Best way to end the Communist stigma?

[Prospekt]

Hi everyone, this is a problem that seems to me both massively prevalent, extremely problematic to remedy and yet it's end is essential to achieve any meaningful change, let alone revolution - namely the misconceptions and stigma that surrounds the theories of communism and the word communist.
So many still think Communism simply means complete state control - indeed it is taught in schools - and believe various other misconceptions I think we all know and hate. This stops people even considering communism in the first place and allows negative connotations to continue and flourish.
Following this is the stigma that is attached to the word communist that has prevented many, including myself for a long time, being open or comfortable with their beliefs - and a great many more disregarding the idea and it's followers for reasons they don't know are ignorant - and instinctively treating the ideas and the arguments for them with an inherent skepticism and condescension.
In my opinion - the day communism is accepted as a legitimate system of belief with its followers able to express their ideas without scorn and a barrage of idiotic replies stemming from ignorance, and the majority have a more rounded and informed knowledge of what the ideas are - is the day revolution is inevitable.
However for the majority, communism/communists are words drenched in negative connotation - and I think we can agree this is down to the propaganda of the education system and the media for obvious reasons.
My question is simple...what is to be done? What is the best and most realistic method of ending the communist stigma?

Apologies is this a frequently asked, or otherwise stupid question - it's something that bothers me a lot and I've only been on here a day :)

[BIXX]

So, basically, why do we need to end the stigma surrounding a word? Why not just propose communist projects?

[G4b3n]

No need to apologize, it is a good question. Too bad it can't get the good answer it deserves.

Thanks to a materialist analysis of history, we can understand how these notions are able to become so deeply ingrained and widespread. Marx on ruling class ideas - "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production." And anti-communism is fundamental to ruling class ideas as an ideological defense mechanism, the essence of reactionary politics.

I have yet to see a better notion for solution than education at the grassroots level, through activism and example. But at the very least we can understand why these notions exist, which is obviously important.

[Prospekt]

So, basically, why do we need to end the stigma surrounding a word? Why not just propose communist projects?

Because as long as the stigma exists, the media needs only call the project communist and the vast majority will immediately lose the capacity to judge it's achievements even close to objectively. Furthermore, the number of people who would be willing to engage in such projects is diminished greatly if it seen as communistic while the stigma exists.

[BIXX]

No need to apologize, it is a good question. Too bad it can't get the good answer it deserves.

Thanks to a materialist analysis of history, we can understand how these notions are able to become so deeply ingrained and widespread. Marx on ruling class ideas - "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production." And anti-communism is fundamental to ruling class ideas as an ideological defense mechanism, the essence of reactionary politics.

I have yet to see a better notion for solution than education at the grassroots level, through activism and example. But at the very least we can understand why these notions exist, which is obviously important.
Idk why people think education even works at a grassroots level- at least enough to make calling oneself a commie any easier. Commies have been trying to educate people for fucking ever now, and consistently it does absolutely nothing. Why bother, just do our projects, don't bother attaching "communism" to it (u less your desire for social capital is so intense that you need people to recognize you as a commie), and if people like it they will start gravitating that direction. They don't need to give a shit about the USSR or communism or whatever the fuck.

[Bala Perdida]

As long as this is not the revolution, there won't be an acceptance of communism. As a term or as a theory. The existence of the state in opposition to communism, is obviously gonna rely on anti-communism if it sees it as a threat. So the closer you get to revolution, the more intense the propaganda will probably be. If it comes to revolution, if it's a coup or something it'll just be weird. A transition to a new capitalism that likes communism. And it'll probably ease into a state-capitalist operation or something. Like how the USSR became increasingly capitalist friendly.
Probably best to just advance with your project. Not focus to much on that. What good is 'advancing the cause' in such a crucial and important way if people outside are starving, and you got a bunch of people inside talking about it but they won't do anything because they need to come up with a name first.

[Sinister Intents]

A "marketing campaign" could be utilized where educational brochures, flyers, and other forms of media are utilized to get communist ideas out into the populace. Communists could work together in bringing workers together and discuss communist ideas in length. Events could be advertised to attract people's attention and with inundation, word-of-mouth advertising and so on we could potentially raise class consciousness by bringing attention to communism

[Sewer Socialist]

Communism will be the ultimate proof of the nature of communism.

