the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology

[ALB]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

What I got from all of your comments is that Marxism is just the perception of what people thought Marx meant by 'this' or 'that' and 'Communist Theory' Is something more ideologically solid.

There is a difference between what what Marx did, said or meant (which is largely a question of fact) and "Communist Theory" (a question of definition). But, unfortunately, the definition of the word "Communist" is just as disputed as is "Marxism".Many people, perhaps most people, associate it with what went on in Russia under Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and their successors and imitators in other countries. But others, for example us, dispute this and say that this was state capitalism not communism. We don't often use the word communism but when we do we use it in the same sense as the word socialism, i.e. to describe a society based on the common or social ownership and democratic control of the means of production by the whole community or society, so that they can be used to turn out goods and services directly to satisfy people's needs instead of, as at present under capitalism, for sale with a view to profit.Also, there were communists (in this sense) before Marx (that's where he got the idea from) and others who are and have been but who don't claim to be "Marxists", e.g. the anarchist Kropotkin. So the term, even when correctly used, is different from "Marxism".

[LBird]

Stephen Hawking, today, wrote:

But we can and will succeed. Humans are endlessly resourceful, optimistic and adaptable. We must broaden our definition of wealth to include knowledge, natural resources, and human capacity, and at the same time learn to share each of those more fairly. If we do this, then there is no limit to what humans can achieve together.

[my bold]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/29/stephen-hawking-brexit-wealth-resourcesIf even a physicist can see that 'wealth', which is produced by humans, must include 'knowledge', then I don't know how socialists like the SPGB, who argue for the commonwealth, can continue to separate 'knowledge' from 'democracy'.

[moderator3]

As long as contributions on this thread remain civil, I am willing to leave people to get on with this discussion.

[rodmanlewis]

ALB wrote:

There is a difference between what what Marx did, said or meant (which is largely a question of fact) and "Communist Theory" (a question of definition). But, unfortunately, the definition of the word "Communist" is just as disputed as is "Marxism".[/quote]Perhaps we should forget previous definitions of "socialism"/"communism" and start with a clean slate. The SPGB stands for a system of common ownership of the means of production and distribution, with the state and its powers of coercion being redundant. There will be no national boundaries, only administrative ones. Do you agree with this or not? If you support some other definition of "socialism"/"communism" then you won't be interested in joining us. Unfortunately, coming up with another word would just muddy the waters further.

[Capitalist Pig]

thanks everyone! This discussion/debate has really helped me broaden my knowledge of 'Democratic Communism' and Marxism!  

[Capitalist Pig]

Just for me to learn some more from you guys, are there any more major differences between Democratic Communists and Marxists or is the regulation of science the main dividing factor? For some reason I think there are some more differences between these ideologies Thanks

[Anonymous]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

Just for me to learn some more from you guys, are there any more major differences between Democratic Communists and Marxists or is the regulation of science the main dividing factor? For some reason I think there are some more differences between these ideologies Thanks

I think you are still working in the original question and you have not understood the concepts yet.t is like Bernie Sanders talking about Democratic socialism, or like saying that there is one aspect of socialism-communism that is not democratic.Marx was a theoretician of socialism-communism, and communism-socialism are democratic political currents, therefore Marxism is part of that conceptionDemocracy is the collective possession of the means of production managed by the vast majority of the human being, or the workers of the world, and Marx was a proponent of that type of society.Democracy is not what we see on television advocating for the election of a bunch of puppets called ministers, senators or governors, and legalizing exploitation, wars, profits,  and wage slavery

[ALB]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

Just for me to learn some more from you guys, are there any more major differences between Democratic Communists and Marxists or is the regulation of science the main dividing factor? For some reason I think there are some more differences between these ideologies Thanks

One difference is that there is only one "Democratic Communist" in the world and that there are somewhat more "Marxists". That doesn't necessarily make him wrong, though.

[Capitalist Pig]

I guess it was a stupid question to ask in the first place. I just wanted to know what the spgb thought about Marxism and its relation to grass roots Communist theory.

[moderator1]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I guess it was a stupid question to ask in the first place. I just wanted to know what the spgb thought about Marxism and its relation to grass roots Communist theory.

Not at all.  Everybody has gained more learning from your question, and we always welcome challenges of this nature.  Please do not refrain from posting the questions which you may find troubling.

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I guess it was a stupid question to ask in the first place. I just wanted to know what the spgb thought about Marxism and its relation to grass roots Communist theory.

Not at all.  Everybody has gained more learning from your question, and we always welcome challenges of this nature.  Please do not refrain from posting the questions which you may find troubling.

I'm getting confused.  Was that comment posted in your capacity as moderator or by your alter ego?

[Capitalist Pig]

Yeah I think i don't have anything else to say. To be honest I don't even know what we are talking about anymore…

[Capitalist Pig]

k so marxism is not so different from democratic communism after all I guess. im done all of this is over my head thought i would gain from this but wound of getting confused…very confused. don't worry my next stop is wikipedia after this trainwreck

[Anonymous]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

k so marxism is not so different from democratic communism after all I guess. im done all of this is over my head thought i would gain from this but wound of getting confused…very confused. don't worry my next stop is wikipedia after this trainwreck

There is not better university on socialism than the WSM/SPGB, many teachers come to this place and they end up re-learning or becoming students.Wikipedia ( I call it the blackboard, anybody can write and erase ) is going to create more confusion, because most peoples that write in the website do not know what they are saying, and many concepts are compromised with the capitalist system.What we have explained can not be more simpler than that

[Dave B]

Karl and Fred had been non democratic Marxists The idea was simple and familiar enough in other political discourses, on the right and the left.  The masses were too stupid to fully understand what was and was not good for them good for them; and to properly implement any solutions by being directly involved in the (democratic) decision making processes. A position that a proportion of the masses can accept. But Karl and Fred  realised they had been wrong and for any solutions to work the masses had fully understand what was going on and act on it for themselves. Thus as below with Fred talking about the assumed good, honest and sincere communist leaders really acting in the interests of the majority etc etc.  The Class Struggles In France Introduction by Frederick Engels, 1895   Was not this just the situation in which a revolution had to succeed, led certainly by a minority, but this time not in the interests of the minority, but in the real interests of the majority? If, in all the longer revolutionary periods, it was so easy to win the great masses of the people by the merely plausible and delusive views of the minorities thrusting themselves forward, how could they be less susceptible to ideas which were the truest reflex of their economic position, which were nothing but the clear, comprehensible expression of their needs, of needs not yet understood by themselves, but only vaguely felt? To be sure, this revolutionary mood of the masses had almost always, and usually very speedily, given way to lassitude or even to a revulsion to its opposite, so soon as illusion evaporated and disappointment set in. But here it was not a question of delusive views, but of giving effect to the very special interests of the great majority itself, interests, which at that time were certainly by no means clear to this great majority, but which must soon enough become clear in the course of giving practical effect to them, by their convincing obviousness   …………………………………………History has proved us, and all who thought like us wrong …………………..  ………The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair………. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm Lenin reverted back to the position Karl and Fred had abandoned. Thus;  V. I. Lenin Speech Delivered At A Joint Meeting Of Communist Delegates To The Eighth Congress Of Soviets, Communist Members Of The All-Russia Central Council Of Trade Unions And Communist Members Of The Moscow City Council Of Trade Unions December 30, 1920   . But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels. Such is the basic mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and of the essentials of transition from capitalism to communism.  http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm

[Author]

Posts