Among all the Socialist and Communist schools of thought, Marxism and Leninism are the most prominent in the world. However, so the reader can better see the reasons as to why Andréism was made, and why it challenges other primary schools of thought, we must look into those thoughts implemented in each Socialist and Communist system, the major flaws made by the creators of those thoughts and then compare it all to the modern era.
To begin, we shall look at Marxism; originated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels through works such as "The Communist Manifesto", "The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State" and even "Capital", Marxism is the idea that states that class antagonisms form in Capitalist societies, which leads to the Bourgeoisie, that is, the upper class, to rule over the Proletariat, or the lower class, by owning the means of production and by taking the wealth through appropriation of products made by the Proletariat. The prediction of Marx and Engels was that the Proletariat, having organized amongst each other, would revolt against the Bourgeoisie and then would become the new ruling class through a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". After the establishment of this "Dictatorship", the new society would enter a stage of Socialism, which is between the end of Capitalism and the transition to Communism. In Marxist doctrine, Communism is the idea in which property, production and power are commonly possessed by all and everyone follows the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".
Although this does sound plausible, what are the flaws? Firstly, Marx and Engels both did not go into explicit detail over how the Socialist and Communist societies would be structured, namely in its government and economy. This blatant vagueness has led to people like Stalin, Mao and Kim Il-sung to warp the idea to suit their own needs.
Secondly, the concept of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" has a great risk: even though it does prevent the Bourgeoisie from commencing an uprising of their own, this "Dictatorship" could potentially either turn the Proletariat into the new Bourgeois class, or it could allow more power-hungry individuals, like the ones previously mentioned, to transfer all power to them, their party and even their families, which was what Romanian Communist Nicolae Ceausescu had done.
The next thought that followed was Leninism, which was Lenin's own interpretations of Marxism, with his own theories included into said interpretations. According to Lenin, a revolutionary elite needed to form a Vanguard Party, which would provide political and class consciousness to the Proletariat, which would then result in a Proletarian Revolution that would bring down Capitalism and install a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
The flaws? First, its practice was contradictory to its promises of a "Proletarian Dictatorship" or a "Socialist state". In defining Leninism, Britannica stated that:
"The authoritarian aspect of Leninism appeared also in its insistence upon the need for a 'proletarian dictatorship' following the seizure of power, a dictatorship that in practice was not exercised by the workers but by the leaders of the Communist Party". (pp.5, online edition, 2016)
In other words, the Party would establish a parliamentary system in which the Party leaders would apply more Authoritarian methods, which would, consequently, suppress the population through One-Party rule.
The second flaw was its application of Revolutionary Terror; in using fear, mainly through executions, Leninism doesn't bring about the promised society, but rather, it forms a repeat of the former repressive system, only more open about its actions. In a telegram to Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza Communists, Lenin said:
"The uprising by the five kulak [rich peasant] volosts must be mercilessly suppressed. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, for we are now facing everywhere the 'final decisive battle' with the kulaks. We need to set an example.
1. You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the people see) no fewer than 100 of the notorious kulaks, the rich and the bloodsuckers.
2. Publish their names.
3. Take all their grain from them.
4. Appoint the hostages - in accordance with yesterday's telegram.
This needs to be done in such a way that the people for hundreds of versts around will see, tremble, know and shout: they are throttling and will throttle the bloodthirsty kulaks". (online edition, 2008)
Why would a school of thought apply terror to people when it says it is for the people? Such a contradiction is too great a deviation from Marxism, thereby making the thought, itself, too flawed.
The next thought that followed was Stalinism; already, the flaws appear before us in just the name, alone. Stalinism supports the idea of "Socialism in One Country", "Centralization", and even the necessity of a "Cult of Personality".
Firstly, Stalinism deviates from the overall Socialist and Communist ideas in its advocation of "Socialism in One Country". In "The Principles of Communism", Engels explains how Socialism is universal in his explanation of the revolution;
"It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range". (Prompt 19, online edition, 1999)
If the revolution is universal, like Engels says, then why would there need to be "Socialism in One Country"? Such a concept defeats the purpose of Socialism and Communism, which consequently makes the thought advocating it to be totally against Marxism, let alone Socialism and Communism.
