Communism for Dummies

[<Insert Username Here>]

Ok this is going to ruffle some egalitarian feathers, but at the risk of an infraction, my rep being devastated and being banished to OI, I'm going to take a shot at this. :cool:

We over intellectualise. A lot. And our message is a big pill to swallow, we don't have a very good track record, and theres a lot of misconceptions.

Communism is an ideology of not only workers, but un-oppurtunist intellectuals. Ok, here for the bit thats going to have me run out of town.

People don't give a shit.

Marx is a heavy read. Nobody knows what "proletariat" and "bourgeoise" mean. Most workers don't give a rat's arse, they're content to bumble along as a slave of the system. I don't think anyone here would disagree that those working class people need a wake up call. But the worst kind of wakeup call is one which puts them to sleep.

I'm not saying workers are stupid, but they often neither have the will nor the time or effort to think deeply about class struggle.

My point and suggestion is, its time to dumb it down. Make it very simple, very clear so we can draw in support from the apathetic, tired and disinterested. No big words, clear concise aims. Explain what we're all about, without going on and on and on about lofty theories that don't affect many people in any way they can see, touch, smell, feel.

Lets start making class struggle simple, accessible and easy to understand.

[Sasha]

speak for yourself... as you can see from the leval quote in my sig i have always been saying that an university degree in marxism is the last thing that you need to be an communist.

[The Black Comrade]

I agree with OP, Some one needs to come up with a simple version to clear things up with most of america.

[mikelepore]

On any subject, everything should be written as simply as possible without loss of accuracy. It's all right to use special vocabulary words, if they contribute to accuracy, and if they are defined prior to use. To explain chemistry, you have no choice but to differentiate between ionic bonds and covalent bonds, and to provide several examples of each. There is a similar truth for social sciences. The test for justification of the technicality is whether adds to the the power to explain.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I in fact have been trying to work on a way to explain communism in less then 50 pages, without a wall of word that will take you for ever to find something.

[The Idler]

Oxford University Press
Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction by Colin Ward
Communism: A Very Short Introduction by Leslie Holmes
Socialism: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Newman
Marx: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Singer
Engels: A Very Short Introduction by Terrell Harver

Icon Books/Pantheon/Totem
Introducing Marx by Rius
Introducing Marxism by Rupert Woodfin
Introducing Lenin by Richard Appignanesi and Oscar Zarate
Introducing Trotsky by Tariq Ali and Phil Evans

Hodder and Stoughton
Marx: A Beginners Guide by Gill Hands

Teach Yourself
Marx - The Key Ideas by Gill Hands

Oneworld
Marx: A Beginners Guide by Andrew Collier

Bookmarks (SWP)
A Rebel's Guide to Marx by Mike Gonzalez
A Rebel's Guide to Lenin by Ian Birchall
A Rebel's Guide to Trotsky by Esme Choonara

Why you should be a Socialist by Paul Foot (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/foot-paul/1977/wysbas/index.htm).
The Case for Socialism by Paul Foot (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/foot-paul/1990/case/index.htm).
Socialism Made Easy by James Connolly (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxist.net/ireland/connolly/socialism/).
The Principles of Communism (1847) by Engels.
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

[Velkas]

My point and suggestion is, its time to dumb it down. Make it very simple, very clear so we can draw in support from the apathetic, tired and disinterested. No big words, clear concise aims. Explain what we're all about, without going on and on and on about lofty theories that don't affect many people in any way they can see, touch, smell, feel.

Lets start making class struggle simple, accessible and easy to understand.I think that such a strategy could be very useful in attracting more support and getting our message across.

[Ravachol]

If anyone thinks communism is going to be achieved by the workers reading Marx and thinking "Wait a minute... that's a great idea!" as opposed to their material conditions erupting in struggle, we have a bigger problem then heavy terminology.

[which doctor]

I'd like to remind you that workers were once fluent in Marx. They read it on their lunch breaks and studied in groups on the weekend. Coincidently, this also corresponds with the highest level of class consciousness in history.

