Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Taken from the Kiev Is Burning thread by Stefan Kotsch:

"Marx and Marxism are almost certainly two different things. Marx is innocent of Marxism. Marx only described capitalism how he was in 1876. And because I was able to study real socialism for 30 years, I can say that Marxism and socialism do not work. Quite apart from the fact that everyone understands socialism differently. One should first formulate a common definition before further discussion..."

Stefan makes a good point to move this out of the Kiev is Burning to a new posting. So here it is.

Your definition(s)?

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Marxism is a primitive messianic political and language system because without check and balances and without separations of powers. Political individual rights are not recognized. You have only political rights as part of a valid group or class that can be only defined by Marxist analysis.

Primitive because is a movement in inverse direction of human political system evolution since Greek Democracy were the individual got increasingly more power. In that sense it is Reactionary.

Marx is not separated of Marxism, he told very clearly that he don't cared for people that went against "his History". The Jews for example have to abandon Jewry to be true Socialists. If they refuse they will be made extinct. There is clearly an appeal to Genocide in Marx papers.

Contrary to Nazis that wanted to eliminate Jews because of their race, Marxism wanted to eliminate Jews if they refused to erase their culture, if they could be good socialists burning the Torah and the Temple then they would not be under threat. Same for all other cultures, they should be abolished to what can be called a  supremacist socialist culture.

Marx in that way can be said to be a different sorts of National Socialist,  his nation was the mental space of the socialist idea and not a piece of land determined by borders or race. For Marx all cultures and traditions should be abolished and a NEW MAN should rise free from all constraints of the past.

You can compare it to Islam that is open to anyone and fights and subjugates everyone outside that refuses to be part of it. It do not allow competition.

 

Marxism have given us Communism, Fascism(which rejects permanent Marx class struggle replacing it with corporatism) - should be noted that in practice most Communism also end up rejecting permanent class struggle since that is very risky for the current leader. Stalin and Mao were only some of the few that could use it as a mask to eliminate oponents.

 

Edited by lucklucky
Posted

Marxism is based on the belief that all population groups are made up of the oppressed vs. the oppressors. The Marxist solution is for the oppressed to destroy the oppressors and steal all of their assets. 

Posted
3 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Marx is not separated of Marxism, he told very clearly that he don't cared for people that went against "his History". The Jews for example have to abandon Jewry to be true Socialists. If they refuse they will be made extinct. There is clearly an appeal to Genocide in Marx papers.

Contrary to Nazis that wanted to eliminate Jews because of their race, Marxism wanted to eliminate Jews if they refused to erase their culture, if they could be good socialists burning the Torah and the Temple then they would not be under threat. Same for all other cultures, they should be abolished to what can be called a  supremacist socialist culture.

My working hypothesis to explain the century-long hatred of Jews in the west (and partly in the east as well) is that they refuse to be wiped off the planet, and many refuse to renounce their culture, religion, values. 

We are now in a phase of history where the boneless left is relying on Muslims to eliminate all Jews who won't bend the knee. 

Posted
5 hours ago, Rick said:

Your definition(s)?

I bow to Sir Roger Scrunton's definition from the Palgrave MacMillan Dictionary of Political Thought. It's nuanced, detailed and draws the distinctions between what a number of folks argue without excluding Marx's own definitional points. 

 

communism

1. A social and economic arrangement defined by the fact that no participant owns significantly more than any other, either because all property is held in common, or because the insti- tution of property does not exist, or (Marx) because ownership is confined to the means of consumption and is excluded from the means of produc- tion and exchange. To be distin- guished from arrangements in which property is not owned in common but by some impersonal, but nevertheless autonomous body, such as the state. (See *socialism, *state capitalism, *state socialism.) Also to be distinguished from arrangements in which equality of ownership is established by isolated, or periodic, acts of redistribution, whether by common consent, by taxa- tion, or by act of state. In all such arrangements, it has been principle of communism is not achieved, since the individual is permitted to indulge a right of owner- ship, and may well feel an injustice in its abolition. Moreover, periodic equal- ization is compatible with the institu- tions of barter and exchange, each of which is held to be alien to the communist ideal.

According to Marxist theory, social- ism is a stage of development, and leads to communism, hence the frequent Marxist distinction between the two. True communism (or ‘full communism’) is incompatible with any form of exchange. It is the real economic expression of *democracy and is characterized by the slogan ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ (Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme). The emphasis on need signifies the disap- pearance of *exchange-value, and its supersession by *use-value alone. It is this in particular which distinguishes communist society from the forms of ‘redistributionism’ which might other- wise be confused with it.

