what the different between socialism and communism

[arsyan]

hei guys i want to know about what the different between socialism and communism??

[caesarscook]

hei guys i want to know about what the different between socialism and communism??

Well, as Marxists understand the terms, "socialism" corresponds to what we call the "lower phase of communism," while the higher phase of communism, what is often referred to simply as "communism" is a classless, stateless society.  The necessity of going through the phase of socialism is a recognition that after the revolution that abolishes the capitalist state, it is still necessary to form a new state, a workers' state, which will be the most democratic in the history of the world, to hold back capitalist counter-revolution and lay the foundations for the withering away of class antagonisms and with them the state. 

The idea that some put forward by some (mainly anarchists), that we must not only abolish the capitalist state, but must, with the same stroke, "abolish" the state generally, strikes me as an extremely naive conception that doesn't recognize that human consciousness will remain stamped with the birthmarks of the society it came from, capitalism, until the conditions that produced that consciousness (class inequality and the bourgeois struggle for existence) are eliminated, which sadly won't happen overnight.  In this sense, anarchists wish to skip over the socialist phase (the lower phase) and jump straight to communism.  One can only suppose that they mean to do this by sheer force of will.

The terms are often used in very different fashions that vary widely, but this is the meaning that we Marxists give to them.  Oh, and welcome to the board!

[Domino_Gray]

I, a filthy anarchist of the kind caesarscook was eloquently defaming, would like to give a slightly less prejudicial and equally less esoteric(how's that for the two dollar word of the day, eh?).

Socialism is a very broad term, and can be very much a negative and positive thing, at least from a communist standard. See, by its broadest and actual definition it means property and/or wealth of the society operated and owned by the governing body. Taxes would be socialist. A non private police force would be socialist. Public education and national care systems would be socialist. I hope you're catching the drift here.

In truth, there isn't a society in this world that isn't to some degree socialist, as being completely devoid of it would be insanity. As a matter of fact, almost all supposedly capitalist nations have very strong presence of socialism, adopting a mixed, centrist economy over the silly deregulation of a laissez-faire capitalism. The reason is obvious, a lack of market regulation leads to gross class gaps and market crashes. Also propagates exorbitant inflation rates and sustains recessions. An example of this would be 1929 world economy(Great Depression), and the present one. I recognized I promised I'd avoid being esoteric, but all these point are great ones to research. Think about it as something to understand once you've understood the roots you're asking about.

As for communism, since there are varying beliefs of what a functioning communism would be, and just as diverse end goals of communists, I'll give you the one I myself subscribe to. I, being a fundamentalist, perceive communism as described below, as the abolition of both Class and State. In its place is a collective of free trading communes following a universal justice system of the libertarian trinity (as long as health, liberty or the means to provide for oneself and one's own is not infringed on, there is no crime). Through a centralized trade union goods are provided to those in deficit from those in surplus. Continuing, several communities may become specialist communities, focusing instead on a particular Good or Service so as to collective aid the communities that can do as such. Through education, the belief is that the simple, united and understanding will of the people will be able to eradicate the old fears of colonialism and tyranny. With that, the need for an oppressive state and selfish class system is defunct.

I hope that is adequate. If you need more, then there's infinte amounts of information at your fingertips in both the internet and your local socialist library.

As for caeserscook, I'd ask that you don't belittle or attack anarchism. Our intent and goal is the same. The last thing we need here is someone bringing up the Emma Goldman tragedy. It degrades us back to past mistakes

Welcome anyways

[caesarscook]

Socialism is a very broad term, and can be very much a negative and positive thing, at least from a communist standard. See, by its broadest and actual definition it means property and/or wealth of the society operated and owned by the governing body. Taxes would be socialist. A non private police force would be socialist. Public education and national care systems would be socialist. I hope you're catching the drift here.

