Why is there a ¨fear¨ of communism?

[reort]

Why are people so afraid of it?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Several complex reasons exist for this but mostly it has to do with how the capitalists portray socialist states via their immense propaganda machine. This is effective as they never stop rattling on about the crimes committed by Stalin, Mao. etc.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Several complex reasons exist for this but mostly it has to do with how the capitalists portray socialist states via their immense propaganda machine. This is effective as they never stop rattling on about the crimes committed by Stalin, Mao. etc.

This. I also think, from the rich / capitalist / conservative perspective, there's a fear of losing power and wealth. Even the lowest of 'lower middle class' bracket earners are very jealous of losing any of their assets or posessions for any reason (some act like their world is collapsing if the value of their two bed semi-detached goes down 5%).

[KingoftheSwing]

Lots of people don't know what communism really is. They simply link communism with dictatorship (Mao, Stalin, Kim-Jong Il,...) and censorship etc etc.
Also lots of people really believe in the (false) concept of the american dream. They dream of becoming rich and succesfull. Of course these ideas are fed through the mainstream media, education both at home and at school and through rightwing propaganda. The last decades capitalist countries made being rich as attractive as possible and being poor as unattractive possible. For example what we saw in the video on Obama's legislature by FOX news, they litteraly said he is making poverty "comfortable" (with food stamps and health care and such). And what they also did is pread the idea that every individual is responsible for its own succes. And as we all know, when you repeat a lie a thousand times it becomes, in this case, an interiorisated thruth.

[Q]

Several complex reasons exist for this but mostly it has to do with how the capitalists portray socialist states via their immense propaganda machine. This is effective as they never stop rattling on about the crimes committed by Stalin, Mao. etc.

Besides the obvious propaganda, it's also the case that no one wants to go back to a society like that of the USSR.

[Goblin]

Because most people associate communism with Stalin.

[jookyle]

Because most people associate communism with Stalin.

This is probably the biggest factor. Plus believing in the propaganda one is filled with during their public schooling years. In a country like America where education is thrown to the wayside, the socialization process goes pretty god damn far.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Several complex reasons exist for this but mostly it has to do with how the capitalists portray socialist states via their immense propaganda machine. This is effective as they never stop rattling on about the crimes committed by Stalin, Mao. etc.

Things are more complex than this. Cultural hegemony is a natural phenomenon within all hierarchical societies. In pre-industrial society it was maintained through violence, coercion, and keeping literature and art out of the hands of the majority. In industrial capitalism cultural hegemony is maintained through the private ownership of media by the bourgeoisie, their control of our education system through their state, and to a lesser degree propaganda. By these means the proletariat is artificially conditioned into the political and cultural sensibilities of their exploiters. This is why blacks on a certain level hate the color of their skin. This is why many homosexuals try and conform to the conventional family dynamic. This is why the majority of our class don't recognize our common enemy, and worst of all don't recognize each other as natural allies.
As for "rattling on about the crimes committed by Stalin, Mao, etc.", the bourgeoisie doesn't really need to spread propaganda about that stuff to scare off workers. Stalinists have already done more than enough of that themselves.
Part of the reason why most working people are distrusting of the far-left is because the far-left has fucked them over so many times. Their fear is understandable.

[Comrade Hill]

Besides the obvious propaganda, it's also the case that no one wants to go back to a society like that of the USSR.

You clearly just demonstrated this "obvious propaganda." When people look at the history of the USSR through the sunglasses of idealism, then this is what people are going to think. How can you bring back the Soviet Union? What's going to happen, are people going to use their magical Stalin powers to turn people into peasants? Could it also be, that Stalin was not a 20 foot tall man who stomped on people with his steel boots, killing a gazillion people? The fact of the matter is that people are not reading enough history books.

Historical idealism is a big factor in the fear of communism as well. Many members of the proletariat in the United States also, do not view themselves as the proletariat, but future members of the bourgeoisie.

All the crap about the make-believe ideology called Stalinism also doesn't help the left. Nobody believes in Stalinism except for Stalin's enemies.

[Q]

You clearly just demonstrated this "obvious propaganda." When people look at the history of the USSR through the sunglasses of idealism, then this is what people are going to think. How can you bring back the Soviet Union? What's going to happen, are people going to use their magical Stalin powers to turn people into peasants? Could it also be, that Stalin was not a 20 foot tall man who stomped on people with his steel boots, killing a gazillion people? The fact of the matter is that people are not reading enough history books.

Historical idealism is a big factor in the fear of communism as well. Many members of the proletariat in the United States also, do not view themselves as the proletariat, but future members of the bourgeoisie.

Yawn.

Let me word it differently: Communism is going to have zero appeal as an alternative if people equate it with what the USSR was.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

@ Q and ComradeHill: Just a reminder: Keep it civil guys (so good so far)

[Zav]

This bastard has something to do with it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Joseph_McCarthy.jpg/250px-Joseph_McCarthy.jpg

Are we sure he isn't Glenn Beck's dad?

