What kind of Communism do you believe in?

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by cobra90x
Well after reconsidering I decided to vote marxism. I basically believe in a lot of what marx said but oppose leninism and trotskyism. I oppose vanguards and parties and prefer power be in the hands of the working class directly through workers councils, etc. I guess you could call me a libertarian marxist or anarchist with marxist tendencies.

I sadly see that you are misunderstanding the Leninist concept of the vanguard, comrade . Any organisation needs some kind of centralism or it couldn't function. Although many anarchist organizations say that they have "no leaders" (and this is what you say you support) in practice these organizations are usually dominated by charismatic (and/or manipulative) persons.

The question of tactics and organization of class struggle in the last analysis represents the influence of one of the classes in society. Individualist actions are the methods of the petty bourgeoisie, peasantry and lumpenproletariat. These people are individualist because they are separated from each other physically, and they gain from competing with each other in daily economic life.

The working class unlike all other classes in history develops a collectivist consciousness from its own struggle. Its sole strength is its numbers, and unity in action. Unity in action is represented by democratic centralism, which is the favored method of struggle of all workers in all struggles in all corners of the world. When all the workers in common decide on an action, and elect a leadership to carry it out, then all the workers (even the ones who disagree) must carry it out or face castigation as strikebreakers. There's nothing wrong about this castigation since the interest of all the workers would be put in jeopardy otherwise.

Perhaps you might reconsider from hearing that the workers in Venezuela from their own struggle have come to realise the need for centralism. As you know there was lately the Third Gathering of Solidarity with the revolution. On the workshop about workers' control (see the article here: http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/venezuela_workers_control180405.htm) the workers expressed their grievances with the lack of leadership, and called in essence for a Bolshevik party. I found this part especially interesting:

"Particularly significant was the intervention of an oil worker comrade from San Tome who explained graphically how the workers took over the running of the oil industry during the bosses’ lock-out in December 2002 and January 2003 and how they managed several oil installations through mass meetings, showing that the working class is able to run industry and society. As the comrade explained, at that time, due to organisational and political weaknesses, and because of the lack of understanding of how this idea can be implemented and the lack of a unified organisation of the workers throughout the country able to put this idea into practice, the opportunity to keep PDVSA – the key company in the country and one of the most important oil companies in the world – under workers’ control was wasted."

What they actually say is that the lack of centralism was the cause of the defeat! Maybe now you will see that centralism (democratic, not bureaucratic) is not an invention of fancy intellectuals but is an absolutely necessary precondition of successful workers struggle. Not only a revolution but even a simple strike can't be won without a clear leadership.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by orwellcommie
The Ends justifies the means is a poor argument to make.  Hitler in his twisted way believed in this argument, it was kill all the jews, gypsies, Slavs, darker races and mixed raced peoples, homosexuals, mentally ill, enimies to the party, voices of decent, Jahovah's witnesses, and the world will be a better place.  Well that's the best example of why the Ends Justifies the means argumen it the height of self defeating logic.  Hitler TRUELY thought that genocide of all who he deem to be inferior or to have some ideology or behavior pattern with which he did not agree to be people unworthy of living in this aryan utopia he imagined himself building.  These means would and still could lead to the end of all life on earth.  No the means do not justify the ends, no you kill a Nazi FOR the ends in and of itself not because this idea of means being irrelivent.  No they can be only irrelivent in that granade isn't less an effective method firearm depending on cercomstances. The means are determined by nessisity NOT by what the end result.  One kills a Nazi because it's an End in and of itself.  Does it make the world a better place to treat them in the same manner as they have treated others?  Round them up Gass then creamate them and deny the entire affair?  Well yes it does, but those means aren't NEARLY as good as to go after the SOURCE of these ideas.  The means are NOT justified when one could have taken Nazi engineering Nazi millitary prowess and turned it towards making the lives of all better, it's alot simplier to kill then it would be to turn a Nazi into a warrior against Racism.  To simply sit back and say "I've done a great deed I've killed all the Nazi's" is infact a failure when the outcome could have been far better had the idea of genocide to improve the world been the REAL foe vanquished.

In practice everyone follows "the ends justify the means", although few would claim it openly, like the Bolsheviks and Jesuits did.

A way to make it clearer why revolutionaries should follow this maxim, is to expand on it and say: the ends not only justify but also determine the means. So to create communism you do not imprison and execute every workers' leader, gypsy, jew, etc in existence, promote racism, nationalism, chauvinism, sexism. Instead you promote the exact opposite, and in general follow the tactic that unites the working class and renders it capable of taking power in its own name. Trotsky wrote very well about this in his piece called Their Morals And Ours

"A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified. From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.

“We are to understand then that in achieving this end anything is permissible?” sarcastically demands the Philistine, demonstrating that he understood nothing. That is permissible, we answer, which really leads to the liberation of mankind. Since this end can be achieved only through revolution, the liberating morality of the proletariat of necessity is endowed with a revolutionary character. It irreconcilably counteracts not only religious dogma but every kind of idealistic fetish, these philosophic gendarmes of the ruling class. It deduces a rule for conduct from the laws of the development of society, thus primarily from the class struggle, this law of all laws.