In truth, there isn't a society in this world that isn't to some degree socialist, as being completely devoid of it would be insanity. As a matter of fact, almost all supposedly capitalist nations have very strong presence of socialism, adopting a mixed, centrist economy over the silly deregulation of a laissez-faire capitalism. The reason is obvious, a lack of market regulation leads to gross class gaps and market crashes. Also propagates exorbitant inflation rates and sustains recessions. An example of this would be 1929 world economy(Great Depression), and the present one. I recognized I promised I'd avoid being esoteric, but all these point are great ones to research. Think about it as something to understand once you've understood the roots you're asking about.

Well, as I made clear, I am a Marxist, and I was giving a Marxist definition of socialism.  It is true that socialism is often defined as you did here, but it is also true that this is not the definition that Marxism and most revolutionary socialists recognize, i.e. state intervention in/control of the economy =  socialism.  Socialism is a question of control and ownership.  As we say, you can't plan what you don't control, you can't control what you don't own.  In order for the working-class to take its destiny into its hands, it is necessary that they seize the means of production and hold down the old ruling class by means of the people in arms, which is nothing other than a workers' state.  I personally don't find the definition of socialism you gave exceptionally useful.

Through education, the belief is that the simple, united and understanding will of the people will be able to eradicate the old fears of colonialism and tyranny. With that, the need for an oppressive state and selfish class system is defunct.

In a confused way, you recognize the contradiction in traditional anarchist thinking here.  "With that, the need for an oppressive state and selfish (sic!) class system is defunct."  Aside from your moralizing, the recognition that a period that transforms human consciousness preparing the way for a stateless society puts you miles ahead of Proudhon and Bakunin, but your "that" (education) is incorrect and turns the whole thing upside down.  It is not education as such, beginning with the Idea, but rather the changed conditions of a socialist society that in turns "educates" workers in a new socialist/communist (anarchist, if you prefer) ethics.

I'll not waste time responding to your "filthy anarchist" comment or your bizarre reference to Goldman.  It is true that we are on the same side of the barricades, and many honest anarchists will be there to the end.  This does not mean that Marxists are not allowed to criticize what we see as the philosophically and tactically incorrect positions of the anarchists.  There is nothing in my initial post that belittles anarchists, but rather I point out what I see as the failings and naivety of their ideology.  I was an anarchist myself for years.  I'm familiar with the works of Bakunin, Bookchin, Goldman, Albert, etc.  I came to the Marxist position over time, as I found that its criticisms of anarchism are ultimately correct.  If you wish to skip over the stage of the proletarian dictatorship, you must either have a vision of human nature as a universal absolute that is only suppressed by the State (an odd ahistorical argument that you will find in Chomsky and others) or you will find yourself in all sorts of philosophical dead-ends that require you to propose "alternatives" that are quite bizarre and often not genuinely anarchistic (e.g. Parecon, which allows for armed  bodies, that is, a state).

I'm sorry you find my post so terribly insulting, but I'm only being honest.  Anarchists and revolutionary socialists form a sort of united front, but within that front, there must be total freedom of political criticism.  "March separately, strike together!"  I doubt that we will see eye to eye, but I am glad that you are in the fight, comrade.

[Domino_Gray]

No anarchist past the days of Proudhon ( Anarcho-Primitivism) believes in "traditional" anarchism. We believe in the morals and ideals that were rooted in the argument, but I hardly believe it is something commonplace that you're find an anarchist rooting for Mad Max to become reality. I myself am an Anarcho Communist, which is remarkably similar to a traditional Marxist.

I recognize your argument, in that living within a Socialist/Communist/Anarchist state would naturally evolve the thinking and cultural patterns of those underneath them, one merely needs to look at the radical difference between your average American and average Scandinavian. What I  was referring to, in a very general way was that there can be no State so there can be no State military. As we learned from the all too harsh lessons of the Soviet Union, the threats of the world are so reflexively defensive against communism (as they rightfully should be) that the need for a Vanguard state is absolute. What we also learned from this however, is that the Vanguard state will always become self serving and oppressive. I think Mao and Stalin are more than enough evidence of this, with a collective head count of almost a 100 million between them.

