Results 1 to 15 of 15
What kind of Communist/Socialist am I?
[FONT=Tahoma]I need to know what kind of Communist/Socialist I am. With the information I’ve given below, what do you guys think? What kind of Commie am I?[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]I completely view Marxism and Historical Materialism as valid. Thus, I am certainly a Marxist (it should be noted however that I don’t really advocate the eventual complete abolition of the state; I think a state apparatus of some sort will have to always exist). Regarding contributions to Marxism, I agree, for the most part, with the contributions of Vladimir Lenin; making me (in a broad sense) a Marxist-Leninist. However, I’m not quite as far to the right of the Socialist spectrum as most self identified Marxist-Leninists are (I’m certainly far away from Stalinism), but I’m also not quite as far to the left as Council Communism or Libertarian Communism. I’m kind of stuck somewhere in the middle. Based on my research, I think I’m probably a Trotskyist, but one that’s a little more to the left than most Trotskyists. So, I guess I’m kind of a Trotskyist that subscribes to a lot of Luxemburgist ideas. [/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]Okay, so I figured that out on my own. I’m a left Trotskyist, right? But here’s where it gets tricky.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]I like the idea of a socialist market economy, but I’m perfectly willing to support a totally planned economy if it’s based on the following: Economic planning cannot be solely the responsibility of the Vanguard party. I wish for economic planning to be much more decentralized so that the planning of the economy is taken on by workers’ councils as well as the vanguard. [/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]I support democratic centralism, but all party representatives must be elected and recallable by the mass democratic voting of the people and/or workers councils, not just within the party parliment. I don’t believe in the idea of an infallible party. I support the dictatorship of the mass proletariat, not the dictatorship of the party that represents the proletariat. I also would want to see an economy where people can innovate and start their own businesses, so that diversity of goods and services can exist in the market. I want to see multiple corporations so that there is more than one brand of product or service available (all this in tandem with small and mid-sized businesses), and the large corporations must completely nationalized. I also want the employees of all large businesses to be able to vote on management personnel and be able to inspect the books. I support the ideas of the Permanent Revolution and International Socialism. I support a non-interventionalist military, but I do advocate the maintenance of a military for defense. I also advocate the complete abolition of the current prison system, and the creation of a rehabilitation focused criminal justice apparatus. [/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]I advocate State Secularism, but I’m fine with religious freedom; but it needs to stay out of all facets of government. Finally, I support a Socialist transition state that does have the ultimate goal of a communistic utopia in mind. I support an ideology that could someday create an environment where money is no longer needed. Production of goods would not be based on the profit motive, rather on what is needed and wanted by those in society.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]What kind of communist am I? And if there actually is an appropriate label for me, what parties share my views? I would like to get active.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]Thank you very much.[/FONT]
Last edited by Foxtrotsky; 24th March 2013 at 02:06.
I apologize if what I've written seems noobish or ignorant. But I am a noob. I'm very new to this stuff. After reading through some of the threads on this site, many of you guys seem like you really know what you're talking about. This place is the real deal. So any advice from you guys would be greatly appreciated.
I'd say you're generally on the left end of the broader Marxist-Leninist tradition.
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
You're a Trotskyist that should read more Marxist economics
I think you are someone who doesn't need to categorise themselves and simply needs to put in more time and effort to understand a greater variety of things. Learn about all the different tendencies, float around until you get a nice solid base, a nice understanding.
Then categorise yourself if you really have to.
"Quotations are useful in periods of ignorance or obscurantist beliefs."
- Guy Debord (Panegyric)
"Guided by the Marxist leader-dogmas of misbehaviourism and hysterical materialism, inevitably the masses will embrace, not only Groucho Marxism, but also each other."
- Bob Black (Theses on Groucho Marxism)
"I think that the task of philosophy is not to provide answers, but to show how the way we perceive a problem can be itself part of a problem."
- Slavoj Žižek ("Year of Distraction" lecture)
I think that you have a wrong conception of "Stalinism". In fact, no such thing exists. If you are a marxist who supports Lenin's contribution you are (just like Stalin) a marxist-leninist. You cannot be marxist-leninist and trotskyist at the same time. Trotsky was at the left of marxism-leninism.