[Ravachol]

I'd like to remind you that workers were once fluent in Marx. They read it on their lunch breaks and studied in groups on the weekend. Coincidently, this also corresponds with the highest level of class consciousness in history.

Yes, during this period so-called "Lecturas" were given during lunch breaks, where one worker would read a portion of socialist literature and discuss it with his fellow workmates in relation to their own struggle.

What I stated,however, was not that people SHOULDN'T focus on reading Marx or whatever (they should, pro-revolutionary literature should be accesible and distributed). What I stated was that their interest in this literature will be raised as a result of their material conditions and struggles. These are primary and from that, class conciousness will develop, influencing further struggles.

Just by distributing literature and shouting 'look at these ideas' we won't win over the working class, the ideas should be put in practice and relate to existing class conflicts. The 'war of ideas' and the breaking of cultural hegemony is a completely different pie however. But that's not what I understood this threat to be about.

[DeSalonSocialist]

I agree, but I don't think we should stop with the intellectual side of Marxism as it is now (not that I suggest that's what you are saying). I think a better strategy would be to look for a proper way to reach the people instead of trying to convince them with 200 year old literature.

If the two most common reasons for somebody to become interested in radical left politics are:
1. Intellectual interest
2. Material conditions

There is a pretty big problem with the way stuff is done right now, since not that many people have an intellectual interest in radical left politics and the material conditions aren't so bad right now that people search for socialism on their own. Most workers right don't realise that they are being exploited and you will not change that with 500 pages of incomprehendable deconstrionist philosophy.

My point is, I agree that we need different ways to reach people, we should go inside their world and not try to force them to the ivory towers of socialism. That doesn't mean the work currently done in these ivory towers should stop :P

[Ravachol]

If the two most common reasons for somebody to become interested in radical left politics are:
1. Intellectual interest
2. Material conditions


This is the dichtomy between Idealism and Materialism as a motivational force in history (note that they are not mutually exclusive). Whilst I myself am higly motivated by Idealism, most people are motivated by materialist reasons. It is up to the pro-revolutionary milieu to partially provide in those material needs and turn them into an insurrectionary force capable of destroying that which causes the needs to arise in the first place, capitalism.




and the material conditions aren't so bad right now


I used to think that was a big roadblock as well, but I'm not convinced of that anymore. Whilst temporary gains like social security and a relative high standard of living in the west certainly maintain social peace (although I suspect that this will not last for very long), 'Material Conditions' do not imply people only getting angry if they are starving.

Let us assume everyone strives for a maximalisation of his/her material conditions.
Now, given that a worker lives under daily material conditions quantified as X, when his boss seeks to accumulate capital by cutting the wages, his material conditions will drop to a level below X, let us say Y, thus contradicting the worker's desire for optimal material conditions.

Whilst material level Y might still be 'the land of milk and honey' as compared to the so-called 'third world', it is in direct contradiction with his drive for maximum quality of life. Thus, class struggle is born.

Strikes, lockouts,sabotage,etc occurs even in countries with high 'living standards'. Sure, struggle becomes more intense (and the potential for insurrection requires heavy conflict between living labor and capital) during a period of lowering quality of life, but the potential for class struggle is always there as long as the contradiction between living labor and capital is there, a contradiction integral to capitalism's logic.

As for the Ivory Towers, I myself really enjoy obscure and arcane political and sociological texts, but those aren't necessary to understand class struggle, it's a pretty simple phenomenon really. In regard to this, we can say that it doesn't require one to proclaim him or herself a Socialist, it only requires one to act like a socialist. Something that is often achieved through direct struggle against the conditions and suffocation created by capital in the factories and outside of it. The common worker understands what it means when his wages are cut, when he is laid off, when his rent rises, when he is drafted into the army, etc. From this suffocation, refusal is born. And from this refusal, resistance is born. And that is where class struggle and 'living communism' arise.

