An Idea

[Subversive Pessimist]

"And before we hang the last capitalist, he will sell us the rope with which to
do it." - Lenin

I thought about this sentence for a while, and I came up with an idea, and I think it is very good. The plan is basically to infiltrate the bourgeois system. We will become the bourgeoise. We will take control of the media in countries (we all know that media is more powerful then guns). When we also have control of corporations, we can do many things. We can use the profit to:

1. Give the workers in that corporation the profit
2. Give the profit away to communist groups in other countries
3. We could give the profit to organizations that we have ourselves created, that will help poor socialist countries, like Cuba, for instance.
4. We could donate the money to the communist parties, or
5. a combination of everyone of these options.

I believe this is the most effective way to take control of a country and win over them. When we have control of the media, we can promote the communist party, revolution, make documentaries about USSR, Cuba etc. and make people interested in class struggle.


What do you think?

[Subversive Pessimist]

"And before we hang the last capitalist, he will sell us the rope with which to
do it." - Lenin

I thought about this sentence for a while, and I came up with an idea, and I think it is very good. The plan is basically to infiltrate the bourgeois system. We will become the bourgeoise. We will take control of the media in countries (we all know that media is more powerful then guns). When we also have control of corporations, we can do many things. We can use the profit to:

1. Give the workers in that corporation the profit
2. Give the profit away to communist groups in other countries
3. We could give the profit to organizations that we have ourselves created, that will help poor socialist countries, like Cuba, for instance.
4. We could donate the money to the communist parties, or
5. a combination of everyone of these options.

I believe this is the most effective way to take control of a country and win over them. When we have control of the media, we can promote the communist party, revolution, make documentaries about USSR, Cuba etc. and make people interested in class struggle.


What do you think?

[Subversive Pessimist]

"And before we hang the last capitalist, he will sell us the rope with which to
do it." - Lenin

I thought about this sentence for a while, and I came up with an idea, and I think it is very good. The plan is basically to infiltrate the bourgeois system. We will become the bourgeoise. We will take control of the media in countries (we all know that media is more powerful then guns). When we also have control of corporations, we can do many things. We can use the profit to:

1. Give the workers in that corporation the profit
2. Give the profit away to communist groups in other countries
3. We could give the profit to organizations that we have ourselves created, that will help poor socialist countries, like Cuba, for instance.
4. We could donate the money to the communist parties, or
5. a combination of everyone of these options.

I believe this is the most effective way to take control of a country and win over them. When we have control of the media, we can promote the communist party, revolution, make documentaries about USSR, Cuba etc. and make people interested in class struggle.


What do you think?

[commiecrusader]

Sounds pretty much like the 'reformist' way of doing things except reforming through the media and capital ownership rather than slowly gaining a political influence in a system biased against us.

It's a good idea, although it would be really difficult to prise control from the current Bourgeoisie into our own hands.

[commiecrusader]

Sounds pretty much like the 'reformist' way of doing things except reforming through the media and capital ownership rather than slowly gaining a political influence in a system biased against us.

It's a good idea, although it would be really difficult to prise control from the current Bourgeoisie into our own hands.

[commiecrusader]

Sounds pretty much like the 'reformist' way of doing things except reforming through the media and capital ownership rather than slowly gaining a political influence in a system biased against us.

It's a good idea, although it would be really difficult to prise control from the current Bourgeoisie into our own hands.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Sounds pretty much like the 'reformist' way of doing things except reforming through the media and capital ownership rather than slowly gaining a political influence in a system biased against us.



Yes, it is in a way a "reformist" way of doing it, but I think it is the most effective.


What these leftist political parties lack is that they do not have a media to speak before them. The conservatives have, the liberals have, but we do not. They are popular because of the media.

"The ruling classes thoughts are the ruling thoughts" - Karl Marx

If you have control over the media, you will have control over the people.


It's a good idea, although it would be really difficult to prise control from the current Bourgeoisie into our own hands.


Yes, but we can still turn the profit into something good. I do not believe in just a revolution, or the reformist way. We need to use every means neccesary to defeat the bourgeoise. It's a total war. We must attack the enemy at all fronts. We must attack the enemy in everyday life: Demonstrations, meetings, at school, in the media, where we work, where we eat and where we sleep. :che: :hammer:

[Subversive Pessimist]

Sounds pretty much like the 'reformist' way of doing things except reforming through the media and capital ownership rather than slowly gaining a political influence in a system biased against us.



Yes, it is in a way a "reformist" way of doing it, but I think it is the most effective.


What these leftist political parties lack is that they do not have a media to speak before them. The conservatives have, the liberals have, but we do not. They are popular because of the media.

"The ruling classes thoughts are the ruling thoughts" - Karl Marx

If you have control over the media, you will have control over the people.


It's a good idea, although it would be really difficult to prise control from the current Bourgeoisie into our own hands.


Yes, but we can still turn the profit into something good. I do not believe in just a revolution, or the reformist way. We need to use every means neccesary to defeat the bourgeoise. It's a total war. We must attack the enemy at all fronts. We must attack the enemy in everyday life: Demonstrations, meetings, at school, in the media, where we work, where we eat and where we sleep. :che: :hammer:

[Subversive Pessimist]

Sounds pretty much like the 'reformist' way of doing things except reforming through the media and capital ownership rather than slowly gaining a political influence in a system biased against us.



Yes, it is in a way a "reformist" way of doing it, but I think it is the most effective.


What these leftist political parties lack is that they do not have a media to speak before them. The conservatives have, the liberals have, but we do not. They are popular because of the media.

"The ruling classes thoughts are the ruling thoughts" - Karl Marx

If you have control over the media, you will have control over the people.


It's a good idea, although it would be really difficult to prise control from the current Bourgeoisie into our own hands.


Yes, but we can still turn the profit into something good. I do not believe in just a revolution, or the reformist way. We need to use every means neccesary to defeat the bourgeoise. It's a total war. We must attack the enemy at all fronts. We must attack the enemy in everyday life: Demonstrations, meetings, at school, in the media, where we work, where we eat and where we sleep. :che: :hammer:

[NovelGentry]

1. Give the workers in that corporation the profit
2. Give the profit away to communist groups in other countries
3. We could give the profit to organizations that we have ourselves created, that will help poor socialist countries, like Cuba, for instance.
4. We could donate the money to the communist parties, or
5. a combination of everyone of these options.

If you are not exploiting workers to the fullest to gain max profit your company will go under and you will lose all influence. Don't expect your company to last too long when it sees Chapter 11 in the first few weeks it's open. I'm not saying you can't give some away, but you have to be able to make significant amount of profits not to fall into debt if something goes wrong at any point.

[NovelGentry]

1. Give the workers in that corporation the profit
2. Give the profit away to communist groups in other countries
3. We could give the profit to organizations that we have ourselves created, that will help poor socialist countries, like Cuba, for instance.
4. We could donate the money to the communist parties, or
5. a combination of everyone of these options.

If you are not exploiting workers to the fullest to gain max profit your company will go under and you will lose all influence. Don't expect your company to last too long when it sees Chapter 11 in the first few weeks it's open. I'm not saying you can't give some away, but you have to be able to make significant amount of profits not to fall into debt if something goes wrong at any point.

[NovelGentry]

1. Give the workers in that corporation the profit
2. Give the profit away to communist groups in other countries
3. We could give the profit to organizations that we have ourselves created, that will help poor socialist countries, like Cuba, for instance.
4. We could donate the money to the communist parties, or
5. a combination of everyone of these options.

If you are not exploiting workers to the fullest to gain max profit your company will go under and you will lose all influence. Don't expect your company to last too long when it sees Chapter 11 in the first few weeks it's open. I'm not saying you can't give some away, but you have to be able to make significant amount of profits not to fall into debt if something goes wrong at any point.

[commiecrusader]

If you have control over the media, you will have control over the people.
I couldnt agree more, but the fact remains, it is nigh on impossible to gain control of a media owned and run by the ruling class.


Yes, but we can still turn the profit into something good. I do not believe in just a revolution, or the reformist way. We need to use every means neccesary to defeat the bourgeoise. It's a total war. We must attack the enemy at all fronts. We must attack the enemy in everyday life: Demonstrations, meetings, at school, in the media, where we work, where we eat and where we sleep.
True dat.

[commiecrusader]

If you have control over the media, you will have control over the people.
I couldnt agree more, but the fact remains, it is nigh on impossible to gain control of a media owned and run by the ruling class.


Yes, but we can still turn the profit into something good. I do not believe in just a revolution, or the reformist way. We need to use every means neccesary to defeat the bourgeoise. It's a total war. We must attack the enemy at all fronts. We must attack the enemy in everyday life: Demonstrations, meetings, at school, in the media, where we work, where we eat and where we sleep.
True dat.

[commiecrusader]

If you have control over the media, you will have control over the people.
I couldnt agree more, but the fact remains, it is nigh on impossible to gain control of a media owned and run by the ruling class.


Yes, but we can still turn the profit into something good. I do not believe in just a revolution, or the reformist way. We need to use every means neccesary to defeat the bourgeoise. It's a total war. We must attack the enemy at all fronts. We must attack the enemy in everyday life: Demonstrations, meetings, at school, in the media, where we work, where we eat and where we sleep.
True dat.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Well, people might be attracted to us when they know that we are giving some of the money away to a good cause (like children in Cuba, etc).

Of course, we cannot risk giving all the profit away. We must ensure that we grow, grow, and grow. But the money we will have left we could use to give to these options I talked about. If that is 300 million each year from each country (as an example), then that money will be significant to our cause.

