Should we break with 'Communism'?

[Anti-Traditional]

In 1918 Lenin broke wit 'Social-Democracy' and declared the Bolsheviks a 'Communist Party'. In essence Bolshevik politics remained the same though, and the renaming was merely used to differentiate between Revolutionary Social Democracy and Reformist Social Democracy. All the leaders of the 3rd International believed that the leaders of Social Democracy had betrayed it's Revolutionary origins. In reality those who called themselves Social Democrats werent what they claimed to be and the Communists were the real Social Democrats, in spite of this the 'Social Democratic' title was dropped.

For those who opposed Stalinism we see a similar process with the emergence of SIOC which signified the end of the neccessity of world revolution and an equating of State ownership with Socialism. If we are happy to oppose 'Social Democracy', should we not by the same token oppose 'Communism'?

After all, it was the 'Communists' in Spain who rolled back the social revolution, the 'Communists' of post-war France and Italy who joined Bourgeois governments, the Communists who crushed Hungary 56, the 'Communists' who sold out in May 68, the 'Communists' who in Italy reached a historic compromise with the Christian Democrats.

'It is unfortunate that so few people in England have yet caught up with the fact that Communism is now a counter-revolutionary force; that Communists everywhere are in alliance with bourgeois reformism and using the whole of their powerful machinery to crush or discredit any party that shows signs of revolutionary tendencies.' - George Orwell- 'Spilling the beans'- Great Article BTW

[Thirsty Crow]

For those who opposed Stalinism we see a similar process with the emergence of SIOC which signified the end of the neccessity of world revolution and an equating of State ownership with Socialism. If we are happy to oppose 'Social Democracy', should we not by the same token oppose 'Communism'?We oppose concrete political practices, while rhetoric and terminology can, but does not necessarily need to change. For instance, the conditions prevailing at the onset of the formation of Communist Parties were significantly different than those of today. There are no mass communist parties on the verge of taking power within the bourgeois state, so the necessity of sharp differentiation translated to terminology change is lacking. But, perhaps most significantly, there would be problems with term juggling and new coinages. In relation to this, it is also worthwhile to recall that we should not leave a perfectly reasonable descriptor to co-optation.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, there's an argument certainly.

I prefer the other tactic, which is to recalim the term 'communism' (and 'socialism' for that matter) from the counter-revolutionaries, by patiently explaining that 'communism' doesn't mean state control, economic stagnation, the GULAG and social-democracy-with-bayonets.

[Anti-Traditional]

For instance, the conditions prevailing at the onset of the formation of Communist Parties were significantly different than those of today. There are no mass communist parties on the verge of taking power within the bourgeois state, so the necessity of sharp differentiation translated to terminology change is lacking.

I think that a 'Communist Party' taking power without the Bourgeois state would be more problematic. I wouldnt rule this out in the next 10 years or so, for example the KKE are relatively large and have recently taken a left tern rejecting taking power within the Bourgeois State and speak of a 'Revolutionary overthrow'. If this were to happen then Stalinism would appear Revolutionary even though their conception of Socialism is essentially reformist.

[Anti-Traditional]

Well, there's an argument certainly.

I prefer the other tactic, which is to recalim the term 'communism' (and 'socialism' for that matter) from the counter-revolutionaries, by patiently explaining that 'communism' doesn't mean state control, economic stagnation, the GULAG and social-democracy-with-bayonets.

Should Lenin have tried to reclaim Social Democracy in your opinion?

[Red Banana]

Why don't we reclaim social democracy? We could just say "revolutionary social democracy" to differentiate ourselves from reformists.

I'd prefer keeping the term communism, but that word has been shat on so much within the past century. You can try to explain it to people and they just plug their ears and walk away because they want nothing to do with 'that', whatever they think 'that' is.

'Revolutionary social democracy' sounds a lot friendlier to people who might not be as informed about history/politics. Plus it would be great to take that word back from the reformists.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think that a 'Communist Party' taking power without the Bourgeois state would be more problematic. I wouldnt rule this out in the next 10 years or so, for example the KKE are relatively large and have recently taken a left tern rejecting taking power within the Bourgeois State and speak of a 'Revolutionary overthrow'. If this were to happen then Stalinism would appear Revolutionary even though their conception of Socialism is essentially reformist.

I think that this would represent a genuine opportunity for the appearance of internationalist and communist fractions within the party you mention, and perhaps for a significant influence of such groups outside it.

Though, this is nothing but a hypothetical scenario as I think you're really overestimating the extent to which KKE can garner support (as I recall, they're below 10% in elections etc and most certainly haven't engaged in preparations for a violent clash, with the standing army more than ready to crush any such foolish adventurism) while SYRIZA is the most likely candidate for a left-wing government of, ideologically camouflaged, austerity.

What other terms would you favor if you do advocate terminology change?



'Revolutionary social democracy' sounds a lot friendlier to people who might not be as informed about history/politics. Plus it would be great to take that word back from the reformists.
I don't think communists (see what I did there :p) should be worried about sounding friendly. That, in my opinion, would imply that our activity is purely ideological and aimed at propaganda, with the imperative of sounding ever so sweet (political marketing essentially), while it is exactly a heightened period of actual struggle that enables more effective discussion and dissemination of revolutionary ideas, and them taking hold (alongside, of course, long term political work within the class; I do not dismiss propaganda). In such a situation, the imperative of friendly rhetoric is no such thing as an imperative. Plus, I'm afraid that it doesn't take a huge leap from friendly sounding rhetoric to friendly program - friendly for the bourgeoisie.

[Blake's Baby]

Should Lenin have tried to reclaim Social Democracy in your opinion?

Probably not.

The advantage of 'communism' for us however is the widespread knowledge of the 'Communist Manifesto/Manifesto of the Communist Party'. If it had been called 'The Manifesto of Social Democracy' then, yeah, I'd be advocating reclaiming the term.

The problem isn't the words we use - there was a thread a couple of days ago about whether the terms 'bourgeois and proletarian' were offputting when we could say 'capitalists and workers', and my argument is that the problems we have go way beyond terminology. It's pretty much irrelevant.

[Anti-Traditional]

I think that this would represent a genuine opportunity for the appearance of internationalist and communist fractions within the party you mention, and perhaps for a significant influence of such groups outside it.

What other terms would you favor if you do advocate terminology change?

What makes you think that there would be a greater chance of Internationalist fractions arising within CP's than there was in the 20c?

I think we'd have to create a term which whilst It breaks with 'Communism' does not opportunistically capitulate to reformism, i.e so-called 'democratic socialism'. Maybe just 'Marxism', maybe 'Revolutionary Socialism' or even Revolutionary Social Democracy as Red Banana points out. It would also be neccessary to universalise the term so that it exists as a real movement rather than the ideology of a particular group. Making the term 'Communist' universal was far easier for Lenin to do due to increased class struggle and the creation of Comintern.

Menocchio: Good point about 'sounding friendly'. Pre-Stalinism we were not friendly and neither did genuine socialists try to 'sound friendly'

[Blake's Baby]

... Making the term 'Communist' universal was far easier for Lenin to do due to increased class struggle and the creation of Comintern...

But this is the point, really; we argue about words because there isn't a movement out there to connect with. As Lenin said 'it's more satisfying to make a revolution than write about it' - well, that's not an option open to us at present. So we have somewhat academic debates on language and definitions and hypotheticals. Because for most of us, that's all there is at present.

