On the modern Communist Movement

[Kirien]

Would you say, from general observation, that leftist ideas are gaining in popularity or slowly dying out within the recent years?

How likely is the prospect of achieving the extent of class consciousness required for revolutionary action, anyway? I'm referring to the first-world countries, America in particular, though not limited to. There are many reasons to suggest that it is far from realistic. In addition to frequent serious misunderstandings regarding the Left (equating communism with Stalinism, etc), a significant majority of the population just seems to be too caught up in our capitalist consumerist culture to care, period. The 'stereotypical American' is portrayed as stupid, selfish, greedy; it is not completely a lie.

The other prevailing attitude is cynicism, from those prone to viewing the revolutionary left as "naive dreamers". A majority of the reasonably intelligent and self-aware of today seem to fall into this category, sometimes including former leftists themselves. Those who are too skeptical of any serious change occurring in this lifetime, and are thus content to sit back and attempt to make peace with the establishment.

It seems to me that we are a very small minority, insignificant in the greater course of things, and will continue to remain so for a while to come. Although I would like to think that I am less right than wrong.

What are your thoughts?

[Kirien]

Ah, does no one have any comments to share? >.<

[Comrade Gwydion]

A little patience might do you some good. ;)


It seems to me that we are a very small minority, insignificant in the greater course of things, and will continue to remain so for a while to come.


We are. But at the same time, we're trying to do something about it.

[MrCharizma]

I have the exact problem in Australia, especially when politics came into discussion in school and with friends. It seems as if far too many people, as you said, are willing to just sit back and accept capitalism's evils. Way too caught up in consumerism and materialistic ideals. It seems as if there are only 3 leftists in our entire school, kinda sucks, huh.

Slowly but surely we are doing something about it.

[AK]

It seems as if there are only 3 leftists in our entire school, kinda sucks, huh.
Lucky bastard. I'm the only serious leftist at my school. I have a Marxist-Leninist (he calls himself that, anyway. I'm pretty sure he hasn't read anything at all) friend who wants to be "El Presidente", is extremely nationalist, pro-US and wants a worldwide Australian Empire. What a douche.

[ContrarianLemming]

we are part of the solution, not the problem, that's what matters.

[x359594]

Communism is making a come back within the French Left, at least on the evidence of the Left media there.

An English language edition of Alain Badiou's The Communist Hypothesis is scheduled for publication next month. I read an excerpt from it posted at Monthly Review earlier this year and it looks like it will be a rich source of talking points and argument.

[Catillina]

Well I'd say we hhave a fertile ground for the moment(economic crisis, war, and so on), but I have to admit that(for example) in my class, the greater part is bad informed(the 0815 bullshit about communsim=dicatorship and so on). It's since I started to proclame leftist ideas that they now vaguely what it is, but it's hard to convince them, because everybody comes from a bourgeois milieu, and as long as they live well off, they don't realy care about others.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

The American left is currently unorganized and with a lack of leadership. In addition you have so many parties falling into opportunisms, i.e showing up at pro-abortion rallies, or at gay rights etc. Seriously what does those topics have to do with worker's rights. That is why we haven't been able to effectively hit the spot. Another reason for the American left failing to grow is the wrong line on the lumpenproletariat. These political parties, so called "communist parties" must realize that by rallying for gay rights or showing up for pro-abortion rallies, they are dividing the American proletariat and thus weakening the movement. Same goes for the wrong line on the lumpenproletariat. That class is actually parasitic and as Marx said a "social scum". The American should focus exclusively on class struggle and not fall into opportunism.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

*the american left

[∞]

well I live in Fresno, (literally) ranked the dumbest city in the US, you can imagine how stupid people here are.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

well I live in Fresno, (literally) ranked the dumbest city in the US, you can imagine how stupid people here are.

What do you mean Blasphemy?

[death_by_semicolon]

If you think the American left is small and insignificant, turn on Fox News for a couple of hours. In their world, the extreme left is the #1 threat to the "American" way of life...which would be a good thing if it were actually true. Their idea of the "American" way of life is total horseshit and is the #1 threat to the world at large.

