Marxism/communism/socialism Take 2

[noname12]

Ok The other one got so messy and confussing I TRIED to catch all the relevant arguements and skipped the irrelevant ones. If I have missed something important please point it out as I am biased and may have left out somethings due to its offencive content

Skweeky -
Well, a quite interesting discussion started in the lounge about these topics.

My view:

Yes, Marx can be seen as father of all communism, but it was never his intention to create communism. There is a huge difference between marxism and communism. One can say that the idea of Marx put into practice can be called communism. The idea was good.....what people made of it isn't. Communism is most certainly NOT socialism. Those two things get mixed up very often, but are in reality quite different. Communism is about absolute equality, which doesn't work because there are always people who want more and have the means to get more. Socialism is about equality too, agreed, but not in the same way ; socialism says that the people who are most capable of leading a nation( for example) should do everything to make it as good as possible for everyone, they should live for the people so to speak.


mrcall1969 -
I totally agree...Socialism is more linked to Marxism than Communism..
Communism can work in theory..but in practice it's human nature for one person to want more and others suffer because of that. Socialism is quite different.


noname12 -
Hmmmm... interesting point, but in communism Equality goes as far as living some have over done it others belittled it.

Communism in its essence is Socialism with as you say more for the common man.
The socialist Views is of Islamic origin which if you look at it is indeed almost what communism is, equality for all, people live the same and have the same stuff and none are excluded due to there social class.

The main bulk of of it all is the fact that all facilities are public and shared by all those deemed as nationals of the state, you cannot purchase a better life you all have the same education the same hospital care the same protection.

As for the Marx I need to look into that a little bit more as I am not 100% on that particular subject.

But as for Socialism and Communism, they are in essence one and the same, with a few extra's either side.

And Marx is seen as the Father of Communism but I believe that later people saw Lenin to be the father.

A small note though in Lenins will he stated that Stalin should not have power for his psycotic tendancies.


mrcall1969 -
That's all very well but....Communism is very different to Socialism, true, they're on the same side of the political fence, but thats where the similarities end.
In an ideal world Communism is a great idea, but it just doesn't work, Socialism on the other hand is being proved to work throughout the world, except for perhaps here in Britain, where the ruling Socialist party are edging further and further to the right of centre of the spectrum.


Skweeky -
No, Marx is the creator of the idea, not of what other people made of it.
In a communist regime everyone should be equal, but they are not because people need leaders. Those leaders tell others how to live and in this world, in this reality, such a regime can only survive with very very low standards and there is no one who wants to live like that. In the Sovjet Union a very small percentage of the population had most of the money while the biggest part was starving or freezing to death out on the street, and that's when it's almost the same as fascism (ty m  ).
Socialism accepts the idea that there should be leaders and offers people the choice to choose their own leaders. Everyone is given the same things, yes, but only the most necessary things. It is allowed to get more if you work harder, which is normal. That's why communism doesn't work. Some people don't work, other people work very hard but they all get the same thing, which isn't much. Socialism says that everyone has the RIGHT to have his basic needs satisfied, when someone wants more he/she has to work for it


noname12 in answer to mrcall1969 -
QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 31 October 2003 - 21:37)
That's all very well but....Communism is very different to Socialism, true, they're on the same side of the political fence, but thats where the similarities end.
In an ideal world Communism is a great idea, but it just doesn't work, Socialism on the other hand is being proved to work throughout the world, except for perhaps here in Britain, where the ruling Socialist party are edging further and further to the right of centre of the spectrum. 


Thats the thing though, Both are not true to the exact words, if both where true then you would be hard pressed to find differences.

People played with those two ideas and now it is distorted into something that is no longer recognized by the Original ideals that where set in place.

