Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Socialism Is Not Communism Nor Is It Related |
Post Reply 
|
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||
AksumVanguard 
Samurai 
Joined: 01-Feb-2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 127 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Socialism Is Not Communism Nor Is It RelatedPosted: 10-Feb-2009 at 18:43 |
|||
|
According to the Communist Manifesto Engels and Marx denounced socliasm resaon being it would conceive a system of social classes via trade and industry unions a making one inferior to another.
For example if I'm artisan weaver helper and I decide to form a union with fellow weavers assistant as my self I would become obselete by the time of the Textile Factories were more relevant. Either that or I would become less valuable.Or what about an assistant to a blacksmith and I decide to create rights for my fellow assistant blacksmith workers, I would bevocme obselte by the time of the Steel Factories were invented. Or maybe even a courier or journeyman and decided to make a union, I would be obselete by the time the Train and Rail system is built. Even after the advention of Steel factories ,Textiles and Railsystem there has been the introduction of Manufacturing Engineering. That Machine Factories makeunion workers obslete in certain instances. So socialism and communism are not the same. It would create systems of class,the proletarait would be at a disadvantage when technologies are advance. Socliasm even exist in America with the trade unions. So why did the Russians call themselves Soviets? I think Stalin just corrupted the whole Ideology,because communism still exist in Eastern Asia countries today. Edited by AksumVanguard - 10-Feb-2009 at 18:44 |
||||
 |
||||
|
Parnell
Suspended 
Suspended Joined: 04-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1409 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 18:49 |
|||
|
...Is anyone saying otherwise? Everyone knows the differences between communism and socialism. Those who confuse the two often don't understand what they're actually talking about. |
||||
|
||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan 
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 19:12 |
|||
What we mean today by socialism is different than what was meant at the time. In the Manifesto, Marx classifies socialism into 3 broad categories (reactionary, bourgeois, and communist). What we call 'socialism' today, would fall under the bourgeouis socialism category, which Marx was definately opposed to.
Unions are not even mentioned in the section on socialism in the Manifesto, although Marx did have criticism of some forms of unionism elsewhere. However, he also saw unions as the basis for the communist revolution: "If in the associations it really were a matter only of what it appears to be, namely the fixing of wages, if the relationship between labour and capital were eternal, these combinations would be wrecked on the necessity of things. But they are the means of uniting the working class, of preparing for the overthrow of the entire old society with its class contradictions." (from Marx's Wages) Reactionary socialism was really bad because it was simply the aristocracy recruiting the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeois and bring about a return to feudal conditions, and in that sense was even worse than capitalism. Bourgeouis socialism was bad because of its philanthropy, which masked the effects of capitalism and made it more sustainable than it ought to be.
Cottage industries becoming obsolete and being replaced by industrial production were a good thing, from a Marxist standpoint. Marxism was not necessarily about helping out the disadvantaged (eg the 'lumpenproletariat', whom Marx despised) and certainly not about a return to the modes of production that characterized feudalism. It was about the supremacy of the industrial worker as a class. The basic formula for Marx's version of communism, in a really simplified form, works something like this: first, there is feudalism and cottage industry. Liberal capitalism comes along and does a bunch of things, like globalize markets (the basis for commuist internationalism), regiment production into large factories where hundreds or thousands of workers work side-by-side (providing the basis for proletariat organization), and divorcing workers from ownership of the means of production. The last produces a class that is used to not owning the means of production, allowing production to be collectively organized without private ownership. There's also the abolition of feudal tenures, to be replaced by rent, which causes a similar effect; the new class was supposed to be used to not owning or having any title to property like land, either, so making it possible to sweep aside private ownership of land (and therefore things like rent). That's just Marx (and the Kautskyists) though. Leninism and other species of communism considerably adapted the basic formula. Edited by edgewaters - 10-Feb-2009 at 19:39 |
||||
|
||||
|
AksumVanguard
Samurai
Joined: 01-Feb-2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 127 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 19:55 |
|||
|
Parnell
edgewaters
