Are we ever going to be relevant?

[Skyhilist]

Look at the way things are going lately. The capitalists have a bigger stranglehold on everything than they ever have before, at least in the country that I live in.

Whenever I try to explain communism to someone, here's the reaction that I get:

"(insert regurgitated fact from a high school history class about why communism is bad based on some shit like Stalin or Pol Pot)... and that is why communism cannot work"

Then, if you dispel what they're saying, if you explain why that's fallacious, and if you explain what a communist economy would actually look like, they generally stop listening.

Nobody seems to want to hear about it because almost nobody in the general public gives a shit about communist economics, much less any type of economics. Almost nobody wants to read hundreds of pages on theory. Almost nobody wants to be analytical about the writings of Marx, Bakunin, or whoever. People just aren't interested. Even those people who have been so fucked over my the capitalist system that they don't even know where their next meal is coming from. Even people who are completely reasonable when it comes to most other things.

Why are people so lazy and apathetic when it comes to actually learning about these topics? Why do they seem so distant and dull to most people? In my opinion, it is because the masses have become so entrenched in capitalist society that it's just easier for them to pretend it makes sense to work within it rather than doing outside research on a topic that can seem quite boring to most people who aren't interested in things like "the labor theory of value".

There seems to be an obvious dilemma. People can't be communists if they don't understand the inner workings of communism. But they don't want to learn about those inner workings, because it requires analyzing the world around them and asking complex questions, which is loathed by the masses in a consumerist society where "convenience" is often ostensibly the ultimate goal put forth. They don't have to ask these questions about capitalism, because they live the answers to them everyday and already experience it. It requires so much less effort to be pro-capitalist than it does to become well-versed in socialism. And in a society where the pursuit of academics outside of school is almost never favored over buying the newest iPhone, it seems unlikely that communism will ever actually become a popular philosophy. That is of course unless the shit really hits the fan.

I make this statement because at some point the shit will hit the fan. Problems like climate change and overpopulation induced by capitalism will eventually cause a substantial lack of resources, and likely massive die offs. At some point, people might realize, after reaching this point of no return that it's the system that they live in that is making things so fucked. But here there seems to almost be a paradox. They will know something is wrong: but will they still be too lazy to do enough outside reading to understand the solution? This is a question that makes me feel somewhat depressed. If the answer is "yes", then we're really fucked. If the answer is "no" then we're still in my opinion fucked, but we just might have a chance of being saved from being really fucked. It seems as though capitalism has induced a lose-lose situation, where one loss is just worse than the other.

Is there any hope in such a situation? Will our time ever come? I'm starting to wonder.

[Sasha]

our time has already come, its just not going to happen overnight, its going to be 1 baby step forward and sometimes 10 massive steps backwards at a time but the contradictions in modern society can only be resolved in two ways, extinction or egalitarianism.
will we see it? probably not, and talking to random joe's about marxist economics or bakunin will help nothing.
but the genie is out of the box, its experiments in things like the arab spring and occupy are still full of error and failure and some mistakes we will make a thousand times over before we finally get them right but civilization is only started for an blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things.
we will get there, eventually
all we can do is help speed it allong

[Nakidana]

overpopulation

No. Just....no.

Please, just read this (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/12638#.Ug_fIT9BoyQ) and never utter that word again.

[Skyhilist]

will we see it? probably not

But that's what I'm getting at. If a socialist future is so distant that we wont even see it, then doesn't that mean that a substantial part of our planet will be ruined beyond repair by capitalist-induced crises before socialism can take root and salvage whatever it can?

I mean shit, by 2063 the temperature in my country is supposed to be 6-9% higher. Looking at animals like amphibians that often need really specific conditions to survive: most of them could be dead by that time. Even most of the earth's species could be dead in the long run if socialism doesn't come socialism to attack the problem at it's capitalist root. Herpetology is my first passion and I really love reptiles and amphibians, so I really worry about things like that. I mean if socialism doesn't get here soon enough, life on this planet is really fucked.

[Skyhilist]

No. Just....no.

Please, just read this (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/12638#.Ug_fIT9BoyQ) and never utter that word again.