In the true sence of both words they should be very similiar, but we cannot control those who wish to change them and have the power to.


noname12 in answer to sweeky -
QUOTE (Skweeky @ 31 October 2003 - 21:42)
No, Marx is the creator of the idea, not of what other people made of it.
In a communist regime everyone should be equal, but they are not because people need leaders. Those leaders tell others how to live and in this world, in this reality, such a regime can only survive with very very low standards and there is no one who wants to live like that. In the Sovjet Union a very small percentage of the population had most of the money while the biggest part was starving or freezing to death out on the street, and that's when it's almost the same as fascism (ty m  ).
Socialism accepts the idea that there should be leaders and offers people the choice to choose their own leaders. Everyone is given the same things, yes, but only the most necessary things. It is allowed to get more if you work harder, which is normal. That's why communism doesn't work. Some people don't work, other people work very hard but they all get the same thing, which isn't much. Socialism says that everyone has the RIGHT to have his basic needs satisfied, when someone wants more he/she has to work for it 


If it was implimented to the truth, every one would be given sufficient funds, equality is not ment by the size of house but the quality in which you live.

Rich people ate while poor people starved, it was aiming to stop such things. To purchase things and so on that is upto the individual not the state.

It comes down to the implimentation of it and the person doing the implimentation.


Skweeky -
Are you saying communism was aimed at stopping people from starving?

Tsaristic (sp?) Russia created a huge problem, and there was a lot of poverty, all Lenin did was look at the problem, saw the genious of it and manipulated the system to his own advantage....THAT is communism. You are confusing two different things


noname12 in answer to skweeky -
QUOTE (Skweeky @ 31 October 2003 - 21:56)
Are you saying communism was aimed at stopping people from starving?

Tsaristic (sp?) Russia created a huge problem, and there was a lot of poverty, all Lenin did was look at the problem, saw the genious of it and manipulated the system to his own advantage....THAT is communism. You are confusing two different things 


Trotski saw the advantage, Lenin saw the advantage, these minds where aiming to use the resources of Russia to benifit all.
The communists aim was just that for all to benifit from the rewards of mother russia.

You cannot blaim the failing of it on the idea, but you can blame it on the man.

Biggles -
The idea that resources could be held for a common good is not new. I think Acts chapter 4 verses 32-35 are relevant here.  I simply throw it in as an indication that the idea of a simple communism has old historical roots. Well ok .. I am being a tad contentious, sorry. 

Marx took the whole thing much further and suggested, using a form of Hegelian dialectical materialism, that such a society would be the inevitable result of dynamic interaction between interested parties. That is, feudalism gave way to the power of the merchants because ultimately the feudal Lords became reliant on the wealth created by the urban merchants. In turn, the urban merchants could function better with free labour and all the tensions that would bring etc., etc.,

Whilst certain elements of the process are self evident there was perhaps an overly simplistic assumption that the end result would be a utopian workers paradise. One could, with the advantage of hindsight, argue that there could many loops and dynamic interactions before any such state is reached. In a sense Trotsky could see this and said sod it lets foster revolution everywhere and nip it all in the bud. Stalin, on the other hand, was quite happy shooting those he was convinced were trying to usurp power at home.

Lenin was somewhere between the two with the added gift of actually inspiring devotion (rather than fear) in those who heard him deliver his message. Quite where Russia and the revolution would have gone had he lived is anyone's guess.


Skweeky -
Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages of MARXISM and turned it into COMMUNISM by putting the idea into practice.

I do not blame the idea, I already said Marxism isn't a bad idea. You're not being consistent in your arguments.


noname12 -
The essence of communism is socialism. socialism is the essence of a political system created 1400 years ago. both have been distorted in a way.

Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages, they had a mathmatical mind, money, resources = strength and power (from what I have read) Stalin pops in makes it pretty much a Police state and ruins every thing.


Skweeky -
no no no

MARXISM is the essence of SOCIALISM

The essence of COMMUNISM is FASCISM....

Communism is not the same thing as marxism


noname12 -
My research shows that socialism is actually the Islamic political system put in place by non other then Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) him self.

A few hundred years later, things where made, then communism pops up.

Communism is aimed at equality, same as the original socialism.

Communism allows all service to be available to all men, again Socialism.

Communism does not base quality of life on riches, each man can have what is available to the next, same as socialism.


chalice answering to Skweeky -
That does beg the question, though, Skweeky...
Why would Marx And Engels put their names to The Communist Manifesto?


biggles -
The big problem, as I see it, is the concept, which Trotsky exemplified, that change can only be achieved through revolution. As someone pointed out a long time ago, "the trouble with revolutions is that the people who like shooting people get to the top".

