed. The modern use of the term "freedom of criticism" contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old.

Your idea of communes is identical to the idea of soviets, a collection of workers from a specific area having powers of governance.

I do not think calling yourself a communist connotes 'Stalinism'. The main 'brand' of communism is Marxism-Leninism.

All communist countries in their revolutions followed Marxism-Leninism. Here are the main sections on the left. Many are linked, such as Anti-Revisionism is linked with Maoism, Kimism, Lenisism etc. And Trotskyism is linked with Luxemburgism and Libertarian Communism. You are nearly every single one except a Social Democrat, Stalinist, Khrushchevist or Anarchist. You exhibit Kimism, Hoxhaism and Maoism but to a lesser extent as they would disagree with your statements on free speech and international revolution. There are 2 different interpretations of Leninism and you exhibit the Trotskyist interpretation but and to a lesser extent the other interpretation which people would describe as the Stalinist one.

Anarchism
Anti-Revisionism
Bolshevism
Castroism
Christian Socialism
Communism
Democratic Socialism
Hoxhaism
Khrushchevism
Kimism
Leninism
Libertarian Communism
Luxemburgism
Maoism
Marxism
Marxism-Leninism
Reform Communism
Social Democracy
Socialism
Stalinism
Trotskyism

In a way many of these names have little relevance, since they are often very similar and the lines between them are blurred. It is my opinion that nearly all of these names come under Marxism-Leninism, I regard the term 'Stalinism' as a word created by the western media to discredit communists. I would not describe anyone as a Stalinist. Social Democracy and Anarchy do not fall under communism and Khrushchevism is reformist communism and therefore rather more like social democracy (social democracy not at all communism).

I would call yourself a communist and more accurately a Marxist-Leninist. You follow these two views, Marxism and Leninism, anything else does not really matter since they are just developements of Marxism-Leninism.

[Geddan]

I thank you Chairman Mao for your insight, it is a joy to read what you guys think :) Then, Marxist-Leninist it is, whatever branch it might be. Thanks for the help!

[Saint-Just]

I'm not sure I made myself entirely clear. Marxism Leninism is basically what all these branches, as you called them, are derived from. Thus all communists are basically Marxist-Leninists. Trotsky and Luxemburg had different ideas to say Kim Il Sung or Hoxha or Mao. However, they would all describe themselves as Marxist-Leninist, thats what Che was too.

You could explore your beliefs further and look at which of these various ideologies you agree with. But it is a waste of time naming yourself a Luxemburgist or Castroist since it is unnecessary. From what you have said you would certainly agree with Luxemburg as redstar 2000 stated. She looked towards the communes idea you talk about where the power comes up from these soviets/communes or as I think she said guilds (not sure about that at all, can't remember and she wrote originally in German). She saw the USSR as too 'authoritarian and bureaucratic' under Stalin and just as bad as the Imperialist states such as U.S. She thought that in the U.S. you had economic inequality and under Stalin although there was economic equality you had political inequality.

I do not go into any debates about Stalin however and have absolutely no opinion of him or his practices. So this is only what she said and I do not agree or disagree since I will not debate about because I view it as counter-revolutionary as in counter productive to the movement to debate Stalin.

[Rob]

I don't think that people need to define themselves by a single name for an ideology. It seems to me that once people do that, they'll just allow themselves to be defined with their ideology, and end up so bound by that ideology that they'll lose sight of what really works.

[sin miedo]

I couldn't agree more, Robby.

[Geddan]

Chairman Mao, you made yourself perfectly clear and I accepted calling myself Marxist-Leninist since then I won't need to specify further.

And as for the Stalin/Luxemburg thing: Rosa Luxemburg were dead before Stalin came to power.

And to talk about Stalin, I won't get into a debate about him contra Trotsky, I don't know who's the better guy. Stalin did a well job building Russia up, although he's got a bad rumour (Gulags, antisemitism and so forth), and Trotsky did some good things as well, but he were expelled for being ex-Menshevik, so I don't want to get into debates about that.

[Saint-Just]

Sorry, that Stalin/Luxemburg thing, I mean thats what Luxemburgists believe, not Luxemburg herself.

Yes, thats similar to my opinion of Stalin and Trotsky.