[black magick hustla]

idk you can't rename something without someone figuring out and calling it what it is. it's more realistic that something similar to what gays did with the word queer will happen imho

[l'Enfermé]

Marxists after 1918 couldn't reclaim "Social-Democracy" because there still existed Social-Democratic movements in Europe with millions of supporters. Today no Communist movement exists(though there are exceptions, like the KKE in Greece), thus we can't "break" with Communism, OP. Stalinism died in the 1980s, if you don't remember. It doesn't exist anymore.

Either way, to allow the bourgeoisie academia to define our words with no resistance on our part is just ridiculous. To shy away from "communism" because of the unpopularity of the word is craven and opportunistic.

[Blake's Baby]

There may be no communist movements but there are certainly some pretty unpleasant Communist Parties out there in the world. They certainly exist.

@ Red Banana - here's some 'revolutionary social democracy' for you - http://comsocialist.com/

[l'Enfermé]

There may be no communist movements but there are certainly some pretty unpleasant Communist Parties out there in the world. They certainly exist.

@ Red Banana - here's some 'revolutionary social democracy' for you - http://comsocialist.com/
In China and so on, yeah, but we're all pretty much from Europe and North America, and around here, there are basically no "Communist" Parties, only sects(with the exception of the Greek party and also the Russian KPRF - but Russia is a third world country - and a few others)

[Die Neue Zeit]

All I can say to Anti-Traditional and Red Banana is that they're asking the right questions. "Revolutionary Social Democracy" sounds too long, though. :cool:


Well, there's an argument certainly.

I prefer the other tactic, which is to recalim the term 'communism' (and 'socialism' for that matter) from the counter-revolutionaries, by patiently explaining that 'communism' doesn't mean state control, economic stagnation, the GULAG and social-democracy-with-bayonets.

As I've seen with exchanges with left-coms, there's also a difference between communism as the maximum program and "communist strategy," if there is any. The posters above might have unintentionally alluded to merging communism-the-maximum program with revolutionary-social-democracy-the-strategy, something which I support with different terminology (hence proletocracy and social proletocracy).

[ind_com]

Should we break with 'Communism'?

You absolutely should! Red Banana's post is most constructive. Every anti-ML should identify himself/herself as a social democrat from now onwards. :thumbup1:

[Let's Get Free]

I think socialists today should do away with conservative, arcane ideas such as vanguard parties, Leninist state capitalism, and proletarian dictatorships.

[Thirsty Crow]

What makes you think that there would be a greater chance of Internationalist fractions arising within CP's than there was in the 20c?Well, as a matter of fact, there have been internationalist fractions within CP's of the 20th century, most notably during and even after the revolutionary wave of 1917-23. I'm not comparing our hipothetical case, though, to this historical period (I'm unsure of any such development post WWII) in relation to a guess at the likelihood of it. And I didn't include, of course, all of the Stalinist parties, I just referred to KKE.

For one thing, I think that their stance towards participation in government indicates that there is room for what I mentioned because it represents something of an understanding that communists should not participate in the management of capitalist society (though, on the other hand, certain other actions point in another direction) and points to the destruction of the bourgeois state.

Now, following the logic of the scenario, KKE falls prey to the same old nationalism of the notion of socialism in one country. Which would imply, given the fact of much less access to resources and existing productive capacities, that the pressure of the world market would be catastrophic for Greek workers (that is even to leave out the political and military threat), and that either some form of autarkic development would ensue, or some form of accomodation with the existing political and economic borurgeois forces (the latter being far more likely because, I'd like to believe, nobody would be so foolish as to advocate autarkic measures in a country like Greece). Either way, merely the fact of an assault against the existing state and the restructuring of political power would, especially when combined with the shift to appeasement, produce communist minorities in the party - keeping in mind that it was the fervour of party militants that kept pushing things towards our supposed outcome.

That's some nice speculation, isn't it?


Maybe just 'Marxism', maybe 'Revolutionary Socialism' or even Revolutionary Social Democracy as Red Banana points out. It would also be neccessary to universalise the term so that it exists as a real movement rather than the ideology of a particular group. Making the term 'Communist' universal was far easier for Lenin to do due to increased class struggle and the creation of Comintern.I'm afraid that the work on developing the movement preceeds any possibility of universalization of any new term. In other words, this universalization would not bring about an existence of a real movement.

Another point, although connected to what I stated earlier, is that media lackeys and bourgeois governments would of course demonize any such new, friendlier sounding, term, once struggle picks up (and in such a situation, friendly sounding terms are of minor importance, as I stated) so, in the long term, I don't see the point to terminology change (though, maybe for some people the point is to sound all dandy and innovative).

[Lucretia]

Well, there's an argument certainly.

I prefer the other tactic, which is to recalim the term 'communism' (and 'socialism' for that matter) from the counter-revolutionaries, by patiently explaining that 'communism' doesn't mean state control, economic stagnation, the GULAG and social-democracy-with-bayonets.

Yes. Any attempt not to reclaim the words, and instead attempt to invent new phrases or words to take their place, will ultimately be seized upon by nay-sayers who will say "your 'economic democracy' is just code for communism."

Like the effort to build a "broad left," the effort to construct a new PR-friendly vocabulary for revolutionary politics is just a circular detour from, not a short-cut to, the path we need to take. In the end we'll actually just end up right we started from in the beginning: with having to try to combat popular understandings of communism in an effort to build a revolutionary movement. It's time to confront directly and try to solve problems, instead of introducing elaborate intellectual justifications for (not-so) cleverly trying to avoid them.

[Raúl Duke]

This is an interesting topic.

In the US, a segment of the radical left faces the problem of the negative connotations of the word communist or communism.

Anarchists don't usually face this problem (although, in the US, they do have a "word problem" as well: mostly that people misunderstand the term anarchism and thus appropriate the term to advocate or justify all sorts of non-sense),

Either way, when it comes to talking to people about politics...I for one favor a more "slow approach." By this I mean, not focus initially too much of advocating a "radical position" like anarchism or communism but focus more on what we oppose: capitalism.

Thus, I recall my short-time when our local Occupy existed. By focusing on anti-capitalist rhetoric and arguments, I was able to get people interested in my viewpoint.

But eventually, as mentioned, we have to "reclaim" those terms like communism. But all I'm saying is to use tact and prudence; I feel a lot of comrade have a weakness when it comes to talking and relating to other people politically.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

"It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself. " - Karl Marx.


Curve politics can go and fuck itself.

[Geiseric]

I think that a 'Communist Party' taking power without the Bourgeois state would be more problematic. I wouldnt rule this out in the next 10 years or so, for example the KKE are relatively large and have recently taken a left tern rejecting taking power within the Bourgeois State and speak of a 'Revolutionary overthrow'. If this were to happen then Stalinism would appear Revolutionary even though their conception of Socialism is essentially reformist.

They're only taking that left turn when they started losing elections, I remember vividly them fighting with masses of protesters who were going to occupy the parliament building a few months ago.

[MarxSchmarx]

Outside of a few, very specific parts of the globe (e.g., perhaps South Africa where a nominally "communist" party still has some lingering popular good will), I don't see what concrete benefits continuing to call ourselves "communist" bring. There is just so much baggage to this word now; it might make a few committed individuals feel better about themselves, and maybe among those in the know it's useful shorthand (for what I don't know). Can someone articulate clear, concrete benefits of using the phrase "Communist"?

[Ostrinski]

Sometimes I use communist to be provocative. I usually call myself a socialist under normal circumstances of discussion and debate unless I'm talking to another communist or I'm talking to someone who is well versed with my arguments and views.

[MarxSchmarx]

Sometimes I use communist to be provocative. I usually call myself a socialist under normal circumstances of discussion and debate unless I'm talking to another communist or I'm talking to someone who is well versed with my arguments and views.

