Most Americans know nearly nothing about Communism [Archive]

workersadvocate

7th February 2012, 04:53

I have been a Communist(Maoist, to be more specific) for a little more than over a year now, and anytime I bring up Communism,Socialism(or even Anarchism) most people either think im some sort of Nazi or I'm just an idealist.

From right wingers i get: "Communism is for the dumb poor people who are too lazy to get rich like us."

and from the "left"wingers(Obama supporters): "Communism is good on paper but doesn't work because of human nature" or "Workers have no rights in Communist countries and they starve due to the leaders." or even worse :laugh: "Commies are in league with the Nazis and Ronald Reagan!OMFG!!!"

yeah.

and then ive got these idiots saying that in order to be anarchist you have to burn cars and break windows :blink:

makes me cringe a little anytime people claim Americans are "intelligent".

You will find often an underlying thread between these various enemies: antagonistic class interests. Most of the people you are encountering in political debates are middle class. How do I know that? Because in America, politics has been almost entirely a sport for bourgeois and middle class people. A lot of leftists head out to aleady existing political events, and of course they find them dominated by bourgeois and middle class people, and even the left groups are middle class. If you are looking for the agency of revolutionary systematic change, these political crowds are the wrong people, and it doesn't matter much that you can converse with them a bit about shit y'all learned in book or at college. They don't want revolutionary systematic change because of their class, they really don't want working people ourselves independently self-organizing on a classwide internationalist basis for systematic change, and they definitely don't want working people to wildcat, rebel and get outta line without their middle class politico management's permission and yoke. Finding an authentic consistent middle class revolutionary communist must be more difficult then finding a vegan in a meatitarian restaurant's dining room. It just doesn't really happen until they firsake and betray their class in favor of the international working class, without hope of returning to middle class privilege and status, placing their life's fate inseparably integrated with the fate of all working people. Until they're one of us, they're basically full of shit and looking out for themselves, which is why they have 10 thousand different political spins but not one really leads to communism.

Lei Feng

7th February 2012, 04:54

I know what you mean. I actually used to correct my history teacher on a lot of stuff last year(like when he said Khuschev was more "Democratic" than Lenin or Mao), lol.

And it does have to do with propaganda, i suppose. However, this unyielding hatred towards Communism seems unique to Americans as most other non-Americans don't see it as such a bad thing. Oh well(curse you, Joe McCarthy!!)

Ostrinski

7th February 2012, 05:02

Oh for fuck's sake. You make it sound as if the "middle class" is the bourgeoisie and that they have absolutely no interest in a socialist revolution and all interest against it. Which is horseshit.

runequester

7th February 2012, 05:04

There's an additional piece to the puzzle actually.

If you listen to political rhetoric, they are always talking about the middle class. Middle class job creation, middle class tax cuts etc.

The rhetoric here is that /you/ are middle class. You are not like the poor who only have themselves to blame. You have a TV and a car, and you are middle class.
You'll pay off that credit card real soon, and honestly, lots of people live with 3 room mates. It's okay. You are the middle class.
And they say the job market is going to open up real soon now, so you don't have to pay off your student loans on 9 dollars an hour.
You are the middle class.

Left wing politics aren't relevant to you. You're gonna make it real soon.

When they talk about the poor, they're not talking about you.

You are the middle class.

Lei Feng

7th February 2012, 05:06

All of that is indeed very true. However, I am(or my family, at least) is a part of the middle class. My father isn't a proletarian, but isnt a capitalist either(he is self employed but employs nobody else). I am curious, is it impossible to be Revolutionary of one is from the middle class? Another topic that id like to bring up is that there are few proletarian/genuine working class people that i come in contact with on a regular basis. However, those that I do know seem to be uninterested in Revolution or struggle for Proletarian liberation. It seems as though more people from the "middle class"/intelligentsia care about Marxism, Communism, and things of that nature.

workersadvocate

7th February 2012, 05:08

Then my friend it must be you who educates, organizes and agitates.

Quoted for truth worth repeating. We working people must be our own advocates, our own defenders, our own organizers and agents of revolutionary change.
Don't expect offers of unconditional assistance from any other class...they will put their own interests first, and sell us out the minute it becomes in their interest to do so.
Notice how the middle class politicos only come around us working people when they want something IN THEIR INTERESTS from us, and at the end of the day we working people still aren't independently organized and in democratic control of our own movement for systematic change. Trusting, relying on and following the leaderships of antagonistic opposing class interest groups is a sure way to continue getting screwed over...we need to lose these false friends and look to ourselves alone.

Ostrinski

7th February 2012, 05:16

Fuck yeah Kropotkin Engels Trotsky Che Sartre Gramsci send those fuckers to the stake

Lei Feng

7th February 2012, 05:31

workersadvocate

7th February 2012, 06:06

Fuck yeah Kropotkin Engels Trotsky Che Sartre Gramsci send those fuckers to the stake

Um, those guys from the past in a different period of capitalist development are dead already.

Why in the 21st century corporatist West would the middle class support internationalist working class communist revolution?
How many middle class people do you know who would give up all their class privilege and status and accept fully integration and equality with the international working class?
No, it quite the opposite going on now.

NoMasters

7th February 2012, 06:07

Do you blame them? Look at what self-labeled "Communists" did during their time in power.

But yes, most Americans are ignorant about Communism. Which to be sure, has never ever been practiced.

Polyphonic Foxes

7th February 2012, 06:10

Most Americans know nearly nothing about CommunismMost americans know nearly nothing about every political ideology.

Anytime you run into this: challenge them, don't let this horseshit fly, you'll find that almost all the time they will very grudgingly and very secretly (not wanting to lose face) admit to themselves "I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about".

Polyphonic Foxes

7th February 2012, 06:13

Do you blame them? Look at what self-labeled "Communists" did during their time in power.

But yes, most Americans are ignorant about Communism. Which to be sure, has never ever been practiced.

