How would Communists go about clearing up their reputation?

[Red Star Rising]

Greetings Comrades :hammersickle:

Unfortunately, modern history has left us with a pretty nasty reputation in the public eye (most of them don't understand Communism or are just scared of the word and associate it with totalitarianism) It isn't fair, but we're stuck with it it seems. I would like to know how exactly Communists intend to change the general perception. While I do believe that people are the result of their environment (mostly) I don't agree that we should make no effort at all to intervene on a common lie or popular misconception - we don't want the potential revolution to be hindered by it when the social/economic conditions are ripe.

Creating websites and forums like this are great for the discussion of ideas, they don't really reach beyond the already present Marxist community.

[Q]

Some currents can, others can't. For example, I don't think that 'Marxist-Leninists' can ever get over their stigma in the wider working class comunity, although they still have creds in the far left in some areas. Trotskyists face a similar problem, although they are more critical of the USSR, they still defend it thus bringing up this question again and again.

Orthodox Marxism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11278) on the other hand might be the opposite of this problem: Once you explain the basic tenets of it and get beyond the initial "oh my god, you're a communist" thing, there are only few that are not convinced on any level in my experience. There is a big desire again for some kind of 'merger' between communist ideas with the existing workers movement. Within the far left community however, we face much ignorance and hostility (many users here just attack us for 'Kautskyism').

[Comrade Jacob]

The only true way to get rid of the stigma is to rule and show them it's a good thing. But good luck with that.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Excepting for now the part of your group that is generally unintelligible, and whose views sound closer to the right in those rare instances when they express themselves clearly, the hostility is chiefly due to your support for various social-democratic formations and worse.

Also, let's be honest here, no one except the CPGB considers the Lih tendency to be "Orthodox Marxists".

As for how we would "clear up our reputation", we shouldn't. People who understand socialism understand what the true crimes of Stalinism were and why communism has nothing to do with these. But those who think that the Stalinists were "bad" because they shot whiteguards, or collectivised the agricultural sector, or re-instituted central planning - what are we to say to those people? "No, we won't shoot anyone." As if.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Communists have had the most popularity when they integrated themselves within the struggles of the labour movement. Demystifying communism, making the struggle something real that offers genuine improvement to working people's lives instead of being detached from the class either as an academic study group or as a sub-culture, is the most important facet of the contemporary movement, I believe.

[Црвена]

I think we all need to agree that the Soviet Union and all other experiments in "communism," were unsuccessful (because class society and the state weren't in the process of withering away in any of them), whether it's due to the original principles they were founded upon or because a psychotic dictator usurped them. Point-blank denying that Stalin killed 40 million people, or saying that he did it in the name of communism, isn't going to get us anywhere. People have to know that communists are communists because we want all oppressed people to be liberated, not because we want some huge, corrupt state controlling everything.

[Red Star Rising]

Excepting for now the part of your group that is generally unintelligible, and whose views sound closer to the right in those rare instances when they express themselves clearly, the hostility is chiefly due to your support for various social-democratic formations and worse.

Also, let's be honest here, no one except the CPGB considers the Lih tendency to be "Orthodox Marxists".

As for how we would "clear up our reputation", we shouldn't. People who understand socialism understand what the true crimes of Stalinism were and why communism has nothing to do with these. But those who think that the Stalinists were "bad" because they shot whiteguards, or collectivised the agricultural sector, or re-instituted central planning - what are we to say to those people? "No, we won't shoot anyone." As if.

Until people are educated about the differences between Stalinism and Socialism/Communism, Communism will always be a dirty word. But whose responsibility is it to educate those who do not understand Communism? Capitalists? Surely, it falls to people who follow the ideology to teach others about its principals.

Generally, people are convinced in some way by Marxism when they are willing to listen, then their primary objection is "every Socialist regime has become an oppressive dictatorship." This is countered by showing open disapproval of past Soviet states and comparing them to totalitarianism while pointing out how they differ from the real thing. I think that the only way forward for Communists is to sever all formal ties to the Soviet Union.

