Different forms of Communism

[Socialist_84]

Hi, I am a New Socialist.

I have been reading alot about Communism recently. I am looking into the different Communist Ideologies. I see that there are actually quite a few.

I have read sevral different descriptions of the main strands and I think I have a pretty good grasp on the different Ideologies.

I see how they disagree with one another. However what I don't understand is why all the hard feelings between the different movements. Doesn't this hurt the cause of Communism? I have actually read that in some cases fellow Communists have come down harder on each other than the Capitalists, is this true?

[ScottishSocialist13]

Yes it does.

We are not as powerful as we do not unite!

[polemi-super-cised]

Well, the ultimate goal of all Communists - "the revolution" - is truly a momentous event. Leftists are united in their opposition to capitalism, and determined to bring on the classless society which Marx argued would follow it. But because this next stage is viewed in such a "utopian" light, the question of how to get there is one of extreme importance.

Also, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the numerous leftist factions have been arguing so as to avoid setting "the movement" back another hundred years. A "false messiah" could do real damage to the proletarian cause: we're effectively debating the future of mankind, so it's hardly a triviality!

(Hence the vicious bickering over the pettiest, most minor points!)

[KC]

We are not as powerful as we do not unite!

It doesn't matter if the left unites or not. Such proposals are a waste of time and resources. Regardless of whether or not the left is united, the workers will overthrow capitalism. It isn't the left that will do this, but the proletarians. In order to make this happen sooner, and more efficiently, we should be worried about organizing the proletarians, not the leftists.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 10:11 PM
It doesn't matter if the left unites or not. Such proposals are a waste of time and resources. Regardless of whether or not the left is united, the workers will overthrow capitalism. It isn't the left that will do this, but the proletarians. In order to make this happen sooner, and more efficiently, we should be worried about organizing the proletarians, not the leftists.
I could not say any better than that.

Its a plauge that runs on this board, the leftist movement and ideology is not the same thing as the working class movement and struggle.

[rebelworker]

I agree(already worried i spend too much time on this board when I could be organizing).

I think the real issue is that active workers are always looking for answers and in times of struggle the revolutionary left playes a very important role.

Now for me, and this adresses the real issue of fighting on the left.
Historically some people and ideologies who claim to be revolutionary in practice are not.

Look at the mess of China or Russia, these are not accidents.

Many parties on the left see themselves as holding the real true path and have violently poressed the workers and other revolutionaries while they are trying to or do take state power.

This is a real problem for all people interested in genuine revolution(not just one gang of eleitists seizing power).

Over the years I have left behind Vanguardist Marxism and moved to Anarchist or anti authoritarian Communism.

this tendancy works towards a mass revolution of the opressed and coexistance of all other revolutionary minded revolutionaries like council communists, anti lenninist marxists and even less identified or independant revolutionaries.

I dont want the mistakes of the past to be repeated so I argue and if nessesary I will organize against Authoritarian strains of so called communists that would murder or imprison me and betray the goals of a revolution like the have shown historically to do.

Hope that helps,
In Solidarity,
rebelworker

[Socialist_84]

Thanks to all for the good comments. Now I have another question though. It appears from some of your comments that there are Communists that are opposed to Leftism.

So what exactly is Leftism from a Communist perspective? I was under the impression that all Communists are to the left, perhaps I was wrong ( I could very well be ).

[rebelworker]

I think that all comunists consider themselves leftists.
I just think some are anti authoritarian and see workers power as the road to communism, and there are those who see a minority of "professional revolutionaries" seizing state power as the thing to do.

I personally see the second option as unnacceptable and I think that history has way beyond a doubt proven this.

[rebelworker]

The point is it never worked in practice.

For brief period the bolsheviks were elected as a majority in the soviets, after that the floodgates were opened and the centralisation began.

Who says this, every vanguardist party in north America right now is dominated by intellectuals who see themselves as the leaders of the revolution, this is not a coincidence, this is the results of an eleitist vision of revolution.

Marx did it with the first international(he was petty burgeoise), lenin and trotsky did it in russia(they were petty bureoise). Mao did it in China (guess what), Castro did it in Cuba(guess what),Bob Avakian and the weathermenwanted to do it, so dose the SWP(UK),Militant, .... get a grip people.

This isnt the the biggest chain of coincidences in history.
Its sad that so many working people have bought this shit, lets hope it dosnt happen again.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Socialist 84+--> (Socialist 84)However what I don't understand is why all the hard feelings between the different movements. Doesn't this hurt the cause of Communism?[/b]

I do not like and encourage the assertion that "we are weak because we are divided", so we have to just "forgive and forget" and that everything will be fine. That's BS.