Do you not consider the rural communes of Shinmin China around 1920 communism? If we define communism as a classless, leaderless, marketless society ("moneyless" is too vague, people often mean marketless) then actually most of humanity for most of human history was communist, and even today we know of peoples - tens of thousands of peoples in Madagascar alone - living in communist society.

runequester

7th February 2012, 06:13

Do you blame them? Look at what self-labeled "Communists" did during their time in power.

Raised literacy, industrialised their countries, brought women far closer to equality than even today in the US (while never achieving perfection of course), broadly improved education, achieved very high levels of employment while providing childcare and similar social aid, limited racial tensions, expanded medical services to save millions of lives, competed and frequently were ahead of the richest nation in the world in the space race AND had very few foreign military "adventures" and interventions.

The swine.

NoMasters

7th February 2012, 06:47

Raised literacy, industrialised their countries, brought women far closer to equality than even today in the US (while never achieving perfection of course), broadly improved education, achieved very high levels of employment while providing childcare and similar social aid, limited racial tensions, expanded medical services to save millions of lives, competed and frequently were ahead of the richest nation in the world in the space race AND had very few foreign military "adventures" and interventions.

The swine.

Oh and you forgot the other great successes of the "Communists", like the deaths of 80,000,000 innocent people, and for the USSR, quite possibly the most oppressive society in the last century.

Afghanistan was an adventure? Really?!!?!

A million civilians to you is an adventure?

Stalin I think would agree. But any person with any understanding and moral integrity in life would find that statement despicable.

runequester

7th February 2012, 07:01

Oh and you forgot the other great successes of the "Communists", like the deaths of 80,000,000 innocent people, and for the USSR, quite possibly the most oppressive society in the last century.

Have you ever spoken to an actual Russian? It might be helpfull to base your views on something more concrete than capitalist propaganda.

Afghanistan was an adventure? Really?!!?!

A million civilians to you is an adventure?

I know. It would have been better to let the fundamentalist islamic tribes fighting against reform and some measure of women's rights seize control of Afghanistan from it's government. Nothing bad could come from that.

Of course, the mujahideen did not kill a single person, what with being freedom loving heroes and gentle poets.

Stalin I think would agree. But any person with any understanding and moral integrity in life would find that statement despicable.

I'm sure the "no true communist" stuff goes over great with your liberal friends, and is sure to win them over any day now.

Please enlighten us: What books have you actually sat down and read, regarding the soviet union and its history?

Not internet crap. Actual books made of paper.

NoMasters

7th February 2012, 07:06

You are saying the USSR was better off killing 1,000,000+ people because the mujahideen would've killed more? Sounds a lot like George Bush there.

The mujahideen certainly never killed a 1/10000 of the amount of people the USSR did post Lenin.

The USSR was no different than America. Only deranged communists think otherwise.

Both killed indiscriminately, and both sought hegemony. It's just the USSR killed more, and unfortunately they killed their own people.

Any leftist would condemn the USSR post Lenin era. Stalin the despot would be despised by Marx. Stalin is in no way different than Hitler. And I will stand by that statement forever. Anyone who objects, are just as extreme as the fascists were, extremity in their own arrogance and ignorance.

Ostrinski

7th February 2012, 07:07

Um, those guys from the past in a different period of capitalist development are dead already.

Why in the 21st century corporatist West would the middle class support internationalist working class communist revolution?
How many middle class people do you know who would give up all their class privilege and status and accept fully integration and equality with the international working class?
No, it quite the opposite going on now.This would have been a legitimate answer if the people I named had lived before the industrial revolution. The social function of all the capitalist classes, as well as the relationship between classes and the power dynamics of class are relatively the same as they were in the last century in the west. How many middle class people do I know that would support a socialist revolution? Well, all the self-employed people that are constantly being disenfranchised by the bourgeoisie, and the teachers, nurses, and social workers that are constantly being laid off and underpaid, You honestly don't think any of these people have thought about a socialist alternative? Also, why use the bourgeois class definitions? You do realize that many "middle class" people are wage workers right? I would reassess your terminology.

runequester

7th February 2012, 07:13

You are saying the USSR was better off killing 1,000,000+ people because the mujahideen would've killed more? Sounds a lot like George Bush there.

No, I am saying a significant portion of them may have been killed by Mujahideen fighting as well.

Just shy of half a million Afghans died in the civil war after the Soviets withdrew, unless of course Stalin somehow killed them as well.

The mujahideen certainly never killed a 1/10000 of the amount of people the USSR did post Lenin.
That's a question of opportunity, not ambition.

The USSR was no different than America. Only deranged communists think otherwise.
One country offered women maternity leave paid in the 20es, the other doesn't offer it today. Take a guess?

Any leftist would condemn the USSR post Lenin era. Stalin the despot would be despised by Marx. Stalin is in no way different than Hitler. And I will stand by that statement forever. Anyone who objects, are just as extreme as the fascists were, extremity in their own arrogance and ignorance.

It is quite telling how wrapped up you are in everything you have ever been told to believe, that you are completely unable to get past Stalin, a man that died in 1953, when assessing a nation that existed until 1991.

