Negating some 5 Decades of Propaganda

[Lyev]

I feel a huge barrier for socialism and the left in general is the views that were ingrained so deeply in the Cold War. In discussions about socialism I constantly come against the infuriating rationale of: "communism has been tried and tested- and it failed". The people that espouse such ill-informed tripe have indefinitely read no Marx or Engels at all. But, history classes and the mainstream media have seemingly told them all they need to know about the failures of the USSR and China. About the prosperity of capitalism and the freedom of speech and truly democratic elections that capitalism entails.

However, I think most leftists on RevLeft do not envisage life behind the "iron curtain" as something to aspire to and advocate. Something that people seem to miss is the total lack of encouragement for repression of political dissidents in any of Engels' or Marx' work. There is none. Search as hard you like for something, or anything, in any pre-20th c. Marxist literature that advocates the politics upheld by Stalin or todays "red" China and you won't find it.

As socialists (anarchists included), I think the vast majority of us want an end to exploitation and abolish the state, wage-system and all classes, including the bureaucracy that found a home in 1940s Russia. The definition of socialism, for me at least, is equal distribution of the means of production and abolition of the monetary system: a testament to the fact that humankind has never even come close to communism.

So I guess the point of this post is to discuss how we can unfetter ourselvers from some 5 decades of propaganda expounded in the Cold War; is wanting to redistribute the wealth really the crime that some people make it out to be? People are sometimes so blind when it comes ideologies. They're not "anti-communist" for any deeply thought-out reason, but simply because they've been told "commies are evil". So yeah, discuss :).

By the way, I think this is right forum for this, please move it if I've got it wrong.

[Pogue]

I don't think when taking into account say, whether a strong union or a strike is good for them, the average working class person will take into consideration that propoganda, and so its largely irrelevant. if your defining your politics in terms of the words socialism ro communism to such an extent that you can't detach them from this propoganda then your doing it wrong.

[redarmyleader]

I see Expropriate that you asked somewhat of the same question in the other thread. I am sorry no one gave you a reply, especially me. I only realized it after I re-read the post for about the third time (I an anal retentive). I am about to tell a grandpa story ("back in my day") but I think you will find it helpful.

I remember in 10th grade reading the Communist Manifesto and thinking "OMG, this shit is dead on!" I got the book from an Econ teacher because we had to do a report for the class about Econ and I thought that the half of page description that the book gave of Marx was interesting, because it made it known that he was quite undesirable to the people in power in his day expressed in the fact that he could not find a single place to work. This Econ teacher was probably some leftist in his day, but he was way pessimistic by the time he gave me the book.

I wrote the paper, saying that I thought there were a lot of good points in the book, but that I thought it was obvious that communism and socialism did not work, and argued for a synthesis of the three systems (how many times have you heard this idea on this site?). Incidentally around the same time I got involved with politics, and organized a bus load of my fellow students to attend the first national civil rights conference of the group BAMN (still a member) and remember that conference being loaded with all types of socialist and communist. I kind of thought they were crazy, but was excited because I had decided that I wanted to be an activist.

Here is the point to the story: as I became more active I found the ideas of Marxism more and more relevant because they were giving me answers to questions that I had all my life, which all came to the surface when I began organizing to express my power and that of young minority people everywhere who wanted their lives to be of value and worth, and an end to second-class treatment. And when I was part of my first major rally of 2,000 people to defend affirmative action that I helped organize I can say right then and there I understood what power was, and immediately after that experience became an atheist (was deeply religious growing up) and a Trotskyist.

I know that there are people who will have to have the same experience as I did to get past all of the propaganda and bull being told about Marxism. I had an organization - the Revolutionary Workers League (RWL,U.S.), who plays an active leadership in BAMN - that explained to me what Marxism was at the same time that I was politically active and developed the need for it. We get people where they are, mobilize them as they are while explaining to them what it takes to win and we will dis-bunk the bullshit about Marxism. I know we can get people to move forward!

[Lyev]

I don't think when taking into account say, whether a strong union or a strike is good for them, the average working class person will take into consideration that propoganda, and so its largely irrelevant. if your defining your politics in terms of the words socialism ro communism to such an extent that you can't detach them from this propoganda then your doing it wrong.