;

[Nolan]

Latin America at the moment is a fertile commie breeding ground.

[Coyote]

I would say that there is some hope for the left still. We have numbers that increase each day; what is more, is that we as revolutionaries tend to be doers rather than talkers, and have the desire to do what is necessary to achieve our aims. Our weakness lies in the fact that we are few and far between, spread across the map considerable distances from each other. This is the problem for me, as I am the only socialist in my area because central Pennsylvania is extremely conservative.

[Adi Shankara]

Latin America at the moment is a fertile commie breeding ground.

Not like India or the Arab world will be. just you wait.

[∞]

What do you mean Blasphemy?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-04/americas-smartest-cities---from-first-to-worst/

We are ranked the dumbest city in US, and I couldn't agree more. The only place in California infested with Mormons and Tea-Baggers. Any kind of duechebag you want, we got them.

[Martin Blank]

The American left is currently unorganized and with a lack of leadership. In addition you have so many parties falling into opportunisms, i.e showing up at pro-abortion rallies, or at gay rights etc. Seriously what does those topics have to do with worker's rights. That is why we haven't been able to effectively hit the spot. Another reason for the American left failing to grow is the wrong line on the lumpenproletariat. These political parties, so called "communist parties" must realize that by rallying for gay rights or showing up for pro-abortion rallies, they are dividing the American proletariat and thus weakening the movement. Same goes for the wrong line on the lumpenproletariat. That class is actually parasitic and as Marx said a "social scum". The American should focus exclusively on class struggle and not fall into opportunism.

So, you don't see women's rights -- specifically, a woman's right to privacy and choice -- and gay rights as part of the broader class struggle? Does this mean you oppose these rights?

[Blackscare]

Latin America at the moment is a fertile commie breeding ground.

I think it is a dangerous tendency, and has been for many decades, amongst members of the western Left to focus too heavily on the revolution "over there", that is to say to place all their efforts and hopes into "supporting" (though often not in any tangible way) third world revolution while allowing, through inaction, worker's movements in their home countries to languish in apathy and a sort of subconscious certainty that real revolution is an impossibility in the west.

In reality the best thing that we can be doing for Latin America is agitating as ferociously as possible. Only when the pressures of imperialism can be removed or at least shaken will world socialism truly begin to flourish.

I'm not trying to say that the person quoted above falls into this category of Leftist Ventriloquists, but the comment brought this to mind. When I see people on here and elsewhere claim to be rabid supporters of Cuba, Venezuela, etc, without actually doing anything productive for the Left in their own countries, I wonder if they realize that by contenting themselves to an empty gesture of support for these countries they are actually harming them.

[Thirsty Crow]

So, you don't see women's rights -- specifically, a woman's right to privacy and choice -- and gay rights as part of the broader class struggle? Does this mean you oppose these rights?
My thoughts exactly.
Moreover, I'd like to see some evidence on how exactly does support for womens' rights and homosexual people's rights "divide the working class".
One idea comes to mind...if certain portion of the working class views these problems as "minute" or even as "the way it should be", the conclusion is inevitable: they fell prey to conservative ideology and propaganda. In my opinion, such sentiments have absolutely nothing in common with the revolutionary struggle, i.e. they are reactionary.
I also think that the revolutionary left would be better off (and the working class as well) if it were to successfully connect with the other opressed groups.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

So, you don't see women's rights -- specifically, a woman's right to privacy and choice -- and gay rights as part of the broader class struggle? Does this mean you oppose these rights?

I really don't see how you can come up with such a question. When I mentioned worker, I don't mean simply male workers, I mean women workers as well. So you are the one assuming that when I say worker, I am referring solely to male workers. Let's not fall into sexisms my brother. Mao Tse-Tung once said "women hold up one half of heaven".

Homosexuality is a totally separate issue. It has nothing to do with the proletarians' struggle for liberation. Homosexuality does not make up a significant number of people. We must support the workers, the WORKERS!

