Terms

[Ixtab]

'Proleteriat' - ahistorical use of the Latin term for expropriated.

'Capitalist' - Technically, the small investor is a 'capital - ist'. But when Socialists are referring to property, we mean property to the extent that it is power. The small investor has very little power.

Socialist - nothing wrong with this term; most people are tinged with socialist ideas.

Communism - an unneeded term, for what is 'communism' but a more universal form of socialism? Early communists and socialists never made a distinction between communism and socialism.

Collective - use 'cooperative' or 'community' or 'common' depending on whether the adjective or substantive sense is desired.

[ironweed]

'Proleteriat' - ahistorical use of the Latin term for expropriated.


Is the Proletariat to be considered a unitary whole, or can it have sub-groups with competing interests? As with, say, the 'lumpenproletariat' vs. the real(?) or authentic(?) or whatever the proper term is for the Proletarian sub-group that's actually going to be carrying out a Revolution. Or is it the case that any group whose interests are antithetical to a Revolution are by definition something other than Proletariat?

[Ixtab]

Is the Proletariat to be considered a unitary whole, or can it have sub-groups with competing interests?Of course there are subgroups, and individuals can have competing interests under many conditions - an extreme situation is of course mass unemployment. This does not negate the truth that the prolerariat as a class can also have a community of broader interests, determined simply by their relation to the means of production, i.e. their source of income.

Or is it the case that any group whose interests are antithetical to a Revolution are by definition something other than Proletariat?No. 'Proleterian' and 'capitalist' are not defined in terms of one's revolutionary or counterrevolutionary fervour, but simply by the source of one's income, that is to say, by the relation that exists between oneself and labour & the means of production (another term I dislike).

[Ixtab]

The purpose of this thread is to point out that Socialism needs better Terms.

[Leif]

Communism - an unneeded term, for what is 'communism' but a more universal form of socialism? Early communists and socialists never made a distinction between communism and socialism.

Is this an attempt to shed socialism of its more propagandized terminology?

It always seemed that in Marxist terminology, communism and socialism were two very different stages of development. Thus the distinction between "primitive communism," "socialism," and "communism." The USSR and every other socialist country never called themselves "communist," but socialist. However, I see your point that communism and socialism are somewhat redudant terms in that each are merely different stages of the same development, and there is no separate "revolution" from socialism to communism, such that exists within the feudalism-capitalism-socialism division. It might be futile for socialist movements to remove such propagandized terms, as the West often calls things by names of its choosing, calling the USSR "communist Russia" and such...

Is the Proletariat to be considered a unitary whole, or can it have sub-groups with competing interests?

All classes tend to have degrees of inner-competition, but these things are shallow in comparison to their friction with other classes. These things tend to become more apparent across national lines, which is what seems to give evidence to the idea that classes can cooperate for the "nation" rather than their own interests (An idea most oftenly proven completely wrong.)

As with, say, the 'lumpenproletariat' vs. the real(?) or authentic(?) or whatever the proper term is for the Proletarian sub-group that's actually going to be carrying out a Revolution. As with, say, the 'lumpenproletariat' vs. the real(?) or authentic(?) or whatever the proper term is for the Proletarian sub-group that's actually going to be carrying out a Revolution.

Yes, portions of the proletariat have become parts of the "labor aristocracy" in which they are paid higher than other workers in order to gain their allegiance to the capitalist method of production. They are "bought off" and cooperate with their owners. Some say nearly the entire working class of all imperialist (i.e. Western) countries have been "bought off" and pushed into the "labor aristocracy," but I feel that this has more to do with the fact that the West was the only capitalist-industrialist part of the world until last century, meaning the labor movements had been fighting for workers' rights for an entire century before the rest of the world even began developing an industrial system. In fact, during colonialism the rest of the world tended to de-industrialize what few productive centers it had because exporting raw materials was more profitable.

Or is it the case that any group whose interests are antithetical to a Revolution are by definition something other than Proletariat?

The term "proletariat" applies only to someone's economic status. A prole that is pro-capitalist is called "reactionary" or "counter-revolutionary." It does not change his economic status.


Edit: Ixabert posted while I was writing this, making much of it redundant, but I will leave it up regardless.

[Ixtab]

It always seemed that in Marxist terminology, communism and socialism were two very different stages of development.It has always been understood that 'communism' is simply more socialised ownership than socialism -- i.e., a more socialistic social system than socialism in the restricted sense. The distinction between socialism and communism is one of degree, not quality.

Thus the distinction between "primitive communism," ...Another shortcoming of Marxist (or rather, Engels') thinking. There is no stage of social development which may be called 'primitive communist'; the anthropology of Morgan has been long discredited.

[Faustian Dreams]

Would anyone be willing to point out the distinctions between the philosophies of the various figureheads in left-wing politics (i.e. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc.)?

Are these ideologies even so irreconcilable that they must be distinguished from one another? Or is it a matter of vanity or some bizarre form of idolatry?

[Faustian Dreams]

Another question: how would a Socialist determine when an individual's private affairs and small business begins to threaten the economic structure? For example: If I decided to sell used underwear from my home, and the trend caught on whereby my home became a center for collection and distribution, when would it be decided that I am competing with the state-run new underwear market, in effect endangering the re-cycling of profits from citizen back to government? (To this question it could then be added, is this one of the major premises of the Socialist theory, that through its management of economy it can prevent the "pooling" of capital in ineffective or detrimental areas?)

[Leif]

It has always been understood that 'communism' is simply more socialised ownership than socialism -- i.e., a more socialistic social system than socialism in the restricted sense. The distinction between socialism and communism is one of degree, not quality.

