So many types of Communism

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Where can I learn about them? and their differences? and how do you decided which one to follow?

lets see theirs:
Stalinist
Lenenist
Marxist
Mao

Probably lots more.

[Bilan]

that there is.
There's also stuff like Libertarian Communism, Left communism and what have you.

Good place to read stuff about them is marxists.org (http://marxists.org)

Also talk to comrades here. Plenty of different ones from different tendencies who can help out, and direct you to specific stuff.
For example, in the anarchist group (its in my signature), there's stuff on anarchist communism.

[Sankofa]

The Frequently Discussed Topics sticky in this very forum is a good way to answer this question (here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/frequently-discussed-topics-t62635/index.html))

Scroll down to the Marxism-Leninism and ideologies derived from it option and there are several threads discussing different ideologies there.

Don't worry about labeling yourself too quickly early on. Get a general base of Marxist theory, then you can use the threads in the sticky and the link Comrade SOB provided to start reading around for different ideologies.

[ZeroNowhere]

Stalinism: Basically, Stalin was a cool guy, we need a strong leader to move into socialism, etc. It varies.
Leninism: It depends. Some are basically anarchists who pick out the better ideas in State and Revolution, others believe in a vanguard Party taking and holding power after a revolution. Others are Stalinists. It varies.
Maoist: Peasant revolution, pretty much.
De Leonist: Political organization, and industrial unionism. Read Daniel De Leon (works online at SLP website).

"Without political organization, the labor movement cannot triumph; without economic organization, the day of its political triumph would be the day of its defeat."
"The political movement of labor that, in the event of triumph, would prolong its existence a second after triumph, would be an usurpation. It would be either a usurpation or the signal for a social catastrophe."

Council communism: Workers' councils (read Pannekoek).
Anarcho-syndicalism: Unionism (the use of unions as revolutionary organs), often industrial unionism. No political organization. Often believe in general strike, etc.

"The lancehead of the labour movement is, therefore, not the political party but the trader union, toughened by daily combat and permeated by Socialist spirit. Only in the realm of economy are the workers able to display their full social strength, for it is their activity as producers which holds together the whole social structure, and guarantees the existence of society at all. In any other field they are fighting on alien soil and wasting their strength in hopeless struggles which bring them not an iota nearer to the goal of their desires. in the field of parliamentary politics the worker is like the giant Antaeus of the Greek legend, whom Hercules was able to strangle after he took his feet off the earth who was his mother. Only as producer and creator of social wealth does he become aware of his strength; in solidaric union with his fellows he creates in the trade union the invincible phalanx which can withstand any assault, if it is aflame with the spirit of freedom and animated by the ideal of social justice.
"For the Anarcho-Syndicalists the trade union is by no means a mere transitory phenomenon bound up with the duration of capitalist society, it is the germ of the Socialist society of the future, the elementary school of Socialism in general. Every new social structure makes organs for itself in the body of the old organism. Without this preliminary any social evolution is unthinkable. Even revolutions can only develop and mature the germs which already exist and have made their way into the consciousness of men; they cannot themselves create these germs or create new worlds out of nothing. It therefore concerns us to plant these germs while there is still yet time and bring them to the strongest possible development, so as to make the task of the coming social revolution easier and to ensure its permanence."

Anarcho-communism: Try reading 'What is Communist Anarchism' by Berkman, mainly the last few chapters.
Crimethinc: Living in a cardboard box, shoplifting, eating from dustbins, and not bathing are the path towards socialism. Yeah.

[Q]

Where can I learn about them? and their differences? and how do you decided which one to follow?

lets see theirs:
Stalinist
Lenenist
Marxist
Mao

Probably lots more.

There are only three real currents of communist thought really, as far as can see anyway:
- ultra-left communism (the ideas of Pannekoek and others).
- genuine communist thought (the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and others)
- degenerative "communism" (Stalinism, Maoism, and other variations that only served as an apologist ideology for totalitarian and degenerative dictatorships based on a planned economy).

