true meaning of marxism?

[JJM 777]

I am a woman and like expensive things
(...)
are we allowed nice things sometimes?

Back on topic:

A basic idea in Socialism is to guarantee a fine standard of living for everyone, by distributing average wealth to the great masses people, instead of keeping the masses poor by channeling great wealth to a small elite.

True Socialism doesn't have a place for a privileged social class of the wealthy, who in the current world system are those who typically buy luxury cars (Ferrari) etc. which the great masses of people cannot afford.

But even the great masses, who in Socialism would enjoy a typical average standard of living, can indulge in luxury products if they want, for example if:
- Luxury products are sold for a price that is based on their actual production costs (without "paying extra price for the famous brand name").
- Small items such as fragrances can be "luxurious" and still their price is no problem for the great masses, if used with moderation.
- Big items such as luxury sport cars can be used on a rental basis, renting a Ferrari for one day is no problem for an average person's budget, even if owning a Ferrari full-time probably is.

[Christopher Hill]

Every socialist wants the land of Utopia, not the poor country with anything.

I don't know how else to say this without potentially offending, but if it wasn't clear before it is completely clear that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't know how or why you believe socialists want a "land of Utopia". Socialists want something better than our current system; they want progress. This isn't Utopian.

Exactly, most of us here are Scientific Socialists (Marxists) and not Utopians, that means that our ideology is firmly based in science and logic, rather than just our hopes and dreams, Paula on the other hand is a Utopian.
Here is an explanation about why Socialism (And Communism) are not Utopian.
http://www.youtube.com/user/heikokhoo#p/u/7/HH4PT3q3GeI

Alright, I know most of communists insist they're not ideologists but realists, but honestly I don't know how is it possible to get any socialistic real plan without becoming a bolshevik or stalinist. I Some of you may not realize that, but ideals are not real. While you're having an ideal without violent army and politics, your aim is to keep fighting for it and you mustn't think that's impossible. You've got to have faith and hope in winning, no matter how you're telling world about the right view.

You won't get anything by insulting or fighting with other communists, because that's what imperialists and fascists do want - they want us not to string along because then it's easier for them to beat us.
Isn't it?

Many of us probably would consider ourselves Bolsheviks, while you are right in many of your assumptions you are of course wrong in believing that I didn't know that already, it doesn't change the simple fact that Marxism is based in dialectical materialism rather than in idealism.

[Paula Marx]

Every socialist wants the land of Utopia, not the poor country with anything.

I don't know how else to say this without potentially offending, but if it wasn't clear before it is completely clear that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't know how or why you believe socialists want a "land of Utopia". Socialists want something better than our current system; they want progress. This isn't Utopian.

Exactly, most of us here are Scientific Socialists (Marxists) and not Utopians, that means that our ideology is firmly based in science and logic, rather than just our hopes and dreams, Paula on the other hand is a Utopian.
Here is an explanation about why Socialism (And Communism) are not Utopian.
http://www.youtube.com/user/heikokhoo#p/u/7/HH4PT3q3GeI

Alright, I know most of communists insist they're not ideologists but realists, but honestly I don't know how is it possible to get any socialistic real plan without becoming a bolshevik or stalinist. I Some of you may not realize that, but ideals are not real. While you're having an ideal without violent army and politics, your aim is to keep fighting for it and you mustn't think that's impossible. You've got to have faith and hope in winning, no matter how you're telling world about the right view.

You won't get anything by insulting or fighting with other communists, because that's what imperialists and fascists do want - they want us not to string along because then it's easier for them to beat us.
Isn't it?

Many of us probably would consider ourselves Bolsheviks, while you are right in many of your assumptions you are of course wrong in believing that I didn't know that already, it doesn't change the simple fact that Marxism is based in dialectical materialism rather than in idealism.

Eh, eh, I will never understand (potencial?) bolsheviks...