Failing that, visible active communist groups generates genuine interest, and suggests where they might stand.

[Prospekt]

The problem I have with the "actions speak louder than words" approach is that it would be very easy for the media to either ignore the projects or present them in a totally negative light. They would simply call it communist - and seeing as we haven't addressed the problem of that words connotations, we have risked discrediting the movement. I would say the only way that a movement could either force the media to acknowledge/present it fairly would be if it was large scale, influential, in the west, and successful. I don't see many such projects happening and reaching the public domain while communism remains a feared concept. A sort of Catch-22.
Also having a communist viewpoint appear more frequently in the media wouldn't work because of the concision technique described by Chomsky, among many other things.
To me, the only thing I can think of that allows public support for successful projects is to tackle the problem head on - through, as suggested, a large Communism Rebranded type campaign.

[Bala Perdida]

I would say the only way that a movement could either force the media to acknowledge/present it fairly would be if it was large scale, influential, in the west, and successful. I don't see many such projects happening and reaching the public domain while communism remains a feared concept. A sort of Catch-22.You just described the Occupy movement. At least they got a few good clashes with the cops out of it.

[Vogel]

Perhaps we stop trying to push our agenda on people.

Instead, just continuously do good important things for the communities we live in with the community knowing we consider ourselves communist AFTER a while so that they say "yeah, he's a commie, but he's also a really good guy and does great things for us". It's going to be local based, there is no way around that. Do that, as well as protest in front of city hall to make visible changes in everyday life of the city to better the lives of the poor. Protest (peacefully) :)n such a way that they either have to submit, or send in the policeman and you act in a way where you don't cooperate and they have to use brutal force. But stay peaceful.

[Atsumari]

Any ideology that is revolutionary is going to be stigmatized. Do you really expect the ideological apparatus not to stigmatize us when our goal is to overthrow them? What annoys me the most about many of the revolutionary left is that they seem to have this attitude of "If only they understood us, they would be one of us" which is outright naive.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Rebranding" either means dropping our opposition to the bourgeois state, to private ownership, commodity production, wage labour and markets, or counting on people being mewling idiots and not noticing that this "bocial proletocaesarism" thing or however you want to call it is the same as communism.

In the modern period, communists are always going to be a minority. The revolution depends, not on having some kind of mass organisation, but on the movement of the workers receptive to the communist programme.

[Prospekt]

"Rebranding" either means dropping our opposition to the bourgeois state, to private ownership, commodity production, wage labour and markets, or counting on people being mewling idiots and not noticing that this "bocial proletocaesarism" thing or however you want to call it is the same as communism.

In the modern period, communists are always going to be a minority. The revolution depends, not on having some kind of mass organisation, but on the movement of the workers receptive to the communist programme.

I think a rebranding could mean simply increasing awareness of what communism actually means and having the ideas being seen in a more positive light. It would of course still be called communism - but the idea is to remove the stigma and negativity around that word which will, in turn, make the ideas more prevalent, palatable and open to discussion. I don't know how much change is possible when people attach communistic ideas and projects, no matter the success, to the communism they think they know - something to be instinctively feared and hated.

[cyu]

Any ideology that is revolutionary is going to be stigmatized. Do you really expect the ideological apparatus not to stigmatize us when our goal is to overthrow them?

Well worth repeating. If any ideology is going to survive, it must have defense mechanisms against other ideologies. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is basically the white-blood-cell equivalent of a religious memeplex.

If any ideology is going to survive, it must either repel competing ideologies, or incorporate them, while still maintaining its own recognizable identity. What sometimes happens between major religions is that they adopt all the important points of other major religions, while maintaining differences in only trivial areas - ie. don't kill your brother, but you must eat or wear something that still identifies you as a member of this religion.

But even as political systems actively suppress alternative systems, on occasion revolutions of various types still occur, so it is possible to overcome stigma - you'd probably have to study various different revolutions in the past to get a general sense of how they did it.

[BIXX]

I think a rebranding could mean simply increasing awareness of what communism actually means and having the ideas being seen in a more positive light. It would of course still be called communism - but the idea is to remove the stigma and negativity around that word which will, in turn, make the ideas more prevalent, palatable and open to discussion. I don't know how much change is possible when people attach communistic ideas and projects, no matter the success, to the communism they think they know - something to be instinctively feared and hated.