[El Rojo]

I find that the best way to get our message across is by joining in existing struggles in one's community, strikes, environmental actions, anti-fascism ect and explain to people as you go the links between thier given situation and capitalism, and then help link them to the wider struggle

[Comrade Akai]

OP, I must disagree with you.

Many of the workers are stupid. The people, especially the proletariat, are apathetic.


I agree with pretty much everything else you said. We need to get people involved and we need to make it simple for the intellectually oppressed masses to understand.

But more important than that, we need to get them to actually give a shit.

...and that is the hard part.

[Ravachol]

OP, I must disagree with you.

Many of the workers are stupid. The people, especially the proletariat, are apathetic.


Good thing there's you, the beacon of reason and enlightenment! :glare:
Honestley, if you are so deluded as to think that the average man doesn't know his wages are being cut, that he doesn't notice increases in rent, then you are tripping balls my friend. Sure, cultural hegemony and false conciousness often direct anger at all the wrong places, but that is where education and open debate amongst workers comes in. Workers are prefectly capable of understanding the structure of their factories and the policing of their communities. It's not all that complex really. The last thing they need, however, is pompous vanguardists shouting they are 'pathetic'.



But more important than that, we need to get them to actually give a shit.

...and that is the hard part.

:laugh:

Yes, because people don't care at being drafted in the army, because they don't care they can buy less goods, they don't care they can't afford their houses anymore :rolleyes:

Simply because there are no outbursts of violence and guerilla warfare doesn't mean there isn't a large ammount of social unrest brewing under the cracking polished surface of civil society.

[ZeroNowhere]

Make it very simple, very clear so we can draw in support from the apathetic, tired and disinterested. No big words, clear concise aims. Explain what we're all about, without going on and on and on about lofty theories that don't affect many people in any way they can see, touch, smell, feel.

Lets start making class struggle simple, accessible and easy to understand.So pretty much Capital, then, which is entertaining into the bargain. Not a very innovative suggestion, perhaps.


the material conditions aren't so bad right nowThey've been pretty shit since 2008, and aren't going to get much better unless they get worse.

[<Insert Username Here>]

So pretty much Capital, then, which is entertaining into the bargain. Not a very innovative suggestion, perhaps.


Have you ever read Capital???????? Better question- have you ever watched Jeremy Kyle?????? Now try to imagine the two together. Now put Capital in competition with booze, drugs, xbox and facebook. Now you should (assuming you aren't still being an idealist prick) see the problem.

[Ravachol]

Have you ever read Capital???????? Better question- have you ever watched Jeremy Kyle?????? Now try to imagine the two together. Now put Capital in competition with booze, drugs, xbox and facebook. Now you should (assuming you aren't still being an idealist prick) see the problem.

As I said, who the hell wants to start the Revolution by distributing copies of Capital amongst people and then waiting for the fire to spread? The material conditions will speak for themselves, the task of the pro-revolutionary milieu is to develop theory and practice that will be presentable as a toolkit to the working class in their class struggle in order to prevent it from being derailed into false conciousness. Our task is not to distribute books and hope for the spark.

[punisa]

Many of the workers are stupid. The people, especially the proletariat, are apathetic.

I believe OP wanted to say the same thing - BUT it tends to get really hard to say this on a forum which claims working class is the revolutionary class, you know? :laugh:

Ok, let's stop being hypocritical for just a second and put things as they are.
Workers ARE stupid. And this comes from a worker.
Only a few years ago I stumbled upon some ideas that are slowly dragging me out of my own stupidity, maybe not completely - but hey, I'm on my way there :thumbup1:

But I believe nobody here is claiming that working people are stupid people as default.
And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with individual intelligence.

Working people as a class are made stupid for a reason. And there are numerous visible and invisible forces at work all the time to keep them that way.
Once in this state - let's called it "enforced stupidity" - they are perfect for the system. Never complain, never revolt and believe in whatever the source of their dumbness tells them (politicians, TV, church, even the internet)

someone mentioned "Communism: A Very Short Introduction by Leslie Holmes".
You think common workers will read this? You think they will understand this?
Probably not. Not at this point any more.