Now please don't call me homophobic or a fascist, I really hate that. If you do I am warning you I won't reply back. Let's keep this conversation in an intellectual manner. Thank you very much.

[Zanthorus]

We must support the workers, the WORKERS!

...one tenth of whom are homosexual and are going to be put off if they have to join a movement full of homophobes. Combating homophobia is a key aspect of building working-class solidarity.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

My thoughts exactly.
Moreover, I'd like to see some evidence on how exactly does support for womens' rights and homosexual people's rights "divide the working class".
One idea comes to mind...if certain portion of the working class views these problems as "minute" or even as "the way it should be", the conclusion is inevitable: they fell prey to conservative ideology and propaganda. In my opinion, such sentiments have absolutely nothing in common with the revolutionary struggle, i.e. they are reactionary.
I also think that the revolutionary left would be better off (and the working class as well) if it were to successfully connect with the other opressed groups.

Firstly, I never mentioned anything about women's rights. Where exactly did you get that brother? I am really trying to look where I mentioned women's rights but for some reason can't seem to find anything. Next, homosexuality does not have to do anything with the communist revolution, absolutely nothing. Instead what you get when you rally for "gay-rights" are american workers getting alienated from each other and becoming discouraged from participating in the revolutionary movement.

For example look at the Tea Partiers. That's what happens when theres a lack of genuine progressive leadership.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

...one tenth of whom are homosexual and are going to be put off if they have to join a movement full of homophobes. Combating homophobia is a key aspect of building working-class solidarity.

Homosexuality was considered a social aberration in revolutionary Russia and China. You might want to double-check your position on homosexuality.

[Zanthorus]

Next, homosexuality does not have to do anything with the communist revolution, absolutely nothing.

Yes it does. It is crucial for the working-class to be united against the employers and a fair amount of that working-class is homosexual. Workers will need to realise that they have common interests against the employing class with their fellow workers who are homosexual and that homophobia only serves the capitalists.


Homosexuality was considered a social aberration in revolutionary Russia and China. You might want to double-check your position on homosexuality.

When the Bolsheviks took power and abolished the old Tsarist legal code they also got rid of all the laws outlawing homosexuality. The anti-homosexuality laws were only brought back into placed under Stalin. And I've seen Marxist-Leninists who criticise that aspect of Stalin's regime.

Here's a thought, maybe you should double-check your uncritical acceptance of everything ever done by Stalin and Mao?

[Blackscare]

Where exactly did you get that brother? I am really trying to look where I mentioned women's rights but for some reason can't seem to find anything.Abortion is a Women's rights issue.


Homosexuality was considered a social aberration in revolutionary Russia and China. You might want to double-check your position on homosexuality. Actually, the Soviet Union had some pretty progressive policy regarding homosexuality until Stalin overturned things later on. Lenin personally despised the persecution of homosexuals.

Also, even if revolutionaries in the early-mid 20th century, who in spite of their obviously progressive attitudes in many respects were still to an extent products of certain social biases of their age, DID consider homosexuality an abomination or some other such nonsense, it would not be a valid reason for modern leftists to take a massive evolutionary step back and adopt those outmoded beliefs. Here's a bit of reality, the words of dead revolutionaries are not immutable holy scripture. Lenin was capable of being wrong, as was Mao.

[Edit: damn you Zanthorus, damn you to hell. You beat me to the punch. I'd thank you if I could. :D ]

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Yes it does. It is crucial for the working-class to be united against the employers and a fair amount of that working-class is homosexual. Workers will need to realise that they have common interests against the employing class with their fellow workers who are homosexual and that homophobia only serves the capitalists.



When the Bolsheviks took power and abolished the old Tsarist legal code they also got rid of all the laws outlawing homosexuality. The anti-homosexuality laws were only brought back into placed under Stalin. And I've seen Marxist-Leninists who criticise that aspect of Stalin's regime.

Here's a thought, maybe you should double-check your uncritical acceptance of everything ever done by Stalin and Mao?