Why do we give a fuck about the word though

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Kk, so, in my experience, a significant number of poor and working people - enough, in my estimation - see the existing system at best as unfortunate necessity, as the inevitable triumph of might makes right, or some other such expression of an extremely truncated horizon of possibility.

None the less, there is more popular common sense which is effectively anti-capitalist than one might expect. Surreptitiously perform an informal survey of a shitty workplace, of the people at a bus terminal, or wherever else the hard core of the proletariat might be found. I'm going to bet you'll get 10-20% of people who say they hate cops, hate bosses and managers, hate politicians, don't trust the media, think schools are prisons, think academia is circle-jerk, think the rich are useless, and think everybody (albeit, problematically, everybody who works) deserves to be able to live comfortably without having to sink into debt, and that anybody willing to work ought to be able to do so. Probably somewhere well over half of people will share at least some if not most of these sentiments.

If anything, in my mind, the problem is that communism is not sufficiently maligned. We need, through our activity, to push our enemies to become more extreme in their denunciations. We need the media to trumpet "Communists are a threat to our way of life!" Just as black bloc tactics proliferated in North America in the wake of frothing-at-the-mouth police commanders going on television to denounce "Thugs!" who don't respect "democracy", so to communism will broaden its appeal once it has been made clear that it is absolutely irreconcilable to the existing order.

Of course, that's by no means enough. Communism must be made inhabitable. People will go in for the most ridiculous ideas if they prove themselves capable of meeting the material needs of community. Religion proliferates because it creates viable material community - meeting space, networks of social solidarity, etc. This is what many communist groups miss in their fidelity to capital-P Politics: They try to change ideas without making any effort to change everyday life.

The way communist groups often use newspapers in this regard is illustrative. A paper written, produced, and distributed from Toronto, being given out willy-nilly on the street corner or at demonstrations will have little impact no matter the quality of its content. However, I maintain that newspapers can be useful. A paper read every month (or week, or whatever) in a specific workplace that facilitates conversations and the deepening of bonds between a specific group of workers can begin to change ideas, because it provides a locus for coming together.

This "micropolitics" is in some sense key (though it shouldn't be seen as limit!) - the proliferation of these spaces in which communism creates viable community (rather than abstract membership lists) is actually what works for creating real organizational capacity in the long run - membership lists of committed militants with useful bases of support (rather than the revolving door of briefly radical students which characterizes many a sectlet).

As you can see, this moved away from talking about the word communism - that's intentional. If we do the right thing either a) the word will follow or b) the act of doing the right thing will produce a better word. I don't think we need to concern ourselves excessively which with of these occurs (and plausibly both will).

[Rafiq]

History will be re-written when we are able to show the working people the synchronicity between their condition today, and the condition of those who fought before them. Communism is not dead in this sense. The conditions which led to Communism still exist today.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Honestly, stop calling it "communism." Yeah, it's a stupid and superficial, but how one frames the narrative controls how people think of it. It's not "communism" or "anarchy." It's a social movement of working people designed to foster a common humanity over power structures or institutions.

[#FF0000]

Honestly, stop calling it "communism." Yeah, it's a stupid and superficial, but how one frames the narrative controls how people think of it. It's not "communism" or "anarchy." It's a social movement of working people designed to foster a common humanity over power structures or institutions.

Do you think you're fooling anyone by calling it anything else?

[Ocean Seal]

Do you think you're fooling anyone by calling it anything else?
FF0000 is right, calling it something else and describing the exact same thing will do no good. People don't want to hear some abstract description of a pie in the sky. Talk to people about shit that they care about.

[cyu]

Talk to people about shit that they care about. Ideologies spread faster when translated into the local language. You wouldn't sail to the islands in the Pacific and start preaching in Latin. And yes, it's more than language. If you "translate" it into their own situations, it works even better than just language translation.

There's also an issue of world-view. For example, my personal world-view may be seeing everything through the lens of economic issues, so I'd be more interested in discussions about the economy. That doesn't apply to everyone though. If you start talking about the economy with those who are primarily concerned with race relations, it would be less effective than if your "preaching" were done through the lens of race relations.

