Making Communism More Appealing

[onlineidiot94]

I love the principles of communism, I'll be honest, but the term "communism" is a scary word to many, mainly because they get phobic and view it as oppression. While I myself am no fan of Stalinism, but I'm still a communist (preferably Luxembourgism/Council Communism but that's not the point). I personally prefer a peaceful approach to a revolt, but the capitalists will continue brainwashing those who they can, calling us "Commies" and "Terrorists" but the question stands: How will we be able to make Communist philosophies be convincing?

[cenv]

Well, a lot of people attribute the marginalization of communism purely to bourgeois "propaganda." While bourgeois ideology plays a huge role in impeding consciousness, I don't think we've challenged it as effectively as we could. We release papers with blistering attacks on imperialism and pamphlets full of Marxist jargon, we outline our political programs and economic critiques -- but in the end, most of the stuff we produce is preaching to the choir.

We need to show people how communism can revolutionize their lives and the way they experience society. This means talking more about how communism will impact the content of people's lives, and less about the abstract forms of political and economic systems. It means explaining the subjective experience of communism and revealing how it will enrich people's living experiences. In a word, it means transcending the isolated irrelevance of "political" or "economic" discourse, and moving into the realm of human activity.

As Raoul Vaneigem says, "there are more truths in twenty-four hours of a man's life than in all the philosophies." We need to inspire people to see these truths. Once this happens, the negative connotations of "communism" become superfluous, people see bourgeois ideology as the empty shell it is, and the psychological foundation of capitalism crumbles.

[Autodidakt]

Part of it is that the terms used to describe communism are very confusing to people who have no contextual experience with it. Phrases such as 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' and all private property in 'the hands of the State' can be absolutely terrifying, until you look at what each of them means in a Marxist context. A Dictatorship of the Proletariat is complete open democracy of the proletariat-the only existent class, therefore no class at all. It is a society where everyone is equal. In a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the State is the Proletariat and therfore all private property belongs to it. Sounds really good when you hear the real definitions, but the terms we've imposed on ourselves can also sometimes be damaging. Also, our theoretical crisis in the Left isn't helping us at all. Most people would be surprised to find that there was anything other than Stalinist Communism. We all know, though, that there are several different trends within the movement.

[anticap]

There are two ways to look at this:

On the one hand, it does seem that "communism" and all related terms are lost to communists (just as "libertarian" is lost to anarchists, despite having been coined by an anarchist-communist and being essentially synonymous with "anarchist" until proponents of laissez-faire capitalism decided to usurp it about 40 years ago). If the term is lost, then communism will have to be smuggled in under another banner. In the case of the U$, Upton Sinclair put it thus: "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it.... Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."

On the other hand, Marx, who is somewhat more worthy of consideration than Sinclair, said, "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."

Adopting another banner implies: 1) that the people are too stupid to ever learn what communism really means; 2) that they should be fooled into championing it anyway, while being kept in the dark about it, and while the smart and enlightened ones lick their lips and cast furtive glances at one another.

Clearly, despite the frustrations, openness is best. Besides, the propagandists have got the people whipped into such an anti-communist lather that they spot one behind every tree already (such as with the "green is the new red" nonsense, not to mention Obama), so the stealth method probably wouldn't be much easier anyway.

One thing I think can and should be done, however, which is perhaps slightly stealthy, is to use accepted language to show how under capitalism we are often unable to realize our ideals, and how communism would be different. For example, here in the U$ we hear lots of flowery rhetoric about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," among other such buzzwords; so communists here might want to show people how capitalism is often not very conducive to life, how options (and therefore the liberty to pursue happiness) are strictly limited under it, and how these would change in a communist world.

[Forward Union]

But argung on behalf of principals is a doomed strategy.

In Germany in the 1930s, the KPD (German Communist Party) was incredibly popular, with 10,000 uniformed, armed soldiers, and millions of supporters.

In 1939 the German workers were waving swastikas. That is not because the nazis went around having long discussions about their principals. Or published hordes of pamphlets about their principals.

It's because they offered people what the wanted. And the name, principal, flag and figureheads of an ideology are entirely irrelevant. All we need to do is empower the workers to stand up for themselves, by campaigning on bread and butter issues, get them into unions, and encourage them to fight for their own self interests.

Stop me if I'm wrong

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But argung on behalf of principals is a doomed strategy.

In Germany in the 1930s, the KPD (German Communist Party) was incredibly popular, with 10,000 uniformed, armed soldiers, and millions of supporters.

In 1939 the German workers were waving swastikas. That is not because the nazis went around having long discussions about their principals. Or published hordes of pamphlets about their principals.

It's because they offered people what the wanted. And the name, principal, flag and figureheads of an ideology are entirely irrelevant. All we need to do is empower the workers to stand up for themselves, by campaigning on bread and butter issues, get them into unions, and encourage them to fight for their own self interests.

Stop me if I'm wrong

You're wrong, stop. ;)
You fall down in that your approach would lead to a Populism > Principles strategy.

No. However, we must re-adjust, and indeed re-evaluate how we communicate our message, not what our actual message - pure, unabated Socialism - is.

[Ravachol]

You're wrong, stop. ;)
You fall down in that your approach would lead to a Populism > Principles strategy.

No. However, we must re-adjust, and indeed re-evaluate how we communicate our message, not what our actual message - pure, unabated Socialism - is.

This is a double-edged sword yes. But I disagree campaigning on 'bread and butter issues' is populism per se.

Populism ammounts to picking up issues which are 'hot' in the existing public debate and taking a simplistic 'easy-way-out' stance. The problem here is that the 'public debate' is constructed by the existing cultural hegemony, mainly in the form of the media and the institutions central to everyday life. These issues are usually by no means related to class struggle Ie. the whole 'war on terrorism' issue. It's debated hotly while the physical impact on our lives is really small and it has most certainly no relation to the struggles of everyday life.

