Dictionary Political Groups, need opinions Options

[3vili$i0u$]

After reading this forum for a while now i was thinking that we are in need of a section for our readers that describe what each political term and group stands for somewhat a dictionary.

So possibly if we all got together combined our views on each group ie.
Socialism/Socialists
Anarchism/Anarchist
capitalism/capitalist
communism/Comunist

and any others you might think of. I think it would be a handy thing to have on our site rather then people running around the internet looking for what each thing is and having all these biased flimsy oppinions on them.

What do you think?

[defiance]

Sounds like a good idea. I'll start out with socialism, because no one seems to understand it, thanks to good ol' Webster's Dictionary.

Socialism (as I see it) is a general politico-economic theory based on social equality and collectively-owned means of production. Many people make the mistake of thinking that socialism is purely an economic theory (collectivism), and that it is always entails a state. Thus we get the usual dictionary definition: an economic theory in which the means of production are owned by the state. However, in reality, socialism is far more complex than that. Socialism originally came from a sort of early version of the modern intentional community (i.e., "utopianism"). Socialist communes and "colonies" were established, based on collective, communal ownership of the commune's "industry." Out of this and the early socialist movements in Europe (in particular, Germany) that called for the educated to transform the western world into a socialist system, came the most famous socialist philosophers: Karl Marx and Fredrick Engles. These two formed a theory of communism (not to be fully discussed here), in which they taught that the workers would eventually rise up and take over the government, transforming society through a "socialistic transition" (Marxian socialism), creating a more equal society, in which eventually the state would become useless and wither away, thus establishing communism (a.k.a., anarchy).

Here a very common confusion arises in many different directions. The first is that communism is that Marxian socialism is communism (hence references like "Communist China"), when in fact communism is anarchy (more specifically, anarcho-communism), only it is achieved through a socialist transition. The second confusion is over socialism: that communism does not qualify as socialism. Because communism and socialism are distinctly seperated in Marxian theory, it becomes even more apparent (but not necessarily true) that socialism requires a state, whereas communism lacks a state. In fact, communism in its final stage is a type of socialism. Socialism does not actually necessitate a government. In general it has entailed a state, because usually what has been applied is state socialism, whereas non-state socialism (a.k.a., anarcho-communism, also known as anarcho-syndicalism, communist-anarchism, and anarcho-socialism) has only rarely been applied, and then it has recieved very little historical notice (i.e. the Makhnovists in Ukraine). In fact, socialism simply entails a collectivist economy (which includes non-state collectivism), and, in its true practise, social equality (i.e., equal wealth-distribution). Socialism in its truest form, like most other theories, has never been fully applied, or at least not on a broad scale. However, many notable attempts at it have been made, some of them quite sucessful. Most of the Scandinavian countries have a strong, liberal social-democracy (more radical than the rest of Europe, for the most part). Cuba has a Marxian socialist system right now, although it is uncertain where it will go in the near future. Venezuela is currently undergoing a radical transformation toward socialism, though, as it is still in its early stages, in which it is impossible to know the whole story from outside the country, I could not say what direction it is truly going.

Social-democratism is an offshoot of the more moderate branches of the early Marxists and socialists, calling for an evolutionary transition to socialism. It tends to be characterized by more capitalistic economies, and, usually, does not really fit into the category of complete socialism, but rather it is a mix of capitalism and socialism. There is also what most of us would just refer to as plain or "classical" socialism; i.e., socialists who do not wish to transition to communism, but who want a classical socialist system (similar to Marxian socialism). And then you have anarcho-socialists. That's another subject, but the basic summary is that they want communism through a direct revolution. They don't a socialist transition, but rather they want an anarchist transition, to communism from whatever previous system existed (capitalism, fascism, feudalism, etc.). For more info, I'm sure Dataika will be more than willing to post a definition of anarcho-communism.

[sexy_socialist]

sorry, i didnt read it all cause im too lazy and stoned, but ill get around to it
good stuff.

the way i see it is that socialism is a stepping stone to communism.
exactly what you said about marx.

its in between capitalism and communism.

and also that socialism and anarchism have the same ends, just different means (or lack there of). although i dont know as much about anarchism.

its all so closely related.