[RadioRaheem84]

Many members of the proletariat in the United States also, do not view themselves as the proletariat, but future members of the bourgeoisie.This is the undeniable truth in the United States. There is almost no worker class consciousness in the States. Every worker or at least every young worker does not see themselves as workers but future members of the upper middle class.

Young workers just see themselves in a transition stage, which is why they don't care about workers rights or higher pay to the extent of making their current employment their permanent livelihood.

Socialism seems like a burnt out old ideal to them.

Also, the lack of historical perspective on the development of the ML nations also skews the picture of socialism.

The US has spun the story so much to their favor that it would be inconceivable for people to fathom that in terms of foreign policy during the Cold War, the USSR was the lesser of two evils.

Whenever I tell non-communists about the historical development off the USSR and the other ML states, they say that doesn't matter because Stalin was evil at heart and he would've killed anyway regardless of the procession of historical events because his intent was "power". :rolleyes:

If the American Revolution, the American Civil War, WWI and WWII happened in the span of twenty years and not to mention was surrounded by enemies bent on it's destruction, would not the US likewise look a bit different today? Would the suspension of Habeus Corpus by Lincoln be seen as simply an "evil person's" lust for power?

[Comrade Hill]

Yawn.

Let me word it differently: Communism is going to have zero appeal as an alternative if people equate it with what the USSR was.

I don't think wording it differently made any difference. It's going to have zero appeal, if people continue to believe in the historical fairytales told by capitalists and revisionists.

Whether you agree with it or not, when people mention "Communism," they are going to think of Lenin and Stalin, because the USSR is the most heard about country where "communism" has been tried. Your attempt to avoid this and brush the entire history off as a "life of misery" and "without any appeal" is not only factually incorrect, but it hurts the communist movement. It simply reinforces the fear of "communism" and it continues to blind people with historical inaccuracy.

[RadioRaheem84]

Let me word it differently: Communism is going to have zero appeal as an alternative if people equate it with what the USSR was.

As much as you try. You will never erase the USSR from the historical record about communism.

The best we can do is tell people about why it became the country it was. For all it's faults it also had a lot more positive attributes about it. Those positives are what the people of those formers countries now only dream about while living in their capitalist "democracies".

It would be shocking and life turning for Americans to find out that their nation was the real bad guy during the Cold War. That because of US and Western imperialist counter revolution, the ML states became enclosed bureaucratic paranoid bunker states mostly concerned with survival instead of continuing the road to socialism. Those states were in a constant state of war and I do not mean having their kids hide under schools desks during an atom bomb drill, but an actual constant state of war like ten times as constant as US during WWII.

How would a tiny nation in the third world, freeing itself of an imperialist choke hold, survive the constant terror attacks, the CIA, the economic embargoes, the political isolation, political assassinations, etc.? Not to mention full imperial onslaught if none of the things listed above deterred the people from socialism?

[Q]

Just for the record: I'm not avoiding the subject of the USSR. I'm just clear in such discussions that it was a counter-revolutionary regime that was the complete opposite of communism (as is often the case with counter-revolutions, they try to take up the mantle of the revolution) and indeed explain why the counter-revolution was victorious.

But since this is going too much off topic, I'll leave it there.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

wh0ZrpPDe_Y

[Zealot]

Oh, I don't know, bourgeois propaganda may have something to do with it.

[Comrade Samuel]

I think that it is obvious that the time of heavy capitalist propaganda directed towards communists is over and that the damage has been done. Today it is because most if not all people living the west belive all communists are...

A) old nostalgic Russians (nationalists)

B) whiney hipsters who hang out a Starbucks all day (revleft :D)

At this point we can either sit around and talking about how "evil dictators ruined the good name of communism" then allowing everybody else with an opinion on the matter tell you how stupid you are all day or we could put aside petty bullshit and focus on the fact that nobody even knows what communism is anymore not entirely because of the history but because capitalists have their own definition that they have pushed onto everybody else.

Keeping your own opinion on history is alright, letting it interfere with problems we face today is why the left is in the state it is. Is it really so bad to educate people on the core tenants of Marxism before we force them into our often impolite historical debates? It's probably what drives so many away from this site.

[DiaperGrandpa]

May I ask where you're from? Or provide a bit more info. on the nature of the fear you're referring to? It sometimes makes a difference in identifying the type of and reasons for fear of communism.

Otherwise, I think what others have already stated re: propaganda to definitely be a relevant factor.

[Movimento Sem Terra]

Because people believe that Communism is a Regime of Murders because the actions that Mao , Stalin , Pol Pot and many other crazy dictators did .

[Yuppie Grinder]

Lol at Stalinists thinking the only reason why workers don't trust their movement is "propaganda! they've been brainwashed!".

[Prometeo liberado]

Because most people associate communism with Stalin.

