I'm really new to politics. What I understood so far is:
socialism: social property of the "means of production" (it can be both democratic or revolutionary)
communism: stateless and classless society
marxism: a sociopolitical and economic analysis of society based on the idea that class struggle under capitalism will eventually lead to a socialist and then communist society
They are different concepts, but can work in a same framework depending on how you define them.
Am I right?
>SocialismSocialism is a generally obscure term, since it usually refers to any anti-capitalist reform, to either protect industry or labour from market competition, or elsewise, a redistribution of wealth. In the Manifesto, "socialism" is described as being either; (i) reactionary, (ii) bourgeois or (iii) utopian, as you may read here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm>CommunismCommunism is distinguished by Marx as being "proletarian" or a directly working class movement, which indeed, has its aim to (i) abolish private property, (ii) abolish the state and (iii) abolish the family, (iv) abolish nations. Now, the "state" is defined by class antagonism, and so Marx writes that if one class comprises the entire society, there is no state, but there is still a government, or "administration of things", as Engels writes. Marx was not an anarchist. Marx discusses the development of communism between a lower and higher phase, which you can read of here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm>MarxismI would say that Marxism is simply the belief in the legitimacy of the basic theories of both Marx and Engels, which is typically divided into three elements: (i) Dialectical Materialism, (ii) Historical Materialism and (iii) Critique of Political Economy. However, as you write, Marxism is entirely theoretical, while the politics of Marxism is communism.
Hope this helps! 😁👍
>>2795799I see, thanks, I will check it all later.
But as I said, socialism may be "obscure" and have a lot of variants, but all of them defend some sort of social ownership.
Communism is the form Marx viewed socialism (as a revolutionary takeover of the means of production by the proletariat).
>>2795819>socialism may be "obscure" and have a lot of variants, but all of them defend some sort of social ownership.Yes, in some sense, but at the same time, the government of any society has always preserved its property in different ways.
>Communism is the form Marx viewed socialismIn a very basic sense; Engels later invents the term "scientific socialism" to describe his politics, but Marx never identified with the term "socialism", only "communism".
>>2795828Didn't he said that socialism was more of a "transitional phase" towards communism?
Because most people who consider themselves communists or marxists are also socialists.
An what about anarchists or anarcho-communists/socialists, don't they disagree with Marx about this transitional phase? Because for Marx (and I am supposong here by what I've read) defends the dictatorship of the proletariat and many people do not accept that, but still call themselves socialists or communists.
>>2795839>An what about anarchists or anarcho-communists/socialists, don't they disagree with Marx about this transitional phase?Not necessarily, no. They have different schools of thought.
>>2795774>social property No property at all. Collective ownership.
>democratic or revolutionaryDemocracy is rule of the majority over the minority, populism, so no, decisions have to be planned by rationality and reason not by popularity.
>communism: stateless and classless societyNo, read Marx. Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
>marxismEverything under this term is a deviation from Marx's actual thought. He himself rejected the label marxist - If anything is certain, it is that I am not a marxist.
>>2795866>planned by rationality and reasondrop the flair falsifier
>>2795868You are a falsifier, that is the literal premise behind democratic centralism.
>>2795870I meant organIc
shit
its too late
freudian slip
>>2795839>Didn't he said that socialism was more of a "transitional phase" towards communism?No, he only spoke of a "lower phase" and "higher phase" communism. He doesn't invoke the s-word.
>An what about anarchists or anarcho-communists/socialists, don't they disagree with Marx about this transitional phase?I am not familiar with ancoms, but Proudhon as the father of Anarchism/Mutualism wrote explicitly to Marx that he was a reformist, not a revolutionist in terms of policy (1846):
<we should not put forward revolutionary action as a means of social reform […] I would therefore prefer to burn Property by a slow fire, rather than give it new strength by making a St Bartholomew’s night of the proprietors.https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-letter-of-proudhon-to-marx>the dictatorship of the proletariat and many people do not accept thatMarx suggests the dictatorship of the proletariat as against the current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie; so its about what framework you are using.
>>2795871Its true though, decisions have to be argumented rationally in organic centralism, it is not the will of the majority over what is to be actually done.
>>2795876>ecisions have to be argumented rationally in organic centralismthat's not orgcent. discussion and unity in action is demcent. orgcent is vibes and shit
>>2795871its over, hand back your armchair
>>2795875Proudhonism / mutualism is dead, you're fighting ghosts. There is not a single organization in the world that follows it.
>>2795866>no propertyHow so? Isn't this collective ownership the ownership of properties?
>democracy is the rule of the majorityThis is not exactly the definition of democracy.
Democracy is rule by the people, not exactly the dictatorship of the majority.