The next problem is how to go about educating people - I think that the best way is to have some kind of "world views" class in state schools which would educate in detail the ideas surrounding different ideologies. This would, in theory, demonstrate why Capitalism is wrong and convince many that socialism is the path to Anarcho-Communism. This could be achieved by allying Communism to other, more popular left wing movements. I should stress that educating people in many ideologies would be important. Then, those convinced by Marxism would be able to come to sites like this to find more information on Communism. Best I can come up with, any more ideas would be appreciated. :hammersickle:

[Remus Bleys]

I think we all need to agree that the Soviet Union and all other experiments in "communism," were unsuccessful (because class society and the state weren't in the process of withering away in any of them), whether it's due to the original principles they were founded upon or because a psychotic dictator usurped them. Point-blank denying that Stalin killed 40 million people, or saying that he did it in the name of communism, isn't going to get us anywhere. People have to know that communists are communists because we want all oppressed people to be liberated, not because we want some huge, corrupt state controlling everything.
A psychotic dictator? You sure it wasn't the failure of the World Revolution to spread? Problems in the Third International? Disorganization of the Communist Parties, which contained numerous strands of opportunism and took some time to split from the social democrats? The assault of World Capitalism? None of this matters, apparently, just some individual came out of nowhere and ruined it all. As you know, he killed 40 million people, and this is exceptional for capitalism, so it is already some big huge anomaly, right? Not like the West used (and are using) the horrors of industrializaiton to make a more "advanced" capitalism seem better.

Oh and lets just make it "founding principles" because as we all know ideas create reality, right? Pray tell what were these founding principles that were so bad? That they weren't against all oppression? Well good, really, because they had to deal with both tsarism and capitalism - which required very violent measures. Those who (and the things which) are a barrier for communism must be destroyed if we are to ever see communism.

And finally, clean up your rhetoric, a "huge, corrupt state" kinda implies that other bourgeois states aren't inherently "corrupt" or all encompassing, which leads to the path of praising liberal democracy.

[Comrade Jacob]

because a psychotic dictator usurped them. Point-blank denying that Stalin killed 40 million people,

He didn't kill 40 million people that was a third of his population.
Also be careful using the term psychotic, yes stalin was probably psychotic but so are many people on this forum.

[Red Star Rising]

The only true way to get rid of the stigma is to rule and show them it's a good thing. But good luck with that.

Is that defeatism Comrade? I don't think that's the only way - typically, the younger generations are more left wing, and the internet allows for unlimited discussion, consolidation of ideas and the spreading of information. I think that we have sufficient tools to dispel stigma surrounding Communism as long as we use them correctly.

[Decolonize The Left]

A psychotic dictator? You sure it wasn't the failure of the World Revolution to spread? Problems in the Third International? Disorganization of the Communist Parties, which contained numerous strands of opportunism and took some time to split from the social democrats? The assault of World Capitalism? None of this matters, apparently, just some individual came out of nowhere and ruined it all. As you know, he killed 40 million people, and this is exceptional for capitalism, so it is already some big huge anomaly, right? Not like the West used (and are using) the horrors of industrializaiton to make a more "advanced" capitalism seem better.

Oh and lets just make it "founding principles" because as we all know ideas create reality, right? Pray tell what were these founding principles that were so bad? That they weren't against all oppression? Well good, really, because they had to deal with both tsarism and capitalism - which required very violent measures. Those who (and the things which) are a barrier for communism must be destroyed if we are to ever see communism.

And finally, clean up your rhetoric, a "huge, corrupt state" kinda implies that other bourgeois states aren't inherently "corrupt" or all encompassing, which leads to the path of praising liberal democracy.

The fact that you're freaking out about someone calling Stalin a psychotic dictator and then attempting to defend the Soviet Union in 2014 kinda proves the person's point...

[Comrade #138672]

He didn't kill 40 million people that was a third of his population.
Also be careful using the term psychotic, yes stalin was probably psychotic but so are many people on this forum.We should indeed not use "psychotic" as an ableist slur to denounce whomever. It misses the point entirely, in addition to being ableist.