Should cut it down by quite a bit.

[Sprocket Hole]

They all vary from the means of getting to a communist society, like Maoists prefer guerrilla warfare, Lenninists prefer a vanguard party, while libertarian and anarcho's don't believe in a party at all. I beileve left communism refers to a whole bundle of semi anti-authortorian and anti-authoritarian.

Anyways, Stalinism is a buerocratic totalitarian control of Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat, we saw this in the USSR. Maoism is direcly influenced by Stalinism and was seen in the PR of China. Both favor state capitalism, and centraly planned economy.

Libetarian Communism is almost synomous with anarchism to some people. It was what the anarchists of Spain called themselves in the Spanish civil war.

Oh and, a Marxist, is simply a follower of Karl Marx's (Author of the Communist Manifesto) idea's.

In a short explanation, where a lot of communists and anarchists differ, is the on Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat. It is a transistion stage where the State remains after capitalism is abolished. Everything is said to be ruled by a type of commune, or a workers council. After everything is put on the path for communism, the state will wither away, according to Marx. This phase is called Socialism by Marx. Sometimes there is egalitarian wages, sometimes you will have the state, rather than workers in control of the means of production, and the State distributing equaly food and money.
When Communism moves in, money and the state would be abolished, and people would govern themselves. In every country that western media called communist, where really socialist ones with strengthened states and buerocratic leaders. They were never truely communist at all.

In libetarian and anarchism thought, "the state will not just simply whither away".

[Junius]

I would agree that you should read Marx first. Get a book of his collected works from the library or something. Personally, marxists.org is fairly biased and doesn't give a fair descriptions of non-Trotskyist tendencies. Not that that is a bad thing, but on a site which is not supposed to push one particularly tendency...

[Holden Caulfield]

i'll tell you what would be helpful some sort of leftist encycolpedia for new users to be able to view summaries of different ideologies...

unfourtunately the good members of revleft could not be arsed to contribute articles so no such database of knowledge exists,

ah well, im not bitter about it at all...

[ZeroNowhere]

Anyways, Stalinism is a buerocratic totalitarian control of Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat, we saw this in the USSR.
Stalinism is dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. :lol:
Well, dictatorship over the proletariat, at least.


Oh and, a Marxist, is simply a follower of Karl Marx's (Author of the Communist Manifesto) idea's.
Eh, the communist manifesto was pretty much propaganda at an early stage of Marx's 'career'. As it is, he called the book antiquated in some aspects later. Anyways, he's better known for his economic analyses (and writing a load). He was otherwise more of a social anarchist theoretician.


In a short explanation, where a lot of communists and anarchists differ, is the on Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat.
Mostly, they disagree on whether to call it that. :)


It is a transistion stage where the State remains after capitalism is abolished.
Of course, seeing as Marx used the term 'state' differently than, say, Bakunin, most anarchists would see a Marxist workers' state as not being a 'state' by the general political definition. Basically, Marx used the term to indicate the enforcement of one class' interests over another's. So basically, as long as more than one class existed (for example, when the revolution was not yet successful internationally), there would be a 'state' by his definition.


Everything is said to be ruled by a type of commune, or a workers council.
Bakunin: "The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?"
Marx: "Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune."
Pretty much democracy. That may or may not have been what you meant (certainly, I'm not going to want a workers' council ruling over everybody on social issues).


After everything is put on the path for communism, the state will wither away, according to Marx.
Pretty much that once one abolishes class, one therefore abolishes the state.


This phase is called Socialism by Marx.
It isn't, actually. Socialism is a synonym for 'communism' in Marx's dictionary.