"Trotskyism is distrust of the Bolshevik Party principle, of the monolithic character of the Party, of its hostility towards opportunist elements. In the sphere of organisation, Trotskyism is the theory that revolutionaries and opportunists can co-exist and form groups and coteries within a single party. You are, no doubt, familiar with the history of Trotsky's August bloc, in which the Martovites and Otzovists, the Liquidators and Trotskyites, happily co-operated, pretending that they were a "real" party. It is well known that this patchwork "party" pursued the aim of destroying the Bolshevik Party. What was the nature of "our disagreements" at that time? It was that Leninism regarded the destruction of the August bloc as a guarantee of the development of the proletarian party, whereas Trotskyism regarded that bloc as the basis for building a "real" party.
Again, as you see, we have two opposite lines." (Stalin, Trotskyism or Leninism?, Chapter 3)
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
A marxist-leninist principle:
"But this, however, must not be understood in the sense that a sign of equality can be put between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leading role of the Party (the “dictatorship” of the Party), that the former can be identified with the latter, that the latter can be substituted for the former. Sorin, for example, says that “the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of our Party.” This thesis, as you see, identifies the “dictatorship of the Party” with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Can we regard this identification as correct and yet remain on the ground of Leninism? No, we cannot." (Stalin, Concerning Questions of Leninism, Chapter 5)
Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. - V.I. Lenin
Hello Foxtrotsky, welcome to RevLeft. Expect a lot of different answers to your questions that don't agree with each other.
[FONT=Tahoma]
This is a fundamental aspect of the whole communist programme. If you don't believe in the end of the state, then I'd say you're not a even a communist, let alone a Marxist. Communist society will be classless and stateless. If you don't subscribe to that, if you want a 'benign' state, then you're a liberal, I think.
[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]No, 'Marxist-Leninist' means a Stalinist. If you support Trotsky's positions, you're a 'Bolshevik-Leninist'. All Leninists are Marxists, but not all Leninists are 'Marxist-Leninist'.
[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]Like what? Luxemburg and Trotsky had completely different ideas on national liberation for example. Luxemburg also had a different idea of the causes of capitalist crisis in the 20th century to Trotsky. It would helpful if you said which aspects of each you thought were valid.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]A 'socialist market economy' is an oxymoron. There is no 'socialist market' because there is no money or property in socialist society. Only a classless communal stateless one. If you support the retention of money and property, then you support the retention of capitalism.
[/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma]
[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]What do you think the Party is for? You say you generally agree with Lenin, but Lenin argued (at least at times) that the Party should be a party of militants. I don't understand why the mass of people should elect the party. Why shouldn't the Party elect the Party? What is the point of the Party otherwise?
[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]Fair enough. I have absolutely no problems about this one sentence.
[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]Pro-capitalist, therefore not a communist at all.
[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma][/FONT][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma]Pro-capitalist, therefore not a communist at all.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Tahoma][/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]
Pro-capitalist, therefore not a communist at all.
[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma][/FONT][/FONT]How do you support these things? As you don't even want to overthrow capitalism, how can you [possibly support 'international socialism'? And by 'permanent revolution', do you mean 'world revolution'? Permanent revolution was a theory developed by Trotsky (from about 1905 onwards, developing ideas from Marx) to explain why a revolution in countries like Russia could 'overleap' the stage of the bourgeois revolution. It was only after about 1929 that Trotsky used his 'permanent revolution' theory to demonstrate why 'socialism in one country' was actually anti-socialist. But, as I've already shown, you reject socialism anyway. Why does it matter who (if either) was right?
[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma][/FONT][/FONT]Against whom? You just said you supoport 'international socialism'. Is a socialist world going to go war with itself? Or just keep a military to defend itself against itself? Communist society is, among other things, 'the people armed'. Not 'the state' armed. The state is destroyed - in Engels' famous phrase it 'withers away' when the roots that nourish it are destroyed - that is, property and classes.
[/FONT][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma][/FONT][/FONT]I think even the question of 'justice' is problematic but really this is a very minor issue here.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Wait, so all that stuff about supporting capitalism is merely in the revolutionary period under the dictatorship of the proletariat?
I think then that you're overthinking this. During the revolution, there will be far too much chaos and confusion to put into place the kinds of plans you're outlining.
