Winning the United States

[LeninBalls]

Dunno if this belongs in Learning or not but I guess it's a question that isn't deep enough to be in Theory.

Okay, obeying to my MList theory, first world countries need a vanguard to lead and win a revolution. To have a vanguard party you need support.

Now how would we do this in the US? Support for communism? Oh my. Every American I've met on and off (excl. the good folks at Revleft)line truly and wholeheartedly believe that communism=evil that hates peace and freedom.

How are we supposed to wash out these thoughts with such a small group of Marxists? :confused: I mean, sticking up posters and handing out Manifestos can only work for so long.

Obviously it will be a gradual thing if so, but how? Just where do American (and other) Marxists start?

This can also apply to other first world countries mainly if not only "western" countries that have the idea that communism is bad imbued, although, there seems to be a few more Marxists and people seem just a little more open minded in Europe.

[Poison]

Educate, and let communism speak for itself.

[Yehuda Stern]

1. The vanguard party principle doesn't apply only to the first world. The reason why vanguard parties are necessary is because for a party to stay revolutionary, it needs to make sure that it is composed only of thee advanced sections of the working class, i.e. the firmly Marxist workers. All over the world, the capitalists create a labour aristocracy and other relatively aristocratic sections among the workers, especially ethnic based ones, and this form of organization is meant to keep their negative influence out of the revolutionary party.

2. Marxist parties can't always be big - indeed, unfortunately, since WWII they haven't been. The vanguard's role in such hard times is to preserve and develop Marxist theory and to win over other such individuals who are "ahead of the times," so to speak.

[The Master]

Well that is do to the brainwashing that goes on in this country. I feel that the only way for another party to come up and challenge the status qou is to educate and hold true to your beliefs.

Education is important since without we will all be brain dead and it is needed for people to understand more, however the US government depicts commies as evil,vile creatures. But if there was a more objective teaching of communism i am sure people could see that it is not that bad in fact there are some great ideas behind it.

[Black Sheep]

A smokescreen thing that could be done is to alter your identity and watch the response.
(wait,let me explain)

For example, zeitgeist 2 says it goes for a resource based economy.The response to that i think was quite good.
Now,you shouldn't really care what the masses think about communism.Call it something else if you want..

I am not saying 'be dishonest!'..All i mean is that what communism stands for is objectively in the interests of a huge percentage of the US population, and if they can be made to understand that doing what communism proposes is good for them (which they will, it is common sense) then it is all right, even if they fight under the 'resource-base-economism' banner.

Do you get me?
(although i hope that in a future scenario, the RBE-ist north america will ally themselves with the socialist-communist australia against the capitalist eurasia. :rolleyes:

[Poison]

Education is important since without we will all be brain dead and it is needed for people to understand more, however the US government depicts commies as evil,vile creatures. But if there was a more objective teaching of communism i am sure people could see that it is not that bad in fact there are some great ideas behind it.

Yes. Even non-objective teaching, actually: no one has a problem learning from a capitalist what communism is so how can they object to learning it from a communist? Granted, they will object anyways, but making the information quietly available will allow them to drop the loyal citizen act and learn if they want to. If they don't, they're a hopeless cause anyways.

See the second link in my signature, I'm working on a collaborate "knol" on Google Knols that will hopefully educate more people about communism.


A smokescreen thing that could be done is to alter your identity and watch the response.
(wait,let me explain)

For example, zeitgeist 2 says it goes for a resource based economy.The response to that i think was quite good.
Now,you shouldn't really care what the masses think about communism.Call it something else if you want..

I am not saying 'be dishonest!'..All i mean is that what communism stands for is objectively in the interests of a huge percentage of the US population, and if they can be made to understand that doing what communism proposes is good for them (which they will, it is common sense) then it is all right, even if they fight under the 'resource-base-economism' banner.

Do you get me?
(although i hope that in a future scenario, the RBE-ist north america will ally themselves with the socialist-communist australia against the capitalist eurasia. :rolleyes:

I see what you're saying. I know a communist who refers to himself as "libertarian socialist", another word for communist, which immediately throws people off and acts as a smokescreen.

However once you mention anything people identify with communism (proletariat, wage slavery, bourgeoisie, etc, etc) they'll instantly realize you for what you are, and distrust you for it. I prefer honesty and being shameless about my ideas, I find that works far better in gaining people's trust and ear.

[LeninBalls]

I'm still not sure how we'll "educate" these people. If it were possible per se, wouldn't American Marxists and/or Anarchists already have started?