I think you perhaps missed the point I was trying to get across. I don't think workers are going to take capitalist propaganda into account when on strike. My point was; trying to get the "real" communism across and posit it as a feasible alternative; specifically to the people that think the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the fall of "communism". As a result of the fall of "communism" there's lot of so-called "intellectuals" that like to spout forth crap like "Marxism is dead". Do you get where I'm coming from? I think my point is that a lot of people, worker or not, do not know the true definition of communism or are incredibly ill-informed, because what information they do get is almost entirely from capitalist sources, like history books, Cold War propaganda and the mass media. The trouble is when something is labelled socialist and therefore evil; for example Obama's health care reform. Most rational people know that Obama is in no way, shape or form a socialist. However, it becomes an easy insult for rightists to label anyone not a rightist a lefty, and therefore because they're a lefty they're a communist and therefore evil. I think the problem arises when workers are striking or part of a union, like you mentioned, and then they're demonised for being "socialists". I hope you understand my point.

[Drace]

5 Decades?
As early as 1894, the press reported the Pullman strikes led by Eugune V. Debs as "MOBS TAKE OVER CITY", "CHICAGO FACES FAMINE". I have a blog on this.

Soon after the creation of the Soviet Union, they were being called "human scums".

In 1919, when an industrial strike of 2 million took place, the strikers were already being calling evil communists. The news was titled "SEEKING BLOODY REVOLUTION, ""PLAN BLOODY REVOLUTION"
"WANT WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT OVERTURNED"
"RED PERIL HERE."

The media has always had ruling class interests.

[Pogue]

I think you perhaps missed the point I was trying to get across. I don't think workers are going to take capitalist propaganda into account when on strike. My point was; trying to get the "real" communism across and posit it as a feasible alternative; specifically to the people that think the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the fall of "communism". As a result of the fall of "communism" there's lot of so-called "intellectuals" that like to spout forth crap like "Marxism is dead". Do you get where I'm coming from? I think my point is that a lot of people, worker or not, do not know the true definition of communism or are incredibly ill-informed, because what information they do get is almost entirely from capitalist sources, like history books, Cold War propaganda and the mass media. The trouble is when something is labelled socialist and therefore evil; for example Obama's health care reform. Most rational people know that Obama is in no way, shape or form a socialist. However, it becomes an easy insult for rightists to label anyone not a rightist a lefty, and therefore because they're a lefty they're a communist and therefore evil. I think the problem arises when workers are striking or part of a union, like you mentioned, and then they're demonised for being "socialists". I hope you understand my point.

Just don't call it socialism or communism then. You don't need to.

[Lyev]

Just don't call it socialism or communism then. You don't need to.
What else is there to call it? What specifically do you mean by "it"?

[Pogue]

What else is there to call it? What specifically do you mean by "it"?

Well your not trying to go up to someone and sell them socialism. Thats not how our politics is logically going to take place. Argue within unions for democratic structures, for workers control, argue on individual things like the war from a class perspective, but don't say 'I'm a socialist and I'm going to defend socialism', it weakens your position, theres no need to say that.

[bailey_187]

Because you have no real lasting examples to point to. You can have your elaborate theories about State-Capitalism and all that, but basically what your saying is "All of the social revolutions in the 20th century (and there was many) turned to "state-capitalism". No benefits were brought it all turned to totalitarian mess. BUT! this time it will be ok. THIS TIME we will have REAL SOCIALISM". "yeah, ok mate"

Anarchists are in a better position because they can say we want to abolish the state.

So what if Marx and Engels did not say anything about suppressing dissent? WTF does that prove?

[Lyev]

5 Decades?
As early as 1894, the press reported the Pullman strikes led by Eugune V. Debs as "MOBS TAKE OVER CITY", "CHICAGO FACES FAMINE". I have a blog on this.

Soon after the creation of the Soviet Union, they were being called "human scums".

In 1919, when an industrial strike of 2 million took place, the strikers were already being calling evil communists. The news was titled "SEEKING BLOODY REVOLUTION, ""PLAN BLOODY REVOLUTION"
"WANT WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT OVERTURNED"
"RED PERIL HERE."

