Cast off the old dirty shirt?

[redhotpoker]

I’ve never been one to give any support to the arguments of people who say; "The name Communism turns people off, you need to come up with a new name!" I have never taken this view seriously because I thought that communists must operate with as much openness as possible in their political work.
However I’ve rethought this position recently, not because the words communism and socialism are un-popular but because most of the organizations and individuals referring to themselves as communist do not represent what I am talking about when I say communism neither as a social movement or a system of control and distribution.
The communist party USA, Communist party of China, Both the old soviet communist party and the modern Russian communist parties, Bob Avakean, Gadhafi’s "socialist" Libya, and many others. Hell even Myanmar’s Junta used to consider itself socialist when it got you free goodies from the USSR.
It just seems that not only do I have to explain what communism is, I also have to defend myself from being blamed from the actions of people I wholeheartedly disagree with.
Not really a serious idea that I have put much thought into, just a passing one
(sorry for the bad grammer its 1:29 in the AM)

[Q]

Rigorous opposition to opportunism (that is: any "shortcuts" employed by groups to achieve some gain as a group at the cost of the wider movement) and counterrevolutionaries (like the politics of the USSR historically and more contemporary North-Korea) is actually needed. Simply walking away from this discussion will leave many people confused on what you actually want. You also run the risk of, at best, reinventing the wheel (you can't for example mention Marx as he was *gasp* a communist!), or more commonly you run the risk of totally leaving behind the communist project of human universal liberation.

On a deeper level, disagreements are actually a good thing, in fact they are necessary, as opposing opinions need to clash, so these positions can be further clarified and thus have an educational value. It also teaches people to think for themselves, a vital asset of any working class leader.

So, not only make the case for communism, also rigorously oppose opportunism and counterrevolutionaries. Do this in a comradely way, if possible. That is: Engage with your political opponents in a debate, let them clarify their position, have a respect for eachother as they are (most likely) honest and hard working working class militants too. In a word: Don't be like Revleft...

It's not easy being a communist.

[citizen of industry]

Naw, "re-branding" would definitely be a mistake. If you want these ideas to be popular someday, you gotta tell it like it is. The ideas will be more receptive to people in poor economic/employment situations, people who are beginning to see capitalism for what it is and are frustrated with the democratic party. If someone is rejecting capitalism, "communism," "socialism" or "marxism" don't sound so scary anymore.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The ruling class has really the biggest bullhorns out there to spread their messages. Communism/Socialism/Anarchism were dirty words before any of the betrayals of the 20th century. Of course back then the argument wasn't that it was "totalitarian" but that plumbers and cooks were unfit to rule society and that equality degraded the national character. In some ways, with people like Glenn Beck and all these crazy Ayn Randers and so on, these old arguments have re-emerged in the post-USSR world.

At any rate, even if we called it something different or even if some movement began heading in a communist direction but with different terminology and not in a conscious way, the right would still demonize that movement and then "happyism" or whatever it called itself would be the bogyman.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The best thing to do is to point out that capital-C Communism hasn't existed and, to all intents and purposes, doesn't exist; to point out that the USSR, North Korea et al were not communist, less Socialist, and to calmly explain that communism/Marxian Socialism have little to do with the anti-democratic regimes of the 20th century.

[el_chavista]

"I do not consider the term ‘communism’ suitable for general use today; rather it should be reserved for cases in which a more exact description is required and even then it would call for an explanatory note having virtually fallen out of use for the past thirty years." Engels to Karl Kautsky, 13 February 1894 (Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 50, p. 269)

[BostonCharlie]

The word is a mixed bag - how many times have you heard people say, 'Communism is a great theory but it won't work in practice.' It's our job to explain to such people why and how it would rather than run from the word.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"I do not consider the term ‘communism’ suitable for general use today; rather it should be reserved for cases in which a more exact description is required and even then it would call for an explanatory note having virtually fallen out of use for the past thirty years." Engels to Karl Kautsky, 13 February 1894 (Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 50, p. 269)

A partial "rebranding" is necessary, but it should be explicitly Marxist. "Proletocracy," for example is explicitly clear about its Marxism ("dictatorship of the proletariat"), while "social proletocracy" is explicitly clear about going past plain "proletocracy" with regards to the post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production.

[Martin Blank]

If someone were to steal your identity and drag it through the mud, would you try to "re-brand" yourself as someone else, or would you fight like hell to restore your good name?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Socialism is the natural word to use to describe our over-arching ideology, even if the end goal is communism.

I find it more socially comfortable (in non-left circles) to use the epithet Socialism.