“Just the same,” the moralist continues to insist, “does it mean that in the class struggle against capitalists all means are permissible: lying, frame-up, betrayal, murder, and so on?” Permissible and obligatory are those and only those means, we answer, which unite the revolutionary proletariat, fill their hearts with irreconcilable hostility to oppression, teach them contempt for official morality and its democratic echoers, imbue them with consciousness of their own historic mission, raise their courage and spirit of self-sacrifice in the struggle. Precisely from this it flows that not all means are permissible. When we say that the end justifies the means, then for us the conclusion follows that the great revolutionary end spurns those base means and ways which set one part of the working class against other parts, or attempt to make the masses happy without their participation; or lower the faith of the masses in themselves and their organization, replacing it by worship for the “leaders”. Primarily and irreconcilably, revolutionary morality rejects servility in relation to the bourgeoisie and haughtiness in relation to the toilers, that is, those characteristics in which petty bourgeois pedants and moralists are thoroughly steeped."

[P.O.U.M]

Unity in action is represented by democratic centralism, which is the favored method of struggle of all workers in all struggles in all corners of the world.

Democratic centralism is the utmost freedom of discussion and debate but once the vote is held, the whole must act in unity with the majority decesion. Just like in a union, the membership discusses strike and if the vote ends up in favor of strike, the union must carry forward in unity otherwise the strike would not be effective.

[orwellcommie]

Yes I agree.  One can easily argue that Hitler's policy of excluding all but his beloved "Aryan Race" from that Utopia he envisioned  was without a dought what doomed germany to the destruction it suffered as a result of it's policies.  Case in point India, there was a sufficient hostility towards British Imperialism that the Indian subcontinent could have been brought into the axis on the side of Germany creating a link that would have streched from germany to japan and would have allowed the Nazi's to control the india ocean ect.  But Hitler's "Racial Theory" made sound millitary decisions such as these impossible, they people of India weren't India Aryan nor did they have white skin so Hell no were the Nazi's going to allow them in no matter how much sense it would have made millitarily.  So long a Communist's don't take an approach that's based to race hatred or working to the exclusion of those races deemed "Inferior" by Racial theory, victory will be far more likely.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

I went for Trotskyism because I'm an internationalist and I believe in a revolution is need all over the world for communism to reach its potential.

I'm also believe in Democracy, so I guess I also lean towards Democratic Socialism.

[P.O.U.M]

I'm also believe in Democracy, so I guess I also lean towards Democratic Socialism.

You do realize that "dictatorship of the proletariat" just implies absolute rule of the proletariat... as a class. Not a single individual. And of course there would be full democracy both political and economical, unlike right now, which is the "dictatorship of capital."

Also, democratic socialism usually refers to those who would get socialism through parliamentary procedures such as small reforms until eventually you reach socialism while denying the need for revolution.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by P.O.U.M
Also, democratic socialism usually refers to those who would get socialism through parliamentary procedures such as small reforms until eventually you reach socialism while denying the need for revolution.

Really? I thought that was Social Democracy, the model which is followed by the Blair, Schroeder, Jospin and others.

I don't deny the need for revolution, in fact I advocate revolution, and maybe after a revolution if true communism does occur then the tag "Democratic Socialism" will not be needed as, as you say, there will be full democracy. In the meantime i would describe myself as a revolutionary who wishes to change the majority view of socialism - tainted by Stalin etc, etc.

[P.O.U.M]

Really? I thought that was Social Democracy, the model which is followed by the Blair, Schroeder, Jospin and others.

Actually, yea, I think its called Social Democracy. But Ive seen it used interchangebly.

[Iron Felix]

Marxist-Leninist, but I am pro-Stalin.

[Daymare17]

Felix, can you post the reasons why people should be pro-Stalin? We could get a nice discussion going.

Rune

[turnoviseous]

Yes, this could be a nice discussion Felix. I am sure other members would also benefit from that discussion.

[fire_mat99]

This is the communism I support !!I'm still reading this long thread :p


Government owns the stores, factories and farms every thing and you work for the collective good of the community so want you sale on the farm the government tells you how much you have like money so the money is divided far and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles All wealth is divided to people so there is no rich or poor and everyone has same wealth..

Why does the government control every thing to make it far and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.. Also rent is impassive has government owns the homes

[aneeb]

after i decided to vote for marxism.because wat i think Karl Marx is the developer of Marxism.
red salutes

[condor]

Originally posted by aneeb
after i decided to vote for marxism.because wat i think Karl Marx is the developer of Marxism.
red salutes

"All I know is that I am not a Marxist" Karl Marx

[Comrade_Geza]

I'd say I'm a Trot, that's Lenin, Marx, and Trotsky combined :)