This is where my education argument comes into play, and arguably circumvents the need for a vanguard state, which I believe history has shown has never in the interest of the movement. Through willful understanding, and a basic community armament in time of crisis, that is, through education, communes are able to maintain their autonomy through their understanding of the manipulations of the world.

I was saying you were belittling Anarchists because you were generalizing us into the most simplistic modes of our thought. I made the reference to Emma Goldman, because she was the only one aside from Trotsky who saw the hypocrisy and inevitable evils of the Soviet Union. Instead, one of them died in Mexico, and another Canada. The anarchist movement was the only one who warned against people like Stalin, before there were people like Stalin.

[caesarscook]

No anarchist past the days of Proudhon ( Anarcho-Primitivism) believes in "traditional" anarchism. We believe in the morals and ideals that were rooted in the argument, but I hardly believe it is something commonplace that you're find an anarchist rooting for Mad Max to become reality.

I consider Bakunin to be a traditional anarchist and many anarchists today site him as a primary influence.  His argument as regards human nature is central to my criticism of anarchism and is accepted implicitly or explicitly by nearly all anarchist theoreticians that, as I said, don't tie themselves up in endless contradictions.  It is an argument regarding human nature that I disagree with, and in doing so, am placed on the opposite side of the table from most anarchists (on this question).  If this doesn't include you, then it is to your benefit and speaks well of you.

What I  was referring to, in a very general way was that there can be no State so there can be no State military. As we learned from the all too harsh lessons of the Soviet Union, the threats of the world are so reflexively defensive against communism (as they rightfully should be) that the need for a Vanguard state is absolute. What we also learned from this however, is that the Vanguard state will always become self serving and oppressive. I think Mao and Stalin are more than enough evidence of this, with a collective head count of almost a 100 million between them.

There's two things that need to be taken up here, both are from misunderstandings.  If you have not read Lenin's State and Revolution, I suggest you do, and if you have, you know that, as Marxists, we are not in favor of a "State military," but rather the people in arms, which is necessary to defend against counter-revolution, to replace the military and the police.  The armed people are perfectly capable of holding down counter-revolution without the need for a standing army or a professional police force. 

However, and herein lies the contradiction for the anarchist, by the Marxist definition of a state, i.e. special bodies of armed men and women, this is at the very least, as Lenin called it, a "semi-state" that is destined to wither away.  The anarchist must either not support the defense of the revolution, leading to the revolution's defeat, or if they are consistently revolutionary, they accept the need to form a workers' state (semi-state) to hold back the counter-revolution, thus jettisoning their anarchist principles.  Many of the best anarchists did the latter in the Russian Revolution, see the case of Victor Serge, whose history of the Revolution should be required reading.  The only other alternative is to define or redefine "stateless" to include armed bodies, but this hardly makes one an anarchist, does it?

On the question of a "vanguard state," no one supports any such thing, and I'm not sure exactly whose formulation you are using. We want a "workers' state," a proletarian dictatorship (i.e. a dictatorship of the workers over their own lives), or workers' democracy.  We do recognize the need for the most advanced layers of the working class to organize politically.  Since, "vanguard" means essentially "advanced guard," you could say this makes us in favor of the vanguard of the class organizing itself politically into a party for task of leading the workers in the struggle for their own emancipation, but where one gets "vanguard state" from this, I'm not sure.  Not even Stalinism could accurately be described as a "vanguard state" as the Stalinist bureaucracy made up the advanced guard of nothing, certainly not of the working class, but rather were professional bureaucrats, whose entire policy was based on the preservation of their own positions.

The anarchist movement was the only one who warned against people like Stalin, before there were people like Stalin.

I can assume you are referring to Bakunin's "red bureaucracy" quote.  Well, here's Marx from the Critique of the Gotha Programme, well before God and State:  "A development of the productive forces is the absolutely necessary practical premise [of Communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must revive."  The Stalinist bureaucracy came to power on and fed off of the want caused by the imperialist blockade and the devastation wrought by the civil war.  Warning of the apparently evil motives that "leadership" as an abstract generality has, i.e. Bakunin's warning, in my opinion is much less useful in predicting Stalinist degeneration than Marx's somber warning that in the case of generalized want the old crap of class society will revive. 