[3vili$i0u$]

nicely done defiance

ok ill make it more like a dictionary by putting it into sections

Definition

Practiced in: (eg Communism, North Korea, Cuba, China

Figures : (eg. Communism, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong

Websites: (eg. Anachrism. InfoShop

Books: (eg. Socialism. Challenge of the Left Opposition (1928-29), by Leon Trotsky,

This post has been edited by 3vili$i0u$: Oct 2 2004, 12:02 AM

[defiance]

Oh, haha. Well, don't ask for my help there... I can't do formulas well. You can ut mine in an encyclopedia or something, lol.

[3vili$i0u$]

meh doesnt matter ill organise them later. Keep them coming people.

[Dataika]

The best definition for socialism is the means of production are owned publicly by the masses, instead of privately (as in the capitalist system). Some people claim that the public is represented by the state, therefore the state is the one that plans and controls the economy "For" the people. Hence we get Leninism, Democratic socialism, etc...

The best definition of Communism is a society which classes don't exist and where a state does not either. Its economy is based on: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." It is a need based economy. It is said to be socialist because the means of production is owned publicly by the community.

All those "communist countries" are really part of the Leninist socialist paradigm. They want to become communist countries, but only after the Marxian socialist programme leads to it.

Capitalism is a society in which classes exist, and the means of production is owned by private interests. That's all I can add to it without being offensive, so if capitalists wish to add another paragraph in its place.

Now let's get into the really tricky part... LABELS.


Marxists (two kinds):

Libertarian: Want to establish a communist society through direct action. Much like Anarchism, just differs in the way to go about it. (Should the army be hierarchial for the purpose of the fight? etc...) Typically regard Marx and Engels undogmatically, as people who made mistakes but accept many basic tenets which they share.

Of course this definition is severly limited since I haven't really been exposed to much libertarian Marxism, so if anyone else has something to add feel free to do so. Also correct my mistakes if you will.

Leninists: These are the people whom wish to build off something Marx and Engels came up with known as Dialectical materialism. Basically put: two polar opposites struggle until an equilibrium is reached. Life, death, fire, water; sort of a weird yin yang, if you will. In any event, Marx thought that because the state is characterized by two opposites, that it would eventually disappear. There was something that needed to bring about an equilibrium though.

So here's the big thing. Marx thought that the state was characterized by two polar opposites; that is, the oppressed and the oppressors. The proletariat, historically, have been the oppressed. Whereas the bourgeoisie have been the oppressors. After the proletariat assumed the state, it would crush the bourgeoisie, thus bringing about an equilibrium. This is known as the socialist transitionary period.

Lenin built on this assumption and stated the way the proletariat would harnass the state would be to put their trust in "professional" revolutionaries that make up one revolutionary party. This is the vanguard that leads all those "communist" nations around the world.

Libertarian Marxists, typically, reject dialectic materialism as a FLAW in Marx's theory.

Leninist-Trotskyists: Believe that Stalin corrupted Lenin's policies and became a brutal dictator of the Soviet Union. Murdering anyone who compromised his power, Stalin was the enemy of Trotsky and Lenin, according to this particular view. They also blame the collapse of the Soviet Union on the beuacratic nature that Stalin brought about. They typically, side with Trotsky's views on trade unionism and various other aspects.

"Stalinists": I know that real Stalinists do not like to be called this, but I'm doing it just to get the point of separation across. Stalinists like to be called "Marxist-Leninsts." Stalinists typically view Stalin as a mortal man who made many mistakes, but not an insane dictator (as the west would have you believe). They believe he carried out Lenin's harsh authoritarian program after Lenin died successfully. They typically agree that forced collectivization was a bad idea. They also typically believe that the party purged itself, and it wasn't the work of one mastermind. Blames the fall of the Soviet Union on those who turned their backs on Leninism and Stalin (Ie, Khruschev) for being revisionists.

Maoists: Adhere to a more peasant based form of Leninism. Lenin, like Marx, was chiefly concerned with the proletariat. THat is, the industrial workers. Whereas, Mao, was more concerned with the agricultural peasants in China. Mao is viewed as a great leader who also made many mistakes, but carried on Lenin's banner as best as he could and fought for the proletariat. They also, typically, share the same views on Stalin as the "Stalinists." They also claim the Soviet Union became "revisionist" after Stalin died.


