A new name for revolutionary socialism

[Tim Cornelis]

This is a bit of a silly thread I suppose, but when social-democracy had been usurped by 'opportunists', communism became the term to describe revolutionary socialism. Now, communism has been usurped by the bourgeois-socialists of Stalinism (and to a lesser extent Eurocommunists). What other term could the anti-Stalinist revolutionary socialist movement use?
Some time ago, 'revolutionary social-democracy' was suggested on these forums.

Also, a new symbol for it.

[Taters]

Honestly, I don't see how re-branding will help. At some point, people will know you're talking about communism.

[ed miliband]

'communism' with a small c.

[Queen Mab]

Some time ago, 'revolutionary social-democracy' was suggested on these forums.

Ew no, that's even worse. Socialism needs to distinguish itself from both Stalinism AND social democracy, which it can be argued are just two sides of the same coin.


Also, a new symbol for it.

You'll pry the red flag from my cold, dead hands.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Social-proletocracy, comrade

[Tim Cornelis]

Honestly, I don't see how re-branding will help. At some point, people will know you're talking about communism.

The point would be not the hide that we are Marxists or something.

As someone, the last time it came up, pointed out, communism came into sway because of the influence of the Third International. We (whomever we may be) have no such influence so whatever we brand ourselves it's not likely to get traction. How many people use Inclusive Democracy or Communalism?

But if there's a nice word, why not?



You'll pry the red flag from my cold, dead hands.

Yeah, the red flag stays, but the hammer and sickle is antiquated (inb4 forklifts) and associated with Stalinist terror.

[Il Medico]

Cheese Doodleism, clearly.

[hatzel]

Socialist revolutionism. That'll pull the wool over their eyes!

[Lokomotive293]

What other term could the anti-Stalinist revolutionary socialist movement use?

I don't know, but I don't think it's that much of a bad idea, if you just make up a new, fancy word, along with new, fancy symbols, while the rest of us stick to the tradition of the Communist movement, which is still valued in many places around the world. The USSR, btw, is part of that tradition. We should regard it as part of our history that we need to learn from, not disassociate ourselves from it and join the bourgeois in throwing mud at it.

[RedAnarchist]

A new brand would just be papering over the cracks, and they'll just smear anything that replaces the terms anyway.

[Remus Bleys]

I don't know, but I don't think it's that much of a bad idea, if you just make up a new, fancy word, along with new, fancy symbols, while the rest of us stick to the tradition of the Communist movement, which is still valued in many places around the world. The USSR, btw, is part of that tradition. We should regard it as part of our history that we need to learn from, not disassociate ourselves from it and join the bourgeois in throwing mud at it.
Nah we proletarian mudsling at it
communism was a revolutionary name at the time, just like social-democracy was. we need a replacement, and good thing the word communism doesn't inherently mean anything. its simply a rename of ourselves, not a redo of theory with whole new names.
on the other hand what is the point of that? Communism goes back to marx. its funny instead of saying that you go back to stalin. very telling about "anti-revisionist"

[Sabot Cat]

I believe that we shouldn't be shackled to the symbols of yesterday's struggles, as the communist vision always urges us to look forward to the future; this is a distinct advantage we have over reactionaries. Thus any change in the way we promote our ideals is desirable as long as our goals never change.

If labeling yourself a communist will attract fewer members of the proletariat to the cause because the word has a deeply entrenched association with the State Capitalist excesses of the Soviet Union or the PRC, it would be better to simply abandon the term and move on. If there is a situation where more people understand what you mean when you say "workers" more than they do when you say "proletariat", say workers instead.

The metaphorical causalities in socialist symbology and terminology incurred in the 20th Century cannot be understated. However, I see no reason why we should continue clinging to the hammer-and-sickle or the red flag if they no longer inspire the hope that they once did. These were created in a pragmatic attempt to appeal to people; they can be abandoned similarly for better means of spreading our ideas.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Social-proletocracy, comrade


The point would be not the hide that we are Marxists or something.

"Proletocracy" is enough. It very much nods towards Marxist tradition.

I added "social" because of the socialism-vs-state-capitalism debate, and more broadly the need to abolish generalized commodity production altogether, capitalist or otherwise. "Proletocracy" alone is enough to work with comrades who still have, ahem, monetary views.

[Remus Bleys]

But communism has no proletariat DNZ.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

For new symbols....how about the chain links from the Free Drones?

