Should we rename communism "economic democracy"?

[Lokomotive293]

I don't have a problem with the word, but, generally speaking, most people associate communism with mass murder, an all-powerful state, bread lines and Big Brother. However, more and more people realize that what is usually referred to as "democracy" is but a mockery of the word. So, maybe, if we told them about our ideas without using "the evil C-word" or "the evil S-word" and offered a form of democracy that deserves the name, people would actually listen to us.

[Buttress]

I don't see any point in rebadging it if people will simply look past the name and at its ideologies. After all, people have been conditioned into believing the ideologies of communism/socialism are "evil", which goes beyond simply the terminology.

[SocialistTommy]

to me, 'economic democracy' sounds like another phrase for capitalism.
What you gonna call yourself ? an 'economic democrat' ?
I laughed at 'bread lines' though haha :lol:

[Искра]

No.

Democracy has many names and skins and communism just one - when workers manage the means of production.

[ZeroNowhere]

We are not a mutualist.

In any case, socialism isn't a matter of better propaganda, but of class struggle. Phrases need not apply.

[chuy]

Where I live there is still all sorts of baggage associated with the words communism & socialism so I've found myself trying to stick to talking about the ideas behind those words to people I don't know too well. At least at first anyway.

I've sometimes used cooperative commonwealth or economic democracy as stand in's, or even small 'c' communism.

It can really be tough to communicate with people when they have such strong negative connotations associated with those words. On the other hand those negative connotations aren't just coming from nowhere either, and IMO the onus of disassociating communism & socialism from both past (and current) tyrants, as well as boogie propaganda is something that will eventually have to be done if movements are going use those words as descriptors. At least if they want to have a fighting chance at succeeding.

[CommieTroll]

The ''Economic Democratic Manifesto'' would sound really stupid..........

[Renegade Saint]

If people ask "Well what do you think would work better than capitalism?" I usually explain economic democracy and once they've agreed with the idea I say "Well, that's socialism." It seems a lot less 'scary' to people when they've heard the idea before the label they've been conditioned to fear.

[Zav]

No, we should not. People (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reily, Sarah Palin, the spawn of Thatcher, etc.) would look at it and say "Those Economic Democrats sound Socialist! We should repeal Medicare and Social Security to prevent them from destroying America!"
Back to square negative one.

One can, however, describe the ideals of Communism using modern terminology, and after everyone one is talking to agrees with you, then you tell them it's Communism, or never tell them what it's called at all.
Instead of the 'Proletariat', use 'Working People', instead of 'Bourgeois', 'the rich', 'means of production' or 'capital' instead of 'property', etcetera.

[NewLeft]

It just makes it that much more easier for the democrats to coopt the economic democrat movement. :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

We are not a mutualist.

In any case, socialism isn't a matter of better propaganda, but of class struggle. Phrases need not apply.

That position reeks of vulgar "materialism." If there's one thing to credit Chomsky, it's his work on language.

[socialistjustin]

I avoid the words communism and socialism and say I am for the workers control of the means of production. That's probably better than economic democracy, I think.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I found that if you try to explain an idea as 'communist' it is immediately either shunned by the older generations or the younger generations think you are trying to be 'cool'. I've used a variety of methods and synonyms for explaining my point of view before diving into 'communisation of labour' but in the end I always try to explain that I am explaining things from a communist point of view.

So... first ensure that they start thinking about what I am saying and preventing them from outright dismissing it and then explaining that it is communism as Marx and Engels describe it. Essentially I try my hardest to prevent knee-jerk reactions.

[Decommissioner]

When talking to strangers about communism I usually start by describing such system and using words like "workplace democracy." This concept is normally completely alien to people and it often blows their minds :laugh: At this point if I describe that system as communism peoples attitudes normally shift to "well if thats communism then sign me up."

I think it's very important for leftists to highlight the personal and practical upsides to communism, the things that appeal to the selfish side of our nature. True, I believe a communist system would bring out altruistic qualities in individuals, but it seems people operate under the assumption that we as people need to be generally altruistic for communism to work, which is just plain bogus. Such notion implies that the average working person will give something up under communism for the greater good, when in reality the only people who will lose anything are the bourgeoisie. So I tend to highlight ideas such as increased luxury time and decreased time spent laboring, lack of careers, direct democracy, and the notion that if one is selfish under socialism, they can get more by working more, bettering themselves and society in the process.

[Misanthrope]

I don't think revleft has that sort of power. :laugh:

[Franz Fanonipants]

while we're at it lets also protest corporate kleptocracy and find a way to make capitalism more equitable!

e: you would essentially be throwing out a vital intellectual tradition to make some lames more comfortable with shit that if they're uncomfortable with in the first place you already know they're fuckheads.