Key figures: Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin, etc..


Anarchists

Anarcho-Communism: An anarchist society generated along communist structures. This differs from Marxist ideals, in that it wishes to create an anarchist society directly after the revolution. There is no socialist period. Anarchists also reject all heirarchy, during or after the revolution. They believe in militias, as seen in the Spanish Civil War, Russian Civil War, etc... Typically tend to accept Marx's critique of Capitalism and acknowledge historical materialism.

Anarcho-Syndicalists: On a whole wish to achieve a anarcho-communist society. They want to achieve it through one big massive union. A union comprised of workers and democratically elected officials and direct democratic, anti-authoritarian measures.

Anarcho-collectivism: Is much like anarcho-communism in the way in which private property is abolished and the means of production is owned by the commune. They differ, however, in how to share the community resources. The communists want it distributed according to need, whereas, collectivists distribute according to "money." Essentially, anarcho communists want to abolish money, while anarcho-collectivists do not. I don't know much about this, so here's a link for you: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA3.html#seca32

From the link: "The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism "express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 295] Thus, while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear. Both agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested by the communist maxim: "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." They just disagree on how quickly this will come about."

Anarcho-Mutualists: Typically reformists whom wish to establish a market socialist economy through anti-authoritarian means and democratic community banks.

From the link given above, though: "Mutualism is based around a form of market socialism -- workers' co-operatives exchanging the product of their labour via a system of community banks. This mutual bank network would be "formed by the whole community, not for the especial advantage of any individual or class, but for the benefit of all . . . [with] no interest . . . exacted on loans, except enough to cover risks and expenses." [Charles A. Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank of the People", pp. 44-45] Such a system would end capitalist exploitation and oppression for by "introducing mutualism into exchange and credit we introduce it everywhere, and labour will assume a new aspect and become truly democratic." [Op. Cit., p. 45] "

Individual Anarchists: Individual Anarchists tend to want to accomplish social change through the same way that Mutualists do. Creation of alternate things, strikes, protests, communes, community banks, etc... They are evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Also, from the above link: "Individualists prefer a market-based system of distribution to the social anarchists need-based system. Both agree that the current system of capitalist property rights must be abolished and that use rights must replace property rights in the means of life (i.e. the abolition of rent, interest and profits -- "usury," to use the individualist anarchists' preferred term for this unholy trinity). In effect, both schools follow Proudhon's classic work What is Property? and argue that possession must replace property in a free society (see section B.3 for a discussion of anarchist viewpoints on property). "


Key Figures: Mikhail Bakunin, Proudhon, Rudolph Rocker, Peter Kroptkin, Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker, Emma Goldman, etc...


Socialists

Democratic Socialists: Want a state of democratically elected officials (typically parliamentary) where the state controls the means of production and plans the economy. This stems from what I claimed earlier, the underlying claim here is that the parliament represents the people and thus, they are controlling the means of production through it. None exist, to date. There is no purely socialist economy; there are many working towards that goal however. Generally this system is achieved through direct action and also reformism. Typically accept Marx's analysis of capitalism and work with both Syndicalists and Marxists.

Social Democrats: Although some socialists consider these people to be "not real" socialists, I will add them here anyway. They advocate a "hybrid" of capitalism and socialism into "welfare capitalism." They have a "saftey net" for the people provided by the state (typically parliamentary). See places like Norway, Sweden, and other Scandanavian countries. Generally look to achieve the goal through reforms.

All anarchists (typically besides some individualists, and some anarcho-capitalists)

All Marxists


Key Figures: Hellen Keller, Albert Einstein, many leaders of the labor movement in the United States (Debs), and various other people. (You'd probably have no trouble finding them).

WHEW!

[defiance]

That was well written Dataika. Very good.

Emma Goldman, by the definitions you gave, would be an anarcho-communist, right? She referred to her beliefs as communist-anarchism in her essay "What is Communist Anarchism," so I assume that's what she was.

What exactly is the difference between anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists? I always thought they were basically the same thing.