I don't hold the Malthusian position that overpopulation is a root cause of the world's problems. I see it as a symptom of the world's biggest problem; capitalism. And yes, I know that things like famine aren't caused by it, but rather by the uneven distribution of resources. But anyone who studies population dynamics, knows that whether we have reached it or not, there is a carrying capacity. Maybe right now the population isn't at it, but it obviously cannot grow like it is now forever because we have a finite amount of space. And think about this: maybe with a socialist economy and a future of 10 billion people we can survive; but at what cost? People occupy space, and use resources. The space that an additional few billion more people will need to occupy will inevitably mean more expansion into and therefore more destruction of the natural world, exacerbating problems like the 6th great extinction. and if 10 billion isn't so bad, what about 20? 30? Surely you can see how such cancerous expansion will inevitably take its toll on the natural world. Also, take a look at the image below. While millions of humans might not end up dying off, there is certainly a substantial chance that we will. Is that really a risk you want to take?http://www.futuretimeline.net/subject/images/world-population-graph-2050-2100.jpg

[Skyhilist]

btw, the "median variant" shows a die off of about 200 million.

[Fakeblock]

I'm not sure if anyone can give you a satisfying answer to this tbh. I doubt anyone on this forum can predict the changes in consciousness in the working class. In my opinion, a sort of populist consciousness is beginning to establish itself amongst the population. This is reflected in slogans (the 99% etc) and in general political discourse (people talking about banks, governments or corporations screwing the people over).

I don't think going on about the law of value is going to cause a revolution. Everyone won't have to be ideologically consistent communists either. Quoting Marx, Engels, Lenin, Bakunin etc. will never make communists relevant in current working class movements, because people want concrete answers to concrete problems. Theory should be used as a framework that guides practice, not as a substitute for it.

What is necessary is that workers realise that capitalist rule is not a given and that they can take the power to control their own lives. This doesn't happen spontaneously though.

[Sasha]

The last thing we should worry about is "earth", she can have everything we can throw at her and much more, we are just a speck on its excistence. Saving nature etc is about saving humanity (and a bunch of spieces we seem desperate to take with us) the world will cope, the world as we know it and is so comvertable to us not so much.
But in crisis is when humanity makes the biggest leaps, either society breaks down and humanity gets a fresh start in post-civilisation (and comunism could be an import part of that) or we make a huge technocratic jump towards an egelitarian post scarcity society (at least, call me an optimist but my futurism is a lot more startrek than blade runner....)

[Skyhilist]

The last thing we should worry about is "earth", she can have everything we can throw at her and much more, we are just a speck on its excistence. Saving nature etc is about saving humanity (and a bunch of spieces we seem desperate to take with us) the world will cope, the world as we know it and is so comvertable to us not so much.

Yes I know earth isn't going to blow up or something, it is the species that I'm worried about. Natural extinction is one thing. We're not talking about that though, we're talking about extinctions at 1000 times the natural rate. Why should these species suffer from human selfishness, short-sightedness and stupidity? And are we not responsible for aiding in the recovery of species that we have caused to suffer and unnaturally decline? I would say absolutely, even if these species had no "value" to humans. But even if someone disagree with this, they should still want to protect all of these species, because biodiversity is what helps our own species thrive too. Think of the natural interactions between species as an incredible complex machine with billions of parts. It's a machine that we need to survive (with our immense consumption of natural resources). Eliminate even one part of that complex machine and that machine just might not work properly; eliminate thousands or millions of parts from that machine and it certainly will not. Even anthropocentrists should therefore care about the future of all species.


But in crisis is when humanity makes the biggest leaps

That's only if the crisis isn't too big. Imagine if a meteor hit earth and humans went extinct. That would be a crisis too big for humanity to do anything to stop it. Climate change and other important ecological issues just might end up this way for us if we don't halt them or at least slow them down via the implementation of socialism. My father, who is a climate scientist, would agree with me on this.


either society breaks down and humanity gets a fresh start in post-civilisation (and comunism could be an import part of that) or we make a huge technocratic jump towards an egelitarian post scarcity society (at least, call me an optimist but my futurism is a lot more startrek than blade runner....)