The only remote political influence fed to the masses is the one that has:
- many pictures, preferably videos
- as little text as possible
- easy words
- childish introductions
- flashy screens
- mysterious music

That's why crap like Zeitgeist movie creates millions of anti-capitalists while we are stuck with a bunch of them.


We still have a huge advantage, we have (in theory at least) the system that can actually be accomplished.
We also have a synthesis of ideas to reach it.
But we must think hard on ways of introducing it to the people.

If WE say that the working class is STUPID - this is an argument to take action, not to be frightened to even say it.

[Comrade Akai]

I believe OP wanted to say the same thing - BUT it tends to get really hard to say this on a forum which claims working class is the revolutionary class, you know? :laugh:

Ok, let's stop being hypocritical for just a second and put things as they are.
Workers ARE stupid. And this comes from a worker.
Only a few years ago I stumbled upon some ideas that are slowly dragging me out of my own stupidity, maybe not completely - but hey, I'm on my way there :thumbup1:

But I believe nobody here is claiming that working people are stupid people as default.
And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with individual intelligence.

Working people as a class are made stupid for a reason. And there are numerous visible and invisible forces at work all the time to keep them that way.
Once in this state - let's called it "enforced stupidity" - they are perfect for the system. Never complain, never revolt and believe in whatever the source of their dumbness tells them (politicians, TV, church, even the internet)

someone mentioned "Communism: A Very Short Introduction by Leslie Holmes".
You think common workers will read this? You think they will understand this?
Probably not. Not at this point any more.

The only remote political influence fed to the masses is the one that has:
- many pictures, preferably videos
- as little text as possible
- easy words
- childish introductions
- flashy screens
- mysterious music

That's why crap like Zeitgeist movie creates millions of anti-capitalists while we are stuck with a bunch of them.


We still have a huge advantage, we have (in theory at least) the system that can actually be accomplished.
We also have a synthesis of ideas to reach it.
But we must think hard on ways of introducing it to the people.

If WE say that the working class is STUPID - this is an argument to take action, not to be frightened to even say it.

Thank you. Very, very much. This needed to be said.:)

[Bitter Ashes]

It's a very simple concept. You work less and everything's free!

If somebody wanted to ask how that's possible in the most simple way then I'd just say that when all the banks, manager, insurance companies, sales, debt agencies, etc are redundant all those people will join the production labour force. Add onto that the industrialisation of the 3rd world through recycling machinary and abolishing patent laws it's easy to see how having more people in production is possible and would lead to higher productivity, lower working week and a more relaxed working atmosphere with an abundance of products and services available.

[Q]

It's a very simple concept. You work less and everything's free!

If somebody wanted to ask how that's possible in the most simple way then I'd just say that when all the banks, manager, insurance companies, sales, debt agencies, etc are redundant all those people will join the production labour force. Add onto that the industrialisation of the 3rd world through recycling machinary and abolishing patent laws it's easy to see how having more people in production is possible and would lead to higher productivity, lower working week and a more relaxed working atmosphere with an abundance of products and services available.

This post summarizes what is wrong with much of the far left: economism.

The working class will mobilise around economistic themes, this is why trade unions exist: fighting for a better wage, shorter working hours, free healthcare, good education, whatever. The impossibility however comes in is when you try to make that struggle political, the workers go "huh? socialism?" or, if you're lucky, will agree with you in an abstract (and most of the time wrongly understood) sense.

The fight against capitalist exploitation, for a united working class that organises as a class and for working class hegemony - all things that a prerequisites before we can even dream about "building socialism" - is a political struggle, namely a struggle for the most radical democracy we may achieve: actually bringing the majority of the population to power.