This post has been edited by defiance: Oct 4 2004, 06:37 PM

[Dataika]

What exactly is the difference between anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists? I always thought they were basically the same thing.
[right][snapback]137494[/snapback][/right]

Anarcho-communists and Syndicalists both want the same outcome. A communist society, they see different ways to go about. Anarcho-communists typically look at direct action in all aspects. Syndicalists, typically concentrate on unionism and developing one large union. Of course Anarcho-communists like unionism as well, but they think that concentrating on developing one big union takes tremendous amounts of effort that could be used doing other things. It's really just a matter of opinion, I think.

[3vili$i0u$]

The best definition for socialism is the means of production are owned publicly by the masses, instead of privately (as in the capitalist system).  Some people claim that the public is represented by the state, therefore the state is the one that plans and controls the economy "For" the people.  Hence we get Leninism, Democratic socialism, etc...

The best definition of Communism is a society which classes don't exist and where a state does not either.  Its economy is based on: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."  It is a need based economy.  It is said to be socialist because the means of production is owned publicly by the community.

All those "communist countries" are really part of the Leninist socialist paradigm.  They want to become communist countries, but only after the Marxian socialist programme leads to it.

Capitalism is a society in which classes exist, and the means of production is owned by private interests.  That's all I can add to it without being offensive, so if capitalists wish to add another paragraph in its place.

Now let's get into the really tricky part... LABELS.


Marxists (two kinds):

Libertarian: Want to establish a communist society through direct action.  Much like Anarchism, just differs in the way to go about it.  (Should the army be hierarchial for the purpose of the fight? etc...)  Typically regard Marx and Engels undogmatically, as people who made mistakes but accept many basic tenets which they share.

Of course this definition is severly limited since I haven't really been exposed to much libertarian Marxism, so if anyone else has something to add feel free to do so.  Also correct my mistakes if you will. 

Leninists:  These are the people whom wish to build off something Marx and Engels came up with known as Dialectical materialism.  Basically put: two polar opposites struggle until an equilibrium is reached.  Life, death, fire, water; sort of a weird yin yang, if you will.  In any event, Marx thought that because the state is characterized by two opposites, that it would eventually disappear.  There was something that needed to bring about an equilibrium though.

So here's the big thing.  Marx thought that the state was characterized by two polar opposites; that is, the oppressed and the oppressors.  The proletariat, historically, have been the oppressed.  Whereas the bourgeoisie have been the oppressors.  After the proletariat assumed the state, it would crush the bourgeoisie, thus bringing about an equilibrium.  This is known as the socialist transitionary period.

Lenin built on this assumption and stated the way the proletariat would harnass the state would be to put their trust in "professional" revolutionaries that make up one revolutionary party.  This is the vanguard that leads all those "communist" nations around the world. 

Libertarian Marxists, typically, reject dialectic materialism as a FLAW in Marx's theory.

Leninist-Trotskyists:  Believe that Stalin corrupted Lenin's policies and became a brutal dictator of the Soviet Union.  Murdering anyone who compromised his power, Stalin was the enemy of Trotsky and Lenin, according to this particular view.  They also blame the collapse of the Soviet Union on the beuacratic nature that Stalin brought about.  They typically, side with Trotsky's views on trade unionism and various other aspects.

"Stalinists":  I know that real Stalinists do not like to be called this, but I'm doing it just to get the point of separation across.  Stalinists like to be called "Marxist-Leninsts."  Stalinists typically view Stalin as a mortal man who made many mistakes, but not an insane dictator (as the west would have you believe).  They believe he carried out Lenin's harsh authoritarian program after Lenin died successfully.  They typically agree that forced collectivization was a bad idea.  They also typically believe that the party purged itself, and it wasn't the work of one mastermind.  Blames the fall of the Soviet Union on those who turned their backs on Leninism and Stalin (Ie, Khruschev) for being revisionists.

Maoists:  Adhere to a more peasant based form of Leninism.  Lenin, like Marx, was chiefly concerned with the proletariat.  THat is, the industrial workers.  Whereas, Mao, was more concerned with the agricultural peasants in China.  Mao is viewed as a great leader who also made many mistakes, but carried on Lenin's banner as best as he could and fought for the proletariat.  They also, typically, share the same views on Stalin as the "Stalinists."  They also claim the Soviet Union became "revisionist" after Stalin died.