Even if we don't use the profit to anything else then to air class struggle, news, and documentaries criticizing the status quo, these things will lead to pressure on the government to either step off and create socialism (the first move from the government will most likely be to give the workers better living standards, but after we intensify or even just mentain our propaganda, the government will be more pressured and that pressure can lead to direct action, among those revolution). This will create political instability in these countries, and we all know that pressure and political instability fuels the revolutionary spirit.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Well, people might be attracted to us when they know that we are giving some of the money away to a good cause (like children in Cuba, etc).

Of course, we cannot risk giving all the profit away. We must ensure that we grow, grow, and grow. But the money we will have left we could use to give to these options I talked about. If that is 300 million each year from each country (as an example), then that money will be significant to our cause.

Even if we don't use the profit to anything else then to air class struggle, news, and documentaries criticizing the status quo, these things will lead to pressure on the government to either step off and create socialism (the first move from the government will most likely be to give the workers better living standards, but after we intensify or even just mentain our propaganda, the government will be more pressured and that pressure can lead to direct action, among those revolution). This will create political instability in these countries, and we all know that pressure and political instability fuels the revolutionary spirit.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Well, people might be attracted to us when they know that we are giving some of the money away to a good cause (like children in Cuba, etc).

Of course, we cannot risk giving all the profit away. We must ensure that we grow, grow, and grow. But the money we will have left we could use to give to these options I talked about. If that is 300 million each year from each country (as an example), then that money will be significant to our cause.

Even if we don't use the profit to anything else then to air class struggle, news, and documentaries criticizing the status quo, these things will lead to pressure on the government to either step off and create socialism (the first move from the government will most likely be to give the workers better living standards, but after we intensify or even just mentain our propaganda, the government will be more pressured and that pressure can lead to direct action, among those revolution). This will create political instability in these countries, and we all know that pressure and political instability fuels the revolutionary spirit.

[NovelGentry]

The problem is for the majority of us to start a business we'd have to go into debt first, and we would not actually turn profit until long after our workers have been exploited to the point where they don't see us as grateful. It's be a tough case to win them back and particularly more people. Furthermore, I don't think sending it to children in Cuba is gonna help, at least not in the US.

[NovelGentry]

The problem is for the majority of us to start a business we'd have to go into debt first, and we would not actually turn profit until long after our workers have been exploited to the point where they don't see us as grateful. It's be a tough case to win them back and particularly more people. Furthermore, I don't think sending it to children in Cuba is gonna help, at least not in the US.

[NovelGentry]

The problem is for the majority of us to start a business we'd have to go into debt first, and we would not actually turn profit until long after our workers have been exploited to the point where they don't see us as grateful. It's be a tough case to win them back and particularly more people. Furthermore, I don't think sending it to children in Cuba is gonna help, at least not in the US.

[Subversive Pessimist]

The problem is for the majority of us to start a business we'd have to go into debt first


I agree.<


and we would not actually turn profit until long after our workers have been exploited to the point where they don&#39;t see us as grateful.

The majority of the workers I know (at least from the right wing side) are grateful to the bourgeoise. They don&#39;t think like us.

When we see a private shop, we see exploitation.

When they see a private shop, they think: "Wow, let&#39;s go inside and buy something&#33;"

When we air commercials that says to the poor (as an example): "You, the worker, created this country. You created the bridges, the highways, the castles, the computers, the televisions, and even the bed you sleep in, and still you are paid a low wage, and someone else (the bourgeoise) take the profit away from you. You are being robbed"

When we air things like this to millions, if not billions of people, they will demand more, and they will demand a more just system (which we advocate: Socialism).


Those that should work there should primarily be leftists (socialists, anarchists, communists). We could hire in example democratic socialists as technicians, and the board should be made primarily of communists that decide what should be aired on television.

I know it sounds like a bit of a fantasy: But we could start even this small:

Walk out with flyers about class struggle every once in a week. Create a local newspaper. Write some articles to bourgeoise media, for instance. They will still be read even if they are posted at their media. We, leftists around the world could collect money, and create a newspaper in one country.

The profit (let&#39;s say as an example: 10 percent, or 10 000 dollars) could create another newspaper with another name, and that the profit from these two newspapers (20 000 dollars) could be used to create two, three newspapers. Get the idea?



We must also remember why Al Sadr has such a high position in Iraq (please correct me if I am wrong). The US closed down his local newspaper (with "only" 10 000 readers), because he demanded a revolution in Iraq against the imperialist soldiers. That created the situation today.




I couldnt agree more, but the fact remains, it is nigh on impossible to gain control of a media owned and run by the ruling class.


I agree. But we should start at a local level, even right now. If you post a thread at a mainstream forum about class struggle, and maybe some articles of Albert Enstein (Why Socialism? - for instance), that is a good start. A thread could get a lot of intention, and it will at least give people something to think about. (It doesn&#39;t mean it have to be to be: "omfg I&#39;m going to start a revolution and establish socialism ffs :ph34r:", in order to make them think that, "hey, maybe this system isn&#39;t that good, after all?")

[Subversive Pessimist]

The problem is for the majority of us to start a business we&#39;d have to go into debt first


I agree.<


and we would not actually turn profit until long after our workers have been exploited to the point where they don&#39;t see us as grateful.

The majority of the workers I know (at least from the right wing side) are grateful to the bourgeoise. They don&#39;t think like us.

When we see a private shop, we see exploitation.

When they see a private shop, they think: "Wow, let&#39;s go inside and buy something&#33;"

When we air commercials that says to the poor (as an example): "You, the worker, created this country. You created the bridges, the highways, the castles, the computers, the televisions, and even the bed you sleep in, and still you are paid a low wage, and someone else (the bourgeoise) take the profit away from you. You are being robbed"

When we air things like this to millions, if not billions of people, they will demand more, and they will demand a more just system (which we advocate: Socialism).


Those that should work there should primarily be leftists (socialists, anarchists, communists). We could hire in example democratic socialists as technicians, and the board should be made primarily of communists that decide what should be aired on television.

I know it sounds like a bit of a fantasy: But we could start even this small:

Walk out with flyers about class struggle every once in a week. Create a local newspaper. Write some articles to bourgeoise media, for instance. They will still be read even if they are posted at their media. We, leftists around the world could collect money, and create a newspaper in one country.

The profit (let&#39;s say as an example: 10 percent, or 10 000 dollars) could create another newspaper with another name, and that the profit from these two newspapers (20 000 dollars) could be used to create two, three newspapers. Get the idea?



We must also remember why Al Sadr has such a high position in Iraq (please correct me if I am wrong). The US closed down his local newspaper (with "only" 10 000 readers), because he demanded a revolution in Iraq against the imperialist soldiers. That created the situation today.




I couldnt agree more, but the fact remains, it is nigh on impossible to gain control of a media owned and run by the ruling class.


I agree. But we should start at a local level, even right now. If you post a thread at a mainstream forum about class struggle, and maybe some articles of Albert Enstein (Why Socialism? - for instance), that is a good start. A thread could get a lot of intention, and it will at least give people something to think about. (It doesn&#39;t mean it have to be to be: "omfg I&#39;m going to start a revolution and establish socialism ffs :ph34r:", in order to make them think that, "hey, maybe this system isn&#39;t that good, after all?")

[Subversive Pessimist]

The problem is for the majority of us to start a business we&#39;d have to go into debt first


I agree.<


and we would not actually turn profit until long after our workers have been exploited to the point where they don&#39;t see us as grateful.

The majority of the workers I know (at least from the right wing side) are grateful to the bourgeoise. They don&#39;t think like us.

When we see a private shop, we see exploitation.

When they see a private shop, they think: "Wow, let&#39;s go inside and buy something&#33;"

When we air commercials that says to the poor (as an example): "You, the worker, created this country. You created the bridges, the highways, the castles, the computers, the televisions, and even the bed you sleep in, and still you are paid a low wage, and someone else (the bourgeoise) take the profit away from you. You are being robbed"

When we air things like this to millions, if not billions of people, they will demand more, and they will demand a more just system (which we advocate: Socialism).


Those that should work there should primarily be leftists (socialists, anarchists, communists). We could hire in example democratic socialists as technicians, and the board should be made primarily of communists that decide what should be aired on television.

I know it sounds like a bit of a fantasy: But we could start even this small:

Walk out with flyers about class struggle every once in a week. Create a local newspaper. Write some articles to bourgeoise media, for instance. They will still be read even if they are posted at their media. We, leftists around the world could collect money, and create a newspaper in one country.

The profit (let&#39;s say as an example: 10 percent, or 10 000 dollars) could create another newspaper with another name, and that the profit from these two newspapers (20 000 dollars) could be used to create two, three newspapers. Get the idea?



We must also remember why Al Sadr has such a high position in Iraq (please correct me if I am wrong). The US closed down his local newspaper (with "only" 10 000 readers), because he demanded a revolution in Iraq against the imperialist soldiers. That created the situation today.




I couldnt agree more, but the fact remains, it is nigh on impossible to gain control of a media owned and run by the ruling class.


I agree. But we should start at a local level, even right now. If you post a thread at a mainstream forum about class struggle, and maybe some articles of Albert Enstein (Why Socialism? - for instance), that is a good start. A thread could get a lot of intention, and it will at least give people something to think about. (It doesn&#39;t mean it have to be to be: "omfg I&#39;m going to start a revolution and establish socialism ffs :ph34r:", in order to make them think that, "hey, maybe this system isn&#39;t that good, after all?")

[NovelGentry]

We could hire in example democratic socialists as technicians, and the board should be made primarily of communists that decide what should be aired on television.

So your plan isn&#39;t to let the market bankrupt you but to go into bankruptcy right off the bat for descriminating against workers based on their political beliefs?

Interview:

Execs: "So Mr. Smith.... what makes you think you&#39;d be good for our company?"
Smith: "Well, I&#39;m a very conservative guy, I believe the harder I work the further I&#39;ll go."
Execs: "Would you say you&#39;re conservative as in Republican conservative?"
Smith: "Well I was brought up Protestant... "
Execs: "Thanks, that&#39;s enough, we&#39;ll give you a call if we decide to overthr... I mean hire your kind."

