What things can be done to forward the establishment of communism?

[elgranlocomotor]

I feel that a lot of people, myself included, believe in communism and are against the oppressions that capitalism inevitably creates. However, all we do is learn and talk about it; we aren't really changing things, even though we are more than eager to.

Besides starting an armed revolution, are there other ways I can do something to actively push forward the cause and help establish communism?

[Pogue]

I feel that a lot of people, myself included, believe in communism and are against the oppressions that capitalism inevitably creates. However, all we do is learn and talk about it; we aren't really changing things, even though we are more than eager to.

Besides starting an armed revolution, are there other ways I can do something to actively push forward the cause and help establish communism?

Join a party, union, etc.

[Tatarin]

However, all we do is learn and talk about it; we aren't really changing things, even though we are more than eager to.

Well, it is important to talk about it and to learn about it. After all, we must know what kind of society we want after this one.

But another important part is also to teach other people, especially now during this crisis. To show people that this isn't something that just happens, like a comet crashing into a planet or something, but that this is a political system that can, just as feudalism, be crushed and replaced with a better one.

[Rjevan]

As said before, try to teach others, join a party, go demonstrating and learn more about communism so that you are firm with the different branches and are able to counter lame "communism is evil"-statements.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes, as others have said, try to get organized in any way you can. Whether it's a union, a party, whatever, they're beneficial in some way. Also, educating yourself is important too.

[griffjam]

Join a party, union, etc.
you must be 'shrooming.

Simply "joining" an organization is worthless. And while discussion and theorizing with friends can be fun and important without putting it into practice can be counterrevolutionary.
And passing out leaflets or electioneering are not effective means to achieve social change. Building community and establishing radical spaces are very effective as long as the alternatives they create are not confined to those spaces or only offered to people who are already radical or sympathetic to radical thought.

Remember: Direct action gets the goods.

[Bitter Ashes]

You know... I was suprised a thread like this wasnt stickied

[Coggeh]

you must be 'shrooming.

Simply "joining" an organization is worthless. And while discussion and theorizing with friends can be fun and important without putting it into practice can be counterrevolutionary.
And passing out leaflets or electioneering are not effective means to achieve social change. Building community and establishing radical spaces are very effective as long as the alternatives they create are not confined to those spaces or only offered to people who are already radical or sympathetic to radical thought.

Remember: Direct action gets the goods.
how can joining a revolutionary organisation be counter revolutionary ?

Revolutionary parties are not used to win elections but as a mechanism to bring about change, by organising with the working class and giving them a political alternative , working in the unions and in the communities . Its a means of this .

The party is one of the best means of organising workers to take action be it in campaigns against the cutbacks in health/education or against their bosses by working in unions .

What do you mean by "radical spaces " ?

[Das war einmal]

you must be 'shrooming.

Simply "joining" an organization is worthless. And while discussion and theorizing with friends can be fun and important without putting it into practice can be counterrevolutionary.
And passing out leaflets or electioneering are not effective means to achieve social change. Building community and establishing radical spaces are very effective as long as the alternatives they create are not confined to those spaces or only offered to people who are already radical or sympathetic to radical thought.

Remember: Direct action gets the goods.


And what would these 'direct actions' of yours be?

[griffjam]

And what would these 'direct actions' of yours be?

Nice try G-man.

Direct action, to use Rudolf Rocker's words, is "every method of immediate warfare by the workers [or other sections of society] against their economic and political oppressors. Among these the outstanding are: the strike, in all its graduations from the simple wage struggle to the general strike; the boycott; sabotage in all its countless forms; [occupations and sit-down strikes;] anti-militarist propaganda, and in particularly critical cases,... armed resistance of the people for the protection of life and liberty." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 66]
Not that anarchists think that direct action is only applicable within the workplace. Far from it. Direct action must occur everywhere! So, in non-workplace situations, direct action includes rent strikes, consumer boycotts, occupations (which, of course, can include sit-in strikes by workers), eco-tage, individual and collective non-payment of taxes, blocking roads and holding up construction work of an anti-social nature and so forth. Also direct action, in a workplace setting, includes strikes and protests on social issues, not directly related to working conditions and pay. Such activity aims to ensure the "protection of the community against the most pernicious outgrowths of the present system. The social strike seeks to force upon the employers a responsibility to the public. Primarily it has in view the protection of the customers, of whom the workers themselves [and their families] constitute the great majority" [Op. Cit., p. 72]
Basically, direct action means that instead of getting someone else to act for you (e.g. a politician) you act for yourself. Its essential feature is an organized protest by ordinary people to make a change by their own efforts.