2. Any movement which aims to bring about the state of affairs described above, or which represents that state of affairs as a political ideal. There have been many such move- ments in history, but the principal one in modern times began with the European revolutions of 1848 and the publication in that year of the *Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels. The word ‘communism’ occurs frequently in their writings, but for a long time the word ‘socialism’ was preferred as the name of the ideal, the principal Marxist parties calling them- selves *social democrats. Their political organization began with the first of the *internationals, founded in London in 1864 with the support of Marx. The Third international, or Comintern, founded in Moscow in 1919, in the wake of the 1917 revolution, displayed

the final preference for the word ‘communism’. This word was adopted by *Lenin and *Trotsky in order to distinguish their ideals from the less pure intentions, as they saw them, of the European socialists and social democrats, and also in order to emphasize an affinity with the Paris Commune of 1870, which, according to Marx, involved a genuine gesture in the direction that he favoured. The Comintern gave the impetus and name to communist parties through- out the world, and since then the term ‘communism’ has been synonymous for many with the form of govern- ment of which Lenin was the principal inventor, namely:

3. The system of government in which a *communist party rules, with- out permitting legal *opposition.




 

Marxism

Marxism has two distinct parts: theo- retical, and practical. Theoretically it involves adherence to the ideas of *Marx, together with a political commitment to proletarian *revolu- tion of the kind described and foretold by Marx. Practically, it involves Marxist *praxis, within the context of a ‘bourgeois’ state, which in turn involves, not necessarily revolutionary activity, but a preparation of the ground for revolution in social and institutional life.

Marxism is, or was until recently, a vast movement and its theoretical and practical aspects do not necessarily correspond. Moreover, there have been currents, strains, heresies and rival interpretations in the theoretical sphere which make it additionally difficult to pin down any particular doctrine as giving the essence of Marxism. It is normal to distinguish the ‘scientific’ strain of Marxism, with 

its emphasis upon the supposedly rigorous analysis of the economic structure and ‘law of development’ of capitalist society, from the ‘Marxist humanism’ which, because it seems committed to less bold predictions and less monumental claims about the nature of society, has recommended itself to many who cannot quite believe either the economics of Marx or the many available versions of *historical materialism. Marxist humanism involves the application of the concepts found in Marxian theory to the description of human consciousness, to social and cultural phenomena, and to all aspects of life in which classes and their ideologies gain ascendancy. It is humanistic not only in its emphasis on consciousness, but also in its concern for values which may seem to have no place in the ‘scientific’ claims of historical materialism. Within these two broad movements one must distinguish, as versions of the ‘scientific’: *dialectical materialism, *technological determin- ism, and some of the theories concerned with *exploitation and the *labour theory of value; as versions of the ‘humanistic’: *critical theory, the *Frankfurt school, and the work of *Lukács and (possibly) *Gramsci. Within those intellectual currents many more influences are felt – some pay more or less attention to the work of *Engels, to the *Leninist theories of *imperialism and *revolution and to attempts made by *Luxemburg and others to prevent the theoretical justi- fication of *tyranny. Some have tried to synthesize Marxism with other theories, for example with *structural- ism (see *Althusser), with *cybernetics (see *crisis theory), with *liberalism (see *left-liberalism), with *feminism and so on.

Marxist practice has been more uniform than the theory. Revolutionary movements which call themselves 

Marxist tend to see the world in terms of a *class struggle, and attempt to align themselves with the oppressed party in that struggle. They may be very little influenced by either of the two main theoretical movements mentioned, but nourish themselves instead upon a variety of *left, *social- ist and *egalitarian doctrines, associat- ing themselves with the name of Marx on account of the successful revolu- tions carried out in his name.

In communist parlance many here- sies within Marxism were singled out for condemnation (see, e.g., *devia- tionism). This practice was begun by the *bolsheviks, and continued by *Lenin, Stalin and their successors, with a fervour that is rarely encoun- tered outside *religion – a fact that has been instrumental in persuading many to see the actual Marxist movement more as a quasi-religious than as a political phenomenon. Thus contem- porary Marxism has been called by Raymond Aron ‘the opium of the intellectuals’, parodying Marx’s own description of religion as ‘the opium of the people’.