Actually your wrong. Ask 10 people on the street who they think of when you say communist and 7 will tell you Hitler. Don't ask me why but thats seems to be the frightening truth. I believe it was the History channel that did a pole similar to this. People who lived thru WW2 would answer Stalin while baby boomer's leaned towards Hitler. Even high school and college aged people go for the Hitler answer almost every time.
20 years from now people will equate Socialism with Obama. But I'm sure somehow all of this will be blamed on Stalin as well.

But nice attempt at replacing logic and fact with the Stalin baiting. You people amaze me.

[Ocean Seal]

Stalin/Mao

Besides the obvious propaganda, it's also the case that no one wants to go back to a society like that of the USSR.

But this isn't entirely true.
There are quite a few people who would like to go back from neoliberalism to the USSR/Warsaw/Maoist China.

Its mainly firstworlders who don't like the idea of having the USSR because of queues or some shit like that in the 70's and Stalinist baby eaters in the 30's.

[Q]

Stalin/Mao


But this isn't entirely true.
There are quite a few people who would like to go back from neoliberalism to the USSR/Warsaw/Maoist China.

Its mainly firstworlders who don't like the idea of having the USSR because of queues or some shit like that in the 70's and Stalinist baby eaters in the 30's.

Actually, it is the other way around. Hillel Ticktin (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russiai-theories-soviet-t168685/index.html), when he lived in the USSR for a while in the 1970's, reports how no one in that society believed in this form of "socialism". It was the Western CP's (at the time still mass movements in many countries) that had a far more rosier view of things.

It is true that now there are quite a few people that long back to those days, as they had more securities than live today. But we see a similar trend in the West, where quite a few people long back to the welfare state of those days. In fact, you could probably ascribe it to a general trend of older people to long back to "the good old days". It probably means nothing.

[RadioRaheem84]

Lol at Stalinists thinking the only reason why workers don't trust their movement is "propaganda! they've been brainwashed!".

What's your theory?

[Yuppie Grinder]

I already posted it.
As for why people don't trust Marxism-Lenninism (which I don't consider genuinely communist), people have every reason not to trust it. People equate Stalinism with enslavement because they're not fucking stupid.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I already posted it.
As for why people don't trust Marxism-Lenninism (which I don't consider genuinely communist), people have every reason not to trust it. People equate Stalinism with enslavement because they're not fucking stupid.
While I'm not a M-L ... some of the shit-talking about the USSR is exaggerated

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik

Over all, there are now more people under “correctional supervision” in America—more than six million—than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height. That city of the confined and the controlled, Lockuptown, is now the second largest in the United States.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/05/louisiana_is_the_worlds_prison.html

Louisiana is the world's prison capital. The state imprisons more of its people, per head, than any of its U.S. counterparts. First among Americans means first in the world. Louisiana's incarceration rate is nearly five times Iran's, 13 times China's and 20 times Germany's.

[Yuppie Grinder]

That's horrendous and awful. I'm well aware of how brutally the American prison system is being used as a weapon of class warfare. That doesn't make the crimes of Stalin, Mao, and the like any better.

[Dire Helix]

That doesn't make the crimes of Stalin, Mao, and the like any better.

Stalin and Mao are the products of the material conditions that existed in Russia and China at the time. There are very concrete reasons why the events in the post-revolutionary Russia and later China took the turn that they did. Putting so much weight behind a single person is an idealistic, bourgeois view of history.


Besides the obvious propaganda, it's also the case that no one wants to go back to a society like that of the USSR.

Just to demonstrate how wrong you are, here`s a Spiegel article from 2009 titled "Homesick for a Dictatorship":

Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 57 percent, or an absolute majority, of eastern Germans defend the former East Germany. "The GDR had more good sides than bad sides. There were some problems, but life was good there," say 49 percent of those polled. Eight percent of eastern Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home and agree with the statement: "The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today."

Link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122-2,00.html

[Comrade Hill]

Stalin and Mao are the products of the material conditions that existed in Russia and China at the time. There are very concrete reasons why the events in the post-revolutionary Russia and later China took the turn that they did. Putting so much weight behind a single person is an idealistic, bourgeois view of history.



Just to demonstrate how wrong you are, here`s a Spiegel article from 2009 titled "Homesick for a Dictatorship":

Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 57 percent, or an absolute majority, of eastern Germans defend the former East Germany. "The GDR had more good sides than bad sides. There were some problems, but life was good there," say 49 percent of those polled. Eight percent of eastern Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home and agree with the statement: "The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today."

Link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122-2,00.html

I honestly wouldn't bother comrade, you are arguing with people who don't like to use sources or facts to back up their statements.

The Leninists point to the propaganda of capitalists as a factor in instilling "communist fear," then all the left-coms, or whatever they are, come and start defending the capitalist propaganda. There's really no point in arguing with such people.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I am a Lenninist, bro.
RedScare1917, you assume because I find the actions of Stalin and Mao abhorrent I don't have a materialist understanding what happened under their rule. I have a materialist understanding of why the American slave trade happened, I find that abhorrent. I have a materialist understanding of why the holocaust happened, I find that abhorrent. I have a materialist understanding of why Hiroshima happened, I find that abhorrent.
One can have an emotional response to something, find it unjust, and still analyze it like a Marxist.