When it is said we should campaign on 'bread and butter issues', it is meant that we should translate our ideology to the concrete situations of everyday life and recognize class struggle where it occurs naturally, both inside the workfloor-factory and outside of it (the 'social factory'). This isn't populism, it's giving people a taste of socialism here and now by campaigning for actual improvement. I, too, reject the idea reforms will bring lasting change, but I reject the impossiblist stance that only insurrection can bring about a revolution as well. We need to build a community through collective class-struggle and in these everyday struggles, people will discover their strength and their class conciousness. These struggles are part of the process of revolution.

[LOLseph Stalin]

One thing that seems to work for me, at least to a certain extent is to replace the word "communism" with "socialism". In alot of people's eyes, socialism is seen as something alot more friendly. Besides, many people use the two terms interchangeably anyway.

[cb9's_unity]

On the other hand, Marx, who is somewhat more worthy of consideration than Sinclair, said, "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."

You bring up a good quote here. It is unfortunate however that by simply advertising ourselves as communists were are actually concealing our true aims and desires. What the average American thinks communism is and what communism actually is are two entirely different things. What we have to figure out is how to put our true aims at the forefront while never lying about how we define ourselves politically.

[Forward Union]

You bring up a good quote here. It is unfortunate however that by simply advertising ourselves as communists were are actually concealing our true aims and desires. What the average American thinks communism is and what communism actually is are two entirely different things. What we have to figure out is how to put our true aims at the forefront while never lying about how we define ourselves politically.

Marx didn't say "you have to call yoruself a communist an have a red flag and dress likea punk or social reject in hemp trousers"

He simply said you shouldn't conceal your aims; that, beyond regular Unionism, we want the workers to take control of the means of production. As long as we achive, or work toward that, we can use whatever name or colours we want.

[Tablo]

I would hate for us to abandon the imagery and the rhetoric that has taken us this far, but actual progress means a lot more.

Edit: I really can't accept us abandoning everything we have strived for. Why should we take a more appealing approach? We are fucking Commies and we want freedom and democracy more thatn anyone else in the entire world. What we need is a more aggressive approach that also focuses on the every day struggles of the working class.

[Forward Union]

Edit: I really can't accept us abandoning everything we have strived for. Why should we take a more appealing approach?

This is superstitious drivil. We would note be giving up anything we have strived for, workers rights, community control etc. What are you talking about, would you really go to such extremes to defend a shallow veneer.

It implies to me that the imagery and rhetoric is more important to you than the content of the politics.
ressivly

[Tablo]

Yeah, I was drunk when I made that edit.

[Tyrlop]

In Germany in the 1930s, the KPD (German Communist Party) was incredibly popular, with 10,000 uniformed, armed soldiers, and millions of supporters.

Are you refering to Roter Frontkämpferbund??

One thing that seems to work for me, at least to a certain extent is to replace the word "communism" with "socialism". In alot of people's eyes, socialism is seen as something alot more friendly. Besides, many people use the two terms interchangeably anyway.
I used to call myself a socialist but now i tell my friends im a commie.


Marx didn't say "you have to call yoruself a communist an have a red flag and dress likea punk or social reject in hemp trousers"

He simply said you shouldn't conceal your aims; that, beyond regular Unionism, we want the workers to take control of the means of production. As long as we achive, or work toward that, we can use whatever name or colours we want.
By giving up our names and suddenly begin to call us self for socialist or something els, then people who study marxism would have a much harder time identifying communists from 2010 with commies from 1910

[Kayser_Soso]

The key thing to making Communism more "appealing"(though I hate marketing to be honest), is always finding ways to explain things in the most interesting, and even entertaining way. Let's be honest, Capital is really, really boring. I actually used a copy of Capital to help me fall asleep one time. But workers need to understand these ideas, so if you're one of those good souls that spent countless hours reading and re-reading all that theory, you help your fellow workers by translating the raw 19th century theory into entertaining, easy-to-understand explanations which are relevant to modern-day issues.

[Lyev]

The key thing to making Communism more "appealing"(though I hate marketing to be honest), is always finding ways to explain things in the most interesting, and even entertaining way. Let's be honest, Capital is really, really boring. I actually used a copy of Capital to help me fall asleep one time. But workers need to understand these ideas, so if you're one of those good souls that spent countless hours reading and re-reading all that theory, you help your fellow workers by translating the raw 19th century theory into entertaining, easy-to-understand explanations which are relevant to modern-day issues.
Capital is a bloody good read actually. There is some fantastic literature in places, it's Marx's magnum opus and it took him a huge chunk of his life to write. For example this part here is quite well known and some really good writing IMO: "One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever extending scale, the co-operative form of the labour-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as the means of production of combined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and this, the international character of the capitalistic régime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated."

[CELMX]

Capital

*yaaaaaaaawn*
sorry, but Capital is just so fucking boring. I'm sure there is some good bits in there, but it's a huge struggle just to get through the first few pages.
This thread is about making communism more appealing, not boring.
Most workers, I am sure, would not want to go through this brutal piece of literature.
I think we just need to make communism more appealing in ways different from the past. We have changed. Our world is more modern, and people are more stupid. You need to show people, instead of good works of literature, pamphlets with pretty pictures and simple, easy to digest words. Kind of like bumper stikers, I guess.
And instead of babbling on about some technical shit, just keep it simple and easy.
People won't listen to you, won't read stuff, if it's a bore. If your pamphlets have words that are more than a paragraph, I think people would just dump it.

So, my proposal for making communism appealing, keep it simple, condense huge paragraphs into a few words that make people hooked, like, for example, "freedom," "equality," "war." etc., and make pretty pictures.