 

socialism

A wide term, with two principal related meanings:

1. In Marxian theory and official communist language, socialism denotes a social and economic system that is supposed to be the transitional stage between *capitalism and (full) *communism. The means of produc- tion are taken into *social ownership, and the state persists as an administra- tivemachine,upholdinganeworderof legality, and a new system of rights, in such a way as to permit the emergence of true *common ownership, and the eventual abolition of the state. This fantasy has little or nothing to do with:

2. ‘socialism’, construed as a broad and comprehensive outlook on the human condition. As a political theory, socialism is a relative newcomer, and probably lacks both the system of tradi- tional *liberalism, and the pragmatic character of *conservatism. But its influence over modern politics is none the less great for its lack of clear foun- dations. The principal ideas seem to be these:

(i) The belief in *equality. This may be variously stated in terms of *equal opportunity, *egalitarianism, etc. The main consideration is that human beings are equally entitled to the things of this world, since they are equal in every respect relevant to their entitlement. All inequalities must therefore be justified, and the onus is on the one who defends them to produce the proof. 

(ii) The state as administrator. The state is seen, not as the legal and cere- monial manifestation of civil society, but rather as a complex administrative device, designed to guarantee individ- ual entitlements, and to distribute benefits among the citizens accord- ingly. The state is, therefore, primarily concerned with *distribution, and must provide and maintain the insti- tutions which ensure that human goods – food, medicine, education, recreation – are made available to everybody on terms that are as equal as possible. Law is necessary as a means to good order, and to effective administration. But neither it, nor any other aspect of the state machinery, is an end in itself. Moreover, the state should be confined to administrative functions, and not, for example, set up as the propagator of religious doctrine, or nationalist ideology.

(iii) The elimination of systems of *control. People exert control over each other in various ways – e.g. through the *class system, through political institutions, and through hereditary privileges. All such systems violate the fundamental axiom of equality. While most socialists in sense 2. deny the Marxian thesis that all private property in the means of production is a form of control over other men’s lives, they accept that some is. Hence private property, while in itself right and permissible, and perhaps even a proper expectation of a citizen in a well-ordered society, should not be allowed to accumulate inordinately or to escape accountabil- ity for its use, lest vast systems of private control should emerge and prove damaging to the interests of society. Socialists used to draw the conclusion that the state must there- fore be prepared to *nationalize major assets, and should curtail or forbid the transactions that lead to large-scale private accumulation – such as gifts and inheritance. A softer kind of socialism has emerged in recent years, in which the role of the state is confined to regulating, taxation and preventing oligarchies and cartels, without itself directly owning or controlling economic assets. (See *New Labour.)

Those three main principles explain most of the details of socialist policy: in particular the attempt to eliminate privilege in all its forms, the opposition to the *hereditary princi- ple, and the defence of the *welfare state. Historically socialism has had strong affiliations with the *labour movement, for the obvious reason that, while it promises very little and threatens much to the class of prop- erty owners, it promises much and threatens little, or seems to threaten little, to the workers. It has been an important force in European politics, and has acquired some of the pragma- tism and ability to compromise which is integral to parliamentary govern- ment, so that, under the actual condi- tions of Western government, none of the three principles is expressed or applied in its pure, theoretical form.

Critics of socialism have argued, for example, that there is a potential conflict between principles (ii) and (iii). The massive control that needs to be exerted by the state if it is to be seen as an administrator with full responsi- bility for everyone’s welfare is incom- patible with the attempt to free people from the control of others. All that will be achieved is the transfer of control from an old *ruling class of aristocrats to a new *élite of bureaucrats. Moreover, some add, a ruling class with a monopoly of government is a better guarantee of freedom and justice than a bureaucracy of self-made men. Others object to the idea of the state as a means, and argue instead that the true character of the state is as an end in itself – only as such can it command the obedience and alle- giance of the citizen. As means the state comes to seem arbitrary and dispensable, and therefore holds increasing power with increasing instability. Others reject the premise of equality, on a variety of grounds mentioned elsewhere in this dictio- nary, while others still argue that the ideal of *social justice implied in (i) to (iii) is incompatible with the assertion of *natural rights and *freedoms. Finally, it has been argued with great force (e.g. by economists of the *Austrian school) that economic fail- ure is generic to the socialist idea of a state-supervised economy. These argu- ments, together with the experience of socialist governments in Europe, have recently led to a decline in support for the socialist idea.