[Remus Bleys]

The fact that you're freaking out about someone calling Stalin a psychotic dictator and then attempting to defend the Soviet Union in 2014 kinda proves the person's point...
Ya dude I am a total stalinists and that post was a complete praise for stalin, not, you know, a look at history that isn't great man, that doesn't imply that some states are good. It wasn't like I was condemning Stalin whilst condemning the hypocritical "humanitarian" "antistalinists." And it wasn't at all as if I was condemning the Soviet Union along with other capitalist states (y'know I'm a left communist, so of course, it would be entirely absurd for me to view the Soviet Union as being a capitalist state, yeah?!). It wasn't like I was pointing out that the Revolution degenerated because of the fact there were problems with the Third International and the Communist Parties, that Revolution didn't spread, that horrors are a daily part of capitalist life.

I mean, that would be absurd for someone of my politics to say, right? I'm glad that you, Mr. Enlightened, are so genius that you were so able to cleverly deduce that that post wasn't about any of those things but was really about how much of a hardon I have for Stalin and how I just wish with all my heart, mind, and soul the USSR still exists. Yeah, you got me you bright, intelligent, and canny person. Congratulations, you understood that post.

Even moreso, it appears that you have discovered a new rule whereby an apparently poor argument of one person automatically makes the argument they are going against correct! Really, I highly doubt anyone else could come up with such a brilliant new rhetorical rule, and surely not even the brightest of the brightest could come up with something that is as sturdy as that. Seriously though, congratulations.


We should indeed not use "psychotic" as an ableist slur to denounce whomever. It misses the point entirely, in addition to being ableist.
Serious question, how is psychotic ableist?

[Old Bolshie]

Some currents can, others can't. For example, I don't think that 'Marxist-Leninists' can ever get over their stigma in the wider working class comunity, although they still have creds in the far left in some areas. Trotskyists face a similar problem, although they are more critical of the USSR, they still defend it thus bringing up this question again and again.

Orthodox Marxism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11278) on the other hand might be the opposite of this problem: Once you explain the basic tenets of it and get beyond the initial "oh my god, you're a communist" thing, there are only few that are not convinced on any level in my experience. There is a big desire again for some kind of 'merger' between communist ideas with the existing workers movement. Within the far left community however, we face much ignorance and hostility (many users here just attack us for 'Kautskyism').

Much of the users who attack Kautsky never red one line of his work. All they know about Kautsky is Lenin's rampage on him as "the renegade" and so on. As you said there is too much ignorance.

What is hilarious is when you read both men you realize that the one who renegaded in 1917 was actually Lenin...

[motion denied]

Much of the users who attack Kautsky never red one line of his work. All they know about Kautsky is Lenin's rampage on him as "the renegade" and so on. As you said there is too much ignorance.

What is hilarious is when you read both men you realize that the one who renegaded in 1917 was actually Lenin...

Weren't you a non-adjective Leninist? Anyway, could elaborate?

[Q]

Much of the users who attack Kautsky never red one line of his work. All they know about Kautsky is Lenin's rampage on him as "the renegade" and so on. As you said there is too much ignorance.

What is hilarious is when you read both men you realize that the one who renegaded in 1917 was actually Lenin...
There is a debate to be had on that point. I think that Lenin actually held through to Kautsky's politics until the day he died. There is much that points in this direction (which is all very much off topic). I side with Lenin in viewing that Kautsky betrayed his own politics. Post-1914 Kautsky diverted more and more from "when he was a Marxist", as Lenin would put it.

But when you actually read Kautsky-the-Marxist, you can't help but see where Lenin got his ideas from, there is a word for word similarity sometimes.

But yeah, I also have the same question Arbeitskraft has. You've been adrift?

[Zoroaster]

Some currents can, others can't. For example, I don't think that 'Marxist-Leninists' can ever get over their stigma in the wider working class comunity, although they still have creds in the far left in some areas. Trotskyists face a similar problem, although they are more critical of the USSR, they still defend it thus bringing up this question again and again.

Orthodox Marxism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11278) on the other hand might be the opposite of this problem: Once you explain the basic tenets of it and get beyond the initial "oh my god, you're a communist" thing, there are only few that are not convinced on any level in my experience. There is a big desire again for some kind of 'merger' between communist ideas with the existing workers movement. Within the far left community however, we face much ignorance and hostility (many users here just attack us for 'Kautskyism').

Yeah, the whole "Kautskyism" thing is kind of silly. Karl Kautsky certainly had important writing about Marxism and up the worker movement, but I'd say that Orthodox Marxism, of course, has more to do with the original concepts of politics, economics and revolutionary tactics drawn up by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

[Q]

Yeah, the whole "Kautskyism" thing is kind of silly. Karl Kautsky certainly had important writing about Marxism and up the worker movement, but I'd say that Orthodox Marxism, of course, has more to do with the original concepts of politics, economics and revolutionary tactics drawn up by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Just a definition clarification: What you're talking about is referred to as classical Marxism (the writings and activity of Marx & Engels) and then we have orthodox Marxism, which is the development of the methods Marx used on a social level, which became the early SPD and other parties that it in turn created or inspired, like the RSDLP.

Then again, the two are very intermixed, as Engels only died in 1895, when the SPD was already a considerable force.

[consuming negativity]

The fact that you're freaking out about someone calling Stalin a psychotic dictator and then attempting to defend the Soviet Union in 2014 kinda proves the person's point...

Yes, because telling the truth about Stalin and refusing to say he single-handedly murdered ten billion babies using a hammer made from the hardened skulls of dead kulaks is why we haven't moved past capitalism. If only we accepted ridiculously inadequate and incorrect analyses of the USSR made up by capitalist apologists, the working class would rise up and throw off their chains. How could we be so stupid?

[Zoroaster]

Just a definition clarification: What you're talking about is referred to as classical Marxism (the writings and activity of Marx & Engels) and then we have orthodox Marxism, which is the development of the methods Marx used on a social level, which became the early SPD and other parties that it in turn created or inspired, like the RSDLP.

Then again, the two are very intermixed, as Engels only died in 1895, when the SPD was already a considerable force.

Ok, thanks.

[Old Bolshie]

There is a debate to be had on that point. I think that Lenin actually held through to Kautsky's politics until the day he died. There is much that points in this direction (which is all very much off topic). I side with Lenin in viewing that Kautsky betrayed his own politics. Post-1914 Kautsky diverted more and more from "when he was a Marxist", as Lenin would put it.

But when you actually read Kautsky-the-Marxist, you can't help but see where Lenin got his ideas from, there is a word for word similarity sometimes.

But yeah, I also have the same question Arbeitskraft has. You've been adrift?

I have been reading the work of Kautsky specially during the period when he had his divergence with Lenin and I didn't find any betrayal of Kautsky of Marxism. On the other hand it was Lenin who changed his position in 1917 when he advocated a proletarian revolution in Russia.

If you read Kautsky's "Dictatorship of the proletariat" and Lenin's "The proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky" you'll find out that time proved Kautsky was right in his argument against Lenin.

[exeexe]

Unfortunately, modern history has left us with a pretty nasty reputation in the public eye .. I would like to know how exactly Communists intend to change the general perception.
You shoot them! I think the reputation will stick and you cant get rid of it, kind of like how it is with Nazis now.

[Old Bolshie]

Weren't you a non-adjective Leninist? Anyway, could elaborate?

Until 1917, Lenin held the idea that Russia would have to pass first through a bourgeois revolution like the majority of the marxists at the time since it was a poorly developed country with an incipient industry. The Russian proletariat, although very active and dynamic, was still a minority within the Russian population which was made mostly of peasants. In 1917 Lenin changed his position and defended that a proletarian revolution could take place in the backwardness of Russia which went against an elementary Marxist point that the proletarian revolution occurs when the proletarians form the majority of the population and not the minority of it. In the end, Russia went through a devastating civil war and Lenin was forced to concede to the capitalists and peasants. It couldn't be other way around of course. You cannot ignore the material reality of a country.
The irresponsible notion that a Russian revolution could spark revolutions through Europe also backfired against Lenin.

[Art Vandelay]

I have been reading the work of Kautsky specially during the period when he had his divergence with Lenin and I didn't find any betrayal of Kautsky of Marxism. On the other hand it was Lenin who changed his position in 1917 when he advocated a proletarian revolution in Russia.

If you read Kautsky's "Dictatorship of the proletariat" and Lenin's "The proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky" you'll find out that time proved Kautsky was right in his argument against Lenin.

You are correct in your analysis of Lenin abandoning his adherence to two stage theory leading up to the October revolution, however your statement that 'time proved Kautsky right in his argument against Lenin' could not be any further from the truth. Kautsky clung to the traditional notion developed by Marx & Engels that proletarian revolution would initially break out in the advanced capitalist countries, following full industrial development; this however, flew in the face of the material conditions of the time and the development of the capitalist mode of production, which proved that capitalism was susceptible at its weakest links, where the national bourgeoisie proved too weak to carry forth the tasks traditionally associated with the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

Marxism is not a static theory, or merely the regurgitation of the political positions put forth by Marx & Engels, especially when they fly in the face of the material conditions and the new developments of global capital; it is a living and breathing science, continually evolving, reassessing the situation and taking into account modern developments. After all, as historical materialists, Marx & Engels would want to be seen as individuals constrained by the historical epoch and material conditions within which they found themselves. All that 'time has proven' is that the likes of Kautsky and Plekhanov, whatever the merits of certain theoretical texts they may have produced, were more apt at regurgitating the findings of classical Marxism, than in their ability to analyze current events with the dialectical materialist paradigm; or in other words, they proved increasingly incapable in the consistent application of Marxist methodology and ultimately served the reaction in the face of the greatest political developments of their lives. Which, as is well known, is exemplified by Kautsky's call for the defense of the fatherland during WWI and both Kautsky and Plekhanov's opposition to the sole historic example of the proletarian class successfully seizing state power.


Until 1917, Lenin held the idea that Russia would have to pass first through a bourgeois revolution like the majority of the marxists at the time since it was a poorly developed country with an incipient industry. The Russian proletariat, although very active and dynamic, was still a minority within the Russian population which was made mostly of peasants. In 1917 Lenin changed his position and defended that a proletarian revolution could take place in the backwardness of Russia which went against an elementary Marxist point that the proletarian revolution occurs when the proletarians form the majority of the population and not the minority of it. In the end, Russia went through a devastating civil war and Lenin was forced to concede to the capitalists and peasants. It couldn't be other way around of course. You cannot ignore the material reality of a country.
The irresponsible notion that a Russian revolution could spark revolutions through Europe also backfired against Lenin.

This is, again, very interesting to hear. (1) This showcases a fundamental misunderstanding of the historical facts, as the Russian Revolution certainly did spark revolutions throughout Europe. Unfortunately, however, they failed and in the case of Germany precisely due to the inability of 2nd international to make a clean break with the centrists (as Lenin had in the RSDLP), whose main theoretical mouthpiece was Kautsky. (2) The sentence of 'you cannot ignore the material reality of a country' is entirely symptomatic of a failure to realize that what matters is not whether the material conditions within a specific country are ripe for socialism, since as we all know socialism within the confines of an individual state is impossible, but rather whether or not the development of the capitalist mode of production has become ripe for socialism globally. So unless on this point, you want to argue that the imperialist epoch of the capitalist mode of production (the highest stage of capitalist development) still had a progressive role to play, I don't really see how you have a leg to stand on.

[Remus Bleys]

Kautsky, marx and engels all entertained the notion of world revolution breaking out in Russia, leading a spark to spread to europe, which could industrialize Russia in a "socialist" way. Such a spark didn't spread and so long as it didn't spread Russia had to be developed in a capitalist way. The idea that Lenin believed that Bourgeois politics were a necessity for proletarian revolution is as absurd as saying Lenin didn't think capitalism was a necessity to have communism.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

If communists want to gain their reputation back they'll have to do a few things.

First is to start carrying around giant portraits of Stalin and referring to him as the "dear leader." That will show people that we respect authority and aren't just hipsters complaining about the man.

Second is to cosplay with Mao and Soviet apparel as much as possible. That will demonstrate to people that we are smart and enjoy history and they'll think "huh, maybe they're right."

Next, we have to make sure we loudly scream about privilege in peoples' faces. Find thin people and say "thin privilege!" over and over again. That will show that we care about peoples' health and well-being.

Then we have to also make sure we act like pretentious intellectuals. We must wear plaid shirts and hang out at locally-owned coffee shops with a typewriter. We must make sure we complain about how the original graphic novels were way better than the movie adaptions. While doing this, mention we are communists as often as possible, especially if nobody cares or wants to discuss politics. This will show that we are strong-willed and not afraid of looking like idiots.

[khad]

Well, you're going to have to explain to the average person why when Marx says "dictatorship" (of the proletariat) he doesn't really mean DICTATORSHIP. At that point most normal people will just tune you out as they have little motivation (or time, in many cases) to engage critically with the semantic landscape inherited from a bourgeois cultural view. (Bourgeois? What is that?)

Sometimes the jeremiad to redeem "the true Marxism" is as much of a detriment as it is a strength, as one must impress upon one's would-be audience a litany of terms with specific relevance within the political and philosophical debates of 19th century Germany. That's not something that everyone is willing or able to do. A good example would be Marx's anti-statism, which was a targeted response to the specific kind of arguments for the state being formulated the social democratic movement at the time. If you want a glimpse at just how much philosophical history you will have to know to properly contextualize Kapital, take a gander at David Harvey's lectures on the thing.

Or you can just take a look at this thread. By the second page, it's already become incomprehensible to just anyone from the "outside" trying to learn what communism is all about.

If you want a short answer that will make you sleep better at night, then just join the amorphous blob of SYRIZA cheerleaders and feel all your fears and apprehensions fritter away like a flight of butterflies in a bright summer sky. It's the conclusion that lots of serious revleft Marxists far better read than I have derived, so who am I to judge?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Until 1917, Lenin held the idea that Russia would have to pass first through a bourgeois revolution like the majority of the marxists at the time since it was a poorly developed country with an incipient industry. The Russian proletariat, although very active and dynamic, was still a minority within the Russian population which was made mostly of peasants. In 1917 Lenin changed his position and defended that a proletarian revolution could take place in the backwardness of Russia which went against an elementary Marxist point that the proletarian revolution occurs when the proletarians form the majority of the population and not the minority of it. In the end, Russia went through a devastating civil war and Lenin was forced to concede to the capitalists and peasants. It couldn't be other way around of course. You cannot ignore the material reality of a country.
The irresponsible notion that a Russian revolution could spark revolutions through Europe also backfired against Lenin.

Well you definitely aren't doing your "Orthodox Marxism" (TM) any favours by explicitly linking it to Menshevism of people like Dan or Portugeis. Usually the connection was merely implied.

[exeexe]

This guy really needs a revolutionary in the studio with the purpose of having a good debate :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRrGbkaK3lQ

[Old Bolshie]

You are correct in your analysis of Lenin abandoning his adherence to two stage theory leading up to the October revolution, however your statement that 'time proved Kautsky right in his argument against Lenin' could not be any further from the truth. Kautsky clung to the traditional notion developed by Marx & Engels that proletarian revolution would initially break out in the advanced capitalist countries, following full industrial development; this however, flew in the face of the material conditions of the time and the development of the capitalist mode of production, which proved that capitalism was susceptible at its weakest links, where the national bourgeoisie proved too weak to carry forth the tasks traditionally associated with the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

The bourgeoisie was too weak precisely because the industry was still to weak in those countries which means that a proletarian revolution couldn't obviously occur. That notion of the "weakest link" was precisely what led to the failure of USSR and any other "communist" experience in the XX Century. In the end the communists carried out the bourgeois tasks of revolution and didn't advance further. You cannot build a house from its roof.



Marxism is not a static theory, or merely the regurgitation of the political positions put forth by Marx & Engels, especially when they fly in the face of the material conditions and the new developments of global capital; it is a living and breathing science, continually evolving, reassessing the situation and taking into account modern developments. After all, as historical materialists, Marx & Engels would want to be seen as individuals constrained by the historical epoch and material conditions within which they found themselves. All that 'time has proven' is that the likes of Kautsky and Plekhanov, whatever the merits of certain theoretical texts they may have produced, were more apt at regurgitating the findings of classical Marxism, than in their ability to analyze current events with the dialectical materialist paradigm; or in other words, they proved increasingly incapable in the consistent application of Marxist methodology and ultimately served the reaction in the face of the greatest political developments of their lives. Which, as is well known, is exemplified by Kautsky's call for the defense of the fatherland during WWI and both Kautsky and Plekhanov's opposition to the sole historic example of the proletarian class successfully seizing state power.

