Are we a dying breed?

[Illegalitarian]

Not sure if this belongs here, but it's something I've been thinking about lately.


You hear anti-coms throw this line out there a lot: "If anarchism/communism is so great, why aren't the majority of working class people communists? Why are your numbers globally shrinking, if your economic/political/social theories are so great?"

You've all heard these lines before, classic appeals to authority, but is there any truth here? Are the revolutionary theories we hold truly losing popularity throughout the world? Is socialistic thought and struggle shrinking, even dying?

I've heard a lot of Maoists say the same of anarchism, lately, boasting the fact that those in the underdeveloped world, the most exploited of the exploited class, show no interest in anarchism in comparison to M-L movements in these parts of the world.

So I'm curious if these are baseless appeals to authority or if are ideas are truly losing popularity. Any thoughts?

[Brutus]

We've always been a minority. Sure, there have been peaks and slumps, but we've never really made up any significant amount of the population.

[Illegalitarian]

Right, but I wonder if there is any actual way to gauge if socialistic tendencies among the global population are in decline or rise.

[Brutus]

Right, but I wonder if there is any actual way to gauge if socialistic tendencies among the global population are in decline or rise.

Possibly. Maybe check the statistics of communist parties and the like, but that would be incredibly tedious and wouldn't account for non-party communists.

[Crabbensmasher]

Well, you've gotta remember, the "anti-coms" have NBC, Fox News, BBC, etc etc under their noses. In American politics at least, almost all elected politicians are "anti-com".

So, basically, everything us common folk hear has gone through a 'conservative filter'. It's the only paper in town, so to speak. There are very few situations where a common person is actually exposed to socialist discourse, let alone anything unbiased.

Life has a habit of correlating past successes with increasing easiness. They own the game, man

[fear of a red planet]

Organised self described communists and anarchists may well be in decline - certainly in the developed world.

However it seems clear that people who would like to see a decent and fair society where people are free to live their lives and enjoy the fruits of their efforts are certainly not a minority let alone in decline.

And while people believe that they and others deserve that, then there is an audience for those of us who believe that we can only accomplish that through a radical transformation of society.

[Ocean Seal]

Because our lines are too radical for the majority of people to adopt. Soon enough though our numbers will swell to something much greater than what we have now. People will adopt many of our teachings in good time, even though they are plagued with reactionary vices which have kept them from blaming the bourgeoisie.

[Blake's Baby]

Collating figures of people that in parties, or unions, or either/both, will only tell you so much. They're not necessarily a barometer of class struggle, they're certainly not an indicator of what's going to happen in the future.

Strike days (official and unofficial) 'lost' may be a better guide because they actually represent some action taken by the working class, they actually in some senses measure anger, but even then not perfectly as some workers will want to strike but don't, and sometimes unions may call workers on strike when there really isn't the fight for it. But I would regard statistics on strike days to be a surer guide to workers' willingness to challenge capital than the membership of revolutionary (or otherwise) organisations.

I mean, seriously, if you look at figures for membership of the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia in 1904? Not very high. But then in 1905 there was a revolution.

We don't always see class consciousness working, the proletariat as a whole becoming more conscious before our eyes; things can change rapidly when a situation changes and catalyses something that may have been developing un-noticed over some time.

[human strike]

Yes, bring out your dead. Fortunately though revolution isn't carried out by conscious revolutionaries. We don't make communism by making most people communists; we make communism by, well, making communism.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Yes, bring out your dead. Fortunately though revolution isn't carried out by conscious revolutionaries. We don't make communism by making most people communists; we make communism by, well, making communism.

I think this is just wrong, how can you say revolution isn't carried out by conscious revolutionaries, that communism just sort of builds itself without a collective effort on the part of conscious workers to build the alternative? Without conscious revolutionaries understanding what it is they're fighting for you have a bunch of headless chickens running around with no direction. Look at Egypts current situation. After all they did the revolution right now is really just institutions like the army and police trying to solidify their position among the people as their rulers with little opposition except for by the MB. We shouldn't be belittling the role of revolutionary communist organizations in organizing revolutions and in disseminating revolutionary ideas amongst the workers. If nobody is saying we need communism and will try and organize that need, then it won't happen.