how can joining a revolutionary organisation be counter revolutionary ?
It can in many ways. But what I called counterrevolutionary was theory that was never put into action. Also, as has happened many times throughout history people's energy and passion can be funneled into supporting candidates instead of using it to effect change. Given the need for radical systemic changes as soon as possible due to the exponentially accelerating crises of modern civilization, working for gradual reforms within the electoral system must be seen as a potentially deadly tactical error. In addition, it can never get to the root causes of our problems. Anarchists reject the idea that our problems can be solved by the very institutions that cause them in the first place! What happens in our communities, workplaces and environment is too important to be left to politicians - or the ruling elite who control governments.



Revolutionary parties are not used to win elections but as a mechanism to bring about change, by organising with the working class and giving them a political alternative , working in the unions and in the communities . Its a means of this .

The party is one of the best means of organising workers to take action be it in campaigns against the cutbacks in health/education or against their bosses by working in unions .
few would automatically agree with anarchist abstentionist arguments. Instead, they argue that we should combine direct action with electioneering. In that way (it is argued) we can overcome the limitations of electioneering by invigorating the movement with self-activity. In addition, it is argued, the state is too powerful to leave in the hands of the enemies of the working class. A radical politician will refuse to give the orders to crush social protest that a right-wing, pro-capitalist one would. This reformist idea met a nasty end in the 1900s (when, we may note, social democracy was still considered revolutionary). In 1899, the Socialist Alexandre Millerand joined the cabinet of the French Government. However, nothing changed:
"thousands of strikers. . . appealed to Millerand for help, confident that, with him in the government, the state would be on their side. Much of this confidence was dispelled within a few years. The government did little more for workers than its predecessors had done; soldiers and police were still sent in to repress serious strikes." [Peter N. Stearns, Revolutionary Syndicalism and French Labour, p. 16] In 1910, the Socialist Prime Minister Briand used scabs and soldiers to again break a general strike on the French railways. And these events occurred during the period when social democratic and socialist parties were self-proclaimed revolutionaries and arguing against anarcho-syndicalism by using the argument that working people needed their own representatives in office to stop troops being used against them during strikes!
Looking at the British Labour government of 1945 to 1951 we find the same actions. What is often considered the most left-wing Labour government ever used troops to break strikes in every year it was in office, starting with a dockers' strike days after it became the new government. And again in the 1970s Labour used troops to break strikes. Indeed, the Labour Party has used troops to break strikes more often than the right-wing Conservative Party.
In other words, while these are important arguments in favour of radicals using elections, they ultimately fail to take into account the nature of the state and the corrupting effect it has on radicals. If history is anything to go by, the net effect of radicals using elections is that by the time they are elected to office the radicals will happily do what they claimed the right-wing would have done. Many blame the individuals elected to office for these betrayals, arguing that we need to elect better politicians, select better leaders. For anarchists nothing could be more wrong as its the means used, not the individuals involved, which is the problem.
At its most basic, electioneering results in the party using it becoming more moderate and reformist - indeed the party often becomes the victim of its own success. In order to gain votes, the party must appear "moderate" and "practical" and that means working within the system. This has meant that (to use Rudolf Rocker words):
"Participation in the politics of the bourgeois States has not brought the labour movement a hair's-breadth nearer to Socialism, but thanks to this method, Socialism has almost been completely crushed and condemned to insignificance. . . Participation in parliamentary politics has affected the Socialist Labour movement like an insidious poison. It destroyed the belief in the necessity of constructive Socialist activity, and, worse of all, the impulse to self-help, by inoculating people with the ruinous delusion that salvation always comes from above." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 49]

Also, look at the massive numbers of socialist parties and platforms that are all in opposition to each other. It's easy to see why that happens. As an anarchist I have no problem working with others, anarchist or not, whose ideas may differ from mine, on a project, but if those same people held the objective to achieve a position of power over me I would do my best to prevent that from happening, and unfortunately, likely compromise our project.


What do you mean by "radical spaces " ?

Political spaces located outside the state where disenfranchised groups generate power. Within limited spaces, radical subcultures enable the total transformation of life, offering a working model of an alternate world, but they tend to contain transformation to those spaces.