[Geddan]

Chairman Mao, I have a question for you (I am eager for knowledge), could you enlighten me on Mao Zedong?

[Som]

Thus all communists are basically Marxist-Leninists.

Hardly.

Leninism implies the vanguard party, which always has a trail of elitism with it. Leninism is not about a mass working class movement, it wants the few to create it from above.

This is not something quite a lot of marxists, much less communists, would agree with.
Its not even fair to say that all communists are basically marxists even, though that usually connotates the same label.

[redstar2000]

Som is quite right, of course. Being a "Marxist" simply implies that you've read & grasped Marx's methods of understanding social reality. Being a "communist" simply implies that you endorse the goal of a classless society.

Then, it gets complicated...like everything else. Being a "Leninist" implies that revolution can only happen under the leadership of a "vanguard party."

But which Lenin? The "Leninist" party of 1902 was still pretty democratic...they had real arguments at party congresses. This was much the same kind of thing that happened early on in the communist parties that formed in the immediate aftermath of the October Revolution.

By 1921, that was over with and the CPSU(B) became essentially monolithic...at least as far as the rank-and-file were concerned. Throughout the 1920s and into the 1930s, the same thing happened in other parties. They became "Stalinist"...though the steps that made that possible were taken under Lenin's leadership.

The Trotskyist parties still maintain a nominally democratic structure...but, from what I've read, the leadership of those parties behave in ways very similar to the "Stalinist" parties.

The Maoist parties admire Stalin and are structured in basically the same way.

The only real "wild card" that I know of is the Cuban Communist Party...I really don't know how they arrange their internal politics or how much real debate and discussion goes on. It's not the sort of thing that the bourgeois media is really anxious to tell us.

Be careful with labels; once you start using one or more of them, people "in the know" will make assumptions about your political views that may not be justified...which could cause you unnecessary problems, to say the least.

:cool:

[Saint-Just]

redstar2000 and Som; I agree with many of the things you have said. I merely mean to state that all communists are basically Marxist-Leninists. I believe this in that virtually all communists are Marxist-Leninists. Technically all communists are Marxists since the label 'communist' was invented by Marx. I would agree that there are a number of individuals who profess to be communists and do not follow Marx's 'methods of understanding social reality' yet do strive for a classless society. Overall though I thinks it is fair to say that all communists are Marxists because the majority are. Furthermore I would say that in general all communists are Leninists since it is a development of Marxism and in the eyes of the majority of communists is not a revision of Marxism. You are welcome to your own view, and I accept your view as being an entirely reasonable argument. I can see that neither of you are Marxist-Leninists, yet you would still call yourself communists?

Geddan, I can tell you a great many things of Mao Zedong. You probably want to know two things about him, his history and his views. Mao led the Chinese revolution from the 30's, amongst many changes in the power structure right at the top of the CPC he proved himself to be the most successful in leading the revolution. The most important part of the chinese revolution was the Long March in which Mao led a force ranging from 80,000 to 10,000, along a 6,000 mile march to escape the nationalist forces and move their base camp from the south-east to the north-west of China. Mao came from a well off peasant family and became educated in Marxism-Leninism.

The CPC became came to follow Mao's ideology. Maoism can best be studied in a book called Quotations from Mao Tse-tung, better known as the 'little red book'. It is a relatively short book, and in the 60's copies were distributed to the entire population of China. To give you an idea of some of Mao's views I will show you some quotes from the book:

'War, this monster of mutual slaughter among men, will be finally eliminated by the progress of human society, and in the not too distant future too. But there is only one way to eliminate it and that is to oppose war with war, to oppose counter-revolutionary war with revolutionary war, to oppose national counter-revolutionary war with national revolutionary war, and to oppose counter-revolutionary class war with revolutionary class war. . . . When human society advances to the point where classes and states are eliminated, there will be no more wars, counter-revolutionary or revolutionary, unjust or just; that will be the era of perpetual peace for mankind. Our study of the laws of revolutionary war springs from the desire to eliminate all wars; herein lies the distinction between us Communists and all the exploiting classes.'