[NewLeft]

I found that if you try to explain an idea as 'communist' it is immediately either shunned by the older generations or the younger generations think you are trying to be 'cool'. I've used a variety of methods and synonyms for explaining my point of view before diving into 'communisation of labour' but in the end I always try to explain that I am explaining things from a communist point of view.

So... first ensure that they start thinking about what I am saying and preventing them from outright dismissing it and then explaining that it is communism as Marx and Engels describe it. Essentially I try my hardest to prevent knee-jerk reactions.

Once you begin describing it, they'll be like oh that's a great idea... but eventually they're realize... wait! Isn't that kinda like communism!?!? RED ALERT! RED ALERT! All their preconceived notions of communism returns. Then they'll give you the talk, "communism is great in theory..."

[CommunityBeliever]

I don't see how the primitive communists were really democratic. Communism has more to do with economic egalatarianism then anything else.

[Ocean Seal]

We are not a mutualist.

In any case, socialism isn't a matter of better propaganda, but of class struggle. Phrases need not apply.
I agree with this, but why hate on good slogans. Better propaganda doesn't hurt the movement, no?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Once you begin describing it, they'll be like oh that's a great idea... but eventually they're realize... wait! Isn't that kinda like communism!?!? RED ALERT! RED ALERT! All their preconceived notions of communism returns. Then they'll give you the talk, "communism is great in theory..."

Yes, I've had a response or two like that when I discuss these matters. I generally try and claim that communism, as I previously described it, hasn't ever been anything more than 'theory' except in a very few number of places and give examples such as the Argentinian factory take-overs as proof that it can work.

At the end of the day, I always try and engage in people and make them understand that they've been indocrinated into hating an ideology without fully understanding it. They might irritatingly call me naive or a dreamer but I always say "at least my dream calls for the equality of man and not for the few to prosper off the hard work of the many". There'll always be those dickheads who can't get their head out of their own ass to realise it's possible and fairer but every time I make someone think about it properly instead of merely dismiss it is a small victory for revolutionary thought.

[thefinalmarch]

I agree with this, but why hate on good slogans. Better propaganda doesn't hurt the movement, no?
This was never a question of propaganda hurting the movement.

What I suspect Zero was getting at is that the practical realisation of communism doesn't depend on the adoption of catchy slogans or how much the working class agrees with the ideals of "economic democracy".

Whether or not we witness communism within our lifetimes is entirely dependent on the circumstances in which the proletariat finds itself at a given time, and by extension, the actions it takes to get itself out of these circumstances.

It doesn't matter how we choose to dress it up, because it doesn't need workers to find it appealing, or to have even a basic theoretical understanding of it. It can only ever materialise as a result of class struggle.

[thefinalmarch]

I don't see how the primitive communists were really democratic. Communism has more to do with economic egalatarianism then anything else.
Precisely. Communism is entirely to do with the social relationships people have with the means of production.

Different forms of organisation become necessary according to the material and economic conditions at the time. The primitive communists are a perfect historical example of this. It's believed that primitive communist societies operated under a political system of what has been recently (1970) termed "adhocracy" (ad hoc + -cracy -- "rule for this purpose"), where the individuals most qualified in their fields would be the ones to make any decisions pertaining to their qualifications. The most experienced or respected negotiator would arrange alliances and truces, the most experienced or skilled hunter would lead the hunting party, the most experienced or skilled warrior would lead the rest of the warriors into battle, and so on.

The primitive communists' survival depended on the ability of individuals in the tribe -- as well as the tribe as a collective whole -- to cope with the regular changes to their environment (or, in other words, the changes in their material conditions) and the social dynamic that existed between different tribes, and the power to make the important decisions was delegated accordingly.

I don't think it's incorrect to say that experienced leaders will come out of the woodwork in revolution and in communism, to deal with the particular issues and struggles which will face workers and society.

[roy]

"Economic Democracy" is a bit of a mouthful, and I like the word "communism". It implies community and to me it just sounds nice. Besides, people will realise that "economic democracy" is just another word for communism and will therefore assume that we think they're gullible fools. Plus, it's content that matters, not the name. People who actually give a shit about politics look into things like communism and realise they've been fed lies. That's what I did.

[A Marxist Historian]

to me, 'economic democracy' sounds like another phrase for capitalism.
What you gonna call yourself ? an 'economic democrat' ?
I laughed at 'bread lines' though haha :lol:

Trying to rebrand communism as economic democracy is an idea that goes way, way back. Very popular in the 1890s for example.