That's kind of a sad reason to keep it about don't you think?

[Let's Get Free]

The word "communism" tends to have a negative connotation with most people. I think people tend to associate "communism" with the dictatorial bureaucracies that ruled over the Soviet bloc and China and "socialism" with the welfare states in the Scandinavian countries.

[Ostrinski]

That's kind of a sad reason to keep it about don't you think?It is.

I don't really have much input here as far as an in depth argument for the language that we should use goes. I suppose it is an adherence to tradition, to not opportunistically tone down our language so as to come off as more appealing (Trotskyist organizations seem to do this), and to come off as assertive and bold with nothing to apologize for or being secretive or shameful for.

[Lucretia]

Outside of a few, very specific parts of the globe (e.g., perhaps South Africa where a nominally "communist" party still has some lingering popular good will), I don't see what concrete benefits continuing to call ourselves "communist" bring. There is just so much baggage to this word now; it might make a few committed individuals feel better about themselves, and maybe among those in the know it's useful shorthand (for what I don't know). Can someone articulate clear, concrete benefits of using the phrase "Communist"?

Nobody here is arguing that people hold "communism" in good repute. Obviously that's not the case. What I am arguing is that trying to dodge the term will not work, and that if you espouse a particular set of political views even loosely related to the democratic collectivization of the means of production, you're going to get slapped -- and rightfully so -- with the communist label. When that happens, you're going to be stuck with the task you should have been engaged in from the start: combating the negative associations, rather than try to avoid the word (which you can't, and won't, be able to avoid anyway).

[MarxSchmarx]

Outside of a few, very specific parts of the globe (e.g., perhaps South Africa where a nominally "communist" party still has some lingering popular good will), I don't see what concrete benefits continuing to call ourselves "communist" bring. There is just so much baggage to this word now; it might make a few committed individuals feel better about themselves, and maybe among those in the know it's useful shorthand (for what I don't know). Can someone articulate clear, concrete benefits of using the phrase "Communist"? Nobody here is arguing that people hold "communism" in good repute. Obviously that's not the case. What I am arguing is that trying to dodge the term will not work, and that if you espouse a particular set of political views even loosely related to the democratic collectivization of the means of production, you're going to get slapped -- and rightfully so -- with the communist label. When that happens, you're going to be stuck with the task you should have been engaged in from the start: combating the negative associations, rather than try to avoid the word (which you can't, and won't, be able to avoid anyway).

Okay that's a bit more nuanced than other arguments I've come across, but this argument doesn't withstand closer scrutiny. I can think of at least 5 limitations to this analysis:

1. Just because we have to confront it eventually does not mean we should embrace it immediately, even if it is a vaguely accurate description. The same could be said for the phrase "utopian"; it doesn't mean we need to embrace utopian socialism, much less the phrase "utopian".

2. It ignores the fact that the phrase "communist" was not seen as particularly important historically for many groups that were otherwise relatively successful. The anarcho-syndicalists for instance would use it occasionally, but it was not a centerpiece of their discourse. In fact, until the Russian revolution even few marxist organizations did not see the need for insisting on it. Clearly there is precedence for not needing it.

3. Perhaps more pragmatically, words evolve, and their meanings are socially contingent. The word "communism" may have at some point meant "democratic collectivization" but it no longer does outside of very narrow circles. It's like the word "lunatic" that once meant somebody who was susceptible to the phases of the moon, but it no longer does. We may lament it, but there's something cumbersomely anachronistic about insisting on its continued use. We could try to change the way the word is used in every day discourse through sheer will, but I question the value of expending the enormous effort it will take to do that.

4. I suspect that as the memory of the cold war fades, there will
increasingly be something of a "crying wolf" aspect to those hurling the communist epithet. Already we see signs of this in America where the likes of Obama are labeled "communists" by large segments of the population. I think this has largely already happened in Japan, where the right rarely criticizes non-members of the Communist Party as communists because they know it isn't effective. As the reactionaries wontonly use the term, people will become numb to it and its use as a boogie man would diminish.

5. I don't see the value in combating the negative associations that exist about the term "communist" to clear it's name; or, to be more precise, I think we have better things to do. It's not like the word is a sacred relict. Sure, we could concede that we share some talking points with "communism", but that hardly commits us to using the word.

It's important to be conscious of where the movement is at right now. Right now, the phrase "communist" I'd wager is a serious impediment to our viability. The cons simply outweigh any rhetorical points we might hypothetically win when we reach the size where reactionaries feel they have to go after us in earnest.

[Ostrinski]

What word do you think we should use then, MarxSchmarx?

[Eslam]

Yes we should

[MarxSchmarx]

What word do you think we should use then, MarxSchmarx?

Do you think it is important to have a single word?

It seems to me what's important is commitment to a classless, stateless society. If we just want a convenient shorthand, "radical left" or even simply "socialist" is probably fine.

Even in terms of what organizations call themselves, I think there's not much urgency. A given organization can have an even rather bland name like "National Confederation of Workers" (abbreviated as CNT in Spanish) and still be quite effective.

As an aside, as a non-Leninist, I actually don't feel terribly invested in what Bolshevists care to call themselves. If they decide they need to stick with the term "communist", I don't particularly begrudge them, and all I can really say is that I wouldn't do that if I were in their shoes.

[Rafiq]

In 1918 Lenin broke wit 'Social-Democracy' and declared the Bolsheviks a 'Communist Party'. In essence Bolshevik politics remained the same though, and the renaming was merely used to differentiate between Revolutionary Social Democracy and Reformist Social Democracy. All the leaders of the 3rd International believed that the leaders of Social Democracy had betrayed it's Revolutionary origins. In reality those who called themselves Social Democrats werent what they claimed to be and the Communists were the real Social Democrats, in spite of this the 'Social Democratic' title was dropped.

For those who opposed Stalinism we see a similar process with the emergence of SIOC which signified the end of the neccessity of world revolution and an equating of State ownership with Socialism. If we are happy to oppose 'Social Democracy', should we not by the same token oppose 'Communism'?

After all, it was the 'Communists' in Spain who rolled back the social revolution, the 'Communists' of post-war France and Italy who joined Bourgeois governments, the Communists who crushed Hungary 56, the 'Communists' who sold out in May 68, the 'Communists' who in Italy reached a historic compromise with the Christian Democrats.

'It is unfortunate that so few people in England have yet caught up with the fact that Communism is now a counter-revolutionary force; that Communists everywhere are in alliance with bourgeois reformism and using the whole of their powerful machinery to crush or discredit any party that shows signs of revolutionary tendencies.' - George Orwell- 'Spilling the beans'- Great Article BTW

While there can be no doubt that 20th century Communism has died, when Lenin broke with social democracy, it was not simply an act pulled out of his ass, there was a class basis to the formation of international communism: A form of class conciousness that exceeded that of the 2nd international. Unfortunetly not even the most mediocre forms of class consciousness persist today, none the less one that would birth a completely new ideological superstructure. None the less, the captialist mode of production remains, and with it the Communists will. There is no need to "change names" or "ditch communism", yet there is also no need for "educating people about communism". What is necessary is a new communism: We remain loyal to the red flag, and our task now is not to abandon it, but to cleanse it. However this is not something we can simply construct, there must exist a class basis to it.

[Rafiq]

The word "communism" tends to have a negative connotation with most people. I think people tend to associate "communism" with the dictatorial bureaucracies that ruled over the Soviet bloc and China and "socialism" with the welfare states in the Scandinavian countries.

Indeed, but come a new wave of class consciousness, i.e. Class struggle, a new and universal conception of Communism will follow it.