The media has always had ruling class interests.
Well I was referring to the Cold War, although to be honest, the mass media doesn't have a proper choice but to side with the ruling class. In that, anyone saying anything other than "RED PERIL HERE" is probably going to get labelled a pinko or a communist sympathizer, because the general consensus in the mainstream is that communists are evil. It's a consensus we need to change. I see where you're coming from though.


Well your not trying to go up to someone and sell them socialism. Thats not how our politics is logically going to take place. Argue within unions for democratic structures, for workers control, argue on individual things like the war from a class perspective, but don't say 'I'm a socialist and I'm going to defend socialism', it weakens your position, theres no need to say that.
Oh right, of course. I never really had the thought of "selling" socialism. I don't mean to come across as a some sort of red missionary that converts unbelievers; that's not how we should do things, it's just dogmatic. Do I come across like that in the post? To be honest, I didn't draft it out or anything and I was quite rushed writing it so maybe the wording is a bit funny in places.


Because you have no real lasting examples to point to. You can have your elaborate theories about State-Capitalism and all that, but basically what your saying is "All of the social revolutions in the 20th century (and there was many) turned to "state-capitalism". No benefits were brought it all turned to totalitarian mess. BUT! this time it will be ok. THIS TIME we will have REAL SOCIALISM". "yeah, ok mate"
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What I'm saying is that the things China and Russia ended up with aren't necessarily what most of us aspire to, would you agree? Whilst most of concur that the USSR at the fall of the Berlin Wall were not at all what Marx prescribed, there are a lot of people who think that the regimes that collapsed in 1989 were truly "communist". Same with present-day China; there are many people who think they're communist. Do you see my point?


So what if Marx and Engels did not say anything about suppressing dissent? WTF does that prove?
What I mean by this is that Stalin and Mao loved to suppress dissent and a lot of ignorant people are anti-communist because of the repressive nature of Maoist and Stalinist regimes. However, my point is that Marx and Engels wrote nothing about suppressing dissent; therefore suppressing dissent is nothing at all to do with communism. Arguably, it's nothing to do with the ideology itself that leads to oppressive measures under Stalin or Mao.

[bailey_187]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here..

That dont pander to the propaganda by saying your socialism is different, disprove it. Dont be a coward and not defend the Socialist states, defend our history.


What I'm saying is that the things China and Russia ended up with aren't necessarily what most of us aspire to, would you agree?..
In the industrialised world, no not really because much of these countrys were about about industrialisation and farming. The GDR is more to what we aspire to although not completly. Aspects of China's cultural revolution are what we aspire to too. Tell people about the success of these states. Tell them why thhey are no longer here. Tell them why the citizens of what used to be the USSR look back to Soviet days with nostalgia, why massive queues form to visit Mao's mausoleum in China, why Mao is more popular among farmers in China than the CCP.



Whilst most of concur that the USSR at the fall of the Berlin Wall were not at all what Marx prescribed?
Way to treat Marx like some sort of prophet...



there are a lot of people who think that the regimes that collapsed in 1989 were truly "communist". Same with present-day China; there are many people who think they're communist. Do you see my point?
.

Look, you are stuggling to defend Socialism in theory because you refuse to defend it in practice. You have no actual examples to point to. You can tell people your elaborate theories as to why the USSR went the way it "was", no one cares. You can tell people all you like about how this time it will be different, most people wont beleive you.
So say your mate cant find a job. You tell him that its due to Capitalism and in Socialism there will be no unemployment. If he was paying attention in school he will say "but communism didnt work" so you go into your Tony Cliff rubbish about how the USSR was actually Capitalist but this time, this time we will get REAL SOCIALISM.



What I mean by this is that Stalin and Mao loved to suppress dissent and a lot of ignorant people are anti-communist because of the repressive nature of Maoist and Stalinist regimes. However, my point is that Marx and Engels wrote nothing about suppressing dissent; therefore suppressing dissent is nothing at all to do with communism. Arguably, it's nothing to do with the ideology itself that leads to oppressive measures under Stalin or Mao.
Strange peice of logic. So because Marx didnt say it was ok, its nothing to do with Communism. You may aswell pray to him aswell mate.
Why was there repression in China and the USSR? Because Mao and Stalin were just bad people?