[anticap]

The key thing to making Communism more "appealing"(though I hate marketing to be honest), is always finding ways to explain things in the most interesting, and even entertaining way. Let's be honest, Capital is really, really boring. I actually used a copy of Capital to help me fall asleep one time. But workers need to understand these ideas, so if you're one of those good souls that spent countless hours reading and re-reading all that theory, you help your fellow workers by translating the raw 19th century theory into entertaining, easy-to-understand explanations which are relevant to modern-day issues.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/please-contribute-law-t127093/index.html

[anticap]

*yaaaaaaaawn*
sorry, but Capital is just so fucking boring. I'm sure there is some good bits in there, but it's a huge struggle just to get through the first few pages.
This thread is about making communism more appealing, not boring.
Most workers, I am sure, would not want to go through this brutal piece of literature.

IBvqOmjgYew

[Belisarius]

while we're already refering to youtube. you should watch "marx in soho" by Howard Zinn on youtube, it's really interesting

[Kayser_Soso]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/please-contribute-law-t127093/index.html

I like his videos, but I think he went too easy on Alex Jones. Yes Alex Jones piques curiosity about the Federal Reserve, but then sells people a load of bullshit along with it.

[Kléber]

Most workers, I am sure, would not want to go through this brutal piece of literature.
I think we just need to make communism more appealing in ways different from the past. We have changed. Our world is more modern, and people are more stupid. You need to show people, instead of good works of literature, pamphlets with pretty pictures and simple, easy to digest words. Kind of like bumper stikers, I guess.
And instead of babbling on about some technical shit, just keep it simple and easy.
People won't listen to you, won't read stuff, if it's a bore. If your pamphlets have words that are more than a paragraph, I think people would just dump it.Ironically, views very similar to yours were quite common among Russian socialists prior to 1917. Yet that "brutal piece of literature" turned out to be quite popular with workers after all, who eagerly digested the most complex and "intellectual" works, often in group reading sessions because they were illiterate.

That said, you are right that we also need to win the bumper sticker war, the slogan war, etc. Vulgarization of form without vulgarization of content. Giving people pamphlets with a single paragraph of writing, though, that would just be patronizing.

[InvileMachina]

As a comedian, I may be a bit biased, but I honestly think that political and social satire, especially that in which is directed at the youth (I.E. Jon Stewart) is one of the left's best weapons for future progress. The majority of people think with their emotions, not their intellects. Arguing theoretical economic principles isn't going to inspire many people. In this "igeneration" of reality tv shows. the power of celebrity is the quickest route to any kind of mass change.


I want to clarify that I'm not saying Jon stewart is even remotely socialist/communist. I'm merely stating that if someone from the movement could ever attain a simular cultural position it could possibly lead to a breakthrough.

[Sendo]

transparency. Instead of trying to distance ourselves from "failed communism", tricking people, or using "the No True Scotsman" argument, we should be giving real history with soundbites if need be.

In 1949 Shanghai was 20% opium addicts. Mao got rid off that with free rehab.

BOOM! Look at that. I challenged people's conceptions of history and suggested a more humanist and social view of politics than a free market one without going to thick abstracts from Kapital (sorry, but Marx is often nigh-unreadable and needs footnotes) or preaching or saying "no no, that wasn't true communism". If you lie, they will find out, and then you look bad, like you have something to hide, like you're some "crypto-totalitarian".

But then again we shouldn't focus on rehabilitating every dead commie or get into the obscure figures like Hoxha. Sorry, Hoxhaists. Go on the lines of Marxism-Leninism is great, and later down the line, say you think this Albanian leader was the best continuation of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-....

[Kayser_Soso]

transparency. Instead of trying to distance ourselves from "failed communism", tricking people, or using "the No True Scotsman" argument, we should be giving real history with soundbites if need be.

In 1949 Shanghai was 20% opium addicts. Mao got rid off that with free rehab.

BOOM! Look at that. I challenged people's conceptions of history and suggested a more humanist and social view of politics than a free market one without going to thick abstracts from Kapital (sorry, but Marx is often nigh-unreadable and needs footnotes) or preaching or saying "no no, that wasn't true communism". If you lie, they will find out, and then you look bad, like you have something to hide, like you're some "crypto-totalitarian".

But then again we shouldn't focus on rehabilitating every dead commie or get into the obscure figures like Hoxha. Sorry, Hoxhaists. Go on the lines of Marxism-Leninism is great, and later down the line, say you think this Albanian leader was the best continuation of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-....

Well I like the first half of the post but the ending is a real let-down. If something is a fact, we should state the fact. Of course if the entire argument revolves around "read Enver Hoxha", common sense says this isn't effective. The thing is that Enver Hoxha provides a perspective from the Cold War struggle that most people, including those in the East Bloc, are not familiar with. For them the struggle was between the "free" West, and what they interpreted as the socialist East. This was a false dichotomy, but as the West's propaganda machine dwarfed that of Albania and its allied parties(which were excluded from the East Bloc), many people fell for the western narrative.

[Sendo]

Well I like the first half of the post but the ending is a real let-down. If something is a fact, we should state the fact. Of course if the entire argument revolves around "read Enver Hoxha", common sense says this isn't effective. The thing is that Enver Hoxha provides a perspective from the Cold War struggle that most people, including those in the East Bloc, are not familiar with. For them the struggle was between the "free" West, and what they interpreted as the socialist East. This was a false dichotomy, but as the West's propaganda machine dwarfed that of Albania and its allied parties(which were excluded from the East Bloc), many people fell for the western narrative.

Good point. I didn't mean to trivialize him so much. I just wanted to say if we are worried about our image then we should focus on the biggest figures. I'd start with Stalin and his economic successes most likely.

I'm not saying we shouldn't correct slander and libel on MLeninists. I'm just saying don't bring up more figureheads or try to use them as a distraction from communists you disapprove of.