*EDIT* As for if our views are losing popularity, I think we're probably gaining popularity slowly but surely. I've only been alive for 21 years so I never saw the USSR, but from where I stood after 9/11 leftist thought became almost sacrilege. If you were liberal and disapproved of any wars you weren't allowed on tv. Capitalism came off of the fall of the USSR with such triumphalism, people were saying it was the "end of history", that that was that, capitalism was here to stay and when 9/11 happened the pretext for further ramping up of foreign intervention was there to use. But that period has lasted for a very short time as it seems more and more people are wising up to the bullshit. The younger generations with no memory of the 20th Century are seeing capitalism with less keen eyes, as are most groups, but especially the youth. How much this translates to actual numbers of people with communistic views, idk. The Occupy movement showed that there's righteous indignation here, Sawant was elected showing that there are thousands of people warming up to the idea of socialism, etc, etc, so I definitely see it going more positive than negative for us at the moment. But even if it's not good news for some we have to fight for the working class and show them that there is an alternative, that we can be free from the capitalists if we fight back.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Hopefully "we" - that is, the present socialist movement, deeply mired in social-democracy, revisionism, alliances with the bourgeoisie, and sometimes outright gangsterism - are. That seems to be a precondition of the regeneration of communism.

[Sabot Cat]

This is pretty interesting data culled from a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2011: http://www.peoplesworld.org/communism-gains-ground-among-americans/

"Eleven percent think "communism" is a "morally superior" system to that which is currently in place in the U.S., and another 13 percent aren't sure, according to a startling new Rasmussen poll , conducted March 12-13."

"Socialism," a term that carries far less baggage than "communism," is even more accepted by Americans. In an April 2009 Rasmussen poll, only 53 percent said that capitalism was better than socialism. With the margin of error, those who think capitalism is better are statistically tied with those who think socialism is better (20 percent) and those unsure (27 percent)."

The battle for the minds of the proletariat hasn't been lost yet, comrades.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Collating figures of people that in parties, or unions, or either/both, will only tell you so much. They're not necessarily a barometer of class struggle, they're certainly not an indicator of what's going to happen in the future.

Strike days (official and unofficial) 'lost' may be a better guide

That's an economistic assessment. Strike days lost can hardly be an indication of class-based political activity. The same goes with union membership.

Party membership can be much more solid than either of the above or votes, but that depends on all education, agitation, and organization levels of the membership.

[MarxSchmarx]

As to people in developing countries espousing marxism-leninism over anarchism:

one thing the left particularly in the west has been incredibly ignorant about is the degree to which the technocrats/elites/engineers/civil service of many third world countries have in fact been trained in either the former eastern bloc or to this day in "socialist" countries.

For instance, in Latin America physicians trained in Cuba constitute a substantial minority of practising doctors, and China and the USSR used to provide incredibly generous fellowships to students from Africa, the middle east, south and south-east Asia to pursue advanced degrees in Soviet or Chinese universities.

I don't want to denigrate just how endogenous many Marxist-Leninist movements are in the developing world, but just as you will find proselytizers of the amazing life and success of Dubai/NYC/Hong Kong whatever, you will find proselytizers of how "Marxism" made life much better for the average person in China/GDR/Cuba etc... among th intellectuals who often lead these movements.

The point is there is a history there which goes beyond some people sitting around and reading different books and picking the author/argument they like best. The appeal of "Marxism-Leninism" at least as opposed to anarchism in some developing countries, has quite a bit to do with the fact that the founders of these movements came out of a milieu where the best and brightest ideas were associated with Lomonosov rather than Oxbridge or the Ivy League, much less revolutionary Spain.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If 20th century Communism and Anarchism is dying, then it just opens more space for a post-Soviet, "21st-century" Communism and Anarchism.

Yes, the "old order" of the Left is dying, but that doesn't mean all is lost.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Of course we're in an upswing, otherwise verso wouldn't find the market palatable enough for their horrible pocket communism books.

[BornDeist]

If we were ever the majority there would be communism right now.

[Kamp]

political trends are always going and coming, communism might be in a demise at the moment but it will quickly turn around due to economical or global interests.

In Europe today for an example, you see the working class form under the banner of fascism, fascism will never survive in the long run and people will get tired of that aswell. This is the time when we need to have a organised communistic movement as a alternative for the working class in Europe / the world..