True Communism
- Thread starter XxXxDanXxXx
- Start date
I believe communists strive for a communistic society, but they want it by different means then communists. Karl Marx wanted a gradual change into communism, while anarchists want to use anarchy as a way to reach a communistic society. I'm not sure if I'm right though, so if anyone wanna correct me, please do.
Marx wrote the Communist manifesto with Engels who has as much to do with Marxism as Marx. They were both the farther of communism (the only reson they disliked the term socialism is because in that day and age it was to closely associated with social democrats (or watered down communists who believed in capitalism in reality), and plus they had an obbsession with dialectics).
Marx hated anarchists, anarcy is the idea that there should be no state, no structure, no central government. The end result of communism is wholly different to that - the term 'withering away of the state' by Engels wasn't meant to be taking as the state actually withering away, as in dissapearing - this is a crude and opportunist intepredation of Marxism - withering away was meant in the first instance as a response to the "abolishing" of the bourgeois state, or abolishes the state as state after the proletariat revolution.
After the revolution the idea then being as a communist state becomes more and more developed there will be little need for elected officials (democracy) since it will be a system of distribution - and no decisions will need to be taken, only managment of the system will be needed...thus in this sense the withering away of the state is inevitable in Marxist doctorin (this is a VERY simplistic analysis of the theory of withering away of the state, and i mean simplistic - it was based by Engels on the Paris Commune of 1871, and again the term 'withering away' is in line with Marxist dielectics and is unfortunate because it sounds a lot like the anarchists idea in words, but not substance.)
What the Soviet Union did under Lenin was going in the direction of Marx communism, Marxist-Leninists are pretty much the same thing only with revolutionary theory mixed in (the problem being the revolutionary theory effects the state greatly after the revolution, hence such things as the seceret police, and the civil war), anyway the system of the Soviets was the closest system we will ever have towards the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or to put it in less offensive and less dialectic terms 'democracy of the proletariat' - it was the system of democracy for the workers, for every 10,000 workers per say - there would be one representative in the Soviet assembly, the reprentative would have to be a worker in the factories they represented and not some educated person who would never have stepped foot in the factory and not understand worker culture. The idea being they would represent the workers and not their owners interest, if u didnt work, u didnt vote, if u owned the means of production - u didnt vote (although this point is void since Lenin burned all land deeds effectivly eliminating the capitalist class, this was not a good move by Lenin, especially when it came to organising the NEP)
Anyway in the Soviet Union under Lenin they were working towards a communist state inviseged by Marx, it wasnt perfect and may not have worked even if given the time to develope - but when Stalin took power he produced a system totally alien to communism, he wasnt a communist or socialist - his 'Socialism in one state' is contradictory to every marxist principle and Marxist-Leninist system. In terms of communism as an experiment in Russia, only 1917-1924 should be studied!
peace
MX!
Marx hated anarchists, anarcy is the idea that there should be no state, no structure, no central government. The end result of communism is wholly different to that - the term 'withering away of the state' by Engels wasn't meant to be taking as the state actually withering away, as in dissapearing - this is a crude and opportunist intepredation of Marxism - withering away was meant in the first instance as a response to the "abolishing" of the bourgeois state, or abolishes the state as state after the proletariat revolution.
After the revolution the idea then being as a communist state becomes more and more developed there will be little need for elected officials (democracy) since it will be a system of distribution - and no decisions will need to be taken, only managment of the system will be needed...thus in this sense the withering away of the state is inevitable in Marxist doctorin (this is a VERY simplistic analysis of the theory of withering away of the state, and i mean simplistic - it was based by Engels on the Paris Commune of 1871, and again the term 'withering away' is in line with Marxist dielectics and is unfortunate because it sounds a lot like the anarchists idea in words, but not substance.)
What the Soviet Union did under Lenin was going in the direction of Marx communism, Marxist-Leninists are pretty much the same thing only with revolutionary theory mixed in (the problem being the revolutionary theory effects the state greatly after the revolution, hence such things as the seceret police, and the civil war), anyway the system of the Soviets was the closest system we will ever have towards the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or to put it in less offensive and less dialectic terms 'democracy of the proletariat' - it was the system of democracy for the workers, for every 10,000 workers per say - there would be one representative in the Soviet assembly, the reprentative would have to be a worker in the factories they represented and not some educated person who would never have stepped foot in the factory and not understand worker culture. The idea being they would represent the workers and not their owners interest, if u didnt work, u didnt vote, if u owned the means of production - u didnt vote (although this point is void since Lenin burned all land deeds effectivly eliminating the capitalist class, this was not a good move by Lenin, especially when it came to organising the NEP)
Anyway in the Soviet Union under Lenin they were working towards a communist state inviseged by Marx, it wasnt perfect and may not have worked even if given the time to develope - but when Stalin took power he produced a system totally alien to communism, he wasnt a communist or socialist - his 'Socialism in one state' is contradictory to every marxist principle and Marxist-Leninist system. In terms of communism as an experiment in Russia, only 1917-1924 should be studied!
peace
MX!