For example, if someone critiques Mao, don't switch to saying, well, REAL Marixism-Leninism could be seen in Albania. Then people would say "what? wasn't the poorest country in Europe or something..." I can see the value in pointing out diversity in the communist school...but I think the immediate thing to do, is to make a general stand to defend all Leftist leaders as better than the liberal/conservative status quo. Neither party can ameliorate the material causes of abortion (lack of child services) and must make steps to push it further into the back alley. Neither party can fix the boom/bust cycle, rich/poor gaps. Neither party has any solution to drugs other than over-arming a thin slice of white America to imprison addicts.

[Kayser_Soso]

Good point. I didn't mean to trivialize him so much. I just wanted to say if we are worried about our image then we should focus on the biggest figures. I'd start with Stalin and his economic successes most likely.

I'm not saying we shouldn't correct slander and libel on MLeninists. I'm just saying don't bring up more figureheads or try to use them as a distraction from communists you disapprove of.

For example, if someone critiques Mao, don't switch to saying, well, REAL Marixism-Leninism could be seen in Albania. Then people would say "what? wasn't the poorest country in Europe or something..." I can see the value in pointing out diversity in the communist school...but I think the immediate thing to do, is to make a general stand to defend all Leftist leaders as better than the liberal/conservative status quo. Neither party can ameliorate the material causes of abortion (lack of child services) and must make steps to push it further into the back alley. Neither party can fix the boom/bust cycle, rich/poor gaps. Neither party has any solution to drugs other than over-arming a thin slice of white America to imprison addicts.

Obviously arguments should always fit the accusations but personally I prefer to avoid the historical arguments altogether. While historical analysis is crucial to the Marxist-Leninist methodology, an opponent saying "STALIN KILLED WHOLE LOTTA PEOPLE IN THE 30's...HUUUUUUUUUURRR!!!" is simply not a valid argument against socialism in the US of the 21st century. In fact it is really only marginally valid even in the modern territory of the former USSR. These kinds of arguments are at best red herrings.

[Tifosi]

Mabye it is time for new symbols? When most people see the Hammer and Sickle they don't think workers paradise. They think of Stalin, Mao, Cold War and all the other bad stuff people are told.

It the same with Anarchist symbols and the word Anarchism itself. People won't think about what all these things really mean but what they are told. To most people Anarchy mean's people throwing stones and no laws.

What I'm saying is that the left have an image problem. There has been much put out to show people what these symbols and signs really mean but it hasn't worked to well. Mabye it is time to turn to a new page?

[Belisarius]

Mabye it is time for new symbols? When most people see the Hammer and Sickle they don't think workers paradise. They think of Stalin, Mao, Cold War and all the other bad stuff people are told.

It the same with Anarchist symbols and the word Anarchism itself. People won't think about what all these things really mean but what they are told. To most people Anarchy mean's people throwing stones and no laws.

What I'm saying is that the left have an image problem. There has been much put out to show people what these symbols and signs really mean but it hasn't worked to well. Mabye it is time to turn to a new page?
that's a fact. the word anarchy has been used as a pejorative term for ages (so i think it was actually quite a bad choice from the beginning). communist symbols have become as pejorative. if i talk to someone about the proletariat, they call me nuts,but if i use in stead the word working class, they agree with me.

Maybe we should just in this sense create new signs and words( like changing proletariat to working class) to adapt our views to modern society. capitalism hasn't changed, but people have. this means that we shouldn't necessarily change our critiques of capitalism, but we should change the way we communicate it to others (i hate for example those communist songs on youtube that sound like thy're from some soviet choir, of course noweone will want to listen if your music is 1 old and boring and 2 a hymn to stalin). so i would say new vocabulary, new images, but the same content.

[scarletghoul]

Alright, I've had a bit of success in talking to ordinary people about communism. Here's what I do-

1. Explain capitalism. No one can understand communism without first understanding capitalism. Explain the exploitation and alienation inherent in the system, and how society is divided into bourgeoisie and proletariat, fatcats and workers. Most people understand this stuff pretty easily, as its obvious from everyday life.

2. Explain how socialism/communism abolishes capitalism and gives power to the working class, rather than the rich capitalists. The workers then are no longer exploited or alienated, and they get the full profit of their labour which can then be used for the good of society as a whole and not for some rich wanker.

3. Now that they have a basic understanding of communist theory, start relating it to practical and historical examples. This is where you get to defend your favourite totalitarian dictatorships. I like to highlight things that communist countries have better than our country, like "Cuba has 90-something% voter turnout, because the people are not alienated from the state like they are here" and "all music is legal to download for free in china, unlike in the UK where the capitalist music industry is doing all they can to stop us from sharing art." etc etc. this will vary on your tendency tho i guess. In general emphasise that under communism the people run their own country for the collective good in contrast to capitalism.

4. Answer any questions they have. If they ask questions as you are explaining something else, then try and answer it but just dont go completely off course until youve done steps 1 and 2. they are the most important as they lay the groundwork for a real understanding of things. From there on its just filling in the gaps and matching up theory with practice

Most of the people around here don't know or care about politics at all. They're like the peasantry Mao spoke of, a blank page where the most beautiful words can be written,, or whatever he said. For those who dont care about politics and are all apathetic, i try to explain why. Why is politics so boring? It is because it is bourgeois politics! I explain how the rich run society through the capitalist system, so the government only serves them and becomes alienated from ordinary people. In other words, tie their apathy in to an explanation of the capitalist system. Of course there's always some prick whos like "aaaargh i dont fucking care about politics its boring!!!!!!" and wont listen to anything (i know one selfproclaimed anarchist punk rocker who is like this), but some people are pretty openminded.

[StalinFanboy]

Sooo... apparently people on this site are completely unaware of the growing student-worker movement in California that regularly uses the terms "communism," "capital," and "all power to the communes?"

[Sendo]

Scarlet ghoul's got the best plan. I don't think PR image washing is going to work, nor any quick fix like it, but I do understand the need to avoid Marx's dated vocabulary and scientific sounding Latin. (proletariat? how about workers, wage workers, laborers, etc.) So basically, the exact opposite of Jacob Richter. But don't go extreme in either way, it will make people suspicious. If a company spends a lot of money trying to rehab its image because of sweatshops or environmental issues I immediately see that they are spending more on PR than on fixing the problems.

