Communism

Originally posted by Hector Victorious So Far in History No one has done communism right with communism you have the ablity to acheive.....

So far in world history has anyone done anything right?

(Sounds like the start of a new thread.)

Well, at least in two occasions: Makhnoist revolution in Ukraine and Spanish Revolution, true communism has been temporarily achieved. Yet, it has been strangled or massacred. So far it has been too weak against fascism, classical burgueois state and even the Stalinist aberration... I wonder if it would ever triumph and how. 

Originally posted by eaglecap In theory it is good but in reality it is evil!! Stalin is a great example because like most things the human factor gets in the way.

Well, that happens with Liberalism (Capitalism) too. The theory of the free market may sound good but in practice is just all explotation of the weak by the corrupt... a world of mafia gangs dignified as "corporations".

And, while Stalinism is not the ultimate ideal of Communism, Reaganomics is the ideal of Liberalism indeed.

IF you have not read the Communist manifesto I suggest you do so, It will Enlighten you as to what COmmunism really is...

Originally posted by Maju But anyhow, remember that communists (Leninists) were a schism from social-democracy and that Marxist social-democracy was central in the evolution of modern European democracies, promoting universal suffrage and other reforms.

You are certainly wrong about Britain at least. Marxism was only one thread, and a minor one, in the development of the British labour movement, or the preceding liberal governments that gradually introduced universal suffrage.

British socialism, in the trades unions as well as in the intelligentsia and elsewhere took most of its inspiration from religion, particularly Methodism and some of the Congregationalist and Quaker societies. 'Syndicalism' - though the word isn't often used in British commentaries; 'trades unionism is more common - was a major force, and so was the co-operative movement.

There were of course Marxists involved in the movement: even Fabians like the Webbs converted somewhat to Mary later on. In particular they rarely gained power in the trades unions, though there were some notable exceptions.

 Eventually they may have abandoned their Marxist tag and the ultimate goal of communism but they used to be Marxists not long ago - some still are.

The famous - or infamous - clause 4 of the Labour party constitution, abandoned only recently uner Tony Blair, summed up the party's economic goal:

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service".

This is not a Marxist goal.

 

Originally posted by Maju But not communism because the communes or soviets were powerless against the central power of the party, the state and the army.

But there was still very few, powerful ruling entities vying for even more power, which governed the distribution of goods and made them unequal. Thats what i was trying to say, but your info was good, thanks. Soviet history is not my forte, as you can tell.


Edited by ArmenianSurvival

Maju, you are speaking as if Marxism=parliamentarism, but the essence of Marxism is the social analysis on the base of classes which aims to abolish classes through the class struggle. The means for this can vary such as parlamentarism and "illegalism" and this is a matter of choice, not Marxism itself. I mean that communists, Leninists weren't out of Marxism.

Edited by kotumeyil

     According to Marx, a state of global Communism is inevitable. All these cute games the capitalists are playing with each other are just temporary hindrances.

     By the way, Communism, in its original theory, is when private property is eliminated and goods are owned in common, available to the people as they need it. Also, government owns the means of production. It was the final stage of society that Marx was explaining, when the government's power has withered away in the face of strong laborers' rights and goods are distributed equally. The Communism of the U.S.S.R.  was simply the final stages of society that Marx was talking about, except in Marx's theory there was no powerful authoritarian government or corruption or any of that other nasty stuff that comes when humans try to run a fair system. Basically the Soviets took Marx's basic idea and tried to make it work with a strong government, which in Marxist theory, isnt supposed to work.

      Anarchism, or as some people know it as "Anarcho-Syndicalism", is a society in which workers' unions have siezed control of the economy and government by direct means. Also, all industries are owned by the people who work in them. This is how it differs from Marxism/Communism.


Edited by ArmenianSurvival

Originally posted by Genghis I mean why do you support anarchy (the lack of government) and, at the same time, communism which requires and interventionist government?

I think I have already adressed the point that communism and government are incompatible even in Marxist doctrine. Communism is by definition the "state" of communes (communities, municipalities): a socio-political decentralized democratic and confederative structure. Sort of Switzerland without Capitalism.

A very diferent thing is what many call wrongly "Communist state" which is just an statists form of Socialism. Lenin understood it perfectly and, in his time, he boasted of not having been able to achieve communism but at least the burgueois state. Stalin though supressed the liberal economy of Lenin and created the first Socialist state and economy of modern history. But, no matter that they called themselves communists, their political and economical realization wasn't communist, according to Marxist thought.

Communism and Anarchism are the same thing and the originally shared goal of all Socialists, who were together for a while in the 1st International. Yet, history as played with the names. First the struggle between authoritarian/pragmatic (so-called "scientific") Marxists and libertarian/utopic Anarchists broke the International in two currents, one called Social-Democratic or Socialist and the other Libertarian or Anarchist. The first hoped to gradually prepare the revolution from inside the burgueois state by political participation mixed with calss struggle. The second rejected radically any kind of political participation and worked only in the area of class struggle and self-organization of the working class. Marxists accepted and promoted parlamentarism and the democratic state, forgetting about their ultimate goal and becoming the modern Social-Democracy (2nd International) and eventually, after some schisms and the Russian Revolution, the so-called Communists (3rd International first, Kominform later, 4th International(s) for the Troskist-Leninist schism). But Communists are called that way for their supposed ultimate goal, not because what they have achieved resemble slightly that goal.

I mean why do you support anarchy (the lack of government) and, at the same time, communism which requires and interventionist government?