>communism is not an ideaWell, anything can be transformed in an idea somehow. I didn't say it was an "idea" but the concept of a classless and stateless society and we still have not reached it so the movement is not yet "done".
>marxism is a deviation of marxismMarxism can be defined by the way Marx viewed and analysed society.
>>2795866>He himself rejected the label marxist - If anything is certain, it is that I am not a marxist.Retards without reading comprehension sure do love to spew this. The actual context of this is Marx saying "if these particular people I'm complaining about are Marxists, then I'm not a Marxist."
>>2795878Orgcent is literally the movie 12 angry men applied to real political activity, demcent is the bullshit that lead to Stalin and Stalin supporting Israel because it was decided by democratic centralism apparently.
>>2795884And they were marxists, every "marxist" ever can only bastardize Marx.
>>2795875Explain this "lower" vs "higher" phase.
Isn't this "transition"?
>>2795883>How so? Isn't this collective ownership the ownership of properties?Its semantics, read more on property.
>Democracy is rule by the people, not exactly the dictatorship of the majority."The people" always is a populist position.
>but the concept of a classless and stateless society and we still have not reached it so the movement is not yet "done".Those are only some conditions to strive for.
>Marxism can be defined by the way Marx viewed and analysed society.No he didn't define it or name his views after himself.
>>2795888The majority is always wrong, the truth is always not of the majority but of the righteous through scientific rigor. No retards ever will be making any bad decision to drag everyone down with themselves. Condemn all renegades.
>>2795890Ok, you are not a completely dumb person but you seem kinda dense in the way you use concepts.
Democracy can be populism but this is not exactly the idea behind democracy.
The idea of having minority rights, for instance, is a democratic idea. Democracy is not "anything goes" but just a form to understand that power comes from the people.
>de didn't define himself as a marxistOf course, he was Marx. Marxism is something derived from his philosophy.
>>2795889Marx discusses it in the first part of his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875). I will quote a part of it to make a point:
<Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby. In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmThus, the first phase is seen as a transition, yes.
>>2795902>Democracy can be populism but this is not exactly the idea behind democracy.I know what you mean, you're just using the popular definition, I like my definition better because it connects to the historical origins and how it has played out throughout history from athenian democracy, from the get-go it was flawed, it was the decision-making of slave owners.
I still stick to my definitions, I refuse order-words, I refuse language games. I carve anti-democratic into my chest and a fasces with a hammer and sickle onto my asscheeks.
>Of course, he was Marx. Marxism is something derived from his philosophy.That is variance, the truth comes from the invariant line of thought that does not muddy the waters by making wrongful "additions" to the analysis that was already established.
>>2795889>>2795903In terms of specifics, Marx conceives of a board of administrators which owns the means of production and distributes the means of consumption, by allocating labour vouchers to each worker, after being taxed for public services like welfare. It is a familiar picture to us, except that property relations have altered.
>>2795774Feudalism = feudal ownership
Capitalism = capital ownership
Socialism = social ownership
Communism = communal ownership
Shrimple as.
>>2795910Communism can be viewed as a form of democracy.
>I refuse to call myself a marxist because my view is invariantMarxism is not a final doctrine, as you said, so it requires some sort of variance during time. You have some problems understanding concepts and ideas and refuse to think in a deeper way.
The core idea may be invariant, and this is also marxism.
>>2795926People have a completely flawed understanding of democracy and I would rather tell them that its not democratic at all then try to explain how "it would be a different type of democracy". Since a lot of the morons wouldn't have a voice in the decision-making when they expect it.
>so it requires some sort of variance during time.The invariant line is the only way.
>You have some problems understanding concepts and ideas and refuse to think in a deeper way.Yes, we have everything figured out already, see the pamphlet.
https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/REPORTS/Knowledg/84Dogmat.htm >>2795935Do not create concepts based on the wrong ideas people have.
Use them in the best way possible, even when you want to refute it.
Democracy is power by the people, it is the definiton of democracy. If people use it in a wrong way they are wrong and you should avoid giving credit to their definitions.
>>2795935My bad, I was larping as an armchair but I slipped twice, they don't reject marxism, in fact they don't reject the word "left" either, I've been spreading misinformation on leftypol to turn leninists against eachother for awhile now
https://www.international-communist-party.org/basictexts/english/52HistIn.htm >>2795944Communism is not the movement "of the people", it views only the workers as the revolutionary subject and even then shits been falling apart lately. its too complicated for an online discussion.
>>2795945They are arguing against the concept of liberal or bourgeois democracy. This is the definition of democracy they are talking about.
Real democracy would be the communist society.
>>2795950A stateless and classless society organized by people between themselves is a democracy.
You are only talking about the transitional phase and forget the ultimate goal.