I'll repeat my questions: Cite books you have actually read on soviet history and culture.

workersadvocate

7th February 2012, 07:17

Well it just seems a bit unfair that those of the Middle class arent seen as revolutionary. I am from a middle class family(although my mother is working class). I am fully dedicated to proletarian revolution and am in support of the liberation of the working class of the world. However, I don't see why being middle class makes one un-revolutionary :confused: i have at least one other friend who is just as dedicated as I am and his family is(for the most part) from a middle class background. I have never actually met a class-concious proletarian to tell the truth :(

Most working prople aren't involved in political scenes (we tend to sense when we're not welcome and it ain't really our show). Most of us don't read Left books or get trained to use Left scene smartyspeak because we aren't pursuing careers in professional leftism (academics, journalists, political activists, etc)...and most middle class people who do engage in these things are not out to help liberate the proletariat, but rather are looking for some angle to remain in or rise within the middle class, or perhaps occasionally they are motivated by fantasies of using their oversized brains, talented tongues, and privileged backstage access to rationalize (despite bloodthirty fascists and reactionaries wanting their heads and ours) and to secure moderate defensive reform (despite that the ruling class will not turn back and downsize their own profit margins or restore even liberal bourgeois democracy for any reason in this period of capitalist decay).
So basically, the Western middle classes are mostly a bunch of would-be fascists or bureaucrat sellouts (sometimes its hard to tell the difference when they get violent against anybody urging radical workers' action), with a few reformist fools who think that reality resembles their nice cozy practically all-white enclaves and all its supposedly noble gentility (nevermind the poor servants of color there and how relations go on between haves and havenots in the segregated uppity enclave paradise). Middle class assholes just dream of being like those big decadent plantation owners of the old South or like European aristocrats or wealthy powerful clergy, when poor people were prostrated in obedience or kept outta sight and minorities feared getting out of line would be rewarded by whip, rape or lynching. I recognize their America or their Western civilization, their longing to restore those old traditions and greater class privileges and distinctions, and I hate it. This world is not to remain theirs, and we working people of the world are not to be their subjects and victims.

Ostrinski

7th February 2012, 07:21

Most working prople aren't involved in political scenes (we tend to sense when we're not welcome and it ain't really our show). Most of us don't read Left books or get trained to use Left scene smartyspeak because we aren't pursuing careers in professional leftism (academics, journalists, political activists, etc)...and most middle class people who do engage in these things are not out to help liberate the proletariat, but rather are looking for some angle to remain in or rise within the middle class, or perhaps occasionally they are motivated by fantasies of using their oversized brains, talented tongues, and privileged backstage access to rationalize (despite bloodthirty fascists and reactionaries wanting their heads and ours) and to secure moderate defensive reform (despite that the ruling class will not turn back and downsize their own profit margins for any reason in this period of capitalist decay).
So basically, the Western middle classes are mostly a bunch of would-be fascists or bureaucrat sellouts (sometimes its hard to tell the difference when they get violent against anybody urging radical workers' action), with a few reformist fools who think that reality resembles their nice cozy practically all-white enclaves and all its supposedly noble gentility (nevermind the poor servants of color there and how relations go on between haves and havenots in the segregated uppity enclave paradise). Middle class assholes just dream of being like those big decadent plantation owners of the old South or like European aristocrats or wealthy powerful clergy, when poor people were prostrated in obedience or kept outta sight and minorities feared getting out of line would be rewarded by whip, rape or lynching. I recognize their America or their Western civilization, their longing to restore those old traditions and greater class privileges and distinctions, and I hate it. This world is not to remain theirs, and we working people of the world are not to be their subjects and victims.You didn't say anything in this post. This is emotional kneejerkism.

Also, are you under the impression that everyone on revleft is working class?

Hexen

7th February 2012, 07:29

Communism has become a loaded word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language) in the US that's why most USians know nothing about Communism even Socialism.

Prometeo liberado

7th February 2012, 07:30

Lol today in class my political science teacher tried to teach us about communism, socialism, and capitalism. Not even joking, these are the notes she had us take:

Communism= 100% not in your favor :(

Socialism= 50%/50% not in your favor :/

Capitalism= 100% in your favor :)

------

The kids turned to me and were like "dude, don't let that shit slide".

Needless to say, I let it be known how fucking stupid she is, how backwards and moronic those notes are, and explained to my class what those actually are. Many kids in my class walked up to me and were like "Would I be considered a member of the working class? I like what you were talking about."

-----

Point being, it's propaganda not stupidity.

Now all you gotta do is join a revolutionary party!

Zostrianos

7th February 2012, 07:36

It's not surprising in a country where Fox News has more viewers than any of the other real news channels.

workersadvocate

7th February 2012, 07:39

You didn't say anything in this post. This is emotional kneejerkism.

Why rationalize with middle class people who hold antagonistic opposite interests?
Either you agree with the essense of what I said above, or you don't because you still think you got some in this system, tell yourself that you're better and more deserving, and will end up doing anything you can to keep the working people from seizing the world for ourselves and securing real equality under real workers' democracy.

If you won't cast your lot with the workers of the world now, why should we expect anything but resistance and stubbornly clinging to elitism and privilege in the future?
By not joining us with one's whole life, the truth is revealed that they don't really believe in us and our systematic change. All the reading and rationalizing we could try won't change that.

o well this is ok I guess

7th February 2012, 07:41

Not internet crap. Actual books made of paper. Why is this necessary

runequester

7th February 2012, 07:48

Why is this necessary

If someone tells me something that directly contradicts several published historians, first person accounts and memoirs... well, I suppose I will like a bit of verification of sources.

NoMasters

7th February 2012, 07:50

If someone tells me something that directly contradicts several published historians, first person accounts and memoirs... well, I suppose I will like a bit of verification of sources.

ROFL. No published historian is gonna say Stalin only killed 1,000,000 people, and that they practiced democratic centralism.

o well this is ok I guess

7th February 2012, 07:51

If someone tells me something that directly contradicts several published historians, first person accounts and memoirs... well, I suppose I will like a bit of verification of sources. But why does it need to be a paper book
Why is internets not good enough

runequester

7th February 2012, 07:54

ROFL. No published historian is gonna say Stalin only killed 1,000,000 people, and that they practiced democratic centralism.

Again, what I quoted you earlier came from the Russian archives, opened by Yeltsins government.

I realise that repeating the same thing over and over is how the internet works, but pretending things you don't like doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

runequester

7th February 2012, 07:55

But why does it need to be a paper book
Why is internets not good enough

http://www.conservapedia.com/Socialism

Let me know if you'd like something a little more scholarly sound

Ostrinski

7th February 2012, 07:57

Why rationalize with middle class people who hold antagonistic opposite interests?I think a better question is, why deny support? Of course all decisions should be made by the workers, that's what the DotP is. Also, opposite interests? I think you need to do some further analyzing, the socialist revolution has much to offer to the middle class. You are aware that a lot of middle class people are wage workers right?