I guess it just means if you treat it as the "banking model" of education, the ideas you're trying to deposit would be less effective. You have to see things from other people's point of view before you can talk to them about the things they care about.

[BIXX]

I guess I just don't see why you can't carry out your own projects without worrying about this kind of thing. Who gives a fuck about the communist stigma?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

FF0000 is right, calling it something else and describing the exact same thing will do no good. People don't want to hear some abstract description of a pie in the sky. Talk to people about shit that they care about.

People care about a lot of things, including the big picture. In fact talking about the big picture is more likely to influence people than student types coming into factories and telling workers how bad the workers have it (you don't say).

[Blake's Baby]

I agree that calling communist theory anything else will be a short-sighted way to gain credibility. The ruling class controls the terms of the debate. All they have to do is say 'hey these guys are just the same as the communists, but they won't even admit it's communism' and you look like a communist (which you already think is a bad thing to most people) and a liar.

The opposite of that would be explaining what communism is really. Not the GULAG and the 'Anti-Fascist Protection Wall' and the rest, but working people collectively deciding their futures.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think a rebranding could mean simply increasing awareness of what communism actually means and having the ideas being seen in a more positive light. It would of course still be called communism - but the idea is to remove the stigma and negativity around that word which will, in turn, make the ideas more prevalent, palatable and open to discussion. I don't know how much change is possible when people attach communistic ideas and projects, no matter the success, to the communism they think they know - something to be instinctively feared and hated.

That's not what rebranding means, though. Rebranding means, we used to have "Coca-Cola", now we have "Coca-Cola Classic". I wouldn't necessarily be worried about negativity attached to communist ideas. If anything, that means these ideas might be an actual challenge to the bourgeois order.

Let's face it, when we talk about a society where things are produced, not as commodities to be sold on the market, but for human need, most people are going to be taken aback. And I think we need to talk about that, instead of restricting ourselves to condescending "bread and butter" platitudes.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

largely because communism failed and many communists today continue to advocate shitty ideas, methods of action, and organisational forms.

I don't have a problem with the original ideas of communism but i'm not gonna go out of my way to defend or associate myself with groups who call themselves communist but act in politically stupid ways.

[Blake's Baby]

We all act in politically stupid ways, but some of us are looking at the Marx.

Or something.

If you mean Stalinists or anyone else upholding some idea of 'actually existing socialism', I'm right with you. If you seriously think that 'communism' failed however, I don't agree.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

We all act in politically stupid ways, but some of us are looking at the Marx.

Or something.

If you mean Stalinists or anyone else upholding some idea of 'actually existing socialism', I'm right with you. If you seriously think that 'communism' failed however, I don't agree.

Communism isn't totally dead, but arguably it has failed.

I think part of our problem for too long has been to try and draw clear distinctions between 'Communism' of the Stalinist variety, and the 'small-c' communism that we ourselves look towards as an alternative to capitalism. I just don't think that it is achievable, from a practical perspective, to pursue that path any longer. The failures of the communist movement have been explained in various ways - capital buying off labour; the failures of the communist movement; capitalist propaganda; even on the workers themselves. Yet time and again our explanations gain no traction and our solutions fail.

Part of the problem for me is that the 'communist' left is still dominated by those who look to ancient texts for inspiration. They look to refine the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao etc. to suit present day conditions. I think really we need to accept that some of these ideas are either dead, wrong, or not suited at all to modern day conditions in some of the countries we live in.

Marx's greatest strengths were his analyses of the failures of capitalism, and his basic tenets for a post-capitalist society: abolition of class relations; socialised property relations; abolition of money. Those core ideas are worth keeping but there is so much else that needs updating and to be fair has started to become more in tune with the needs of workers in the present day, in particular theories that recognise the diversity of workers in many countries today (particularly developed countries) and that recognise that a Bolshevik-style coup is extremely unlikely given new technology an the military power of the state and of the capitalist class today.

[RedWorker]

I think part of our problem for too long has been to try and draw clear distinctions between 'Communism' of the Stalinist variety, and the 'small-c' communism that we ourselves look towards as an alternative to capitalism. I just don't think that it is achievable, from a practical perspective, to pursue that path any longer.