To make the concept clear, an example: Many, if not all, far leftist organisations have a position something along the line of "lower the working week to 30 hours, without loss of pay". What is almost always forgotten is to add "... to enable people to have the time to have a real say in the society they live in".

It sounds simple, but is crucial. As communists we are waging a political struggle first and foremostly, in that way economic struggle may help us in our cause to organise the working class. Yet, to make the Marxist adagium of "the liberation of the working class can only be the work of itself" work, they have to be conscious about their historic task of taking power, a political task. And if you actually organise along those lines, you'll find it much easier to organise people as we all can relate to our daily experiences of alienation. The best organisers active in the trade union movement will agree about this.

[Bitter Ashes]

So, what you're saying Q is that we should be putting less emphasis on the end result (socialism) and more on the path to getting there? Maybe I misunderstood.

I am not so sure that most people would be enticed to socialism on the main basis of sacking thier boss. I figured that the prospect of them getting to live like thier boss, without all the bieng a bastard bits attached, is our far better "offer" to workers. I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible with my post here too because I know that we have a wide variety of socialists here at Revleft who believe in varying levels of libertaranianism.

[Q]

So, what you're saying Q is that we should be putting less emphasis on the end result (socialism) and more on the path to getting there? Maybe I misunderstood.
I guess you could say that. We should get our priorities straight and before we think about socialism/communism, we have to think how the working class can become hegemonic and end capitalism. An additional factor of confusion is that many socialists mix up socialism with democracy.


I am not so sure that most people would be enticed to socialism on the main basis of sacking thier boss. I figured that the prospect of them getting to live like thier boss, without all the bieng a bastard bits attached, is our far better "offer" to workers. I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible with my post here too because I know that we have a wide variety of socialists here at Revleft who believe in varying levels of libertaranianism.
If your main argument in the movement is that workers can live at a same level as their boss, while still having a boss, you're on your way to reformism, not socialism. You don't question the whole logic of having a boss in the first place.

Let me give a "low level" example of the fight for democracy, which is essentially a fight of workers to get a say in their lives. In the Netherlands the cleaners are currently on strike action, one of their main demands being to get more "respect" for the work they do. Now what does "respect" have to do with anything you may ask? It is the realisation that they are important, that they matter. From there it is a relatively small step to demanding a say on the workfloor, which again is a small step in organising the working class as a class in its own right.

[Bitter Ashes]

If your main argument in the movement is that workers can live at a same level as their boss, while still having a boss, you're on your way to reformism, not socialism. You don't question the whole logic of having a boss in the first place.

Let me give a "low level" example of the fight for democracy, which is essentially a fight of workers to get a say in their lives. In the Netherlands the cleaners are currently on strike action, one of their main demands being to get more "respect" for the work they do. Now what does "respect" have to do with anything you may ask? It is the realisation that they are important, that they matter. From there it is a relatively small step to demanding a say on the workfloor, which again is a small step in organising the working class as a class in its own right.
No-no. Sacking the boss is something that has to be done, as part of the strategy (and an added bonus for some!), but I dont consider it the main objective. It's not a rallying point for most workers. We may dislike our bosses, some more than others, but I see most of them as merely very expensive middle-men/parasites that need removing to get to that point where we can all live comfortably.

Maybe we're just looking at the same thing in different ways. I think we're sacking the bosses as a stepping stone to living comfortably in short, rather than it bieng the ultimate objective. I mean, why would people be in favour of sacking thier bosses if they thought they'd be worse off (which they wouldnt be)?

[mikelepore]

It's a very simple concept. You work less and everything's free!

If somebody wanted to ask how that's possible in the most simple way then I'd just say that when all the banks, manager, insurance companies, sales, debt agencies, etc are redundant all those people will join the production labour force. Add onto that the industrialisation of the 3rd world through recycling machinary and abolishing patent laws it's easy to see how having more people in production is possible and would lead to higher productivity, lower working week and a more relaxed working atmosphere with an abundance of products and services available.

Why would the former bank manager agree to join the labor force if everything is free?