It's the "society breaks down part" that is so troublesome though, because it wont just be our society, it will be many other species that are in trouble as well, and we wont be able to start a "post-civilization" very easily without them. That's part of why I'm so worried, as I don't really see the huge technological jump as something likely in our future before a lot of life on this planet is destroyed beyond a point of no return.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

We're the most relevant people on the political spectrum! Who else talks to people about how shit their day at work was, how shit it is to be forced to pay rent and bills, how fucked up it is that their bosses rake in millions whilst ordinary folks barely scrounge by, how utterly soul-destroying it is to be forced to rely on benefits whilst the rest of the world calls you lazy, how ridiculous it is that we have empty buildings and thousands of homeless to fill them, how pointless work can seem? Revolutionaries do! And not only that, we give people ways to make their lives better! We tell them the truth; it'll be be hard work but it'll be fucking worth it.

Why else do you think vast numbers of people don't even bother voting anymore? Because they think that bourgeois politicians are a bunch of crooks looking out for only the interests of the capitalist class and think that bourgeois politics can change fuck all. They might not use those terms but that's the truth of it. We're relevant because we belong to the largest group of people in the world, the proletariat, and our politics is based soley on the interests of ourselves and our fellow workers. The vapid irrelevance of consumerism will only supply capitalism's life-support for so long.

[Comrade Jacob]

I understand the feeling but for most of the time I just experience it online. I have managed to convince many of my friends of the evils of capitalism, I've (now that I've got them to be interested in an alternative) sent them book on Marxism. This should be interesting.
Don't worry people are slowly realising that capitalism is shit and are now looking for something else, first convince them that it is flawed then convince them of communism. Make sure that you guide them to is, you don't want them going to some fascist shit.

[Skyhilist]

We're the most relevant people on the political spectrum! Who else talks to people about how shit their day at work was, how shit it is to be forced to pay rent and bills, how fucked up it is that their bosses rake in millions whilst ordinary folks barely scrounge by, how utterly soul-destroying it is to be forced to rely on benefits whilst the rest of the world calls you lazy, how ridiculous it is that we have empty buildings and thousands of homeless to fill them, how pointless work can seem? Revolutionaries do! And not only that, we give people ways to make their lives better! We tell them the truth; it'll be be hard work but it'll be fucking worth it.

Why else do you think vast numbers of people don't even bother voting anymore? Because they think that bourgeois politicians are a bunch of crooks looking out for only the interests of the capitalist class and think that bourgeois politics can change fuck all. They might not use those terms but that's the truth of it. We're relevant because we belong to the largest group of people in the world, the proletariat, and our politics is based soley on the interests of ourselves and our fellow workers. The vapid irrelevance of consumerism will only supply capitalism's life-support for so long.

Good points, comrade. The way you put it, it seems that the need for a revolution will be realized eventually. I am just worried that this goal will not be realized soon enough (before the ecological situation on earth becomes disastrous for both humans and non-humans).

[bcbm]

Whenever I try to explain communism to someone, here's the reaction that I get:

"(insert regurgitated fact from a high school history class about why communism is bad based on some shit like Stalin or Pol Pot)... and that is why communism cannot work"

so try to explain it without using the word 'communism'


Almost nobody wants to read hundreds of pages on theory. Almost nobody wants to be analytical about the writings of Marx, Bakunin, or whoever.

i don't think this is really a problem, or a prerequisite for being a communist.


Why are people so lazy and apathetic when it comes to actually learning about these topics? Why do they seem so distant and dull to most people?

alienation and atomization.


In my opinion, it is because the masses have become so entrenched in capitalist society that it's just easier for them to pretend it makes sense to work within it rather than doing outside research on a topic that can seem quite boring to most people who aren't interested in things like "the labor theory of value".

that does sound boring and i haven't research it but i still would consider myself a communist.


There seems to be an obvious dilemma. People can't be communists if they don't understand the inner workings of communism.

i don't think that is true. i also don't think it matters so much if they are 'communists' so much as if they simply recognize class interest.


It requires so much less effort to be pro-capitalist than it does to become well-versed in socialism. And in a society where the pursuit of academics outside of school is almost never favored over buying the newest iPhone, it seems unlikely that communism will ever actually become a popular philosophy. That is of course unless the shit really hits the fan.

this sounds basically like a boiler plate 'ugh why is everyone sheeple' rant, to be honest, and i don't think it is really true. people are willing to talk about economics and class and many 'boring' topics, i think a lot of people just approach it wrong.