[Comrade Hill]

I am a Lenninist, bro.
RedScare1917, you assume because I find the actions of Stalin and Mao abhorrent I don't have a materialist understanding what happened under their rule. I have a materialist understanding of why the American slave trade happened, I find that abhorrent. I have a materialist understanding of why the holocaust happened, I find that abhorrent. I have a materialist understanding of why Hiroshima happened, I find that abhorrent.
One can have an emotional response to something, find it unjust, and still analyze it like a Marxist.

Oh yes, you analyze Marxism-Leninism like a true marxist, by equating it to enslavement, and talking about the make-believe ideology called Stalinism.

Why don't you criticize the actual enemy instead of criticizing an imaginary one?

[Yuppie Grinder]

I call your world-view Stalinism because its neither Marxist nor Lenninist.
The ideology of Anti-Revisionism is about as Materialist as Orthodox Catholicism. It boils down to marking anyone who dares to criticize or think independently a revisionist the same way anyone who thought independently was labelled a heretic in the days of Catholic Europe. It's a great man theory of history, not a Materialist one.
All you folks really do is further ruin Marxism's already awful public image.

[Geiseric]

I mean denying the purges being bad is also kinda a bad thing, as well as doing things like supporting the tanks going in to crush the hungarian revolution. However KKE is hardly Leninist, the CPC in china which was "Marxist Leninist Maoist," isn't Marxist, nor Leninist in their support for the Bourgeoisie throughout even Mao's time.

Also the shit that Stalin pulled with Nazi Germany was obviously not Leninist. All of the Comintern policies were ever what you would consider Leninist, and the denial of a united front with other workers parties throughout Europe was also not Leninist. Marxism Leninism meant partially the failure of the workers movement, for about 70 years after it was conceived by the purges, now though since the U.S.S.R. failed, it's even worse for the Communist movement.

[TheAltruist]

As someone who has actually gone through the U.S. school system, I can actually tell you why there is fear of Communism. First of all, I remember talking about socialism and communism in freshman history. The theories are grossly misrepresented. While we did discuss Karl Marx, there was never in depth exploration of his ideas, or any other important socialists.

When my class learned about the Russian Revolution, I asked the teacher (as a test) about the soviets, and if it was intended to be democratic. He blatantly responded "no." This reason is that Communism is equated with totalitarian dictatorship. That's how it's taught in America, anyways.

[marl]

Stalin and Mao are the products of the material conditions that existed in Russia and China at the time. There are very concrete reasons why the events in the post-revolutionary Russia and later China took the turn that they did. Putting so much weight behind a single person is an idealistic, bourgeois view of history.


Just to demonstrate how wrong you are, here`s a Spiegel article from 2009 titled "Homesick for a Dictatorship":

Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 57 percent, or an absolute majority, of eastern Germans defend the former East Germany. "The GDR had more good sides than bad sides. There were some problems, but life was good there," say 49 percent of those polled. Eight percent of eastern Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home and agree with the statement: "The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today."

Link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122-2,00.html

Stalin didn't emerge out of material conditions - he emerged out of sheer party manipulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Joseph_Stalin#Downfall_of_Trotsky), and Mao emerged out of the counter-revolutionary activities of the USSR. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Duxiu#Expelled_by_the_Party)

The fall of the evil communist regimes in the east (note: it was a joke when I said "evil") has been disastrous for many working class families, with neo-liberalism and its lack of social programs, housing, jobs and whatnot. This is true, and there is absolutely no denying this. However, this is a problem with capitalism, and social programs of the former regimes don't justify their gross human rights violations at all, nor does it justify their crimes against the working class (and, in China's case, the peasantry). Nor does this prove the working class ever held control of these states.

[jookyle]

TheAltuist makes a great point. In America, you're basically given the definition of fascism for communism. I had teacher's that even used the phrase "communist dictator" to describe people like Castro.

It's like I said before, reading and education, both on the public and personal level are so downplayed, cast to the side, that the socialization process one goes through in school sticks with people in their adulthood. The anti-intellectual movement in America is strong enough that when you show people the truth in black and white, they still argue the lie.

[Grenzer]

I mean denying the purges being bad is also kinda a bad thing, as well as doing things like supporting the tanks going in to crush the hungarian revolution. However KKE is hardly Leninist, the CPC in china which was "Marxist Leninist Maoist," isn't Marxist, nor Leninist in their support for the Bourgeoisie throughout even Mao's time.

Also the shit that Stalin pulled with Nazi Germany was obviously not Leninist. All of the Comintern policies were ever what you would consider Leninist, and the denial of a united front with other workers parties throughout Europe was also not Leninist. Marxism Leninism meant partially the failure of the workers movement, for about 70 years after it was conceived by the purges, now though since the U.S.S.R. failed, it's even worse for the Communist movement.

The problem is that they are Leninists. It's not like Trotskyists are the only real Leninists out there.