It is important to speak in a way that you will be understood. Instead of degenerated socialist state one could say weakened socialist state. But don't get too flowery. Explain that farming collectives are basically one big co-op where you elect the leaders and help each other out with insurance, etc. But don't try to hide from the words. It's good to say people's democracy and workers' democracy, of course. But if someone mentions "dictatorship of the proletariat" don't do intellectual hurdles to explain away the word "dictatorship". I respond "Working-class dictatorship? It sure beats corporate dictatorship." Or I say "Do you make $ by working or by sitting on your ass because you own stock?" "how many corporations do you run or own controlling shares in?"

There's not much in the way of refutation. It gets people to think or they just resort to pitiful arguments like "but I believe in freedom".

In any case, liberals are the worst. They see the problems but think that the Democrat Party will fix everything through "incremental changes". The right-wing people duped by faux populism are easier. If they have any love of the wilderness/hunting/hiking/fishing, socialism's got capitalism beat in every way on the environment. If they hate taxes, mention taxing the super rich, taxing landlords (capital gains taxes on people like that), or the Pentagon budget.

For many liberals, though, the only thing that can change their mind is socialism in deed and its successes. A factory takeover like the one at Republic in Chicago can do wonders for radicalizing people. Black Panther programs also had similar effects. Liberals are so elitist: urban>poor, intellect>everything, good vs evil, "practicality">change. They see the world and are hopelessly delusional. Conservatives don't see the world and are ignorant. And social democrats can be persuaded I believe.

[Dimentio]

I love the principles of communism, I'll be honest, but the term "communism" is a scary word to many, mainly because they get phobic and view it as oppression. While I myself am no fan of Stalinism, but I'm still a communist (preferably Luxembourgism/Council Communism but that's not the point). I personally prefer a peaceful approach to a revolt, but the capitalists will continue brainwashing those who they can, calling us "Commies" and "Terrorists" but the question stands: How will we be able to make Communist philosophies be convincing?

Change the particular words of all the terminology.

Replace "abolition of private property" with "public access to the means of resources". Replace "dictatorship of the proletariat" with "true democracy". Change the colour red into blue or green. Change the name of the ideology from communism into "progressive" or "radical".

Keep the content the same, change the terms and the aesthetics.

That is the only way to build a mass-following for it in western nations. In third world nations, that wouldn't be necessary though.

[The Red Next Door]

The parties can do fund raiser for war vets and we can try not to sound like a smartly pants. We can show that we are trying to change the system but not change the American culture.

[Dermezel]

If you want to change societies ideology, you have to influence the culture. And if you want to influence the culture, you have to use the arts.

[ZombieGrits]

If you want to change societies ideology, you have to influence the culture. And if you want to influence the culture, you have to use the arts.

This is definitely a factor, but more has to be done than just to saturate the arts with leftist teachings. Pop culture has been inundated in left-leaning musicians since the sixties, but they've not made any real difference since people tend to see artists of all stripes as no more than crazy outsiders and dreamers

[Jia]

Great political works of art do wonders.

If I could make brilliant works of arts with my hand I would. I have the ideas to make the world, but I don't have the hands to run it. I have the brain to think for everyone, but I don't have the body to use it.


We need every worker to feel this way, expressed in political arts is a instant image. A picture makes a thousand words. And they are easily expressed. The smaller and easier the symbol the better. The time for hammers and sickles is over, the time for modernising communism should begin.

[bailey_187]

I think we should focus more on Economics. Economics was the biggest rationalisation for Capitalism in the decaying years of Feudalism, so in (what we hope are) the end years of Capitalism, surely Economics should be the biggest rationalisation for Communism.

So take the idea that David Harvey usualy talks of called the "surplus capital absorbtion problem", that as there is too much money in the economy without little industry to invest in, the capitalists invest in FIRE -Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (that was Sweezy's acronym IIRC but i like it still applies), causing bubbles etc which burst and fuck everyone over as they cause a recession.

So if you say to people, when you work the profits that you create for the capitalists, as they are not reasonable people like you or me who would just use this profit for enjoying yourself, they want to make more money from it. But it isnt profitable for them to invest in factories etc so they go and invest in FIRE, creatig bubbles and causing problems for all of us. So untill we as working people, take back the profits that we create, these parasites will always cause recessions by investing the profits that we create for them in FIRE

Moral arguments in my opinion are pretty weak and only really apeal to students and liberals etc, but can always then just be used to say " we will just make it better".

[Kuppo Shakur]

Like some may have already said, the huge amount of anti-communist propaganda tends to work on many people, making them not even consider communism at all. I don't think it would be necessary to totally change all of the terminology, but using less demonized words when presenting the idea to people can help get them interested, so they can see past the "fascist commie" image, propagated by capitalists
Also, it seems that some people new to the idea of communism are put off by other communists either sounding like they don't know what they talk about, or acting too arrogant and sectarian. So, I guess that would be something to work on?

[Dimentio]

Scrap the colour red. It is unsettling people.

[Taikand]

Maybe we should start with criticising capitalism...
Many people agree to that.
Then we offer the solution when they ask "What is to be done?".
I'd say that should be the tactic.

[bailey_187]

Maybe we should start with criticising capitalism...
Many people agree to that.
Then we offer the solution when they ask "What is to be done?".
I'd say that should be the tactic.

Yeah but how are you going to criticise Capitalism is the question. Are you going to use Moralism? "x amount die every year" Make populist claims? "those greedy bankers!" Or actually explain to people the economics of Capitalism and why its in their interests to oppose it?

[Belisarius]

Maybe we should start with criticising capitalism...
Many people agree to that.
Then we offer the solution when they ask "What is to be done?".
I'd say that should be the tactic.
isn't this already our tactic since marx?