Sometimes there is egalitarian wages,
...How does that make any sense? Everybody gets the same compensation? (I use wages to refer to something other than just compensation for work) Honestly, I haven't seen anybody advocate that before, it doesn't really seem to make much sense, as compared to, say, labour credits or free access.


sometimes you will have the state, rather than workers in control of the means of production,
I hate the word 'state'. Also, that's not socialism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. I suppose it could be compatible with Blanquism, or state capitalism.

and the State distributing equaly food and money.
Same as above. Then again, this is pretty much a welfare state (which I suppose one could use to describe benevolent state capitalism, as well as the more privatized form used in Sweden and such)


When Communism moves in, money and the state would be abolished, and people would govern themselves.
...When the socialist revolution is successful internationally, you mean? Well, yeah, of course the state would be abolished. Money would be abolished too, though labour credits could still be used.


In every country that western media called communist, where really socialist ones with strengthened states and buerocratic leaders.
They were state capitalist. Certainly not 'socialist'. Socialism is international, and is collective ownership of the means of production, thus classless and stateless.


In libetarian and anarchism thought, "the state will not just simply whither away".
In 'libertarian and anarchism thought', 'the state is... Wait, let's stop using that word, it's bloody annoying'. ;)

[Q]

i'll tell you what would be helpful some sort of leftist encycolpedia for new users to be able to view summaries of different ideologies...

unfourtunately the good members of revleft could not be arsed to contribute articles so no such database of knowledge exists,

ah well, im not bitter about it at all...

What is wrong with MIA? Why reinvent the wheel?

[Charles Xavier]

Listen, a lot of the differences are exploited by agent provocateurs. The differences should not prevent communists from working with each other. It is only when these organizations advocate criminal acts against the left or the working masses that they deserve to be cast aside. There is many common struggles the left can work together on and this is what the Marxist-Leninists wish to do, under a united front. Not a merging of the deviant trends.

Think of Marxism-Leninism as the moderates. Trotskyists, Left Communist, Maoism, Anarchists as Left-wing communism. And Reformism, Eurocommunism, Socialists, as right-wing communism.

While sometimes Maoisms and Trotskyists can find themselves all over the map.

[Holden Caulfield]

What is wrong with MIA? Why reinvent the wheel?

it would be good if the authors of the articles own ideologies were known, and perhaps we could have different ideological accounts of the same event, person whatever. Plus the authors could be asked questions, etc etc. Plus why not make revleft a site that other forum users link to, make it a comprehensive left-wing 'one-stop-shop'.

i think its a really good idea, i mean we have a lot of bits scattered around the forum (i myself are re-doing the 'opposition' sticky in antifa forum, LZ is in the process of producing a theortical guide etc) why not have other users chip in and then we could gathet them together in a easy format.

[Holden Caulfield]

Think of Marxism-Leninism as the moderates. Trotskyists, Left Communist, Maoism, Anarchists as Left-wing communism. And Reformism, Eurocommunism, Socialists, as right-wing communism.
well for starts :lol:

and then "think of...Left Commun[ism]...as right-wing communism"

hshahahahaha

[Q]

Listen, a lot of the differences are exploited by agent provocateurs. The differences should not prevent communists from working with each other. It is only when these organizations advocate criminal acts against the left or the working masses that they deserve to be cast aside. There is many common struggles the left can work together on and this is what the Marxist-Leninists wish to do, under a united front. Not a merging of the deviant trends.

Think of Marxism-Leninism as the moderates. Trotskyists, Left Communist, Maoism, Anarchists as Left-wing communism. And Reformism, Eurocommunism, Socialists, as right-wing communism.

While sometimes Maoisms and Trotskyists can find themselves all over the map.

How are reformists communist at all? That dividing line was drawn in blood in 1914. Also, how are "socialists" a seperate current?

And well, I guess we could go on all day long who are are left and rightwing communists. Matter of perspective I guess.