Organic change in which people vote with their feet for a more equitable system is I guess what Skweeky is refering to as Socialism. I have some sympathy with this position.

nonanme 12 - I spoke to a friend of mine who is a expert in this field and I must say I am rather wrong in this case.

Communism - Everything is state run, everything is given out equally to all, there is no room to fall back but no room to move forward.

Socialism - The bulk is state run but there is room for free enterprise, you can move forward but no one falls behind.

Islamic Politics - Socialism but with a religious emphasis.

Not that much difference.


noname12 -
Carl Marx - Thinker, came up the the communist Idea, so he is the father. Student of Marx said that Communism is not Implementable, Socialism is a better route.
Theories of Marx being a Fraud released, accusations of him trying to further jewish economic beliefs rose.

Trotski - Fellow communist, His ideals was that communism had to be introduced in steps, first socialism then Communism. When communism gained more power he was ousted and he fled to America.

Lenin - Shared the idea's of Trotski but could not wait and pushed for the Communist state to be implimented as he saw it as the natural Evolution of polotics.

noname12 -
Trotski - He saw the plight of the Russian people under the tzar, after needlessly going into the 1st world war and the suffering of people and the huge gap between the ruling class and the working class, he felt something needed to be done. He and Lenin saw the natural step forward is Communism to bring stability and prosperaty to the Provinces. There idea was the utilize Russia's rich resources for the State which inturn will give power back to the people. The power of russia was in its economy.

Lenin - shared the same views.

[noname12]

I almost forgot to add something... this marxism.... because it is here it does not mean Karl Marx created it A very interesting quote from the man himself...

"I am not a Marxsist."

I still firmly believe that Marx is the father. And I still believe in what I wrote above...

I do not wish to argue the implimentation just the similarities of them all, and believe it or not I am not a biggot, I do wish to learn something new.

I will research this subject more, give me 2 - 4 days and I will have a summary prepared.... Oh and clocker once I have finished this summary you will finally understand what it is that I do

Thank you for your patience.

[noname12]

Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels issued the Manifest der kommunistischen Partei (Communist Manifesto) (1848) in the explicit hope of precipitating social revolution. This work describes the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie, distinguishes communism from other socialist movements, proposes a list of specific social reforms, and urges all workers to unite in revolution against existing regimes. (You may wish to compare this prophetic document with the later exposition of similar principles in Lenin's State and Revolution (1919).)

Arriving in Paris of the end of 1843, Marx rapidly make contact with organized groups of émigré German workers and with various sects of French socialists. He also edited the short-lived Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher which was intended to bridge French socialism and the German radical Hegelians. During his first few months in Paris, Marx became a communist and set down his views in a series of writings known as the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), which remained unpublished until the 1930s. In the Manuscripts, Marx outlined a humanist conception of communism, influenced by the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach and based on a contrast between the alienated nature of labor under capitalism and a communist society in which human beings freely developed their nature in cooperative production. It was also in Paris that Marx developed his lifelong partnership with Friedrich Engels (1820-1895).

Marx was expelled from Paris at the end of 1844 and with Engels, moved to Brussels where he remained for the next three years, visiting England where Engels' family had cottons spinning interests in Manchester. While in Brussels Marx devoted himself to an intensive study of history and elaborated what came to be known as the materialist conception of history. This he developed in a manuscript (published posthumously as The German Ideology), of which the basic thesis was that "the nature of individuals depends on the material conditions determining their production." Marx traced the history of the various modes of production and predicted the collapse of the present one -- industrial capitalism -- and its replacement by communism.

At the same time Marx was composing The German Ideology, he also wrote a polemic (The Poverty of Philosophy) against the idealistic socialism of P. J. Proudhon (1809-1865). He also joined the Communist League. This was an organization of German émigré workers with its center in London of which Marx and Engels became the major theoreticians. At a conference of the League in London at the end of 1847 Marx and Engels were commissioned to write a succinct declaration of their position. Scarcely was The Communist Manifesto published than the 1848 wave of revolutions broke out in Europe.

Marxist Origins of Communism, I

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.
Manifesto of the Communist Party

Even the most cursory student of Communism is familiar with the seminal role of Karl Marx in the development of Communist ideology. The practical results of Communist revolutions have been so dreadful that Marx scholars have been at pains to point out the numerous doctrinal points on which Communist revolutionaries came to deviate from the teachings of Marx. Yet on an important collection of fundamental issues, the profound influence of Marx on Communist theory and practice is easy to detect.