[Taikand]

Well, I'd say that phrases like "x amount dies every...seconds" are not very catchy.
You must try and think as a cappie...I sometimes exaggerate things, but in a logical way.
Like:
"If state is not able to administrate all of the economy in an efficient manner, we must let room for free enterprise in some domains,right?State controlled..pizzerias,coffee shops and televisions is stupidic, there's no way the state would be able to make rational decisions without a pricing system, but the same thing goes for everything right? Defense is just another industry, so is police or prisons, so hurray for the private fascist state! "

You can also use some documentaries on the web that are not socialist, but might have a point: http://www.storyofstuff.com/ Look at "Story of Cap and Trade".
Another way is to explain thoroughly the capitalist economy, especially if using laws of capitalist economy.

Capitalism VS Socialism/Communism is a very complex issue, you have to break this into multiple ,more simpler arguments, and so on, until you reach some very simplistic arguments that can easily be explained, then use those simple arguments to compose a bigger one, and such.

I, for instance, on 1 on 1 discussions, I ask them to come up with their own definitions and arguments, and then I show them how flawed they are, using their own words.

You may not transform someone instantly into a leftist, but at least you shatter their belief system.

[Dimentio]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912&ei=lV2RS8OaJ4Kf-AaF2_28Ag&q=zeitgeist+addendum

This one seems to have really mobilised a grassroot movement, more efficient than any outspoken leftist organisation has managed to recently.

[Taikand]

That's the second part of a series.
The first part called "Zeitgeist" is also interesting.
Maybe we should form an alliance, or something?We kinda share the same objectives, if I'm right.

[Dimentio]

That's the second part of a series.
The first part called "Zeitgeist" is also interesting.
Maybe we should form an alliance, or something?We kinda share the same objectives, if I'm right.

I wouldn't advice that for the moment. The Zeitgeist movement isn't uniform. Some parts of it are very progressive, while others are just loony. We should wait a few years and see where TZM is going -though we should try to establish contacts with them.

I think the first Zeitgeist movie was bull though.

[Taikand]

A bull? I don't get this, what do you mean by 'bull" ,bullshit, or a comparison to a bull that rams right into people beliefs?
Contact would be interesting , an alliance, not really, I agree with you on that.

[Dimentio]

A bull? I don't get this, what do you mean by 'bull" ,bullshit, or a comparison to a bull that rams right into people beliefs?
Contact would be interesting , an alliance, not really, I agree with you on that.

Well, their community is here: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

[Alaric]

Zeitgeist is full of 9/11 Truthers and conspiracy theorists. We're fringe enough without rubbing elbows with those lunatics.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

I watched their movie 'Addendum' today, I don't know what to make of it really. Its always enjoyable to watch people bash capitalism and explain why such is a system is fatally flawed, but their idea for the 'better' society sounds like its full of holes and is far too dependant on changing the way people think about everything. To be honest, watching it made me feel like I was joining a cult... not a bad one, but a fairly creepy one. That may change in time, but as Dimentio said, think i'll wait and see where TZM goes from here.

[Ztrain]

I think we should use the party as a tool for the youth to channel their rage into something usefull....we should get potential gang bangers to join us so they can change the system that put them into the ghetto:thumbup1:

[Victory Of The People!]

I couldn't agree with you more. If we give up our names, our symbolism, and our history then we are letting our enemies define who we are. By uttering the word "Communist" only in hushed words or indirectly then we are implying that we have something to hide. I personally refuse to use the word "socialist" in place of communist just for the purpose of forcing people to learn what it really means.

I know its not easy to say that you are a communist, especially if you live in America, but if we are afraid to even speak our name how can we ever hope to be brave enough to bring our message to the masses and lead them to revolution?

We need to return the idea of Communism to its rightful place in the minds of the proletariat. But, that can only be done if we are constantly on the front-line of everyday struggles, leading through example and PROVING that our ideas are correct. Many in the past have said to the masses " Our ideas are correct! Follow us and we will make your lives better!" What we should be doing is SHOWING people, through struggle, that we, as COMMUNISTS, have made their life better and brought them to victories over their exploiters. Only then will the masses of the proletariat see what Communism really means... the liberation of all those who are exploited. Then the label of "Communist" will be worn as a badge of honor among the oppressed.

Actions speak louder than words.

[Comrade Awesome]

I've always wanted to do a 'What we stand for' campaign, distributing pamphlets/videos detailing the principles of Communism without mentioning any 'dirty words' or Marxian jargon, describe the flaws of capitalism that most people would agree with and offer the alternative, then reveal at the end the alternative offered was Communism "if you support these principles, you are a Communist. Learn the truth." Maybe as a superbowl ad for maximum coverage/shock. :cool:

[punisa]

Adopting another banner implies: 1) that the people are too stupid to ever learn what communism really means; 2) that they should be fooled into championing it anyway, while being kept in the dark about it.

1) many of them are indeed stupid
2) yes they should be

[Yawn]

lol i dont think sugar coating communism would have a better affect

[Ocean Seal]

What I would do is assess history. Clearly some communists have done things right when its come to campaigning. Lets hit the books and see what Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Hugo Chavez did to gain popularity. We can debate ideology, but not success.
Second we must see what kind of characters led workers to demand increased rights.
Joe Hill, Cesar Chavez ,Luxembourg
Third lets look at what the opposition has to offer and see how we can counteract the tactics of the Tea Party, the Nazis, the Reganities, and the liberal bourgeoisie.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

Critique Capitalism. Talk about Wage Slavery, suffering, imperialism, exploitation, corruption, the inability of the system to ever truly change.

Talk about Communes, don't discuss Communism. Talk about Autonomous Workers' Councils meeting together and discussing problems, choosing what to produce and how.

Make them a Communist, without calling them a Communist, after they're not just a drone of Consumerism. Talk about Communism from a Marxist perspective, then a Leninist, etc.

