I am pretty new to radical leftist theory socialism/communism/anarchism been listening to talks by Dr...

Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society that has yet to be achieved and is the end goal to reach. Socialism takes many, many different forms, but is almost always a particular ideology designed to cultivate a society into reaching communism.

Anarchism (which consists primarily of mutualists and ancoms) are a type of socialist. Other branches include Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Troskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, Leftcoms, etc. There are a lot, and it isn't just a case of "special snowflakes" either.

What most agree on is primarily this idea of workers owning the means of production, ie the abolition of private property. What this does not mean, is that you can't own a toothbrush as the capitalists paint it as. There is a distinction between private property and personal property. Video related.

These are likely what we would call anarkiddies. They do not represent anarchism as a whole, and to actual anarchists like myself, are somewhat headache inducing.

...

Socialism: Workers ownership of the means of production.
Communism: Classeless moneyless stateless society, it's more of an ultimate goal, it's purely theoric.
Some says that socialism is just early communism, i think the difference between socialism and communism is similar to feudalism and capitalism.
If we currently have a conflict between the owners of capital and the workers (which will be solved by the abolition of private property). In socialism there will be conflict between the workers and thoses exluded from work because of it's increasing scarcity (automation). The communism will come by the abolition of work itself, but that's only my opinion.

Everyone can be a socialist, it's meaningless. I'm for communism.

RDW is Anarcho-Syndicalist when he says:
- people will organize themselves
- no need for Vanguard
- no need for State involvement
- there is only Communism and Capitalism and nothing in-between worth noticing (i.e. transition phase)
- co-ops mean Communism and that is enough

RDW is SocDem when he says:
- we need reforms
- government and capitalists will voluntarily part with wealth and power if we ask them nicely
- and when he doesn't say that "property is a spook"

And RDW would be Marxist, if he was saying:
- organizing people into Vanguard is the first step to achieving anything
- ownership of the MoP is the most important thing
- Dictatorship of the Proletariat means state ruled via direct democracy
- Communism requires good industry and we'll have to build enough for everyone, before we'll even have a chance at Communism

The rest are Special Snowflake tier.

...

That's an example of the illiterate "anarchist" dumb asses who make everybody look like shit

Maybe I have been scared off by what I heard from some peoples versions of history but what is the appeal on Marxism-Leninism, Stanilism, and Maoism?

If you could shorty describe the ideology and goals of those other groups and or dispel myths of the groups I mentioned above I would be very grateful.

What is the main error of the state in socialism/communism in your opinion and does that differ much from the dominant anarchist theory?

I feel the conflict between the people who own all the stuff we work with and the workers I work at walmart stocking and think about how many worker from all over the company are stuck receiving government benefits like myself while we increase the wealth of the Waltons and the share holders who are some of the wealthiest people already. Also the mentioning minor things like union will get you fired.

how will communism remove work itself?

How does socialism and communism if you can't really apply it in our daily lives?

Not really.

Communism is post-scarcity. That's not pure theory.

You can have Communist (post)economic social organization in the internetz. Yes, you can say that Holla Forums is Communist economy.

By making it a hobby.

like I have not been a huge fan of the jobs in my life like cleaning for movie goers, or checking groceries, or frying chicken, etc. why would I want them to be my hobby?

If their is a moneyless society do people use a ration card and how do we handle luxury items?

I used to be a anarcho primmie it happens by worrying about the destruction of the natural world and hoping people will reduce production and population but people just end up going TKs way or thinking like him. In short the appeal is it deals with a issue people care about just after that it is 99% insane

what is the big arguments for and against the state really in communism?

How can you guys achieve communism or socialism when you have such large demographic disparities?