Either you agree with the essense of what I said above, or you don't because you still think you got some in this system, tell yourself that you're better and more deserving, and will end up doing anything you can to keep the working people from seizing the world for ourselves and securing real equality under real workers' democracy.I do still have some in this system. Doesn't mean I don't recognize that capitalism is unsustainable. You seem to be accustomed to subscribing to extreme false dichotomies (i.e., you either move into the forest or you're going to do everything possible to stop the movement)

If you won't cast your lot with the workers of the world now, why should we expect anything but resistance and stubbornly clinging to elitism and privilege in the future?
By not joining us with one's whole life, the truth is revealed that they don't really believe in us and our systematic change. All the reading and rationalizing we could try won't change that.Casting your lot isn't want brings about systemic change, though. Why should the workers care what the petite-bourgeoisie thinks when the workers have state power?

NoMasters

7th February 2012, 07:58

Again, what I quoted you earlier came from the Russian archives, opened by Yeltsins government.

I realise that repeating the same thing over and over is how the internet works, but pretending things you don't like doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

:lol:

You are listening to one of the most brutal killing regimes in the history of mankind's "archives"?

Extremity on anything is an evil. Unless it is being extreme about non-extremity.

Fascists think the same about the Nazis.
Americans think the same about Iraq and WMD's,

o well this is ok I guess

7th February 2012, 08:02

http://www.conservapedia.com/Socialism

Let me know if you'd like something a little more scholarly sound Hey man I there's a lot of cool bro's with PhD's who have blogs
I'm just saiyan isn't it enough for a source to be credible, rather than having to be paper?

runequester

7th February 2012, 08:05

:lol:

You are listening to one of the most brutal killing regimes in the history of mankind's "archives"?

Why would Yeltsin's government lie? They were trying to show people why 40% unemployment was better.

If the USSR was an absolute evil police state, why would we doubt their numbers, in any event? We don't doubt the nazis own figures.

Hey man I there's a lot of cool bro's with PhD's who have blogs
I'm just saiyan isn't it enough for a source to be credible, rather than having to be paper?

For an opinion sure. For academic research about political conditions in another country? Im willing to be surprised but that stuff doesn't usually end up in blogs.

NoMasters

7th February 2012, 08:08

Point made. If most people think Stalin killed 40,000,000 people, why are you doubting that?

It is clear and simple that Stalin was responsible for at least 20,000,000. That is an extremely conservative number.

Any world governments are hard to be taken for fact when they provide info. Especially one as corrupt and brutal as the former USSR and Russian Federation.

runequester

7th February 2012, 08:12

Point made. If most people think Stalin killed 40,000,000 people, why are you doubting that?

What does popular opinion have to do with anything?

It is clear and simple that Stalin was responsible for at least 20,000,000. That is an extremely conservative number.

Why not make it 200 million ? Why stop at 20?
Heck, now you are undershooting Conquest and Solzhenitsyn. Im getting worried about you.

Any world governments are hard to be taken for fact when they provide info. Especially one as corrupt and brutal as the former USSR and Russian Federation.

Where do you think your information comes from?

What reason did Yeltsins government have to lie about communist atrocities, when he was explicitly anti-communist?
Remember, he was trying to discredit the old system.

NoMasters

7th February 2012, 08:26

Almost all scholars agree to at least 20,000,000. That isn't argued at all.

What is debated, is if that number is far too low.

Unfortunately we learn more about the Holocaust here in America and ignore the genocide committed by Stalin.

The USSR and Russian Federation as it stands are some of the most corrupt brutal governments in the 20th century. Putin is blatantly corrupt and allows for the FSB to continues their KGB attitude of silencing oppression. Litvinenko or Politkovskaya.

Did you know Putin created a law that allowed for the FSB to assassinate people out of Russia two weeks before Litvinenko was poisoned?

Terrible governments have controlled the great land of Russia for the last 500 years...

PC LOAD LETTER

7th February 2012, 08:29

Well it just seems a bit unfair that those of the Middle class arent seen as revolutionary. I am from a middle class family(although my mother is working class). I am fully dedicated to proletarian revolution and am in support of the liberation of the working class of the world. However, I don't see why being middle class makes one un-revolutionary :confused: i have at least one other friend who is just as dedicated as I am and his family is(for the most part) from a middle class background. I have never actually met a class-concious proletarian to tell the truth :(

Not trying to derail the debate you guys have going, this is aimed at Lei Feng and others who would identify with the emphasized statement.

I suggest speaking with more working-class individuals. I am working-class, and I grew up in a working class family. I've spent a lot of time at various jobs chatting with my fellow proles. Even my father, once a staunch Republican, is now sympathetic to communism after some recent experiences of his over the last few years.

For simplicity's sake, I will refer to working class individuals who do not identify as communist as 'they'. This is not intended to distance myself from 'them'.

When you avoid loaded language, many members of the working class are potentially sympathetic to Marxism (though not necessarily a majority). Many people are very aware of their class and its implications; they're very aware that this set-up we have is unjust and that things are not in their favor. They realize that capitalism is fucked up after years of abuse and wage slavery, firings, reductions in pay, reductions in hours, reductions in benefits, etc, although they may not readily identify 'capitalism' as the problem (initially). However, they avoid identifying with the far-left because of the stigma and propaganda, regardless of the fact that they could be considered actively sympathetic to the goals of far-left theory, especially when it is presented to them in a manner they perceive as non-threatening; even moreso when it is presented as a legitimate option by someone they trust. For me, this included a friend of mine describing himself as Libertarian Socialist when we were in high school, to my uncle telling me he's a communist when I was a little kid and telling me it's not what I probably think it is.