[Q]

it would be good if the authors of the articles own ideologies were known, and perhaps we could have different ideological accounts of the same event, person whatever. Plus the authors could be asked questions, etc etc. Plus why not make revleft a site that other forum users link to, make it a comprehensive left-wing 'one-stop-shop'.

i think its a really good idea, i mean we have a lot of bits scattered around the forum (i myself are re-doing the 'opposition' sticky in antifa forum, LZ is in the process of producing a theortical guide etc) why not have other users chip in and then we could gathet them together in a easy format.
I think the format of a forum is not a good one then. Maybe a wiki could help?

[Pogue]

well for starts :lol:

and then "think of...Left Commun[ism]...as right-wing communism"

hshahahahaha

What?

[Black Sheep]

And Reformism, Eurocommunism, Socialists, as right-wing communism.
What the hell? This is just wrong and dangerous to think like that.

The LEFT/RIGHT indicates economic policy.Left and right communism doesnt make sense.:blink:

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Anyways, Stalinism is a buerocratic totalitarian control of Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat, we saw this in the USSR. Maoism is direcly influenced by Stalinism and was seen in the PR of China. Both favor state capitalism, and centraly planned economy.



How can you be Communist and prefer a state Capitalism? that dosn't make any sense to me.

[apathy maybe]

Accepting the theoretical contributions of one or more people does mean you have to take accept every idea they ever had and take on all of their baggage.
I think you missed a "not".

Accepting the theoretical contributions of one or more people does not mean you have to take accept every idea they ever had and take on all of their baggage.

(If you meant it as you wrote it, what the fuck?)


unfourtunately the good members of revleft could not be arsed to contribute articles so no such database of knowledge exists,
It's called RevLeft. Why can't I be arsed to contribute articles? Because I have, over the years, written shit loads of stuff. It's all available, all searchable, and I hear by give you permission to go through my posts and pick some good ones and edit them to a reasonable form, and put them in some sort of RevLeft encyclopaedia (so long as it is hosted on RevLeft, and I get to vet the articles before they go up).


As to the OP.

Where can I learn about them? and their differences? and how do you decided which one to follow?
It's called RevLeft. You've already found it. Now learn to read the stickied threads, and to use the search function. If you have a particular question that you can't find the answer to, you then start a new thread.

All the information is available, but it requires a bit of thought on your part though.

[Tower of Bebel]

Where can I learn about them? and their differences? and how do you decided which one to follow?

lets see theirs:
Stalinist
Lenenist
Marxist
Mao

Probably lots more.
You shouldn't follow a certain ideology or current. You should rather fight for socialism against the capitalist state, and try to organize yourself.

[Devrim]

What the hell? This is just wrong and dangerous to think like that.

The LEFT/RIGHT indicates economic policy.Left and right communism doesnt make sense.:blink:

Left communist/communism originally referred to political positions in the Third International. The PCI, the majority of the KPD, the CP(BS3rdInt), and other groups were the left, Lenin was in the centre, and all of the social-democrats who were let in were the right.

Devrim

[revolution inaction]

Where can I learn about them? and their differences? and how do you decided which one to follow?

You shouldn't folow any thing but you should try to learn as much as you can and then you can chose the one closest to your poletics, also you should be an anarchist :D



lets see theirs:
Stalinist
Lenenist
Marxist
Mao

Probably lots more.
leninists are a kind of marxist, stalinists are a kind of leninist as are trotskyists and maoists.
I don't consider any kind of leninist to be a communist.

You also missed out left communists and anarchist communists, left communists are marxists, and anarchist communists are not, although a lot of them read marxist theory.
As well as that there are some revolutionary anarchists who are not communists like the collectivists.
Other anarchists are not revolutionaries, but they don;t have much in common with the communists.

[Sprocket Hole]

Stalinism is dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. :lol:
Well, dictatorship over the proletariat, at least.
I was just putting it into simple terms, I see it as he warped the dictatorship of the proletariat to his liking. Basically from my understanding of communism, from reading the Manifesto, Marx says the transisition phase is what he calls socialism. So when I say socialism throughout this, I mean Marx's term. And I did not clear up the difference of its uses in my opinion, there is true socialism (again in my own opinion), where for example, the means of production is owned by the workers and a commune would work in the proletariat's interest and seek to abolish class. There is also the state capitalism or the socialism we saw in the USSR with Stalin, where the state (sorry:lol:) owned the means of production, and bueracracy claimed to work in the interest of the workers and to abolish class.