It's other way around.

We have no clarity in our goals, we're lost within the limited narrow circle of our each movement and we can't see beyond. Our weakness is the cause of our division and each weakness limits the flexibility of each part of the left.

If we had clarity - we could have unity!

For those who reach clarity, the process of "unification" will be something spontaneous. In reality, "unification" of the left is something that does not require compromise -- but on the contrary -- the most brutal self-criticism, unambiguous objectivity, and the adaptation to the interests of the class itself.

Clarity of the goal and the method finds it's purest expression in the practice itself. That's exactly where -- in the midst of the upcoming class war -- fractions of the left will either find each other in complementary cooperation - or they will fall out as incompatible.

Analyzing the current state within the left, most of the movement will find the latter to be it's "destiny".



rebelworker
Marx did it with the first international...

So Marx, Bebel, Lafergue, Liebknecht senior, Sorge and others (First International) had seen themselves in the role of the revolutionary "political leaders"?

I doubt you can back up that claim.


Don't get me wrong though, I do agree with your general idea. I just don't agree with this assertion.

[Orthodox Marxist]

However what I don't understand is why all the hard feelings between the different movements. Doesn't this hurt the cause of Communism? I have actually read that in some cases fellow Communists have come down harder on each other than the Capitalists, is this true?

Its the same with any political movement and almost every religion look at democracy you have so many splits and views on how the democratic party should be that you end up with chaos and different factions at each others throats over petty squabbles

I dont have any hard feelings towards other communists I just dont agree with their interpretation of a true communist system for Instance stalinist's and leninists while they are comrades I am disgusted by their philosophy

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

To answer the anti-left communists thing...

Really left and right are not very precise terms, and are honestly not that useful for defining people's beliefs. There is a strain of communism (with which I agree) that critiques the project of the Second International, (specifically it's idea that "socialism" has to be introduced into "the working class" from the outside). It sees the Third International (and the 4th) as only having split from the Second superficially. It seeks to incorporate ideas from Marx, as well as communists who rejected the second third and 4th internationals (which includes a bunch of anarchists as well). We would call "social democracy" (i.e. the historical project of the second international) "the left". That is, the left could be thought of as something that mirrors the language of communism, but is not communism. "The left" is the left wing of capital.

And as to the "division between communists). It's one thing for a stalinist to say to an anarchist "we should be friends, we'd be stronger together". The stalinist may think the anarchist is just misguided or idealistic. It's a different thing for an anarchist, who thinks the soviet union was a capitalist country no better than any other. As far as division between groups who have some basis of agreement though... to paraphrase Anton Pannekoek: We are not weak because we are divided. We are divided because we are weak.

[which doctor]

If I had a nickel for every "What kind of leftist are you???" thread, then I'd have about a dollar. We could sit here and ***** all day about uniting or dividing, but I've come across one reality recently. We cannot truly confine ourselves to one ideology. We all have our own unique thoughts that should create our own ideology unique to ourselves. The only person who can truly call themselvs a Marxist is Marx. Only person who can call themselvs a Maoist is Mao himself. Let's stop this whole "ooh, I wanna be just like that famous commie so I'm gonna adopt his name" mentality. Be yourself, not someone else.

[enigma2517]

One size certainly doesn't fit all.

I completely agree with you.

So just let people arrange themselves in autonomous communities and freely associate and federate with other communities who share their views.

[KC]

If I had a nickel for every "What kind of leftist are you???" thread, then I'd have about a dollar. We could sit here and ***** all day about uniting or dividing, but I've come across one reality recently. We cannot truly confine ourselves to one ideology. We all have our own unique thoughts that should create our own ideology unique to ourselves. The only person who can truly call themselvs a Marxist is Marx. Only person who can call themselvs a Maoist is Mao himself. Let's stop this whole "ooh, I wanna be just like that famous commie so I'm gonna adopt his name" mentality. Be yourself, not someone else.

Saying you're a Marxist doesn't mean that you agree with all of Marx's ideas. It means that that is the best political model that fits your ideas. You don't have to agree with everything; it's just easier to say "I'm a Marxist" than "I believe in this idea and this one and this one and this one and not this one and this one and this one and..."

[Socialist_84]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:45 AM
One size certainly doesn't fit all.

I completely agree with you.