Trouble is the slogan is utterly cooptable, as SocialistTommy points out.

During WWI, "economic democracy" was the slogan of liberal class collaborationists. Woodrow Wilson and his gang was down for it. The meaning, as they reinterpreted it, was an economic order in which labor and capital would collaborate nicely, not have nasty strikes and things, and you'd have national unity vs. the Germans. And later all those undemocratic revolutionaries in Russia of course.

What's wrong with it basically is that it forgets that society is divided into classes, working class and capitalist class. What we need is not an "economic democracy," where we all just get along like Rodney King said, but the working class seizing power from the capitalist class and ruling, as dictatorially as necessary, over the rest of society, and building a socialist society where no classes exist.

*Then* we can have a democracy that is more than just a con trick to fool the people.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't see how the primitive communists were really democratic. Communism has more to do with economic egalatarianism then anything else.

Actually no. Primitive communists, like many Native American tribes (not all) *were* economically egalitarian. They were also a dead end. Social progress required getting beyond that stage.

Economic egalitarianism is a good thing, but it is not what communism is all about. Communism is about ownership of the means of production by society, not by a ruling class. It's about a society at a higher economic and social level than any capitalist society, which therefore can *afford* to be economically egalitarian.

-M.H.-

[Marxaveli]

Semantics does indeed present a serious problem, at least here in America regarding the terms Communism, Socialism, and sometimes even Marxism. A lot of this is not only due to negative propaganda and history, but in general, America is a center-right nation compared to most other industrialized nations. We tend to conflate Communism (a economic system) with Totalitarianism (a political system), which is a fundamental flaw in most Americans thinking. And when you try to explain the differences, few people change their minds. It is quite frustrating. Changing it to "economic democracy" will probably make little difference....the minute you mention anything about "class", that evil C or S word (from their perspective) goes off in most peoples heads, and they say "but thats socialism!!" Very difficult to deal with a culture where the hatred toward a certain ideology is so entrenched within the system.

[GPDP]

but in general, America is a center-right nation compared to most other industrialized nations.

Citation needed. You give Americans far too little credit. While it's true the terms themselves often trip up most Americans, you'll be hard-pressed to find people outside a Tea Party circle-jerk who would actually object to the IDEAS of socialism/communism. Outside of the most reactionary communities (often small rural towns and high class suburbs), most people are sympathetic to progressive ideals, and with a little prodding, it's not hard to get them on board with a revolutionary idea or two. This is especially true with young people, who have not lived through the propaganda of decades past and are living during a time where their prospects look dim.

[thefinalmarch]

Actually no. Primitive communists, like many Native American tribes (not all) *were* economically egalitarian.
I assume you are referring to peoples such as the Haida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haida_people)?


They were also a dead end. Social progress required getting beyond that stage.
Like, slavery, feudalism, capitalism (and probably many other modes of production in between), as well as their respective technological advances? We're well aware of this.


Economic egalitarianism is a good thing, but it is not what communism is all about. Communism is about ownership of the means of production by society, not by a ruling class. It's about a society at a higher economic and social level than any capitalist society, which therefore can *afford* to be economically egalitarian.

-M.H.-
What else can possibly be meant by us when we say "economic egalitarianism" but a society where individuals possess the same relations to the means of production?

Then again, I consider "equality" to be a pretty vague and often loaded term, so I don't consider "equality" to be one of my aims.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like the premise of this thread, like we're a marketing team responsible for rebranding a product that's not selling well.

[Marxaveli]

Citation needed. You give Americans far too little credit. While it's true the terms themselves often trip up most Americans, you'll be hard-pressed to find people outside a Tea Party circle-jerk who would actually object to the IDEAS of socialism/communism. Outside of the most reactionary communities (often small rural towns and high class suburbs), most people are sympathetic to progressive ideals, and with a little prodding, it's not hard to get them on board with a revolutionary idea or two. This is especially true with young people, who have not lived through the propaganda of decades past and are living during a time where their prospects look dim.

You are partially correct. It is indeed easier to get the youth on board with leftist principles, even Marxism. And with the current state of the economy, some ideas of socialism are starting to make somewhat of a come back. But as a citizen of CA, arguably the most democratic state in the nation, I still encounter very strong resistance to anything remotely involving socialism or communism on a regular basis. I can only imagine the resistance I would get in a state like Alabama or Texas. Progressivism is one thing to most Democratic or even centrist Americans, but being a full blown revolutionary Marxist or Anarchist is quite another.

