Communist or Social Democrat?

[Pakhu]

I have been a communist half of my life.

I used to be a part of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. After the police came to destroy the camp, I remember them destroying the library full of books we had there, and I literally cried. At that moment, my Communist views changed. No longer did I believe that the system could be changed from the outside peacefully. It is so corrupt we only have two options in changing the system: 1. Forcibly OR 2. Democratically (from within).

I find violence in almost any form to be deplorable. I believe in revolutionary socialism can only be achieved by peaceful means. My past experience has led me to believe that peaceful protests are pretty much worthless, so I have resorted to Option #2, taking part in the political system.

I look back at the success of the left-winged Occupy and right-winged Tea Party movements in my country, and I realized that the one that had more government influence was the movement whose candidates ran for office.... The Tea Party. With that said, I now believe that by participating in the corrupt system that we can achieve communism.

After my protest days, I became a member of the Democratic Party. They are more directly influential in my own community. When it comes to small changes in my little town, I am now able to be influential and people now actually listen to me. I can petition to have streetlights be fixed in a poorer municipality, and with party backing I now have some credible weight to back me.

I met a revolutionary socialist who believed in violence to achieve the Communist end-goal. I shared with him my current views, which are more pacifistic and systemic, and he told me I'm not a real communist.

With all being said and done, would I still be considered a communist? Or am I something different... Like a social democrat? Or a Liberal?

[Q]

I suppose your friend is a little hyperbolic. Many communists have this wrong view that there is a dichotomy between revolutionism and reformism, taking a misunderstood cue from Rosa Luxemburg. The actual dichotomy on the rightwing side of the workers movement is however between coalitionism (willing to take up capitalist politics, alone or in a coalition) and remaining in a principled opposition, only willing to take up the reigns of power when you've build up your forces suffiently to take power on your own terms, that is, when you're able to carry out the programme that brings the working class to power and destroys the old relations.

If you can put yourself on either side of this divide is a meaningful distinction between being a communist or not being one.

[Armchair Partisan]

It is so corrupt we only have two options in changing the system: 1. Forcibly OR 2. Democratically (from within).

The system is so corrupt, we should change it from within? How does that even work? We start up communist businesses (that is, we put a red star in our company brand), and bribe congressmen until they socialize the means of production? Like, what?

Once the absurdity of the second option hits you, you should clearly see the one single option we have left. As to this:


I find violence in almost any form to be deplorable. I believe in revolutionary socialism can only be achieved by peaceful means. My past experience has led me to believe that peaceful protests are pretty much worthless, so I have resorted to Option #2, taking part in the political system.

This self-contradictory little paragraph is probably the source of most of your confusion. Why do you believe that revolutionary socialism can only be achieved by peaceful means, when you yourself have seen how ineffective they are? Why do you reject violence so freely, when your enemies don't - when they have built up an ideological framework around the idea that they, and only they, are morally entitled to use violence? You have successfully bought into their big lie, congratulations! You ought to reevaluate your ideology.

Also, any self-proclaimed revolutionary socialist who rejects violence spits on the memory of the organized working-class movements of the 19th and part of the 20th century. How do you think they achieved the gains of the working class so far (from the 8 hour workday to union rights) - asking nicely?

[odysseus]

The system is so corrupt, we should change it from within? How does that even work? We start up communist businesses (that is, we put a red star in our company brand), and bribe congressmen until they socialize the means of production? Like, what?

Once the absurdity of the second option hits you, you should clearly see the one single option we have left.



I don't think he's spitting in the face of past figures by wanting to be peaceful. Violence isn't always needed, its only worked in the poorest countries, and a lot of people die. You people need to stop holding up violence on a pedestal.

As for how it would actually work, Armchair, we start a socialist business (Worker cooperative, Workers Self Directed Enterprise, etc.) and then use that as the financial backing for socialist and communist candidates to rely on.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't think he's spitting in the face of past figures by wanting to be peaceful. Violence isn't always needed, its only worked in the poorest countries, and a lot of people die. You people need to stop holding up violence on a pedestal.
It's not that revolutionaries advocate for violence as the only tactic but rather that revolutionaries recognise that the ruling class, the capitalist class, the bourgeois state, cannot and will not simply give up their positions of privilege and political and economic dominance peacefully. Revolutionaries realise that violence could become a necessity, not that it is our first and only choice - on the contrary, I think most revolutionaries would love a peaceful transformation of society, only none of us are naive enough to think that it'd be that easy.