[Rafiq]

Marxists after 1918 couldn't reclaim "Social-Democracy" because there still existed Social-Democratic movements in Europe with millions of supporters. Today no Communist movement exists(though there are exceptions, like the KKE in Greece), thus we can't "break" with Communism, OP. Stalinism died in the 1980s, if you don't remember. It doesn't exist anymore.

Either way, to allow the bourgeoisie academia to define our words with no resistance on our part is just ridiculous. To shy away from "communism" because of the unpopularity of the word is craven and opportunistic.

Exactly. The only reason there is bourgeois-hegemony as far as an understanding of communism goes, is because there is a bourgeois-hegemony in the field of class struggle. What we need is not to craft "new and better ideas" but allow the conditions which birth those ideas to develop until we can finally elevate that specific, existing form of class consciousness into one similar to what existed when the Bolsheviks broke with the reneges.

[Red Banana]

I'm not a communist for any aesthetical reason. I feel no alliegence to red flags or hammers and sickles. I feel an alliegence to the movement for a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are owned in common, and production is planned democratically.

That's what I want, and I'm going to do whatever I need to to help make it happen. So if breaking with the word 'communism' can help make it happen, that's what I'll do.

[human strike]

Are we talking about communism as in the movement that abolishes the present state of things, or Communism as in the mantra of revolutionary experts? I guess the question the OP is asking depends on how you perceive revolution. Do you see revolution as being primarily about preaching and converting, or do you see it as being about agitation and communisation? Lots of posts here seem to be treating the issue as a question of public image and relations rather than as a question of the principles that guide us in what we do. Basically, it comes down to who this "we" in the OP question is? Should Leninists, Bolsheviks, and Social Democrats of all descriptions break with 'communism'? I think I'd personally prefer it if they did, but I don't know how much it actually matters. Should communists break with communism? Hell, no.

[Rafiq]

I'm not a communist for any aesthetical reason. I feel no alliegence to red flags or hammers and sickles. I feel an alliegence to the movement for a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are owned in common, and production is planned democratically.

That's what I want, and I'm going to do whatever I need to to help make it happen. So if breaking with the word 'communism' can help make it happen, that's what I'll do.

In other words, you're a utopian. You're a communist not because your interests are identical to that of a real-existing class, but because you think we ought to "achieve" some kind of grand, "classless, stateless" society because to you it's better than the one we live in now. And while we will not dismiss the fact that is so very noble of you to go through the trouble of calling yourself a communist, even though you will not live to see this allegedly "stateless, classless" society in the future, because you want "my kids and blah blah blah humanity" to live in a better society (or some garbage along those lines) as far as real-existing social relations go, your conception of communism is as useless as your self gratifying, charitable yet minimal efforts to "bring about" this grand utopia. Like the Liberal who drinks coffee at starbucks, you will "try your best" to achieve absolutely nothing of importance through acts which are less than viable to do so at that. We don't need your charity, we need useful intellectuals as at the moment it doesn't appear we can do anything about this whole class-consciousness business.

[Rafiq]

Are we talking about communism as in the movement that abolishes the present state of things, or Communism as in the mantra of revolutionary experts? I guess the question the OP is asking depends on how you perceive revolution. Do you see revolution as being primarily about preaching and converting, or do you see it as being about agitation and communisation? Lots of posts here seem to be treating the issue as a question of public image and relations rather than as a question of the principles that guide us in what we do. Basically, it comes down to who this "we" in the OP question is? Should Leninists, Bolsheviks, and Social Democrats of all descriptions break with 'communism'? I think I'd personally prefer it if they did, but I don't know how much it actually matters. Should communists break with communism? Hell, no.

Communism as a real existing movement is dead. Communism as an abstract blueprint is absolutely useless. What we need then, is to revive the process that is Communism, not come up with bizarre and obscure, abstract "replacements" for not only something which is dead yet capable of reviving itself, but something else entirely: A useless, abstract "idea" for how society should look like (all formulated within the constraints of capitalist social relations!): A stateless, classless society that we must "achieve".

[Red Banana]

In other words, you're a utopian. You're a communist not because your interests are identical to that of a real-existing class, but because you think we ought to "achieve" some kind of grand, "classless, stateless" society because to you it's better than the one we live in now. And while we will not dismiss the fact that is so very noble of you to go through the trouble of calling yourself a communist, even though you will not live to see this allegedly "stateless, classless" society in the future, because you want "my kids and blah blah blah humanity" to live in a better society (or some garbage along those lines) as far as real-existing social relations go, your conception of communism is as useless as your self gratifying, charitable yet minimal efforts to "bring about" this grand utopia. Like the Liberal who drinks coffee at starbucks, you will "try your best" to achieve absolutely nothing of importance through acts which are less than viable to do so at that. We don't need your charity, we need useful intellectuals as at the moment it doesn't appear we can do anything about this whole class-consciousness business.

It is in my class interest to achieve a classless stateless society. I just don't care what you want to call it. That's what I advocate and I'm pragmatic about achieving it.

[Ocean Seal]

I think we need to be in a position of relevance to either reclaim communism or break with communism. This discussion is somewhat irrelevant.

[Lucretia]

Okay that's a bit more nuanced than other arguments I've come across, but this argument doesn't withstand closer scrutiny. I can think of at least 5 limitations to this analysis:

1. Just because we have to confront it eventually does not mean we should embrace it immediately, even if it is a vaguely accurate description. The same could be said for the phrase "utopian"; it doesn't mean we need to embrace utopian socialism, much less the phrase "utopian".

2. It ignores the fact that the phrase "communist" was not seen as particularly important historically for many groups that were otherwise relatively successful. The anarcho-syndicalists for instance would use it occasionally, but it was not a centerpiece of their discourse. In fact, until the Russian revolution even few marxist organizations did not see the need for insisting on it. Clearly there is precedence for not needing it.

3. Perhaps more pragmatically, words evolve, and their meanings are socially contingent. The word "communism" may have at some point meant "democratic collectivization" but it no longer does outside of very narrow circles. It's like the word "lunatic" that once meant somebody who was susceptible to the phases of the moon, but it no longer does. We may lament it, but there's something cumbersomely anachronistic about insisting on its continued use. We could try to change the way the word is used in every day discourse through sheer will, but I question the value of expending the enormous effort it will take to do that.

4. I suspect that as the memory of the cold war fades, there will
increasingly be something of a "crying wolf" aspect to those hurling the communist epithet. Already we see signs of this in America where the likes of Obama are labeled "communists" by large segments of the population. I think this has largely already happened in Japan, where the right rarely criticizes non-members of the Communist Party as communists because they know it isn't effective. As the reactionaries wontonly use the term, people will become numb to it and its use as a boogie man would diminish.

5. I don't see the value in combating the negative associations that exist about the term "communist" to clear it's name; or, to be more precise, I think we have better things to do. It's not like the word is a sacred relict. Sure, we could concede that we share some talking points with "communism", but that hardly commits us to using the word.

It's important to be conscious of where the movement is at right now. Right now, the phrase "communist" I'd wager is a serious impediment to our viability. The cons simply outweigh any rhetorical points we might hypothetically win when we reach the size where reactionaries feel they have to go after us in earnest.

I honestly don't find any of your points persuasive. You argue that "Just because we have to confront it eventually does not mean we should embrace it immediately, even if it is a vaguely accurate description." That's a claim, not an argument. Why shouldn't we "embrace" it (fight to make the term reflect our values and vision, rather than those of anti-communists) NOW instead of some point down the road? If it's a necessary battle to fight, what good does it do to postpone it? I'm curious to hear of a specific example of when postponing this aspect of our struggle might make good sense, and why.