Problems like climate change and overpopulation induced by capitalism will eventually cause a substantial lack of resources, and likely massive die offs. At some point, people might realize, after reaching this point of no return that it's the system that they live in that is making things so fucked. But here there seems to almost be a paradox. They will know something is wrong: but will they still be too lazy to do enough outside reading to understand the solution? This is a question that makes me feel somewhat depressed. If the answer is "yes", then we're really fucked.

i don't see how 'reading' is the ultimate solution. also if we already reached 'the point of no return,' then we're fucked whatever people read.


It seems as though capitalism has induced a lose-lose situation, where one loss is just worse than the other.

unless space travel really picks up.


Is there any hope in such a situation? Will our time ever come?

eh


call me an optimist but my futurism is a lot more startrek than blade runner....

quite the optimist. i'd lean towards mad max or blade runner.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There seems to be an obvious dilemma. People can't be communists if they don't understand the inner workings of communism.

The thing is, insofar as communism is the "real movement which abolishes the present state of things" it's not a matter of generalizing communist theory - rather, conditions will create the basis for the generalization of communist practice. The role of "communists" in the sense of those of us who identify as such, is to take leadership roles in the positive sense of leadership - taking risks, and being at the forefront. Communists won't be the driving force of communist revolution - we just have particular roles to play.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If you look at the world & try to actualize the traditional left-wing strategy, i.e. "build class consciousness, build the party/movement, and exercise class power w/ a consciously left-wing policy agenda", then yeah, you'll be depressed. "Class" as an identity and allegiance cannot really compete with things like nationalism or even religion in today's world. Although occasionally the more-or-less traditional forms of class power intrude in and influence events, such as the UGTT's role in Tunisia.

There's a lot of interesting developments around the world, though...in the middle east, in Africa, in Europe, in South America, etc. The USA is basically a political void at the moment, but that may change. Maybe you're so disillusioned because you live in Connecticut, which means you compound that political void with living in the 3rd or 4th wealthiest state in the USA. No wonder people are apathetic.

[Popular Front of Judea]

If anyone here wants certainty they are going to severely disappointed. We are heading into a period of radical indeterminacy the likes of which humanity has not yet seen. Could anyone have visualized on a summers day in 1914 what the next 75 years were to bring? That is nothing to compared as to what is to come.

Here is a essay that is a start of an answer to your question: http://ecology-and-socialism.wikispaces.com/file/history/NLR+-+Who+Will+Build+the+Ark+Mike+Davis.pdf

I need to break off here. I hope this thread continues to be active. The OP raises some very important questions.

[Achronos]

Good points, comrade. The way you put it, it seems that the need for a revolution will be realized eventually. I am just worried that this goal will not be realized soon enough (before the ecological situation on earth becomes disastrous for both humans and non-humans).
The rich would craft a new narrative to deceive the public, once the "job creators" and "trickle down" rings hollow for the majority. They have the luxury of a sort of socialism and the taxpayers will bail them out when they make significant blunders impacting those very taxpayers, because we need to save the people who are creatinglosing the jobs after all. However, I think the shift into a rentier economy because of globalization will lift the veil.

Speaking as an American, the American Dream myth must come to an end, for which many socially immobile poors still believe in, contrary to the politicians they elect that work against them.

Because of the plutonomy, and your mention of ecology, I fear new apartheids will be created once the rich elite proliferate the use of genetic engineering to create their own race. Not to be reactionary against technology, but the rapid advancement in the digital era has not allowed us to catch up and think about the consequences.

If anything we are moving into uncharted waters, but I don't know how long the calm before the storm will last...could be decades.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The way I see it, socialism isn't (in a practical sense) a concept that people are won to, but an answer to the question of: "how does the worker's movement win?" So the problem is less our relevancy in terms of ideas, but the lack of a movement to be relevant to.

So while some people (namely lots of the existing radicals) might read or hear about the politics and concept and then go into action to try and achieve it, on a mass scale, it will more likely be the other way around for the hundreds of thousands and eventually millions who follow us.