Secondly, Stalinism advocates the subordination of all people to the Party, which also contradicts the Marxist thought. By retaining all power to only the Party, the Socialist society will surely and quickly transform into a State Bureaucracy, as we have seen happen in most of Europe.
Thirdly, Stalinism also advocates the need for a cult of personality, which is an extreme deviation from Socialism, itself! By demanding that one party or person be praised and brought up to the status of a god, the state doesn't progress Socialism, but instead, it progresses State Bureaucracy, because the cult of personality makes people believe that the person or party is the best in the entire world, which is not Socialism!
Before moving on, let it be known that Marxism-Leninism was made by Stalin, therefore Marxism-Leninism is a Stalinist concept and an abomination of Socialism and Communism. Moving on, the next thought to form was Trotskyism, which supports Permanent Revolution and, like Marxism and Leninism, Proletarian Internationalism.
The flaws? To start, Trotsky's idea of Permanent Revolution; although the idea of a continuing revolution in all countries, regardless of Capitalist development, is plausible, we must look at what it is. In one sentence, Permanent Revolution is:
"The state or condition of a country's continuing revolutionary progress being dependent on a continuing process of revolution in other countries". (Oxford Dictionaries.com)
From what the writer has gathered from this definition and from the works of Trotsky, this idea states that a revolution in one country is dependent on a revolution that is taking place in another country and not on the development of Capitalism in that one country. How is this flawed? Firstly, to have one country's revolution depend on another country's revolution raises too many questions. Say that Iran's revolution depends on France's revolution; what hope would there be for the working people of Iran if the revolution in France was ultimately stomped out by the Bourgeoisie? Would Iran just start depending on another country? If so, then what if the revolution in that country were stomped? Why can't Iran just have an independent revolution without having to wait for the success of one in another country? What happens if it's too late for Iran to carry out it's revolution? To have too many questions is dangerous for any theory or idea, as it makes that theory or idea come off as less plausible and even moronic. Secondly, no one revolution is ever the same for all countries. Some countries may require a violent revolution, whereas other countries may need a more peaceful and non-violent revolution; the method and process varies, which, in one way or another, defeats the purpose of a Permanent Revolution.
The other flaw is that Trotskyism, like Marxism and Leninism, does not go into any detail over the government and economy, nor does Trotskyism seem to have a backup plan formed, should this Permanent Revolution begin to crumble, which should make people more hesitant to support Trotskyism and the other schools of thought, yet no one really recognizes the major flaws within each thought.
The last primary thought to come was Maoism, which says that the peasants, alone, are the driving force of the revolution and supports the ideas of Cultural Revolution and the Three Worlds Theory.
The flaws? Firstly, a Cultural Revolution is too similar to State Terrorism, which is when the state apparatus uses terror against its own people (keep in mind that this is different from Revolutionary Terror, but just as negative)! During the Cultural Revolution in China, civilians, mostly young people, had reported their own friends and families all for the idiotic reason of criticizing Mao, the Party and the Cultural Revolution, for which the punishment ranged from public shaming to torture to death! Through the "Little Red Book", these actions were condoned and permitted by Mao, himself, who disguised such actions as Imperialist bullying:
"The imperialists are bullying us in such a way that we will have to deal with them seriously. Not only must we have a powerful regular army; we must also organize contingents of the people's militia on a big scale. This will make it difficult for the imperialists to move a single inch in our country in case of invasion". (Chapter 8, quote 4, online edition, 2000)
Mao had even shrugged off the deaths in the Great Leap Forward, saying:
"When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better to let half the people die so that the other half can eat their fill". (Quote, circa 1959)
Secondly, the Maoist idea of having only the third world consist of exploited nations goes against the idea of Proletarian Internationalism, since the Three Worlds Theory claims that revolutions can only occur in the third world, not the first (global superpowers, like the U.S. and Russia) or the second (lesser powers, like Japan and Canada). What the Maoist thought fails to acknowledge is that even the superpowers and lesser powers harbor exploitation, and that they, too, will inevitably undergo a Proletarian Revolution, yet not one Maoist would ever dare to admit this fault!
Now that we've listed the primary schools of thought and their flaws, let us move on to the most common features of most of these thoughts: State Bureaucracy and Dictatorship. Although these two aren't Socialist or Communist concepts, we cannot deny that most Socialist and Communist systems applied such things within their respected states, consequently taking power from the Proletariat and giving it to the government, which creates the regimes that existed in most of Europe and Asia in the 20th Century.