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/files/1/5/3/4/5/drone3.png

[Taters]

Bleh, symbols are reactionary.

[Ravachol]

national socialism and i believe this is a decent symbol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

[Jimmie Higgins]

Redsies? Communism xtreeme?

Yeah I wouldn't be opposed if some new term caught on, but I think it would have to come from a real movement that "owns" the new term and embodies it.

Oh... #communism.

[Queen Mab]

What about liberationism. One of those nice fuzzy words like libertarianism which everyone likes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But communism has no proletariat DNZ.

That's not the point. Social proletocracy is that class "movement which seeks to abolish" generalized commodity production ("social") through class rule ("proletocracy"), and that quote is ironically inspired by that notorious r-r-r-revolutionary "communism is the movement that [...]" quote which I normally disagree with for its movementism and its horrid similarity with Bernstein's "the movement is everything, the final goal nothing" quote.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's not the point. Social proletocracy is that class "movement which seeks to abolish" generalized commodity production ("social") through class rule ("proletocracy"), and that quote is ironically inspired by that notorious r-r-r-revolutionary "communism is the movement that [...]" quote which I normally disagree with for its movementism and its horrid similarity with Bernstein's "the movement is everything, the final goal nothing" quote.

so you're not actually a communist, you just want the working class to become the new ruling class?

As usual, you're making no sense.

[Lokomotive293]

we need a replacement, and good thing the word communism doesn't inherently mean anything. its simply a rename of ourselves, not a redo of theory with whole new names.

Nothing inherently means anything. Words only get meaning through the way people use them and the association they create. "Communism", now, describes a movement, with a rich history and culture of its own. The motivation that lies behind your wish to change that name is to disassociate yourself from that history (or at least a very important part of it). That is what I am criticizing.


on the other hand what is the point of that? Communism goes back to marx. its funny instead of saying that you go back to stalin. very telling about "anti-revisionist"

Communism goes back much earlier than Marx, but that is not the point. The point is that what you are trying to do is claim that more than 70 years of history have "nothing to do with us".

Of course the bourgeois will scream "dictatorship!", "evil!" and "murderers!" at everyone who tries to build an alternative society. Of course many people will believe them. But, to make a different example: The bourgeois will also call you a traitor for not supporting their Imperialist wars, and many people will believe them. Will you react to that by wearing "We support our troops" on a pin and saying "Noo, noo, we are not traitors, we just think you can find a peaceful solution"? Probably not.

[reb]

That's not the point. Social proletocracy is that class "movement which seeks to abolish" generalized commodity production ("social") through class rule ("proletocracy"), and that quote is ironically inspired by that notorious r-r-r-revolutionary "communism is the movement that [...]" quote which I normally disagree with for its movementism and its horrid similarity with Bernstein's "the movement is everything, the final goal nothing" quote.

Do you work in corporate? Only someone working in corporate speaks in this sort of gibberish.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Pissing in the Wind-ism?

[Remus Bleys]

Nothing inherently means anything. Words only get meaning through the way people use them and the association they create. "Communism", now, describes a movement, with a rich history and culture of its own. The motivation that lies behind your wish to change that name is to disassociate yourself from that history (or at least a very important part of it). That is what I am criticizing.



Communism goes back much earlier than Marx, but that is not the point. The point is that what you are trying to do is claim that more than 70 years of history have "nothing to do with us".

Of course the bourgeois will scream "dictatorship!", "evil!" and "murderers!" at everyone who tries to build an alternative society. Of course many people will believe them. But, to make a different example: The bourgeois will also call you a traitor for not supporting their Imperialist wars, and many people will believe them. Will you react to that by wearing "We support our troops" on a pin and saying "Noo, noo, we are not traitors, we just think you can find a peaceful solution"? Probably not.

Communism isn't built first of all. Secondly this hippie liberal shit about alternative society. Communism will natural,ly cause war between the bourgeois, this should be accepted, hell even embraced. We seek to fundamentally change all of society worldwide, so we can't all shocked when they, the bourgeois, decry us for wanting to destroy the existing world. Because we do want to. Even stalin believed this (if he was going to do thsis is another question).

And I fail to see what the transition for a couple countries from a backward state that was a mix of pre capitalism and capitalism into at least an industrialized nation has to do with communism.

[Ravachol]

Do you work in corporate? Only someone working in corporate speaks in this sort of gibberish.

No because then he would come up with neologisms and buzzwords that don't smell like Eau d'Neckbeard's Delight. Who on earth 'rebrands' (toplel) something to 'proletocracy' it sounds like a fucking fungoid infection to most people.