So in this view, I don't think understanding of the term socialism is much of a guage of progress from the starting point in the US. Instead increased combativity and class consiousness and eventually militiancy would be a much better way to measure what's going on. Unfortunately by that creiteria, things aren't that great either in a large sense. But there are small changes and I think pockets of some resistance but it's very uneven and mostly underconfident. In my experinece, compared to before the economic crisis, in many ways it's much easier to talk about class and to be anti-capitalists than at any time probably since the end of the 1970s. Furthermore, there is a world dynamic of revolt even if it isn't pronounced in the US as much - this means if a worker's movement (let alone revolution) emerged somewhere else, it would likely help jump-start consiousness here too. I also think (for a little radical American exceptionalism) US class history tends to show rapid ups and downs in working class militancy and organization. So if you think about how quickly Occupy spread in a country that is supposedly "all middle class" and inequality-free, I think if, say, Walmart workers won some important gains through a mass struggle, then probably we'd see the fast-food worker's campaign start to look more like something from the 1930s or 1890s. Nothing's guarenteed though and because organization is so low in the US, it's hard to see the currents benieth the surface.


But anyone who studies population dynamics, knows that whether we have reached it or not, there is a carrying capacity. Maybe right now the population isn't at it, but it obviously cannot grow like it is now forever because we have a finite amount of space.

I've actually read that while population is still increasing, the rate of growth has decreased and demographers expect population to actually begin to tapper-off.... which would produce different massive problems for the system.

[G4b3n]

My AP Euro teacher in high school said something like "perhaps we should stop calling it communism and start calling it 'society in which people help each other and things are produced for use', that ought to abolish the stigma".

Unlike many people here, I find it highly productive to debate with reactionaries, it allows one to see into an aspect of the manifestation of material conditions, it gives anyone who adheres to dialectical materialism a better understanding of the forces at work. Though I wouldn't recommend it for those with a short temper.

I see socialism being established through a major crises. As we all know, capitalism is a self destructive system that inherently goes into stagnation and depression, this is not the failure of any bureaucrats just the structure of the system, its internal contradictions, and the manner in which profit literally defies logic. The liberals will blame it on failure of the government to intervene and the conservatives will blame it on government intervention (oh the irony). The 2008 ordeal and the occupy movement is just a taste of what we can expect to see in the future. This is when class consciousness rises, when consumerism begins to fail. While my crystal ball is still very foggy, I am expecting to see a popular movement in the foreseeable future. We can only pray that the elitists don't hijack it.

[#FF0000]

words

even now, the population on literally every continent but Africa has plateaued or is declining. Africa's population rate is slowing and will plateau in a few decades. Overpopulation isn't even a remote issue.

[Red HalfGuard]

Probably a relevant question: What demographics are you having these conversations/arguments with? Especially here in the USA, certain sectors of the working class lag far behind the rest of the world due to a large portion becoming labor aristocracy and the distorting effects of whiteness.

[Ravachol]

quite the optimist. i'd lean towards mad max or blade runner.

quite the optimist. i'd lean towards children of men or fallout minus the radiation.

[Comrade Samuel]

I completely get what you're expressing here OP, society holding all of these negative opinions towards communism while simultaneously being slowly destroyed by capitalism is perhaps the greatest irony in the history of mankind.

As one who frequently argues the issue with American neo-liberals, apolitical schmucks and the occasional hardcore reactionary I've seen a wide range of responses.

Obviously as you'd expect reactionaries as part of the tea-party or otherwise view our movement as the ultimate evil in the world despite the fact that we've 'already lost'. When I see people of this persuasion enjoying a high-level bourgeois lifestyle my first thought is usually that these are the real enemies of the working class, the ones who are class conscious yet have no problem of using that knowledge to get an edge in the world no matter how many people must suffer because of it. More and more I find myself thinking that they walk the fine line between traditional American politics and outright fascism.

There is not much that can be said about the apolitical and their views towards communism. Since I am only in high school it makes sense to classify the majority of my peers as this even though many claim to be 'liberal' or 'conservative' without actually grasping what either of these things are or that there are alternatives to them. My greatest fear for these people is already coming to fruition as they all fall into the rat trap that is partisan news media, believing that Paula Deen's racist remarks 20 or something years ago matter or thinking weather or not gay marriage should be legal is an argument with two legitimate viewpoints. It's all sickening and scary yet I do not know what to do about it.