So what do we do? Stop promoting communism or stop explaining its difference to Stalinism? Changing only the branding of communism means people will sooner or later figure out what is being talked about, and changing more than that will mean most likely degeneration, seeing as it is out of an attempt to gain more support and not at improvement.


Part of the problem for me is that the 'communist' left is still dominated by those who look to ancient texts for inspiration. They look to refine the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao etc. to suit present day conditions. I think really we need to accept that some of these ideas are either dead, wrong, or not suited at all to modern day conditions in some of the countries we live in.

Which of Marx's ideas are dead or wrong and why?


Marx's greatest strengths were his analyses of the failures of capitalism, and his basic tenets for a post-capitalist society: abolition of class relations; socialised property relations; abolition of money. Those core ideas are worth keeping but there is so much else that needs updating and to be fair has started to become more in tune with the needs of workers in the present day, in particular theories that recognise the diversity of workers in many countries today (particularly developed countries) and that recognise that a Bolshevik-style coup is extremely unlikely given new technology an the military power of the state and of the capitalist class today.

What needs updating? This is often mentioned, but either nothing is specifically mentioned, or whatever is suggested means degeneration into reformism. How could these ideas be more in tune with the needs of workers? What diversity?

And it was no coup, it was a revolution that removed the authoritarian Provisional Government from power and gave power to the soviets.

[Ocean Seal]

People care about a lot of things, including the big picture. In fact talking about the big picture is more likely to influence people than student types coming into factories and telling workers how bad the workers have it (you don't say).
I don't really know about that how many factories have you gone to recently? Its about more than just telling people that their lives are shitty. People often don't have the information to relate that to changing things. Also its not the banking method of education. I'm not trying to deposit knowledge. I'm trying to discuss, when we discuss we both learn. People are going to say shit like "I can't afford my meds," and then you tell them what you know about the way that medicine is distributed, and the conversation eventually can lead to communism, and saying that as an organization you and your comrades are dedicated to organizing around these and other important issues.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Communists need to connect with people's everyday struggles in the workplace. Framing the issue as "you vs. your boss" makes intuitive sense to people.

I think this is the great strength of syndicalism and there is much to learn from that tradition.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So what do we do? Stop promoting communism or stop explaining its difference to Stalinism? Changing only the branding of communism means people will sooner or later figure out what is being talked about, and changing more than that will mean most likely degeneration, seeing as it is out of an attempt to gain more support and not at improvement.

I think firstly we have to get away from this notion of 'promoting communism', as though it is some alternative capitalist commodity that people can buy into. We need to (And many groups have already started this) fundamentally re-assess the way that the think of ourselves, our class, our ideas, aims, and methods. I have found it really tiresome the simplistic, reductive way in which many Communists have sought to portray the world. In reality the world is complex not simple, contains a plurality of ideas not a binary, and organisation is fucking difficult - it's not just a case of walking aroudn with a programme or a manifesto and waiting for people to spontaneously gather around your group. The challenge has to be to be creative in our ways of organisation, and creative in our opposition to, and disruption of, capital.


Which of Marx's ideas are dead or wrong and why?

It's not necessarily that they 'are wrong', but some ideas are simply out of date. The simplistic interpretation of Marxism as a two-class theory has led to a massive class reductionism that still lingers in the communist movement. And this just doesn't speak to the ways in which people perceive themselves and those around them today, and it doesn't offer a satisfactory basis on which to promote solidarity. A problem with relying on the likes of Marx, Lenin, Stalin etc. is that they never really had the most nuanced understanding of 'the working class'. I don't particularly blame them, because the time they lived in they couldn't possibly have predicted the future make-up of the developed working class, but nonetheless it is clear that the make-up and organisation of the working class today is respectively more diverse and fragmented than it has ever been, and this presents us with new challenges that we cannot necessarily solve by looking backwards.



What needs updating? This is often mentioned, but either nothing is specifically mentioned, or whatever is suggested means degeneration into reformism. How could these ideas be more in tune with the needs of workers? What diversity?

What diversity? You know...women, people of colour, LGBTQ. Not to mention the sectoral and geographical fragmentation of the working class today, as well as the plummeting union density in most industries, makes a diverse working class very difficult to organise. So never mind 'left unity', simply orgnanising a fragmented working class into a moderately organised, class conscious working class is going to be a heck of a challenge.