Quantity and quality are commensurable... I am now inclined to agree with you that perhaps "communism" is not significantly different to warrant a distinct separation from "socialism," but there is a qualitative difference nonetheless.

Another shortcoming of Marxist (or rather, Engels') thinking. There is no stage of social development which may be called 'primitive communist'; the anthropology of Morgan has been long discredited.

That was merely an example of terminology, not necessarily a defense of its historical existence. Do you have any information on "Morgan?" Does this open new refutation of Engels work on the family and society? I'd be very interested in this information.


Would anyone be willing to point out the distinctions between the philosophies of the various figureheads in left-wing politics (i.e. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc.)?

Sorry I missed your question in the other thread, I was caught up in the other discussions. It's difficult to say that these individuals had different "philosophies" in that all of them used basic Marxist ideas in their analysis of societies, but their conclusions were somewhat different.

Lenin elucidated Marx's previous writings about the growing of global imperialist power, labor aristocracy ("buying off" portions of the working population), and theories on the specifics of revolution in regards to society and the state. Marx concentrated on critical anaylsis of capitalist society as it existed, while Lenin analyzed the development of emerging problems within capitalism and the revolutionary chang associated with them to bring about socialism. Lenin supported the idea of a professional revolutionary party which could organize itself more cohesively than widespread political movements in the face of military and police oppression.

Trotsky, borrowing a phrase from Engels, created the theory of "permanent revolution" in which emerging capitalist nations could skip phases of development before advancing to socialism. He flip-flopped on various issues, being a Menshevik (populist) and then supporting the Bolsheviks (professional revolutionaries) after they displaced the provisional "bourgeois" government in 1917. Before his feud with Stalin he wrote mostly about basic Marxist concepts. People sometimes confuse the Trotsky-Stalin feud as being something ideological, which it really wasn't, as Trotsky and Stalin were both authoritarian socialists. There has been some evidence put forward (by Anthony Sutton?) that Trotsky was an agent of international bankers. That might significantly affect ones view of his philosophy, but I prefer not to entertain such accusations...

Stalin developed very little new philosophy apart from Lenin's work, and, like Trotsky, re-examined certain basic Marxist concepts. Stalin advanced the idea of "socialism in one country" instead of immediately sending revolutionary cadres throughout Europe. People often mistake "Stalinism" for totalitarianism or sheer authoritarianism due to political feuds associated with the Stalin era, although these are usually blown out of proportion and accounts of purges and "intentional" famines were falsified by Nazi propagandists and their capitalist collaborators.

Mao Tse-Tung developed the idea that the peasantry could be useful in the revolution and indeed greatly aided the Communist Party of China during the revolutionary period. His focus on the peasantry was somewhat contradictory in regards to traditional Marxist thought, as the peasantry was considered by Marx and Engels to be a purely reactionary class, that is, it would aid in the suppression of the revolution if given the chance. This occurred in Europe during rebellions in cities. The ruling class would flee to the country-side and use the peasantry as their support-base for taking back the urban centers.

As a final note, if one wanted to know these things with more clarity I'd suggest finding a member of each specific "ideology" to explain it more concretely... My overview is very abstract.

Are these ideologies even so irreconcilable that they must be distinguished from one another?

It's mostly the political differences between these ideologies that create such a division... From a philosophical or 'ethical' standpoint they are all very similar. There are several near irreconcilable ideas between them, such as the reliance of Mao's Communist Party on the Chinese peasants (along with the USSR's government of workers and peasants, as signified by the hammer and sickle.) In my personal view, I feel that most of these viewpoints were not "wrong" or "irreconcilable" but too ahead of their own conditions. Engels said that the growing state-ownership of the economy was one of the stages leading up to the revolution that would end capitalism. While the modern state has increased its involvement enormously, this was largely a product of the mid-twentieth century. This doesn't mean that European or American Marxist parties of the nineteenth (or early twentieth) century were ideologically "irreconcilable" with scientific socialist thought, it means they were mentally ahead of their own physical environment.

Another question: how would a Socialist determine when an individual's private affairs and small business begins to threaten the economic structure? For example: If I decided to sell used underwear from my home, and the trend caught on whereby my home became a center for collection and distribution, when would it be decided that I am competing with the state-run new underwear market, in effect endangering the re-cycling of profits from citizen back to government?

I am certain that I have addressed this exact issue not long ago...bah here is a summary:

In a socialist society, because work and 'sharing' becomes an equal responsibility of all, there would be "full-time jobs" that would, by manner of sheer time consumption, reduce the amount of private economic transactions. Many socialist societies have allowed private economic endeavors for individuals alongside their duties to the social economic system. In a fully communal society these individually produced goods would be shared the same as socially produced goods, so it wouldn't matter about competition with 'governmental' businesses. There wouldn't be a need to fear individually-based businesses as long as contributions to socially owned system continued. It's similar to modern nations...If one wants to make a product, that is good and well, but if one wants to avoid paying taxes on the sale of that product, it interferes with the social contributions of the individual.

[Ixtab]

Would anyone be willing to point out the distinctions between the philosophies of the various figureheads in left-wing politics (i.e. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc.)?

Are these ideologies even so irreconcilable that they must be distinguished from one another? Or is it a matter of vanity or some bizarre form of idolatry?There are many other differenecs, but this is the most crucial:

SOCIALISM CAN BE ACHIEVED IN ONE OR SEVERAL COUNTRIES. -- LENIN, 1917 (and later in 1920)

SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY IS NOT ONLY A POLITICAL BUT ALSO AN ECONOMIC IMPOSSIBILITY. -- TROTSKY, 1928

That is what separates Lenin, Stalin and Mao (who all adhered to basically the same ideology) from Leon Trotsky.