The most difficult to write about however is the modern American liberal and their relation to communism. The best way I can come up with to describe it is 'apathy towards the state of the world'. Even some very intelligent liberals I've spoken with say 'I love the idea but it's impossible' even after explaining why it is not 100 different ways and suggesting every reading you can think of they'd rather just sit around moping in their defeatism. They are aware of the slave labor in Asia, starvation in Africa, human trafficking in Latin America, racism and police brutality here at home but thus far the only reaction I see to all of it from them is 'I don't really give a shit, it ain't happening to me.'

So yeah to answer your question: communism is not gaining relevance in America because our workers have a culture of either ignorance or indifference towards the woes of the world- they have this because they've been indoctrinated by the right, told that if you don't fall into either of those categories you are different and should be cut off from society.

[Os Cangaceiros]

quite the optimist. i'd lean towards children of men or fallout minus the radiation.

You're a real optimist. I'd lean more towards Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" or "THX 1138"

[GiantMonkeyMan]

You're a real optimist. I'd lean more towards Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" or "THX 1138"
Quite the optimist. I lean towards Threads or Soylent Green. ( :rolleyes: )

[Os Cangaceiros]

Don't paint such a rosy picture of the future. It'll probably look like a cross between modern day Pripyat and a Megadeth album cover.

[Igor]

we will have the jetsons future or none

[Skyhilist]

so try to explain it without using the word 'communism'

Yes sure that can be done, but then there's always going to be questions (as there should be) that are complex and often require a lot of reading to fully understand.


i don't think this is really a problem, or a prerequisite for being a communist.

Well, given that communism would be new to these people, they should have plenty of questions, which will require plenty of their own research if they want to understand how communism works completely. The problem is that (most of the time) either they aren't even interested enough to ask such questions or aren't willing to do enough reading to understand the answers to their questions.


that does sound boring and i haven't research it but i still would consider myself a communist.

I don't think what I said just there really involved anyone's knowledge of the inner workings of communism though.


i don't think that is true. i also don't think it matters so much if they are 'communists' so much as if they simply recognize class interest.

It's a great start if they know that their class interests are to supplant capitalism with something else. But how can they plausibly do that if they don't know or understand what that 'something else' is?


this sounds basically like a boiler plate 'ugh why is everyone sheeple' rant, to be honest, and i don't think it is really true.

I don't see how slapping a label on my argument really disproves it but ok.


people are willing to talk about economics and class and many 'boring' topics, i think a lot of people just approach it wrong.

Maybe the people you've met are a lot different from the people I've met then.


i don't see how 'reading' is the ultimate solution. also if we already reached 'the point of no return,' then we're fucked whatever people read.

Doesn't necessarily have to be reading; it wouldn't be such a problem if people were willing to do any kind of research to understand the questions that they should have. But the problem is that they aren't because they generally aren't interested enough.

[Skyhilist]

Maybe you're so disillusioned because you live in Connecticut, which means you compound that political void with living in the 3rd or 4th wealthiest state in the USA. No wonder people are apathetic.

I actually live only 1 town north of Hartford, which is a pretty poor area (at least on the north end). I'd say about a third of the people in my high school are impoverished... so it's probably not quite the image of Connecticut that you are picturing.

[Skyhilist]

I've actually read that while population is still increasing, the rate of growth has decreased and demographers expect population to actually begin to tapper-off.... which would produce different massive problems for the system.

Demographers really aren't sure 100% either way about the way our population is headed (which exactly why I say, "why take the risk?"), as the chart I posted in an earlier post shows. But, also consider that the population tapering off at around 10-15 billion would be a very bad thing too (as I think you're aware of). That would mean 3-8 billion more people, which could nearly double (or maybe even more than double) the expansion of humans into a natural world that's already facing climate change and a human-induced 6th great extinction.

[Skyhilist]

even now, the population on literally every continent but Africa has plateaued or is declining. Africa's population rate is slowing and will plateau in a few decades. Overpopulation isn't even a remote issue.

That's incorrect. Population growth has declined. That doesn't mean that the populations are declining; in fact it means that they're still increasing. And as I've already mentioned and explained in my previous post, tapering off at around 10-15 billion (once world population growth reaches zero or near zero) would still be very disastrous.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3427/3203403730_30a7d2f6b3_z.jpg?zz=1

[Skyhilist]

Sorry for so many posts in a row.