Not even Stalinists think that 'socialism in one country' is ideal. The question it's supposed to answer is 'what does the revolutionary territory do if it is isolated?' It doesn't start from the premise 'let's have an isolated revolution'.
However, you also state that you don't support the eventual 'abolition' of the state (the state won't be abolished, it will die). So I think that you're confused here about thinking that there can be a society without classes and property, but with a state.
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT][FONT=Tahoma]
If you support (as it appeared you didn't) the goal of a classless communal society, which will be brought about by the revolutionary action of the working class, establishing its dictatorship then yes I think you have absorbed the basics of Marxism. If however you think that there will be states and a military after the establishment of communism, then there are other aspect you really haven't grasped at all.
Things about the general philosophy of socialism you need to consider are:
1 - what is the relationship of property, class and state? What is a class society? What could a classless society be like?
2 - what is the society that we have? What problems does it have, and what are the causes of these problems?
3 - what are the perspectives for change in the society we have? How could these changes come about?
Things I think you need to think about in terms of the processes at work in the revolution are:
1 - how does the revolution happen in the first instance? Mass strike? Party-led insurrection?
2 - what is the role of the revolutionary party/organisation? Does it make the revolution? Does it administer the post-revolutionary state?
3 - how does the working class exercise its dictatorship? Is it through workers' councils? A democratic republic?
4 - how does the working class spread the revolution? Party-led insurrections? Military intervention by a revolutionary state? Extension of workers' councils?
I think thinking about these questions will help you get to grips with things.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
My advice would be, to try and find some group you can discuss political questions with. Which may be very hard: a lot of political groups will want you to sign up and sell papers for them, rather than help you develop your political ideas - or rather they'll want to you to develop your political ideas in the direction of the group's programme. There aren't workers' discussion circles in every city, which is a huge shame, so unless you can find one near where you are, the internet is probably the best place to try to deepen your thinking on these (and I'm sure many other) questions.
Last edited by Blake's Baby; 24th March 2013 at 12:36. Reason: Some weird glitch with the quotes
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
"It is slaves, struggling to throw off their chains, who unleash the movement whereby history abolishes masters." - Raoul Vaneigem
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things." - Karl Marx
"What distinguishes reform from revolution is not that revolution is violent, but that it links insurrection and communisation." - Gilles Dauvé
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]Originally Posted by Blake’s Baby
[FONT=Tahoma]What I mean is that I believe some form of organization will always have to exist. Some sort of governing body(ies) that takes a passive role in society. Just an apparatus for stepping in when it is needed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]Thank you for clarifying this.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]I’m pretty sure that Luxemburg supported the Russian Revolution. It’s just that she disagreed with several aspects of Bolshevik-Leninism; specifically the role of democratic centralism. She also spoke out against what she felt were atrocities carried out by the Bolsheviks. As to what ideas of hers I think are valid, the major one would be the necessidy for democracy if socialist is to be successful. She also advocated more decentralization of economic planning than the Leninists. She supported Workers’ Councils and a vanguard that is completely accountable to the people.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]There is no money or property in a communist utopian society. But there is in a socialist transition state. I’m just interested in the idea of a heavily regulated market system. A market where profits are collected and redistributed via social dividends based on a party plan. Basically a planned economy that allows for diversity in goods and services. But production and innovation would not be based on the profit motive. It would just be a clever way to allow people to participate in a market for the creation and promotion of diversity of ideas, goods, and services. That’s what I mean.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]I believe that a state for the working class needs to be directly influenced by the masses. I support the election of a one party parliament. Socialist policies and ideas should be voted into power via the voting of representatives elected by the people. The party should not elect representatives, the people should.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]How is wanting the working class to be able to innovate in their economy pro-capitalist? I think people should have the right to start their own business as long as the profits generated by said businesses are collectivized. [/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]How is advocating diversity of goods and services and the existence of several enterprises pro-capitalist if I advocate the collectivization of profits and redistribution of wealth by a party plan? These businesses wouldn’t own private property; they’d be opportunities for the people to create things, but such ventures would still public or cooperative property nonetheless.