At least, that is my experience. Your mileage may vary.

But, essentially, what I'm trying to say is if you want to see people become class conscious, begin with people who trust you and converse with them tactfully. That is the key for people to begin seeing communism as a legitimate option, in my experience at least.

runequester

7th February 2012, 08:39

You know, I realise that myself and others have been circling your little game for a few hours now.

I have posed multiple questions in this thread and the other. Please answer them.
I don't give a shit about Putin, since he has nothing to do with the actions of a previous government under Yeltsin.

1: Where do you believe your information comes from?

2: What reason did Yeltsins government have to lie, since they were explicitly anti-communist?

You've ignored direct questions in the rest of the threads too, so I imagine you'll continue doing this but it's worth a shot.

Leftsolidarity

7th February 2012, 11:59

Now all you gotta do is join a revolutionary party!

I'm now a member of WWP

Rafiq

7th February 2012, 12:00

Just troll class. Bourgeois-Liberal stupidity is to be laughed at, and requires no serious, critical analysation.

dodger

7th February 2012, 12:36

Could the truth about revolution in our society , the big why not, be very simple indeed? Did we say all very nice, but not for us? Let somebody else do it. It seems a very lazy way of thinking to blame sections of our class when all are under attack. What profit, to label teachers middle class, when we have seen over many decades, attacks on them and education. What is more teachers in class struggle. Why does this label even exist now? What does it even mean? Does it mean the same thing to all of us. Our census lists some 6 classes So no help there. It is a subject I have alwas been clear about. I wished to survive. For revolution all must have insight on the subject or there will be prolonged confusion.

RevSpetsnaz

7th February 2012, 12:37

Ignorance is bliss.

Rooster

7th February 2012, 13:06

Jimmie Higgins

7th February 2012, 13:33

Does no one else notice that most Americans have pretty much the same concept of socialism as marxist-leninists have? That is, state ownership or state control of the means of production and other institutions? For example, most m-l people seem to think that state control of health facilities is a good socialist thing. In America, this is called socialised health care. Frankly, I'm not many people from either group have a good grasp of what socialism means or what it means to have a revolution.

Well with many so-called communist and socialist countries in the 20th century basically bringing about autocratic refomism, our enemies got a living breathing straw-man for communism. The rich used to say, "if worker's took over it'd be 'anarchy' (meaning chaos, though I do think it's funny that they said communism would mean anarchy) because the working class isn't smart or fit enough to rule." Now they just say, "fight for revolution and it'll be worse than what you have now."

Bronco

7th February 2012, 13:56

Always amazes me how the vast majority of people don't even have the most very basic understanding of what Communism is, and I'm not expecting them to be well-read on Marx or anything like that, but the simple fact that Communism is meant to be a stateless, classless society completely eludes most people. I mean, I consider my Dad is a pretty intelligent bloke for instance, but even he insists to me that "of course" China is a Communist country because there's a strong centralised State with a lot of control, seems to be the defining characteristics of communism in a lot of people's eyes

runequester

7th February 2012, 15:11

Comrade Auldnik

7th February 2012, 15:51

A lot of working-poor are conservatives, which I find interesting. They tend to subscribe to the notion that communism is designed to reward the lazy, not realizing that, as much as these individuals tout the values of hard work, they are, through their stubborn insistence on being exploited, rewarding the relatively non-productive and seeing a pittance in return.

The ridiculous truism that communism "works on paper" but somehow fails due to a vague notion of "human nature" gets my blood boiling. It is an inherently meaningless statement, and it attempts to project the defeatism of bourgeois "progressives" onto people who would actually be willing and capable to change their predicament.

Worse still is the way young people are indoctrinated, and you can see some of their childish reasoning preserved in adulthood. I was once told to read The Giver as evidence of communism's failure.

People in America know next to nothing about communism because there doesn't seem to be any incentive to learn about it beyond what can be easily spoon-fed to them. Our media is so overcrowded with the trivial and distracting that there is no patience for depth. Idiocy is a compulsion that is fostered by moribund capitalism.

Red Noob

7th February 2012, 16:35

What did you think the dictatorship of the proletariat would be?

Where the proletariat is in direct control, notably worker councils and such, not your perverted idea of the DoP. The dictatorship of the proletariat can only be achieved by the proletariat, not asshole bureaucrats who "know what's best" and leaders who make the politician-like promises that never are fulfilled.

Seriously, you authoritarians are delusional, thinking the glorious vanguard will take care of everything, and inner-members won't use their new power for anything corrupt, and that the state will magically disappear.

runequester

7th February 2012, 16:59

Where the proletariat is in direct control, notably worker councils and such, not your perverted idea of the DoP. The dictatorship of the proletariat can only be achieved by the proletariat, not asshole bureaucrats who "know what's best" and leaders who make the politician-like promises that never are fulfilled.

Seriously, you authoritarians are delusional, thinking the glorious vanguard will take care of everything, and inner-members won't use their new power for anything corrupt, and that the state will magically disappear.

Your passive aggressiveness is adorable.

The /functions/ of the state will be controlled by workers through the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The word state merely implies the organisation of exploiting and exploited classes.

I'll defer to Bukharin here

In a communist society there will be no classes. But if there will be no classes, this implies that in communist society there will likewise be no State.

We have previously seen that the State is a class organization of the rulers. The State is always directed by one class against the other. A bourgeois State is directed against the proletariat, whereas a proletarian State is directed against the bourgeoisie. In the communist social order there are neither landlords, nor capitalists, nor wage workers; there are simply people - comrades. If there are no classes, then there is no class war, and there are no class organizations. Consequently the State has ceased to exist. Since there is no class war, the State has become superfluous. There is no one to be held in restraint, and there is no one to impose restraint.

But how, they will ask us, can this vast organization be set in motion without any administration? Who is going to work out the plans for social production? Who will distribute labour power? Who is going to keep account of social income and expenditure? In a word, who is going to supervise the whole affair?