From Engels and Mehring's writings on historical materialism, we find the idea that in the case of generalized want, a bureaucratic caste will always rise to the top to divvy up the scarce resources.  Socialism/Communism cannot be built by sheer force of will, the inherent goodness of humanity, or by education, but can only be built on the foundations of plenty, communism ultimately upon super-abundance.  It certainly could not be built by an inefficient, undemocratic bureaucratic caste, on the basis of poverty, devastation, and want, in a single, poor, illiterate peasant country.  These are the lessons of Stalinism.

Speaking of prophetic though, has anyone else found the first few paragraphs of Lenin's S&R about how revolutionary heroes are deified after they are dead to rob them of their revolutionary content to be just plain eerie? 

[Domino_Gray]

Well as I said, being a Libertarian Socialist, I am in truth very close to traditional Marxism. So, like Marx, I don't very much like Bakunin a lot of what Bakunin said. However, it was his critique of "the dictatorship of the proletariat", which is for further clarification, what Lenin referred to as a "Vanguard State", that made him stand out to me.

the semi state is a whole bunch of nonsense, to be blunt. There is that truest of proverbs, "Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely". Any kind of vanguard state will manipulate the circumstances of the nation to vindicate their continued presence, and more importantly, increased presence. A workers state is a vanguard state. It's intended to be a transitional period to a period that will never happen. What is required is instead a centralized governance, but absolutely not as Lenin wished for, or Stalin established. Wasn't it that clown Chavez who only just two days ago took away presidential term limits? Remember how Castro did the same? Remember how Mao did the same? Remember how they relinquished their powers for the sake of a stateless classless society?

Communism, if not carried out by an educated, willful and armed populace is destined for despotism. It requires that the People understand the movement, understand the corrupting threats of the movement and understand what transitions of the movement are legitimate. It also requires the full, uncompromisable support of the people, because for every man who caves for a higher allowance, there is a soldier of oppression to twist and corrupt the movement. Finally, as there will inevitable the wolves to goad the weak into allowing them down the rabbit hole, the populace must have the ability to overthrow a Vanguard state or "Worker's State" that states themselves a little too longwinded.

I recognize the need for a central bureaucracy, to oversee proper trade, education, health care and specialization being delivered where needed. I support this not just as a temporary fixture, but as an absolute necessity. It is required to ensure that every trade and labour union have somewhere to address their communal concerns. I do not recognize in any way, shape or form this "Worker State" propaganda. We have direct examples of exactly why every communism has failed, and it is always linked to your "Worker State"

[caesarscook]

Well as I said, being a Libertarian Socialist, I am in truth very close to traditional Marxism. So, like Marx, I don't very much like Bakunin a lot of what Bakunin said. However, it was his critique of "the dictatorship of the proletariat", which is for further clarification, what Lenin referred to as a "Vanguard State", that made him stand out to me.

Quote please.  Do a search of Lenin Collected Works (http://marxists.org/admin/search/index.htm) and you will NOT find the phrase "vanguard state" (I just did and Lenin never uses this phrase).  I doubt you are "lying," as you seem like a pretty honest fellow, but I would bet that one of your sources is lying to you.  In fact the only usage of "vanguard state" by any Marxist in the Archive is by Novack.  I will not be responding to anything explicitly about a "vanguard state" because no such thing exists in Marxist theory, and I'm unclear as to what the formulation is even supposed to mean.  It is extremely imprecise, as I pointed out in my last response.

About your Chavez comment, in terms of principle, term limits within the limits of bourgeois democracy, what is what exists in Venezuela, are not more or less democratic one way or the other.  In fact, one could make the argument that they limit the right of people to vote for representation they want.  Now, we can point out that we are in favor of participative democracy, council democracy, and not representation, but that still doesn't clear up your argument at all. 

As for your second paragraph, you cannot simply insist something is "nonsense," bluntly or otherwise, and expect that to pass for an argument.  You then use your metaphysical "power corrupts" comment as a bait and switch to try to replace Lenin's semi-state with your mythical "vanguard state," which is an argument I refuse to recognize for the reasons I have cited.