And it was no coup, it was a revolution that removed the authoritarian Provisional Government from power and gave power to the soviets.

OK great but my point is that it is just a total irrelevance for today. There is nowhere in the world that has conditions like Russia, and nowhere in the world where such an event would be seen as an acceptable democratic revolution now.

[Comrade Jacob]

Engage in left-wing popularism but never sell out your principles. Don't speak alien to them.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't really know about that how many factories have you gone to recently?

In the previous month, I've been to two factories, not including the one factory I visited to buy something (chocolate that failed quality control, not stocks). I know a lot of people who work in manufacturing, even though industry here has been on life support for some two decades.

I think that if I tried to explain to one of my friends who works in packing how exploited he is, I would get a box to the head. He knows, and doesn't need someone who can afford to go to university telling him that.


Its about more than just telling people that their lives are shitty. People often don't have the information to relate that to changing things. Also its not the banking method of education. I'm not trying to deposit knowledge. I'm trying to discuss, when we discuss we both learn. People are going to say shit like "I can't afford my meds," and then you tell them what you know about the way that medicine is distributed, and the conversation eventually can lead to communism, and saying that as an organization you and your comrades are dedicated to organizing around these and other important issues.

And this is, to be honest, manipulative and dishonest. I'm sure you don't mean it to be like that, but it is. First of all, any individual problems that a worker has with access to medicine can be solved by a raise or similar. As long as you focus on their individual problems, you remain within the bounds of trade-union consciousness. So you are either trying to sell to the worker trade-union activism by your org, or you are trying to imply that only communism can help their individual problems. But that is false.

Of course, we know that only communism can solve the structural problems with, among other things, medical access. But then say so - and engage the worker at an intellectual level, as your intellectual equal who can generalise and consider the big picture just as you can, not as some wretched idiot who needs to be tricked into supporting socialism.

And using illness to try and sell your org is hair-raisingly bad.


Engage in left-wing popularism but never sell out your principles. Don't speak alien to them.

And again, we have the notion that workers are not cut out for actual intellectual engagement, that they're "folks" who need to be tricked into supporting socialism. I mean, if you have such a low opinion of workers, why be a socialist? Join some "Soviet of Engineers" and fight to place clever-clogs such as yourself at the head of society, if you think talking to workers about the socialist society is "speaking alien" to them (despite the fact that most of the theories about the socialist society were made by workers, for workers!).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I find it odd how often we talk about workers as a separate entity. As though there is an 'us', intellectual, enlightened beings, and 'them', dumb masses following each other like blind sheep.

I have heard this at meetings recently too, to an extent, and it's a really disturbing way to think about the world around us. I'm not sure how much it has to do with the class status of some people here/at meetings, or whether it comes from having a view of the world that is a bit mechanic. I suggest that, in addition to engaging with others on an intellectual level as Xhar-Xhar said above, we also engage on topics of mutual interest. By that I don't mean sports/entertainment, but examining the world around us as though we are part of it, because we are. We work, we eat, we sleep, we rent, we buy, we watch ads, we suffer. We need to understand ourselves as part of the working class, not some caste above it. And for all the lip service to the contrary, I often feel that many people are unwilling to make this leap.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I find it odd how often we talk about workers as a separate entity. As though there is an 'us', intellectual, enlightened beings, and 'them', dumb masses following each other like blind sheep.

I have heard this at meetings recently too, to an extent, and it's a really disturbing way to think about the world around us. I'm not sure how much it has to do with the class status of some people here/at meetings, or whether it comes from having a view of the world that is a bit mechanic. I suggest that, in addition to engaging with others on an intellectual level as Xhar-Xhar said above, we also engage on topics of mutual interest. By that I don't mean sports/entertainment, but examining the world around us as though we are part of it, because we are. We work, we eat, we sleep, we rent, we buy, we watch ads, we suffer. We need to understand ourselves as part of the working class, not some caste above it. And for all the lip service to the contrary, I often feel that many people are unwilling to make this leap.