In light of Ricky Getting Robbed on Twitch TV it's time for #FactsonBlacks

Crime rate by race & income docile - Washington Post
i.imgur.com/Fd513ly.jpg

School Test Scores by Socio-economic Status in the same District
imgur.com/a/9I443

Table 43 of the FBI - Crime Rate by Race
i.imgur.com/UqeQW9a.jpg

Welfare rates by Race
imgur.com/mUIQ81x

Chicago Crime Rate by Race:
i.imgur.com/C4ynKq4.jpg

NYPD Crime Rate by Race:
imgur.com/a/uldwJ
- USA:
i.imgur.com/j4zfDzP.jpg
i.imgur.com/vQFXn5k.jpg
i.imgur.com/6o5ltzX.png
- Canada:
i.imgur.com/msUR00v.png
i.imgur.com/fv0yhra.png
- Brazil:
i.imgur.com/cloKEVk.png
i.imgur.com/cloKEVk.png
- United Kingdom:
i.imgur.com/habPucD.png
- Germany
i.imgur.com/zpUXGUD.jpg
Black welfare queens*
83% single motherhood rating in Milwaukee.
79% single motherhood rating in Detroit.
70% single motherhood rating in Dallas.

72% black kids raised in single mother homes nationally
newsone.com/1195075/children-single-parents-u-s-american/
INTER RACIAL BLACK DEAD BEAT DADS
i.imgur.com/MIYwoue.jpg

Like, it seems that in a country of 45,000,000 niggers and even more spics being far more criminal and dangerous than Whitey… how will you ever achieve socialism or communism? We have a right not to live around nogs.

There are none. But that's coming from an anarchist.

The state is a subset of the population that is given an inordinate amount of governing power over the rest of the populace, who have no means of protecting their own interests in the face of its enforcement.

As an anarchist, it is my opinion that a state is inherently hierarchical and the source of class division, and as such fatally contradictory to all attempts at communism. This is because those who possess such power will never willfully relinquish it, and do everything in their power to maintain that dominance over others. If this were not the case, we wouldn't need to overthrow capitalism via revolution at all, and could just rely on reformism. This is obviously not the case.

Right now, and under authoritative types of socialism such as what MLs propose, governing duties are delegated to a select few, chosen regardless of what the people want, and exercise complete power with which we as ordinary citizens can only hope happen to benefit us instead of harm us. This is known as representational politics, and is both deemed in popular culture to be the best method of utilizing democracy, while simultaneously being a complete subversion of it. In other words, a farce.

What we need is horizontal organization. The concept of participatory politics is one in which there is no distinction between civilians and "government officials." All citizens carry equal power, which they can choose to utilize as they like. In this way,social classes can be properly eliminated.

jesus go back to Holla Forums please

what is the best way the achieve that I am pretty much on the fence about the state. does horizontal organization preclude delegated tasks to individuals or group outside the whole?
Isn't there some individuals with more skill or specialization at a given task?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking
:^)

I'll venture to say that there is a paradigm of two axes. Axis one is property relations, axis two is societal participation.
This could be flawed since societal participation has thus far been conditioned on the basis of ownership. The significance of communism is the end of ownership and universal participation after society has adjusted itself to operating on the basis of social ownership/social distribution.

I do not care for the institutionalization of the name "Marx" who had, like any human, very conflicting ideas over the course of his whole life. We owe him for his analysis of capital. Humanistic socialism/communism is not unique, but I do particularly like Marx's conception of it and I think we ought to keep it in mind as our goal (such things as his prescriptions to the Communist League for centralization and abolition of peasant 'communal property' is clearly outmoded and Marx would be the first to tell us we ought to orient ourself according to present circumstance). Lenin oriented himself to present circumstance of Russia, a largely peasant economy, a concentrated but militant industrial proletariat, and a weak/nascent bourgeois state-form. What he advocated for was a centralized party, but this differs from Marx because the Russian socialists at the time were NOT the government itself. So Lenin's party was to be of "professional revolutionaries", theoretically advanced, to lead the revolutionary struggle. I'm leaving a lot out here. Lenin was basically a putschist and that is the legacy of "Marxism-Leninism", a revolutionary schema to be exported instead of the result of Marxist analysis of prevailing, specific conditions.