And if you think that violence hasn't been a part of the diverse tactics of the workers movement in the 'richest' countries then you're misinformed. Strikes defended from thugs trying to break them, squatters defended from eviction by cops, anti-fascist movements, etc. The workers movement in the advanced capitalist countries has been diverse and has developed along lines both peaceful and violent in equal measure.

Your stuff about co-operatives I can't be bothered to respond to but some suggested reading might be Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution.

[Armchair Partisan]

As for how it would actually work, Armchair, we start a socialist business (Worker cooperative, Workers Self Directed Enterprise, etc.) and then use that as the financial backing for socialist and communist candidates to rely on.

...And that's supposed to be realistic? We're going to try to outcompete the masters of profiteering and defeat them at their own game with the least profitable forms of capitalist enterprise?

You know, the funny thing is, you constantly get these people (not directed at you or anyone in particular) saying "communism is a utopia" and stuff like that, but then coming up with a hundred times less realistic schemes to achieve progressive change, such as "try to peacefully defeat the capitalists with their rules" (by: anyone who hasn't heard of Allende and Pinochet) or "rely on the generousness and compassion of rich capitalists and their charities" (by: my mother and a lot of other liberals who seem to be living in an alternate dimension) or even more insane ideas. The irony cannot possibly be lost on us.

[John Nada]

I have been a communist half of my life.Like a Marxist communist, an anarcho-communist or Red Alert communist?
I used to be a part of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. After the police came to destroy the camp, I remember them destroying the library full of books we had there, and I literally cried. At that moment, my Communist views changed. No longer did I believe that the system could be changed from the outside peacefully. It is so corrupt we only have two options in changing the system: 1. Forcibly OR 2. Democratically (from within).Are the two mutually exclusive? It's possible to both forcibly and "democratically" from within change the system.
I find violence in almost any form to be deplorable. I believe in revolutionary socialism can only be achieved by peaceful means. My past experience has led me to believe that peaceful protests are pretty much worthless, so I have resorted to Option #2, taking part in the political system.Look at past attempts to "peacefully" change the system. All got crushed from outside, like Allende in Chile, or subverted from within, like Germany after WWI with the SPD (which also wanted to be "peaceful") killing revolutionaries like Rosa Luxembourg(who wrote about this very topic (https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm)) paving the way for the Nazis. Those reforms will get undone. It's comes in zig-zags, not a steady progression.

Here's something. What if by working in the system, this causes more deaths? You personally are doing it the respectably way, and it's peace for you alone, but in doing so results in more violence overall? Is this really the moral high ground?
I look back at the success of the left-winged Occupy and right-winged Tea Party movements in my country, and I realized that the one that had more government influence was the movement whose candidates ran for office.... The Tea Party. With that said, I now believe that by participating in the corrupt system that we can achieve communism.The Tea Party had more resources, was better organized and had connections from the top at the get-go. It also only represented small classes of the petty-bourgeoisie and big bourgeoisie(what Occupy called the "1%" but in the US probably more like 10-15%). Something that was a clusterfuck of inexperienced, poorly organized noobs with no resources trying to win the support of 70-85% of the people is obviously not on a level playing field.
After my protest days, I became a member of the Democratic Party. They are more directly influential in my own community. When it comes to small changes in my little town, I am now able to be influential and people now actually listen to me. I can petition to have streetlights be fixed in a poorer municipality, and with party backing I now have some credible weight to back me.Where the fuck is this? Democrats won't do shit at all wherever I've been. Often act like Republicans safe districts.

Thing is, Democrats are part of an imperialist death machine. They'll fix some streetlights(which they should be doing anyway), but fucking permanently knock whole nations of people's lights out for good. Why are the poor areas not getting essential services in the first place? Hell, there shouldn't be poorer areas at all, in the US or the whole world. The solution isn't to beg a faction of a small ruling class for shit that should be a given.
I met a revolutionary socialist who believed in violence to achieve the Communist end-goal. I shared with him my current views, which are more pacifistic and systemic, and he told me I'm not a real communist.