 
Posted

Franky, trying to legitimate Communism/Marxism after the total failure of the practical application of Communism in the former USSR, and satellites, seems to me as worthwhile as trying to legitimate Nazism after May 1945.

Yes, there could have been good things, as it is difficult to have a system that is absolutely bad, and evil. But anyone putting forward that should be thought of as like someone saying there were good things in Nazism.

On the notion that "True Marxism" has not been never attempted, see: Notes on Theory and Practice in Marxist Philosophy

Quote

Evidently Marxist philosophy cannot be profitably separated from historical achievements, such as socialism. It must be judged, for better or for worse, in terms of the consequences it predicts and helps to bring about, to prevent or postpone.

 

Posted

To our European members, what is your definition between Communism and Socialism? Thank you.

 

Posted

What would be the point? Those of Sam would define all Europe as Socialist and hence suspect, making our interpretation of what is Communism somewhat questionable in American eyes.

 

 

 

Posted
28 minutes ago, Rick said:

To our European members, what is your definition between Communism and Socialism? Thank you.

 

Big words from the past, that resonate deeply with the right and with the extreme left.

Posted
30 minutes ago, Rick said:

To our European members, what is your definition between Communism and Socialism? Thank you.

 

Socialists could try to present themselves as willing to respect the Democratic process of free and honest elections, and are not automatically considered as fringe.

Also, Communism has been a bad word since 1991, but that seems to be fading away now.

Still Socialists reckon, mostly privately, they have more in common with Communists, even undemocratic ones, than with Centrist/Conservatives of the democratic kind. 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rick said:

To our European members, what is your definition between Communism and Socialism? Thank you.

 

I am Portuguese.

Edited by lucklucky
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, sunday said:

Socialists could try to present themselves as willing to respect the Democratic process of free and honest elections, and are not automatically considered as fringe.

Also, Communism has been a bad word since 1991, but that seems to be fading away now.

Still Socialists reckon, mostly privately, they have more in common with Communists, even undemocratic ones, than with Centrist/Conservatives of the democratic kind. 

Socialists mostly consider the Communist final objectives as correct, and consider them a "pure" version of themselves so most of them have respect for Communists.

 

Note that since Power is the ultimate objective of Marxists  (do not mix Marxism and Communism at this time)  we see them adopting capitalist multinationals as a vehicle of that power - a Communist will reject that outright -

Many Marxists recognize that Communism is a failed experiment still Marxist objectives of total control of a society continue. A large capitalist enterprise can be a strong normative influence in society and that attracts Marxists.

Where is power there will be a Marxist trying to control that power.

Atomised power - small companies -, family power and individual power are the main enemies of Marxists. 

Edited by lucklucky
Posted
13 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

I am Portuguese.

 

393356158_2841342846007204_673870898459427204_n.jpg

Posted
2 hours ago, Rick said:

To our European members, what is your definition between Communism and Socialism? Thank you.

 

According to the communist theory in general, the USSR and satellite states were not communist, but socialist. Socialism was a period that was supposed to lead to communism - and communism would be when everyone would get stuff 'according to his needs'. So e.g. in the 1960s state propaganda was talking e.g. how we'll all 'live in communism' in the year 2000. Well, the system failed, but if it didn't they'd just move it up and up, as it's complete bullshit. To each according to his needs? Quoting Suvorov from memory, you could satisfy all needs of a pig and it will oink happily, but you can't do the same with a Human.

In practice there have been splits in the socialist/communist movement even prior to the bolshevik coup in Russia, even in Russia itself you had three main groups of bolsheviks, mensheviks and SR's (socialists-revolutionists). Of course the factions had their own factions, but the latter two were in general supportive of democratic socialism/social democracy, as opposed to the 'dictatorship of proletariat'.

Anti-communist socialists? Sure, there were some, including the Polish Socialist Party. Its leader Piłsudski (a nobleman himself) treated socialism largely as a path to independence and the return of Poland to the map of Europe. Of course largely doesn't mean totally and the interwar Poland was rather interventionist economically and since 1926 only semi-democratic. I'm not sure without checking, but the scale of the agrarian reform was comparable or maybe larger compared to the postwar one done by the communists. The difference was that the landowners weren't shot/imprisoned/exiled/expropratiated without compensation like it happened in USSR. So, not just no communism, but anti-communism and at the same time definitely not the free market approach.