Your second point is one about history, and doesn't directly relate to my argument at all. I'm not arguing that "calling one's self communist is necessary to be successful politically all throughout human history." I am arguing that, because the current society identifies certain aspects of our vision with the word "communism" and in turn links that word with some of the most stifling societies in world history, that misunderstandings of the word need to be actively confronted and combated, not shunted aside as if it will go away on its own. Previous groups might not have had to deal with these issues. Good for them.

Your points 3 and 4 are true, but once more don't really contradict the thrust of my argument. And it's because they're so abstract that they're almost impossible to argue with. Yes, words change historically, and yes, as the cold war fades into memory, this will have an effect on social understandings of the word communism. But to what extent? How much has the word evolved in popular imagination? It still very much is counter-posed to capitalism, as representing some highly oppressive form of society rooted in the denial of private property in the means of production and therefore a "redistribution of wealth" from hard-working people to lazy people. If you don't see that large swaths of the American population subscribe to this definition, you aren't paying attention.

It's a definition that needs to be actively combated now because it's a problem, an obstacle now. Trying to invent flowery new words to present our vision won't do us any good, since those new words will invariably be linked right back to communism again. And we'll be stuck engaging in the task we should have been pursuing from the beginning.

[Rafiq]

It is in my class interest to achieve a classless stateless society. I just don't care what you want to call it. That's what I advocate and I'm pragmatic about achieving it.

No, as an intellectual utopian you find a "classless, stateless" society feasible. It is in no ones class interest to achieve a "new society" directly outside of existing social relations because we cannot even articulate a "new society" because we are constrained by these relations. It is through this relations, which carry systemic contradictions (class war) that we are able to do away with capitalism, it was not in the interests of the champions of the bourgeois class to achieve what eventually became capitalism, it was in their interests to seize power of the state and protect their interests, i.e. exemplify themselves, release the full power of the capitalist mode of production from the constrains of the remnants of political feudalism. The proletariat seeks to emancipate themselves, with the bourgeois class as the only obstacle. In this sense, unlike what users have said on this site before, the "social and material" foundations of proletarian dictatorship can never be developed within capitalism in the same sense that the social and material foundations of bourgeois dictatorship were, i.e. a "communist" mode of production will never develop within capitalism as capitalism did within feudalism. Of course class consciousness is necessary, of course things like alternative culture are good, but these are not "the foundations for new societies". In this way, a proletarian political revolution and dictatorship is the full, and total systemic liquidation of capitalist social relations, and solidifies the emancipation of the proletarian class. This doesn't mean the time for "visualizing a new society" is now, and that doesn't mean, in a position of class dictatorship, the proletariat will construct whatever the fuck it wants to. The proletariat is not exempt from the laws of social motion. Will the state ever whither away? Who knows. We don't know anything about what could proceed capitalism, but we know we must do away with the capitalist mode of production before it consumes us.

[Red Banana]

I think we need to be in a position of relevance to either reclaim communism or break with communism. This discussion is somewhat irrelevant.

Well you're correct that right now, we're largely irrelevant. As a result, one of our main tasks should be trying to gain relevance, and you can see that insisting on keeping a simple word that, unfortunately, most people associate with Stalinist oppression, can be a serious impediment to our gaining relevance.

[Red Banana]

No, as an intellectual utopian you find a "classless, stateless" society feasible. It is in no ones class interest to achieve a "new society" directly outside of existing social relations because we cannot even articulate a "new society" because we are constrained by these relations. It is through this relations, which carry systemic contradictions (class war) that we are able to do away with capitalism, it was not in the interests of the champions of the bourgeois class to achieve what eventually became capitalism, it was in their interests to seize power of the state and protect their interests, i.e. exemplify themselves, release the full power of the capitalist mode of production from the constrains of the remnants of political feudalism. The proletariat seeks to emancipate themselves, with the bourgeois class as the only obstacle. In this sense, unlike what users have said on this site before, the "social and material" foundations of proletarian dictatorship can never be developed within capitalism in the same sense that the social and material foundations of bourgeois dictatorship were, i.e. a "communist" mode of production will never develop within capitalism as capitalism did within feudalism. Of course class consciousness is necessary, of course things like alternative culture are good, but these are not "the foundations for new societies". In this way, a proletarian political revolution and dictatorship is the full, and total systemic liquidation of capitalist social relations, and solidifies the emancipation of the proletarian class. This doesn't mean the time for "visualizing a new society" is now, and that doesn't mean, in a position of class dictatorship, the proletariat will construct whatever the fuck it wants to. The proletariat is not exempt from the laws of social motion. Will the state ever whither away? Who knows. We don't know anything about what could proceed capitalism, but we know we must do away with the capitalist mode of production before it consumes us.

So your point is basically that anyone who seeks to achieve what we now call 'communism' is Utopian because we don't know what will happen after Capitalism?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why don't we just use "socialist"? Marx often used socialism to mean communism, so let socialist mean communist. Plus, it unites all sort of socialists under one term, and what the left isn't so good at is unity. I already call myself socialist and/or MarxIst but never mention communist and it makes people less against it even thouth it's communism because it makes people think of past supposedly communist countries.

[Rafiq]

So your point is basically that anyone who seeks to achieve what we now call 'communism' is Utopian because we don't know what will happen after Capitalism?

Because your imagination will never translate into material reality as far as a mode of production goes.

[Red Banana]

So you're just an anti-capitalist (I guess I can't call you a communist) for anti-capitalism's sake? You have nothing to contribute as to how we should organize society after the revolution? I'm not claiming that everything will be perfect and happen exactly as planned but there is no point in abolishing the current system if you don't have a better one in mind to replace it.

[thriller]

Didn't Marx somewhat reclaim socialism from the utopians and translated it into a scientific, materialistic idea? I highly doubt when people hear the word "socialism" they think to a pre-Marx concept of utopia. Although Marx did introduce the term "communism" to differentiate his ideas from others circling around at the time. But to me, the whole idea of changing names and terms for ones ideas and political parties has mainly been to showcase differences between different groups vying for power, not to get the workers on their side or show the ruling class how one group is different from one another. IMHO, it comes from counter-revolutionary forces co-opting movements and sectarian terminology. But let's be honest, it seems like many counter-revolutionary forces are able to co-opt movements by calling the radical side "communist". I feel if 'we' changed terms we'd be playing into their hands. It's like Glen Beck talking about how everyone is a communist/socialist. If we openly declare ourselves "communists" we are blocking any counter-revolutionary mingling, which seems like what led to name changes in the first place.

[Rafiq]

So you're just an anti-capitalist (I guess I can't call you a communist) for anti-capitalism's sake? You have nothing to contribute as to how we should organize society after the revolution? I'm not claiming that everything will be perfect and happen exactly as planned but there is no point in abolishing the current system if you don't have a better one in mind to replace it.

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.


You're missing the point. Refer to this http://www.revleft.com/vb/those-want-estabilish-t171636/index.html?t=171636

[Rafiq]

Didn't Marx somewhat reclaim socialism from the utopians and translated it into a scientific, materialistic idea?

Not necessarily. Marx utilized the scientific method to understand socialism and communism, and was a communist/socialist for scientific purposes, however, not in the "German" sense, i.e. an intellectual abstraction devoid of it's actual, material base.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Comintern abandoned the term Social-Democracy for more reasons then it being associated with betrayal of the international proletariat. The term Social-Democracy implies parliamentarianism and trade-unionism. The Communist left recognized those as strategic dead ends and recognized the formation of revolutionary cadres and worker's councils as the new weapons of class warfare.
Also, I don't think that parliamentarian Social-Democracy ever had the potential or even the intention to destroy the bourgeois state apparatuses to begin with.