[Bitter Ashes]

Why would the former bank manager agree to join the labor force if everything is free?
That answer varies from ideoligy to ideoligy. :)

Anarchists would say though that community pressure would do the work there.

[anticap]

Regardless of what one may think of the message (Leninists in particular will hate it), as far as presentation goes I think Alexander Berkman's Now and After (a.k.a. What Is Communist Anarchism?) does it well.

For an example chapter that will piss off the fewest among us, try The Wage System (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Alexander_Berkman__What_Is_Communist_Anarchism_.ht ml#toc4) (you'll have to click chapter 2 in the menu, since anonym.to strips anchors from links).

[Stand Your Ground]

Ok this is going to ruffle some egalitarian feathers, but at the risk of an infraction, my rep being devastated and being banished to OI, I'm going to take a shot at this. :cool:

We over intellectualise. A lot. And our message is a big pill to swallow, we don't have a very good track record, and theres a lot of misconceptions.

Communism is an ideology of not only workers, but un-oppurtunist intellectuals. Ok, here for the bit thats going to have me run out of town.

People don't give a shit.

Marx is a heavy read. Nobody knows what "proletariat" and "bourgeoise" mean. Most workers don't give a rat's arse, they're content to bumble along as a slave of the system. I don't think anyone here would disagree that those working class people need a wake up call. But the worst kind of wakeup call is one which puts them to sleep.

I'm not saying workers are stupid, but they often neither have the will nor the time or effort to think deeply about class struggle.

My point and suggestion is, its time to dumb it down. Make it very simple, very clear so we can draw in support from the apathetic, tired and disinterested. No big words, clear concise aims. Explain what we're all about, without going on and on and on about lofty theories that don't affect many people in any way they can see, touch, smell, feel.

Lets start making class struggle simple, accessible and easy to understand.
I agree, I start trying to tell people how bad capitalism is and they yawn and walk away. :cursing:

Edit: When people ask me what communism is, I simplify it into this: 'A classless, stateless, oppression free, exploitation free, direct democratic worldwide society in which the people control the production of goods and distribute them evenly, supplying the needs of all people. Free food, water, healthcare, housing & education.'

Kind of a long run-on sentence but doesn't talk alot to say lol.

[Comrade_Stalin]

:( Lets's just face it, if communism is about teaching the workers about materialist reasons why thing are done, and why we should change them, we have failed. Most people, could not tell me what are the materialist reasons why theing are done, only the social reason.

[Ravachol]

:( Lets's just face it, if communism is about teaching the workers about materialist reasons why thing are done, and why we should change them, we have failed. Most people, could not tell me what are the materialist reasons why theing are done, only the social reason.

See, that kind of reasoning is the problem when materialism is considered, no offence. 'We' don't need to teach anybody about 'materialism', materialism speaks for itself in the loudest voice possible, that of the cut wage, the lost job, the increased rent. There isn't much to 'understand' about that apart from experiencing the direct results of the class relation and having the desire to oppose and refuse those results. It is from there that the spark is born not from propaganda. Whilst I highly value pro-revolutionary propaganda we must understand that a mass-led revolution (as opposed to a vanguardist adventure) is born out of materialism NOT idealism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The impossibility however comes in is when you try to make that struggle political, the workers go "huh? socialism?" or, if you're lucky, will agree with you in an abstract (and most of the time wrongly understood) sense.

The fight against capitalist exploitation, for a united working class that organises as a class and for working class hegemony - all things that a prerequisites before we can even dream about "building socialism" - is a political struggle, namely a struggle for the most radical democracy we may achieve: actually bringing the majority of the population to power.

[...]

An additional factor of confusion is that many socialists mix up socialism with democracy.

May I remind comrades here that the "struggle for socialism" is an economic struggle and not a political one?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=194


So, what you're saying Q is that we should be putting less emphasis on the end result (socialism) and more on the path to getting there? Maybe I misunderstood.