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]How is letting the working class decide on who manages a company pro-capitalist? How is letting the employees inspect the management’s books pro-capitalist? How is allowing the employees to decide on proper wages, salaries, and workers’ conditions through democracy pro-capitalist?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]If it is ever possible for the state apparatus in its entirety to “die” then by all means, let it be. But I’m just not completely convinced that a society in which there is absolutely no form of organized authority can come about. There will be no need for a central “state”, but some form of order will always have to be maintained. I’m not convinced that true anarchism can ever come about. If it can, and if it's feasible, then I’d support it. But there will always have to be some form of social order. A Justice system especially. I don’t mean there would have to be a centralized authority. But some form of social order will always have to exist. We’re humans, and humans aren’t perfect. Even if we do create the perfect socio-economic system someday.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]No, no. If an international socialist movement is successful, then there would be no need for a military. And there would be no need for a central authority. But there would still need to be “some” kind of organization among people in society. Decentralized organization of some sort.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]Anyways, thank you for your response.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]I agree with Marx 100% on these issues.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]I agree with Marx’s analysis of these issues 100%.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]Changes can only come about through a working class revolution with the goals of destroying the capitalist stage of materialist socio-economic evolution.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]The Revolution must be carried out via a party-led insurrection.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]The revolution must be carried out by a vanguard. It will make the revolution and administer the post-revolutionary state.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]A democratic republic that operates under the idea of democratic centralism. But a republic that allows for quite a bit of decentralization of economic planning into workers’ councils. But these councils must operate on a basic framework ratified by the party.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]I agree with Trotsky on this issue 100%.[/FONT]
Do you mean in the dictatorship of the proletariat, or do you mean in the communist society? Becasue there ois no state in communist society, because there is no basis for a state. There are no classes; there is no property; there are no external threats; the state has no meaning in a world communist society.
Well, partly this is a difference in terminology here but if you're a Leninist, you're going to to use the term 'socialism' in some random way that doesn't accord with the usage of those of us who are Marxists but not Leninists. I don't know why you think you need the word 'utopian' in there either. Communist society is not utopia.
Marx posited that there would be a succession of social forms - capitalist society, the transformation under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and communist society. Lenin decided that the early stage of communist society would be called 'socialism'. However, you seem to be using 'socialism' to mean the transformation. For Marxists, however, 'socialism' is a synonym for 'communism'.
I really don't know why you want a 'heavily regulated market system'. Communism is the destruction of the economy not its perfection.
[FONT=Tahoma]A state 'directly influenced' by the masses is not good enougth I think. It would already be a sign of the degeneration of the revolution. The revolution is the task of the working class, not a party or a government. You claim to follow Luxemburg but then want the election of a one-party parliament? How does that work? Now you're talking about 'representatives', the whole principle of the soviets is that they are delegates. You want a single party, but you want the people to vote them into parliament... like in Stalinist Russia?
[FONT=Tahoma]Because the aim is destroy 'economy' and not perfect it. 'their own' businesses? What does that even mean? That they become petit-bourgeois and found little companies? The aim of the communist movement is not so that we all become small capitalists.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]You seem very confused about what you want. You want the Party to plan the economy. You want the people to vote for representatives in a parliament (which does what, exactly?). You want people to be able to start businesses, but you don't want them to own anything. Is it all owned by the party-state-parliament then? How would these 'businesses/enterprises' be started? What are they for?
[FONT=Tahoma]Because there is no 'company', no 'management', and no wages and salaries either as soon as practically possible.
The working class seizes the enterprises. It doesn't seek to manage capitalism (though it will have to for a period) it seeks to destroy it.
[FONT=Verdana]But this is the point. Communist society is classless and communal. If you don't support that goal, how can you be a communist?
Do you think we're advocating total chaos? That in a post-capitalist society people will just mill about grunting and sometimes beating each other with clubs?
I think you haven't given thought to the mechanisms at play.
And what do you think Marx said?
And what do you think Marx said?
Right, something concrete. I agree, the working class brings about the revolutionary transformation of society and destroys capitalism.
Oh, wait, I thought it was the working class doing it.
So not a 'working class' revolution at all then? What you want is a military cou by some self-proclaimed 'communists'?
So the councils (which are the organised power of the working class) must be subordinate to the (single) Party?