[Lyev]

That dont pander to the propaganda by saying your socialism is different, disprove it. Dont be a coward and not defend the Socialist states, defend our history.
It's not that I don't want to defend "our history"; when the it's the appropriate time, of course I'll defend your history, and I have no problem in picking out the positive aspects in past Socialist states. I haven't really got a coherent view of "my" socialism, as opposed to Stalinism or Maoism though. I'm not pandering to any propaganda; I just think citing certain aspects of the Soviet regime (ie. repression, gulags, purges, bureaucratic, exclusion of the Left Opposition etc.) There's also a thermidor effect to be observed in Russia, after Lenin's death. However, one of the main point that I see is that Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Lenin etc. all died a long time ago. Things have changed since the 1930s and maybe we need to turn our heads to the future and stop referring to dead guys so much.


In the industrialised world, no not really because much of these countrys were about about industrialisation and farming. The GDR is more to what we aspire to although not completly. Aspects of China's cultural revolution are what we aspire to too. Tell people about the success of these states. Tell them why thhey are no longer here. Tell them why the citizens of what used to be the USSR look back to Soviet days with nostalgia, why massive queues form to visit Mao's mausoleum in China, why Mao is more popular among farmers in China than the CCP.
Like I said previously, there's plently of good points to be found in the USSR and Maoist China. The problem I see with being nostalgic about previous "communist" regimes is that, under the present conditions, there's a lot of people who won't be convinced by citations to the Mao and Stalin; the left needs to move forward and stop speaking the past tense, and about what said leader did or didn't.


Way to treat Marx like some sort of prophet...
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across like that.


Look, you are stuggling to defend Socialism in theory because you refuse to defend it in practice. You have no actual examples to point to. You can tell people your elaborate theories as to why the USSR went the way it "was", no one cares. You can tell people all you like about how this time it will be different, most people wont beleive you.
So say your mate cant find a job. You tell him that its due to Capitalism and in Socialism there will be no unemployment. If he was paying attention in school he will say "but communism didnt work" so you go into your Tony Cliff rubbish about how the USSR was actually Capitalist but this time, this time we will get REAL SOCIALISM.
So because "no one cares" I shouldn't try to convince them? Surely the whole point of this forum is make people care about, and become passionate about the injustices of capitalism. Like I say, the USSR or Mao's China weren't, of course, 100% good or 100% bad. There's good and bad to be found in every past regime. You said " You can tell people all you like about how this time it will be different, most people wont beleive [sic] you. "So are you saying because most people straight away won't understand some of the concepts we put forth that we shouldn't try and explain them? And, instead, nonchanlantly shrug and say "well look back at what Cuba and Albania had; that's we want". Furthermore, I don't believe there to be a pre-packaged formula for Marxism. Each counrty's geographical, social, ecomonic and political situations vary so we can't point to past regimes and say: "let's do what they did". Instead of referring to Stalin or Mao to try and get people interested in leftist politics talk to them about things that actually matter to them like job security, housing, health-care, community, benefits, poverty, homelessness, greedy politicians, exploitation, foreign wars, strikes, immigration, financial worries and better working conditions.


Strange peice of logic. So because Marx didnt say it was ok, its nothing to do with Communism. You may aswell pray to him aswell mate.
Why was there repression in China and the USSR? Because Mao and Stalin were just bad people?
Well to be honest, I don't fully know why there was repression under those regimes, and if it was wholly necessary. And, no, my logic was that people conflate the bad in Stalinism (like repression) with the ideology of communism as a whole. Yet, the founders of communism, Marx and Engels, wrote nothing about repressing dissidents. Ie. it's not necessarily a fault of communism is itself that leads to a negation of individual freedoms.

[Spawn of Stalin]