It is not difficult to answer these questions. The main direction will be entrusted to various kinds of book-keeping offices or statistical bureaux. There, from day to day, account will be kept of production and all its needs; there also it will be decided whither workers must be sent, whence they must be taken, and how much work there is to be done. And inasmuch as, from childhood onwards, all will have been accustomed to social labour, and since all will understand that this work is necessary and that life goes easier when everything is done according to a prearranged plan and when the social order is like a well-oiled machine, all will work in accordance with the indications of these statistical bureaux. There will be no need for special ministers of State, for police and prisons, for laws and decrees - nothing of the sort. Just as in an orchestra all the performers watch the conductor's baton and act accordingly, so here all will consult the statistical reports and will direct their work accordingly.

The State, therefore, has ceased to exist. There are no groups and there is no class standing above all other classes. Moreover, in these statistical bureaux one person will work today, another tomorrow. The bureaucracy, the permanent officialdom, will disappear. The State will die out.

Manifestly this will only happen in the fully developed and strongly established communist system, after the complete and definitive victory of the proletariat; nor will it follow immediately upon that victory. For a long time yet, the working class will have to fight against, all its enemies, and in especial against the relics of the past, such as sloth, slackness, criminality, pride. All these will have to be stamped out. Two or three generations of persons will have to grow up under the new conditions before the need will pass for laws and punishments and for the use of repressive measures by the workers' State. Not until then will all the vestiges of the capitalist past disappear. Though in the intervening period the existence of the workers' State is indispensable, subsequently, in the fully developed communist system, when the vestiges of capitalism are extinct, the proletarian State authority will also pass away. The proletariat itself will become mingled with all the other strata of the population, for everyone will by degrees come to participate in the common labour. Within a few decades there will be quite a new world, with new people and new customs.

Rooster

7th February 2012, 17:23

What did you think the dictatorship of the proletariat would be?

None of that matters unless you know what socialism is. Something that seems to be lacking in marxist-leninist ideology. It's no real accident that many people hold the same view of socialism as marxist-leninists considering that both think a system of nationalised industry and welfare equals socialism. This completely lacks any revolutionary theory and is strictly reformist.

Personally, I think a lot of people know what socialism is albeit, only subconsciously. It doesn't help that there's obfuscation on the matter coming at them from both directions, both saying pretty much the same thing.

The Cheshire Cat

7th February 2012, 17:24

It hasn't anything to do with your nation. In my country, The Netherlands, there are also litte people that know what communism is really about. Most think it is just about mass murderers and losing all your personal property.

Even in our books at school communism is always portraited as a bad evil thing, even in classes that aren't about history or something, but just about learning english or dutch. There are always examples in most of the texts that indicate that communism is a bad thing. Even most teachers laugh about communism and say tha think it is horrible and creepy...

But there is not an anti-communist atmosphere or something, the younger generation does not hate communism (not in my surroundings at least).
Even if all hope seems lost, you can always count on the younger generation:)

runequester

7th February 2012, 17:30

None of that matters unless you know what socialism is. Something that seems to be lacking in marxist-leninist ideology. It's no real accident that many people hold the same view of socialism as marxist-leninists considering that both think a system of nationalised industry and welfare equals socialism. This completely lacks any revolutionary theory and is strictly reformist.

You are assuming that nationalised industry must mean "owned by capitalist state". In a true workers state, this is of course not the case, as the authority that rested with the state now rests with the workers.

So yes, industry (and other means of production) must be "nationalised" once the proletariat controls the state. THis is essential for the dissolution of classes.

As far as welfare, I'll again defer to Bukharin here, though the chapter isn't online and I don't feel like typing the entire damn thing. To summarize, the proletarian state taking care of those unable to work has nothing to do with "welfare" as we understand it now.
It is simply a consequence of the "state" taking care of its own, and should never be seen as a "handout".

Rooster

7th February 2012, 17:39

You are assuming that nationalised industry must mean "owned by capitalist state". In a true workers state, this is of course not the case, as the authority that rested with the state now rests with the workers.

Except that the conditions of capitalism are still maintained. Wage labour, the natural division of labour, commodity production, etc. Specifically under marxist-leninist ideology because "that's what happened in Stalin's USSR". What I think you are trying to say is that democracy is spread as far as it can go, to all corners, which is what Lenin says about the DotP early in his career. Still, that doesn't eliminate the conditions of capital relations, no matter if you say that all the capitalists have been removed, therefore no capitalism. You don't start with a idea and then try to work your way down to find evidence.

So yes, industry (and other means of production) must be "nationalised" once the proletariat controls the state. THis is essential for the dissolution of classes.That's such a clouded message. Also in conjunction with your previous paragraph. The way you're putting it is no different from what many people think socialism is; libertarian capitalists, right wingers, etc.

As far as welfare, I'll again defer to Bukharin here, though the chapter isn't online and I don't feel like typing the entire damn thing. To summarize, the proletarian state taking care of those unable to work has nothing to do with "welfare" as we understand it now.
It is simply a consequence of the "state" taking care of its own, and should never be seen as a "handout".Which mentions nothing about class relations or the production process or alienation or wage labour or anything that a real marxist understanding would address. I'm sure Bukharin would have mentioned at least some of that but alas, his work is hard to come by. Would you consider the UK or other European states to be socialist in some respect because of their welfare programs?

You also haven't addressed anything about revolutionary theory. I'm guessing that's because you don't really have any and follow on from the dissolution of classes through a reformist approach.

runequester

7th February 2012, 17:49

Except that the conditions of capitalism are still maintained. Wage labour, the natural division of labour, commodity production, etc. Specifically under marxist-leninist ideology because "that's what happened in Stalin's USSR". What I think you are trying to say is that democracy is spread as far as it can go, to all corners, which is what Lenin says about the DotP early in his career. Still, that doesn't eliminate the conditions of capital relations, no matter if you say that all the capitalists have been removed, therefore no capitalism. You don't start with a idea and then try to work your way down to find evidence.