Eh, the communist manifesto was pretty much propaganda at an early stage of Marx's 'career'. As it is, he called the book antiquated in some aspects later. Anyways, he's better known for his economic analyses (and writing a load). He was otherwise more of a social anarchist theoretician.

I was just placing in his most known peice of work, so the person who is asking these questions would know who im talking about. Becuase for all we know he may not know who Marx is.


Of course, seeing as Marx used the term 'state' differently than, say, Bakunin, most anarchists would see a Marxist workers' state as not being a 'state' by the general political definition. Basically, Marx used the term to indicate the enforcement of one class' interests over another's. So basically, as long as more than one class existed (for example, when the revolution was not yet successful internationally), there would be a 'state' by his definition.

Well, it is still a instrument of enforcment either way I suppose


Pretty much that once one abolishes class, one therefore abolishes the state.

Not in the manifesto. :D
Would you say that the USSR under Stalin abolished classes?


It isn't, actually. Socialism is a synonym for 'communism' in Marx's dictionary.

Not in the manifesto. :D


...How does that make any sense? Everybody gets the same compensation? (I use wages to refer to something other than just compensation for work) Honestly, I haven't seen anybody advocate that before, it doesn't really seem to make much sense, as compared to, say, labour credits or free access.
[quote]
I may have used the wrong word, but I know Cuba had/has egalitarian pay and I beileve the USSR had it
[quote=ZeroNowhere;1285549]
They were state capitalist. Certainly not 'socialist'. Socialism is international, and is collective ownership of the means of production, thus classless and stateless.

Well, I know that as a sense of transitional socialism, that is where these state capitalism emerged out of. I agree with you 100% that these countries were not really socialist.
But they claimed to be in the transition stage.

Thanks mate your input was very informative.. Learning more everyday :)
By the way, where did you get that dialogue between marx and bakunin?
Book? If so, what is it entitled?

Oh and EDIT:
this is a quote from Catbus who puts into words a lot better what I was trying to explain



Communists and anarchists have the same idea of what should happen, but we differ on how to get there. Most Communists want to have a transitionary socialist stage after the revolution, where there would be a balancing of pay, workers councils would be created, and a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (or Vanguard Party), would lead, so to speak.

Anarchists don't believe in a Vanguard Party, and most of us feel that we would go to a libertarian socialism stage after the revolution. We aim for a gift economy, but it's not something that is created over night.

[politics student]

You shouldn't follow a certain ideology or current. You should rather fight for socialism against the capitalist state, and try to organize yourself.

I fully agree. Its why I am looking into the PoWR rather than some national party.

[ZeroNowhere]

Not in the manifesto. :D
Would you say that the USSR under Stalin abolished classes?
Of course it didn't.


Not in the manifesto. :D
Quote Marx saying that socialism is a transitional phase to communism. Also, at the beginning, him and Engels used the term 'communism' to describe themselves, rather than 'socialism', due to the fact that 'socialism' at the time referred mainly to the utopians. Once the utopians died out, they began using 'socialism' more often.


Well, I know that as a sense of transitional socialism, that is where these state capitalism emerged out of. I agree with you 100% that these countries were not really socialist.
But they claimed to be in the transition stage.
Stalin also claimed that the USSR was classless.


By the way, where did you get that dialogue between marx and bakunin?
Book? If so, what is it entitled?
It was some notes that Marx had written in response to some accusations in Bakunin's 'Statism and Anarchy'. I believe that it is on marxists.org, though I don't remember what it's called there.

[Junius]

It was some notes that Marx had written in response to some accusations in Bakunin's 'Statism and Anarchy'. I believe that it is on marxists.org, though I don't remember what it's called there.
Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm)

[ZeroNowhere]

Thanks for that.