Key figures:  Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin, etc..


Anarchists

Anarcho-Communism: An anarchist society generated along communist structures.  This differs from Marxist ideals, in that it wishes to create an anarchist society directly after the revolution.  There is no socialist period.  Anarchists also reject all heirarchy, during or after the revolution.  They believe in militias, as seen in the Spanish Civil War, Russian Civil War, etc...  Typically tend to accept Marx's critique of Capitalism and acknowledge historical materialism.

Anarcho-Syndicalists:  On a whole wish to achieve a anarcho-communist society.  They want to achieve it through one big massive union.  A union comprised of workers and democratically elected officials and direct democratic, anti-authoritarian measures.

Anarcho-collectivism: Is much like anarcho-communism in the way in which private property is abolished and the means of production is owned by the commune.  They differ, however, in how to share the community resources.  The communists want it distributed according to need, whereas, collectivists distribute according to "money."  Essentially, anarcho communists want to abolish money, while anarcho-collectivists do not.  I don't know much about this, so here's a link for you: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA3.html#seca32

From the link: "The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism "express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 295] Thus, while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear. Both agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested by the communist maxim: "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." They just disagree on how quickly this will come about."

Anarcho-Mutualists:  Typically reformists whom wish to establish a market socialist economy through anti-authoritarian means and democratic community banks.

From the link given above, though: "Mutualism is based around a form of market socialism -- workers' co-operatives exchanging the product of their labour via a system of community banks. This mutual bank network would be "formed by the whole community, not for the especial advantage of any individual or class, but for the benefit of all . . . [with] no interest . . . exacted on loans, except enough to cover risks and expenses." [Charles A. Dana, Proudhon and his "Bank of the People", pp. 44-45] Such a system would end capitalist exploitation and oppression for by "introducing mutualism into exchange and credit we introduce it everywhere, and labour will assume a new aspect and become truly democratic." [Op. Cit., p. 45] "

Individual Anarchists:  Individual Anarchists tend to want to accomplish social change through the same way that Mutualists do.  Creation of alternate things, strikes, protests, communes, community banks, etc... They are evolutionary, not revolutionary. 

Also, from the above link: "Individualists prefer a market-based system of distribution to the social anarchists need-based system. Both agree that the current system of capitalist property rights must be abolished and that use rights must replace property rights in the means of life (i.e. the abolition of rent, interest and profits -- "usury," to use the individualist anarchists' preferred term for this unholy trinity). In effect, both schools follow Proudhon's classic work What is Property? and argue that possession must replace property in a free society (see section B.3 for a discussion of anarchist viewpoints on property). "


Key Figures:  Mikhail Bakunin, Proudhon, Rudolph Rocker, Peter Kroptkin, Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker, Emma Goldman, etc...


Socialists

Democratic Socialists:  Want a state of democratically elected officials (typically parliamentary) where the state controls the means of production and plans the economy.  This stems from what I claimed earlier, the underlying claim here is that the parliament represents the people and thus, they are controlling the means of production through it.  None exist, to date.  There is no purely socialist economy; there are many working towards that goal however.  Generally this system is achieved through direct action and also reformism.  Typically accept Marx's analysis of capitalism and work with both Syndicalists and Marxists.

Social Democrats:  Although some socialists consider these people to be "not real" socialists, I will add them here anyway.  They advocate a "hybrid" of capitalism and socialism into "welfare capitalism."  They have a "saftey net" for the people provided by the state (typically parliamentary).  See places like Norway, Sweden, and other Scandanavian countries.  Generally look to achieve the goal through reforms.

All anarchists (typically besides some individualists, and some anarcho-capitalists)

All Marxists


Key Figures: Hellen Keller, Albert Einstein, many leaders of the labor movement in the United States (Debs), and various other people.  (You'd probably have no trouble finding them). 

WHEW! 
[right][snapback]137485[/snapback][/right]

Thanks man when i finish this fucking essay ill get right on organising the dictionary keep them coming people.