Have you ever read the program of the Communist International from 1929? I'd be curious as to what was so bad about it; it seemed to elucidate proper methods and strategy better than Trotsky did, but the fact is that the methods each proposed were not too radically different from one another.

You keep haranguing the Comintern for not working with so-called "workers' parties", but in reality you mean that they should have cooperated with bourgeois social-democratic parties. This is class collaboration. These are not "workers' parties" any more than the NSDLP was a "workers' party". Trotsky's continuous attempts to rebrand bourgeois social-democratic parties as if they were somehow anything other than bourgeois is in fact a form of counter-revolutionary revisionism(masquerading as Marxism, but in reality robbing it of the fundamental need for genuine class struggle. In this case Trotsky proposed class collaboration).

While I don't think we should fool ourselves into thinking that the Comintern was anything other than the tool of the Soviet Union, it's policies prior to the adoption of the popular front were to the left of Trotsky, who was rapidly turning to strategy that favored communists becoming and merging with the social-democratic movement.

Yes, workers did form the a primary pillar of support for social-democracy, but this also tends to be true of fascist, conservative, and liberal parties. None of these are "workers' parties". They objectively reflect the class interests of the bourgeoisie, have leadership comprised of the bourgeoisie, have bourgeois ideologies. There is absolutely nothing proletarian about any of these groups, and Trotsky's liberal move of casting in with the social-democrats is opportunism of the worst sort, and directly undermines the ability of the working class to maintain independent political organization. The rechristening of social-democrats as being "workers' parties" is counter-revolutionary nonsense. The difference between Trotsky's "United Front" and the Stalinist popular front is purely quantitative. A refusal to acknowledge this is the exact same principle utilized by the CPUSA in their doctrine of "lesser evilism". The reasoning the CPUSA uses to support liberals is the same reasoning that Trotsky used. It is no mystery at all that the bourgeois historians echo Trotsky in advocating his "United Front".

I don't know where you keep pulling this stuff about refusal to collaborate with the bourgeoisie(whether they are represented by social-democrats, or otherwise) is "not Leninist". I'd be genuinely curious to read where Lenin suggested, say, that the KPD kiss the SPD's ass, which is essentially what Trotsky proposed. Even if one were to completely throw Marxism(class analysis) out the window as Trotsky did in the case of his suggestion of an alliance with a faction of the bourgeoisie(the social-democratic parties), I would think that the experiences and aftermath of the German Revolution would illustrate perfectly the true nature of Social-Democracy and the futility of making an alliance with it under any circumstances.

I am willing to continue arguing this line so long as people are willing to distort the genuine class nature of the ideology of social-democracy as "workers' parties", which does not hold up to even a superficial materialist analysis.

[Comrade Hill]

I mean denying the purges being bad is also kinda a bad thing, as well as doing things like supporting the tanks going in to crush the hungarian revolution. However KKE is hardly Leninist, the CPC in china which was "Marxist Leninist Maoist," isn't Marxist, nor Leninist in their support for the Bourgeoisie throughout even Mao's time.


Oh yes, Stalin definitely should've supported Hungary's aims to destroy a socialist state, and replace it with "decentralization" and "profitability."

Stalin also admitted their were excesses during the purges. However, agreeing with Stalin is always called "Stalinism," so maybe we should've supported the excesses.



Also the shit that Stalin pulled with Nazi Germany was obviously not Leninist. All of the Comintern policies were ever what you would consider Leninist, and the denial of a united front with other workers parties throughout Europe was also not Leninist. Marxism Leninism meant partially the failure of the workers movement, for about 70 years after it was conceived by the purges, now though since the U.S.S.R. failed, it's even worse for the Communist movement.

Lenin clearly denied that menshevik position of having to depend on the European proletariat in order for the revolution to be successful in Russia. And I guess defending your people against imperialism is not what Lenin would want.

[Igor]

Oh yes, Stalin definitely should've supported Hungary's aims to destroy a socialist state, and replace it with "decentralization" and "profitability."

Well, as far as I know, Stalin was at no point resurrected from among the dead and would be quite unable to react to the events in Hungary in any way. Besides maybe rolling, I hear that's what dead people often do.

So, do we have a case of Khrushchevism here? :rolleyes:

[leftistman]

A lot of the other users have really hit the nail on the head - misinformation! Communism and socialism are still very taboo ideologies here in North America because our governments and media have demonized the terms to refer to a totalitarian government that annihilates all opposition and consistently violates human rights in order to meet the interests of the politicians who really are part of the upper-class. People fear socialism/communism because of the atrocities that have been committed by countries that have claimed to adhere to Marxist principles. What's really odd about this fear to implement any form of socialism or communism is that people always talk about the approximately 100 million people that perished in the 20th century because of so-called socialists/communists is that far more people have been killed by capitalism; 150 million native Americans have been killed in the name of capitalist imperialism, just to give one example. Also, every time someone dies in poverty, they have died because of capitalism because capitalism seeks not to meet society's interests, but the upper-class interests. That being said, hundreds of millions, no, probably billions of people have been killed by capitalism.