The thing is, Marx and Engels didn't found Communism, they couldn't predict with absolute certainty what would and would not be necessary in the struggle for socialism, they weren't really anything special, they were just a couple of normal people who happened to have their eyes open wide enough to know what was going on and how we might fix the world. It's not up to Marx to decide whether or not the Soviet Union was a good place to live or not, it's not up to him to decide whether or not it was socialist, the only people who are qualified to do so are people who saw it with their own two eyes, because it is almost impossible to find an unbiased account based on research as opposed to actually experiencing life in a socialist state. Personally I think that defending past states is one of the most important things a socialist can do, and I don't think that telling people it wasn't socialism is an effective or scientific method of arguing in favour of socialism. If I was a liberal or whatever, and someone was telling me that they want "real socialism" as opposed to the Soviet model which is of course bound to fail, I would simply turn around and ask why it hasn't happened yet? If your brand of socialism is so much better than those tried out in the past, then why does nobody seem to want it? Where is your revolution? "Libertarian" forms of socialism have been around a lot longer than Marxism-Leninism, and yet Marxism-Leninism is the only one, with a handful of exceptions, which has actually ever achieved anything, so naturally liberals, conservatives, etc. are always going to see it as the definitive form of Communism, and rightly so. For this reason countering Cold War myths and lies with speculation is pointless, better to counter them with hard facts in my opinion. Even if you don't think that Marxism-Leninism is a good thing, you can still do it, we shouldn't be afraid to explode these rumours, if you can't then how are you going to defend Trotskyism or anarchism or anything else when it "fails" as Marxism-Leninism did? You just end up sounding like a dreamer and a mental case when you start talking about how Russia never had true socialism, and how our socialism will be so much better because the workers will have control over the means of production and there will be no dictators and no prisons and we will all live in tree-houses happily ever after. I think the main problem with the left is it needs to get real.

[FSL]

"But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words."


"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."


The good thing with sensitive, democratic pacifists is that supressing their dissent will be the easiest task of all.
If only the whole of the revolution was that easy.

There have not been 5 decades of propaganda. At least 15 or 16 actually. Before Stalin, people used to be taught that communists would kidnap their kids and give them to the state or that their wives would be "accessible" to anyone by government orders.
You fight this propaganda simply by existing and arguing on your opinions. Especially in countries like US where communism is a curse word, just being there without holding some dead man's heart in your hands, will do wonders in eliminating some of the prejudice. Point out the errors in today's system and explain what you think would be better. Nothing will change overnight of course. The dominating ideas of each time are the ideas of the dominant class.

[bailey_187]

Stalin will alwyas come up. I was watching an interview with Chavista author on RT news yesterday and the interviewer said about "is he looking for a soviet socialism" implying that it failed and "Stalin wanted to make people happy too like Chavez is doing..."
The Women was a liberal and therefore did not know what to say.

I mean, if Stalin comes up even just when a liberal defends Chavez...

[Kayser_Soso]

However, I think most leftists on RevLeft do not envisage life behind the "iron curtain" as something to aspire to and advocate. Something that people seem to miss is the total lack of encouragement for repression of political dissidents in any of Engels' or Marx' work. There is none. Search as hard you like for something, or anything, in any pre-20th c. that advocates the politisl upheld by Stalin or todays "red" China and you won't find it.


You won't find such encouragement, beyond the advocacy for a dictatorship of a proletariat, because Marx and Engels deliberately avoided pontificating too much on what a socialist society would look like, lest they be akin to the many utopian socialists of the day. They could not have predicted exactly how reaction to socialist revolution would be.

[Lyev]

Firstly, I've never had any notion of "my" socialism as you guys keep on mentioning. I think mostly everyone will agree, the communist left is highly fragmented and disorganized in most of the west. For the left to conceivably move forward we need to reconcile the differences between all our sects. I don't believe it to be conducive to productivity if we spend time arguing about how we think we should get to a fairer society; we should spend time discussing how we can synthesize all of our sects and therefore actually get down to business.

The point of this thread, I suppose, was not necessarily denouncing the whole of socialist history, but to denounce the idea of communism that seems to be commonly held. To a lot of people the hammer and sickle is no worse than the nazi swastika. A lot of people think communism = "totalatarianism". I think you'll agree, people are quite ignorant. Any sort of vaguely left-leaning movement that actually got some national publicity is bound to demonized. Well, in fact, I think they already are. For example, the recent strikes of the BA in the UK were given next no support in the mainstream media. Imagine the force that the strikes would have held if they had been backed by all the main newspapers.

Like one or two people said earlier in the thread, I don't we're exactly "selling" socialism. We're not missionaries or anything. If we go about educating people using terms "labour theory of value" and dictatorship of the proletariat" and citing Marx and Engels then we'll probably alienate people. It would be much better to talk to people about things they care about like "job security, housing, health-care, community, benefits, poverty, homelessness, greedy politicians, exploitation, foreign wars, strikes, immigration, financial worries and better working conditions." Then starting giving things the name of socialism and communism and, surprise, surprise, the theorys that actual Marxists expound are nothing at all alike the popular ideas of communism. The ideas that are spoon-fed by the mass media and Cold War propaganda, or in fact any anti-communist propaganda before that.