Maoism, I understand to be a development of Marxist-Leninism for China, based on China's semi-colonial status and massive peasant population. Both ML and Maoism involve land redistribution to the peasants. In early USSR there were only a few 'model' state-operated coop farms, but mostly peasants owned their own land. Later, the USSR collectivized farms. Maoism had a great influence on countries that were undergoing national revolutions because of their semi-colonial status, including the Black Panthers who theorized black people in the US as a colonized people. Maoism also involved class-collaboration with the (so-called) "national bourgeoisie" who supposedly have interest differing from the international bourgeoisie, because China's industry was underdeveloped. To me, the idea of seeing Maoism as the most-advanced development of socialist theory (as groups like RCP-USA would have) is backwards, it is infact the least advanced because of the status of China. Marxists hold that the workers have no country, and it is clear that the bourgeoisie do not either. Therefore the development of a 'nation' represents a catching up, or a 'revolution of underdevelopment' as conceptualized by Robert Tucker.

There were social-democrats who were basically 'socialists' who would work in government and use their position to agitate for socialism which would be effected in the undetermined future. Also they killed leftypol's waifu, Rosa Luxembourg and our homeboy Karl Liebknecht who represented the radical current in Germany at the time.

Most interesting are the Situationists who basically tried to uphold Marx and jettison the legacy of Lenin. Unfortunately they didn't really do much in the way of action but they theorized about the development of the western countries in the mid-20th century (taking a lot of cues from the Frankfurt school who were active in the preceding decades).

Well, that's kind of the question, isn't it? If I had a definitive answer, I'd be out doing that instead of posting on Holla Forums.

That aside, it's also really a matter of how the people decide to organize themselves locally, and how that would tie together with other small local organizations. The whole point is to not dictate a "solution" from on high, but to involve the population in governing themselves. To strive towards that end, we ought to focus on educating the people and spreading class consciousness. An anarchist revolution requires a good deal more participation than a revolution by vanguard party, which is why there are some that will claim it to be too difficult or idealistic to achieve. (Which of course is nonsense, because overthrowing the state with another state may be easier, but it's still ultimately futile imo)

I did type out a bunch of stuff but I am not exactly sure how to relate the paradigm back to these categories. Would Stalinposter please critique the paradigm and explain how ownership worked for industry in USSR?
Clearly in China the national bourgeoisie own their factories, while the peasants owned their land. For the social-democrats, the property of the bourgeoisie was never confiscated by the government and government function (participation) was left to bureaucrats.

There is the option of labour voucher (who have a few differences with regular currency, ie can't be traded with anything else but goods or service). This apply as long as post scarcity isn't reached because why bother with money when the resoources are almost infinite?

marxists.org/reference/archive/henry/1894/conciergerie.htm

Note that I haven't read this specific translation, but i assume it's the same as the one I've read

I always use Emile Henry's letter as an introduction to anarchism (because all non retarded anarchism is essentially the same). He was a French radical who was imprisoned and iirc executed for terrorism in the late 18th century
His description of anarchism is one of my favourite things to read in general

then those jobs just won't exist and the space those jobs were performed in will meet another social function (not likely they will be ruins forever)

Theoretically no need for a ration card either, but this presupposes a HIGH level of development.

As for an-prim I don't really see why you can't live in communist society. What Marxist communists realize is the primacy of the material basis of capital. It's a force that can't be voted away or petitioned away or reasoned away. The material base must be altered, the bourgeois stripped of ownership. This is done by force.

The argument for the state is that seizure of the means of production would only occur in one place at a time, and that the bourgeoisie would remain international and FUCKING PISSED that they have lost their power. So they fight back and need to be suppressed. The state in Marxist terms is an organization for the suppression of one class by another. Therefore a proper state should suppress bourgeois resistance (this happened notoriously in Russia).

The arguments against the state is that it will form a force over and against the workers themselves and entrench itself. The proper Marxist function of the state is to suppress the bourgeoisie (physically and also by such things as exposing trade secrets, keeping public accounts, distributing necessities to workers) and NOT to arrogate ownership of what should be the commons.

this was a nice read, thank you comrade

I made this pile of hot streaming shit.