Out of 100% of the proletarians in the world, 1% is homosexual. Your living in a fantasy if you think you can make workers "accept" homosexuality. We first need to get rid of this system, that should be our main objective. Not getting two homosexuals to get married. Where is your priority, "gay-rights" or class struggle.

Guess what, I don't accept what Stalin and Mao did uncritically, and you know what else I just don't think homosexuality should be on our agenda. :thumbup1:

[AK]

Homosexuality was considered a social aberration in revolutionary Russia and China. You might want to double-check your position on homosexuality.
He's a left communist, he's not exactly in favour of the Bolsheviks or the Maoists.

You sound like a massive homophobe to me. In fact, homophobia has been and is a phenomenon that is artificially created by a ruling class in an attempt to draw attention away from the real issues (class struggle) and to unite with the lower classes in some sort of attempt to gain their approval and support by "upholding tradition and family values" whilst also holding on to power.

This perpetual war against homosexuality is pretty much one that is lost from the very beginning, anyway, as people will always love others of the same gender - they can't choose who they fall in love with. But this just let's the ruling class hold power forever, doesn't it? Homosexuals are just scapegoats to the ruling class.

There are some things that you just can't blindly take the working class' position on - because it has likely been influenced by someone else acting in their own interests.

[Thirsty Crow]

Firstly, I never mentioned anything about women's rights. Where exactly did you get that brother? I am really trying to look where I mentioned women's rights but for some reason can't seem to find anything. Next, homosexuality does not have to do anything with the communist revolution, absolutely nothing. Instead what you get when you rally for "gay-rights" are american workers getting alienated from each other and becoming discouraged from participating in the revolutionary movement.

For example look at the Tea Partiers. That's what happens when theres a lack of genuine progressive leadership.
You did mention pro-choice rallies.
This has everything to do with womens' rights.
Next, a communist revolution has everything to do with the liberation of other, non-class defined, oppressed groups. Again, as oppression of workers has everything to to with social relations engendered by the capitalist mode of production, so do other types of opression (e.g. homophobia) have everything to do with social conditions and forms of consciousness arising form the dominant social-economic formation.
Moreover, if the aim of a communist revolution is to abolish all classes, i.e. to abolish all repression and create a free society, how does the opression of homosexual people fit into that?
And again, please show me how support for other opressed groups ("pro-choice and "gay rally") alienate the workers from each other?

Homosexuality was considered a social aberration in revolutionary Russia and China. You might want to double-check your position on homosexuality.
Wait what??
If I understand your point correctly, you uphold the "revolutionary" assessment of Stalin's laws (as Zanthorus notes correctly) against honosexuality??
If you do, then, please explain why should such sexual preference and practice be interpreted as socially aberrant?

[AK]

Guess what, I don't accept what Stalin and Mao did uncritically, and you know what else I just don't think homosexuality should be on our agenda. :thumbup1:
Homosexuality isn't on our "agenda", as if it were some plot to take over the world. Acceptance, unity, equality and solidarity are on our agenda.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

You did mention pro-choice rallies.
This has everything to do with womens' rights.
Next, a communist revolution has everything to do with the liberation of other, non-class defined, oppressed groups. Again, as oppression of workers has everything to to with social relations engendered by the capitalist mode of production, so do other types of opression (e.g. homophobia) have everything to do with social conditions and forms of consciousness arising form the dominant social-economic formation.
Moreover, if the aim of a communist revolution is to abolish all classes, i.e. to abolish all repression and create a free society, how does the opression of homosexual people fit into that?
And again, please show me how support for other opressed groups ("pro-choice and "gay rally") alienate the workers from each other?

Wait what??
If I understand your point correctly, you uphold the "revolutionary" assessment of Stalin's laws (as Zanthorus notes correctly) against honosexuality??
If you do, then, please explain why should such sexual preference and practice be interpreted as socially aberrant?

Because it is a bourgeois decadence. Biologically, homosexuality is something unnatural.