Marx used the term 'smashing of the state apparatus' - all marxist are revolutionries, none believe it can be a gradual change - anarchists and communists are not the same thing, communists and anarchists dissagree on the fundamentals of societies structures. We are as far apart from anarchists as we are from capitalists!
peace
MX!
peace
MX!
damn homie 
i knew you knew a lot bout the subject, but you call that simplistic? hihi
anyway, you got me confused for a sec. Could you, or anyone, sum up the definitions of "communism", "socialism" and "marxism"?
marxism was Marx' and Engels' ideas, you said. but im confused. the terms are so often mixed up by even experts on tv, in books and what not. not to mention the "common public" and historically often unaccurate internet sources. i hear people using political terms for economical systems and the other way around. so what does communism and socialism mean and how do they differ from eachother?
quite interested in hearing this.
i knew you knew a lot bout the subject, but you call that simplistic? hihianyway, you got me confused for a sec. Could you, or anyone, sum up the definitions of "communism", "socialism" and "marxism"?
marxism was Marx' and Engels' ideas, you said. but im confused. the terms are so often mixed up by even experts on tv, in books and what not. not to mention the "common public" and historically often unaccurate internet sources. i hear people using political terms for economical systems and the other way around. so what does communism and socialism mean and how do they differ from eachother?
quite interested in hearing this.
Anarchy is not a communist position - believe me!
There is no room for compramise between anarchism and communism - they are alien to each other...as Lenin explains:-
The anarchists had tried to claim the Paris Commune as their "own", so to say, as a collaboration of their doctrine; and they completely misunderstood its lessons and Marx's analysis of these lessons. Anarchism has given nothing even approximating true answers to the concrete political questions: Must the old state machine be smashed? And what should be put in its place?
But to speak of "anarchism and socialism" while completely evading the question of the state, and disregarding the whole development of Marxism before and after the Commune, meant inevitably slipping into opportunism. For what opportunism needs most of all is that the two questions just mentioned should not be raised at all. That in itself is a victory for opportunism. (State and Revolution)
There is no compramise between the two, there never will be - when we fall into a state of anarchy (like in the Spanish Civil War) they inevitably turn to Marxism - Marxism never turnes to anarchy for ideological help! Anarchists need Marxists, Marxists never need anarchists!
There is no room for compramise between anarchism and communism - they are alien to each other...as Lenin explains:-
The anarchists had tried to claim the Paris Commune as their "own", so to say, as a collaboration of their doctrine; and they completely misunderstood its lessons and Marx's analysis of these lessons. Anarchism has given nothing even approximating true answers to the concrete political questions: Must the old state machine be smashed? And what should be put in its place?
But to speak of "anarchism and socialism" while completely evading the question of the state, and disregarding the whole development of Marxism before and after the Commune, meant inevitably slipping into opportunism. For what opportunism needs most of all is that the two questions just mentioned should not be raised at all. That in itself is a victory for opportunism. (State and Revolution)
There is no compramise between the two, there never will be - when we fall into a state of anarchy (like in the Spanish Civil War) they inevitably turn to Marxism - Marxism never turnes to anarchy for ideological help! Anarchists need Marxists, Marxists never need anarchists!
Duke said:
damn homie i knew you knew a lot bout the subject, but you call that simplistic? hihi
anyway, you got me confused for a sec. Could you, or anyone, sum up the definitions of "communism", "socialism" and "marxism"?
marxism was Marx' and Engels' ideas, you said. but im confused. the terms are so often mixed up by even experts on tv, in books and what not. not to mention the "common public" and historically often unaccurate internet sources. i hear people using political terms for economical systems and the other way around. so what does communism and socialism mean and how do they differ from eachother?
quite interested in hearing this.
i knew you knew a lot bout the subject, but you call that simplistic? hihianyway, you got me confused for a sec. Could you, or anyone, sum up the definitions of "communism", "socialism" and "marxism"?
marxism was Marx' and Engels' ideas, you said. but im confused. the terms are so often mixed up by even experts on tv, in books and what not. not to mention the "common public" and historically often unaccurate internet sources. i hear people using political terms for economical systems and the other way around. so what does communism and socialism mean and how do they differ from eachother?
quite interested in hearing this.
Marxism is the ideology, communism/socialsim is the political system!
In Marx and Engels day the difference between socialism and communism was the hardline nature of each position - communism was hard line and wanted the fall of captialism, socialism was utopian thinking without true construction, petty bourgeois politics!
After the Russian Revolution (or may be before it i dunno) the two terms came to mean pretty much the same thing - communist the hardliners, socialists - Marxists indeed, but not hardline.
After Stalin took control of the USSR and Trotsky was bannished Trotsky said that he was no longer a communist since of the way Stalin was running the State, and claimed he was a socialist - hence the difference became between two different brand of Marxism - Stalinism was communism, Trotskyist or Lenninists were socialist. This is still true today with most Marxists to an extent, you will rearly hear me call myself a communist, always a socialist.
peace
MX!
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.