With all being said and done, would I still be considered a communist? Or am I something different... Like a social democrat? Or a Liberal?No idea. Maybe a social democrat, or maybe you're just trying the legit way(which has it's place)? Can't tell.

[PhoenixAsh]

So wait.....

What I get from your post is that in the face of violence a peaceful and non violent demonstration/movement aimed at implementing pacifist ideals of non cooperation and civil disobedience failed to realize it's goals....and you see that as evidence that you need to be more pacifist rather than seeing that pacifism might be a useful tactic sometimes but has its limitations and will ultimately fail?? That is cognitive dissonance.

But it doesn't stop there.

The Occupy movement...while important and promising. ..was by its very nature aiming at changing the character of the system without aiming to create a communist society at all. It lacked any communist analysis and class consciousness....which is what different communist and anarchist groups tried to direct the movement towards but failed on a significant enough scale. The movement itself never rose above the demands for reform of capitalism. Therefore it was never going to realize the destruction of capitalism but rather remained within the structures of capitalist economics to make it more of a fair thing.

Your comparison with communism and political influence by the Teaparty ..which has its interests in expanding capitalism rather than abolishing it....is seriously out of place. Of course the Teaparty have more influence...they ARE part of the system and represent the interests of part of the capitalist bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie.

I would counter pose to your friends analysis that you are now a social democrat....that you have actually always been one with a more left leaning ideal here and there....and only started to realize it recently. And you surrendered to the system because of demoralization....without realizing that you create a false dichotomy by subjectively redefining violence to wash away the violence inherited in the system you now support.

Ultimately pacifism is a liberal and middle class (petit bourgeoisie) ideology...which serves the interest of the bourgeois. As a tactic in specific conditions it can be useful but as a strategy it will fail miserably as it always has.

[Pakhu]

A lot of things were addressed here. Specifically concerning my views on violence being deplorable. I am a Pacifist, and I believe that violence cannot be stopped, but can only be abolished. Holding such a view isn't "spitting on" my predecessors who utilized violence as a means to further the rights of the people. My grandfather used molotov cocktails to help push for the creation of unions. I respect that. However, as a Pacifist I don't believe the end justifies the means. I just believe that violence is a monstrous act and I would never support. It has little to do with my Socialist views, and more to do with the fact that I disdain violence. I respect that others can have a view opposite of mine, and don't feel like I am being spat on. =) Vice-a-versa, I don't think that holding my view spits in the face of my role-models and other communists.

I would like to take a moment to comment on Juan's statements. Thank you for linking Rosa Luxemburg for me. You are very informed about politics. However, I believe you are very misinformed on how local government works. You are thinking in a federal and global manner. I am thinking in a smaller scale. When I meet once a month in my eight person small town Democratic Party committee, we aren't thinking about how to eliminate poverty throughout the nation or enact imperialism throughout the globe. The reason for this is because we are a small town committee in the mountains, and we have no jurisdiction over anywhere past our town line. We only have the ability as a committee to influence things that concern our local area. We focus on things like creating a public transportation system, making sure that garbage companies aren't privatized, giving more funding to the local library, and making sure people receive accessible education regardless of their disability. These are things that urban America has the luxury to enjoy. These are also the things that local government has the ability to improve in rural America. It is extremely difficult to get these things done on your own without a group behind you, or with Communist backing. Hell, half the people in my area freak out and see the word "Democrat" supporting a cause, imagine if they see communists supporting it.


I like to think realistically about my local area and get things done. I care about the international cause, and have worked globally before. I could join a county, state, or federal committee to change things on a grander scale, but being on the town committee and my two jobs on top of that take up enough of my time. At this point in time, I am working locally, and the best way to do so is by cooperating with the most left-wing lobbying groups in my area extremely right wing area. One of them being the Democratic Party.

[RedWorker]

Communists stand for social revolution, that is to say: the workers have to collectively seize the means of production and destroy the bourgeois state.

Social revolution is not necessarily violent. It could be peaceful.