[Zanthorus]

[Edit: damn you Zanthorus, damn you to hell. You beat me to the punch. I'd thank you if I could. :D ]

Thanks, I would've repped your post but I can't because I thanked your last one.


Out of 100% of the proletarians in the world, 1% is homosexual.

Do you have any source for that? Most of the stats I've seen say somewhere between two and ten percent. And it's difficult to really estimate the numbers since homosexuality is still discriminated against in a lot of places. The statistics from the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (http://www.avert.org/gay-people.htm) from 2000 in Britain indicates that around ten percent of people have had some form of sexual experience with the same sex, around five percent have actually had sex with a member of the same sex and around three percent have done it in the last year.


Your living in a fantasy if you think you can make workers "accept" homosexuality.

Well then I guess the class struggle is doomed since we're going to be excluding ten percent of the workers from our groups.


We first need to get rid of this system, that should be our main objective. Not getting two homosexuals to get married. Where is your priority, "gay-rights" or class struggle.

Class struggle, from which it follows that we should support homosexuals as a sizeable portion of the working-class who suffer at the hands of the boss class the same as any other class and who we should have solidarity with instead of dismissing their struggles as simply irrelevant.


He's a left communist, he's not exactly in favour of the Bolsheviks or the Maoists.

Left-Communists were among the staunchest defenders of the Red October. We don't reject the legacy of Bolshevism, we just don't view it through completely uncritical lenses like Stalinists or Trotskyists.


Because it is a bourgeois decadence. Biologically, homosexuality is something unnatural.

Why does it matter whether or not something is "natural"? Uncritical acceptance of anything "natural" and denouncement of anything "unnatural" is a ruling-class viewpoint.

[Blackscare]

Out of 100% of the proletarians in the world, 1% is homosexual.Perhaps you should examine the correlation between your frankly dumb opinions and the fact that you pull random figures out of your ass that have no basis in fact.

Maybe if you made the first attempt of backing up your argument with real figures and facts, in the course of doing a little research you may even change your mind after being exposed to the truth.


Because it is a bourgeois decadence. Biologically, homosexuality is something unnatural. If it's so unnatural then why does the same trend exist in almost every species observed (about 10%, give or take). Are penguins decadent capitalists?


Also, what is decadent about it? What is wasteful or harmful? What, do we really need more people breeding? What is wrong with a productive, happy gay or lesbian couple adopting one of the droves of orphaned or otherwise adoptable children walking this planet? I really see nothing but constructive points to supporting gay rights.

[Thirsty Crow]

Because it is a bourgeois decadence. Biologically, homosexuality is something unnatural.
So, an intrinsic sexual preference for the same sex is in fact a burgeois decadence?
Newsflash: your silly biologism (as homosexuality is proven to be quite natural) is a burgeois ideological construct.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Perhaps you should examine the correlation between your frankly dumb opinions and the fact that you pull random figures out of your ass that have no basis in fact.

Maybe if you made the first attempt of backing up your argument with real figures and facts, in the course of doing a little research you may even change your mind after being exposed to the truth.

Look mother-fucker don't offend me okay. Theres no need to talk to me the way you did. Just tell me to start writing better and that's it.

[Zanthorus]

Look mother-fucker don't offend me okay. Theres no need to talk to me the way you did. Just tell me to start writing better and that's it.

What exactly did you find offensive about what he wrote? He was pointing out that you just made up that fact on the spot instead of actually researching it properly. And the fact you made up supports your own argument to a greater degree than the real facts.

[Blackscare]

Start writing better? Your shitty grammar and punctuation is merely annoying, I find your total lack of a factual basis for your argument to be the real problem.

Also, some might consider calling someone's sexual preference bourgeois decadence a tad offensive.

Yours truly,
A Mother-Fucker who can string together an argument and not totally lose his fucking cool on an Internet forum when called out.

[AK]

Because it is a bourgeois decadence. Biologically, homosexuality is something unnatural.
No it's not. Not unless there are chips implanted into 5 or so percent of the population a few days after birth that make someone homosexual.