Then again this is revleft and people are into making up imaginary factions with imaginary flags to an imaginary RTS and pretend its politics.

[Ravachol]

There you go, already better 'rebranding' than stupid namechanges:

http://i.imgur.com/35UTgEd.jpg

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Can we cram a monument and some ugly high rises into that for the next sprint?

[Rafiq]

That's not the point. Social proletocracy is that class "movement which seeks to abolish" generalized commodity production ("social") through class rule ("proletocracy"), and that quote is ironically inspired by that notorious r-r-r-revolutionary "communism is the movement that [...]" quote which I normally disagree with for its movementism and its horrid similarity with Bernstein's "the movement is everything, the final goal nothing" quote.

You are wrong to disagree with it, as it wasn't reflective of a political strategy (as in the case of Bernstein), but philosophy. What Marx meant was that Communism is born only through capitalisms contradictions, and that Communism is only what we call the movement, ideology or rhetoric of the struggling proletariat. This does not de emphasize proletarian dictatorship, it simply categorizes communism to the proletariat as liberalism was to the revolutionary capitalist class (in a way).

[Rafiq]

Movementism, I agree, does lead to an overall integration into capitalism. This is usually a result of meek and less aggressive politics.

[Q]

Moved from /non-political to /theory given that it actually has some content up for more debate and insight.

[Comrade Samuel]

I'll leave the re-branding to the guys who run corporations, the last thing we need right now is to create more differences between fellow leftists with new rhetoric, symbolism ect.

Really OP, you could have just said "All modern communists do is build walls between themselves and others, maybe it'll help if we try building another!"

[Die Neue Zeit]

so you're not actually a communist, you just want the working class to become the new ruling class?

If that were the case, only the word "proletocrat" would apply. :confused:


Do you work in corporate? Only someone working in corporate speaks in this sort of gibberish.

Ad hominem? What's your point whether I do or not?


You are wrong to disagree with it, as it wasn't reflective of a political strategy (as in the case of Bernstein), but philosophy. What Marx meant was that Communism is born only through capitalisms contradictions, and that Communism is only what we call the movement, ideology or rhetoric of the struggling proletariat. This does not de emphasize proletarian dictatorship, it simply categorizes communism to the proletariat as liberalism was to the revolutionary capitalist class (in a way).

Perhaps, but the ultra-left interpretation of Marx's quote is more popular, and it is that interpretation which is reflective of a political strategy ("movementism").

[Tim Cornelis]

Nothing inherently means anything. Words only get meaning through the way people use them and the association they create. "Communism", now, describes a movement, with a rich history and culture of its own. The motivation that lies behind your wish to change that name is to disassociate yourself from that history (or at least a very important part of it). That is what I am criticizing.

Diassociation from bourgeois politics masquerading as communism. That history has nothing to do with my politics.



Communism goes back much earlier than Marx, but that is not the point. The point is that what you are trying to do is claim that more than 70 years of history have "nothing to do with us".

They haven't.


Of course the bourgeois will scream "dictatorship!", "evil!" and "murderers!"

It doesn't help that your political movement has the blood of literally millions of people on it, at the hands of a brutal, bureacratic, oppressive state machinery.


t everyone who tries to build an alternative society. Of course many people will believe them. But, to make a different example: The bourgeois will also call you a traitor for not supporting their Imperialist wars, and many people will believe them. Will you react to that by wearing "We support our troops" on a pin and saying "Noo, noo, we are not traitors, we just think you can find a peaceful solution"? Probably not.

I support national reason. I do not support anti-working class politics under the guise of communism.


No because then he would come up with neologisms and buzzwords that don't smell like Eau d'Neckbeard's Delight. Who on earth 'rebrands' (toplel) something to 'proletocracy' it sounds like a fucking fungoid infection to most people.

Then again this is revleft and people are into making up imaginary factions with imaginary flags to an imaginary RTS and pretend its politics.

it's*

Another emo tantrum. It's become boring routine, mundane.

[G4b3n]

Fuck-the-middle-class-ism

[Zizz01010101]

I've thought the same thing myself. I mean, I see and acknowledge people on here saying "people will know" and while that may be true, people will already be educated enough not to care. I don't know if a re-brand would really help, but there's so much ignorance surrounding what people think they know about Communism. I mean, when I explain it without the word, people accept/support it, and that must mean something.