Your third paragraph is pre-Marxian Hegelianism.  In order for the revolution to occur, the proletariat (geist/spirit) as a whole must become fully conscious of its historical task (Idea) in order to carry it out (the Idea become realized, for Hegel in the form of the Prussian State, for you in the form of "Libertarian Communism"), which shows absolutely no understanding of how mass consciousness or revolutionary movements actually develop and mature.  It is always the case that a section of the proletariat will be more conscious of the road to be taken than the rest and for the revolution to be successful must have a correct line and be successful in winning the mass of the workers to the need to take power.  The idea that the the oppressed class becomes conscious (not only conscious, but for your argument to work, fully conscious) at once has no historical precedent and is pure Idealism.  I personally think you are treating revolutionary history in a very light-minded way.  Your version of events, we can safely assure ourselves, will never come to be, and so you relegate the Revolution to the immeasurably distant future. 

Your last paragraph is very conservative and I will just leave it at that.  As for your examples, I can only suggest that you read about the theory of proletarian bonapartism, which I find endless more convincing than your workers state = pure evil metaphysics.

[Domino_Gray]

Vanguardism is a theory started by Lenin. It is, in my mind, the real backbone of Leninism and its evolution of Marx.

You're clearly intelligent, and obviously well read. However, you asked me to cite where I got the term "Vanguard" from, and I would direct you to Lenin's "What is to be done?"

What he referred to the vanguard as, was a political party that would rally the uneducated and impoverished Russian working class against the Russian aristocracy. He saw the illegality of political actions set out by the oppressive constitution of the late 1800's, the economic boom of the capitalists in the west and the general ignorance of the Russian people as handicaps that would crush Marxist ideology. What he suggested was a " party that will organise really nation-wide exposures ... of the revolutionary forces". The vanguard was to be the party that rallied the revolution together. The vanguard state was to be the guidance.

Vanguardism, by the way, is the single largest reason Anarchists differentiate themselves from communists.

The Vanguard is the state that precedes the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in communism. Wikipedia cited a great quote to speed up the process.    

"Our task is not to champion the degrading of the revolutionary to the level of an amateur, but to raise the amateurs to the level of revolutionaries."- Vladamir Lenin on the Vanguard State

I do not accept the premise of the Vanguard state. It is invariably oppressive. I would cite very simply, the Red Terror, as the direct result of the Vanguard mentality. Without any kind of judicial process or evidence laid against them, the Cheka arrested and killed millions. It's justification was to progress the revolution and rid the nation of "enemies of the people".

You will find Zinoviev cited by an easily sourced wikipedia article saying , "To overcome of our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia's population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated."

Any vanguard state will never dismantle itself, as it did not in the Soviet Union. It will instead say that the revolution is under threat, as there will always be one, and say the State is needed until the threat is gone, as it did right up until the dissolution of the Union. It is also directly on the head of Lenin all loss of genuine democracy in Russia. He blatantly pushed for a one party state in "What is to be done?".

Because of his cry for vanguardism, all flaws of the Soviet union were borne. One party system and the subsequent oppression of any political opposition was vindicated. If you're curious as to why Trotsky died in Mexico, don't ask Stalin, but blame Lenin's naivete. The secret police acting as "the full revolutionaries", oppressing and slaughtering without them ever seeing a trial was further vindicated by Lenin's "What is to be Done?".

Vanguardism is the essentially the infamous utilitarian argument, "The end justifies the means", incarnate. I can not subscribe to any kind of hope in a party that seeks to manipulate, govern or "guide" the revolution. It is trading one devil for another. If a rabbit is sick of being hunted by Man, it's hardly wise to invite the wolves down the rabbit hole for protection

Moving on, democracy is a very venal system, where its integrity is held on by a thread. If you need proof of this, look to nation's like America or especially Italy. If you are going to accept the premise of democracy, then you must make damn sure it maintains its principle. No term limits undercuts that principle in every way. Imagine a man with majority control over the media outlets and thusly the flow of information to the people (AKA Chavez). Imagine this man then uses this to maintain his public image. Imagine then that through his control of the media, he can continue to win the minds of the people in spite of corruption or ineptitude, as this side of things will never reach the people. Imagine further that through  militant and covert modes of control, he is able to push aside his opposition and further hide the details through his vice grip on the media.