You'll note I "thanked" this post, BUT(!) that said, I think it's worthwhile to be conscientious of the divisions within the working class. I think many communists tend to be bought off as "capital's labour lieutenants". We all know that Trotskyist union president or "anarcho-"syndicalist who spends more time speaking from stage than on the shop floor. I think we have to be cognizant that this often means we'll be read as "some caste above" even when we're very much embedded in concrete struggles. "Having politics" can often mean a sort of social mobility. Hell, I've had a few high-paying (by my standards, haha) non-profit contracts 'cos I can quote the appropriate thinkers and rattle off the appropriate ID-politics talking-points: it's a real thing.

[John Nada]

Democratic and Republicanism once had similar negative connotations to anarchy and communism before the bourgeois revolutions. Without the God-appointed King they'd be chaos, even worse if the masses could vote!:ohmy: Now both are used ad nauseam by the most boring of parties who often aren't either.

If one word is the only thing hold back the masses from a revolt, then there's other problems. Fuck, if you can't say the "C" word just say socialism. Surveys show it's got more positive connotations, even though Stalinist use it to describe the the economy under the dictatorship(bad) of the proletariat(fancy French loanword).:confused: Hell they never claimed to have achieved communism, or even the socialism's "final victory", but the "victory of socialist construction".

Rather than trying to justify or apologizes for everything real or imagined previous attempts to build socialism did, why not expose capitalism for how fucked up it is? Most people have an idea, but don't connect the dots or articulate it in a way a Marxist/anarchist would. Not out of stupidity but out of habit, because it's almost more practical not to think about how much you're being exploited.

I'd say the problem with communism isn't that everyone thinks "OMG! Stalin+Mao killed 1000 quadrillion people!", or if you get to it being stateless"Then it'll be like Somalia and Afghanistan!", it's a lot of people don't see it being possible. In this layperson's view, it might theoretically be possible, but it could just end up with a counterrevolution that knocks everything back to capitalism, if it even gets that far. The state and big business would never allow it. All the work would be for nothing. Present communism as not an impossible utopia but something that should be so, for the capitalist road will lead to barbarism(fascism, nuclear war, irreversible environmental damage such as global warming)
It's not necessarily that they 'are wrong', but some ideas are simply out of date. The simplistic interpretation of Marxism as a two-class theory has led to a massive class reductionism that still lingers in the communist movement. And this just doesn't speak to the ways in which people perceive themselves and those around them today, and it doesn't offer a satisfactory basis on which to promote solidarity. A problem with relying on the likes of Marx, Lenin, Stalin etc. is that they never really had the most nuanced understanding of 'the working class'. I don't particularly blame them, because the time they lived in they couldn't possibly have predicted the future make-up of the developed working class, but nonetheless it is clear that the make-up and organisation of the working class today is respectively more diverse and fragmented than it has ever been, and this presents us with new challenges that we cannot necessarily solve by looking backwards.I don't think this is correct. There were other classes such as the peasantry, which even in the 3rd-world is dying out today. There was a lot of different nationalities with less contact than today. Both the working class and the peasantry were very diverse.
What diversity? You know...women, people of colour, LGBTQ. Not to mention the sectoral and geographical fragmentation of the working class today, as well as the plummeting union density in most industries, makes a diverse working class very difficult to organise. So never mind 'left unity', simply orgnanising a fragmented working class into a moderately organised, class conscious working class is going to be a heck of a challenge.All of which were still there 150 years ago, and more acute.
OK great but my point is that it is just a total irrelevance for today. There is nowhere in the world that has conditions like Russia, and nowhere in the world where such an event would be seen as an acceptable democratic revolution now.I think there's stuff that can be learned from even ancient times. The October Revolution was a progressive history making event. Some of the strategies, tactics, theories, and mistakes are still something to learn from, no use reinventing the wheel if you don't have to.
Hell, I've had a few high-paying (by my standards, haha) non-profit contracts 'cos I can quote the appropriate thinkers and rattle off the appropriate ID-politics talking-points: it's a real thing.You can get paid for that?:ohmy:

[consuming negativity]

lots of good posts ITT. the working class is not an other to be manipulated but a self to be identified as human and respected as equal. if you're speaking of yourself outside of the working class, you've already lost the battle. the best way to change the consciousness of the working class is to be a worker yourself. it means giving up your privileges and going in and doing what's necessary yourself, rather than wanting "the workers" to do all the struggling for you. you want a revolution? make it, fucker. if you're not willing to put your own neck on the line, and you're asking someone else to do it, or trying to convince them to do it, you're a piece of shit.