This is what I view as being the most effective.

[Jazzhands]

Critiquing capitalism is not enough. People usually respond "it's flawed but it worked better than the USSR," although we can easily disprove this argument by comparing pre-USSR conditions to what it was like during the least repressive times in the USSR. We also need to teach history in a way that avoids both of the following: Marxist economic jargon that is completely impossible to understand for the working class (at least in my country, they don't have good public schools at all), and a view of history that essentially is "ANYTHING BAD YOU SAY IS NOTHING BUT BOURGEOIS PROPAGANDA FOR A FASCIST CONSPIRACY!!!" etc, etc. I was turned into a communist by nothing but a short, rather poorly-written summary of the history of communism in order to read Animal Farm. The conclusion of the teacher (and we were expected to write this on the test) was that the moral of the story was "communism can't work because it's a flawed plan." I, however, being as astute as... well... an 8th grader, pointed out why her view of the book was just plain wrong. For instance, Napoleon's twisting of the teachings and legacy of Old Major and Snowball clearly means that Orwell thought all the real communists in Russia were dead by the end of Stalin's regime.

Anyway, if a seriously-flawed, right-wing biased Sparknotes summary of Russian history and a ridiculous rightist interpretation of Animal Farm is all it took for me, it can work for everyone else. We just need to beat them with their own sources.

[93'perfuck]

The hammer and sickle desperately needs to be changed. Not only do they contain archaic history based connotations, but the hammer and sickle hardly represent the proletariat/peasantry anymore. I can't even remember the last time i saw a sickle.

[redSHARP]

just tell the person you are talking to that they are getting screwed and the usual stuff. however, dont mention communism or anarchism but use vague terms to describe a system that could replace capitalism (while talking about communism being the replacement system)

[Red Saxon]

We could have a flashy 1980s mockup with a 3D hammer and sickle doing a rap about worker consciousness.

[FreeBird541]

The main problem with making communism appealing is just lack of education. I think the key ideas of communism are quite appealing to most people, but people just don't understand enough about communism. We should try to actually educate people about what communism really is, while getting past all the capitalist propaganda that they've already absorbed.

Also, we have to link capitalism with the many social problems in this world today. Many people are critical of poverty, climate change, waste, etc. but most people never associate these problems with capitalism. We have to convince people that capitalism is the root of all these problems, and that communism can be a solution.

[Sturzo]

A huge amount of people are disillusioned and angry with the system - 8 years of the Bush administration, two imperialist wars, the global recession, corporate bailouts, austerity measures, and the Gulf crisis. They just have a cloudy view on what's really going on - the Tea Party is an example of this.

There's a MASSIVE amount of people who are no longer docile and are enraged at their situation, they are more willing to listen to the fringe groups now, and unfortunately the far right has been broadcasting their message in America. The left must combat this.

Use the recession and recent events as a starting point to criticize the capitalist system, then broaden the arguement into the general vices of capital, and what we can do about it - aka class struggle and fighting for socialism. Make it plain worded and to the point, us against them.

Avoid all that stuff about past Communism, it's a black hole that just sucks entire conversations and debates - only mention that after you got them hooked.

[Shokaract]

That Das Kapital manga Reclaimed Dasein is working on translating would be useful in making Communism more appealing (which is why he imported and scanned it).

[nuisance]

That Das Kapital manga Reclaimed Dasein is working on translating would be useful in making Communism more appealing (which is why he imported and scanned it).
Geekz R Communismz.

[The Idler]

wyqJ9wxZ9L0

[The Guy]

"All communists speak Russian and it's always very cold in communist countries even during the summer."

You can't deny that they're two stereotypes created about our ideology. The problem is simple: capitalism is winning, but not by a mile. We're now able to start clawing back the reputation we deserve as the people are waking up to find their selves without a job or unable to repay their mortgage. At times of great struggle do people only open their eyes apart from the few - us.

Of course, communism is a beautiful ideology. Once you look past the pseudo-Stalinist image which has been painted by George Dub-yuh Bush, you realise that we're an ideology of united human beings wanting liberty over the Man. We don't judge, nor do we divide. We come together. Right-wing groups claim that they are able to bring people together - so long as they're white and dislike brown people. But we're in support of every man, woman and child; we always will be. We need to reinvent communism the way Lenin did and the way Che did. We need to open the eyes of people and make them realise the truth behind the fallacious cloak of capitalism. Fuck the differences of ethnicity, language and gender: we're for the people; we're the Communist Party. :hammersickle: :cool:

[MarxSchmarx]

The problem is simple: capitalism is winning, but not by a mile. We're now able to start clawing back the reputation we deserve as the people are waking up to find their selves without a job or unable to repay their mortgage. At times of great struggle do people only open their eyes apart from the few - us.

...

We need to reinvent communism the way Lenin did and the way Che did. We need to open the eyes of people and make them realise the truth behind the fallacious cloak of capitalism. Fuck the differences of ethnicity, language and gender: we're for the people; we're the Communist Party. :hammersickle: :cool:

Well great, so what concretely do you suggest?

[Jimmie Higgins]

People can be won away from the "radical=scary" propaganda, not when the perfect symbols or language is found, but when they can see that what we are doing is effective and actually in their own interests too. Action > talk when it comes to proving to people who are not open to us that we are worth the trusts and not the sneaky manipulators of workers that we are portrayed as. Of course, this isn't to say that "talk" and ideas aren't important - ideas and politics are really important for winning over people who already see things as we do or are radicalizing. But for lots of other people who are either skeptical or afraid (because of propaganda) or indifferent or cynical (from bad experiences with politics) are probably only going to be won over when they see the working class in action and our ideas in practice.

[Kayser_Soso]

How's this offer- Become a Communist now and get a free mountain bike!!!