[Obs]

A partial "rebranding" is necessary, but it should be explicitly Marxist. "Proletocracy," for example is explicitly clear about its Marxism ("dictatorship of the proletariat"), while "social proletocracy" is explicitly clear about going past plain "proletocracy" with regards to the post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production.
You're literally saying we should use different words so as to trick people into communism. Be proud; you're the voice of elitist, faux-revolutionary academics everywhere.

Really, you and Žižek should hang out some time and be irrelevant together.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You're literally saying we should use different words so as to trick people into communism. Be proud; you're the voice of elitist, faux-revolutionary academics everywhere.

Really, you and Žižek should hang out some time and be irrelevant together.Is all that really necessary? Tone it down a little, your base point is valid, no need to chop people's heads off.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If someone were to steal your identity and drag it through the mud, would you try to "re-brand" yourself as someone else, or would you fight like hell to restore your good name?

While you have a point about identity theft, there are also valid reasons why some people change their names. Pen names, for instance, assume new identities of their own.


You're literally saying we should use different words so as to trick people into communism.

Explain the usage of "Revolutionary Social Democracy" back in the day. :glare:


Really, you and Žižek should hang out some time and be irrelevant together.

Wrong academic: Chomsky emphasized language, while the ultra-philosophical Zizek didn't.

[Catmatic Leftist]

While you have a point about identity theft, there are also valid reasons why some people change their names. Pen names, for instance, assume new identities of their own.

Uh, I think you're missing the point... :blink:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^^ I didn't. I raised the usage of Revolutionary Social Democracy as a counterpoint.

[Zav]

If you gave Communism a different name, within ten minutes of you gaining popularity with it, Glen Beck will have a special TV spot in which he will tell the world that you are really dirty Commies who are trying to deceive America. Giving it another name won't help.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The public perception is more nuanced that Glenn Beck's sensationalism. It's high enough already that "Marxism /= Communism," mainly because of (otherwise unproductive) exposure to Academic Marxism. Below the public perception but above Glenn Beck's sensationalism, some might mis-credit Lenin as the "founder of Communism."


Socialism is the natural word to use to describe our over-arching ideology, even if the end goal is communism.

I find it more socially comfortable (in non-left circles) to use the epithet Socialism.

Unfortunately, I don't. It isn't explicitly Marxist. It doesn't emphasize the need for the worker class to be the ruling political class.

At worst, a partial "re-branding" that is nonetheless explicitly Marxist might provoke the sensationalism reaction of "Neo-Marxist!"

[Rafiq]

All the Moralist bullshit in here is sickening. Seriously, what is this, church?

20th century Communism, (20th century USSR style, all that crap) is dead

Communism will re-invent itself into a different word, but Marxism is here to stay.

Communism is nothing but the movement that will abolish the present state of things.

I am getting tired of all the Idealist crap, you all realize communism is a mere reflection of the material and social surroundings, right?

[Obs]

Is all that really necessary? Tone it down a little, your base point is valid, no need to chop people's heads off.
This is a guy who repeatedly espouses the view that an elite needs to guide the working class through means of trickery, guile, and demagoguery in order to create socialism, among other downright offensive anti-worker opinions. So excuse me if I'm a bit quick to decapitate a hater.


Explain the usage of "Revolutionary Social Democracy" back in the day. :glare:
A result of violent repression of openly communist organisations. Your allegory, just as your made-up perverted ideology, and likely many of your other endeavours in life*, fails.

*I am basing this on empirical data - e.g. the fact that you strike me as a tremendous loser


I am getting tired of all the Idealist crap, you all realize communism is a mere reflection of the material and social surroundings, right?
Of course. I, personally, just don't see a need to reinvent the wheel. We have a multitude of movements espousing the self-liberation of the working class. The specific words we use to signify this does not change that. Thus, the word 'communism' works just fine, in that it is an already established word for exactly that phenomenon.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is a guy who repeatedly espouses the view that an elite needs to guide the working class through means of trickery, guile, and demagoguery in order to create socialism, among other downright offensive anti-worker opinions. So excuse me if I'm a bit quick to decapitate a hater.

Other than the part about demagoguery for the most backward sections of the working class, you're confusing me for typical Trotskyist agitators. :laugh:


A result of violent repression of openly communist organisations.

Um, the Anti-Socialist Laws already repressed the Socialist Workers Party of Germany. :glare:


Your allegory, just as your made-up perverted ideology, and likely many of your other endeavours in life, fails... tremendous loser.

Just look at the anti-communist laws in Eastern Europe (except Bulgaria, whose Soviet-era relations with the Soviet Union were quite friendly). As for the rest of your post, I can only surmise that you're either a petit-bourgeois or outright bourgeois radical.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"...the problem of the choice between allowing capitalism to continue in its barbaric way or of taking control collectively of the means of production remains the same. And if the second option is called socialism or not, matters to me much less than the fact that that is the only choice which people have in front of them." - Paul Mattick Jr.