Anyways, you guys have convinced me that we'll get there eventually (and of course the whole "material conditions create action, not just us" thing as well). But I'm still really worried that it'll come too late to salvage a lot of things that are really important to our survival and to the survival of other species (thanks to capitalist-induced human destruction).

[Darius]

As marxist Paul Mattick once wrote - "Their [workers] class struggle within ascending capitalism strengthens their adversary and weakens their own oppositional inclinations. Revolutionary Marxism is thus not a theory of class struggle as such, but a theory of class struggle under the specific conditions of capitalism’s decline."

I think it's partly true. Last crisis was pretty bad for western world, but there was a part of the world which experienced rapid growth. And now, a lot of countries are recovering, so consciousness acquired in the crisis peak is vanishing, people are getting back their capitalist illusion of stability back. Overall consciousness obviously has risen (very unevenly) to some higher level, but it's still insignificant. Of course there are lot's of third world countries which practically exist under constantly broken, super exploitative capitalism, but people there are just incapable to get proper consciousness, because of overall backwardness, hostile cultural environment and absence of proper rev. organizations. It's really astonishing that such country as India, with hundreds of millions of ppl living in total poverty, is only capable to muster a several thousand indigenous Maoist partisan resistance. So maybe, really bad conditions of living are only a very important first step, but it does not necessarily contain in itself a progressive tendency to evolve in to the real solution. It's really hard to come to one conclusion.

[danyboy27]

Marxism and communism in general is more relevant more than ever, especially if you consider how fucked up capitalism has become over the last years.

Peoples dont want to learn about marxism for pretty much the same reason they dont want to learn about physics or any other theorical fields; its time consuming and complex.

Therefore, the current problematic for leftist is to find ways to explain to peoples what marxism and communism is in a relatively simple terms.

we need more stuff like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOA2WedIQo

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Sorry for so many posts in a row.

Anyways, you guys have convinced me that we'll get there eventually (and of course the whole "material conditions create action, not just us" thing as well). But I'm still really worried that it'll come too late to salvage a lot of things that are really important to our survival and to the survival of other species (thanks to capitalist-induced human destruction).
Socialism or barbarism, comrade. Class struggle is going to happen independantly of any communist but we need to ensure that when the revolution comes the framework and organisation is in place so that we can demolish the organs of bourgeois hegemony and ensure that humanity no longer languishes in the shackles of this moribund system.

[Geiseric]

"We"? I am already kind of relevent, my group organizes around what is actually happening in the real world. If we were part of a larger working class political body I'd be happier but none of those are around.

[NYAnarchist222]

I think communism is very relevant in the world. 16 communist parties are either the ruling party of a country or part of the ruling coalition in the country inc. Uruguay and we know they are doing great things down there under Jose Mujica.
And there is a communist party in every country of the world just about whether its outlawed or not.

In India, the world's 2nd most populated country, Naxalite rebels are the biggest threat to the Indian state. They said as much. High estimates put their armed number at 140,000. Today, the Naxalites heavily influence a third of the country,that's 3-400,000,000 people, and India is no closer to eradicating the insurgency than it was 50 years ago.

So yes, we are relevant.

[#FF0000]

That's incorrect. Population growth has declined. That doesn't mean that the populations are declining; in fact it means that they're still increasing. And as I've already mentioned and explained in my previous post, tapering off at around 10-15 billion (once world population growth reaches zero or near zero) would still be very disastrous.

We can support 10-15 billion human beings. It would not be disastrous.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

The problems with "over-population" now largely stem from , surprise surprise, the way society carries on. We'll (or whoever) look back on this era and think about how crazy it was that suppliers would destroy surpluses to keep prices high at the expense of other humans.

A lot of the issues with large population stem from our persistent over-consumption and less than ideal civic planning and so forth. A million people living in a sprawling city and driving in their own cars, eating a third or half as much more than they need and demanding wasteful consumer trash will probably use more resources and at greater cost to the environment than, say, ten million in a carefully planned city with adequate public transport and consuming only what they need.

Although on this topic this is one of the things I find most fascinating about socialism - how we'll build and design our living spaces.