[Christopher Hill]

Every socialist wants the land of Utopia, not the poor country with anything.

I don't know how else to say this without potentially offending, but if it wasn't clear before it is completely clear that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't know how or why you believe socialists want a "land of Utopia". Socialists want something better than our current system; they want progress. This isn't Utopian.

Exactly, most of us here are Scientific Socialists (Marxists) and not Utopians, that means that our ideology is firmly based in science and logic, rather than just our hopes and dreams, Paula on the other hand is a Utopian.
Here is an explanation about why Socialism (And Communism) are not Utopian.
http://www.youtube.com/user/heikokhoo#p/u/7/HH4PT3q3GeI

Alright, I know most of communists insist they're not ideologists but realists, but honestly I don't know how is it possible to get any socialistic real plan without becoming a bolshevik or stalinist. I Some of you may not realize that, but ideals are not real. While you're having an ideal without violent army and politics, your aim is to keep fighting for it and you mustn't think that's impossible. You've got to have faith and hope in winning, no matter how you're telling world about the right view.

You won't get anything by insulting or fighting with other communists, because that's what imperialists and fascists do want - they want us not to string along because then it's easier for them to beat us.
Isn't it?

Many of us probably would consider ourselves Bolsheviks, while you are right in many of your assumptions you are of course wrong in believing that I didn't know that already, it doesn't change the simple fact that Marxism is based in dialectical materialism rather than in idealism.

Eh, eh, I will never understand (potencial?) bolsheviks...

Bolshevik is in modern days little more than a self-designation for a Marxist-Leninist, or in particular those who make up a "Vanguard Party".

[Paula Marx]

Every socialist wants the land of Utopia, not the poor country with anything.

I don't know how else to say this without potentially offending, but if it wasn't clear before it is completely clear that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't know how or why you believe socialists want a "land of Utopia". Socialists want something better than our current system; they want progress. This isn't Utopian.

Exactly, most of us here are Scientific Socialists (Marxists) and not Utopians, that means that our ideology is firmly based in science and logic, rather than just our hopes and dreams, Paula on the other hand is a Utopian.
Here is an explanation about why Socialism (And Communism) are not Utopian.
http://www.youtube.com/user/heikokhoo#p/u/7/HH4PT3q3GeI

Alright, I know most of communists insist they're not ideologists but realists, but honestly I don't know how is it possible to get any socialistic real plan without becoming a bolshevik or stalinist. I Some of you may not realize that, but ideals are not real. While you're having an ideal without violent army and politics, your aim is to keep fighting for it and you mustn't think that's impossible. You've got to have faith and hope in winning, no matter how you're telling world about the right view.

You won't get anything by insulting or fighting with other communists, because that's what imperialists and fascists do want - they want us not to string along because then it's easier for them to beat us.
Isn't it?

Many of us probably would consider ourselves Bolsheviks, while you are right in many of your assumptions you are of course wrong in believing that I didn't know that already, it doesn't change the simple fact that Marxism is based in dialectical materialism rather than in idealism.

Eh, eh, I will never understand (potencial?) bolsheviks...

Bolshevik is in modern days little more than a self-designation for a Marxist-Leninist, or in particular those who make up a "Vanguard Party".

Anyway... Marxism-Leninism is a term with lots of different meanings and use.
Originally, it's a socialistic (Bolshevik) move, but it's made in period of Stalinism and they used it for distorted Bolshevik vulgarism which appeared in Lenin's and Stalin's period.

[Christopher Hill]

Yet It was used by Trotsky and is still used to this day by genuine Marxists...So what can you say really?

[Paula Marx]

Yet It was used by Trotsky and is still used to this day by genuine Marxists...So what can you say really?

What do you mean by that?

[Christopher Hill]

Yet It was used by Trotsky and is still used to this day by genuine Marxists...So what can you say really?

What do you mean by that?