[Kayser_Soso]

Pretty much any concept Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, etc. wrote about can be explained in a simple matter, and related to some every-day scenario.

[Lyev]

Pretty much any concept Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, etc. wrote about can be explained in a simple matter, and related to some every-day scenario.

I agree; but talking about these straight away, to people who are totally unfamiliar with the writing and theorys of "Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha etc.", is going to turn folks away. I know plenty of people who are going to be disheartened by some seemingly quite complicated concepts. You could call them intellectually lazy. Anyway, I think it's better to get people interested in general politics first and then label things with Marxian terms. I know one guy who has given up any further reading on Marxist theory because he says the Communist Manifesto was complicated. Another of my friends I lent the Manifesto and he gave up after about 6 pages. Perhaps looking back on it, it wasn't really the best way to introduce to Marxist ideas, but I did lend him Principles of Communism by Engels as well. But do you see my point?

[Kayser_Soso]

I agree; but talking about these straight away, to people who are totally unfamiliar with the writing and theorys of "Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha etc.", is going to turn folks away. I know plenty of people who are going to be disheartened by some seemingly quite complicated concepts. You could call them intellectually lazy. Anyway, I think it's better to get people interested in general politics first and then label things with Marxian terms. I know one guy who has given up any further reading on Marxist theory because he says the Communist Manifesto was complicated. Another of my friends I lent the Manifesto and he gave up after about 6 pages. Perhaps looking back on it, it wasn't really the best way to introduce to Marxist ideas, but I did lend him Principles of Communism by Engels as well. But do you see my point?


Of course, but this is a tactical matter. In fact I wrote an article recently that covers a similar theme, but unfortunately that was written as an internal document for a party. But basically it is a matter of learning when to "turn off", which means stop talking about politics in general. You have to take a flexible approach, and always relate things to the present, and that person's situation.

[redarmyleader]

I agree; but talking about these straight away, to people who are totally unfamiliar with the writing and theorys of "Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha etc.", is going to turn folks away. I know plenty of people who are going to be disheartened by some seemingly quite complicated concepts. You could call them intellectually lazy. Anyway, I think it's better to get people interested in general politics first and then label things with Marxian terms. I know one guy who has given up any further reading on Marxist theory because he says the Communist Manifesto was complicated. Another of my friends I lent the Manifesto and he gave up after about 6 pages. Perhaps looking back on it, it wasn't really the best way to introduce to Marxist ideas, but I did lend him Principles of Communism by Engels as well. But do you see my point?

Not to generalize, but anyone who says that they are giving up on Marxism because they found the Communist Manifesto to be too hard is not all that serious. I know a number of activist who found the Communist Manifesto hard, but did not give up on Marxism because of it. In fact, they demanded that I do a political study with them so that they can better grasp the text. The Manifesto is not easy, but neither is building a mass social movement. Someone who is not interested in putting effort in one, is not going to for the other, generally speaking.

I think they are no shortcuts in what we need to do to build consciousness. Saying that, it is possible to do Marxist education on a mass basis. But this education would be among a specific group of people, people who are asking questions and looking for answers, people who are making demands on capitalism to be more fair, equal, and just; things capitalism cannot obviously do. Some people are not interested in Marxism not because of capitalist propaganda (along with propaganda from pseudo-leftist [this includes Stalinist, Maoist, Anarchist, and supposedly Trotskyist groups] who do more to confuse and distort than clarify) but because they have made the choose that they don't want to recognize the class struggle, or have chosen careerism. And the only thing that will convince these folks to be Marxist is increase in the class struggle. But this is true for a great deal of people.

When talking to people about Marxism you have to think concretely about the people that you are talking too and think about what their concerns and questions are? I bring up Marxism to activist fighting around racism by pointing out, using the Marxist method, how racism is a social construction, and is not something that has existed forever. I do that to convey the message that we are fighting a battle we can actually win. That makes Marxism both relevant and useful to activist. Of course, every person is different. Some people show more consciousness than others. For the more conscious I focus on them and try to express the necessity of the Marxist method in both understanding the world, and changing it. Of course, me having experience in the class struggle and belonging to an organization and deciding on my political perspective (Trotskyism) makes it a whole lot easier for me to do this.