‘The people's democratic dictatorship uses two methods. Towards the enemy, it uses the method of dictatorship, that is, for as long a period of time as is necessary it does not let them take part in political activities and compels them to obey the law of the People's Government and to engage in labour and, through labour, transform themselves into new men. Towards the people, on the contrary, it uses the method not of compulsion but of democracy, that is, it must necessarily let them take part in political activities and does not compel them to do this or that, but uses the method of democracy in educating and persuading them.’

'We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon. But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.'

'Inner-Party criticism is a weapon for strengthening the Party organization and increasing its fighting capacity. In the Party organization of the Red Army, however, criticism is not always of this character, and sometimes turns into personal attack. As a result, it damages the Party organization as well as individuals. This is a manifestation of petty-bourgeois individualism. The method of correction is to help Party members understand that the purpose of criticism is to increase the Party's fighting capacity in order to achieve victory in the class struggle and that it should not be used as a means of personal attack.'

'The Communist Party does not fear criticism because we are Marxists, the truth is on our side, and the basic masses, the workers and peasants, are on our side.'

'Whoever sides with the revolutionary people is a revolutionary. Whoever sides with imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism is a counter-revolutionary. Whomever sides with the revolutionary people in words only but acts otherwise is a revolutionary in speech. Whoever sides with the revolutionary people in deed as well as in word is a revolutionary in the full sense.'


This is a brief explanation of the history of Mao and his ideology, if you want any other specific detail you are free to ask. Other people have different views of Mao...

[redstar2000]

I have to admit that most communists today do consider themselves "Leninists"--unfortunately.

The irony is that Lenin developed his method of party organization specifically for Russian conditions...a backward working class and an economy dominated by semi-feudal aristocrats and huge numbers of peasants. But with the founding of the Communist International, he initiated and Stalin completed the process of turning the world communist movement into copies of the Russian party.

In places like China, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, etc., that worked fine...conditions were close enough to that of pre-revolutionary Russia that a similar organization competently led could have similar results.

In the advanced capitalist countries, it was a disaster and, to a considerable extent, still is. The working class in advanced capitalist countries may, on some occasions, vote for a Leninist centralized party...they have refused to follow one to the barracades.

Can anyone really blame them?

:cool:

[antieverything]

I agree with the others who said it, it often does more harm than good to define your ideology by the name of another. I know too many Marxists who, instead of developing their own opinions, look for the answers according to Marx as if he is infallible.

[Geddan]

It could do some good too. Now I have an answer for people asking me what I am.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Judging by the description, you are a surrealist. You hold the deeply entrenched belief that government should be run by slightly purple and melting giraffes in a bath-tub.

--- G.

[Geddan]

Don't pervert my democratic dictatorship of the parrots with your left-opportunist giraffes ;)

[Drifter]

why is everyone so desperate to define themselves by an ideology, blind dogmatism to a certain ideology is unlickly the best tack with regard to considering the world, whats wrong with a pragmatic and philosophical outlook?

[Geddan]

For fun, perhaps?

[sin miedo]

Lol. That was funny.

Well, understanding different ideologies is definately a good thing. And knowing where you stand approxamately (sp?) in regards to these different ideologies can't hurt. But once you bind yourself to one, and look to it's dogma for all the answers, then you've failed. The important thing is too keep your mind open and look at issues from different standpoints.

[Geddan]

Sin Miedo, couldn't agree more.

[Edelweiss]

Being a communist doesn't makes you automaticly a Marxist-Leninist. That's pretty arrogant to say, to say the least. Actually I think Marxism-Leninism will more and more lose it's relavance, although some aspects like Lenin's analysis on imperialism, will never loose it's importance for the left-wing.
80% of the communist branches Mao listed will maybe be relevant for some tiny self-centered commnist sects, but not for the future of mankind, that's for shure.

Finally a quote from Rosa Luxemburg, which proofs that she was far away from Marxism-Leninism:

"Everything that happens in Russia is comprehensible and represents an inevitable chain of causes and effects, the starting point and end term of which are: the failure of the German proletariat and the occupation of Russia by German imperialism. It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international proletariat as a model of socialist tactics. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembur/w...us-rev/ch08.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxembur/works/1918/rus-rev/ch08.htm)

[socialist ballistix]

I do not seek to define myself under any of these titles, however as of current i am entrenched in research about socialism, therefore the name.