[Charles Xavier]

You shouldn't folow any thing but you should try to learn as much as you can and then you can chose the one closest to your poletics, also you should be an anarchist :D


leninists are a kind of marxist, stalinists are a kind of leninist as are trotskyists and maoists.
I don't consider any kind of leninist to be a communist.

You also missed out left communists and anarchist communists, left communists are marxists, and anarchist communists are not, although a lot of them read marxist theory.
As well as that there are some revolutionary anarchists who are not communists like the collectivists.
Other anarchists are not revolutionaries, but they don;t have much in common with the communists.

Thats funny because all us Leninist of different strips are organized into communist parties. I don't know how we pulled that off when we are obviously not communists.

[Holden Caulfield]

Thats funny because all us Leninist of different strips are organized into communist parties. I don't know how we pulled that off when we are obviously not communists.
not the best comeback, look at the Communist Party of the US, not communists

[ZeroNowhere]

How can you be Communist and prefer a state Capitalism? that dosn't make any sense to me.
By calling it 'socialism' instead.

[revolution inaction]

Thats funny because all us Leninist of different strips are organized into communist parties. I don't know how we pulled that off when we are obviously not communists.

As Holden Caulfield points out there are organisations that claim to be communist but are not, I thought that everyone on this website would be aware of that, even if they don't agree with me on which organisations?
In my opinion there are many aspects of Leninist politics that are not communist, like supporting national liberation movements, and giving "critical support" to one side during wars. So that is why I think leninism is not communist, I don't intend this as an insult, there are some Leninists that I like, I just think their politics are wrong.

[Forward Union]

i'll tell you what would be helpful some sort of leftist encycolpedia for new users to be able to view summaries of different ideologies...


Urm it exists. Revleft dictionary...

[Holden Caulfield]

Urm it exists. Revleft dictionary...
ther are bits and bobs all over the shop, but you know what i mean, to have them all together in one easily navigable place

[Reclaimed Dasein]

You shouldn't follow a certain ideology or current. You should rather fight for socialism against the capitalist state, and try to organize yourself.
I couldn't agree more. Sectarianism (fighting over the "right" Marxism") is stupid. Ultimately, there will or won't be a revolution. The party(ies) that start and carry it through will have been right, and those that don't won't. We shouldn't try to do more than offering some different perspectives or some gentle advise if we think someone's position is wrong.

[ZeroNowhere]

I couldn't agree more. Sectarianism (fighting over the "right" Marxism") is stupid. Ultimately, there will or won't be a revolution. The party(ies) that start and carry it through will have been right, and those that don't won't.
Your disregard for what comes after the revolution is alarming. :)

[Charles Xavier]

As Holden Caulfield points out there are organisations that claim to be communist but are not, I thought that everyone on this website would be aware of that, even if they don't agree with me on which organisations?
In my opinion there are many aspects of Leninist politics that are not communist, like supporting national liberation movements, and giving "critical support" to one side during wars. So that is why I think leninism is not communist, I don't intend this as an insult, there are some Leninists that I like, I just think their politics are wrong.
I guess I'm just the class enemy then sorry guys for fooling you all.


not the best comeback, look at the Communist Party of the US, not communists

They are revisionists. The American Marxist needs to fight to get that party back on its feet and toss out the Revisionists.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Your disregard for what comes after the revolution is alarming. :)
Well, I mean a real revolution, not simply a pseudo-action. There is a strong argument to be made that the Soviet Union had a real revolution, but was unable to inscribe that revolution into th state. Obviously, the revolution in the USSR failed. If the revolution fails, we'll start again. If it doesn't, we won't. Only when it happens, and doesn't fails will we know what the right course of action was for our material conditions. Until then, it's not helpful to shit on people for being a Maoist, Leninist, Trotskyist, etc until it's all said and done.