[noname12]

Early Forms and Theories
    Communism as a theory of government and social reform may be said, in a limited sense, to have begun with the ancient Greek idea of the Golden Age, a concept of a world of communal bliss and harmony without the institution of private property. Plato, in his Republic, outlined a society with communal holding of property; his concept of a hierarchical social system including slavery has by some been called “aristocratic communism.”

    The Neoplatonists revived the idea of common property, which was also strong in some religious groups such as the Jewish Essenes and certain early Christian communities. These opponents of private property held that property holding was evil and irreligious and that God had created the world for the use of all humanity. The first of these ideas was particularly strong among Manichaean and Gnostic heretics, such as the Cathari, but these concepts were also found in some orthodox Christian groups (e.g., the Franciscans).

    The manorial system of the Middle Ages included common cultivation of the fields and communal use of the village commons, which might be vigorously defended against the lord. It was partly to uphold these common rights, threatened by early agrarian capitalism, that the participants in the Peasants' Revolt (1381) in England and the insurgents of the Peasants' War in 16th-century Germany advocated common ownership of land and of the means of production.

    In the 16th and 17th cent. such intellectual works as Sir Thomas More's Utopia proposed forms of communal property ownership in reaction to what the authors felt was the selfishness and depredation of growing economic individualism. In addition, some religious groups of the early modern period advocated forms of communism, just as had certain of the early Christians. The Anabaptists under Thomas Münzer were the real upholders of communism in the Peasants' War, and they were savagely punished for their beliefs. This same mixture of religious enthusiasm and economic reform was shown in 17th-century England by the tiny sect of the Diggers , who actually sought to put their theories into practice on common land.

First Responses to Capitalism
    Capitalism, reinforced by the Industrial Revolution , which began in the 18th cent., brought about the conditions that gave rise to modern communism. Wages, hours, and factory conditions for the new industrial class were appalling, and protest grew. Although the French Revolution ended without satisfying radical demands for economic egalitarianism, the voice of François Babeuf was strongly raised against economic inequality and the power of private property. For his class consciousness and his will to revolution he has been considered the first modern communist. Although he was guillotined, his movement (Babouvism) lived on, and the organization of his secret revolutionary society on the “cell” system was to be developed later as a means of militant revolution.

    In the early 19th cent. ardent opponents of industrial society created a wide variety of protest theories. Already what is generally known as utopian communism had been well launched by the comte de Saint-Simon . In this era a number of advocates gathered followers, founded small cults, and attempted to launch communistic settlements , particularly in the United States. Most notable among such men were Robert Owen , Étienne Cabet , and Charles Fourier . Pierre Joseph Proudhon , although he did not adopt the principle of common ownership, exercised great influence by his attacks on the evils of private property.

    A host of critics and idealistic revolutionists arose in Germany, but more important was the survival or revival of Babouvism in secret French and Italian revolutionary societies, intent on overthrowing the established governments and on setting up a new, propertyless society. It was among them that the terms communism and socialism were first used. They were used vaguely and more or less interchangeably, although there was a tendency to use the term socialist to denote those who merely stressed a strong state as the owner of all means of production, and the term communist for those who stressed the abolition of all private property (except immediate personal goods). Among the chief leaders of such revolutionary groups were the Frenchmen Louis Blanc and (far more radical) Louis Auguste Blanqui , both of whom played important roles in the February Revolution of 1848.

The Communist Manifesto
    The year 1848 was also marked by the appearance of The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels , the primary exposition of the socioeconomic doctrine that came to be known as Marxism . It postulated the inevitability of a communist society, which would result when economic forces (the determinants of history) caused the class war; in this struggle the exploited industrial proletariat would overthrow the capitalists and establish the new classless order of social ownership. Marxian theories and programs soon came to dominate left-wing thought. Although the German group (founded in 1847) for which The Communist Manifesto was written was called the Communist League, the Marxist movement went forward under the name of socialism ; its 19th-century history is treated in the article under that heading and under Socialist parties , in European history.