[Geiseric]

The problem is that they are Leninists. It's not like Trotskyists are the only real Leninists out there.

Have you ever read the program of the Communist International from 1929? I'd be curious as to what was so bad about it; it seemed to elucidate proper methods and strategy better than Trotsky did, but the fact is that the methods each proposed were not too radically different from one another.

You keep haranguing the Comintern for not working with so-called "workers' parties", but in reality you mean that they should have cooperated with bourgeois social-democratic parties. This is class collaboration. These are not "workers' parties" any more than the NSDLP was a "workers' party". Trotsky's continuous attempts to rebrand bourgeois social-democratic parties as if they were somehow anything other than bourgeois is in fact a form of counter-revolutionary revisionism(masquerading as Marxism, but in reality robbing it of the fundamental need for genuine class struggle. In this case Trotsky proposed class collaboration).

While I don't think we should fool ourselves into thinking that the Comintern was anything other than the tool of the Soviet Union, it's policies prior to the adoption of the popular front were to the left of Trotsky, who was rapidly turning to strategy that favored communists becoming and merging with the social-democratic movement.

Yes, workers did form the a primary pillar of support for social-democracy, but this also tends to be true of fascist, conservative, and liberal parties. None of these are "workers' parties". They objectively reflect the class interests of the bourgeoisie, have leadership comprised of the bourgeoisie, have bourgeois ideologies. There is absolutely nothing proletarian about any of these groups, and Trotsky's liberal move of casting in with the social-democrats is opportunism of the worst sort, and directly undermines the ability of the working class to maintain independent political organization. The rechristening of social-democrats as being "workers' parties" is counter-revolutionary nonsense. The difference between Trotsky's "United Front" and the Stalinist popular front is purely quantitative. A refusal to acknowledge this is the exact same principle utilized by the CPUSA in their doctrine of "lesser evilism". The reasoning the CPUSA uses to support liberals is the same reasoning that Trotsky used. It is no mystery at all that the bourgeois historians echo Trotsky in advocating his "United Front".

I don't know where you keep pulling this stuff about refusal to collaborate with the bourgeoisie(whether they are represented by social-democrats, or otherwise) is "not Leninist". I'd be genuinely curious to read where Lenin suggested, say, that the KPD kiss the SPD's ass, which is essentially what Trotsky proposed. Even if one were to completely throw Marxism(class analysis) out the window as Trotsky did in the case of his suggestion of an alliance with a faction of the bourgeoisie(the social-democratic parties), I would think that the experiences and aftermath of the German Revolution would illustrate perfectly the true nature of Social-Democracy and the futility of making an alliance with it under any circumstances.

I am willing to continue arguing this line so long as people are willing to distort the genuine class nature of the ideology of social-democracy as "workers' parties", which does not hold up to even a superficial materialist analysis.

Well obviously the popular front tactic didn't work in the world, so Stalin was wrong regardless. Also the october revolution itself was made possible by united fronts. Do you think that when the white armies were first starting the counter revolution, in 1917, the bolsheviks were the only party left in the soviets? The fighting back of the Czarist bandits were fought by Mensheviks, SRs, Left SRs, Anarchists, and bolsheviks alike. The property fits perfectly to Germany in 1930, when the fascist bands were threatening Social Democrats, Communists, Anarchists, and workers in general. Also, would you of opposed a united front with the anarcho syndicallists in spain against the fascists, even though the anarcho syndicallists were an impediment to the revolution, and participated with the bourgeois parliament?

The notion of calling the Social Democrats "social fascists," and saying that a front with their rank and file would be somewhat worse than a fascist takeover is rediculous. The rank and file actually sent delegates over to the KPD asking for a united front, but this was denied. I agree that before the Nazis were a threat and before the bourgeois were turned to fascism, the SPD was entirely the enemy of the Communists, and served as the most counter revolutionary force in history, however its acts at the time of 1928 and things like supporting Freikorps were representative of a small minority of opportunist leaders, and not the entirety of the party's worker membership. Do you seriously think that every worker who voted social democrat supported Freikops since their overlord party commanded them to? Once fascism was a threat, the motto of "After hitler, us!" was beyond every blunder that the Communist movement held in the past.

Even more rediculous than that was the diplomatic relations between Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. throughout the 1930s. Up untill Barbarosa, the Fascists who wrecked the workers of germany were being sent raw materials, training militarily, and dividing countries up with the U.S.S.R. One might wonder if the acts of 1930, and the claim by Thalliman that "The fight is over," was a precursor to a new relationship that Stalin wanted to work out with the Nazis against the French and British governments, not unlike the appeasement policies taken by the british and french bourgeois themselves.

Anyways in closing, refusing to work with the SPD at a point when fascism, the mortal enemy of the proletariat, was in a position go gain power was idiotic, and as we saw throughout the rule of Hitlerism disastrous.