So just let people arrange themselves in autonomous communities and freely associate and federate with other communities who share their views.
Interesting Idea :)

[Socialist_84]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:34 AM

Saying you're a Marxist doesn't mean that you agree with all of Marx's ideas. It means that that is the best political model that fits your ideas. You don't have to agree with everything; it's just easier to say "I'm a Marxist" than "I believe in this idea and this one and this one and this one and not this one and this one and this one and..."
I agree. Marxism is the most attractive form of Communism that I have seen so far, however I do disagree with Karl Marx on some minor issues.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:34 AM

If I had a nickel for every "What kind of leftist are you???" thread, then I'd have about a dollar. We could sit here and ***** all day about uniting or dividing, but I've come across one reality recently. We cannot truly confine ourselves to one ideology. We all have our own unique thoughts that should create our own ideology unique to ourselves. The only person who can truly call themselvs a Marxist is Marx. Only person who can call themselvs a Maoist is Mao himself. Let's stop this whole "ooh, I wanna be just like that famous commie so I'm gonna adopt his name" mentality. Be yourself, not someone else.

Saying you're a Marxist doesn't mean that you agree with all of Marx's ideas. It means that that is the best political model that fits your ideas. You don't have to agree with everything; it's just easier to say "I'm a Marxist" than "I believe in this idea and this one and this one and this one and not this one and this one and this one and..."
When you tell someone you're a Marxist they may get the wrong impression of you. They may think that you believe in all of Marx's beliefs. The dogmatic Marxists will criticise you for not believing in all of his beliefs. I simply tell people that my views are loosely based on both anarchism and communism.

PS. Lazar, what's up with your avatar? Is the Miller Brewing Company paying you to advertise for them?

[KC]

PS. Lazar, what's up with your avatar? Is the Miller Brewing Company paying you to advertise for them?


I like High Life. So what?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:25 PM


PS. Lazar, what's up with your avatar? Is the Miller Brewing Company paying you to advertise for them?


I like High Life. So what?
So I wouldn't advertise a cappie company on a leftist forum, that's all.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:45 AM
One size certainly doesn't fit all.

I completely agree with you.

So just let people arrange themselves in autonomous communities and freely associate and federate with other communities who share their views.
And would you carry that philosophy through to its logical conclusion - allow the capis to "arrange themselves" in separate settlements?

One size is going to have to fit all. In the immediate aftermath of revolution at least.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 10:08 PM
I see how they disagree with one another. However what I don't understand is why all the hard feelings between the different movements. Doesn't this hurt the cause of Communism? I have actually read that in some cases fellow Communists have come down harder on each other than the Capitalists, is this true?

We can now see the growth of organisations which deliberately try to gather people on partial demands in order to go no further. They claim to go back to revolutionary principles, but they are ignorant of them. In theory, their view of communism has nothing to do with communism : it is a mixture of democratic workers' control or management, with the application of automation, plus a partial re-organisation of society. In other words, this is no more than what capital itself talks about. In practise, they "critically" support the official communist party., or even socialist parties, the Soviet Union, China, etc. These groups are counter-revolutionary. The argument that they organise workers is irrelevant: communist parties do the same, which does not prevent them from shooting workers when they think it necessary. Trotskyism, Maoism, even anarchism in some of its most bureaucratic and degenerated forms, are counter-revolutionary.

This is not a sectarian view. Organised and permanent groups within the workers' movement, which have a non- or anti-communist programme and practise, are our worst enemy. The enemy within is always more dangerous than the enemy outside. This is true of the communist parties. But it also applies to most left-wing groups.

/Gilles Dauvé



And as previously stated: We are not weak because we are divided, we are divided because we are weak.

[Livetrueordie]

I like High Life. So what?
They've manipulated you into becoming free advertisement...
Well at least it gets the religous pissed off eh.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:11 PM
It doesn't matter if the left unites or not.
:lol: One of the most absurd statements on the left I have seen in some time.


Such proposals are a waste of time and resources. Regardless of whether or not the left is united, the workers will overthrow capitalism.

Actually, organizing helps us to not all get fucked over when a revolution happens and hopefully many of the works will be leftists.


It isn't the left that will do this, but the proletarians.

It better damn well be a left-wing revolution; otherwise, what do you hope to achieve?


In order to make this happen sooner, and more efficiently, we should be worried about organizing the proletarians, not the leftists.

Organizing the left is a fundemental step to even reaching the proletariot.

Are you a critical mass proponent? Do you just want the revolution to happend tonight... and them we'll make the best of it? I hope you have a better plan.