Correct. These things unfortunately never vanished completely in the USSR, hence why capitalist restoration could happen so easily once opposing forces became strong enough in the 80s.

There's a lot of argument that could be made about why, how, why not etc, but that's outside the room of this thread I think.

That's such a clouded message. Also in conjunction with your previous paragraph. The way you're putting it is no different from what many people think socialism is; libertarian capitalists, right wingers, etc.
I am probably doing a crap job explaining it.

If the functions normally occupied by the state are controlled by the workers, then yes, the state will run industry (for example) and that is okay. Again, because it is run according to proletarian democracy.

We are stuck on our conception of the state as something apart from the citizens, but that is something unique to feudalism and capitalism. It will be replaced by direct, proletarian control.

In this context, a "state" still exists. But it has little to do with what role it occupies in capitalist culture.

Again, the USSR is an obviously imperfect example, as they never progressed that far.

Which mentions nothing about class relations or the production process or alienation or wage labour or anything that a real marxist understanding would address. I'm sure Bukharin would have mentioned at least some of that but alas, his work is hard to come by. Would you consider the UK or other European states to be socialist in some respect because of their welfare programs?

I'd recommend prowling ebay for at least "the ABC of communism". I found a copy for 10 bucks. The online copy is unfortunately incomplete.

Socialism has taken on entirely different meanings over time. Today, socialism tends to mean just that: Sweden basically.

Personally, I concede that living in a social democrat country is far better than one where social democracy is less strong (I've witnessed scandinavia vs USA first hand), however welfare as we understand it, was created in 19th century Germany and elsewhere, specifically to defuse socialism. Placating the workers so they would not revolt.

Bukharin and other thinkers from the russian revolution realised that there were large segments of the population that would be unable to work either temporarily (alienation from the labour force, injuries, war wounds) or permanently, and that they should be provided for by the proletarian state, so they could be rehabilitated to labour.

The difference here is not the practical result but the intention behind doing so.

You also haven't addressed anything about revolutionary theory. I'm guessing that's because you don't really have any and follow on from the dissolution of classes through a reformist approach.

I'm guessing you eat a lot of hot dogs.
I am honestly more interested in practical answers and historical precedent. What people did in reality is more interesting to me, than what people theorised on paper.

This is not to denigrate the importance of theory, or we'd not be here at all, arguing about this, but I think there is a very strong tendency to see things in an abstract, detached ideal picture, which I find un-scientific and unappealing.

Rooster

7th February 2012, 18:10

I am probably doing a crap job explaining it.

I think you just don't know what you're talking about.

If the functions normally occupied by the state are controlled by the workers, then yes, the state will run industry (for example) and that is okay. Again, because it is run according to proletarian democracy.

You're still saying nothing that is particularly revolutionary. The only difference between your rhetoric and right wingers is that you mention proletarian but, just like them, you do not mention anything about revolution. In your eyes, to end capitalism, you just remove capitalists. And that is wrong. Something you basically agreed with in the previous paragraph.

We are stuck on our conception of the state as something apart from the citizens, but that is something unique to feudalism and capitalism. It will be replaced by direct, proletarian control.

Which isn't at all what Marx or Lenin thought the state should be. It shouldn't just be a changing or guards or just having proles at the seats of power. You still haven't mentioned anything about revolution.

In this context, a "state" still exists. But it has little to do with what role it occupies in capitalist culture.

Okay, so the state still exists. The only difference between a bourgeois state and a socialist state, what ever that is, is that the proles control the state. So, classes still exist, the conditions of capitalism still exist.... basically reformism is what you're wanting, right?

Again, the USSR is an obviously imperfect example, as they never progressed that far.

Gee, I would never have worked that out!

Socialism has taken on entirely different meanings over time. Today, socialism tends to mean just that: Sweden basically.

It's taken on a different meaning since Lenin. And it's continued to have that same meaning with Stalin not helping at all. Nor many of the marxist-leninists, the liberals or the so called socialists that I've met. State control over industries.

Personally, I concede that living in a social democrat country is far better than one where social democracy is less strong (I've witnessed scandinavia vs USA first hand), however welfare as we understand it, was created in 19th century Germany and elsewhere, specifically to defuse socialism. Placating the workers so they would not revolt.

Thanks for the history lesson.

Bukharin and other thinkers from the russian revolution realised that there were large segments of the population that would be unable to work either temporarily (alienation from the labour force, injuries, war wounds) or permanently, and that they should be provided for by the proletarian state, so they could be rehabilitated to labour.

Which isn't exactly what alienation means. Besides, this is still the same capitalist position that you explained previously.

The difference here is not the practical result but the intention behind doing so.

Oh, so intending to have socialism but practically having capitalism is fine? Some revolutionary you are.

I'm guessing you eat a lot of hot dogs.
I am honestly more interested in practical answers and historical precedent. What people did in reality is more interesting to me, than what people theorised on paper.

So you responded to a post you weren't interested in about how marxism-leninism holds the same views of socialism as many people in the US hold. You do know what praxis is, right? You probably don't, to be honest, seeing how you said that you prefer just practical answers over theory.

This is not to denigrate the importance of theory, or we'd not be here at all, arguing about this, but I think there is a very strong tendency to see things in an abstract, detached ideal picture, which I find un-scientific and unappealing.

Oh, so now you're back tracking. Can't you keep a coherent thing going? Practically speaking, marxist-leninsts and many Americans hold the same view of socialism. State control of the means of production and equal distribution etc. How can both be right coming from different directions? Oh geez, I guess that must mean, speaking scientifically, that they both are the same thing! Both know nothing about socialism!

runequester

7th February 2012, 18:25

I think you just don't know what you're talking about.
And I think you're yet another internet intellectual. However, since we're having this discussion in any event.