KMT in china was a bourgeois party, and the CPC was a workers party. How is promoting a front with KMT "more left than Trotsky,"? Also at what point did the SPD turn into a "bourgeois party," since it didn't have any bourgeois members? The leadership was opportunist delegates from the working class , not bourgeois. You're claiming that, basically, if a worker backs a policy that aids the bourgeoisie, he is himself a bourgeoisie. Also Fascism didn't have a core membership of workers, it was of declassed petit bourgeoisie. Conservative parties are made up of bourgeois people as well, however the SPD was made up of workers, and as workers we as communists are in no position to turn away potential future revolutionaries when they became dissilusioned in the SPD. One could also argue that the KPD didn't gain the support of the mass SPD membership since they were basically the SPDs ***** throughout the 1920s, and hadn't prooved yet that they would be the most capible of leading the working class through basic opportunism in parliament and not being revolutionary at all. Anyways, sectarianism is what defined the 1929 policy of a "red united front," which was at the time stupid if ones goal is to gain the support of the wider proletariat for a revolution.

[Igor]

Seriously, we can't chalk it up solely to the "well but propaganda" aspect of the whole thing. If it was only up to that, when would ever any system go down, if they really could control what people think that well? Simply bad politics from our side play a part, and the fact in many countries we're too small to gain attention, and where we are big, our success there would not be adequate globally. Many people who now are apathetic towards politics or vote for the reformist left don't do it because "propaganda!" but because we're pointless to the point where they think voting reformist/not doing anything at all serves the same, or even better point. We're simply not an option for many people, I've met numerous people who agree with the basic points but think that the movement has no chance in hell of ever being successful. That's simply not really that attractive for people looking for an answer for their endless questions. People don't think we have any kind of influence over anything because we don't.

Also yeah, the bad politics part. Many left-wing organizations really don't know how to appeal people who don't already give a shit about left-wing politics, I think. I've been browsing several UK communist party websites while writing this post, and they really often just pretty much enforce every stereotype someone who's slightly slanted against us would have. It's often more "commies being commies" than actual, concrete answers about how what we offer is designed to make your life better. That's usually either said in an overly theoretic manner people are not going to understand or veiled in reformist promises which is unlikely to attract people over because well, they're reformist and people who like to see real change won't think much of it. Put in some hammers and sickles and red stars and maybe a huge fucking Marx portrait somewhere and well yeah, there you have it. Really something your average worker cares so much about.

While the thing about capitalist lies is true, it also functions as a cop-out. We've also failed to make people interested in the message, we've failed to grow beyond the point where people could actually think joining us can possibly have some kind of impact on something and we've failed to make it clear that we're an actual option for fixing this bloody broken mankind. None of those is a capitalist lie, or bourgeois media propaganda piece.

[Seresan]

Let's look at it step-by-step.

1: The Capitalists don't want to lose power, so they have a negative image of Communism and Anarchism.
2: Conservatives hate change, so they are equally against altering the system.
3: Conservative Capitalists control large portions of the mainstream media
4: Most people get their information about politics and economics from the mainstream media.
5: This creates more conservatives and anti-communists.

Not to mention that all examples that call themselves "Communist" that make it into the media stream are horrible.

If you control what people see and how people see it, you can control what they think about it. Simple propaganda.

[reort]

Sorry guys I didn´t read all of your comments to my post, but I read quite a few! They weren´t changing much, and I had an idea, why not we just change the name from Communism to something else? Something completely different that would not lead to pre-association with ¨Stalin, or Dictatorship¨ or other ¨propaganda¨?

A re-branding so to say. I suppose that the ideas of Marx, and Communism also must adapt to changing times as well?

[LeftAbove]

I don't know if these are listed, but I'll name them:
1. fear of dictatorships (in a true communist transition there is no dictator, nor leader)
2. Fear of lack of freedom (actually stands for freedom)
3. Fear of socialized medicine (actually fear of long waiting times, or low quality healthcare)
4. Some people are just greedy and fear it will cripple their corporate needs.
5. I don't know if this is frequent, but people associate communism with state atheism. If the transition ever comes, I hope that we have freedom of religion.

[m1omfg]

Stalin/Mao


But this isn't entirely true.
There are quite a few people who would like to go back from neoliberalism to the USSR/Warsaw/Maoist China.

Its mainly firstworlders who don't like the idea of having the USSR because of queues or some shit like that in the 70's and Stalinist baby eaters in the 30's.

True, also I would like to say that Eastern Bloc states were nowhere near the "state of war". Except for the 1950s purges against "imperialist agents", people were generally far less anxious than in the West. It was not "10x more war than WW2 era USA", WW2 era US had troops in Japan and rationing, Eastern Bloc states did not.

[Omsk]

I really like the stupid idiots who say Marxist-Leninists have a 'great man theory complex' and than proceed to bark how 'communism has a bad face because of STALIN!!?!' or how 'Stalin killd 'd German Revo'ution!' and similar idiotic things like that.