The absolutely best part is that there isn't any Marx or Lenin tucked in.

Automation?

Ration card for rare luxury items. Which is not post-scarcity. People always believe in 100% undiluted things; but that's 100% undiluted Aristotelian idealism. There never was 100% Feudalism, nor 100% Capitalism, nor 100% Socialism. Why should there be 100% Communism? If you need to ration something - that's Socialism.

There aren't any. Not for the state itself. Unlike Anarchism, Marxism considers state to be nothing but a tool - used when necessary, discarded when not. Real goal is elimination of Capitalism. Everything else is secondary.

When state is useful - it is used to combat Capitalism.
When it has no use - it is allowed to wither away.

Oh fuck you are right! I tottaly forgot to put Lenin with Libertarianism for the NEP.

Marxist-Leninists, which I would consider myself, are of the belief that the revolution, and inevitable counter-revolution, are times of chaos and uncertainty, and that the best way to uphold and protect the revolution is through the vanguard and a powerful state.

Stalinists are rare, but they argue that (at least in 3rd world nations) that a powerful state, rapid industrialization, and collectivization of agriculture, is needed to uphold the advancement towards communism.

I can't say much on Maoism as I haven't read enough about it, but from what I understand, Mao argues that a revolution requires both the peasantry and the workers to fight together in guerilla warfare.

I'm still fairly new to far left politics so if I got anything wrong feel free to correct me comrades.

Use a spell checker next time, fam.

You can't make this shit up.

And he doesn't say any of these things, dipshit.

First and foremost, things changed a lot in USSR. You hardly can call it a proper state. There were 4-5 "states", at least. "Stalinism" (which also wasn't chemically clean, in case there is any doubt) is basically one decade (30s). Later came the WWII, restoration, and then Grand Revisionism (which begun even when Stalin was alive and reached it's peak in 1961).
Second problem: I'm not well-versed in Maoism and don't want to make any judgements.

So, keeping those two points in mind:
0) If you define Socialism as a social reaction towards industrial economy, first came Luddism (IIRC, it begun as early as 17th century in German cities) - I'm defining Luddism as a rejection of industry, rather than actual movement that happened in England (which was far more complex). But that's not particularly relevant.

1) When the 19th century came, the Socialist divided into Anarchists (who advocated grassroot approach) and Reformists (who advocated top-down approach). I.e. revolution from below, and reforms from the top.

Therefore, first paradigm that split Socialism was Social. It's the only true axis, imo.

2) Then came Marxism, which declared both to be flawed, preference of any approach - dogmatic, and introduced property on MoP as the real tool and method of combating Capitalist oppression.
I.e. you don't actually have second "property" axis, you have a vector, since neither Anarchism, nor Reformism considered property as a primary objective that needed to be changed or protected at all costs (both, obviously, mentioned it; but none had focused on it).

I'd say universal participation wasn't such a grand revolution that should Marxist-only.

This part I'm not 100% clear on. What exactly is suggested?

Yeah. More-or-less "yeah", but still "yeah".

I can't say I agree.

It's called "Blanquist". And that's a major oversimplification. ML also introduced concept of Planned Economy as Socialist and Industrialization as a goal Socialism should be striving for (no, those weren't Trotsky's ideas; both were envisioned before October - and, in my opinion, their influence is greatly understated).

You are leaving out too much. It's not only the revolution, but the reason for it. Before Lenin there wasn't any specific understanding of how to proceed. There was this paralysis of will after "Authoritarian Socialism" got hit by a silver bullet of Paris and it took almost half a century for it to recover. Soviets were groundbreaking in a way that is hard to understand: they didn't collapse after a year, despite all expectations. Their example of Socialism essentially kickstarted post-WWI revolutions. And they had ideas on what to do after revolution - which was the big question at the time.

(cont.)
That's two different forms of ownership. State-owned (and -operated) is Sovkhozs. Co-ops were Kolkhozs.