[blake 3:17]

I usually refer to myself as socialist, sometimes qualifying that in different ways, but also as small c communist.

I believe Zizek's defense of "communism" is premised on the integral idea of a defense of the commons.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Communism as a real existing movement is dead. Communism as an abstract blueprint is absolutely useless. What we need then, is to revive the process that is Communism, not come up with bizarre and obscure, abstract "replacements" for not only something which is dead yet capable of reviving itself, but something else entirely: A useless, abstract "idea" for how society should look like (all formulated within the constraints of capitalist social relations!): A stateless, classless society that we must "achieve".

Well, comrade, the new mode of societal production abolishes: non-possessive private property relations, debt slavery, surplus labour appropriations by any elite minority and forms of management that facilitate such, wage slavery and money-capital, divisions of labour beyond technical or functional ones, classes, the repressive instruments for the rule of minority classes, and the economic family.

To get there, though, a very specific form of class rule (-kratia or -garkhia) must be exercised: that of the modern proletariat. That is to say nothing about how such class rule can be achieved and how it can be durable enough instead of collapsing under its own weight or in the midst of indecisiveness.

It's a merger, not a single-factor process, hence why "communism" is inadequate except when describing the communist mode of production. What adequately describes the merger above?

[Look at my label, comrades.]

[Sentinel]

I agree with the OP that it's, unfortunately, necessary to avoid using the term communism too much at this junction. In my org we usually call ourself 'socialists', the party is called the Socialist Justice Party and that's generally the term we use, as 'communism' is associated with stalinism here too.

Personally I routinely alternate terms depending on who I'm discussing with. If it's someone whose views I'm not familiar with, or who is sceptical, I'll usually go for 'socialist'. But if it's another communist, or someone from a region in the world where the term 'communist' isn't as tainted like here, I will readily call myself one.

I don't feel the term 'socialism' is problematic here in the sense that people would associate it with the social democracy. This is because the SAP (Social Democratic Workers Party) used to be the state carrying force for such a long time here that everyone not living in a barrell knows what it is and isn't.

[MarxSchmarx]

I honestly don't find any of your points persuasive. You argue that "Just because we have to confront it eventually does not mean we should embrace it immediately, even if it is a vaguely accurate description." That's a claim, not an argument. Why shouldn't we "embrace" it (fight to make the term reflect our values and vision, rather than those of anti-communists) NOW instead of some point down the road? If it's a necessary battle to fight, what good does it do to postpone it? I'm curious to hear of a specific example of when postponing this aspect of our struggle might make good sense, and why.

Your second point is one about history, and doesn't directly relate to my argument at all. I'm not arguing that "calling one's self communist is necessary to be successful politically all throughout human history." I am arguing that, because the current society identifies certain aspects of our vision with the word "communism" and in turn links that word with some of the most stifling societies in world history, that misunderstandings of the word need to be actively confronted and combated, not shunted aside as if it will go away on its own. Previous groups might not have had to deal with these issues. Good for them.

Your points 3 and 4 are true, but once more don't really contradict the thrust of my argument. And it's because they're so abstract that they're almost impossible to argue with. Yes, words change historically, and yes, as the cold war fades into memory, this will have an effect on social understandings of the word communism. But to what extent? How much has the word evolved in popular imagination? It still very much is counter-posed to capitalism, as representing some highly oppressive form of society rooted in the denial of private property in the means of production and therefore a "redistribution of wealth" from hard-working people to lazy people. If you don't see that large swaths of the American population subscribe to this definition, you aren't paying attention.

It's a definition that needs to be actively combated now because it's a problem, an obstacle now. Trying to invent flowery new words to present our vision won't do us any good, since those new words will invariably be linked right back to communism again. And we'll be stuck engaging in the task we should have been pursuing from the beginning.

I'm happy to address these points, but to get a better feel for where you are coming from, I think you still need to clearly articulate precisely what the benefits you think of coming from using the term "communist" are. So far it seems it's essentially some variant of "face up to the inevitable", whose accuracy I'm a bit skeptical about and in any event, strikes me as being of rather limited value when compared to all the cons associated, but maybe there's more to your position you have not brought up yet.

[Art Vandelay]

No, as an intellectual utopian you find a "classless, stateless" society feasible. It is in no ones class interest to achieve a "new society" directly outside of existing social relations because we cannot even articulate a "new society" because we are constrained by these relations. It is through this relations, which carry systemic contradictions (class war) that we are able to do away with capitalism, it was not in the interests of the champions of the bourgeois class to achieve what eventually became capitalism, it was in their interests to seize power of the state and protect their interests, i.e. exemplify themselves, release the full power of the capitalist mode of production from the constrains of the remnants of political feudalism. The proletariat seeks to emancipate themselves, with the bourgeois class as the only obstacle. In this sense, unlike what users have said on this site before, the "social and material" foundations of proletarian dictatorship can never be developed within capitalism in the same sense that the social and material foundations of bourgeois dictatorship were, i.e. a "communist" mode of production will never develop within capitalism as capitalism did within feudalism. Of course class consciousness is necessary, of course things like alternative culture are good, but these are not "the foundations for new societies". In this way, a proletarian political revolution and dictatorship is the full, and total systemic liquidation of capitalist social relations, and solidifies the emancipation of the proletarian class. This doesn't mean the time for "visualizing a new society" is now, and that doesn't mean, in a position of class dictatorship, the proletariat will construct whatever the fuck it wants to. The proletariat is not exempt from the laws of social motion. Will the state ever whither away? Who knows. We don't know anything about what could proceed capitalism, but we know we must do away with the capitalist mode of production before it consumes us.

Given that the proletariat succeeds in its historical goal of its (and by extension humanities) emancipation, thus transforming society into one of free producers, would it not be a given that the state (being an instrument of class rule) would wither away?

I've always held the notion, as did Marx, that we cannot envision what characteristics future societies will have; on top of this it was neither his, nor mine, place to tell the people of the future how to organize production. But I've always felt fairly confident in the somewhat vague 'predictions' Marx made. Are you suggesting that we cannot know anything about communist society? That given he was constrained by the capitalist mode of production, Marx's 'vague claims' about communism (stateless, classless, moneyless,etc) were themselves utopian?

[Lucretia]

I'm happy to address these points, but to get a better feel for where you are coming from, I think you still need to clearly articulate precisely what the benefits you think of coming from using the term "communist" are. So far it seems it's essentially some variant of "face up to the inevitable", whose accuracy I'm a bit skeptical about and in any event, strikes me as being of rather limited value when compared to all the cons associated, but maybe there's more to your position you have not brought up yet.

Perhaps you can begin by pointing out in this thread any place where I argued that using the term "communism" provides anybody with any benefits. It's very odd that you ask me to provide specifics to an argument that I haven't made or, as far as I am aware, can be interpreted as making.

I am arguing that trying to dodge the term won't provide benefits, not that using the term will provide benefits. (Except, perhaps, the benefit of avoiding the time-wasting involved in trying to invent polite euphemisms that people will see past anyway. But that, in and of itself, is only a hypothetical benefit in the context of selecting between the two options.)

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Given that the proletariat succeeds in its historical goal of its (and by extension humanities) emancipation, thus transforming society into one of free producers, would it not be a given that the state (being an instrument of class rule) would wither away?