The human brain does not unquestionably distinguish love as something between those of opposite genders. The argument you are presenting is that anal sex does not result in offspring. You're right. So how come heterosexuals perform anal sex? It might have something to do with love... wait, homosexuals love each other, too.

Heterosexuality seems to only be the dominant mode of sexual attraction in human society because we have recognised, in the past, that by inserting a penis into a vagina (and not an anus or mouth) and ejaculating, you get a pretty high chance of producing babies. This has come to be the socially accepted norm because it resulted in new individuals and was also usually the result of love between individuals. It was the kind of love that was encouraged.

In the past, people have been homosexual and it has been accepted. Take ancient Greece; the ruling elite were known for their homosexual acts. Were they systematically oppressed and persecuted? They were the ruling elite... maybe that should give you a hint.

[AK]

Left-Communists were among the staunchest defenders of the Red October. We don't reject the legacy of Bolshevism, we just don't view it through completely uncritical lenses like Stalinists or Trotskyists.
My mistake.

[Martin Blank]

I really don't see how you can come up with such a question. When I mentioned worker, I don't mean simply male workers, I mean women workers as well. So you are the one assuming that when I say worker, I am referring solely to male workers. Let's not fall into sexisms my brother. Mao Tse-Tung once said "women hold up one half of heaven".

Homosexuality is a totally separate issue. It has nothing to do with the proletarians' struggle for liberation. Homosexuality does not make up a significant number of people. We must support the workers, the WORKERS!

Now please don't call me homophobic or a fascist, I really hate that. If you do I am warning you I won't reply back. Let's keep this conversation in an intellectual manner. Thank you very much.

You really didn't answer my question. All you did was do a dance and spit out a talking point. So, I'll ask again, in a clearer and more direct way:

1. Do you support defending the democratic and social rights of women to privacy and choice, specifically when it comes to reproductive rights and termination of pregnancy (abortion)?

2. Do you support defending the democratic and social rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people to equality, including on the job and in the receipt of state services?

These are simple "Yes" or "No" questions. No dancing around is needed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR, a number of posters here are telling you that there is a middle ground between Identity Politics and vulgar "workerism."

For example, the pay gap between men and women for the same work is still there, but it shouldn't be.

Abortion affects female workers, because without this legal access they'd have to fork out a lot more on illegal abortions or on child care (whether private or through taxes).

Homosexuals can still be discriminated in employment and government services, as noted above.


Class struggle, from which it follows that we should support homosexuals as a sizeable portion of the working-class who suffer at the hands of the boss class the same as any other class and who we should have solidarity with instead of dismissing their struggles as simply irrelevant.

I think there's a subtlety, however, between "support" and "lead." That's the key difference between class-strugglists and the Identity-Politics-obsessed New Left.

[HEAD ICE]

Why is it that human homosexual behavior is considered 'unnatural' (I know why, don't worry)? Surely human beings are a part of nature, and human beings do have gay sex and it follows that that is a natural phenomenon, unlike something "unnatural" like two same magnetic poles being attracted to each other.

[RED DAVE]

Because it is a bourgeois decadence. Biologically, homosexuality is something unnatural.Just to chime in: I'm not in a polite mood. You are one dumb motherfucker!

Having been in the working class, white and blue collar, all my life, acceptance of homosexuality has already happened. Workers are aware of the gays among them and are, by and large, very accepting because of the conditions of work. When you work next to someone, day after day, for years, the question of who with and how they have sex tends to become irrelevant. And raising issues of gay rights becomes relatively easy.

To paraphrase Patrice Oneal to Colin Quinn, your prejudices need to be updated. Yours date from the 1950s.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

To get back to the OP:


Would you say, from general observation, that leftist ideas are gaining in popularity or slowly dying out within the recent years?The key point is that Marxism is, or should be, applicable for the development of successful strategies and tactics in and for the working class.

This is the crucial test for the Left in general, and for any group in particular. If they don't try to work within and with the working class, organized and unorganized, to develop strategy and tactics, then they're mostly wind.

RED DAVE