It is the positioning in regards to social revolution that determines whether one is a communist or not.

Shouldn't your experiences in the protests have radicalized you to the left rather than turned you into more of a "social democrat", though? Unless I've misunderstood something.

[Pakhu]

Ultimately pacifism is a liberal and middle class (petit bourgeoisie) ideology...which serves the interest of the bourgeois. As a tactic in specific conditions it can be useful but as a strategy it will fail miserably as it always has.

I can see how it could serve the interest of the bourgeois. How is Pacifism a liberal ideology though?

[Pakhu]

Shouldn't your experiences in the protests have radicalized you to the left rather than turned you into more of a "social democrat", though? Unless I've misunderstood something.

Good point! I would say that I see protests as ineffective mainly because the system is corrupt. The sick system needs to be infiltrated from within and forced democratically to listen to the people. I supposed in the past, I was more of a leftist-libertarian, now I am definitely more authoritarian in that I believe that elected leaders have more power to make these changes possible. I think the shift wasn't from left to right, but more from anarchist to cooperating with the system of inequality to get rid of this corruption.

[Armchair Partisan]

Good point! I would say that I see protests as ineffective mainly because the system is corrupt. The sick system needs to be infiltrated from within and forced democratically to listen to the people.

Fighting against "corruption" is a populist slogan used by parties who have yet to get into power and as thus couldn't be implicated with any sort of corruption. It is not a revolutionary slogan. Corruption or not, whatever - capitalism could be managed by people with the greatest moral integrity ever, at the end of the day, their class interests are opposed to ours and they will enforce them. The social democrat Ebert didn't order the reactionary Freikorps to murder Liebknecht and Luxemburg because he was corrupt. The Spanish democrats didn't unite with the ex-Francoists after the death of the Caudillo because they were corrupt. Indochina wasn't turned into a smoking ruin by US bombers for that reason, either. Saying that "the system is corrupt" implies that it had abandoned noble principles for petty material gain. It did not; all of these actions show that the system is functioning perfectly from a capitalist viewpoint. So does the police suppression of Occupy.


I supposed in the past, I was more of a leftist-libertarian, now I am definitely more authoritarian in that I believe that elected leaders have more power to make these changes possible.

The elected leaders don't have that much power. Much greater forces than themselves can ensure that any elected leader that tries to oppose the interests of the mainstream capitalist consensus will be crushed. This can be through a coup (Chile) or through causing capital flight and blaming the subsequent recession on the local government (Venezuela), and possibly other methods. The only thing being elected gives us is a platform, but we can find that elsewhere, at less cost, without wasting our political capital on a dead end route towards socialism.


I think the shift wasn't from left to right, but more from anarchist to cooperating with the system of inequality to get rid of this corruption.

That's another bizarre statement. "Cooperating with the system of inequality"? What? The "system of inequality" is not the least bit interested in cooperating with you, I'm sad to say. If you've been told that it is, then you were sadly misinformed.

[Zanters]

Let me just go ask koch brothers to give all of their wealth to their workers, and for them to resign and give their workers control of the work place. I'm sure they'll do it, right? Maybe I can get a petition to ask them to give it up, I mean, certainly those scribbles on a piece of paper will make them stop it!

[John Nada]

A lot of things were addressed here. Specifically concerning my views on violence being deplorable. I am a Pacifist, and I believe that violence cannot be stopped, but can only be abolished. Holding such a view isn't "spitting on" my predecessors who utilized violence as a means to further the rights of the people. My grandfather used molotov cocktails to help push for the creation of unions. I respect that. However, as a Pacifist I don't believe the end justifies the means. I just believe that violence is a monstrous act and I would never support. It has little to do with my Socialist views, and more to do with the fact that I disdain violence. I respect that others can have a view opposite of mine, and don't feel like I am being spat on. =) Vice-a-versa, I don't think that holding my view spits in the face of my role-models and other communists.Props to your grandpa for his militancy.:thumbup:

It's not about "spitting on your predecessors". It's not about being squeamish about, well, even non-violent protests. It's that pacifism recognizes state violence as acceptable, and "violent" protest(often only "violent" to property) are not. It's not even that though, it's electioneering. Siding with a violent imperialist party to "change it from within" and "impose change from the top". "Abolishing violence" from the top can only entail violence downward.
I would like to take a moment to comment on Juan's statements. Thank you for linking Rosa Luxemburg for me. You are very informed about politics. However, I believe you are very misinformed on how local government works. You are thinking in a federal and global manner. I am thinking in a smaller scale. When I meet once a month in my eight person small town Democratic Party committee, we aren't thinking about how to eliminate poverty throughout the nation or enact imperialism throughout the globe. The reason for this is because we are a small town committee in the mountains, and we have no jurisdiction over anywhere past our town line. We only have the ability as a committee to influence things that concern our local area.I know a lot about how local governments work. It varies from state to state. The Democratic Party is not a mass party. It's a political machine that, although somewhat parochial, is not democratic.

That local committee answers to the state committee, which answers to the DNC, assuming it's an important enough area to give a fuck about. Funding infrastructure often requires going outside the city and county up to the state level. The state level often depends on the national level. To get support for whatever, the local committees have to support state and federal candidates. At the same time these local committees must fundraise for the canidates that do have influence outside the county, the committees also have to get funding themselves. Since workers don't have that money(or usually give a fuck anyway), this means appealing to the bourgeoisie, who does not see things strictly local or even live there. So not only does that mean watering down the platform, but actively attempting to support shit outside the county.

With the Democrats that does mean supporting imperialism and violence. Some of the places with the most violence against Occupy and POC are solidly Democrat at the local level. Ferguson, for example, is solidly Democrat yet racist as fuck against the black majority.
We focus on things like creating a public transportation system, making sure that garbage companies aren't privatized, giving more funding to the local library, and making sure people receive accessible education regardless of their disability. These are things that urban America has the luxury to enjoy. These are also the things that local government has the ability to improve in rural America. It is extremely difficult to get these things done on your own without a group behind you, or with Communist backing. Hell, half the people in my area freak out and see the word "Democrat" supporting a cause, imagine if they see communists supporting it.Oh no!:ohmy: If the public finds out communists like roads, quality public education including for people with disabilities, public infrastructure like garbage disposal, transportation and libraries(used by Luxembourg as an analogy for how communism would work), we're going to lose all that shit!:unsure: Don't scare the liberals, communists just aren't popular like they were in places such as Tsarist Russia, south Vietnam and KMT China; where they were only hunted down and killed. Better keep quite, don't let anyone know that communists support any of that and don't think it's quite far enough.:lol:

A lot of urban areas do not have any of that. Many urban and Rural areas can not get support for anything.
I like to think realistically about my local area and get things done. I care about the international cause, and have worked globally before. I could join a county, state, or federal committee to change things on a grander scale, but being on the town committee and my two jobs on top of that take up enough of my time. At this point in time, I am working locally, and the best way to do so is by cooperating with the most left-wing lobbying groups in my area extremely right wing area. One of them being the Democratic Party.Those "left-wing" lobby groups are rarely leftist, and usually just bourgeois fronts. Democrats are political machines that act at the behest of different bourgeois factions. Working with Democrats in a supposedly rightist area(often more accurately apathetic that the rightists take advantage of) means supporting the most backwards wing of an already reactionary party. This "being realistic" and changing from within has been the MO of reformists for over a hundred years. And still we're back at trying to keep a public waste removal. What's different besides in your myopic perspective it makes you feel good?
I can see how it could serve the interest of the bourgeois. How is Pacifism a liberal ideology though?http://www.revleft.com/vb/nonviolence-protects-state-t188159/index.html?t=188159 As a strategy and not a tactic it legitimizes state violence. It also presumes that the state and ruling class gives a fuck and will change for some reason. It's a strategy that is rooted in liberal notions of justice and appeal to the ruling class's feelings. The status quo is viewed legitimate and supposedly neutral, hence all efforts are directed through that avenue.
Good point! I would say that I see protests as ineffective mainly because the system is corrupt. The sick system needs to be infiltrated from within and forced democratically to listen to the people. I supposed in the past, I was more of a leftist-libertarian, now I am definitely more authoritarian in that I believe that elected leaders have more power to make these changes possible. I think the shift wasn't from left to right, but more from anarchist to cooperating with the system of inequality to get rid of this corruption.That's worse than pacifism. At least a non-violent tactic or strategy, even through the electoral path, depends heavily on change from below in the streets, at least for something halfway leftist. You want to move up an imperialist, capitalist state apparatus for power to impose change from the top, "peacefully". Not even civil disobedience, but just electioneering for your own benefit, regardless of how you think it's for everyone's good. Since it can only come from you at the top, that put you to the right of most social democrats.