In "The Revolution Betrayed", Trotsky supports this claim when describing one such regime, namely the U.S.S.R. In this book, Trotsky wrote:
"Captive to its own policy, the government was compelled to retreat step by step before the demands of a rural petty bourgeoisie. In 1925 the hiring of labor power and the renting of land were legalized for agriculture. The peasantry was becoming polarized between the small capitalist on the one side and the hired hand on the other. At the same time, lacking industrial commodities, the state was crowded out of the rural market. Between the kulak and the petty home craftsman there appeared, as though from under the earth, the middleman. The state enterprises themselves, in search of raw material, were more and more compelled to deal with the private trader. The rising tide of capitalism was visible everywhere. Thinking people saw plainly that a revolution in the forms of property does not solve the problem of socialism, but only raises it". (pp.10, chapter 2, online edition, 1996)
For China, all that is needed for proof of the existence of both State Bureaucracy and Dictatorship is to look at Xi Jinping, who made himself the dictator of China by giving himself an unlimited term as president! in doing this, Jinping has evolved the "People's" Republic of China from a State Bureaucracy to a Dictatorship and has now become the second most powerful dictator of a state in the 21st Century, with the first being Kim Jong-Un.
But the question remains: Do Socialism and Communism, in Marxist terms, require a State Bureaucracy or Dictatorship? Let us look at "The Communist Manifesto" for an answer:
"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all public production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstance, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions for the existence of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the old conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and it will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development for all". (pp.74 & 75, chapter 2, online edition, 2000)
In other words, if the Proletariat, on the eve of revolution, dismantles the old system of production and division by class, then it will have dismantled the need for a State Bureaucracy or Dictatorship, thereby ending Capitalism and successfully establishing a Socialist society. Now if that doesn't scream "Against State Bureaucracy", then nothing else said by any Socialist or Communist ever will. State Bureaucracy, i.e., rule of the state officials (governors, state secretaries, etc.), greatly contradicts the Socialist and Communist ideas of mass cooperation, the public and social ownership of the means of production, and the transference of all power from the government to the masses, which would lead to the people making necessary decisions, thereby rendering the need for state officials obsolete.
Dictatorship, i.e., one-party or one-person rule, also contradicts Socialism and Communism (despite some schools of thought embracing this concept), as it puts all power in the hands of one party or person, with the ultimate rule being "obey or else". Why must Socialism and Communism approve such a thing if both ideologies demand that power be given to all? Such a concept, tied with State Bureaucracy, would make Socialism and Communism pointless, as it wouldn't be giving power to the masses, but rather, the two concepts would be restricting power from the masses, which is not the aim of Socialism or Communism.
Onto the next question: How can Socialism and Communism be applied in this day and age? The answer to this is simple: form a new set of thoughts and blueprint a government and economy that not only coincides with the Socialist and Communist ideas, but also coincides with the modern age. Communism and Socialism are constants, meaning that they adapt and evolve whenever there is a major change throughout the world. The creation of a new set of thoughts for this age is long overdue, as we have moved from the 19th and 20th Century into the 21st Century, and with the rapid development of modern technology and industry, it is extremely obvious that a new set of thoughts need to be formed.
The adaptation of ideologies, i.e., the creation of the previously listed schools of thought (excluding Stalinism and Maoism), expresses clearly that Socialism and Communism can, indeed, work in the modern age, yet one issue of the past still holds us back: almost every school of thought is Eastern. Because of this fact, both Socialism and Communism come off as completely foreign ideas in the Western countries, which makes the Proletariat all the more hesitant to embrace the aforementioned ideologies, and it also gives the Western Capitalists the opportunity to warp those ideas into something fully negative by referring only to the negative results of each regime, or warping them to be seen as "purely Eastern" and not universal, as Marx and Engels proclaimed them to be.
To best combat this issue, the Western intellectuals within the Radical Left must construct a school of thought in Socialism and Communism that meets the needs and appeals of the modern people, does not, under any circumstances, advocate State Bureaucracy or Dictatorship, and, above all else, allows the people to have total and absolute power over themselves and over the government.