"There is no difference between Communism and Socialism, except in the same ultimate end: Communism proposes to enslave men by force, Socialism - by the vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." ~ Ayn Rand
"There is no difference between Communism and Socialism, except in the same ultimate end: Communism proposes to enslave men by force, Socialism - by the vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." ~ Ayn Rand
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia
It's to long - summarize it to me.
Tldr?
Smdh.
No communism in russia, only state crapitalism, ie socialism.
Its the second s in ussr.
Russia was socialist. But read this quote:
Lenin, and others involved, planned to achieve communism using socialism as the first stage. This was why the government was so involved in the process at the start.
Yes, this was all hashed out in the 1860's by bakunin and marx.
You see which one the elites chose to make sure we were aware of.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/franz-mehring-the-bakunin-marx-split-in-the-1st-international
This one is long.
I read most of it and I think I get the gist. The article is right about the absence of anarcho-communism, or "true communism", as I imagine you would call it. However, the communist party, was by all means, communist. They assumed that communism would not come to exist if the population wasn't given a little bit of "encouragement". They achieved communism by using the state as a medium between the people and their so-called "shared property". The article most definitely has a point, however I would not agree with the fact that the government intended to "own" everything for themselves, but rather that they intended to own things on behalf of the people. Upon the arrival of Stalin, the USSR became less of a state with a "leader", and more of a state with a "dictator". It is important to understand how this ties in with the struggling economic situation that the country was in. Stalin did not want the world to think that communism was failing in Russia, so he committed the Holodomor in order to export more wheat, and to show how much the country was overproducing, when they were in fact underproducing. Communism did exist in Russia, but it was steered away from the interests of the people, in favor of the interests of the reputation of Communism.
I feel as though this article attempts to blame the fails of communism on capitalism, which was not present what-so-ever in Russia (hence the collapse of the country).
They called themselves communist to cloud the term in the minds of the public, they were tools that served the banksters in this regard.
They never got past being socialists, or state crapitalusts.
Which makes them not communist, by definition.
How is crapitalism at the hands of a dictator communism?
If the state is the agent of the people in that it holds the crapital, how is that communist?
Its not, but heaven forbid we drop the indoctrination forced on us under the guise of education?
I prefer to take back the term.
Just as libertarian will have to come back to the anarchists, too.
I agree that they never got past being socialist. The state took the task of achieving communism into their own hands, and that led to them being the medium between the people and the state-owned property. The state never "dissolved" as Marx said, meaning that by-the-book communism was never achieved. Either way, any form of socialization isn't doing any good for society, whatsoever. Even if Russia achieved absolute, anarcho-communism, they would fail. Simple economic principles prove this point over and over again, not to mention all of the failed socialist states.
Most of the attempts have been bombed into submission by crapitalust bombs.
https://listverse.com/2016/06/29/10-instances-of-anarchist-societies-that-actually-worked/
Capitalism is not a system of governance. It is simply a word used to describe a free market system working without interference. It is naturally anarchistic. There is currently no capitalism present anywhere in the world, because there is not a place where a free market currently exists.
Anarchism works, as long as people know that capitalism is not the problem. In an anarchist society, anyone is free to form a commune, as long as that commune is based on voluntary principles and doesn't strip people of their liberties (as they have done in the past). In an anarchist society, anyone is free to start a business, and create wealth and capital that will benefit all who take part in free trade. The failures of so-called "anarchism" have been due to the fact that anarchism has always been founded under socialist principles, which is why they have never succeeded. Socialism is an involuntary system, and it will never obtain the full support of the people.
Those markets inevitably devolve into rule by force.
The havenots are at the mercy of the haves.
Not historicaly accurate.
Proudhon and bakunin both originated anarchism and hated socialism because it required rule by force and therefore contradicted anarchist principle.
If you care to do the reading go here: theanarchistlibrary.org, look for the author link at the bottom, pj proudhon and m bakunin.
Yep, socialism sucks, for sure.
Communism is much better.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
This is entirely false. Free trade is not free trade if the deal does not benefit both parties. Like I said in a previous post a few months ago;
There will be wealth inequality, guaranteed, however the rich person still relies on the poor for trades and services, and the poor still rely on the rich for trades and services. If force is applied by either party, it is not capitalism, it is not free.
Also, how have communists come to relate imperialism and trade by force with capitalism? Just something I don't understand. They are completely incompatible.