It depends on the path. There are "bourgeois worker" parties with their sacred cows of reform fetishes and reform coalitions. There are communist outlets with their sacred cows of "revolutionism" (like urban "direct action" protests and rural guerrilla warfare a la Focoism) and especially "mass strike" fetishes. Yet to be formed are proletarian-not-necessarily-communist parties aiming for policy-making and all other ruling-class political power (participatory-democratic parallelism, recallability, average skilled workers' wages, and so on).


Let me give a "low level" example of the fight for democracy, which is essentially a fight of workers to get a say in their lives. In the Netherlands the cleaners are currently on strike action, one of their main demands being to get more "respect" for the work they do. Now what does "respect" have to do with anything you may ask? It is the realisation that they are important, that they matter. From there it is a relatively small step to demanding a say on the workfloor, which again is a small step in organising the working class as a class in its own right.

Thanks for bringing up the social concept of "respect." I hadn't thought about that as being potentially political. :thumbup1:

[Comrade_Stalin]

See, that kind of reasoning is the problem when materialism is considered, no offence. 'We' don't need to teach anybody about 'materialism', materialism speaks for itself in the loudest voice possible, that of the cut wage, the lost job, the increased rent. There isn't much to 'understand' about that apart from experiencing the direct results of the class relation and having the desire to oppose and refuse those results. It is from there that the spark is born not from propaganda. Whilst I highly value pro-revolutionary propaganda we must understand that a mass-led revolution (as opposed to a vanguardist adventure) is born out of materialism NOT idealism.

But you just proved my point. People always do thing for materialist reasons. The reason why the mass fight in a revolution is do raise wages, stop job loss and decrease rent. All the rest, are the lies we tell are self to accept that. Here a example, people kill each other in the holy land, in the name of god. But the real reason is tourism, which brings in money. But most people could not tell me taht, they instead would say, I'm killing that other person, because god told me.

[RedLaw]

OP, I must disagree with you.

Many of the workers are stupid. The people, especially the proletariat, are apathetic.


I agree with pretty much everything else you said. We need to get people involved and we need to make it simple for the intellectually oppressed masses to understand.

But more important than that, we need to get them to actually give a shit.

...and that is the hard part.

People in the present society have all been given their pacifiers.
It's the things that keep 'us all' under control,just the way 'they' like it.
As long as the icebox is fully stocked with beer and the latest 'mind-numbing'
reality show or sitcom is beaming into their living rooms it's difficult,to say
the least,for Marx and Engels to compete.
It will probably take a big 'crisis event' and when that hits,suddenly answers
will be demanded and it is then that a vanguard/leadership needs to be in
place and ready to channel and focus the energies of those who,all at once,
find themselves with clear class awareness.(for the first time ever)

[Jazzhands]

I think we don't have to do THAT much. We just have to line the people up in all the right places. Just looking at this thread would probably tell the people all they need to hear to get started. :D

[Stakhanov1415]

I totally agree with OP.

[tbasherizer]

This area is where I really like the anarchist methods of direct action. If you really look at it, anarchist initiatives (radical community gardens, education initiatives, infoshops, etc.) are all socialist in nature. They just avoid any terminology that people in the West have a lot of negative associations with.

This, in my opinion, is why community gardens have caught on in the mainstream, and some anarchistic principles are taking hold in some obscure corners of the education system. They take away people's negative association with communism/socialism, and they apply on a basic level to peoples' lives. Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War is a good example of leftists taking the initiative and actually doing something.

The entire left movement needs to take up anarchist spontaneity and pragmatism to actually make the initiatives now and theorize later. I've seen too many empty auditoria for lectures about fine points (if that's the correct term, considering his vulgar style)of Slavoj Zizjek or how to interpret Neo-Marxist critiques of post-modernism. I agree with the OP in that we have to appeal to the masses on a base level, but I would add that we need to make that appeal one of direct action, and not of theoretical simplification.

Forgive my structual errors, but I really should be sleeping now.