Mussolini started his career as a socialist activist well before WW1, talking and writing about class warfare and similar stuff - pretty much a run of the mill 'communist' of the time. At the same time he turned out to also be an Italian patriot and broke off with his former comrades during WW1. He stopped calling himself a 'socialist', at least without adjectives like 'national' or 'anti-marxist'. The state he later ruled was clearly interventionist economically, undemocratic, but at the same time not communist and even anti-communist.

Also after the war plenty of leftist parties in the West called themselves socialist, socialist-democratic etc. a situation to this day. To actual communists from USSR et al they were the 'traitors to the cause', 'capitalist fifth column' etc. Those parties were largely in favor of democratic process, but still supported the transformation of the economic reality to some degree.

On the other side of the world we have 'socialism with Chinese characteristics', which since the 1980s isn't that socialist when it comes to things like workers' rights, allows private property but remains very socialist when it comes to state control over that property and the citizens owning it (and all other citizens too). And nearby is Kim's quasi-monarchy, with a rather stalinist approach to economy, which at the same time considers its citizens to be 'the purest race', which clearly reminds us of other socialism that ended in 1945 (interestingly no such emphasis on race in fascist Italy, at the time Mussolini laughed off the notions of the existence of pure races).

Those are just a few examples, there are more, but I'm not going to write a book here. My conclusion would be that unlike gender, socialism IS indeed a spectrum. And so is capitalism and free market by the way. E.g Bernie and his ilk from the US are calling different Scandinavian countries 'socialist', IIRC some Danish politician basically told him to fuck off and explained that they are a 'free market economy with a strong social safety net' or sth like that. So, what are they actually? Some on the US right cry about socialism when they hear about universal healthcare, by this standard most of the developed world is socialist (and much of the less developed one). While I don't consider myself a socialist, I'm pretty sure that my belief that the state should own/co-own/exert strong influence in certain strategic sectors and infrastructure would make me a 'socialist' in the eyes of some 'libertarians'.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

Mussolini started his career as a socialist activist well before WW1, talking and writing about class warfare and similar stuff - pretty much a run of the mill 'communist' of the time. At the same time he turned out to also be an Italian patriot and broke off with his former comrades during WW1. He stopped calling himself a 'socialist', at least without adjectives like 'national' or 'anti-marxist'. The state he later ruled was clearly interventionist economically, undemocratic, but at the same time not communist and even anti-communist.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socializzazione_dell'economia

https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/D.Lgs._12_febbraio_1944,_n._375_-_Socializzazione_delle_imprese

Quote

Representatives of the workers, blue-collar workers, technical employees, and administrative employees participate in the shareholders' meeting with the same number of votes as the representatives of the capital attending. The board of management, appointed by the shareholders' meeting, shall consist of half of the members chosen from among the workers, manual workers, technical employees and administrative employees. The board of auditors, also appointed by the shareholders' meeting, consists of half of the members appointed by the workers and half of the members appointed by the shareholders. The chairman of the Board of Statutory Auditors is chosen from among the members of the register of auditors.

 

Edited by lucklucky
Posted

Corporatism was created as Fascism disagrees from Marxist class struggle. Mussolini and other Fascists considered it a destructive endeavour.

Posted
22 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

 

393356158_2841342846007204_673870898459427204_n.jpg

I am so glad I did not have hot coffee in my mouth when I saw this!

Posted (edited)
On 10/24/2023 at 6:25 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

What would be the point? Those of Sam would define all Europe as Socialist and hence suspect, making our interpretation of what is Communism somewhat questionable in American eyes.

 

 

 

Which is exactly why I am asking our European members of this Grate Site. It appears that the definition differs from one European country to another in varying degrees. 

Edited by Rick
Posted

There are many Socialism, for example in Israel you had the kibbutz where only people that wanted to be there went. It is a rare case of non oppressive Socialism.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, lucklucky said:

There are many Socialism, for example in Israel you had the kibbutz where only people that wanted to be there went. It is a rare case of non oppressive Socialism.

 

But the kibbutz was also a great (( example of why it didn't work:

There are always slackers who dodged their duties (ironically,  heard Bernie Sanders and Noam  Chumpsky were good examples of such behavior)

Posted
1 hour ago, NickM said:

But the kibbutz was also a great (( example of why it didn't work:

There are always slackers who dodged their duties (ironically,  heard Bernie Sanders and Noam  Chumpsky were good examples of such behavior)

At least no one was a forced Socialist.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...