[Ravachol]

it's*

Another emo tantrum. It's become boring routine, mundane.

Just trying to fit in with the left.

[Per Levy]

oh hey its dnz's favourite kind of thread where he can insert all his madeup phrases and words he created in the past years. delightful.

@op: i dont see the point tbh, makeing up new words to describe communism will just get more confusing as it goes and it would change nothing, also who is saying that the new term, if one could even be found, wouldnt be upsurped by someone again?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Ceaserean-Proletacracy, as theorized by modern day Karl Marx, DNZ.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Illmatic, there's no such thing even conceptually. Third World Caesarean Socialism is a specific type of rule of the patriotic petit-bourgeoisie in the Third World, so it can't be proletocratic. :glare:

[Ravachol]

Wait this thread is in theory now? :rolleyes:

[Yuppie Grinder]

Illmatic, there's no such thing even conceptually. Third World Caesarean Socialism is a specific type of rule of the patriotic petit-bourgeoisie in the Third World, so it can't be proletocratic. :glare:

Thank you for enlightening me.

[Tim Redd]

What about liberationism. One of those nice fuzzy words like libertarianism which everyone likes.

Social Liberationism. ?
Revolutionary Liberationism. ?
Social Revolutionary Liberationism.?

[Lokomotive293]

Diassociation from bourgeois politics masquerading as communism. That history has nothing to do with my politics.

Or from a movement that millions of people all over the world have put their hopes into and in many places still are, that millions of people from all over the world have gone to prison and died for. Sure CPs all over the world have made mistakes, and done s***, but that doesn't change the fact that 1) despite everything, they have still achieved a lot, and 2) all of that is still a part of our history. We need to analyze the achievements and the mistakes as well, and learn from them. But if you think none of our history has anything to do with us, and if you think that communism


has the blood of literally millions of people on it, at the hands of a brutal, bureacratic, oppressive state machinery.

Maybe you should just, after all, do what you suggested and stop claiming that you're a communist.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I, at least, will not forget all the achievements of the socialist world for the working class and for the oppressed peoples, just because Western historiography only focuses on Stalin's "crimes".

[Comrade #138672]

Obamaism.

Yes, we can.

(You can shoot me now.)

[John Lennin]

2) all of that is still a part of our history.
I totally agree on that. Some people seem to be afraid of facing the truth.
Even things like Juche and Pol-Potism have their roots in marxism/communism. Just going ahead and calling it "bourgeois masquerade" bears the risk of history to repeat itself.

[Tim Cornelis]

Or from a movement that millions of people all over the world have put their hopes into and in many places still are, that millions of people from all over the world have gone to prison and died for.

An appeal to emotion is not a substitute for Marxist or class analysis.


Sure CPs all over the world have made mistakes,

Mistakes, such as retaining the capitalist mode of production under state control, killing millions in the process, deploying forced labour, disciplining labour, denying workers their rights. These are not mistakes, they are structural failures.


and done s***, but that doesn't change the fact that 1) despite everything, they have still achieved a lot,

Circa 33% of the world lived under Marxist-Leninist rule, or some variation thereof, by 1950. Today, that's 0.5% (Cuba and DPRK), with DPRK being an abysmal failure and Cuba liberalising its economies. What 'they' have achieved is free or cheap healthcare and social services, while retaining capital, operating an oppressive anti-working class, and being responsible for workers all over the world saying "communism is a good idea, but look at the USSR, it just doesn't work."

The achievements of social-democracy surpass that of so-called "socialism".


and 2) all of that is still a part of our history.

Social-democracy was a part of "our" history, but no Marxist calls himself that.


We need to analyze the achievements and the mistakes as well, and learn from them.

Are you implying I haven't? I have, and definitely the USSR consisted a non-socialist regime and confidently it was state-capitalism.


But if you think none of our history has anything to do with us, and if you think that communism Maybe you should just, after all, do what you suggested and stop claiming that you're a communist.

Maybe you should for thinking capital and communism are compatible.


Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I, at least, will not forget all the achievements of the socialist world for the working class and for the oppressed peoples, just because Western historiography only focuses on Stalin's "crimes".

Because:

1) They were not socialist
2) They were anti-working class
3) The regimes were oppressive themselves

It's not Western historiography, it's historical fact. And Western scholars consider the USSR socialist, I do not. If anyone else had been responsible for the death of millions, you would not play apologetics for it, and rightly condemn it. But now that Stalin oversaw such deaths, you rationalise, minimise, and explain them away without substantial basis (at least I've never seen MLs produce a coherent argument for that).