[odysseus]

...And that's supposed to be realistic? We're going to try to outcompete the masters of profiteering and defeat them at their own game with the least profitable forms of capitalist enterprise?

You know, the funny thing is, you constantly get these people (not directed at you or anyone in particular) saying "communism is a utopia" and stuff like that, but then coming up with a hundred times less realistic schemes to achieve progressive change, such as "try to peacefully defeat the capitalists with their rules" (by: anyone who hasn't heard of Allende and Pinochet) or "rely on the generousness and compassion of rich capitalists and their charities" (by: my mother and a lot of other liberals who seem to be living in an alternate dimension) or even more insane ideas. The irony cannot possibly be lost on us.

First off, cooperative businesses are far from the 'least profitable forms of capitalism'. And I like to think of it as socialism. Establishing worker cooperatives is a form of socialism, from which we can use as a support base to beat them, or at the least hold a flame, to the bourgeoisie politicians.



As a strategy and not a tactic it legitimizes state violence. It also presumes that the state and ruling class gives a fuck and will change for some reason. It's a strategy that is rooted in liberal notions of justice and appeal to the ruling class's feelings. The status quo is viewed legitimate and supposedly neutral, hence all efforts are directed through that avenue. I don't think pacifism is for the oppressing class. Its not to make the ruling class give a fuck or change them. Its meant to get the people on our side, not the oppressors. That's why it worked so well for MLK and Gandhi. Gandhi didn't make friends with the British, if you recall. I would also point out that the HISTORICAL man named Jesus didn't make friends with the romans. He spit in their face, and literally 'attacked' them at their seat of power in Palestine. You see the roman garrison ruling over Palestine was attached to the Jewish temple, and their High Priest was a puppet of the Roman authorities, not actually who god, if he were real, would have chosen as high priest. And when he attacks the market inside the center of that temple, he attacks the center of roman authority. Literally that very night he is arrested and later crucified, a punishment reserved only for bandits and rebels against roman rule. Brings into context the story that the big curtain in front of the seat of god is torn in half and revealed to the world.

But in every case, these great heroes of the people, these civil rights leaders and rebels that we remember and revel at, didn't get the people they were oppressed by on their side, they got their fellow oppressed and friends of the oppressed on their side.

As MLK said, negative peace is the absence of tension, and positive peace is the presence of justice. Watch the establishment counter that.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

First off, cooperative businesses are far from the 'least profitable forms of capitalism'. And I like to think of it as socialism. Establishing worker cooperatives is a form of socialism, from which we can use as a support base to beat them, or at the least hold a flame, to the bourgeoisie politicians.
Co-operatives are not socialism. A co-operative, its members and workers, have to take into account profit margins, investments, wages, market exchanges, all the things that a capitalist would have to navigate through that compels them to exploit labour. It doesn't matter if they're profitable or not (although apart from a few examples of large co-operatives such as Mondragon and examples with support from the wider community like FaSinPat, co-operatives usually struggle to remain afloat in the anarchies of the capitalist economy) all that matters is that they fundamentally reproduce the systems and conditions of capitalism that we, as socialists, want to abolish.

Like you, I'm of the opinion that workers co-operatives can be used as propaganda tools that represent the potential for the working class to organise and control society but I could never see them as a vehicle for social change.


I don't think pacifism is for the oppressing class. Its not to make the ruling class give a fuck or change them. Its meant to get the people on our side, not the oppressors. That's why it worked so well for MLK and Gandhi. Gandhi didn't make friends with the British, if you recall.
As people have said before in this thread, revolutionaries don't dismiss non-violence as a tool for building movements, as a tactic to array our forces against the forces of capitalism, it's simply that we won't simultaneously dismiss violence as a tactic of equal importance or potential in certain contexts. For revolutionaries, who want to change the system at its core, to destroy capitalism and bring about socialism, the dynamic isn't between 'violence/non-violence' because the violence needed to break the chains and the violence used to keep the slaves in their chains are in no way comparable.