That sounds horrible. If it ever happens, I'll put you on note now, I'm going to be trying my damndest to overthrow your militarised party-state because the revolution will already be over and the working class (remember them?) will need another revolution.
And what do you think Trotsky said?
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
OP is not a communist, at least not yet.
I think you're a pretty standard socialist, but perhaps not a communist as others more to the left of you would understand the term.
For my own part, I don't think talk of business and innovation is in itself inately capitalist, and - as a general matter - I think we've moved too far historically to simply dismiss socialist markets and socialist credit/money systems out of hand. I think they could be allowed to exist as long as they are embedded within more powerful networks of solidarity and community democracy.
And its an obvious nonsense to think that "everyone as a whole", as some homogeneous mass, will create new products and services, and work on scientific invention, in exactly the same way in any new society. Dismissal of generalised division of labour under the dictates of the capitalist world system doesn't mean we are against division of labour per se, in all things. Such a dismissal would amount to denying that people are different, which is totalitarianism in its purest form.
Other than all that, as General Strike said/implied, it doesn't really matter what "kind" of socialist/communist you are. You should see the thought and works of the various Tendencies as mere resources to pick and choose at your own convenience, not as dogmas that you need to make yourself "fit into".
for freedom and peace
[FONT=Verdana]First, let me say that English is not my first language, so if I have come off as unclear it’s probably a mixture of my confusion of some of these ideas AND the fact that I’m still learning proper English. So bear with me[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]Originally Posted by Blake’s Baby
[FONT=Verdana]Let me be perfectly clear what I mean when I say “state” when I refer to a communist society. I believe that some form of organization meant to maintain order will always have to exist. If someone murders someone, I believe that some kind of justice system needs to be in place. I also believe that some form of passive body of governance will always have to exist until the world gets unified into one great big happy family communistic society. Even then there would need to be laws and a way of keeping order if or when unexpected things occur. This is what I mean when I say “state.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I support a classless society, and I support the abolition or “withering away” of private property. However, I find it very hard to believe that there will be no external threats even in a future communistic world. There will always be terrorists, there will always be anti-communist revolutionaries, there will always be the potential for outside threats. Some form of organization meant to step in when such problems could arise is necessary, in my opinion. An authoritarian state has no meaning in a communistic society. But some form of organized apparatus will always have to exist, again, in my opinion. We are human beings, and in order for us to behave communitarian, we sometimes, even in a great communistic future, need to be protected and occasionally guided by some form of organization formed by and of the people. If you don’t agree with this, that’s fine. But my opinion on this matter doesn’t exclude me from being able to call myself a socialist that wishes for a communistic society. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]In the meantime, in the socialist transition state, I fully support the dictatorship of the proletariat and the maintenance of a state. By state, I mean so in the traditional sense.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I generally agree with the Bolshevik-Leninist contributions to Marxist thought. I believe that to take a country from from capitalism to communism, there needs to be a transition. That transition is what I call socialism. The socialism I support is a vehicle that abolishes the capitalist dictatorship and institutes a dictatorship of the proletariat, led by a vanguard party.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]This is just an idea that interests me. I don’t like being overly dogmatic when it comes to my support of Bolshevik-Leninism. I find the idea of a socialist market intriguing and I like quite a few aspects of what this philosophy advocates. That’s all. My interest in this issue doesn’t make me pro-capitalist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Let me be clear. I believe that the working class can only succeed in the revolution if that class is represented by a party. I claim to follow to Luxemburg because I’m intrigued by her ideas of a weak vanguard and a decentralization of economic planning. I want the election of a one-party parliament, and this parliament should plan on the large scale. Luxemburg didn’t reject the idea of a vanguard or elections; she just advocated a much weaker and reformed version than what she saw was happening under Lenin. She wasn’t quite as far to the left as the Council Communists, but not nearly as far to the right as the Bolshevik-Leninists. I like her stance in the middle. I advocate a kind of middle-ground between strict Vanguardism and democratic centralism and decentralized council planning and the absence of Vanguardism. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]As to representatives, what I mean is that I think all members of a one-party system need to be elected by the general public. If we Revolutionary Socialists support the dictatorship of the proletariat, then I think we need to make sure the proletariat has a real voice. The party should listen to the people. The best way of doing that would be to have members of the party elected by the people. That way party members that represent what the people most want would be elected into office. This way there is much less of a chance that Stalinist-style dictatorship would come about.