Kolkhozs were collective property of farmers and were explicitly operated by them. All day-to-day decisions were made by farmers and farmers alone. State intervened with taxes and some other stuff, of course, but actual management (operation) was done by the farmers. I.e. not state-operated by any reasonable definition.

And you are correct about "early" pre-collectivization period. I've already mentioned it somewhere (and I'm forgetting this isn't a forum …), but it bears repeating: IRL revolution didn't extend to rural areas until 1930s. Soviet Union has remained a huge Bourgeoisie-run land, with tiny islands of Socialism for over a decade after it's establishment. Civil War transitioned into Cold War stage and Revolution as a process didn't stop in 1922, but carried on (as it did in the whole world, for that matter - which is obvious from the DiaMat point of view, but seems to be an unsurpassable hurdle for more idealistic thought).

Revolution came hot in 1930 and collectivisation was (essentially) Bolshevik's Blitzkrieg.

In theory. Truth was a bit more complicated, since you needed tools to properly farm and resources to stay afloat in bad years. Land alone wasn't sufficient, unless you had a lot of it (which wasn't the case for Central Russia; Siberia was the one that could be called "rich" in this sense).

One could say that "peasants owned their own land", but the truth was that most weren't economically free. Majority was still subservient to the rural Rich ("agrarian Capitalists" would be more appropriate word for kulaks, but propaganda-influenced people would still consider kulaks "honest wealthy workers", rather high-level members of rural gangster syndicates they were). Situation was slowly improving, but it took collectivisation to actually change the situation.

Which was not exactly about land redistribution, but about re-organizing labour/farming. Mode of production, if you will.

I wasn't going to comment on Maoism, but that's my impression too.

P.s. and industry will have to wait a bit.

I thought you'd go for Anarcho-Individualism, due to no-fault divorces, civil marriage, and decriminalized homosexuality.

And don't forget to put Stalin into Mutualism. Near Proudhon, for maximum effect.

ProTip: Industrialization was Lenin's idea.

Where does this militant illiteracy come from?

Are his books vastly different from his talks? Because he literally advocates the opposite in his talks.

And the vanguard party is Lenin, not Marx.

I didn't listen to his talks much. Read Class Theory and (most of) Occupy.

And?

You said in order for him to be a Marxist he would need to advocate a vanguard party.

And, like I said before, he says the exact opposite in his talks. Class Theory was co-authored with another guy, you sure it wasn't the other guy?

Communism = DUDE HORIZONTAL LMAO

Capitalism = pls no steppy, pls ignore the inherent contradictions in my ideology

Feminism/queer = Delicious male tears

Pacifism = pls no bully

Primitivism = I'm going to bash your head in with a rock for learning to read and write

Nihilism = dude nothing lmao

Transhumanism = I played Deus Ex

What would you say the difference is between society and civilization, since your pic implied you can reject the first without rejecting the second?

Society
Organisation orientated around an Idea and for the idea. Like a Political Party or a Religiouse organisation.

Civilisation
Mass Social Organisation that includes Goverment and Economy.

Ah. Makes more sense now. Non-Vanguard Marxism, eh?

Did you at least check Wiki, before posting this? Not the most authoritative source, I know, but it has at least a modicum of research already done.

Vaguely suggesting organized political activity is not Vanguard.

We are not having this discussion. Seriously, that's not happening. If he had worked with the "other guy" since 80s, I'm not buying different opinions on the subject.

Either way, Occupy was all his.

So can you point out what specifically is wrong with vanguardism?

Specifically is wrong with non-vanguard marxism*^

I had.

Checked again. Still nothing there that corroborates your claims.

Ancom is the only one of those that isn't pure cancer.

Ancaps have no theory beyond what Molly shits out.

Greenies want to go back to the stone age.

Anfem and queer anarchism are both overt attempts at subverting the left with identity politics.

Anpac functions only to pull people away from genuinely revolutionary acts and be more easily quelled by the ruling class's enforcers.

Nice meme-tier list of sweeping generalisations you got there.

Nice meme-tier ideologies.