[Montag451]

1. Avoid commiesp33k a.k.a. 19th century marxist jargon and 21st century "amerikkka/U$/Bush is Hitlers!" crap
Talk to people using normal everyday language, because if you talk like you're reading from the Manifesto you'll sound like a snob/prick, and if you talk like a 13-year-old who just listened to his first Rage Against The Machine album you'll sound like a angsty teen/conspiracy nutcase

2. Start with a critique of capitalism, a lot of people today are totally ok with that. Then when interested in solutions, talk of direct democracy, worker's self-managment etc. If America and the western world uphold democracy before all,then why isnt there any economic democracy?
Michael Moore's latest movie "Capitalism: a love story" does that pretty well.

3.When using imagery and symbolism, try to avoid CCCP/USSR crap. If a person is not a stalinist or an oh-so-ironic hipster , they wont like it!
Hammer and sickles and stuff could be ok if used in a humoristic manner. Google the communist PARTY picture where Marx Lenin & co. are having a party.
In other words, use oldschool symbolism but in a subtle or entertaining way,unless you dont want to look like those nazis who are more interesting in collecting tissues in which Hitler sneezed in than actual ideology. OR make new symbolism and combine it with old

[Reznov]

I think if we changed the word from Communist to something else we would have a lot easier time getting our main point/principles across, which is the most important.

Perhaps start using Socalist more?

[Tablo]

No, I like it when I say I'm a Communist and people look at me like I'm some crazy person.

[Quail]

1. Avoid commiesp33k a.k.a. 19th century marxist jargon and 21st century "amerikkka/U$/Bush is Hitlers!" crap
Talk to people using normal everyday language, because if you talk like you're reading from the Manifesto you'll sound like a snob/prick, and if you talk like a 13-year-old who just listened to his first Rage Against The Machine album you'll sound like a angsty teen/conspiracy nutcase


I think this is quite important, because it's quite easy to use jargon that makes people look at you blankly, and I imagine that's pretty alienating.

Also, don't refer to everyone as "comrade" all the time. The occasional usage of the word is okay, but I think it makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

[Crimson Commissar]

1. Avoid commiesp33k a.k.a. 19th century marxist jargon and 21st century "amerikkka/U$/Bush is Hitlers!" crap
Talk to people using normal everyday language, because if you talk like you're reading from the Manifesto you'll sound like a snob/prick, and if you talk like a 13-year-old who just listened to his first Rage Against The Machine album you'll sound like a angsty teen/conspiracy nutcase
Well, obviously no communist would do that in front of people who've never heard of socialism before. But I see no reason why we can't have a bit of fun with those terms within the leftist community itself.


2. Start with a critique of capitalism, a lot of people today are totally ok with that. Then when interested in solutions, talk of direct democracy, worker's self-managment etc. If America and the western world uphold democracy before all,then why isnt there any economic democracy?
Michael Moore's latest movie "Capitalism: a love story" does that pretty well.
Doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, but if we just hide the fact that we're communists people will probably be a bit shocked when they realise.


3.When using imagery and symbolism, try to avoid CCCP/USSR crap. If a person is not a stalinist or an oh-so-ironic hipster , they wont like it!
Hammer and sickles and stuff could be ok if used in a humoristic manner. Google the communist PARTY picture where Marx Lenin & co. are having a party.
In other words, use oldschool symbolism but in a subtle or entertaining way,unless you dont want to look like those nazis who are more interesting in collecting tissues in which Hitler sneezed in than actual ideology. OR make new symbolism and combine it with old
Uhm, there's nothing wrong with the hammer and sickle. It represents workers' power, which is what communism wants to achieve. Change what people think of the symbol, dont change the symbol itself.

[Crvena-Zastava]

Uhm, there's nothing wrong with the hammer and sickle. It represents workers' power, which is what communism wants to achieve. Change what people think of the symbol, dont change the symbol itself.

It is too difficult to change the opinion people have on the Hammer & Sickle; the image of it has been totally corrupted, and people have no clue as to what it means. I think a new symbol would be a good idea.

This is sort of like the Swastika; the original was actually a Hindu peace symbol that has been corrupted by the Fascist piglets as a mark of the most extreme evil; no matter what you say when people look at the Swastika they will think "Holocaust" and such first, not "Hindu Peace Symbol".

I would imagine that when people look at the Hammer & Sickle they imagine angry men with bushy eyebrows and mustaches yelling out "FOR THE MOTHERLAND" all the time. Or they just think of Stalin, which isn't nearly as awesome as the angry bushy thing.

[Montag451]

Crimson, it's ok if it helps you to communicate better or more precisely with someone who is into it. But if someone is listening to you and you don't want to alieniate him -don't. Same goes for this forum. It's public, isn't it?

If they accept those ideas and realize afterwards that they are communist ideas,it'll be too late for them to "go back":lol:

You can't change what people think about the symbol because the far left doesnt own any mass media, and it still fails to use the internet well,as the far right does.

[Pretty Flaco]

I'm not going to lie: I would never actually say comrade in real life. I just use it jokingly on here. ;)

And all the soviet union imagery is just going to deter people, especially if they're from the US. They relate the term and symbolism of "communism" with "totalitarianism". not good.

[Montag451]

I think this aversion to communist symbolism and rethorics,but a partial acceptance of the general idea in the West among the wider population has led to a rise in anarchist numbers the last few years. Anarchism sounds even more extreme than communism,in some ways it is, but still it is not associated to totalitarianism,gulags,faux socialism etc.

[Kayser_Soso]

I think this aversion to communist symbolism and rethorics,but a partial acceptance of the general idea in the West among the wider population has led to a rise in anarchist numbers the last few years. Anarchism sounds even more extreme than communism,in some ways it is, but still it is not associated to totalitarianism,gulags,faux socialism etc.


True, but on the other hand anarchism is also not associated with success, building a sustainable society, and so on.

[Montag451]

I'm sure there is place on this forum for these sectarian debates. I was just explaining why anarchism gained momentum.