[Poison]

I don't know, I don't think I see attempts at educating people outside of blogs or communist websites, which no average person is going to go to.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Now how would we do this in the US? Support for communism? Oh my. Every American I've met on and off (excl. the good folks at Revleft)line truly and wholeheartedly believe that communism=evil that hates peace and freedom.Communists in the US need to work on building networks of alternative information, and become a force committed to education and struggle. The left needs to come out into the open and proclaim themselves to the masses, otherwise there is no counter effect to that anti-communist sentiment that is conveyed in the majority of media, education, news, and other institutions. Committed revolutionaries should become involved in worker struggles of all kinds, and make it clear that communists oppose all oppression and injustice rather than the "communists hate freedom" crap that is a lie which has become "truth" as a result of repetitive conditioning. Once class antagonisms have been exposed to workers (but not exactly understood by them) it is our job to educate them of struggle between the workers and bosses, between socialism and capital. Like now for example, we in the US have all seen how fragile the market cycle of boom and bust is, and how it can drastically effect the economic conditions of working people; the inequality and injustice of the bourgeois rule through capital is sitting right in front of everyone's faces, but the left still isn't breaking the ice efficiently enough.

Even though we have seen an upsurge in class-counciosuness among various sections of workers, it hasn't solidified itself into a movement. Right now the left in the US is comprised of sporadic actions and loosely affiliated (if affiliated at all) organizations. It is this divisive status of the worker's movement in the united states that attributes to the dominance of anti-communist ideas. We are fighting a war of information, and our enemy gets millions of views each night and influences their thought quite effectively. If communists are going to make a name for themselves in the US, we have to be vigilant and dedicated to building the workers movement as a vehicle for class-counciosness among the masses entirely. This of course, is a hell of a lot easier said then done, and will take a bit of time and hard work to accomplish, but the goal isn't exactly far fetched or out of the question. In fact I think very optimistically about how the workers movement now has come out of the shadows of the dreadful defensive that was the 90's and early 00's. In the US socialists are now actually getting recognition, and attention. Even in the bourgeois media there have been a number of socialists on tv, (although i've only seen one or two thats actually said some interesting and worthy of support). But this comes at a price, we now have to deal with even more anti-communist slander, this time coming from the right wing, who actually think (and proceed to make others think) that we now have some type of socialist government. It's truly a battle of information and propaganda, and it makes the necessity of a vanguard organization to organize among the working class and other oppressed groups, in order perpetuate the class struggle towards the road to power for the proletariat, and for the building of socialism.

[Nils T.]

Hm. I think the starting point would be to stop obeying any doctrine, and especially leninism.
First because this doctrine gives a much too large importance to the obedience to it, notably in the vanguard theory; it tends to promote authoritarian structures that repel a more or less large population of potential revolutionnaries and that generates violent conflicts within the revolutionnary movements, and it encourages submission and self-sacrifice from the groups that accepts it, preventing them to live up to the communist principles in many situations.
Secondly because it promotes a defeatist position for the ML groups that work in liberal democracies of the "first world". It seems like an heirloom from the stalinists opposition to the revolutionnary movements in europe since the 30's - even when their parties were strong, like some were between 45 and 65. Anyway, it allows yehuda to say that sixty years (?) of "hard times" is just unfortunate, and out of their responsiblity, which, you'll admit, is not a very revolutionnary position. Waiting for the world to conform to the doctrine should not be an option for us mortal beings - but leninism teach sacrifice.
Thirdly because, in the logic of the second point, it drives the leninists to refuse and oppose the attempts to separate - as much as it is possible - from the capitalist system without a collective movement, usually under the accusation of "lifestylism". This point is important in the US, where apparently lifestyle is a very important notion in the political representations and practices. The different natures of the youth movements in europe and in the USA at the end of the 60's is probably the best demonstration of that. But on both sides of the ocean, a political movement that tells the workers to work and die and to learn how to make a revolution maybe in sixty years is contradictory and thus unattractive. The stalinist bureaucracies tried to resolve the contradiction by promoting work as a morally positive value, but in the end that only ended up in making a foothold for the right (that is inevitably more efficient than the left when it comes to associate morals and work, arbeit macht frei and all) in the working classes.

I mean, you can probably convince people than you stand for peace. Even stalin wanted peace. But how could you convince anyone that you stand for freedom ?

[Poison]

I couldn't agree more Nils. I'm sick of dogmatic communists, those who treat Lenin and Marx (and sometimes Stalin, ugh) as prophets and not human enough to ever be wrong. That mentality needs to stop.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I couldn't agree more Nils. I'm sick of dogmatic communists, those who treat Lenin and Marx (and sometimes Stalin, ugh) as prophets and not human enough to ever be wrong. That mentality needs to stop.
You are mistaken, those communists who support the ideas/actions of Marx, Lenin and Stalin do not see them as prophets. But simply as revolutionaries who have contributed greatly to revolutionary theory, who analyzed their respective countries and evaluated (through tireless trial and error) the most effective ways of achieving working class power. I would argue that the mentality of studying the history of success and defeat of the communist movement is essential to understanding the class struggle today. We do not support these individuals uncritically, and take their works as "holy scriptures" or something.