Unions are not even mentioned in the section on socialism in the Manifesto, although Marx did have criticism of some forms of unionism elsewhere. However, he also saw unions as the basis for the communist revolution: What I am trying to indicate is that there would be favoritism and reliance between different union social classes. As technological innovations would be introduced former men of trades, mainly the laborers and craftsmans, would be macreoeconomically disposable creating obvious devalue on their worth in society. So if they were to have price tag put on laborers, Marx knew that it would not be viable in the long run in creating a "CLASSLESS GOVERNMENT" .His conception was to put the governmet responsible for industrial activity in ones nation. So soclialism was frowned upon by Marx. I think socliasm was to be as stimulus to Marxist and Communism but the Rssuians still kept its ideology mainly because Trotsky dethronement and Stalins rise into power. Marx was about the proletarariats survival in society. Of course he didn't dislike the Industrial Revolution. I think he just was concerned with the widening gap, and did not want the new useless workers of industry,becoming draggged through the mud. I think the Chinese have really mastered communism with incorparation of communes. It really gives incentive unlike their former Russian counterparts. |
||||
|
||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 20:19 |
|||
No, because Marx's communist economy was structured such that all labour was equally valuable. There was no supply/demand mechanism for labour because it ceased to be a commodity, the wage system is abolished. Workers were to have access to collectively controlled capital to produce their own wealth through their own labour, without the existance of a commodity market. There is still exchange (edit: not exchange exactly, will elaborate if necessary), but only of the labour-value tied up in goods. The "price" of a good is just how much labour is tied up in it, measured by the average time it takes the society to produce a unit - this leaves no room for supply/demand and no room for profit by any party, either private or public, as profit is to be abolished along with all other forms of "surplus value" - as Marx puts it, "the individual receives from society exactly what he gives to it" in labour, and there is no room to manipulate supply and demand in order to derive profit from the labour of another.Incidentally, it is specifically noted that those using obsolete technologies/methods of productions are disadvantaged in the communist economy because of the whole 'average time of production' bit, and Marx also specifically notes that communism will not do away with regional, or even personal, disparities in wealth, and concluded that it was therefore not utopian. Marx termed this phenomena a "right of inequality": But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. (from Critique of the Gotha Program)
Common misconception. This is based on Lenin, not Marx. Marx was internationalist - there were to be no nations, and government was to cease to exist, after a transitional period during which the industrial classes would use the state to suppress the bourgeouis. This is why Marx was such a fan of the globalized economy, because it created the foundation for an international revolution which would abolish national identity (seen as a bourgeouis mechanism for pitting workers in different countries against each other) and helped to render the state irrelevant/obsolete in economic terms. Government organization of industrial activity was strongly opposed by Marx. As far as Marx was concerned, the state was a bourgeouis institution that existed only to enforce a class dictatorship. He intended that it be turned against its masters, and once their class has ceased to exist as such, that it had no further use or reason for existance. Edited by edgewaters - 10-Feb-2009 at 21:24 |
||||
|
||||
|
AksumVanguard
Samurai
Joined: 01-Feb-2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 127 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 21:18 |
|||
|
No, because Marx's communist economy was structured such that all
labour was equally valuable. There was no supply/demand mechanism for
labour because it ceased to be a commodity, the wage system is
abolished. Workers were to have access to collectively controlled
capital to produce their own wealth through their own labour, without
the existance of a commodity market. There is still exchange, but only
of the labour-value tied up in goods. The "price" of a good is just how
much labour is tied up in it, measured by the average time it takes the
society to produce a unit - this leaves no room for supply/demand and
no room for profit by any party, either private or public, as profit is
to be abolished along with all other forms of "surplus value" - as Marx
puts it, "the individual receives from society exactly what he gives to
it" in labour, and there is no room to manipulate supply and demand in
order to derive profit from the labour of another.Incidentally, it is
specifically noted that those using obsolete technologies/methods of
productions are disadvantaged in the communist economy because of the
whole 'average time of production' bit, and Marx also
specifically notes that communism will not do away with regional, or
even personal, disparities in wealth, and concluded that it was
therefore not utopian.
Yes my friend I think we are either both agreeing or you are trying to evade the state ment sayingMarxism was not necessarily about helping out the disadvantaged (eg the 'lumpenproletariat',my point is that Marxism was about conceiving a society were both the value of the laborer and the industry were equeal in value no matter how advanced the state got> I think globalized communism was an idea of Trotsky not Marx I will type in more later my computer is giving me problems now lol |
||||
|
||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 21:33 |
|||
No, its a core fundamental of Marx. Internationalist socialism is actually the background out of which communism developed, originally as a splinter group - the other splinter being anarchism (specifically, both came out of the milieu of the International Workingmen's Association often known simply as "the International"). The anarchists more or less took control of the First International after a series of bitter rivalries with the communists, and it eventually collapsed. After that there a whole bunch of other Internationals - the Second International, which excluded the anarchists; the Third International, which was the Comintern; the Fourth International, Trostky's anti-Comintern group; the Socialist International; the revived IWA of the 1920s, run by anarchists, to name a few. The last two are still around. Trotsky remained orthodox on this point, as did Lenin to a degree. Internationalism wasn't really abandoned until Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" concept, which revoked internationalism out of necessity following the failure of communist revolutions throughout Europe. Edited by edgewaters - 10-Feb-2009 at 22:00 |
||||
|
||||
|
vulkan02
Arch Duke 
Termythinator Joined: 27-Apr-2005 Location: U$A Online Status: Offline Posts: 1835 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Feb-2009 at 00:18 |
|||
Its nice you pointed this out Edgewaters. I think we are at the stage that Marx has predicted but just how long for this international revolution to occur we will see but we are getting closer and closer to this momentous event. Western countries, especially the U$A, are even more obsolete in this regard than the rest of the other countries. They solely exist to protect and further the economic interests of their capitalist classes. |
||||
|
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
||||
|
||||
|
AksumVanguard
Samurai
Joined: 01-Feb-2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 127 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Feb-2009 at 00:23 |
|||
I think Lenin's older brother Alexander Ulyanov was connected to a revolutionist group that where trying overthrow the Autonomous Czarist regime. Russian laborers and minors worked with conspirators to overthrow the government secrecy. I don't understand how Trostky employed Anarchism and why the Russian populous chose to beget socialism when commnism is way farther from than that. Who was the founder of IWA and how did Anarchism derive from the Marxist views? Edited by AksumVanguard - 11-Feb-2009 at 00:25 |
||||
|
||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Feb-2009 at 00:40 |
|||
|
I'm not familiar with that.
Err ... I guess I explained it poorly. Trotsky didn't employ anarchism. Anarchism did not derive from Marxist views ... the anarchists and communists were opposing factions that emerged from the International, which was characterized by a general atmosphere of radical Owenism/socialism (socialism in the 19th century meaning of the term, that is). The key figures of the two factions were Bakunin and Marx. The IWA wasn't really founded by any particular individual. It started out as a group to prevent companies from bringing in foreign workers during strikes, by co-ordinating workers in different countries to support each other in labour actions. Don't scab on my strike and I won't scab on yours, sort of thing. Edited by edgewaters - 11-Feb-2009 at 00:46 |
||||
|
||||
|
AksumVanguard
Samurai
Joined: 01-Feb-2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 127 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Feb-2009 at 02:46 |
|||
Yes Lenin did have a brother who was very much involved in the Revolution were trying to overthough the Royalist.I think he was involved in a Czar assination I think it was Czar Alexander. So bascially the IWA were trying to circumvent the practice of striking and protest unions in across Europe,since it was very rampant. It obviously didn't work,but I think the anarchism is actually next akin to NWO. Its is as not disorganized as I onced percieved it to be. From what I'm understanding they want a Centralized Global Government ,that imposes lax laws, and light taxes on the public. I'm assuming they would want all governments becoming one because if one government topples over another country will go and administer new law inthe former government. The seem to have not to much in common with Bolsheviks or Marxist,but they were probably later influenced by them from what it sounds. |
||||
|
||||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Feb-2009 at 03:56 |
|||
|
No, not circumvent ... intensify, in order to bring down the capitalists. The IWA wanted to make it impossible for bosses to find replacement workers in foreign countries during strikes. The idea was that the only foreigners who were going to show up were going to be socialist superstars like Marx and Bakunin. In the 19th century meaning of the term 'socialism' (I'm going to shorten this to INCMT socialism!) With 5-8 million members ... and not casual members, either, but an army of communist and anarchist hotheads ... they may actually have managed to make an impact in that regard, except that they were locked in a perpetual marital dispute between various factions about fuzzy theoretical concepts. Today, their role in labour disputes is almost entirely unremembered, they are remembered as something more like ... well, imagine a debate club comprised of argumentative Rabbis. The IWAs big claim to fame was that they managed to actually get millions of radical revolutionaries to band together, sort of, and that Marx and Bakunin's 'careers' as revolutionaries got off the ground in the IWA.
Err, no. Well not exactly. No taxes, anyway. Bakunin had some notions about a 'secret brotherhood' of 1000 (iirc) intellectuals guiding the revolution, but nobody was supposed to know they existed (I'm not sure how that was supposed to work since he told everybody). Definately not centralized, either.
That would stand to reason, but the anarchists had theoretical reasons why it would not happen. I don't pretend to understand what they were, but there were alot of different ideas about that, some of which were very bizarre (if you want really weird, check out Hakim Bey, who talks about 'temporary autonomous zones' that elude authoritarian elements by becoming 'psychic nomads' who are 'gone to Croaton', which is a 'pirate Utopia' ... don't ask me, cause I don't know! Either its some sort of code or Hakim is nuttier than a squirrel poop!)
Later? No, not really. They pretty much parted ways after the failure of the International, at least, as schools of thought. In practice they co-operated sometimes, betrayed each other at other times. Edited by edgewaters - 11-Feb-2009 at 04:16 |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.