Term limits prevent oppression from going on too long. If there is going to be a corrupt fascism that over runs and manipulates a democracy, at least limit it. And through the term limit, and the fact that a man must cede power, it prevents total shadow work. Things move on, interests switch and no megalomania can go hidden. Removing that term limit undercuts democracy. To hell with Chavez

Vanguardism is the reason I don't believe in the semi state. I hope that clarifies my argument.

Finally, as both an Anarchist and a Communist, I've been called countless thing, but "conservative" is a new one.

[BPsocialist]

I tend to use the two interchageably, but I suppose Socialism is a less developed form of Communism

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Domino Gray.A number of selected quotes from MIA

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx/Engels
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Part IV

This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

Rosa Luxemburg
The Russian Revolution
Democracy and Dictatorship

What, then, is the relation of this dictatorship to democracy?

We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to communism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence.

V.I. Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt. 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State

The real tasks of the workers' state do not consist in policing public opinion, but in freeing it from the yoke of capital. This can only be done by placing the means of production - which includes the production of information - in the hands of society in its entirety. Once this essential step towards socialism has been taken, all currents of opinion which have not taken arms against the dictatorship of the proletariat must be able to express themselves freely. It is the duty of the workers' state to put in their hands, to all according to their numeric importance, the technical means necessary for this, printing presses, paper, means of transportation.

Leon Trotsky
Freedom of the Press and Working Class

Show me where this will lead to a Totalitarian Dictatorship?

[caesarscook]

Domino, you still haven't provided what I asked for.  I'm perfectly aware that we support "vaguardism," and actually provided a decent definition of the need to organize the vanguard politically.  I did not ask for any proof that Lenin developed or supported this idea, although you'll find the same idea present in Marx, as well, actually.  I asked for a reference to this mythical "Vanguard State" in Lenin, as you specifically said that Lenin developed this formula.  It is a very imprecise formulation that Lenin wouldn't have touched with a ten foot pole.  There is no stage between the Revolution and the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Your understanding of the early situation in Russia is really quite poor, basing yourself on Wikipedia articles for example.  I suggest you read a history of the Revolution, Victor Serge is quite good and he's an ex-anarchist, so you may find his appraisal interesting.  You're going to find that the more repressive elements of the proletarian dictatorship (not "vanguard state") were forced upon the Bolsheviks and did not flow from either theory or lust for power. 

He blatantly pushed for a one party state in "What is to be done?".

Actually this is untrue  and if you continue to defame the man without giving precise citations, I'm going to just stop replying to this nonsense.  Have you ever actually read this book or are you just going on what you've been told?  It was accepted coin by all revolutionary parties up to 1918, including the "evil" Bolsheviks, that multiple parties would exist after the revolution.  The banning of opposition parties was a progressive development, as each one successively went over to the counter-revolution.  In fact, the process wasn't total either.  On the question of What is to be Done?  I would really suggest you read this, Hal Draper's "Myth of Lenin's Concept of the Party: What they did to What is to be Done?" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/index.htm), before you engage in any more discussion about this book or the ideas contained within it.

Your point about Chavez requires a lot of "imagining" and frankly an ignorance of the real situation on the ground in Venezuela.  The same is true about your point about Trotsky's murder, which once again, you seem to know nothing about.  Stalin's GPU bore virtually no resemblance to the Cheka (The best of the Cheka had been purged as "Trotskyists"!).  In fact, they were not, generally speaking, motivated by their being "full revolutionaries," which they were not, but by bureaucratic interest, bribes, thuggery, etc., or on occasion perhaps deception.   Many GPU agents internationally couldn't care less about the revolution in Russia, much less world revolution. 