[Sea]

Most people don't have a fear of, say, Marxism, or even perhaps any idea of what Marxism is; they have a fear of communism not as an ideology or group of ideologies but as an epithet.

We also need to get our ducks in a row when responding to this. From the perspective of the non-communist, hearing "bourgeoisie", "propaganda" and "imperialist" (as justified as those words may be) in rapid succession as some of the first to come out of a comrade's mouth while they try to defend themselves after being called communist in an accusatory way is sure to have the unfortunate side-effect of casting the person as some sort of conspiracy theorist who things there's an arbitrary capitalist boogeyman out to get them, rather than someone legitimately concerned about the way things are set up in society.

[El Oso Rojo]

I really like the stupid idiots who say Marxist-Leninists have a 'great man theory complex' and than proceed to bark how 'communism has a bad face because of STALIN!!?!' or how 'Stalin killd 'd German Revo'ution!' and similar idiotic things like that.

Stalin wasn't even power at that time of the German Revolution. Are you serious?

[El Oso Rojo]

Things are more complex than this. Cultural hegemony is a natural phenomenon within all hierarchical societies. In pre-industrial society it was maintained through violence, coercion, and keeping literature and art out of the hands of the majority. In industrial capitalism cultural hegemony is maintained through the private ownership of media by the bourgeoisie, their control of our education system through their state, and to a lesser degree propaganda. By these means the proletariat is artificially conditioned into the political and cultural sensibilities of their exploiters. This is why blacks on a certain level hate the color of their skin. This is why many homosexuals try and conform to the conventional family dynamic. This is why the majority of our class don't recognize our common enemy, and worst of all don't recognize each other as natural allies.
As for "rattling on about the crimes committed by Stalin, Mao, etc.", the bourgeoisie doesn't really need to spread propaganda about that stuff to scare off workers. Stalinists have already done more than enough of that themselves.
Part of the reason why most working people are distrusting of the far-left is because the far-left has fucked them over so many times. Their fear is understandable.

I don't think many want a family just to conform to convention, actually kinda insulting. We are comforting because we don't want to be ho's. It doesn't make a person less uncapitalistic because they want a family. family structure run on religious fundementalism is one thing and problematic.

[Raskolnikov]

Communism is 'feared' because the capitalist state (like the feudalist state before) spreads rumors, lies and blatantly starts a propaganda war against it.

As you notice in history class of say America - they rarely critize their own actions (genocide of Native Americans caused by the lust and feudalist/capitalist interests of the white settlers, the capitalists of America dividing up the classes of America and creating a white labour aristocracy, and so on and so forth) but rather send all aggression towards the Communists in China, the Soviet Union, Cuba and so forth.

Never mentioning the CIA Operations against them (Operation Mongoose for example on Cuba) and other nations who had no standing in the conflict.

They bullshit it up - make kids fear the idea of Communism so they will NOT enage in revolutionary discussion. For that's how the Feudalists failed, they could not prevent it. But the capitalists try with propaganda campaign in the schools with the aspect of 'History', attempting to make Communism the worst thing in existence.

[Geiseric]

It's the failure of communists that allowed for Nazism to rise, it's the failure of communists which allowed the great depression to go by without a revolution in the U.S. and it's the fault of communists in Russia and China for being defensist to the greatest degree. Engels talks about the danger of defensism in Class Struggles in France: 1848 when he says almost verbatum, "in every revolutionary crisis, there are those who want to defend what is won and those who want to push the revolution fowards. in every case when the defensists have gained power, every victory was undone in a matter of decades." Stalinists will admit that Stalin was a defensist, however they fail to see how he used those politics to directly strenghen himself and the ruling bureaucracy, and how as Trotsky and Lenin fortold Capitalism was restored in Russia due to SOIC.

[Omsk]

Stalin wasn't even power at that time of the German Revolution. Are you serious?

They describe the pre WW2 period as some sort of a "revolution" - in which the KPD and Thalmann 'helped the Nazis' and in which 'Stalin crushed the workers opposition". It's idiotic lies.



It's the failure of communists that allowed for Nazism to rise, it's the failure of communists which allowed the great depression to go by without a revolution in the U.S. and it's the fault of communists in Russia and China for being defensist to the greatest degree. Engels talks about the danger of defensism in Class Struggles in France: 1848 when he says almost verbatum, "in every revolutionary crisis, there are those who want to defend what is won and those who want to push the revolution fowards. in every case when the defensists have gained power, every victory was undone in a matter of decades." Stalinists will admit that Stalin was a defensist, however they fail to see how he used those politics to directly strenghen himself and the ruling bureaucracy, and how as Trotsky and Lenin fortold Capitalism was restored in Russia due to SOIC.


If this is the Marxism your senior Trotskyites taught you, than i really don't have anything to add, it's perfect.

[Lucretia]

In short, the term has been misappropriated by both the left and the right to refer to things that are, quite frankly, scary -- namely a Stalinist type society where basic individual freedoms are curtailed and workers exercise very little control over how production takes place.