[Lyev]

Not to generalize, but anyone who says that they are giving up on Marxism because they found the Communist Manifesto to be too hard is not all that serious. I know a number of activist who found the Communist Manifesto hard, but did not give up on Marxism because of it. In fact, they demanded that I do a political study with them so that they can better grasp the text. The Manifesto is not easy, but neither is building a mass social movement. Someone who is not interested in putting effort in one, is not going to for the other, generally speaking.

I think they are no shortcuts in what we need to do to build consciousness. Saying that, it is possible to do Marxist education on a mass basis. But this education would be among a specific group of people, people who are asking questions and looking for answers, people who are making demands on capitalism to be more fair, equal, and just; things capitalism cannot obviously do. Some people are not interested in Marxism not because of capitalist propaganda (along with propaganda from pseudo-leftist [this includes Stalinist, Maoist, Anarchist, and supposedly Trotskyist groups] who do more to confuse and distort than clarify) but because they have made the choose that they don't want to recognize the class struggle, or have chosen careerism. And the only thing that will convince these folks to be Marxist is increase in the class struggle. But this is true for a great deal of people.

When talking to people about Marxism you have to think concretely about the people that you are talking too and think about what their concerns and questions are? I bring up Marxism to activist fighting around racism by pointing out, using the Marxist method, how racism is a social construction, and is not something that has existed forever. I do that to convey the message that we are fighting a battle we can actually win. That makes Marxism both relevant and useful to activist. Of course, every person is different. Some people show more consciousness than others. For the more conscious I focus on them and try to express the necessity of the Marxist method in both understanding the world, and changing it. Of course, me having experience in the class struggle and belonging to an organization and deciding on my political perspective (Trotskyism) makes it a whole lot easier for me to do this.

I agree with your words on the most part, but not so much the first paragraph. I think some people are quite lazy, if you want to call them that, when it comes down to politics and teaching themselves about issues that matter. I believe it is our duty as lefties to educate people where they otherwise couldn't be bothered. We should be trying to get people interested even if you think they're "not all that serious" perhaps doing "political studies" like you mentioned. What I mean is, instead of perhaps shunning someone away because you don't think they're not very serious, we should try getting them serious, and trying to make them care about issues we're passionate about. Then again, maybe that was the point you were trying to get across :)

[redarmyleader]

My point was that not everyone is going to have what it takes to be a revolutionary. People are going to sort themselves out. If you want to approach your friend there is a line that has to be walked, and this is actually true for everyone. On the one hand, you want to approach the people as they are, but you don't want to cater to their negative attributes, but challenge them to bring their best foot forward. I would be blunt with your friend and just say to him if he wants to learn about society, he has to fight with himself and learn Marxism; that is what I say to people all the time.

And I agree that we have to struggle with people to take themselves seriously. I am just pointing out not everyone is going to pan out. When you are looking to build organization - and you have to be a part of one to be effective! - and your looking for people to step up and fight, you have to focus on the people you are ready to act right now. We get those people and we will create the possibility of convincing others to be serious.

[Victory Of The People!]

Well your not trying to go up to someone and sell them socialism. Thats not how our politics is logically going to take place. Argue within unions for democratic structures, for workers control, argue on individual things like the war from a class perspective, but don't say 'I'm a socialist and I'm going to defend socialism', it weakens your position, theres no need to say that.

I disagree. Anyone who advocate communist politics in an indirect way runs the risk of being seen as an "undercover agent of communism" just be open and honest. Don't be afraid to have a difficult discussion where you have to explain what communism really is. When enough people know the truth about communism the powers-that-be can never use the word against us. Lets make "COMMUNISM" a word people like to hear again. If we are up-front about our views people will see we have the guts to say what needs to be said, even if its unpopular at the moment. Remember, during the reign of the absolute monarchs "democracy" was a dirty word too.

That being said, all attempts should be made to associate communism with ideas like democracy and freedom. This is the truth that capitalists have been trying to suppress. If people knew what real communism was, capitalism wouldn't stand a chance.