I've always held the notion, as did Marx, that we cannot envision what characteristics future societies will have; on top of this it was neither his, nor mine, place to tell the people of the future how to organize production. But I've always felt fairly confident in the somewhat vague 'predictions' Marx made. Are you suggesting that we cannot know anything about communist society? That given he was constrained by the capitalist mode of production, Marx's 'vague claims' about communism (stateless, classless, moneyless,etc) were themselves utopian?
Though Rafiq does not openly say it, I believe he is making the error of counterpoising "science" against utopia, using the latter term as an epithet. I would recommend that you read this paper (http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/utopia_revolution.pdf), as it helped me immensely in understanding the connection between Marxism and utopia. Here's one excerpt that highlights the absurdity of discouraging this kind of talk:

Now it is certainly a truism among Marxists that the development of capitalism provides the material possibility for the outbreak of socialism. This Marx and Engels argued against the utopian sects of their day who did not recognize – and indeed in many cases could not recognize – that it is present society that establishes the material basis for the future society. But Marx and Engels having done that, 150 years ago, does it then follow that all imaginings of a future society are thereby “unscientific”? Or to put it in the language in which you pose it, why does it follow that once one recognizes that the objective basis for socialism is being laid by the development of capitalism and the global world market as you indicate, that you cannot therefore “propose a socialist alternative to capitalism”?
If you ever get to read it, could you let me know what you think?

[Art Vandelay]

Though Rafiq does not openly say it, I believe he is making the error of counterpoising "science" against utopia, using the latter term as an epithet. I would recommend that you read this paper (http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/utopia_revolution.pdf), as it helped me immensely in understanding the connection between Marxism and utopia. Here's one excerpt that highlights the absurdity of discouraging this kind of talk:

If you ever get to read it, could you let me know what you think?

Absolutely I'll read it within the next day or two, I have alot of school work to do tmro, so it may not be till the next day. But I'll PM you, afterwards with my thoughts.

[Anti-Traditional]

Anyone in here read Wittgenstein? Perhaps he can help. We need to decide what 'Communist' means, is it defined by those who use it or does it have an objective meaning? Everyone in this thread seems to accept the premise that it has an objective meaning regardless of how it has been used. I think there is a case to be made that it has come to mean what the 'Communist' movement of the 20C made it, i.e State Capitalist Party Dictatorship. It just doesnt sit well with me to have to continue claiming to be the real communists.


.
Either way, to allow the bourgeoisie academia to define our words with no resistance on our part is just ridiculous. To shy away from "communism" because of the unpopularity of the word is craven and opportunistic.

It's not a case of shying away from it's unpopularity, rather it is a case of avoiding misconceptions. I'd rather be unpopular for the right reasons.


.
"It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself. " - Karl Marx.

He said this before the experience 'real socialism'.


.
Perhaps more pragmatically, words evolve, and their meanings are socially contingent. The word "communism" may have at some point meant "democratic collectivization" but it no longer does outside of very narrow circles. It's like the word "lunatic" that once meant somebody who was susceptible to the phases of the moon, but it no longer does. We may lament it, but there's something cumbersomely anachronistic about insisting on its continued use. We could try to change the way the word is used in every day discourse through sheer will, but I question the value of expending the enormous effort it will take to do that.

This is more or less the point I'm trying to make. MarxSchmarx is more articulate than I :D

[Art Vandelay]

Anyone in here read Wittgenstein? Perhaps he can help. We need to decide what 'Communist' means, is it defined by those who use it or does it have an objective meaning? Everyone in this thread seems to accept the premise that it has an objective meaning regardless of how it has been used. I think there is a case to be made that it has come to mean what the 'Communist' movement of the 20C made it, i.e State Capitalist Party Dictatorship. It just doesnt sit well with me to have to continue claiming to be the real communists.

Except communism does have an 'objective meaning.' Communism is the ideological representation of proletarian class interests; not the bastardizations done in its name. 'Communism' is no more responsible for the 20th century communist experience, the 'Jesus Christ' is for the crusades, a much bigger PR issue in my opinion.

[Blake's Baby]

I'd say MarxSchmarx had a point, if Marx had written 'The Manifesto of the Lunatics'. But he didn't. We're communists, we can't get away from it. That opening section of the Communist Manifesto specifically refers to 'communist' being a generalised political insult. That's why it's high time the communists need to put their ideas forward clearly - because 'communist' was a term thrown about as a term of abuse in mid-19th Europe, and the 'real' communism was being distorted.

In other news, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon takes upon himself - shock horror - the 300-year-old term of abuse 'Anarchist'. What is that idiot doing? Doesn't he know that an Anarchist is just the same as a Satanist? Being an Anarchist is a bad thing, because all political labels are defined by those who oppose the concepts those labels describe. Therefore, we should only call ourselves what our enemies allow us to be called.

I suggest we all agree that 'foolish dreamers' be the new term for communists, because there's no way the ideological representatives of the bourgeoisie can contest that term.

[Anti-Traditional]

In other news, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon takes upon himself - shock horror - the 300-year-old term of abuse 'Anarchist'. What is that idiot doing? Doesn't he know that an Anarchist is just the same as a Satanist? Being an Anarchist is a bad thing, because all political labels are defined by those who oppose the concepts those labels describe. Therefore, we should only call ourselves what our enemies allow us to be called.

I suggest we all agree that 'foolish dreamers' be the new term for communists, because there's no way the ideological representatives of the bourgeoisie can contest that term.

The problem here is not so much that our political label is being defined by our enemies 'the Bourgeois' rather that those who were once our comrades are defining it.

[Blake's Baby]

But the perverters of communism are our enemies. The counter-revolution cannot get away with claiming it was the revolution. We have to contest that.

[MarxSchmarx]

Perhaps you can begin by pointing out in this thread any place where I argued that using the term "communism" provides anybody with any benefits. It's very odd that you ask me to provide specifics to an argument that I haven't made or, as far as I am aware, can be interpreted as making.

I don't think it's odd at all for having given you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being ridiculous. TBH, I gave you too much credit. I was pretty amazed to read your actual position:



I am arguing that trying to dodge the term won't provide benefits, not that using the term will provide benefits.

That's both lame and absurd, and frankly anybody can see it for the asinine and evasive position that it is. I'm rather surprised anybody takes seriously that kind of impractical argument.


I'd say MarxSchmarx had a point, if Marx had written 'The Manifesto of the Lunatics'. But he didn't. We're communists, we can't get away from it. That opening section of the Communist Manifesto specifically refers to 'communist' being a generalised political insult. That's why it's high time the communists need to put their ideas forward clearly - because 'communist' was a term thrown about as a term of abuse in mid-19th Europe, and the 'real' communism was being distorted.

In other news, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon takes upon himself - shock horror - the 300-year-old term of abuse 'Anarchist'. What is that idiot doing? Doesn't he know that an Anarchist is just the same as a Satanist? Being an Anarchist is a bad thing, because all political labels are defined by those who oppose the concepts those labels describe. Therefore, we should only call ourselves what our enemies allow us to be called.

I suggest we all agree that 'foolish dreamers' be the new term for communists, because there's no way the ideological representatives of the bourgeoisie can contest that term.
is your point that because Marx/Proudhon did it 150 years ago we should do it today as well?

[Ostrinski]

Communists could not be in a worse place politically than we are right now. It's not like we run the risk of anything catastrophic if we call ourselves communists. Now obviously I think that this is different if you are a comrade in a country where it is particularly dangerous to be a communist then obviously that is different because there are practical concerns you have to worry about. But that is not the case for many of us in the west.