>>2795953wrong, lenin is clear:
>No, democracy is not identical with the subordination of the minority to the majority. Democracy is a state which recognizes the subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e., an organization for the systematic use of force by one class against another, by one section of the population against another.>In the usual argument about the state, the mistake is constantly made against which Engels warned and which we have in passing indicated above, namely, it is constantly forgotten that the abolition of the state means also the abolition of democracy; that the withering away of the state means the withering away of democracy. >>2795957>A stateless and classless society organized by people between themselves is a democracy.NTA
But I would disagree, since a democracy is not a forn of society as such, but a form of government, which comports to a particular class (e.g. the demos, or property-owning citizenry). Thus, Athens was a democracy, despite having slavery, the same as the US, because the slaves were property, not citizens.
>>2795959Democracy is not just a way the state is organized, democracy is a way of viewing power in society in general.
Communism IS democracy, once everything is defined based on peoples need.
They were both wrong in the concept of democracy they use.
>>2795969Mods, ban this idealist social-democratic wrecker.
>>2795968Democracy is not a form of society based on the rule of a determined class.
You are using the wrong concept of democracy.
>>2795971I see. You lost your argument now you are mad.
Pretty common. I understand communism better than most people do.
>>2795774don't get too obsessed about definitions/theory and disconnected from practice otherwise you'll end up as a raging schizo and potential reactionary
>>2795972Democracy is a type of class society
a classless society has no politics
>>2795977People act upon concepts.
It is important to define them in order to act upon something concrete.
>>2795957Its not a democracy even by Marx and Lenin's views, they called for an administration of things, not a democracy.
>>2795982I am curious. If there will be no politics, how will people organize society?
A classless society does not imply the end of politics, but the beginning of it.
>>2795984And yes thats the literal term that was used - the administration of things.
Marx didn't differentiate between the two.
There is lower and higher stage socialism/communism both are stateless. Read Marx instead of asking nobodies who didn't.
>>2795985I'd argue demcet was a transitional strategy gone wrong btw because look at where we are today.
>>2795985>I am curious. If there will be no politics, how will people organize society?That is a great question, but im not a communist, so i cant answer it
>A classless society does not imply the end of politics, but the beginning of it.politics refers to the "polis", or state, so if there is no state, there can be no politics
>>2795991Wasn't polis like city or something?
>>2795993Yes, the city-state, but also the state generally, which is how the word is used today
>>2795994>>2795991>>2795989Everytime I learn more about communism I understand that it is more like an utopian idea than something concrete.
>>2795995No communism is the most anti-utopian thing ever conceived, liberals call it utopian because they're stupid and didn't read Marx's ruthless criticism on all utopian constructs
>>2795997Plus a utopia is really bad, its like the worst thing ever, the word comes from some idealist christian dictatorship, communism is the most anti-idealist thing ever, only fake communists are idealists
>>2795988Is the lower and higher stage a progression from one to another?
Because dictatorship of the proletariat requires a state, no?
>>2796000You caught the falsifier, that guy is obviously an anarchist, yes the lower stage requires the state instrument of repression of one class over another for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
>>2796004>obviously an anarchistOr an autonomist, autonomists are worse though cause they didn't even take lessons from the Paris Commune and they're modernizers.
>>2795999>>2795997By utopian I mean something so hard to achieve because it define goals so impossible that it will practically never happen.
What you end up having is some sort of authoritarian regime or a progressive form of democracy that aims to a more collective goal, but never this idea of classless or stateless society, because any form of society requires some sort of hierachy and class struggle will sort of happen anywhere.
>>2796010>By utopian I mean something so hard to achieve because it define goals so impossible that it will practically never happen.Maybe true but like, if our movement doesn't succeed everyone will die.
>What you end up having is some sort of authoritarian regime or a progressive form of democracy that aims to a more collective goal, but never this idea of classless or stateless society, because any form of society requires some sort of hierachy and class struggle will sort of happen anywhere.Classless and stateless doesn't mean without hierarchy, read Engels.
>>2796018>Classless and stateless doesn't mean without hierarchy, read Engels.What determines the structure of hierarchy? If you say it is violence or coercion, you just recreate a state.
>>2796024A state is an instrument of repression not violence on its own according, its composed of institutions and its various organs. Their functions eventually will be fulfilled, no longer needed and the state will wither away.
>>2796004>muh buzzwordSo the DOTP is lower stage communism?
>>2796028Yes until classless society is reached. The self-abolition of the proletariat.
>>2796027But you haven't described what structures a hierarchy.
Under a state, the answer is obvious.
Without a state, the answer is not.
>>2796032Its fairly obvious, even without a state a tribe leader is a hierarchical figure of a tribe.
A hierarchy is a person or people in charge of others below, a hierarchy can be appointed rather than enforced by violence.