Its use by Marxists predates its use by Stalinists. (Lenin used it first)

[Paula Marx]

Yet It was used by Trotsky and is still used to this day by genuine Marxists...So what can you say really?

What do you mean by that?

Its use by Marxists predates its use by Stalinists. (Lenin used it first)

But Lenin wasn't good as a Marxist, was he? He founded Bolshevism. That wasn't a good move for one Marxist. But alright, he was the first Bolshevik and it's okay. But what others did to that kind of "communism" is just horrible.
How can Bolsheviks try to fight against violence and aggression by doing that to others? Stalin did that, but Lenin too. They weren't really much different from Nazis. I don't think Marx would agree with their politics.

[Christopher Hill]

Yet It was used by Trotsky and is still used to this day by genuine Marxists...So what can you say really?

What do you mean by that?

Its use by Marxists predates its use by Stalinists. (Lenin used it first)

But Lenin wasn't good as a Marxist, was he? He founded Bolshevism. That wasn't a good move for one Marxist. But alright, he was the first Bolshevik and it's okay. But what others did to that kind of "communism" is just horrible.
How can Bolsheviks try to fight against violence and aggression by doing that to others? Stalin did that, but Lenin too. They weren't really much different from Nazis. I don't think Marx would agree with their politics.

Now you are opening up a whole different can of worms, The Bolshevism of Lenin and the "Bolshevism" of Stalin are two different and incomparable things.

[Paula Marx]

Yet It was used by Trotsky and is still used to this day by genuine Marxists...So what can you say really?

What do you mean by that?

Its use by Marxists predates its use by Stalinists. (Lenin used it first)

But Lenin wasn't good as a Marxist, was he? He founded Bolshevism. That wasn't a good move for one Marxist. But alright, he was the first Bolshevik and it's okay. But what others did to that kind of "communism" is just horrible.
How can Bolsheviks try to fight against violence and aggression by doing that to others? Stalin did that, but Lenin too. They weren't really much different from Nazis. I don't think Marx would agree with their politics.

Now you are opening up a whole different can of worms, The Bolshevism of Lenin and the "Bolshevism" of Stalin are two different and incomparable things.

I know, but it's still Bolshevism.

[Christopher Hill]

Yet It was used by Trotsky and is still used to this day by genuine Marxists...So what can you say really?

What do you mean by that?

Its use by Marxists predates its use by Stalinists. (Lenin used it first)

But Lenin wasn't good as a Marxist, was he? He founded Bolshevism. That wasn't a good move for one Marxist. But alright, he was the first Bolshevik and it's okay. But what others did to that kind of "communism" is just horrible.
How can Bolsheviks try to fight against violence and aggression by doing that to others? Stalin did that, but Lenin too. They weren't really much different from Nazis. I don't think Marx would agree with their politics.

Now you are opening up a whole different can of worms, The Bolshevism of Lenin and the "Bolshevism" of Stalin are two different and incomparable things.

I know, but it's still Bolshevism.

No actually, they are polar opposites, it is really the same in substance as Marxism and Stalinism.

[Joshua Purcell]

This is where it hits the fan for many leftists. Where and when did the Bolsheviks, or the revolution in which the Bolsheviks took the lead go too far? Did it start with Lenin, or earlier (as Bakunin predicted)? Is the concept of a vanguard acceptable? These and other questions are why you have so many various groups within the leftist tendency.

Based on what I've understood from reading as much as I can given my limited time and fairly recent interest in the subject (when compared to my whole life), Bolshevism wasn't inherently bad or evil. There is no denying the fact that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a large part to play in creating the 'machine' that led to Stalinism, but I don't believe for one minute this what they intended or wanted, and I don't think you can lay the blame squarely with the Bolsheviks for the evils of Stalinism. As for a vanguard, I have a very loose definition for this term: the vanguard is the people who work towards waking up the working class. Even people who may have a problem with the term vanguard (as I believe Chomsky does based on what I've read) would be considered part of it given this definition. I don't look at the vanguard as being an upper crust leadership-type group who is in many ways separate from the people who they are leading.... I see the vanguard as inseparable from the working class, and only distinguishable by their level of recognition of the class system and willingness to do something about it.