Marx Socialism below... Apparently :

general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Because of the collective nature of socialism, it is to be contrasted to the doctrine of the sanctity of private property that characterizes capitalism . Where capitalism stresses competition and profit, socialism calls for cooperation and social service.    In a broader sense, the term socialism is often used loosely to describe economic theories ranging from those that hold that only certain public utilities and natural resources should be owned by the state to those holding that the state should assume responsibility for all economic planning and direction. In the past 150 years there have been innumerable differing socialist programs. For this reason socialism as a doctrine is ill defined, although its main purpose, the establishment of cooperation in place of competition remains fixed.

[MagicNakor]

It's common practice to quote your sources when you lift text from others.

[noname12]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@3 November 2003 - 06:00
It's common practice to quote your sources when you lift text from others.

I was planing on doing that once I am finished.

[noname12]

The following is a way to classify the types and forms of government, along with simple definitions and distinctions for those types and forms, as far as how they relate to the relationship between the rights and property (sovereignty) of the citizens as compared to one another, and as compared to the government:



Centralized
Adhesioned
Confederated
Associated
Polarized

1
2
3
4
5

Communism
Socialism
Libertarianism
Democracy
Anarchy

Types:

Centralized; A type of government whereby the sovereignty of the parties to the union is totally in the control of the government.

Adhesioned; A type of government whereby the sovereignty of the parties of the union is mostly in the control of the government.

Confederated; A type of government whereby the sovereignty of the government is totally in the control of the parties to the union.

Associated; A type of government whereby the sovereignty of the government is mostly in the control of the parties to the union.

Polarized; A type of government whereby the sovereignty of the parties to the union and the government is shared or divided equally, or a type of null government where the sovereignty of all parties is unable to be determined, and is maintained by force. 

Forms:

Communism; A form of government which is structured in a manner whereby no party entity may possess and enjoy any sovereignty that is not specifically authorized by the government.

Socialism; A form of government which is structured in a manner whereby no party entity may possess and enjoy any sovereignty that is specifically forbidden by the government.

Libertarianism; A form of government which is structured in a manner whereby all party entities possess and enjoy full sovereignty, as long as the expression of that sovereignty does not conflict with the sovereignty of any other party, or that afforded to the government.

Democracy; A form of government which is structured in a manner whereby any party entity may possess and enjoy any sovereignty, as long as it is either authorized or not forbidden by agreement of the majority of the parties.
Anarchy; A form of null government whereby all entities possess and enjoy whatever sovereignty they can maintain by force, regardless of the harm it causes to the sovereignty of other entities.

Anarchy; A form of null government whereby all entities possess and enjoy whatever sovereignty they can maintain by force, regardless of the harm it causes to the sovereignty of other entities.

[noname12]

Ok due to a certain comment, heres the sources so far:

http://www.universalway.org/governments.html
The list of governments and what they are, this is for the post above.

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html
This is to the expulsion from paris and so on post.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/c...ofCommunism.asp
this is the second Origins of communism post. You will also find the link to definition of Socialism there.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/b...um/marframe.htm
this is to the first Origins of Communism, I post.

http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/marx.htm
this "Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels issued the Manifest der kommunistischen Partei" quote.

[noname12]

Nice and straight forward:

communism

communism, fundamentally, a system of social organization in which property (especially real property and the means of production) is held in common. Thus, the ejido system of the indigenous people of Mexico and the property-and-work system of the Inca were both communist, although the former was a matter of more or less independent communities cultivating their own lands in common and the latter a type of community organization within a highly organized empire.

In modern usage, the term Communism (written with a capital C) is applied to the movement that aims to overthrow the capitalist order by revolutionary means and to establish a classless society in which all goods will be socially owned. The theories of the movement come from Karl Marx, as modified by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, leader of the successful Communist revolution in Russia. Communism, in this sense, is to be distinguished from socialism, which (as the term is commonly understood) seeks similar ends but by evolution rather than revolution.

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0813068.html

[noname12]

system of political and economic organization in which property is owned by the state or community and all citizens share in the common wealth, more or less according to their need.

Many small communist communities have existed at one time or another, most of them on a religious basis, generally under the inspiration of a literal interpretation of Scripture. …

Thats an Interesting one found at :
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=127631

Many interesting reading in the links below it.

I think thays enough for today.

Enjoy.