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma][/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]No, the idea is to create and maintain an economy that isn’t based on the profit motive. Any form of exchange of goods and services would constitute being an “economy.” Communists just want an economic environment that works without money, without profit greed, without conditional trading. Have you ever seen the various Star Trek TV shows? The kind of economic environment they have in this fictional universe is ideally communistic from an economic standpoint. It’s moneyless and classless. But it still constitutes as an “economy”. [/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma]What I mean by “their own businesses” is that people have the right and ability to start producing something to introduce into the market. It would be because they want to contribute to their economy and their society, not because they want to get rich. That doesn’t make me anti-socialist. It means that I don’t want a totalitarian economy where the party decides on everything that is to be buyable and sellable. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I want the party to ratify and maintain an economic framework. I want them to plan the major things, such as a central bank, but I also want them to release control of mid-sized corporations to the people as long as they abide by the party’s overall framework. Kind of like council communism, only not as far.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I want people to vote for representatives in a parliament that maintains the socialist transition state, ratifies plans, works with international communities to help foster socialism, makes laws, etc. A parliament that runs the country, but is elected by the people. Again, you don’t have to agree with these ideas, but my ideas are not anti-socialist. Maybe anti-your socialist ideas, but not inherently making me pro-capitalist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]And yes, I want people to be able to start a business, but I don’t want them to own much. Keep in mind that I don’t advocate the creation of business for profit. I advocate the creation of business for diversity of goods and services. That way the economy isn’t totalitarian.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I imagine a person comes up with a good idea and wants to produce it. He/she gets permission from the government to do so. The company would start small and grow larger if the product or service is popular. However, the profits would be collectivized, and distribution would be decided upon by the employees via council democracy. And as long as they abide by the party’s overall guidelines, the council could do as it wishes. This way the working class has a real say in things, all the while having a party above them making big picture decisions.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I do support the classless communist society. I support an egalitarian, communitarian, and democratic society without class differentials of all kinds. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]This would happen if there is no apparatus for law and order, yes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Of course not. Again, I want a party that gains the support of the masses to lead the revolution and set up the transition state. This party would be representing the working class.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Exactly.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Lol, calm down. Keep in mind that I’m just a young man trying to formulate philosophical opinions. You obviously don’t like this idea, and that’s fine. I think it’s a mixture of Leninism and Luxemburgism. Lenin would probably hate my ideas and so would Luxemburg. Because I’m in the middle of this dichotomy. I like to pick and choose areas of Leninism, Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, and Councilism that I find appealing. I’m not a Trotskyist or a Luxemburgist or a Leninist. But I’m somewhere among these camps. I just advocate bits from each. And the point of this thread was to see if there was a term for people like me.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]As to what I think Marx said and Trotsky said, I’m not going to go into here. I’ve read the Manifesto and some of Marx’s his other writings (such as the German Ideology and the Economic Manuscripts), and I’ve read Engels’ “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”. And I agree with what their analysis wholeheartedly. As for Trotsky, I agree with his ideas of international socialism. I oppose Stalin’s Socialism in One Country. I also support, like Trotsky did (to a degree) and Luxemburg did (especially) the ideas of anti-bureaucratization within the party via more mass democracy and workers’ self -emancipation. And I agree with Trotsky’s and Luxemburg’s more leftist ideas on the management of the economy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Anyways, thank you for your great posts. This is the kind of dialog I was wanting to have. I hope it continues.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]Originally Posted by Lord Hargreaves
[FONT=Verdana]I completely agree with this. 100%. If you thought that I think this, I must not have made myself clear.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]This is what I’m going to do, and I already do it. I’m not for hero worship or dogmatism. I think many different tendencies have good ideas, and I will support them. When it comes down to it, I think I’m more in line with the Trotskyists and Luxemburgists. Although they would both consider my ideas highly revisionist.[/FONT]
The OP should read The Transitional Program, by Trotsky, and see if he agrees with it. He thought it would serve as a guideline based on what he and his associates in the 4th international thought was necessary for a revolution.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