Also, historically when you look at the examples of Ghandi and MLK, you can't see them as individuals who rose to prominence in a vacuum. A lot of the reason that these two figures are held up on a pedestal in the light as they are is because it consequently puts the likes of Malcolm X and Baghat Singh in the shadows, figures who didn't shy away from violent confrontation with their oppressors if the situation called for it. Bourgeois historiography likes to revise the history of the civil rights movements and the independence movements across the colonial world to minimise the role of violent revolutionaries regardless of the fact that it was the potential for these violent revolutionaries to manifest in broader movements that forced the ruling class to co-operate and negotiate with the non-violent figures in the first place.


I would also point out that the HISTORICAL man named Jesus didn't make friends with the romans. He spit in their face, and literally 'attacked' them at their seat of power in Palestine. You see the roman garrison ruling over Palestine was attached to the Jewish temple, and their High Priest was a puppet of the Roman authorities, not actually who god, if he were real, would have chosen as high priest. And when he attacks the market inside the center of that temple, he attacks the center of roman authority. Literally that very night he is arrested and later crucified, a punishment reserved only for bandits and rebels against roman rule. Brings into context the story that the big curtain in front of the seat of god is torn in half and revealed to the world.
It's interesting to note that in the Passover feast when Pilate offered to free a Jewish prisoner, the Jews asked for Barabbas, the insurrectionist, and not Jesus, the pacifist.


But in every case, these great heroes of the people, these civil rights leaders and rebels that we remember and revel at, didn't get the people they were oppressed by on their side, they got their fellow oppressed and friends of the oppressed on their side.
The point being that the capitalist class co-opted the non-violent movement, not the other way around. So now you have a black President and a massive black prison population and black kids getting shot on the streets by cops and Indian millionaires playing in international markets and Indian kids dying of starvation. The fundamental aspects of the capitalist system will not be altered by non-violent protest alone or by simply waiting for the capitalist class to throw us the crumbs from the table.


As MLK said, negative peace is the absence of tension, and positive peace is the presence of justice. Watch the establishment counter that.
Another thing MLK said was "True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." Do you think that this 'edifice', the capitalist system essentially, has been successfully challenged by non-violence alone? Do you truly think that the ruling class, the capitalist class, would peacefully give up their positions of privilege?

As another leader of the black rights movement, Stokely Carmichael, said "In order for non-violence to work, your opponent must have a conscience."

[Pakhu]

I don't think violence will win many people to the communist cause in the United States. In the USA, people have Stockholm Syndrome. People see themselves as a potentially rich people. Threatening the system with violence will only lead the populace away from our cause because they will feel as if they are being threatened themselves. We need to help the people understand that they are victims of the Capitalist disease. If that means standing for peace and dying, so be it. If that means doing naked cartwheels on the sidewalk, then so be it. We have to meet people where they're at in order to achieve our end goal, to rid this world of this infestation of greed.

[Comrade Jacob]

social-democrat, sorry to be the bearer of bad news

[Armchair Partisan]

We need to help the people understand that they are victims of the Capitalist disease. If that means standing for peace and dying, so be it.

So getting ready for a violent fight isn't going to attract people... and telling people to be butchered for the cause without offering any resistance is? People are willing to fight, and perhaps even risk their lives, if you can give them a good reason, but they won't waste their lives on this pipedream of pacifist marches somehow guilt-tripping the ruling classes into giving up power. Didn't work for Aung San Suu Kyi, useful idiot of the Myanmar junta and their silent accomplice in the Rohingya ethnic cleansings. MLK and Gandhi could never have become the celebrated figureheads of their respective movements (with the assistance of their oppressors) without the intentionally obscured violent revolutionaries applying actual, significant pressure to the system.