The problem I have with the "actions speak louder than words" approach is that it would be very easy for the media to either ignore the projects or present them in a totally negative light. They would simply call it communist - and seeing as we haven't addressed the problem of that words connotations, we have risked discrediting the movement. I would say the only way that a movement could either force the media to acknowledge/present it fairly would be if it was large scale, influential, in the west, and successful. I don't see many such projects happening and reaching the public domain while communism remains a feared concept. A sort of Catch-22.
Also having a communist viewpoint appear more frequently in the media wouldn't work because of the concision technique described by Chomsky, among many other things.
To me, the only thing I can think of that allows public support for successful projects is to tackle the problem head on - through, as suggested, a large Communism Rebranded type campaign.

kinda like how with the riots in bmore, they were so busy focusing on the 5 stores that got looted in the entire fucking city of over 300,000 people and not the message of what the riots were even about

at the end of the day, people are gonna see what they wanna see. i think an extremely valuable asset in today's world is our ability to completely bypass the media and tell the truth through other forms of social networking, whether they be word of mouth, twitter, or wherever else people go to hear real people.

[The Modern Prometheus]

Ideologies spread faster when translated into the local language. You wouldn't sail to the islands in the Pacific and start preaching in Latin. And yes, it's more than language. If you "translate" it into their own situations, it works even better than just language translation.

There's also an issue of world-view. For example, my personal world-view may be seeing everything through the lens of economic issues, so I'd be more interested in discussions about the economy. That doesn't apply to everyone though. If you start talking about the economy with those who are primarily concerned with race relations, it would be less effective than if your "preaching" were done through the lens of race relations.

I guess it just means if you treat it as the "banking model" of education, the ideas you're trying to deposit would be less effective. You have to see things from other people's point of view before you can talk to them about the things they care about.

I have seen the student academic type Communists completely turn people off Communism by coming off as talking down to the workers. Nothing will piss someone from the working class off more then someone who pretends that they are smarter then them and thus look down their noses at them. The economy is by far the most important subject today (here atleast) that is effecting the workers so that would be a good place to start to win over some people. We are currently experiencing one hell of a economic downturn here due to the drop in oil prices and every worker from people working on the offshore oil rigs to those that work in the construction area are being hit hard by it. If we could show the working class that a Socialist economic model would benefit them the most then we could win over alot of workers that way.

Another issue is the shitty deals we are getting from the companies and federal government when it comes to oil revenue as well as the new hydroelectric project. Most of the oil money goes to both the company and the federal government even though it is off the coast of the island here. The whole Muskrat falls fiasco with the hydroelectric project is another cluster fuck that we are losing out big on.

I have known leftists who where anti-Communist simply because they had no real clue as to what it is as they where always taught that Communism meant Stalinism aka State Capitalism and that countries like the USSR and Albania where Communist countries. This is one misconception about Communism that is particularly widespread as due to years of being taught bullshit about Communism in schools they don't get the fact that the term Communist state is a oxymoron. However once some of these people became educated in what Communism actually is they changed their views on Communism very quickly.

[The Intransigent Faction]

There's a degree of usefulness in the psychological concept of "desensitization". Exposure is not sufficient, but it is absolutely necessary for ending stigma.

A significant part of the stigma surrounding communism is due to limited exposure to anything but watered-down reformism or caricature. So, exposure of workers to an intransigently anti-capitalist narrative (though actions as well, rather than mere talking heads) is a necessary although not sufficient condition for socialism.

The existing system is not analogous to a frog in boiling water, and it will not fail to notice and react to workers turning up the heat until it reaches the boiling point. So, trite though it may sound, stigma will persist until capitalism is replaced.

In short, communism will have to be presented for what it is, if workers are ultimately to embrace it for what it is: a concrete and revolutionary reorganization of socioeconomic structures which must be consciously carried out as such every 'step' of the way.

[Zoop]

Well, it's necessary to obliterate the common misconceptions people have about communism, in order to show them what it really is. Do this through education, consciousness raising activities, propaganda etc. basically to demonstrate why we aren't all tankie twats.