[Paula Marx]

Yet It was used by Trotsky and is still used to this day by genuine Marxists...So what can you say really?

What do you mean by that?

Its use by Marxists predates its use by Stalinists. (Lenin used it first)

But Lenin wasn't good as a Marxist, was he? He founded Bolshevism. That wasn't a good move for one Marxist. But alright, he was the first Bolshevik and it's okay. But what others did to that kind of "communism" is just horrible.
How can Bolsheviks try to fight against violence and aggression by doing that to others? Stalin did that, but Lenin too. They weren't really much different from Nazis. I don't think Marx would agree with their politics.

Now you are opening up a whole different can of worms, The Bolshevism of Lenin and the "Bolshevism" of Stalin are two different and incomparable things.

I know, but it's still Bolshevism.

No actually, they are polar opposites, it is really the same in substance as Marxism and Stalinism.

Few months ago I thought so, but now I understand they are not that different.

[Jimi4444]

Few months ago I thought so, but now I understand they are not that different.
[/quote]

Stalinism, besides the nationalized planned economy has nothing to do with Leninism or Bolshevism. I would be curious what "that" difference is, and if you could explain that would be nice.

Based on what I've understood from reading as much as I can given my limited time and fairly recent interest in the subject (when compared to my whole life), Bolshevism wasn't inherently bad or evil. There is no denying the fact that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a large part to play in creating the 'machine' that led to Stalinism, but I don't believe for one minute this what they intended or wanted, and I don't think you can lay the blame squarely with the Bolsheviks for the evils of Stalinism. As for a vanguard, I have a very loose definition for this term: the vanguard is the people who work towards waking up the working class. Even people who may have a problem with the term vanguard (as I believe Chomsky does based on what I've read) would be considered part of it given this definition. I don't look at the vanguard as being an upper crust leadership-type group who is in many ways separate from the people who they are leading.... I see the vanguard as inseparable from the working class, and only distinguishable by their level of recognition of the class system and willingness to do something about it.

Really it wasn't Lenin, Trotsky or the Bolsheviks fault for the degeneration into Stalinism. Really if you want to put the blame on anyone it would be the reformists of the second international and the bad decisions taken by the communist leaders in other countries (most notably Germany). Also with the isolation of the revolution in a backward country like Russia was, when the other revolutions failed, made the degeneration inevitable. The vanguard is the most educated and revolutionary elements of the working class (cadre), who lead the working class. Which is different from lets say the "mass line" used by the Maoists, who have their "cadre" go to the Workers to get their decision.


[/quote]
But Lenin wasn't good as a Marxist, was he? He founded Bolshevism. That wasn't a good move for one Marxist. But alright, he was the first Bolshevik and it's okay. But what others did to that kind of "communism" is just horrible.
How can Bolsheviks try to fight against violence and aggression by doing that to others? Stalin did that, but Lenin too. They weren't really much different from Nazis. I don't think Marx would agree with their politics.
[/quote]

Depends who you ask, in my opinion no there isn't any difference between Lenin or Marx. Leninism is just the advancement of what Lenin brought to the ideas of Marxism, in the age of imperialism. The Bolsheviks at times were a bit brutal and did probably do more than what was needed. But let me ask you, what Civil War hasn't been brutal? The Whites were just as brutal if not worse, are you saying we should give up the cause, because if the Bolsheviks weren't so "brutal" they wouldn't have won the Civil War and many more people wound have died. You have to realize the situation they had, 21 foreign countries invading along with Czarist forces knocking on your door. If you aren't willing to put up the fight, then why bother fighting for socialism? Also look at the history of capitalism and you think that what the Bolsheviks did can even compare to that?