Creating a social revolution doesn't involve doing naked cartwheels. It means taking real risks, facing real adversity, lots of hurdles and misery. A lot of us are probably not ready for them - I've never experienced a civil war, who knows if I'd have the courage I'd like to think I have in a real revolution - but let's not make things worse and pretend that we don't even have to fight to win.

You also seem to misunderstand how a violent revolution would work. First we get the workers on board, then we do sabotages and strikes. Or we do both at the same time, depending on the circumstances. Of course we want to "help the people understand", how else could we get them to take part in a revolution?


First off, cooperative businesses are far from the 'least profitable forms of capitalism'.

How exactly? I mean, if it's worker-controlled, then surely the workers will try to extract as little surplus value from their own labor as possible. That, however, means less capital accumulation, which means slower growth through the M-C-M' cycle, which means getting left behind. Or the workers can exploit themselves hard, in which case their conditions are no better than in a privately owned company, and the private capitalists are also leery of a cooperative espousing socialist principles, making them a rather unattractive investment. Not exactly a big win, is it?


And I like to think of it as socialism.

Wish it were that easy... if thinking created socialism, I'd have won the world revolution single-handedly by now.

Aside from the fact that, as GiantMonkeyMan explained, cooperatives are not socialist, you might as well create a private enterprise with sweatshop labor and other unethical practices to fund a communist party - just rationalize it, "a small sacrifice for the greater good and all that". Eventually, whichever path you go down, you'll have an ineffective communist movement relying on the business acumen of a small strata of rich entrepreneurs, many of whom will eventually realize that now that they've made it big thanks to capitalism, violent revolution isn't all that cracked up to be, and that they might as well send the money to a random charity instead of the nearest communist party. (And maybe the others will have their loyalty purchased by sweet business deals.) By the end of it, the only thing this scheme of yours will have accomplished is making the revolutionary movement even more laughable than before.

[Sibotic]

The Democratic Party isn't social democratic, it's liberal, and hence you are identifying yourself as a liberal. At this juncture, this probably makes you a bad person. I too do not have a problem with corruption so long as it leads to communism, or benefits leaders in communism. Pacifism might be part of the problem here, in that you're concerned about breaking down the system or altering it, and don't, and due to this you are attracted to social democracy. At the same time, your problems with being influential stem from yourself, primarily, and are probably more of a personal issue in terms of your description of the empowerment that derives from liberalism, which in your case is probably misplaced but also seems to bespeak deeper issues in your own case. Your reliance on liberalism for a sense of self-worth, presumably, akin to any bad counsellor, is possibly not our issue to have to deal with, really, but surely Party backing is the backing of people who you would be fundamentally opposed to, namely meek systemic prostitutes. Relying on the backing of these could lead to some awkward situations.

[SonofRage]

I have been a communist half of my life.

I used to be a part of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. After the police came to destroy the camp, I remember them destroying the library full of books we had there, and I literally cried. At that moment, my Communist views changed. No longer did I believe that the system could be changed from the outside peacefully. It is so corrupt we only have two options in changing the system: 1. Forcibly OR 2. Democratically (from within).

I find violence in almost any form to be deplorable. I believe in revolutionary socialism can only be achieved by peaceful means. My past experience has led me to believe that peaceful protests are pretty much worthless, so I have resorted to Option #2, taking part in the political system.

I look back at the success of the left-winged Occupy and right-winged Tea Party movements in my country, and I realized that the one that had more government influence was the movement whose candidates ran for office.... The Tea Party. With that said, I now believe that by participating in the corrupt system that we can achieve communism.

After my protest days, I became a member of the Democratic Party. They are more directly influential in my own community. When it comes to small changes in my little town, I am now able to be influential and people now actually listen to me. I can petition to have streetlights be fixed in a poorer municipality, and with party backing I now have some credible weight to back me.

I met a revolutionary socialist who believed in violence to achieve the Communist end-goal. I shared with him my current views, which are more pacifistic and systemic, and he told me I'm not a real communist.

With all being said and done, would I still be considered a communist? Or am I something different... Like a social democrat? Or a Liberal?

You sound like someone who should be a member of the Communist Party USA or the Democratic Socialists of America.

[mushroompizza]

Youre not a social democrat youre just a pacifist communist. I mean if you want to continue capitalism but reform it then youre a social democrat.