Also, this is just an aside, but it's another lie.  The Cheka most definitely did not kill "millions."  Thousands, perhaps, but these were mostly food hoarders and counter-revolutionaries caught with their hands in the cookie jar in besieged cities.  I don't even think the Black Book of Communism (written by fascist, rabid anti-communists) puts the total that high, i.e. in the millions.  Actually, if you read Serge you'll find anarchist-controlled militias doing the same thing to alcohol and food hoarders in besieged cities, as well, i.e. summary execution without trial.  The Civil War killed millions, on both sides, but if you don't support the waging for the purpose of victory this revolutionary war, then you ultimately find yourself supporting the Whites and against the Revolution. 

Vanguardism is the reason I don't believe in the semi state. I hope that clarifies my argument.

No, not really.  You don't seem to have a clear idea about what you are arguing about.  I've heard this dribble before, but never from someone claiming to have so many quotes that don't exist.  The next time you claim to have a quote or that "Lenin said X," "The Cheka killed X," "Lenin did X," you need to make sure that they actually did so or this conversation is over, as this is a basic requirement if we are going to have an honest dialogue.

And on a final point, although this is almost worthy of another thread, if the ends do not justify the means, what the hell justifies the means?  Some abstract, eternal morality?  Where does this morality come from?  God?  Yes, the ends justify the means, but a) the ends themselves must be historically justified and b) the means taken must actually help get you towards the end.  It flows from this that not all means are justified by the ends, but the end does justify the means.  If we're going to discuss that though, we should probably start another thread.

I'll end on a point of agreement.  Zinoviev was a little sh*t.  On this, I believe we agree.

[caesarscook]

Great quotes from Outofthenight, btw!

[Volkov]

Given how the term vanguard tends to get confused at times, I would like to make a clarification - the vanguard of the oppressed is the working class and the vanguard of the working class is the revolutionary party.  The working class's relationship to the means of production allow it to play an independent role (a general strike clearly shows who runs society, as nothing works at all without the permission of the working class.).  Given its knowledge of how to run every aspect of society due to the social character of production, it plays the leading role in an alliance with other oppressed strata of society (peasanty, urban poor, etc.).  The vanguard of the oppressed is nothing more than the working class, the class that is able to play an independent role and lead other oppressed strata of society.

The vanguard of the working class is the revolutionary party, which is nothing more than the most advanced elements of the working class being organized.  The vanguard of the working class actually dates back to Marx and was not invented by Lenin.  Whenever a struggle erupts, there is going to be a section of the participants that are more involved, more committed, more theoretically developed, etc. than other participants in the struggle, and this section needs to be organized so it can play a leading role in changing society.  The most advanced elements of the working class, being the most involved and theoretically trained, draw on the lessons of the history of the working class movement and are at the forefront of workers engaged in direct struggles against the bourgeois state.   

History has constantly showed the need for leadership (many revolutionary situations failed due to the lack of a Marxist leadership, i.e. Spain in 1936, France in 1968, etc.).  Trotsky was correct when he stated that the crisis of humanity can be reduced to the crisis of leadership.  The bulk of the working class participates in the most decisive moments without much theoretical or practical training, and history has shown that the most advanced elements of the working class needs to be organized to lead the working class to the seizure of state power and the means of production in alliance with other oppressed strata (peasantry, urban poor, etc.).  There never has been, and never will be, a revolution that can succeed without leadership.  

I recognize the need for a central bureaucracy, to oversee proper trade, education, health care and specialization being delivered where needed. I support this not just as a temporary fixture, but as an absolute necessity. It is required to ensure that every trade and labour union have somewhere to address their communal concerns. I do not recognize in any way, shape or form this "Worker State" propaganda. We have direct examples of exactly why every communism has failed, and it is always linked to your "Worker State"

I find this very confusing.  Any Marxist or anarchist will oppose bureaucracy.  It seems rather conservative. 