>>2796035Right, but that is a simple society
If we are talking about a complex civilization, it must be different
>>2796020I've read.
The thing is, of course there will always be hierarchical structure in society because it is how the world is disposed and any "new form" of society will have its own forms of differences between people.
My view on that is that it will naturally create some sorts of injustices. You will never abolish injustice just by abolishing the state. There will always be new ways of subverting the common good in order to benefit personal or class interests in some way.
That's why I like democracy.
>>2796036That's subjective. Maybe if everyone doesn't need management and holds expertise over every task they won't need to be told what to do.
>>2796041But is this not utopian?
You are imagining an ideal state of things.
Since things are imperfect, a government seems necessary.
>>2796038>The thing is, of course there will always be hierarchical structure in society because it is how the world is disposed and any "new form" of society will have its own forms of differences between people.Strange, that appeal to naturalism is what drove Nick Land to say the same about equality:
“To call the belief in substantial human equality a superstition is to insult superstition. It might be unwarranted to believe in leprechauns, but at least the person who holds to such a belief isn’t watching them not exist, for every waking hour of the day. Human inequality, in contrast, and in all of its abundant multiplicity, is constantly on display, as people exhibit their variations in gender, ethnicity, physical attractiveness, size and shape, strength, health, agility, charm, humor, wit, industriousness, and sociability, among countless other features, traits, abilities, and aspects of their personality, some immediately and conspicuously, some only slowly, over time. To absorb even the slightest fraction of all this and to conclude, in the only way possible, that it is either nothing at all, or a ‘social construct’ and index of oppression, is sheer Gnostic delirium: a commitment beyond all evidence to the existence of a true and good world veiled by appearances. People are not equal, they do not develop equally, their goals and achievements are not equal, and nothing can make them equal. Substantial equality has no relation to reality, except as its systematic negation. Violence on a genocidal scale is required to even approximate to a practical egalitarian program, and if anything less ambitious is attempted, people get around it (some more competently than others).”
― Nick Land, The Dark Enlightenment
>>2796042How is that ideal? Mismanagement is certain to occur, it just must be handled properly.
>>2796044Do you think it is possible to have 8 billion people on earth cooperate without violence or unfairness?
>>2796046I know I told you I'm fucking larping, I don't believe most of this shit I wrote, I'm replying from a position I don't believe in myself, see
>>2796026>>2796043Land is typically dishonest here; nobody believes in the absolute equality of individuals, since we are all… individuals, yet we are also species, and so display empirical group behaviour.
>>2796031<state and class exists in lower stage communism (socialism) <dotp is lower stage communism (socialism)>Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish ciasses. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke. classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear.>Lenin, Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the ProletariatYou're indistinguishable from an ML
>>2796051>You're indistinguishable from an MLI told you I'm larping, I don't believe in this shit I wrote, I'm replying from a position that is not my own.
Everything you see on this thread with the armchair flag I write from the perspective of a doctrine other than mine.
>>2796048Clearly your larp sucks since I figured it out from the second I saw you, shitlib.
>>2796043Nature has created people different and has set some kind of hierarchies (for instance the alpha of some animal groups). The elders vs. the young is another example of natural hierachy.
It is hard to differentiate some social from natural hierarchies because humams are social animals, so biology is social and society can be based on biological traits.
The good society is that one that does not make artificial injustice natural.
>>2796053Your larp is closer to actual anarkidde/ML position than an ultroid one.
>>2796054No since you think I'm a ML
>>2796058You don't know ultroid material then, you're in denial, unable to believe that someone else knows you better than you know yourselves
>>2796061Unless you're a dutch-german faggot lol
>>2796051<state and class exists in lower stage communism (socialism) <dotp is lower stage communism (socialism)>Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish ciasses. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke. classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear.>Lenin, Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the ProletariatNone of this contradicts the premise that DOTP is to remain until the self-abolition of the proletariat into classless society. You put your red text cocksucker, but I never claimed that classes won't remain under DOTP.
You're mad that an anarchist can pretend to be an ultras and get away with it.
>>2796072You claimed lower stage = dotp = classes
Lenin defines lower stage as classless
Then defines dotp (dictatorship of the PROLETARIAT (class)) as having classes
Ergo your definitions are incoherent statist deviation
you are wrong
>>2796302amazing argument
I really like threads like these where junior anons learn the ropes. This is me 20 years ago.
Read Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program and Lenin's State and Revolution (they convey the same scientific socialist definition of the terms).
By doing this you will subsequently become aware of how archaic, abstract, moralist and liberal all other frameworks of defining socialism, usually made by reformists and bureaucrat-fans, are and how they have nothing to do with Marxism, Leninism.
Unique IPs: 17