I agree it does sound like a delicous idea, but why not just take over a nationally syndicated new cast? Just a though, same effect, sure you&#39;d be arrested or killed in the process, but you&#39;d never have to exploit anyone and it would serve the same cause. Not that I&#39;m advocating we do this (Directed towards the FBI officials reading this).

I&#39;m simply saying your goals are a bit simple for such an elaborate scheme. Besides, what&#39;s wrong with alternative media, newspaper for example?

I&#39;ve always found the "propaganda" method to take little effect. I see no difference in having a nationally established media outlet to spread this propaganda and spreading it manually by pamphlets (something I&#39;ve said doesn&#39;t have the desired effect I think most parties that partake in such activities to have). I think you have to truly educate, you have to start an organization and make it appeal to youth -- there needs to be open meetings that aren&#39;t so secretive. Get people who are interested, educate them, and let them do the same. Rather than just trying to spread this education to people who are sick and tired of being handed some socialist program by some smelly kid with a beard on the public transportation system.

[NovelGentry]

We could hire in example democratic socialists as technicians, and the board should be made primarily of communists that decide what should be aired on television.

So your plan isn&#39;t to let the market bankrupt you but to go into bankruptcy right off the bat for descriminating against workers based on their political beliefs?

Interview:

Execs: "So Mr. Smith.... what makes you think you&#39;d be good for our company?"
Smith: "Well, I&#39;m a very conservative guy, I believe the harder I work the further I&#39;ll go."
Execs: "Would you say you&#39;re conservative as in Republican conservative?"
Smith: "Well I was brought up Protestant... "
Execs: "Thanks, that&#39;s enough, we&#39;ll give you a call if we decide to overthr... I mean hire your kind."

I agree it does sound like a delicous idea, but why not just take over a nationally syndicated new cast? Just a though, same effect, sure you&#39;d be arrested or killed in the process, but you&#39;d never have to exploit anyone and it would serve the same cause. Not that I&#39;m advocating we do this (Directed towards the FBI officials reading this).

I&#39;m simply saying your goals are a bit simple for such an elaborate scheme. Besides, what&#39;s wrong with alternative media, newspaper for example?

I&#39;ve always found the "propaganda" method to take little effect. I see no difference in having a nationally established media outlet to spread this propaganda and spreading it manually by pamphlets (something I&#39;ve said doesn&#39;t have the desired effect I think most parties that partake in such activities to have). I think you have to truly educate, you have to start an organization and make it appeal to youth -- there needs to be open meetings that aren&#39;t so secretive. Get people who are interested, educate them, and let them do the same. Rather than just trying to spread this education to people who are sick and tired of being handed some socialist program by some smelly kid with a beard on the public transportation system.

[NovelGentry]

We could hire in example democratic socialists as technicians, and the board should be made primarily of communists that decide what should be aired on television.

So your plan isn&#39;t to let the market bankrupt you but to go into bankruptcy right off the bat for descriminating against workers based on their political beliefs?

Interview:

Execs: "So Mr. Smith.... what makes you think you&#39;d be good for our company?"
Smith: "Well, I&#39;m a very conservative guy, I believe the harder I work the further I&#39;ll go."
Execs: "Would you say you&#39;re conservative as in Republican conservative?"
Smith: "Well I was brought up Protestant... "
Execs: "Thanks, that&#39;s enough, we&#39;ll give you a call if we decide to overthr... I mean hire your kind."

I agree it does sound like a delicous idea, but why not just take over a nationally syndicated new cast? Just a though, same effect, sure you&#39;d be arrested or killed in the process, but you&#39;d never have to exploit anyone and it would serve the same cause. Not that I&#39;m advocating we do this (Directed towards the FBI officials reading this).

I&#39;m simply saying your goals are a bit simple for such an elaborate scheme. Besides, what&#39;s wrong with alternative media, newspaper for example?

I&#39;ve always found the "propaganda" method to take little effect. I see no difference in having a nationally established media outlet to spread this propaganda and spreading it manually by pamphlets (something I&#39;ve said doesn&#39;t have the desired effect I think most parties that partake in such activities to have). I think you have to truly educate, you have to start an organization and make it appeal to youth -- there needs to be open meetings that aren&#39;t so secretive. Get people who are interested, educate them, and let them do the same. Rather than just trying to spread this education to people who are sick and tired of being handed some socialist program by some smelly kid with a beard on the public transportation system.

[Xvall]

This has always been an applicable thing to do. The only problem that I have with this is that... well... power corrupts.. and money corrupts even more. This is how a lot of companies start off, and how a lot of them end up. Example:

Joe decides to start a company that builds houses, because he honestly feels that everyone deserves to have a house. He hires workers, and pays them more than the average real estate salesman would. The workers like him, and he builds houses. However, because of his good intentions, the amount of money his company makes is minimal, and barely suffices to keep the company standing. Soon, he realizes he has to charge more so that his company can keep on building houses. He does so, and soon, he ends up having a surplus of money. He keeps on hiring more workers, and eventually his company becomes bigger and bigger. In no time at all, he is filthy rich, and his business is vast. He now has to build hi-rise condos in order to keep his big company big. Soon, he no longer gives a damn about building houses for the poor. His loyalties only lie in himself and his money.

What I&#39;m getting at is: There is no way to be sure that these people with &#39;good intentions&#39; who infiltrate capitalistic society by starting &#39;nice companies&#39; won&#39;t get carried away when they realize that they can buy anything in the world with their moeny.

[Xvall]

This has always been an applicable thing to do. The only problem that I have with this is that... well... power corrupts.. and money corrupts even more. This is how a lot of companies start off, and how a lot of them end up. Example:

Joe decides to start a company that builds houses, because he honestly feels that everyone deserves to have a house. He hires workers, and pays them more than the average real estate salesman would. The workers like him, and he builds houses. However, because of his good intentions, the amount of money his company makes is minimal, and barely suffices to keep the company standing. Soon, he realizes he has to charge more so that his company can keep on building houses. He does so, and soon, he ends up having a surplus of money. He keeps on hiring more workers, and eventually his company becomes bigger and bigger. In no time at all, he is filthy rich, and his business is vast. He now has to build hi-rise condos in order to keep his big company big. Soon, he no longer gives a damn about building houses for the poor. His loyalties only lie in himself and his money.

What I&#39;m getting at is: There is no way to be sure that these people with &#39;good intentions&#39; who infiltrate capitalistic society by starting &#39;nice companies&#39; won&#39;t get carried away when they realize that they can buy anything in the world with their moeny.

[Xvall]

This has always been an applicable thing to do. The only problem that I have with this is that... well... power corrupts.. and money corrupts even more. This is how a lot of companies start off, and how a lot of them end up. Example:

Joe decides to start a company that builds houses, because he honestly feels that everyone deserves to have a house. He hires workers, and pays them more than the average real estate salesman would. The workers like him, and he builds houses. However, because of his good intentions, the amount of money his company makes is minimal, and barely suffices to keep the company standing. Soon, he realizes he has to charge more so that his company can keep on building houses. He does so, and soon, he ends up having a surplus of money. He keeps on hiring more workers, and eventually his company becomes bigger and bigger. In no time at all, he is filthy rich, and his business is vast. He now has to build hi-rise condos in order to keep his big company big. Soon, he no longer gives a damn about building houses for the poor. His loyalties only lie in himself and his money.

What I&#39;m getting at is: There is no way to be sure that these people with &#39;good intentions&#39; who infiltrate capitalistic society by starting &#39;nice companies&#39; won&#39;t get carried away when they realize that they can buy anything in the world with their moeny.

[Comfort]

if you take over a news broadcasting thingy and indoctrinate the people to see socialist views it will not last. it will just be like the soviet union. i like ideas from local levels, gotta start grassroots so a "revolution" will be popular based. then it has true support from all people. the key, i believe, is to discuss with people about compassion and the like. the poor working class is too small to fight back, the rich are comfortable in their lives...its the middle class that will change the world. one of my favorite things to do is to go to a coffee shop (you know why) and just strike up conversation with customers. i&#39;ve found people love to debate and creating awareness of others&#39; plights creates people with openminds and compassionate thoughts.

[Comfort]

if you take over a news broadcasting thingy and indoctrinate the people to see socialist views it will not last. it will just be like the soviet union. i like ideas from local levels, gotta start grassroots so a "revolution" will be popular based. then it has true support from all people. the key, i believe, is to discuss with people about compassion and the like. the poor working class is too small to fight back, the rich are comfortable in their lives...its the middle class that will change the world. one of my favorite things to do is to go to a coffee shop (you know why) and just strike up conversation with customers. i&#39;ve found people love to debate and creating awareness of others&#39; plights creates people with openminds and compassionate thoughts.

[Comfort]

if you take over a news broadcasting thingy and indoctrinate the people to see socialist views it will not last. it will just be like the soviet union. i like ideas from local levels, gotta start grassroots so a "revolution" will be popular based. then it has true support from all people. the key, i believe, is to discuss with people about compassion and the like. the poor working class is too small to fight back, the rich are comfortable in their lives...its the middle class that will change the world. one of my favorite things to do is to go to a coffee shop (you know why) and just strike up conversation with customers. i&#39;ve found people love to debate and creating awareness of others&#39; plights creates people with openminds and compassionate thoughts.

[commiecrusader]

I don&#39;t know where you live comfort, but if I did that in any of the coffee shops where I live I&#39;m pretty sure I&#39;d be told where to go, not because it&#39;s really rough or anything, but because the people just don&#39;t care...

although I guess they are mostly quite rich in the coffee shops round here...