[Domino_Gray]

"Your understanding of the early situation in Russia is really quite poor, basing yourself on Wikipedia articles for example"

Sweet Jaysis! I cited through wikipedia because it was easy to reach and source. I didn't realize wikiquote was a propaganda outlet all the sudden. Next time, I'll make sure to cite from commiesrus.com.

First off, allow me to thank Volkov for coming in with the clarification of Vanguardism in its double context. I was planning to do the same, but after seeing that yours is essentially exactly my own interpretation, I'll simply redirect anyone to Volkov.

Moving on, what I refer to as the Vanguard State is Lenin's version of Vanguardism. It is an anarchist term used to question the premise of Lenin. Lenin never used the term "Vanguard State". He did however support a vanguard Party as a precursor to the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". The transitional period in between a revolution and the establishment of true, stateless communism is what I refer to as the "Vanguard State". You are right; Lenin never placed state by vanguard. I really don't like being bogged down in semantics like this. Semantic patronization. Nice touch

I have read "what is to be done?'. I find it fantastic that you regard a difference of interpretation as ignorance. Allow me to deal with shorthand the several arguments here.

The Cheka were a secret police outside of jurisdiction or judicial process. They are attributed with the execution of 60 000 people. There is however, the issue of forced starvation and unaccounted murder. As almost all documents regarding the Cheka were essentially destroyed in the name of the state, we are essentially left only our own logic. The Cheka were the first of the Soviet Unions long line of tyrannical state oppression. This is not myth. This is not propoganda. This is not hearsay. The Cheka were monsters, orchestrated by men like Felix Dzerzhinsky

The vanguard State, to ensure that there is no longer any silly word picking, is the democratic party taking over the government under the illusion of establishing the Worker State.

I should have watched what i said more closely. Lenin did not "blatantly push for a one party state". Lenin placed the seed that vindicated the one party state, is what I should have said.

"Economically, the Bolshevik version of socialism was simply state capitalism. Politically, the soviets became a thin veneer for party dictatorship. "

It was Marx who said , "we can only judge a person by what they do, not what they say". Now, if you listen to a lot of what Lenin said, and is cited by out of the night, we'll find a man with beautiful poetry streaming across our consciousness. What I saw however, in arguments for the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and Vanguardism is the roots of the violent dictatorship that ensured the instant the revolution finished.

Allow me to repeat me argument. I do not support Vanguardism, as the interest of the revolutionary leaders will seep over into the Worker State, and turn it into a Vanguard State. I do not support the "Worker State" as it calls for militarism, state run capitalism and vindicates organizations like the Ghulag, Cheka and political repression. You say Lenin didn't call for a one party state, but I think his words indite themselves in his argument that the are "enemies of the people" present in political opposition.

If this is not enough, if you don't see the flaws in his arguments, which you obviously don't, allow us to examine action. It was not Stalin, but Lenin and Trotsky who first shot strikers, banned left papers, radical organizations and party factions, sent workers and revolutionaries to the gulags, advocated and introduced one-man management and piece-work in the workplace, eliminated democracy in the military and shut down soviets who elected the 'wrong' delegates.

Vanguard State is the trumped democracy of a supposed Worker State. It is just another kind of oppression.

As for Chavez, my understanding of the clown is just fine. He is everything wrong with socialism. Arguing for dependency theory and nationalized protectionism! My "imagination" is nothing more than  a reminder of how much power one leader can garnish. It is because of this threat, that it is absolutely important to ensure that power is limited. That term limit is one of the only way. By removing it, he just became another tyrant. if you're going to call me ignorant, please illicit why

The Cheka were purged as Trotskyists, because their loyalty was to the old leaders. Nothing more, nothing less. The KGB, the GPU were just different names for the precedent of the Cheka. You'd have to be absolutely blind not to see that. You really think an ice pick through Trotsky's head is any different than the Cheka raid on the anarchist camps in 1917 killing 500.

Finally, as for the need for a central bureaucracy, it is just a word. It is however a concept that is required for communes to continue to function for mutual prosperity. It was Marx who argued that free trade was absolutely endemic of communism. That free trade must be facilitated by a centre.