[aty]

I often use the words "economic democracy" when i really mean socialism. It is easier for people to understand, most people, even so called "socialists" dont know what socialism really is. It is basically the workers control over the means of production. So I talk about the democratic control over the means of production instead of some vague "communism" or "socialism".

Works very well.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Trying to rebrand communism as economic democracy is an idea that goes way, way back. Very popular in the 1890s for example.

Actually, the rebranding attempts occurred earlier, and despite objections by Marx personally, [Revolutionary] Social Democracy went hand in hand with class momentum.


What we need is not an "economic democracy," where we all just get along like Rodney King said, but the working class seizing power from the capitalist class and ruling, as dictatorially as necessary, over the rest of society, and building a socialist society where no classes exist.

*Then* we can have a democracy that is more than just a con trick to fool the people.

You didn't address the central point of the OP: the stigma of the "Communist" label.


I like the premise of this thread, like we're a marketing team responsible for rebranding a product that's not selling well.

I don't see a total "brand" overhaul as being necessary. "Marxist" is generally seen more positively than "Communist," mainly because of academic circles. Any "rebranding" should be explicitly "Marxist," hence the efforts of some posters on this board. :)

In any event, excessive disdain towards "marketing" and "advertising" has only reproduced dull sloganeering and dull lectures.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't have a problem with the word, but, generally speaking, most people associate communism with mass murder, an all-powerful state, bread lines and Big Brother. However, more and more people realize that what is usually referred to as "democracy" is but a mockery of the word. So, maybe, if we told them about our ideas without using "the evil C-word" or "the evil S-word" and offered a form of democracy that deserves the name, people would actually listen to us.
It's an attempt doomed to failure, since it neglects the way in which the ruling ideology functions. It's simply immpossible to be so sneaky as to change the label and hope that no media pundit or political gnome will realize that what is being put forward is a communist position.
And above all, this is based on a mistaken view that the working class will struggle in its own interest because of clever "marketing" tricks of revolutionaries. In other words, when the class is on the move, I don't think labels will matter much, compared to the real political, social and economic content of particular interventions made by conscious revolutionary groups.
Also, economic democracy doesn't amount to communism.

[Sean]

I couldn't see soft branding working, it would be drowned out by a cacophony of "capitalist democracy". Then its just a stupid argument of "you stole my word, you're not democratic!" "No, you'll find that you were never democratic!"

Reclamation of the word Democracy would be the first pedantic step.

[El Louton]

Lets rename Labour, New Labour.

[A Marxist Historian]

Citation needed. You give Americans far too little credit. While it's true the terms themselves often trip up most Americans, you'll be hard-pressed to find people outside a Tea Party circle-jerk who would actually object to the IDEAS of socialism/communism. Outside of the most reactionary communities (often small rural towns and high class suburbs), most people are sympathetic to progressive ideals, and with a little prodding, it's not hard to get them on board with a revolutionary idea or two. This is especially true with young people, who have not lived through the propaganda of decades past and are living during a time where their prospects look dim.

Even around the terms, you'd be surprised.

There was a Gallup Poll a year or so ago, asking Americans whether they preferred capitalism or socialism. About a third preferred socialism! Granted, this may come from listening to Glenn Beck too often, and believing him when he says Obama is a socialist...

And a more recent Gallup Poll, where Americans were asked what they thought of communism. A mere 11% approved.

However, a mere 9% approved of the U.S. Congress.

IMHO 11% is a good start.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I assume you are referring to peoples such as the Haida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haida_people)?

Not familiar with the Haida. But probably most Native Americans north of the Aztec empire had communal instead of private property of the means of production, though of course you had personal property of people's own stuff, i.e. consumer goods like clothing for example, or artwork. And I'd assume that'd be true in an advanced communist society too.[/QUOTE]


Like, slavery, feudalism, capitalism (and probably many other modes of production in between), as well as their respective technological advances? We're well aware of this.

OK fine. Point?


What else can possibly be meant by us when we say "economic egalitarianism" but a society where individuals possess the same relations to the means of production?

Then again, I consider "equality" to be a pretty vague and often loaded term, so I don't consider "equality" to be one of my aims.

Economic egalitarianism means equality in income levels, as it is generally understood. It is not the same thing as social ownership of the means of production, though certainly a socialist society will have much less income inequality than a capitalist one.

The way Marx defined socialism, as opposed to communism, was from each according to his ability, to each according to his work, not need as under communism. Therefore, a certain amount of income inequality is built right into the economics of a socialist society.

-M.H.-