[commiecrusader]

I don&#39;t know where you live comfort, but if I did that in any of the coffee shops where I live I&#39;m pretty sure I&#39;d be told where to go, not because it&#39;s really rough or anything, but because the people just don&#39;t care...

although I guess they are mostly quite rich in the coffee shops round here...

[commiecrusader]

I don&#39;t know where you live comfort, but if I did that in any of the coffee shops where I live I&#39;m pretty sure I&#39;d be told where to go, not because it&#39;s really rough or anything, but because the people just don&#39;t care...

although I guess they are mostly quite rich in the coffee shops round here...

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:10 AM
The plan is basically to infiltrate the bourgeois system. We will become the bourgeoise.
I think that&#39;s the key problem with this plan: you will become the new bourgeoisie. Despite your good intentions, you (and not just you specifically but everyone who went along with such a plan) will not have the same class interests as the proletariat.

In the US, there Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has been trying this for the past 30 years. They work within the Democratic Party, but instead of changing the system, the system has changed them. It&#39;s now mostly a petit bourgeois talk shop (done mostly on their listserv).

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:10 AM
The plan is basically to infiltrate the bourgeois system. We will become the bourgeoise.
I think that&#39;s the key problem with this plan: you will become the new bourgeoisie. Despite your good intentions, you (and not just you specifically but everyone who went along with such a plan) will not have the same class interests as the proletariat.

In the US, there Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has been trying this for the past 30 years. They work within the Democratic Party, but instead of changing the system, the system has changed them. It&#39;s now mostly a petit bourgeois talk shop (done mostly on their listserv).

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:10 AM
The plan is basically to infiltrate the bourgeois system. We will become the bourgeoise.
I think that&#39;s the key problem with this plan: you will become the new bourgeoisie. Despite your good intentions, you (and not just you specifically but everyone who went along with such a plan) will not have the same class interests as the proletariat.

In the US, there Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has been trying this for the past 30 years. They work within the Democratic Party, but instead of changing the system, the system has changed them. It&#39;s now mostly a petit bourgeois talk shop (done mostly on their listserv).

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s like trying to infiltrate the Catholic clergy so that you can "preach atheism".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s like trying to infiltrate the Catholic clergy so that you can "preach atheism".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s like trying to infiltrate the Catholic clergy so that you can "preach atheism".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[NovelGentry]

if you take over a news broadcasting thingy and indoctrinate the people to see socialist views it will not last. it will just be like the soviet union.

I think you&#39;re misisng the point. As I said just after stating the idea, I don&#39;t think the propaganda system works to begin with, and it wouldn&#39;t be much more than propaganda. Once again, true education is what is needed, the only benefit my idea serves is the same as creating your own media conglomerate -- it gets the idea out. People still have to be interested on their own.

[NovelGentry]

if you take over a news broadcasting thingy and indoctrinate the people to see socialist views it will not last. it will just be like the soviet union.

I think you&#39;re misisng the point. As I said just after stating the idea, I don&#39;t think the propaganda system works to begin with, and it wouldn&#39;t be much more than propaganda. Once again, true education is what is needed, the only benefit my idea serves is the same as creating your own media conglomerate -- it gets the idea out. People still have to be interested on their own.

[NovelGentry]

if you take over a news broadcasting thingy and indoctrinate the people to see socialist views it will not last. it will just be like the soviet union.

I think you&#39;re misisng the point. As I said just after stating the idea, I don&#39;t think the propaganda system works to begin with, and it wouldn&#39;t be much more than propaganda. Once again, true education is what is needed, the only benefit my idea serves is the same as creating your own media conglomerate -- it gets the idea out. People still have to be interested on their own.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I think we have to realize that media is one of the most powerful weapons we can get our hands on. Don&#39;t dismiss it just because it isn&#39;t a gun. It can just, or even more powerful. If


Think of it this way. What is the most difficult thing to do?

Defeat a 50,000 army with 30 guerillas, or creating a local newspaper with the goal that over 500 people are going to read it every day?


My point is that we cannot only go the reformist way, but we cannot (or at least should not) just go the direct way either, revolution. It should be a powerful combination of both. The media should act as a tool for the revolution, not the opposite. Think of it as softening up the enemy before we engage in our final strike against them.


I&#39;ll tell you, if someone had used five lines properly, explaining to me what communism and class struggle was 3 years ago, I would have become a communist right away. The fact is that some guy had to ask me "how much do you know about marxism-leninism?", and give me a link.

Everyone around is a potential comrade. We must not forget this.

Less then two years ago, I saw a guy on another forum calling himself "Lenin". I asked him: "Wasn&#39;t Lenin a really evil guy?", and he said: "No he was a pretty good guy". Again, all it had to take me was that link in order for me to become a communist. Of course, I did some research beside that before I decided to become a communist. But it was my opening, and what I saw after a while was a whole new way of understanding the world.

It wasn&#39;t more then that which took me to write this post, and I&#39;m sure most people on this forum have a similar story. If we could create a mass media open for most people, we would most likely recruit many more members then if we were to sit on the internet, or give some flyers out to people once in a year.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I think we have to realize that media is one of the most powerful weapons we can get our hands on. Don&#39;t dismiss it just because it isn&#39;t a gun. It can just, or even more powerful. If


Think of it this way. What is the most difficult thing to do?

Defeat a 50,000 army with 30 guerillas, or creating a local newspaper with the goal that over 500 people are going to read it every day?


My point is that we cannot only go the reformist way, but we cannot (or at least should not) just go the direct way either, revolution. It should be a powerful combination of both. The media should act as a tool for the revolution, not the opposite. Think of it as softening up the enemy before we engage in our final strike against them.


I&#39;ll tell you, if someone had used five lines properly, explaining to me what communism and class struggle was 3 years ago, I would have become a communist right away. The fact is that some guy had to ask me "how much do you know about marxism-leninism?", and give me a link.

Everyone around is a potential comrade. We must not forget this.

Less then two years ago, I saw a guy on another forum calling himself "Lenin". I asked him: "Wasn&#39;t Lenin a really evil guy?", and he said: "No he was a pretty good guy". Again, all it had to take me was that link in order for me to become a communist. Of course, I did some research beside that before I decided to become a communist. But it was my opening, and what I saw after a while was a whole new way of understanding the world.

It wasn&#39;t more then that which took me to write this post, and I&#39;m sure most people on this forum have a similar story. If we could create a mass media open for most people, we would most likely recruit many more members then if we were to sit on the internet, or give some flyers out to people once in a year.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I think we have to realize that media is one of the most powerful weapons we can get our hands on. Don&#39;t dismiss it just because it isn&#39;t a gun. It can just, or even more powerful. If


Think of it this way. What is the most difficult thing to do?

Defeat a 50,000 army with 30 guerillas, or creating a local newspaper with the goal that over 500 people are going to read it every day?


My point is that we cannot only go the reformist way, but we cannot (or at least should not) just go the direct way either, revolution. It should be a powerful combination of both. The media should act as a tool for the revolution, not the opposite. Think of it as softening up the enemy before we engage in our final strike against them.


I&#39;ll tell you, if someone had used five lines properly, explaining to me what communism and class struggle was 3 years ago, I would have become a communist right away. The fact is that some guy had to ask me "how much do you know about marxism-leninism?", and give me a link.

Everyone around is a potential comrade. We must not forget this.

Less then two years ago, I saw a guy on another forum calling himself "Lenin". I asked him: "Wasn&#39;t Lenin a really evil guy?", and he said: "No he was a pretty good guy". Again, all it had to take me was that link in order for me to become a communist. Of course, I did some research beside that before I decided to become a communist. But it was my opening, and what I saw after a while was a whole new way of understanding the world.

It wasn&#39;t more then that which took me to write this post, and I&#39;m sure most people on this forum have a similar story. If we could create a mass media open for most people, we would most likely recruit many more members then if we were to sit on the internet, or give some flyers out to people once in a year.

[NovelGentry]

The media is powerful because people listen to it. People listen to it because it&#39;s sensationalized and unrealistic. It&#39;s like watching a movie or something. 9/11 wasn&#39;t just terrorism in the news, it was like a movie -- As was any live footage from the wars that followed.

The newspaper is more difficult, because if you think 500 people who aren&#39;t already socialist are going to start reading a socialist newspaper you&#39;re insane.


My point is that we cannot only go the reformist way, but we cannot (or at least should not) just go the direct way either, revolution. It should be a powerful combination of both. The media should act as a tool for the revolution, not the opposite. Think of it as softening up the enemy before we engage in our final strike against them.

I&#39;ve said this a billion times, in fact I just finished a conversation about it with RebelRed. However, let&#39;s get some terms straight, reformist actually implies you&#39;re making reform (i.e. You&#39;re actually making peoples lives better), education is not reformist, if anything it is lower than reformist. While most certainly reformists educate it is the position of the revolutionary to actually bring about real change. Reform alone is only going to leave the people with a feeling of compromise that settles whatever agitation has been built up otherwise. What you need is a reformist who talks revolution -- not in the shallow sense of trying to gain support, but in a true sense. That is, you need someone who&#39;s actually going to take action when the support is there... but you need them to recognize that the support isn&#39;t going to be there until the people fully understand, and the people will not fully understand until they are shown the difference between socialism/communism in comparison to capitalism.

The problem with thinking of it as softening up the enemy is that the minute you being actually reforming you&#39;re faced with the people thinking everything is "alright." It&#39;s not alright until capitalism is abolished, and it will never be alright if we have universal healthcare, a living wage, and free schooling through college but are still living under capitalism. People WILL stop at reform if reform is all their taught. However, if they are taught revolution and are shown benefits through reform then they understand that while things are getting better, it&#39;s not over.

Use of the media, once again, is nothing more than some of the useless propaganda that most of the modern communist parties support. It is a position where we are handing someone the informaiton and expecting them to understand completely without ever having been shown how to understand it. If they knew how to understand the struggle to begin with they would be seeking this information on their own, the way we have. It is first and foremost required that we have revolutionary thought, and I don&#39;t believe you can acheive this simply by telling people "The capitalists exploit you."... the capitalists exploit everyone and people are willing to accept that because they don&#39;t see it as unfair.


I&#39;ll tell you, if someone had used five lines properly, explaining to me what communism and class struggle was 3 years ago, I would have become a communist right away. The fact is that some guy had to ask me "how much do you know about marxism-leninism?", and give me a link.

If you think 5 lines about what communism is is going to change a person&#39;s lifetime of capitalist understanding then I think you speak a much more powerful language than I do. You can give me 20 lines and it will only be a fraction more powerful than the 5, 100 an even smaller fraction over the 20. Why is this you ask? Because communism isn&#39;t something you just listen to what it does and are automatically converted, you have to understand how it works. People have questions, and unless youre willing to sit there and answer all of their questions till they have no more they will always question communism. The more lines you have only equates to more questions they have.

We as communists differ, because we accept communism on a wholly different level and are willing to let these questions be answered over time. We came to this ideology because we wanted to learn about it, not just because someone told us about it. Granted there are people who are told about it and then want to learn about it, but this is not a majority. If it was you would see a lot more communists than you do, and the age old fruitless method of handing out pamphlets would have converted the entire world long before we were ever born.


Everyone around is a potential comrade. We must not forget this.

Yes, but it is by their desire alone that they will become one, not ours.


Less then two years ago, I saw a guy on another forum calling himself "Lenin". I asked him: "Wasn&#39;t Lenin a really evil guy?", and he said: "No he was a pretty good guy". Again, all it had to take me was that link in order for me to become a communist. Of course, I did some research beside that before I decided to become a communist. But it was my opening, and what I saw after a while was a whole new way of understanding the world.

Take the first few sentences of that paragraph... is that really what you think will work on everyone, furthermore, if that does work for everyone, how long does it take before a capitalist shows them a "good capitalist." You go on to talk about research besides that, and this is where you and a majority differ... "Lenin is good", "Communism is good", and "I want to be communist" are three VERY different things, the third even more different than the first two.



It wasn&#39;t more then that which took me to write this post, and I&#39;m sure most people on this forum have a similar story. If we could create a mass media open for most people, we would most likely recruit many more members then if we were to sit on the internet, or give some flyers out to people once in a year.

I agree sitting here on the internet is not the ultimate solution, nor are flyers, but what I&#39;m explaining to you is that what you propose is not much different. It&#39;s a different medium with the same content being diseminated to the same people. Furthermore, I&#39;m not sure where you get this "once a year" stuff from. Between the hour long train ride it takes me to get into Boston and a decent amount of time walking around Boston I&#39;d be shocked NOT to get some flyer telling me all the good points of socialism. I would guess across the US alone in the period of a single day that at least 1,000 flyers are handed out in every major city, and at least 1,000 more to people in transit to those cities by public transportation. Assume a conservative (whoa dirty word) estimate of 10,000 per day. So why is it we don&#39;t have 10,000 new members flocking to this site every day if all it takes is that one article to make them understand "communism is good" ?

[NovelGentry]

The media is powerful because people listen to it. People listen to it because it&#39;s sensationalized and unrealistic. It&#39;s like watching a movie or something. 9/11 wasn&#39;t just terrorism in the news, it was like a movie -- As was any live footage from the wars that followed.

The newspaper is more difficult, because if you think 500 people who aren&#39;t already socialist are going to start reading a socialist newspaper you&#39;re insane.


My point is that we cannot only go the reformist way, but we cannot (or at least should not) just go the direct way either, revolution. It should be a powerful combination of both. The media should act as a tool for the revolution, not the opposite. Think of it as softening up the enemy before we engage in our final strike against them.

I&#39;ve said this a billion times, in fact I just finished a conversation about it with RebelRed. However, let&#39;s get some terms straight, reformist actually implies you&#39;re making reform (i.e. You&#39;re actually making peoples lives better), education is not reformist, if anything it is lower than reformist. While most certainly reformists educate it is the position of the revolutionary to actually bring about real change. Reform alone is only going to leave the people with a feeling of compromise that settles whatever agitation has been built up otherwise. What you need is a reformist who talks revolution -- not in the shallow sense of trying to gain support, but in a true sense. That is, you need someone who&#39;s actually going to take action when the support is there... but you need them to recognize that the support isn&#39;t going to be there until the people fully understand, and the people will not fully understand until they are shown the difference between socialism/communism in comparison to capitalism.

The problem with thinking of it as softening up the enemy is that the minute you being actually reforming you&#39;re faced with the people thinking everything is "alright." It&#39;s not alright until capitalism is abolished, and it will never be alright if we have universal healthcare, a living wage, and free schooling through college but are still living under capitalism. People WILL stop at reform if reform is all their taught. However, if they are taught revolution and are shown benefits through reform then they understand that while things are getting better, it&#39;s not over.

Use of the media, once again, is nothing more than some of the useless propaganda that most of the modern communist parties support. It is a position where we are handing someone the informaiton and expecting them to understand completely without ever having been shown how to understand it. If they knew how to understand the struggle to begin with they would be seeking this information on their own, the way we have. It is first and foremost required that we have revolutionary thought, and I don&#39;t believe you can acheive this simply by telling people "The capitalists exploit you."... the capitalists exploit everyone and people are willing to accept that because they don&#39;t see it as unfair.


I&#39;ll tell you, if someone had used five lines properly, explaining to me what communism and class struggle was 3 years ago, I would have become a communist right away. The fact is that some guy had to ask me "how much do you know about marxism-leninism?", and give me a link.

If you think 5 lines about what communism is is going to change a person&#39;s lifetime of capitalist understanding then I think you speak a much more powerful language than I do. You can give me 20 lines and it will only be a fraction more powerful than the 5, 100 an even smaller fraction over the 20. Why is this you ask? Because communism isn&#39;t something you just listen to what it does and are automatically converted, you have to understand how it works. People have questions, and unless youre willing to sit there and answer all of their questions till they have no more they will always question communism. The more lines you have only equates to more questions they have.

We as communists differ, because we accept communism on a wholly different level and are willing to let these questions be answered over time. We came to this ideology because we wanted to learn about it, not just because someone told us about it. Granted there are people who are told about it and then want to learn about it, but this is not a majority. If it was you would see a lot more communists than you do, and the age old fruitless method of handing out pamphlets would have converted the entire world long before we were ever born.


Everyone around is a potential comrade. We must not forget this.

Yes, but it is by their desire alone that they will become one, not ours.


Less then two years ago, I saw a guy on another forum calling himself "Lenin". I asked him: "Wasn&#39;t Lenin a really evil guy?", and he said: "No he was a pretty good guy". Again, all it had to take me was that link in order for me to become a communist. Of course, I did some research beside that before I decided to become a communist. But it was my opening, and what I saw after a while was a whole new way of understanding the world.

Take the first few sentences of that paragraph... is that really what you think will work on everyone, furthermore, if that does work for everyone, how long does it take before a capitalist shows them a "good capitalist." You go on to talk about research besides that, and this is where you and a majority differ... "Lenin is good", "Communism is good", and "I want to be communist" are three VERY different things, the third even more different than the first two.



It wasn&#39;t more then that which took me to write this post, and I&#39;m sure most people on this forum have a similar story. If we could create a mass media open for most people, we would most likely recruit many more members then if we were to sit on the internet, or give some flyers out to people once in a year.

I agree sitting here on the internet is not the ultimate solution, nor are flyers, but what I&#39;m explaining to you is that what you propose is not much different. It&#39;s a different medium with the same content being diseminated to the same people. Furthermore, I&#39;m not sure where you get this "once a year" stuff from. Between the hour long train ride it takes me to get into Boston and a decent amount of time walking around Boston I&#39;d be shocked NOT to get some flyer telling me all the good points of socialism. I would guess across the US alone in the period of a single day that at least 1,000 flyers are handed out in every major city, and at least 1,000 more to people in transit to those cities by public transportation. Assume a conservative (whoa dirty word) estimate of 10,000 per day. So why is it we don&#39;t have 10,000 new members flocking to this site every day if all it takes is that one article to make them understand "communism is good" ?

[NovelGentry]

The media is powerful because people listen to it. People listen to it because it&#39;s sensationalized and unrealistic. It&#39;s like watching a movie or something. 9/11 wasn&#39;t just terrorism in the news, it was like a movie -- As was any live footage from the wars that followed.

The newspaper is more difficult, because if you think 500 people who aren&#39;t already socialist are going to start reading a socialist newspaper you&#39;re insane.


My point is that we cannot only go the reformist way, but we cannot (or at least should not) just go the direct way either, revolution. It should be a powerful combination of both. The media should act as a tool for the revolution, not the opposite. Think of it as softening up the enemy before we engage in our final strike against them.

I&#39;ve said this a billion times, in fact I just finished a conversation about it with RebelRed. However, let&#39;s get some terms straight, reformist actually implies you&#39;re making reform (i.e. You&#39;re actually making peoples lives better), education is not reformist, if anything it is lower than reformist. While most certainly reformists educate it is the position of the revolutionary to actually bring about real change. Reform alone is only going to leave the people with a feeling of compromise that settles whatever agitation has been built up otherwise. What you need is a reformist who talks revolution -- not in the shallow sense of trying to gain support, but in a true sense. That is, you need someone who&#39;s actually going to take action when the support is there... but you need them to recognize that the support isn&#39;t going to be there until the people fully understand, and the people will not fully understand until they are shown the difference between socialism/communism in comparison to capitalism.

The problem with thinking of it as softening up the enemy is that the minute you being actually reforming you&#39;re faced with the people thinking everything is "alright." It&#39;s not alright until capitalism is abolished, and it will never be alright if we have universal healthcare, a living wage, and free schooling through college but are still living under capitalism. People WILL stop at reform if reform is all their taught. However, if they are taught revolution and are shown benefits through reform then they understand that while things are getting better, it&#39;s not over.

Use of the media, once again, is nothing more than some of the useless propaganda that most of the modern communist parties support. It is a position where we are handing someone the informaiton and expecting them to understand completely without ever having been shown how to understand it. If they knew how to understand the struggle to begin with they would be seeking this information on their own, the way we have. It is first and foremost required that we have revolutionary thought, and I don&#39;t believe you can acheive this simply by telling people "The capitalists exploit you."... the capitalists exploit everyone and people are willing to accept that because they don&#39;t see it as unfair.


I&#39;ll tell you, if someone had used five lines properly, explaining to me what communism and class struggle was 3 years ago, I would have become a communist right away. The fact is that some guy had to ask me "how much do you know about marxism-leninism?", and give me a link.

If you think 5 lines about what communism is is going to change a person&#39;s lifetime of capitalist understanding then I think you speak a much more powerful language than I do. You can give me 20 lines and it will only be a fraction more powerful than the 5, 100 an even smaller fraction over the 20. Why is this you ask? Because communism isn&#39;t something you just listen to what it does and are automatically converted, you have to understand how it works. People have questions, and unless youre willing to sit there and answer all of their questions till they have no more they will always question communism. The more lines you have only equates to more questions they have.

We as communists differ, because we accept communism on a wholly different level and are willing to let these questions be answered over time. We came to this ideology because we wanted to learn about it, not just because someone told us about it. Granted there are people who are told about it and then want to learn about it, but this is not a majority. If it was you would see a lot more communists than you do, and the age old fruitless method of handing out pamphlets would have converted the entire world long before we were ever born.


Everyone around is a potential comrade. We must not forget this.

Yes, but it is by their desire alone that they will become one, not ours.


Less then two years ago, I saw a guy on another forum calling himself "Lenin". I asked him: "Wasn&#39;t Lenin a really evil guy?", and he said: "No he was a pretty good guy". Again, all it had to take me was that link in order for me to become a communist. Of course, I did some research beside that before I decided to become a communist. But it was my opening, and what I saw after a while was a whole new way of understanding the world.

Take the first few sentences of that paragraph... is that really what you think will work on everyone, furthermore, if that does work for everyone, how long does it take before a capitalist shows them a "good capitalist." You go on to talk about research besides that, and this is where you and a majority differ... "Lenin is good", "Communism is good", and "I want to be communist" are three VERY different things, the third even more different than the first two.



It wasn&#39;t more then that which took me to write this post, and I&#39;m sure most people on this forum have a similar story. If we could create a mass media open for most people, we would most likely recruit many more members then if we were to sit on the internet, or give some flyers out to people once in a year.

I agree sitting here on the internet is not the ultimate solution, nor are flyers, but what I&#39;m explaining to you is that what you propose is not much different. It&#39;s a different medium with the same content being diseminated to the same people. Furthermore, I&#39;m not sure where you get this "once a year" stuff from. Between the hour long train ride it takes me to get into Boston and a decent amount of time walking around Boston I&#39;d be shocked NOT to get some flyer telling me all the good points of socialism. I would guess across the US alone in the period of a single day that at least 1,000 flyers are handed out in every major city, and at least 1,000 more to people in transit to those cities by public transportation. Assume a conservative (whoa dirty word) estimate of 10,000 per day. So why is it we don&#39;t have 10,000 new members flocking to this site every day if all it takes is that one article to make them understand "communism is good" ?

[Subversive Pessimist]

If you think 5 lines about what communism is is going to change a person&#39;s lifetime of capitalist understanding then I think you speak a much more powerful language than I do.


I often use straightforward language when I talk :)

What I meant was, five lines can be enough to get people interested in the idea, it can get them interested in learning more, and because they have little knowledge of the concept in general, these first lines will have a great influence on them.

If someone has said to me what communism was strict and precice, I would have agreed with the general concept right away, even though I wouldn&#39;t have rationalized my hope of living in that society, yet.


but what I&#39;m explaining to you is that what you propose is not much different. It&#39;s a different medium with the same content being diseminated to the same people. Furthermore, I&#39;m not sure where you get this "once a year" stuff from. Between the hour long train ride it takes me to get into Boston and a decent amount of time walking around Boston I&#39;d be shocked NOT to get some flyer telling me all the good points of socialism.


Seriously? That has not happend to me once in my lifetime.

[Subversive Pessimist]

If you think 5 lines about what communism is is going to change a person&#39;s lifetime of capitalist understanding then I think you speak a much more powerful language than I do.


I often use straightforward language when I talk :)

What I meant was, five lines can be enough to get people interested in the idea, it can get them interested in learning more, and because they have little knowledge of the concept in general, these first lines will have a great influence on them.

If someone has said to me what communism was strict and precice, I would have agreed with the general concept right away, even though I wouldn&#39;t have rationalized my hope of living in that society, yet.


but what I&#39;m explaining to you is that what you propose is not much different. It&#39;s a different medium with the same content being diseminated to the same people. Furthermore, I&#39;m not sure where you get this "once a year" stuff from. Between the hour long train ride it takes me to get into Boston and a decent amount of time walking around Boston I&#39;d be shocked NOT to get some flyer telling me all the good points of socialism.


Seriously? That has not happend to me once in my lifetime.

[Subversive Pessimist]

If you think 5 lines about what communism is is going to change a person&#39;s lifetime of capitalist understanding then I think you speak a much more powerful language than I do.


I often use straightforward language when I talk :)

What I meant was, five lines can be enough to get people interested in the idea, it can get them interested in learning more, and because they have little knowledge of the concept in general, these first lines will have a great influence on them.

If someone has said to me what communism was strict and precice, I would have agreed with the general concept right away, even though I wouldn&#39;t have rationalized my hope of living in that society, yet.


but what I&#39;m explaining to you is that what you propose is not much different. It&#39;s a different medium with the same content being diseminated to the same people. Furthermore, I&#39;m not sure where you get this "once a year" stuff from. Between the hour long train ride it takes me to get into Boston and a decent amount of time walking around Boston I&#39;d be shocked NOT to get some flyer telling me all the good points of socialism.


Seriously? That has not happend to me once in my lifetime.

[NovelGentry]

What I meant was, five lines can be enough to get people interested in the idea, it can get them interested in learning more, and because they have little knowledge of the concept in general, these first lines will have a great influence on them.

This is my point, I don&#39;t believe 5 lines can get someone interested. It can certainly introduce the idea to them, but only they can decide whether they&#39;re interested in it or not. For us people who already consider ourselves communist I would say that we were already interested in social equality, we just didn&#39;t necessarily understand it was socialism/communism until someone told us what that was. You don&#39;t get people interested in socialism/communism, you get them interested in social equality and justice, and then from there they either realize on their own or are presented with the idea that this is what socialism/communism is.

Everyone has knowledge of the concept of social justice, some just choose to ignore it. No one is going to tell you that they want to see people starve to death, they&#39;re going to tell you that it&#39;s not something they can help -- because they&#39;re simply thinking in terms of money. If some people had the money to feed the whole world they very well might, what they have to understand is that they don&#39;t need the money to feed the entire world, they just need to make the changes that allow the entire world to exist with no one going hungry -- and these changes have NOTHING to do with money.


If someone has said to me what communism was strict and precice, I would have agreed with the general concept right away, even though I wouldn&#39;t have rationalized my hope of living in that society, yet.

I&#39;m sorry to say, but I think you are an anomoly in modern capitalist socieities, and that stands for anyone else here who was automagically turned on to communism in this way. I had a long understanding of social injustice before I even knew what communism was, it was indeed that understanding that allowed me to open up to communism.


Seriously? That has not happend to me once in my lifetime.

Where do you live? To prove my point further, even if only 50 pamphlets were handed out a day (a GROSS underestimation) we would still be seeing 50 new communists per day according to your theory -- assuming of course these pamphlets have these 5 lines you speak of. What are these 5 lines anyway? I&#39;m dying to know.

Edit: One further point on why this doesn&#39;t work is that 99% of people who get these things simply throw them away. But your idea of controlling media does not stop this, they can just as easily refuse to buy newspapers, turn of the television, etc..etc. If all your news is left biased and people don&#39;t want to hear it they&#39;re not gonna watch it, even if they need the news somehow. Here&#39;s an idea... do like I do. Tape such pamphlets and flyers to the inside of the window of your car. Then you know the people who are reading it are reading it not because you told them to, but because they wanted to -- even if it&#39;s far less. I&#39;d rather know that I can get 10 people to actually think about social equality on their own than to try and push 100 people to think about it and end up with little more than 100 pieces of paper strewn around boston. Nothing says the 100 people who you hand a pamphlet to will want to read it, but every person who reads the flyers taped to the inside of my car are reading it because they want to.

[NovelGentry]

What I meant was, five lines can be enough to get people interested in the idea, it can get them interested in learning more, and because they have little knowledge of the concept in general, these first lines will have a great influence on them.

This is my point, I don&#39;t believe 5 lines can get someone interested. It can certainly introduce the idea to them, but only they can decide whether they&#39;re interested in it or not. For us people who already consider ourselves communist I would say that we were already interested in social equality, we just didn&#39;t necessarily understand it was socialism/communism until someone told us what that was. You don&#39;t get people interested in socialism/communism, you get them interested in social equality and justice, and then from there they either realize on their own or are presented with the idea that this is what socialism/communism is.

Everyone has knowledge of the concept of social justice, some just choose to ignore it. No one is going to tell you that they want to see people starve to death, they&#39;re going to tell you that it&#39;s not something they can help -- because they&#39;re simply thinking in terms of money. If some people had the money to feed the whole world they very well might, what they have to understand is that they don&#39;t need the money to feed the entire world, they just need to make the changes that allow the entire world to exist with no one going hungry -- and these changes have NOTHING to do with money.


If someone has said to me what communism was strict and precice, I would have agreed with the general concept right away, even though I wouldn&#39;t have rationalized my hope of living in that society, yet.

I&#39;m sorry to say, but I think you are an anomoly in modern capitalist socieities, and that stands for anyone else here who was automagically turned on to communism in this way. I had a long understanding of social injustice before I even knew what communism was, it was indeed that understanding that allowed me to open up to communism.


Seriously? That has not happend to me once in my lifetime.

Where do you live? To prove my point further, even if only 50 pamphlets were handed out a day (a GROSS underestimation) we would still be seeing 50 new communists per day according to your theory -- assuming of course these pamphlets have these 5 lines you speak of. What are these 5 lines anyway? I&#39;m dying to know.

Edit: One further point on why this doesn&#39;t work is that 99% of people who get these things simply throw them away. But your idea of controlling media does not stop this, they can just as easily refuse to buy newspapers, turn of the television, etc..etc. If all your news is left biased and people don&#39;t want to hear it they&#39;re not gonna watch it, even if they need the news somehow. Here&#39;s an idea... do like I do. Tape such pamphlets and flyers to the inside of the window of your car. Then you know the people who are reading it are reading it not because you told them to, but because they wanted to -- even if it&#39;s far less. I&#39;d rather know that I can get 10 people to actually think about social equality on their own than to try and push 100 people to think about it and end up with little more than 100 pieces of paper strewn around boston. Nothing says the 100 people who you hand a pamphlet to will want to read it, but every person who reads the flyers taped to the inside of my car are reading it because they want to.

[NovelGentry]

What I meant was, five lines can be enough to get people interested in the idea, it can get them interested in learning more, and because they have little knowledge of the concept in general, these first lines will have a great influence on them.

This is my point, I don&#39;t believe 5 lines can get someone interested. It can certainly introduce the idea to them, but only they can decide whether they&#39;re interested in it or not. For us people who already consider ourselves communist I would say that we were already interested in social equality, we just didn&#39;t necessarily understand it was socialism/communism until someone told us what that was. You don&#39;t get people interested in socialism/communism, you get them interested in social equality and justice, and then from there they either realize on their own or are presented with the idea that this is what socialism/communism is.

Everyone has knowledge of the concept of social justice, some just choose to ignore it. No one is going to tell you that they want to see people starve to death, they&#39;re going to tell you that it&#39;s not something they can help -- because they&#39;re simply thinking in terms of money. If some people had the money to feed the whole world they very well might, what they have to understand is that they don&#39;t need the money to feed the entire world, they just need to make the changes that allow the entire world to exist with no one going hungry -- and these changes have NOTHING to do with money.


If someone has said to me what communism was strict and precice, I would have agreed with the general concept right away, even though I wouldn&#39;t have rationalized my hope of living in that society, yet.

I&#39;m sorry to say, but I think you are an anomoly in modern capitalist socieities, and that stands for anyone else here who was automagically turned on to communism in this way. I had a long understanding of social injustice before I even knew what communism was, it was indeed that understanding that allowed me to open up to communism.


Seriously? That has not happend to me once in my lifetime.

Where do you live? To prove my point further, even if only 50 pamphlets were handed out a day (a GROSS underestimation) we would still be seeing 50 new communists per day according to your theory -- assuming of course these pamphlets have these 5 lines you speak of. What are these 5 lines anyway? I&#39;m dying to know.

Edit: One further point on why this doesn&#39;t work is that 99% of people who get these things simply throw them away. But your idea of controlling media does not stop this, they can just as easily refuse to buy newspapers, turn of the television, etc..etc. If all your news is left biased and people don&#39;t want to hear it they&#39;re not gonna watch it, even if they need the news somehow. Here&#39;s an idea... do like I do. Tape such pamphlets and flyers to the inside of the window of your car. Then you know the people who are reading it are reading it not because you told them to, but because they wanted to -- even if it&#39;s far less. I&#39;d rather know that I can get 10 people to actually think about social equality on their own than to try and push 100 people to think about it and end up with little more than 100 pieces of paper strewn around boston. Nothing says the 100 people who you hand a pamphlet to will want to read it, but every person who reads the flyers taped to the inside of my car are reading it because they want to.

[Subversive Pessimist]

As I said in another thread, I&#39;m tired, so I might do some big mistakes here, but let&#39;s try. This was a lot of back and forth.

Strawberry points out:

1. That we live in an age where control information is invaluable. We need to get control, or use information we can get hold on in our interest, and I do not see anything wrong, in fact I encourage people start their own local newspaper and talk about things that happen in our life from a socialsit viewpoint.

We do not have to call our newspaper, local radiostation, etc. socialist. It could just as well be called XXXXXX (local city&#39;s name, plus some other fitting words). It could be called The Daily Bullshit for that matter, but it is not wise, and so it is not very clever to call it The Armed Workers Newspaper. So if we could give it a normal name, and lurk in some of our views.


Strawberry asks NovelGentry:

1. Are you proposing that we should not try at all to establish a local newspaper or something like that?

2. What are you proposing?

[Subversive Pessimist]

As I said in another thread, I&#39;m tired, so I might do some big mistakes here, but let&#39;s try. This was a lot of back and forth.

Strawberry points out:

1. That we live in an age where control information is invaluable. We need to get control, or use information we can get hold on in our interest, and I do not see anything wrong, in fact I encourage people start their own local newspaper and talk about things that happen in our life from a socialsit viewpoint.

We do not have to call our newspaper, local radiostation, etc. socialist. It could just as well be called XXXXXX (local city&#39;s name, plus some other fitting words). It could be called The Daily Bullshit for that matter, but it is not wise, and so it is not very clever to call it The Armed Workers Newspaper. So if we could give it a normal name, and lurk in some of our views.


Strawberry asks NovelGentry:

1. Are you proposing that we should not try at all to establish a local newspaper or something like that?

2. What are you proposing?

[Subversive Pessimist]

As I said in another thread, I&#39;m tired, so I might do some big mistakes here, but let&#39;s try. This was a lot of back and forth.

Strawberry points out:

1. That we live in an age where control information is invaluable. We need to get control, or use information we can get hold on in our interest, and I do not see anything wrong, in fact I encourage people start their own local newspaper and talk about things that happen in our life from a socialsit viewpoint.

We do not have to call our newspaper, local radiostation, etc. socialist. It could just as well be called XXXXXX (local city&#39;s name, plus some other fitting words). It could be called The Daily Bullshit for that matter, but it is not wise, and so it is not very clever to call it The Armed Workers Newspaper. So if we could give it a normal name, and lurk in some of our views.


Strawberry asks NovelGentry:

1. Are you proposing that we should not try at all to establish a local newspaper or something like that?

2. What are you proposing?

[NovelGentry]

1. That we live in an age where control information is invaluable. We need to get control, or use information we can get hold on in our interest, and I do not see anything wrong, in fact I encourage people start their own local newspaper and talk about things that happen in our life from a socialsit viewpoint.

I agree, but what you propose is not the control of information it is simply the introduction of new information that deteriorates what control of information the current media has. I don&#39;t see anything wrong with people doing such things either, write and sell all the newspapers you want, I&#39;m just not under any illusion that this is going to change peoples minds.


So if we could give it a normal name, and lurk in some of our views.

The name is not the issue, it&#39;s the content. While everyone else in the world is covering the fact that Google is going to buy Ebay (assuming such a thing would happen in the future and it would be news). You&#39;re going to be explaining what Google buying Ebay means to workers. And that&#39;s all well and good for those people who already have a concept of social injustice, but for those who don&#39;t, which title sounds better?

Google buys Ebay, Text ads provided where products can be bought cheaper than auction prices&#33;

Google buys Ebay, 200 workers to be laid off, 200 more expected to quit due to require relocation.

Most people, working class and all are going to look at your title and see a job opportunity if Ebay&#39;s going to need 200 workers who quit because of relocation. Or at least 200 tech employees will see that. The rest of the people will probably just flat out ignore it. People with moderate opinions will say, "hrm... that&#39;s too bad, I hope they find new jobs" and then people like us will wonder why this shit even has to happen and why we aren&#39;t fighting for a system where things like this don&#39;t or can&#39;t happen. It&#39;s a matter of indifference... you have to convince people change is necessary before you can convince them to fight for it in any sense (reform or revolution.


1. Are you proposing that we should not try at all to establish a local newspaper or something like that?

I&#39;m proposing that you should do whatever you think is right, but simply telling you that I don&#39;t think it&#39;s going to make the impact you want it to make, thus I&#39;m not in a position to support it directly. I may provide money or work for such a newpaper, but it is not what I will think about in my spare time when I&#39;m thinking of other ways to change the world -- it would simply be another cause to donate for or another job that relates to my beliefs.


2. What are you proposing?

First off understand that I in no way claim to have a final solution to changing peoples indifference. I think it is something that is ingrown within people from the way our society is and the way people are brought up. I think for the majority of people (those who aren&#39;t already socially minded) that it will take as long to break that indifference as it has to create it, their entire lifetime. Thus what I propose is first and foremost focus on youth. If you ask me we&#39;d all do our ideology a lot more progress by becoming a "big brother" or "big sister" and mentoring some kid to have an idea of social injustice (despite already being a product of it). At least this way we have a decent shot at doubling our numbers through a form of direct education. But once again, this is exactly what I propose... DIRECT EDUCATION. How many people aside from politicians Campaign? Why don&#39;t we? Sure we all talk to people individually about what we think and we sometimes help them understand and sometimes not. But I see a HUGE number of socialists and communists willing to organize against other beliefs (protest) and very few willing to organize simply for their own beliefs. I&#39;m not talking about a small group of people in a local area... I&#39;m talking about huge rallies in open areas... hell maybe even a concert. And don&#39;t give me any examples of the half-assed shitfests that already exist to "help world hunger"... what we want is beyond helping world hunger. We have to organize people who understand under something big enough that it will attract huge numbers that are interested.