[Poison]

You are mistaken, those communists who support the ideas/actions of Marx, Lenin and Stalin do not see them as prophets. But simply as revolutionaries who have contributed greatly to revolutionary theory, who analyzed their respective countries and evaluated (through tireless trial and error) the most effective ways of achieving working class power. I would argue that the mentality of studying the history of success and defeat of the communist movement is essential to understanding the class struggle today. We do not support these individuals uncritically, and take their works as "holy scriptures" or something.

I think we may have confused ourselves. By no means are Marxists, Leninists, etc, all this way--but I have met a significant amount of Marxists, Leninists, etc, who treat their ideologies as religious dogma and the founders of these ideologies as prophets (obviously not literally but let me explain). Not all or even most, but a significant number of Marxists, etc, that I have met are extremely hostile to even the suggestion that the ideology espoused by Marx and others might not be perfect.

For example, some time ago I attempted to convince some Marxist acquaintances that we should take the time and search for any holes in Marxist theory, and attempt to correct it if we found any. You wouldn't believe the hostility!

And then you have the types who buy into personality cults...

Again, that is not to say even most Marxists, Leninists, etc, do this, but it is getting on my nerves.

That is what I thought you were attacking in your post, I think I was mistaken however, sorry. :[

[mykittyhasaboner]

I think we may have confused ourselves. By no means are Marxists, Leninists, etc, all this way--but I have met a significant amount of Marxists, Leninists, etc, who treat their ideologies as religious dogma and the founders of these ideologies as prophets (obviously not literally but let me explain). Not all or even most, but a significant number of Marxists, etc, that I have met are extremely hostile to even the suggestion that the ideology espoused by Marx and others might not be perfect.

For example, some time ago I attempted to convince some Marxist acquaintances that we should take the time and search for any holes in Marxist theory, and attempt to correct it if we found any. You wouldn't believe the hostility!

And then you have the types who buy into personality cults...

Again, that is not to say even most Marxists, Leninists, etc, do this, but it is getting on my nerves.

That is what I thought you were attacking in your post, I think I was mistaken however, sorry. :[
I wasn't necessarily attacking dogmatic ideologies among communists, although it does attribute to anti-communism if you uphold individuals as infallible beings. If we do not attempt to "revise" revolutionary strategy and theory for modern day conditions, then we aren't Marxists. Marxism is about analyzing the contradictions of capitalist society, and exploiting the weaknesses through revolutionary struggle. Surely the contradictions of today's US is far different from Russia in the early 20th century so it is not surprising that we have slight differences in tactics and goals. Most communist revolutions have taken place in a society where peasants were the majority, and workers were concentrated in a few urban areas. What is important about Marx's, Lenin's etc contribution to revolutionary theory is that they give communists today a useful historical perspective, which plays apart in learning about the conditions which give rise to revolutionary situations, as well as the mistakes and shortcomings which can lead to utter defeat or betrayal.

[Poison]

If we do not attempt to "revise" revolutionary strategy and theory for modern day conditions, then we aren't Marxists. Marxism is about analyzing the contradictions of capitalist society, and exploiting the weaknesses through revolutionary struggle.

That was all...epic win. It made my day. Thank you. :]

[ckaihatsu]

Now how would we do this in the US? Support for communism? Oh my. Every American I've met on and off (excl. the good folks at Revleft)line truly and wholeheartedly believe that communism=evil that hates peace and freedom.

How are we supposed to wash out these thoughts with such a small group of Marxists? I mean, sticking up posters and handing out Manifestos can only work for so long.



I think the biggest hurdle is getting past the reputation of Stalinism. We need to be clear that we are ANTI-ELITIST, and that means that we *don't* support any system that keeps a bureaucratic elite in power over the masses and the economy.

Yes, there are finer points when it comes to the economy and collectivization of the former U.S.S.R., but those are finer points. In regular conversations we should just note that *that* *wasn't* Marxism, and that the bureaucratic elite was *counter-*revolutionary -- they were *not* Marxists...(!)

I also point out the general era of the time, in which several advanced countries were, or had already been, industrializing -- they industrialized their militaries, too, and were ready to fight off the competition for markets and resources. So in this way I focus on the general dynamics of * nationalism * and * imperialism * that was as natural for the U.S.S.R. as it was for the U.S. or Britain or any other modern nation-state-based empires....





Socialism, by definition *has* to be complete, and *not* confined to the rulership of just one country or another -- in those cases it's just back to being *nationalism* and *imperialism*, like what Britain or the U.S. did with *their* empires....

Economic systems *don't* mix, so it's gotta be one or the other -- it would take a *worldwide* workers' revolution to displace capitalism *globally* and prevent the formation of elitist, nation-based counter-revolutionary bureaucracies, like what we saw / see in Communist Russia and China....


Chris




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --