Is Communism Essentially Dead?

[Sinister Intents]

I'm not sure if this entirely fits here. Is the entire idea of communism, socialism, and anarchism essentially dead? Technically it's not considering people still believe in these theories and practices, but since the capitalists with their vast power to churn out propaganda, to murder, and to destroy regimes that could push for change through revolution and reforms that harm capitalism itself, have these ideas been defeated in our day in age? Where we've such a minority that actually realize the contradictions and harm of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. We're all far and few between, and many amongst us are contaminated with bourgeois perversions or are simply just opportunists or are even fake socialists. There doesn't seem to be enough class consciousness or even class hatred, I've asked this before but want to discuss it again because I don't feel it was adequate previously. I know it'll rise again, but what can be done said? What can recerse my vast pessimism and reverse the fact this all seems so idealistic anymore, it seems impossible, a pipe dream.

[Zoroaster]

I think were still in the running. A recent survey here in the States said that 46% of students under 18 favor an alternative to capitalism.

[motion denied]

I could understand this kind of talk during the Golden Years, I could understand it just after the implosion of the fSU. I can't now. Unemployment reaches records in Europe, wars, the wide murder of working class youth all over the globe, strikes etc etc. Class struggle is heated and kicking.

The pessimism is understandable, but that's what the bourgeoisie sells everyone isn't it? That socialism was buried with the USSR and that there's nothing beyond capitalism. That is all over.

This (https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1972/marcuse.htm) piece, in which Mattick demolishes Marcuse and his "One Dimensional Man", might be interesting.

Capitalism engenders its potential negation. The former cannot exist without the latter.

J'étais, je suis, je serai.

[Bala Perdida]

These ideas have always been around, and they always will be. "Far, few, and in between these days." That's what a comrade told me when I met her at a San Francisco collective. The struggle has suffered, and it will continue to suffer. The last century was hell, but these ideas grew and have been spread to every crevice of the world. Maybe next time it won't be called communism or anarchy (actually it will be amidst the chaos of revolution) but the ideas will be the same. Some people will be free, but others won't. It's in our best interest to keep struggling, but for now the capitalists have a firm grasp on power. It won't last though, we're seeing the collapse and something else is gonna come out. Probably not something we like, but we'll still fight against it.

[Hrafn]

Sic semper tyrannis.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I'm not sure if this entirely fits here. Is the entire idea of communism, socialism, and anarchism essentially dead? Technically it's not considering people still believe in these theories and practices, but since the capitalists with their vast power to churn out propaganda, to murder, and to destroy regimes that could push for change through revolution and reforms that harm capitalism itself, have these ideas been defeated in our day in age? Where we've such a minority that actually realize the contradictions and harm of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. We're all far and few between, and many amongst us are contaminated with bourgeois perversions or are simply just opportunists or are even fake socialists. There doesn't seem to be enough class consciousness or even class hatred, I've asked this before but want to discuss it again because I don't feel it was adequate previously. I know it'll rise again, but what can be done said? What can recerse my vast pessimism and reverse the fact this all seems so idealistic anymore, it seems impossible, a pipe dream.

What are the criteria for declaring an idea "dead"? Abstract metaphysical ideas are not living things, anyway. To the extent that ideas are tangible things, they are tangible by being put into practice somehow, even if they aren't the ruling ideology. So if we're deciding whether it's "dead" or not based on the immediate practice of or even feasibility of revolution, it's pretty damn dead, but in terms of resistance to capitalist ideology, it's necessarily not dead, just dormant.

We're headed toward socialism or barbarism, and I wish I could definitively say we're headed toward socialism, but I can't.

If this makes sense at all, even though it's tough, we're at a point in history where the left will have to draw inspiration from "small victories". Communism will not be the system of our lifetimes, whether or not it is achieved for posterity before irreparable damage is done (a possibility which incidentally makes me skeptical of "oh, it will happen eventually because of the inherent tendencies of capitalism!").

I think there's plenty of subconscious revolutionary sentiment out there to the extent that people realize the problems of capitalism. There's just a sense of impotence or defeatism.

So in short, the idea of communism is not dead, just dormant, and the most we can do is make steps toward it by trying to show people that we aren't completely impotent to resist capitalism, and that the mischaracterizations and misappropriation of terms like communism are just that. We need incremental steps, not in a reformist sense, but in the sense that people aren't going to wake up tomorrow and spontaneously decide they've had enough of capitalism. It will take another major crisis and clear understanding of the correct 'path' out of it. If I had the answers I wouldn't be sitting here typing on a forum, though, so take it for what it's worth. That's the best answer I have at the moment, anyway.

[Sinister Intents]

Most definitely the shit is hitting the fan, but the bourgeoisie have a vast stranglehold. Their power to choke and crush, their power to squeeze the throat of a sweet, loving dog until blood pours from all of it's orifices and it's eyes bug out. The statists have shown their power and use the media and surveillance against us. They'll not only use psychological warfare, but they'll use chemical and biological agents to kill off and suppress opposition. So many in my area think that this modern feudalism is vastly beautiful and loving. The invisible hand of god controlling the markets, with love supposedly trickling down from the top. When in reality its a crushing foot, and we're so brainwashed as a mass thatcthey can use the media they contrt to influence large numbers of idiotic idealists. So few hit an impasse with capitalism. I doubt we'll see anytging but barbarism, genocide, xenocide, just sheer horrors to come our way. It'll all eventually fall and I want an end to this nonsense. How can we market our ideas under a new name? I'm gonna attempt to do one-woman activism, but I fear I'll just meet violence and suppression. Without a doubt capitalism sews the seeds of it's own devastation and hopefully permanent demise

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Tbh, I feel America and thus the world is standing on the precipice of something awesome and violent. Biblical in scale. Just all sorts of chaos. Two directions, either the people will eat up government or, more likely, the government will take a turn in a horrendously dictatorey direction and some Fallout situation will occur, and both ghoul an smooth skins will slowly rebuild society from its ashes.

[Sinister Intents]

Tbh, I feel America and thus the world is standing on the precipice of something awesome and violent. Biblical in scale. Just all sorts of chaos. Two directions, either the people will eat up government or, more likely, the government will take a turn in a horrendously dictatorey direction and some Fallout situation will occur, and both ghoul an smooth skins will slowly rebuild society from its ashes.

Fuckin' beautiful reference to fallout! I think we'll end up with barbarism and I'm tired of being starkly negative of these things. My negativity impedes politics and philosophy

[JahLemon]

As long as I get to blow up Megaton

[Futility Personified]

Ideas will always come and go, ebb and flow. I think it is naive to assume if communism were established that everyone would be satisfied with the circumstances. Depending on how long it would be in place i'd hope that social prejudices would be extinguished, but there is always going to be someone who wants something different. No ideology can truly be killed, because ideas will come back into vogue in certain circumstances. At the moment it is a low-point.

I'm with you on the pessimism. I think most people should be, really. Maybe when we've got a few more wars going, oil is about to run out (I mean we reached peak already so I hear but just because I have half a pint left doesn't mean i'm ready to leave the pub yet, even if it's going to be sooner than i've already stayed), there's bigger pressure on landspace, the ol' socialism or barbarism, or socialism or annihilation will pop up in the general consciousness.

Perhaps people will change their minds on sharing the wealth when they discover you can't eat plastic, and even if you could it doesn't taste very nice.

[RedMaterialist]

Communism can't be dead because capitalism is still alive. As long as social, exploited labor is used to produce capital then the socialization of workers continues. The transition to socialism is obviously in a non-revolutionary stage right now, but the next economic crisis could begin a revolution. Marx says in The Eighteenth Brumaire [on the slow, unseen development of history],


"And when it has accomplished this second half of its preliminary work, Europe will leap from its seat and exult: Well burrowed, old mole!"

History is working underground burrowing under the capitalist system. A revolution is an earthquake or a volcano, it doesn't happen every day or on schedule.

[#FF0000]

I think people are missing the mark if they entirely blame the state of the left on people "not doing enough" or not being good enough people as ultraleft (what a misnomer) said. If anything the biggest problem is that capitalism is, right now, so hyper flexible that nothing resembling class struggle can gain any traction. What does a strike mean when a factory can be shutdown and moved to another continent with minimal pain to the proprietors?

Does this mean there's nothing we can do? Yeah, actually, pretty much. But that shouldn't be news to anyone because revolutions are, IMO, opportunistic and what we call "overthrow" is actually usually just "collapse".

So yeah.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This has to be one of the most common types of threads on RevLeft, and the most surreal. "Oh no people aren't interested in our newspaper/zine/website/youtube videos - Communism is dead." Well, no, that's not how it goes. And in any case "popularity" is irrelevant. How "popular" was the bourgeois democratic republic in the lead-up to the great French bourgeois revolution?

[Red Son]

The ideas will persist and perpetuate so long as capitalism does - whether or not they are used in a proletarian revolution in years to come cannot be known for certain, though it is deemed to be inevitable according to Marx (unless I'm mistaken?). How and when it happens does not ulitmately matter; we may not live to see it, nor will our kids / grandkids etc, but the ideas and associated direct action will continue and we will have to be content with that and trust in the future that will be possible so long as we don't let the ideas 'die'.

[Art Vandelay]

The ideas will persist and perpetuate so long as capitalism does - whether or not they are used in a proletarian revolution in years to come cannot be known for certain, though it is deemed to be inevitable according to Marx (unless I'm mistaken?). How and when it happens does not ulitmately matter; we may not live to see it, nor will our kids / grandkids etc, but the ideas and associated direct action will continue and we will have to be content with that and trust in the future that will be possible so long as we don't let the ideas 'die'.

The Marxist analysis is not that proletarian revolution is inevitable, or that all folks will be carrying a copy of capital when it comes. As Engels said and Luxemburg made famous, 'socialism or barbarism.'

[The Feral Underclass]

Not to sound glib, but doesn't something have to have lived in order for it to have died?

[human strike]

The Left is dead. Communism is not.

[The Modern Prometheus]

Communism is far from dead. The ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin have become vastly popular during this economic recession as people are starting to realize that Capitalism is not the answer to our problems. All the Capitalist reforms in the world can't change the essential contradiction that Capitalism itself cannot exist without exploitation.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Left is dead. Communism is not.

Death to the Left!

[Crabbensmasher]

I think were still in the running. A recent survey here in the States said that 46% of students under 18 favor an alternative to capitalism.

To be fair though, is this a classical definition of capitalism a la Marx, or a more convoluted, 21st century definition?

To these 46% of students, capitalism may mean 'greedy mega-corporations stealing all our money'. In the same breath as denouncing capitalism, they may vote for Ron Paul. Do they know what capitalism really means or is it just a buzzword?

[Rafiq]

Communism has died. It will have to be reborn.

[The Feral Underclass]

Communism has never lived. Anywhere, at any time.

You're all weird.

[Rafiq]

Communism has never lived. Anywhere, at any time.

You're all weird.

The Communist movement certainly existed before. It no longer does.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Communist movement certainly existed before. It no longer does.

Yeah, left is dead. Dead as a dodo.

[Rafiq]

Yeah, left is dead. Dead as a dodo.

Marx describes Communism as a real movement derived from present conditions. So this is how we define Communism. Communism is a phenomena, an ideological force in capitalism that encompasses, and possesses all areas of the mind. It is able to do this because it is a social force - the embryo of the new society is vested in the very movement itself. All Communist organizations today, derive from previous circumstances - which is why many of them are reactionary. What is the prevailing trend of socialism today? The summation of several insignificant clubs and cults - petite bourgeois socialism.

[The Feral Underclass]

I can't think of a dead animal metaphor that fits your analysis.

[Ele'ill]

I think despite the number of really bad disasters we've seen over the years like melt downs and oil spills the biggest yet will finally show itself as unarguable, permanent damage, to the biosphere. It will be severe enough that it will mark the actual first time we've seen it despite other indicators over the past decades.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The Left, large-C Communism (As in the 'real existing socialisms' of the 20th century) are certainly dead, along with most of their ideas of state-sponsored socialism, and I think the better for it.

But as sTFU (hehe) has said, something cannot die if it hasn't lived. I think we live on continuing to agitate with the ideas of small-c communism because it actually hasn't lived yet, and thus hasn't failed and died.

But yeah, 'the left' as we call it is certainly fading fast, it's probably terminal yo.

[RedWorker]

In my opinion, the struggle for the immediate interests of the proletariat (which have been progressively developed), and thus communism, is more alive than ever despite spontaneous, short-lived reaction, and this notion that communist society is not inevitable - even to the point that "capitalism is permanent" - is anti-Marxist and rejects the theory of historical materialism, which is based on empirical analysis.

What is dead is Stalinist propaganda and imperialism.


we've such a minority that actually realize the contradictions and harm of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. We're all far and few between, and many amongst us are contaminated with bourgeois perversions or are simply just opportunists or are even fake socialists

Because the notion that a bunch of nerds will overthrow capitalism is at the very least doubtable. People don't care that the system is theoretically bad as long as they have a decent life. They aren't going to oppose it out of some theory, but rather out of the fact that it fucks them up and perhaps they can't even live under it. Nobody is ever really going to start reading up on Marxism, whether we're living in the DOTP, whether tomorrow is the day of the revolution and whether we have reached communist society yet.

Capitalism will be overthrown by the working class, not by a limited group of well-educated people. Does this mean that populist sloganeering and ideological laziness should take control, or that the left should not try to spread correct ideas? No.


But yeah, 'the left' as we call it is certainly fading fast, it's probably terminal yo.

Was it ever really alive after early 20th century?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Was it ever really alive after early 20th century?

Well, in the sense that large-C Communist countries existed and dominated, like the USSR and its satellite states and comrade states around the world, then yes.

[Црвена]

I sure hope the nationalistic, dictatorial "red fascism," of the 20th century that was such a huge disgrace to socialism is dead.

[jmlima]

...
Because the notion that a bunch of nerds will overthrow capitalism is at the very least doubtable. People don't care that the system is theoretically bad as long as they have a decent life. They aren't going to oppose it out of some theory, but rather out of the fact that it fucks them up and perhaps they can't even live under it. Nobody is ever really going to start reading up on Marxism, whether we're living in the DOTP, whether tomorrow is the day of the revolution and whether we have reached communist society yet.
...

But that's hardly a problem with the theory (well chunks of it do have problems, but I'll gloss over that for now) and more with the way it is presented. The age of theorizing revolutionaries is dead.

But there is always the opportunity of presenting an alternative option in a way relevant to the 21st century and to the short attention span of today's media age.

[Mississippi]

But that's hardly a problem with the theory (well chunks of it do have problems, but I'll gloss over that for now) and more with the way it is presented. The age of theorizing revolutionaries is dead.

But there is always the opportunity of presenting an alternative option in a way relevant to the 21st century and to the short attention span of today's media age.
As romantic as these long gone revolutionaries may seem, that's probably a good thing. Every last one of their theories was fundamentally flawed in some way or another, and this includes all form of socialism under the sun. Though they were definitely superior to capitalism, they're all less than ideal, and that combined with the fact that the socialist movement has all but died off has me convinced that people should really not identify as a socialist in the modern world.

Of course, do all you can to dispel the fear people in the west seem to have about socialism, so as to allow actual progressive, revolutionary policies to be pursued. Jut call yourself something else. Start a new movement. Those Occupy Wall Street people and their sympathizers are sure to like that, just to name a singular example. I'd rather focus on pragmatic solutions to the actual problems of the capitalist system than a neverending, futile, ideological struggle.

[Hit The North]

As romantic as these long gone revolutionaries may seem, that's probably a good thing. Every last one of their theories was fundamentally flawed in some way or another, and this includes all form of socialism under the sun. Though they were definitely superior to capitalism, they're all less than ideal, and that combined with the fact that the socialist movement has all but died off has me convinced that people should really not identify as a socialist in the modern world.

Of course, do all you can to dispel the fear people in the west seem to have about socialism, so as to allow actual progressive, revolutionary policies to be pursued. Jut call yourself something else. Start a new movement. Those Occupy Wall Street people and their sympathizers are sure to like that, just to name a singular example. I'd rather focus on pragmatic solutions to the actual problems of the capitalist system than a neverending, futile, ideological struggle.

Except that socialism/communism is the only solution to the actual problems of the capitalist system.

And if we retreat from the term 'socialism' or 'communism' (simply because it is unpopular) then we are unlikely to be in any position to "dispel the fear people in the west seem to have about socialism."

[John Nada]

Marx describes Communism as a real movement derived from present conditions. So this is how we define Communism. Communism is a phenomena, an ideological force in capitalism that encompasses, and possesses all areas of the mind. It is able to do this because it is a social force - the embryo of the new society is vested in the very movement itself. All Communist organizations today, derive from previous circumstances - which is why many of them are reactionary. What is the prevailing trend of socialism today? The summation of several insignificant clubs and cults - petite bourgeois socialism.


I can't think of a dead animal metaphor that fits your analysis.Not an animal, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot
What is dead is Stalinist propaganda and imperialism.Sadly neither is dead, especially imperialism :(.
Because the notion that a bunch of nerds will overthrow capitalism is at the very least doubtable.Have you heard of Lenin or Mao? Nerdy as fuck. Seems almost like a requirement for revolutionaries.

I'm skeptical of the "wait for Armageddon" theory. So far it seems to benefit reactionaries more.

I think we might be underestimating how dangerous we really are. The rightist freak out over anything remotely communist. Socialism is a very potent threat with potentially widespread appeal. Worse arguments I've heard IRL were "yeah, but they'll never allow it." or "but Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot." They don't spend billions on weapons, security and propaganda for nothing.

It might look bleak now, but no one can predict 5 years or 20 years from now. Don't wait for the environment to go to shit for it to happen. Become the crisis! :D

[bropasaran]

I'm not sure if this entirely fits here. Is the entire idea of communism, socialism, and anarchism essentially dead? Technically it's not considering people still believe in these theories and practices, but since the capitalists with their vast power to churn out propaganda, to murder, and to destroy regimes that could push for change through revolution and reforms that harm capitalism itself, have these ideas been defeated in our day in age? Where we've such a minority that actually realize the contradictions and harm of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. We're all far and few between, and many amongst us are contaminated with bourgeois perversions or are simply just opportunists or are even fake socialists. There doesn't seem to be enough class consciousness or even class hatred, I've asked this before but want to discuss it again because I don't feel it was adequate previously. I know it'll rise again, but what can be done said? What can recerse my vast pessimism and reverse the fact this all seems so idealistic anymore, it seems impossible, a pipe dream.I think that libertarianism is under a persecution on the same level (although not with the same severity) that it was under authoritarian regimes a century, century and a half ago. Back then Bakunin talked about forming libertarian secret societies whose members would go into various labor organizations and participate in their struggles, stearing them in the libertarian direction.

I think that today we are persecuted in a much more perfidious, maybe even worse way, the propaganda warped people's view so much that even when they have libertarian attitutes and sentiments (I agitate a lot, and my experience is that most people do) they will still most probably reject anything having to do with leftism. Leftists names, slogans and ideas have become so tainted, I think this is best illustrated with a similar situation that happened even to reformism, namely- more then two thirds of Americans thinks the state has a responsibility to take care of the poor, but more then half of Americans oppose welfare. Think about that lunacy of the world we live in. That's the achievement of decades of propaganda war- controling words and names, "poisoning" words for progressive ideas, stealing positively associated names for reactionary uses. I've seen how futile it is even among people who call themselves leftists to try and redeem original meanings of words, which most people, even thought they use them in new meanings, can't define. Words concering politics (including economy, social issues) have stopped being terms and became vague labels. I dislike Philip Dick, but there's a nice quote of his- "The basic tool for manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." In that sense, I do think that anarchism, socialism and communism are "dead", and they will not be ressurected in any foreseeable time; no organization which uses such rhetoric will in any time soon have any remote chance of gaining mass support, let alone membership.

Basically, we are left with the option to go back to the Bakuninist notion of secrecy, of especifist libertarian organizations dedicated to social insertion. I think that we should coordinate among ourselves to enter community and labor organizations, participate as honest members, be active, normal, friendly, act as if we are there because we are dedicated partisans of those organizations (which in a sense we should be) and when we become accepted or even better respected, we nugde those organization in a libertarian direction by talking in meetings, organizing actions, informal discussions, etc. And when we e.g. talk in meetings, we should talk about democratization, freedom, liberty, equality, justice, humaneness, solidarity, morality, religion, love, family, community, whatever we can use to express libertarian ideas, but which will as a rule produce a positive reaction. Avoiding all of the specifically leftist terminology over which we've been bickering the last century, we should instead simply explain what we mean, for everything we want to use some leftist term we should instead use colloquial words to explain it in a few sentences, like I mentioned with the refromist example, instead of saying "welfare" you say- "helping the poor", and you go from less then half of people supporting you, to more then two-thirds.

Leftists can call Chomsky liberal all they want, but he has gained more support among people for emancipatory ideals then propaganda of all the far-left organizations combined, and I think it is preciselly because of his common sense approach and rhetoric that people react to him the way they do. Michael Albert tried to address this issue of left-wing organisations having virtually no increase in membership, and in fact as a rule having falling membership- by adopting new terminology and trying to oppose the general elitist attitute of leftists towards the "average" man. I think that is why parecon and iops generally do get good reactions, but I think that the very fact they are a leftist (especifist) organization prevents and will continue preventing them from gaining traction. I think that leftism is bankrupt and that the only shot we have left is something like post-leftist populist workerism (both as a cultural and political notion); if there are or going to be any organizations with potential to channel the self-emancipation of the working people, they are not socialist parties or anarchist federations, they are community and labor organizations connected through societes and projects such as Via Campesina, Community Wealth and Shareable.

[Luís Henrique]

To be fair though, is this a classical definition of capitalism a la Marx, or a more convoluted, 21st century definition?

To these 46% of students, capitalism may mean 'greedy mega-corporations stealing all our money'. In the same breath as denouncing capitalism, they may vote for Ron Paul. Do they know what capitalism really means or is it just a buzzword?

It is probably a buzzword. Nay, quite certainly.

I doubt very much people (as in, millions of real world, working class people, who labour all day long) will realise what the proper, pristine, perfect, concept of "capitalism" is, before revolting against it.

Instead, as that pesky bearded 19th century guy told us, practice comes first. It is by opposing capitalism with the imperfect ideological tools that they have at hand that people will come to build up a less vulgar concept of what capitalism is.

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sure, but there is a difference between revolting against capitalism without having a clear theory of capitalism as private property, wage labour, generalised commodity production etc., and revolting against one capitalist sector in favour of other capitalist sectors (the "small business" so beloved by all kinds of reformists).

[RedMaterialist]

You can't order up a revolution like ordering up a pizza or schedule one for Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. Decades go by when nothing happens, then decades happen in a week. In 1871 and 1905 you could have told the Russian people that revolution was dead...then 1917 happened. You could have told the Vietnamese people in 1950 that the superpowers controlled the world and revolution was dead. Then Dien Bien Phu and the Tet Offensive happened. Or the Cuban, South African, Angolan, Nicaraguan people.

You can forget about trying to start a revolution by robbing a bank and killing the bank guards. But if the communists and socialists get out in front and lead the people by explaining what communism and socialism are, then when the revolution does start the working class will at least know who their friends are.

Where are the socialists and communists in the Fast Food Workers' strikes? So the liberals and unions say to stay away? We all know whose side they are on. I cannot believe that there isn't one socialist who is willing to demonstrate with the strikers. I'm too old and live in one of the most reactionary cities in the u.s. south. I'm broke and my wife won't let me go to the demonstrations. So don't blame me. Besides I came to revolutionary socialism way too late, I thought Marxism was a kind of historical sideshow, now I know what Marx meant when he said that communism is the solution to the riddle of history and knows itself to be that solution.

Get out and do something, goddamm it.

[Luís Henrique]

Sure, but there is a difference between revolting against capitalism without having a clear theory of capitalism as private property, wage labour, generalised commodity production etc., and revolting against one capitalist sector in favour of other capitalist sectors.

There is, but I doubt very much it is possible to keep both those things separate in any actual revolution.

Luís Henrique

[Slippers]

Defeatism and negativity will lead us nowhere. Resistance to Capitalism and oppression is worthwhile even if a full-on revolution doesn't happen; note that I'm not saying that it won't. But yeah; do not stop resisting.

[Sinister Intents]

Defeatism and negativity will lead us nowhere. Resistance to Capitalism and oppression is worthwhile even if a full-on revolution doesn't happen; note that I'm not saying that it won't. But yeah; do not stop resisting.

You sound very positive, I'm not very positive at all though I won't quit as an individual, thought at times I'm close. I think I can do something at times, but other times it's noticeably futile. I think that if I talk about things enough I might be able to improve people's thought. I'm a marketing and business major so I know I can use this to my advantage, because I can use the fact that I'm a capitalist (I'm petit-bourgeois. ) If I don't use specific words I can market what I say

[Luís Henrique]

I'm a capitalist (I'm petit-bourgeois.)

Those are mutually exclusive things. Either you are one, or the other, you can't be both.

Luís Henrique

[Sinister Intents]

Those are mutually exclusive things. Either you are one, or the other, you can't be both.

Luís Henrique

I'm a business woman, I own and operate a small business I own and control my means of production and profit off the backs of my workers. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive, in fact I'm petit-bourgeois because I own my capital and have workers sell their labor to me. I'm both, and I'm an anarcha-communist

[Tim Redd]

For revolutionary movements it's nothing new that there are long periods when it looks like, or it's an actual fact that the enemy has the upper hand. Added to that is the scientific realization that the occurrence or success of a revolution is not guaranteed. There is a tendency toward socialist/communist revolution due to the contradictions and other dynamics in capitalist society, but there is no guarantee that the objective conditions for revolution will occur, nor that if the conditions do occur, we will successfully seize power. Nevertheless revolution has often occurred after all the chips were down. Regardless, the main thing we as revolutionaries should be doing is creating public opinion in favor of making revolution. We should almost always be exposing the operation and nature of capitalism to the 99%. Even when revolution appears imminent, eduction and explaining the situation from a revolutionary communist perspective should in general be the primary activity of revolutionaries and their party. Those things are what increases the likelihood that a revolution will be successful.

[The Feral Underclass]

Leftists can call Chomsky liberal all they want, but he has gained more support among people for emancipatory ideals then propaganda of all the far-left organizations combined

Firstly, can I see your statistical data that corroborates your assertion? And secondly, if this claim is true, it doesn't stop him from being a liberal.

Not that I have a problem with Chomsky. We've had some very pleasant email exchanges. Our birthdays fall on the same day, incidentally.

[renalenin]

We should almost always be exposing the operation and nature of capitalism to the 99%. Even when revolution appears imminent, eduction and explaining the situation from a revolutionary communist perspective should in general be the primary activity of revolutionaries and their party. Those things are what increases the likelihood that a revolution will be successful.

This is a very good observation. The advent of the 99% and the changes in mass consciousness after the Global Financial Crisis are hopeful but there needs to be education not just protest activity. One thing that I like about Lenin's works is how well Lenin is able to explain things so that any comrade can understand. If we can do that there will be hope. If we can educate our fellow slaves in the 99% about the simple material facts of class and theft of labour, and get everybody angry about capitalism, then I believe anything is possible.

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[Red Economist]

I'm going to try and answer your question directly SI, so my apologies to everyone else if I repeat things that have already been said before. It sincerely bugs me that I am unable to answer this question for myself as I share both your skepticism and your pessimism- which is not a good combination.


I'm not sure if this entirely fits here. Is the entire idea of communism, socialism, and anarchism essentially dead? Technically it's not considering people still believe in these theories and practices, but since the capitalists with their vast power to churn out propaganda, to murder, and to destroy regimes that could push for change through revolution and reforms that harm capitalism itself, have these ideas been defeated in our day in age? Where we've such a minority that actually realize the contradictions and harm of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. We're all far and few between, and many amongst us are contaminated with bourgeois perversions or are simply just opportunists or are even fake socialists. There doesn't seem to be enough class consciousness or even class hatred, I've asked this before but want to discuss it again because I don't feel it was adequate previously. I know it'll rise again, but what can be done said? What can recerse my vast pessimism and reverse the fact this all seems so idealistic anymore, it seems impossible, a pipe dream.

I think to be honest, you've made a big step in asking the question. We live in a society which actively encourages mindless and unthinking conformity and submission to norms of 'business as usual'. This has also been a problem in the communist movement, where we simply repeat empty phrases and rhetoric as a substitute for free thought and identify with factions rather than admit how our own positions diverge from them in often complex and subtle ways. So the fact you have a capacity to doubt you're own beliefs as a communist is a considerable intellectual achievement. I recognize that it will indeed feel like a burden when all others around you appear to be so 'certain' of themselves as this is an experience I have had to deal with myself. I think to be honest, what is bothering you is less about your intellectual convictions, than the crippling sense of isolation that comes from being free and that others do not share in your pain at seeing the injustice of capitalism, your conviction that something needs to change and the rather horrible process of figuring out 'how' given how bad our historical record is.
There is a security in being surrounded by people who agree with you (which is part of the attraction of revleft for me, as it's hard to find a honest space with friends and family to say what I really want to). But unfortunately, learning to be free means unlearning the burden of the false consciousness of the 'certainty' and 'reality' of capitalism- which is indeed a very long process and one we undertaken on our own, even if there are people around us who give us their full support. As much as I would want to say, there is a magic switch that can make all this stuff go away- the kind of inner struggles we go through on this are the essence of being free, finding a sense of self and knowing who you are and who you want to be. So I think wanting to walk away is entirely natural when you realize just how long the road is; so the question that needs to be asked- is there a better road? I have yet to find one (and not without trying).


Most definitely the shit is hitting the fan, but the bourgeoisie have a vast stranglehold. Their power to choke and crush, their power to squeeze the throat of a sweet, loving dog until blood pours from all of it's orifices and it's eyes bug out. The statists have shown their power and use the media and surveillance against us. They'll not only use psychological warfare, but they'll use chemical and biological agents to kill off and suppress opposition. So many in my area think that this modern feudalism is vastly beautiful and loving. The invisible hand of god controlling the markets, with love supposedly trickling down from the top. When in reality its a crushing foot, and we're so brainwashed as a mass thatcthey can use the media they contrt to influence large numbers of idiotic idealists. So few hit an impasse with capitalism. I doubt we'll see anything but barbarism, genocide, xenocide, just sheer horrors to come our way. It'll all eventually fall and I want an end to this nonsense. How can we market our ideas under a new name? I'm gonna attempt to do one-woman activism, but I fear I'll just meet violence and suppression. Without a doubt capitalism sews the seeds of it's own devastation and hopefully permanent demise

I find myself pushed towards a very unhealthy 'fatalism' because as I become more aware of that number and sheer cruelty of the abuses of capitalism, it is hard not to feel that people are at base 'evil' or 'selfish'. In this way, we kind of enter into a trap where we accept the assumption of human nature that legitimize the very society we're fighting against; it is a very painful downward spiral and a lot of walking around in circles.

The big problem is learning to see our collective capacity for cruelty, not as a demonstration of 'strength' but of our 'weakness'. Getting to this point has been very difficult for me, as the idea that we should put up with whatever abuse is thrown at is, is central to Stoic conceptions of masculinity as social dominance, being 'realistic' about the nature of man, evil and political power, and the sadomasochistic, egotistical and megalomanic undertones of the lust for political power.
Of course, each of these to some extent represents a sense of impotence- a fear of being oneself, of being open with other people and of freely expressing our emotions. It is in recognising that the true nature of fascism, is not based on power, but that pursuit of power- by submission and domination- is the result of fear; our fear of isolation which means we join in rallies, share the same thoughts as others, look to others as the social proof of how 'right' our behavior is, our fear of individuality, separateness- and ultimately morality and our relative insignificance to the problems of the age.
Perhaps, what I'm trying to say is, is that the only way to accept the degree of mutually destructive cruelty we commit as human beings is to forgive them- to recognize that the abusers are the most abused and that they were not born that way, but under went a long process of brutalization to get to that point where they would kill, torture, humiliate, harass and abuse based on their own fear of being the victim of such abuse. That is far from easy as it means recognising that the capacity for cruelty is to some extent innate and universal- and you have to look in the mirror and see the capacity for evil in yourself, if only so you can see the true goodness in human nature. The crucial distinction is that such forgiveness cannot be based on fear, but must be honest and sincere and a willingness to fight the psychology of 'fascism' whenever we face it because it violates a deeper sense of 'right' than self-interest and an awareness of the truth of our social nature; and from that, it is possible to recognize the communism is inevitable because it is what defines us as human.

[Thirsty Crow]

Defeatism and negativity will lead us nowhere. Resistance to Capitalism and oppression is worthwhile even if a full-on revolution doesn't happen; note that I'm not saying that it won't. But yeah; do not stop resisting.
In what way is it worthwhile?
(it's a genuine, not a rhetorical question)

[lesbian]

Capitalism is the one that's dead, I always heard it - "Capital is dead labour", and so on. Communism is a call for life among the death, nothing more.

In other words, I do not care if one revolutionary ideology dies away and another wilts in obscurity - there will always be resistance where there is Capital.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm a business woman, I own and operate a small business I own and control my means of production and profit off the backs of my workers. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive, in fact I'm petit-bourgeois because I own my capital and have workers sell their labor to me. I'm both, and I'm an anarcha-communist

If your economic funds constitute capital - ie, if they are self-agrandising money - then you are a capitalist. If your economic funds are merely instrumental for your having a more or less privileged life style, but cannot expand and accumulate in your hands, then you are a petty bourgeois. Since it is impossible that you simultaneously can and cannot accumulate capital, you can't be both a petty bourgeois and a capitalist.

Luís Henrique

[Sinister Intents]

If your economic funds constitute capital - ie, if they are self-agrandising money - then you are a capitalist. If your economic funds are merely instrumental for your having a more or less privileged life style, but cannot expand and accumulate in your hands, then you are a petty bourgeois. Since it is impossible that you simultaneously can and cannot accumulate capital, you can't be both a petty bourgeois and a capitalist.

Luís Henrique

Depends on the time of year and you've contradicted wnat other communists and anarchists have said. You're the first person I've seen say they're mutually exclusive

If someone other than you tells me otherwise I'll believe it :P

[Luís Henrique]

Depends on the time of year

Evidently some kind of expansion is necessary, otherwise your living standards would fall with inflation and age. Put it in from a different perspective, does this expansion look more like some kind of wage readjusting, or are you actually in the way to start your own economic empire?


and you've contradicted wnat other communists and anarchists have said.

Yup, that's something I do quite often.


You're the first person I've seen say they're mutually exclusive

Possibly; proper class analysis has never been as popular as cupcakes, and in these times of working class defeat it is certainly even more unpopular than its usual.


If someone other than you tells me otherwise I'll believe it :P

There is a lady in Moldova that would confirm my opinion to you, but I am not sure that she is OK with revealing her whereabouts, so... I guess you will have to stick with your disbelief.

Luís Henrique

[Hatshepsut]

Though they were definitely superior to capitalism, they're all less than ideal...


We live in a society which actively encourages mindless and unthinking conformity and submission to norms of 'business as usual'. This has also been a problem in the communist movement.
Communism isn't dead because it is still practiced successfully in Cuba. As I study more, I'm coming to like Cuba--which spends $300 per capita on health care to achieve a life expectancy of 77 years while the USA spends $6,000 for each citizen to get one extra year of average lifetime.

And life expectancy is like income--it's distributed unequally. It's 84 years in Beverly Hills but only 64 years on the Pine Ridge reservation. In Cuba, the figure of 77 years is almost the same for any subgroup of Cubans. That's because the USA decides whether you get regular care partly based on whether you have insurance.

It's not ideal. Cuba is a poor country. Luxuries Americans take for granted, such as air conditioning in hot, humid climates, are things most Cubans go without. Cars are rare. The USA maintains an economic embargo and Cubans can't visit even though Havana is only 200 miles from Miami by plane. Oddly, that may help them live long lives--obesity is also fairly uncommon, and cancer and heart disease have lower rates of incidence in Cuba than in Florida.

It's also not ideal because politics are repressive. You can't form an opposition party there and will go to jail if caught in unauthorized political activities. There's no "free press" and Internet access is controlled. Youth activism isn't in the political vocabulary, which favors having students join conformist groups instead. Human rights violations occur. Some restrictions are gradually being eased, but won't disappear; individualism is discouraged by the government and the schools don't teach it. There is an intrusive block captain in every neighborhood who's supposed to know you and know what you're up to.

But that block captain will also make sure you see a doctor if something happens, and the system cuts down on street crime without having to deploy armed police officers everywhere like the USA does.

I haven't done any philosophy here--except logic, which is a branch of philosophy. There is a counterexample to the claim that "communism is dead." Philosophy consists largely in what is practiced, anyway. The USA has elaborate philosophies centered on personal autonomy and political freedoms and the sanctity of private property. These work well in practice right now, but I don't think that will always be so. The USA is headed for eventual collapse because its economic basis now lies in consumption, living beyond its means, and appropriating resources from huge swathes of the planet to do so. Something tells me that's unsustainable.