You're still saying nothing that is particularly revolutionary. The only difference between your rhetoric and right wingers is that you mention proletarian but, just like them, you do not mention anything about revolution. In your eyes, to end capitalism, you just remove capitalists. And that is wrong. Something you basically agreed with in the previous paragraph.

Of course it is wrong. Capitalism must be removed, and actual, citizens/workers democracy instituted instead. This will likely happen by way of revolution whether peacefull or otherwise.
During the course of this, the state as we know it will no longer exist, because classes will cease to exist.

Which isn't at all what Marx or Lenin thought the state should be. It shouldn't just be a changing or guards or just having proles at the seats of power. You still haven't mentioned anything about revolution.

How do you propose that administration of a nation-spanning country is handled, if not by workers soviets?

Okay, so the state still exists. The only difference between a bourgeois state and a socialist state, what ever that is, is that the proles control the state. So, classes still exist, the conditions of capitalism still exist.... basically reformism is what you're wanting, right?

You are making strawmen here.

You are hung up on the word state, because you fail to understand that it has a very specific meaning when used in ML discussion.
When people talk of the state disappearing, they are talking about the bourgeois state disappearing.

Gee, I would never have worked that out!
Happy to help.

It's taken on a different meaning since Lenin. And it's continued to have that same meaning with Stalin not helping at all. Nor many of the marxist-leninists, the liberals or the so called socialists that I've met. State control over industries.

We already covered this above.
If the workers control everything, they ARE the state as it's body of administration, as no other classes ultimately remain.

Thanks for the history lesson.
Happy to help.

Which isn't exactly what alienation means. Besides, this is still the same capitalist position that you explained previously.

The industrial reserve army gives examples of complete brutalization, destitution, starvation, death, and even crime. Those who are out of work for years, gradually take to drink, become loafers, tramps, beggars, etc. In great cities - London, New York, Hamburg, Berlin, Paris - there are whole quarters inhabited by these out-of-works. As far as Moscow is concerned, Hitrof Market furnishes a similar example. Here, we no longer find the proletariat, but a new stratum, consisting of those who have forgotten how to work. This product of capitalist society is known as the lumpenproletariat (loafer-proletariat).

These people would need to be rehabilitated to become productive workers. Those who cannot be rehabilitied (the very sick, very old etc) must obviously be provided for in some other manner.

Oh, so intending to have socialism but practically having capitalism is fine? Some revolutionary you are.

NEP. It was not socialist, but it was required by practical circumstances at that specific moment.
Lenin explained at length why it was needed, and why it, in the long run, would help build socialism.

So you responded to a post you weren't interested in about how marxism-leninism holds the same views of socialism as many people in the US hold. You do know what praxis is, right? You probably don't, to be honest, seeing how you said that you prefer just practical answers over theory.

The thread was originally about American public views of communism. It has wandered since then.
Given that views are based on practical experience, it is of course important to discuss these.

Oh, so now you're back tracking. Can't you keep a coherent thing going? Practically speaking, marxist-leninsts and many Americans hold the same view of socialism. State control of the means of production and equal distribution etc. How can both be right coming from different directions? Oh geez, I guess that must mean, speaking scientifically, that they both are the same thing! Both know nothing about socialism!

The internet undoubtedly thinks that you are a very true communist, and that revolution will be brought about by scoring "gotcha" points on the interwebs.

runequester

7th February 2012, 18:35

Here is, for the interested parties, Lenin discussing this as well

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.

Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.

The presence of the workers state is needed for the transition into "higher communism".

Until the “higher” phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption; but this control must start with the expropriation of the capitalists, with the establishment of workers' control over the capitalists, and must be exercised not by a state of bureaucrats, but by a state of armed workers.

Holy crap. State!

In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law". Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law.

It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!

This may sound like a paradox or simply a dialectical conundrum of which Marxism is often accused by people who have not taken the slightest trouble to study its extraordinarily profound content.

But in fact, remnants of the old, surviving in the new, confront us in life at every step, both in nature and in society. And Marx did not arbitrarily insert a scrap of “bourgeois” law into communism, but indicated what is economically and politically inevitable in a society emerging out of the womb of capitalism.

Maybe Lenin was not actually a communist at all!

NoMasters

7th February 2012, 18:54

I think you just don't know what you're talking about.

You're still saying nothing that is particularly revolutionary. The only difference between your rhetoric and right wingers is that you mention proletarian but, just like them, you do not mention anything about revolution. In your eyes, to end capitalism, you just remove capitalists. And that is wrong. Something you basically agreed with in the previous paragraph.

Which isn't at all what Marx or Lenin thought the state should be. It shouldn't just be a changing or guards or just having proles at the seats of power. You still haven't mentioned anything about revolution.

Okay, so the state still exists. The only difference between a bourgeois state and a socialist state, what ever that is, is that the proles control the state. So, classes still exist, the conditions of capitalism still exist.... basically reformism is what you're wanting, right?

Gee, I would never have worked that out!

It's taken on a different meaning since Lenin. And it's continued to have that same meaning with Stalin not helping at all. Nor many of the marxist-leninists, the liberals or the so called socialists that I've met. State control over industries.

Thanks for the history lesson.

Which isn't exactly what alienation means. Besides, this is still the same capitalist position that you explained previously.

Oh, so intending to have socialism but practically having capitalism is fine? Some revolutionary you are.

So you responded to a post you weren't interested in about how marxism-leninism holds the same views of socialism as many people in the US hold. You do know what praxis is, right? You probably don't, to be honest, seeing how you said that you prefer just practical answers over theory.

Oh, so now you're back tracking. Can't you keep a coherent thing going? Practically speaking, marxist-leninsts and many Americans hold the same view of socialism. State control of the means of production and equal distribution etc. How can both be right coming from different directions? Oh geez, I guess that must mean, speaking scientifically, that they both are the same thing! Both know nothing about socialism!

+10 for that post.