Firstly, Kautsky opposed the SPD's support of the German military effort and condemned the war. Secondly, there was no successful seizing of state power by the proletarian class. Thirdly, you cannot turn an entire theoretical conception upside down because of new developments. You may drawn new conclusions for sure but you don't go against elementary points of the theory.




This is, again, very interesting to hear. (1) This showcases a fundamental misunderstanding of the historical facts, as the Russian Revolution certainly did spark revolutions throughout Europe. Unfortunately, however, they failed and in the case of Germany precisely due to the inability of 2nd international to make a clean break with the centrists (as Lenin had in the RSDLP), whose main theoretical mouthpiece was Kautsky. (2) The sentence of 'you cannot ignore the material reality of a country' is entirely symptomatic of a failure to realize that what matters is not whether the material conditions within a specific country are ripe for socialism, since as we all know socialism within the confines of an individual state is impossible, but rather whether or not the development of the capitalist mode of production has become ripe for socialism globally. So unless on this point, you want to argue that the imperialist epoch of the capitalist mode of production (the highest stage of capitalist development) still had a progressive role to play, I don't really see how you have a leg to stand on.

This was precisely what I was talking about when I said "time proved Kautsky right". The fact that the Bolshevik revolution didn't spark revolutions through Europe (and I am talking about revolutions with at least some time of success as the Russian) showed that the theory of the "weakest link" was fundamentally wrong. Of course, the imperialist epoch does not have any progressive role to play but this doesn't mean that a country where the industry is incipient is already ripe for socialism which as I said before goes against a basic Marxist thought. If the stage of capitalist development was the same everywhere the theory of the weakest link would have some reasoning behind it but in 1917 it wasn't obviously the case.

[Rafiq]

Well you definitely aren't doing your "Orthodox Marxism" (TM) any favours by explicitly linking it to Menshevism of people like Dan or Portugeis. Usually the connection was merely implied.

There are Neo mensheviks who exist today - look at the SPGB and their sympathizers. The fact is that in a sea of straw men accusations it is hard to recognize the slander against revivalists as false - so logically there are some users who falsely identify with those in the Revolutionary Marxists here. Orthodox Marxist revivalists are not attempting to reintroduce the stepping stones to Socialist opportunism - such an implication or connection is nothing short of lazy and ignorant.

Mind you that even before Kautskys renege Lenin and the Bolsheviks had opposed the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. It was kautsky who began to sympathize with them only after his betrayal.

[Supposed Mocha]

Okay, instead of arguing over who was the bigger tyrannical dictator and what form of a fledgling ideology is clearly the best one for the modern era... maybe you know, do things? Like form a non profit even?

There's all sorts of things out there that get the attention of people, especially the working class or homeless. Start soup kitchens, clothing drives, food donation, housing programs, and any beneficiary thing you can possibly imagine and proudly display your ideals and why you're doing this, don't go overboard unless they ask. But maybe I'm just a crazy anarchist that prefers work over talk.

No one is gonna win the hearts and minds of the masses with a boring lecture, no offense but just saying it's been done before and you can see how far the CPUSA and the million splitter groups have gone. I lost all faith in the parties because of how they would do absolutely nothing for those in need, but that's why I affiliate with how I affiliate as well.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Bake sales would be a pretty cool idea. If you ask me anyway.

[Red Star Rising]

Bake sales would be a pretty cool idea. If you ask me anyway.

http://cdn.cakecentral.com/9/94/200x200px-ZC-94b36ed0_gallery7921861319699918.jpeg

As long as everyone gets an equal slice.

[RedMaterialist]

How to clean up a reputation?

By seizing control of all the ideological production of history, media, literature, schools and re-educating the people with the working class version of capitalism and socialism. Censorship? Absolutely. That's why they call it a "dictatorship" of the proletariat.

The modern bourgeois state is much better at achieving this kind of control of ideology because it hides behind the curtain of democracy and "free market principles."

The ideology of the ruling class is the ideology of society. The point is to make the working class ideology the ruling idea of society. And this can be done only by force, peaceful force if possible.

One possible first step would be to remove Fox News and replace it with Workers' News.

Once all vestiges of bourgeois ideology are destroyed and the capitalist class is destroyed, then ideology itself will be made impossible.