At the end of the day, folks, it just isn't going to matter how we package or repackage our message or program. Unless you think that class conscious people have the capabilities of dressing something that has been around for two+ centuries, shook the earth in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and permeated into the consciousness of every living being at that time, up as something new and innovative then I am sorry comrades but that is naive.

Furthermore, if you think the tasks of the communists here and now is to run a damn PR campaign then I think you need to sit down and do some thinking and reexamine your own approach to what the political tasks of the communists are and should be during non-revolutionary periods.

[Geiseric]

Just form labor parties like the RSDLP, untill those are large enough, and if you have to split from it call yourselves the Communist party. At least when the RSDLP type party is big enough, you can openly be Marxists and it wouldn't matter.

Why do people give such care to labels? Just call yourselves whatever everybody feels like!

[Blake's Baby]

...
is your point that because Marx/Proudhon did it 150 years ago we should do it today as well?

My point is that only using terms that other people find acceptable is a good way to let other people frame the debate.

As Ostrinski says, this isn't just a re-branding excercise. 'Radical Social Democracy - just like communism, but in a slightly nicer bottle'.

[Le Socialiste]

Just form labor parties like the RSDLP, untill those are large enough, and if you have to split from it call yourselves the Communist party. At least when the RSDLP type party is big enough, you can openly be Marxists and it wouldn't matter.

Why do people give such care to labels? Just call yourselves whatever everybody feels like!

The RSDLP formed under very specific circumstances that aren't wholly applicable to this historical context. I'm not entirely sure as to the point you're making here, but the RSDLP was already a self-professed Marxist organization at the time of its founding - its most radical or militant members didn't hide amongst its ranks until such time for a split came up. Moreover, I'm afraid you're oversimplifying the historical process and background of the Bolshevik-Menshivik split, including whatever implications it held for the future of the movement. I understand you might've been only half-serious in your post, but the point is that the RSDLP didn't hide its radicalism from the Russian working-class; it didn't shield its Marxist heritage from the prying eyes of the proletariat, but professed and distributed this knowledge with careful precision.

It would make little sense (not to mention be dishonest) for an organization steeped in the revolutionary socialist tradition to hide its views from the wider populace until such a time that an expression of these views would be most advantageous to it. Deception of this sort, whether one is conscious of it or not, can only cement people's distrust at a time when we are woefully unorganized and in the process of rebuilding. Likewise, if we were to cloak ourselves with labels reflecting the current political will of the people we'd lose any sense or purpose, drifting in a sea of contradictions while ceasing to carry any proper semblance or shadow of a revolutionary organization.

[Lucretia]

I don't think it's odd at all for having given you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being ridiculous. TBH, I gave you too much credit. I was pretty amazed to read your actual position:

That's both lame and absurd, and frankly anybody can see it for the asinine and evasive position that it is. I'm rather surprised anybody takes seriously that kind of impractical argument.

This is a disappointing response, MarxSchmarx. It has literally no substance. I couldn't care less about how you "feel" about my position, or "feel" about how others might view my position. I care about whether you have logic to refute it. It seems pretty obvious you don't.

I'll repeat it once more. Inventing flowery euphemisms that will just be seen through and connected with "communism" anyhow is a waste of time. That time is better spent explaining how the popular understandings of communism are false.

So here's what the brilliant marketing strategy being considered in this thread will yield in practical terms.


Clever Communist: Hey, man, we need a workers' society, one without exploitation and oppression. Why don't you buy my newspaper and read about how to fight for such a society?

Random passerby: What do you mean free of exploitation?

Clever communist: One where people produce to meet each others' needs, not to gratify greed and destroy the environment.

Random passerby: How do you intend to bring such a society about?

Clever communist: By, errrr, establishing economic democracy.

Random passerby: What do you mean "economic democracy"?

Clever communist: I mean putting economic decisions under the control of the people who do the work in society.

Random passerby: You mean abolishing private property? That sounds a lot like communism. How can anybody take that seriously?

Clever communist: No, it's not. It's..... "economic democracy" (or insert clever euphemism here).

Random passerby: You can put lipstick on a pig, bro. It's still communism. You want me to help fight for the enslavement of humankind? No thanks. Not even you take this seriously. That's why you are afraid to call it what it really is.Amazing that trying to avoid this likely chain of events is considered "impractical." If you insist on responding with more nonsense about how I am arguing that the word communism provides revolutionaries with "benefits," or how I am arguing that we should use the term communism because Marx did, I'll just assume you have a low level of literacy and move on. It's clearly not what I've been arguing, and it takes somebody dubiously careless or deceitful to pretend that it is.

If you want to respond to the argument substantively, do so. I'm not your therapist, so I really don't have any interest in your response if it will just consist in more generalities about how you "feel" about the quality of my argument, unless you can provide some rational foundation for your feelings.

[Geiseric]

The RSDLP formed under very specific circumstances that aren't wholly applicable to this historical context. I'm not entirely sure as to the point you're making here, but the RSDLP was already a self-professed Marxist organization at the time of its founding - its most radical or militant members didn't hide amongst its ranks until such time for a split came up. Moreover, I'm afraid you're oversimplifying the historical process and background of the Bolshevik-Menshivik split, including whatever implications it held for the future of the movement. I understand you might've been only half-serious in your post, but the point is that the RSDLP didn't hide its radicalism from the Russian working-class; it didn't shield its Marxist heritage from the prying eyes of the proletariat, but professed and distributed this knowledge with careful precision.

It would make little sense (not to mention be dishonest) for an organization steeped in the revolutionary socialist tradition to hide its views from the wider populace until such a time that an expression of these views would be most advantageous to it. Deception of this sort, whether one is conscious of it or not, can only cement people's distrust at a time when we are woefully unorganized and in the process of rebuilding. Likewise, if we were to cloak ourselves with labels reflecting the current political will of the people we'd lose any sense or purpose, drifting in a sea of contradictions while ceasing to carry any proper semblance or shadow of a revolutionary organization.

I'm not disagreeing with you, we obviously need to be open about our views if people ask about it. However actions mean more than words, which is my point in saying that being labeled "communist," or not doesn't matter. We could call ourselves social democrat and it wouldn't make any difference if we are consistently revolutionary.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm not disagreeing with you, we obviously need to be open about our views if people ask about it. However actions mean more than words, which is my point in saying that being labeled "communist," or not doesn't matter. We could call ourselves social democrat and it wouldn't make any difference if we are consistently revolutionary.

Exactly it wouldn't make any difference. So whats the whole point for the switch then? Especially when you talking about calling yourself communist once again, after you split from this 'labor party' you're a proponent of. Seems like a silly and unnecessary process.

[Geiseric]

Exactly it wouldn't make any difference. So whats the whole point for the switch then? Especially when you talking about calling yourself communist once again, after you split from this 'labor party' you're a proponent of. Seems like a silly and unnecessary process.

My post before the last was only half serious, I was making fun of how serious people thought this question was.

I was just talking about how historically the socialist and social democrat parties revolutionaries, once they were expelled by those bureaucracies, started calling themselves communist.

This is hardly the question of the day seeing as there isn't even a mass party to name "communist," or "socialist," or "labor," at this point.

[Art Vandelay]

My post before the last was only half serious, I was making fun of how serious people thought this question was.

I was just talking about how historically the socialist and social democrat parties revolutionaries, once they were expelled by those bureaucracies, started calling themselves communist.

This is hardly the question of the day seeing as there isn't even a mass party to name "communist," or "socialist," or "labor," at this point.

Ahh okay, sorry for this misconception. I would largely agree that it doesn't really matter what we call ourselves (its the substance that counts) in which case there really is no point in coming up with a new title of 'communists.'