[reb]

I don't see you arguing for communism anywhere, Die Neue Zeit, just dressing up social-democracy and "rule of the patriotic petit-bourgeoisie" in gibberish so that people have no idea what you are talking about.

[Darius]

If you change name, you also have to change your act to fit with the name a little bit. Anyway, this could have both good and bad consequances. New name and presentation could make socialist ideas more appealing to masses, but at the same time it could alianate more conservative socialists/communists. Name change would be more useful in very hostile enviroments like eastern europe, but some countries in third world and west don't really need it so badly.

I think a lot of socialist parties and organizations at some point debate about name and such things so it's a relevant problem worth of attention.. The Party i'am in, also had such debates, but i don't really know which position is really better.

[Tolstoy]

Honestly, just being generic as fuck and saying Socialism works fine. I understand that this will cause some to confuse with advocates of Nordic-Style Social Democracy, but it's a distinction that we can make by adding "revolutionary socialism". Ultimately most people like Social Democracy for it's Socialist aspects (free healthcare, great education) rather than the capitalism that occurs in such bourgeois democracies, so people who claim to want social democracy could easily be moved to our side, provided they were educated in some basic Socialist principles.

Said liberals who wish for social democracy and are fed up with both Obama and Teabaggers already put up with being called communists for embracing social democracy, so most of them would not be turned off by the prospect of calling themselves revolutionary socialists if they could be gotten to embrace Marxism, which is ultimately I think alot of people could come to embrace in our stagnant economy

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A few thoughts:

1. There has never been a name, singularly, for revolutionary socialism, even considering only the European left tradition. If we take into account various non-Western forms of communist social organization anti-imperialist struggle with implicitly communist content, you end up with a whole lot of names across a whole lot of languages and distinct contexts.

2. Tacking "ism" (or "cracy" or "archy") on the end of words to give them an air of political significance is obnoxious, and only serves to obfuscate matters. It should be avoided unless there is a clear and specific reason for doing so.

3. More than a particular word being "the problem" I think we have a serious problem with looking for a "magic word" - finally, a way of saying "communism" that will have both broad resonance, and specific content. That's a fucking dead end - it's saying, "We can outflank bourgeois hegemony if only we can find our abracadabra!" That's not to say words aren't important, because they undeniably are, but that we need to take on language more broadly if we're going to win anything.

[IBleedRed]

I adamantly believe that we need to adapt to this new world if we are to have any kind of success. Here are my thoughts on what is harming our cause:

1) Left factionalism. Self-explanatory. Whats' the fix? I don't know. I would like to see anarchists and Marxists form a united political front of some sort. And the various radical left parties need to come together as well, under a banner that is as comprehensive as it can be without morphing into reformism.

2) Names. Yes, in the media, it absolutely matters what we're called and what we're calling ourselves. I think all "communist" should be changed to "socialist", not only because it sounds better, but also because it is more accurate that way. We need a global revolutionary socialist movement.

3) Obsession with bickering over history (especially Soviet history). We aren't trying to build another Soviet Union. BUT I think it's disingenuous when people dismiss revolutionary history with the "that wasn't real socialism" argument. Even if it wasn't, it was definitely an attempt at socialism, and so it's very important that we examine the history and see what worked and what didn't, and why.

[Q]

Fuck-the-middle-class-ism


oh hey its dnz's favourite kind of thread where he can insert all his madeup phrases and words he created in the past years. delightful.


Ceaserean-Proletacracy, as theorized by modern day Karl Marx, DNZ.
Seeing as this moved to /Theory, I'm going to hand our verbals for one-liners and flames to these three posts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Social Liberationism. ?
Revolutionary Liberationism. ?
Social Revolutionary Liberationism.?

Emancipation is a class-friendlier word than liberation or any other derivative of "liberty."

[Remus Bleys]

Emancipation is a class-friendlier word than liberation or any other derivative of "liberty."Emancipation is a better substitute for freedom than for something analogous to liberty.

Anyway Liberation is class friendly word. The first principle of communism is "Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat."

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't see you arguing for communism anywhere, Die Neue Zeit, just dressing up social-democracy and "rule of the patriotic petit-bourgeoisie" in gibberish so that people have no idea what you are talking about.

Since when did I dress up your perception of "social democracy"? And why did you conflate First World strategy with Third World realities?