If you haven&#39;t read my edit on my last post read it before you read the rest or you prob won&#39;t know what I&#39;m talking about.

What I&#39;m talking about is a giant flyer on the inside of a giant car. Something so big that it cannot be ignored and people come to see what it&#39;s about and in doing so they willingly show interest in what we&#39;re saying rather than us just shoving it down their throats. If they don&#39;t like what we are saying then they are free to leave, but at least we&#39;ve provided an outlet where those who are interested can come to learn more and truly understand because they want to understand.

Edit: To simplify, instead of always going to protest what we&#39;re against, how bout we make something that the people we normally protest against come and protest us.

[NovelGentry]

1. That we live in an age where control information is invaluable. We need to get control, or use information we can get hold on in our interest, and I do not see anything wrong, in fact I encourage people start their own local newspaper and talk about things that happen in our life from a socialsit viewpoint.

I agree, but what you propose is not the control of information it is simply the introduction of new information that deteriorates what control of information the current media has. I don&#39;t see anything wrong with people doing such things either, write and sell all the newspapers you want, I&#39;m just not under any illusion that this is going to change peoples minds.


So if we could give it a normal name, and lurk in some of our views.

The name is not the issue, it&#39;s the content. While everyone else in the world is covering the fact that Google is going to buy Ebay (assuming such a thing would happen in the future and it would be news). You&#39;re going to be explaining what Google buying Ebay means to workers. And that&#39;s all well and good for those people who already have a concept of social injustice, but for those who don&#39;t, which title sounds better?

Google buys Ebay, Text ads provided where products can be bought cheaper than auction prices&#33;

Google buys Ebay, 200 workers to be laid off, 200 more expected to quit due to require relocation.

Most people, working class and all are going to look at your title and see a job opportunity if Ebay&#39;s going to need 200 workers who quit because of relocation. Or at least 200 tech employees will see that. The rest of the people will probably just flat out ignore it. People with moderate opinions will say, "hrm... that&#39;s too bad, I hope they find new jobs" and then people like us will wonder why this shit even has to happen and why we aren&#39;t fighting for a system where things like this don&#39;t or can&#39;t happen. It&#39;s a matter of indifference... you have to convince people change is necessary before you can convince them to fight for it in any sense (reform or revolution.


1. Are you proposing that we should not try at all to establish a local newspaper or something like that?

I&#39;m proposing that you should do whatever you think is right, but simply telling you that I don&#39;t think it&#39;s going to make the impact you want it to make, thus I&#39;m not in a position to support it directly. I may provide money or work for such a newpaper, but it is not what I will think about in my spare time when I&#39;m thinking of other ways to change the world -- it would simply be another cause to donate for or another job that relates to my beliefs.


2. What are you proposing?

First off understand that I in no way claim to have a final solution to changing peoples indifference. I think it is something that is ingrown within people from the way our society is and the way people are brought up. I think for the majority of people (those who aren&#39;t already socially minded) that it will take as long to break that indifference as it has to create it, their entire lifetime. Thus what I propose is first and foremost focus on youth. If you ask me we&#39;d all do our ideology a lot more progress by becoming a "big brother" or "big sister" and mentoring some kid to have an idea of social injustice (despite already being a product of it). At least this way we have a decent shot at doubling our numbers through a form of direct education. But once again, this is exactly what I propose... DIRECT EDUCATION. How many people aside from politicians Campaign? Why don&#39;t we? Sure we all talk to people individually about what we think and we sometimes help them understand and sometimes not. But I see a HUGE number of socialists and communists willing to organize against other beliefs (protest) and very few willing to organize simply for their own beliefs. I&#39;m not talking about a small group of people in a local area... I&#39;m talking about huge rallies in open areas... hell maybe even a concert. And don&#39;t give me any examples of the half-assed shitfests that already exist to "help world hunger"... what we want is beyond helping world hunger. We have to organize people who understand under something big enough that it will attract huge numbers that are interested.

If you haven&#39;t read my edit on my last post read it before you read the rest or you prob won&#39;t know what I&#39;m talking about.

What I&#39;m talking about is a giant flyer on the inside of a giant car. Something so big that it cannot be ignored and people come to see what it&#39;s about and in doing so they willingly show interest in what we&#39;re saying rather than us just shoving it down their throats. If they don&#39;t like what we are saying then they are free to leave, but at least we&#39;ve provided an outlet where those who are interested can come to learn more and truly understand because they want to understand.

Edit: To simplify, instead of always going to protest what we&#39;re against, how bout we make something that the people we normally protest against come and protest us.

[NovelGentry]

1. That we live in an age where control information is invaluable. We need to get control, or use information we can get hold on in our interest, and I do not see anything wrong, in fact I encourage people start their own local newspaper and talk about things that happen in our life from a socialsit viewpoint.

I agree, but what you propose is not the control of information it is simply the introduction of new information that deteriorates what control of information the current media has. I don&#39;t see anything wrong with people doing such things either, write and sell all the newspapers you want, I&#39;m just not under any illusion that this is going to change peoples minds.


So if we could give it a normal name, and lurk in some of our views.

The name is not the issue, it&#39;s the content. While everyone else in the world is covering the fact that Google is going to buy Ebay (assuming such a thing would happen in the future and it would be news). You&#39;re going to be explaining what Google buying Ebay means to workers. And that&#39;s all well and good for those people who already have a concept of social injustice, but for those who don&#39;t, which title sounds better?

Google buys Ebay, Text ads provided where products can be bought cheaper than auction prices&#33;

Google buys Ebay, 200 workers to be laid off, 200 more expected to quit due to require relocation.

Most people, working class and all are going to look at your title and see a job opportunity if Ebay&#39;s going to need 200 workers who quit because of relocation. Or at least 200 tech employees will see that. The rest of the people will probably just flat out ignore it. People with moderate opinions will say, "hrm... that&#39;s too bad, I hope they find new jobs" and then people like us will wonder why this shit even has to happen and why we aren&#39;t fighting for a system where things like this don&#39;t or can&#39;t happen. It&#39;s a matter of indifference... you have to convince people change is necessary before you can convince them to fight for it in any sense (reform or revolution.


1. Are you proposing that we should not try at all to establish a local newspaper or something like that?

I&#39;m proposing that you should do whatever you think is right, but simply telling you that I don&#39;t think it&#39;s going to make the impact you want it to make, thus I&#39;m not in a position to support it directly. I may provide money or work for such a newpaper, but it is not what I will think about in my spare time when I&#39;m thinking of other ways to change the world -- it would simply be another cause to donate for or another job that relates to my beliefs.


2. What are you proposing?

First off understand that I in no way claim to have a final solution to changing peoples indifference. I think it is something that is ingrown within people from the way our society is and the way people are brought up. I think for the majority of people (those who aren&#39;t already socially minded) that it will take as long to break that indifference as it has to create it, their entire lifetime. Thus what I propose is first and foremost focus on youth. If you ask me we&#39;d all do our ideology a lot more progress by becoming a "big brother" or "big sister" and mentoring some kid to have an idea of social injustice (despite already being a product of it). At least this way we have a decent shot at doubling our numbers through a form of direct education. But once again, this is exactly what I propose... DIRECT EDUCATION. How many people aside from politicians Campaign? Why don&#39;t we? Sure we all talk to people individually about what we think and we sometimes help them understand and sometimes not. But I see a HUGE number of socialists and communists willing to organize against other beliefs (protest) and very few willing to organize simply for their own beliefs. I&#39;m not talking about a small group of people in a local area... I&#39;m talking about huge rallies in open areas... hell maybe even a concert. And don&#39;t give me any examples of the half-assed shitfests that already exist to "help world hunger"... what we want is beyond helping world hunger. We have to organize people who understand under something big enough that it will attract huge numbers that are interested.

If you haven&#39;t read my edit on my last post read it before you read the rest or you prob won&#39;t know what I&#39;m talking about.

What I&#39;m talking about is a giant flyer on the inside of a giant car. Something so big that it cannot be ignored and people come to see what it&#39;s about and in doing so they willingly show interest in what we&#39;re saying rather than us just shoving it down their throats. If they don&#39;t like what we are saying then they are free to leave, but at least we&#39;ve provided an outlet where those who are interested can come to learn more and truly understand because they want to understand.

Edit: To simplify, instead of always going to protest what we&#39;re against, how bout we make something that the people we normally protest against come and protest us.

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:10 AM
"And before we hang the last capitalist, he will sell us the rope with which to
do it." - Lenin

I thought about this sentence for a while, and I came up with an idea, and I think it is very good. The plan is basically to infiltrate the bourgeois system. We will become the bourgeoise. We will take control of the media in countries (we all know that media is more powerful then guns). When we also have control of corporations, we can do many things. We can use the profit to:

1. Give the workers in that corporation the profit
2. Give the profit away to communist groups in other countries
3. We could give the profit to organizations that we have ourselves created, that will help poor socialist countries, like Cuba, for instance.
4. We could donate the money to the communist parties, or
5. a combination of everyone of these options.

I believe this is the most effective way to take control of a country and win over them. When we have control of the media, we can promote the communist party, revolution, make documentaries about USSR, Cuba etc. and make people interested in class struggle.


What do you think?
One party in America wants to do something along those lines. The Revolutionary Communist Party&#33; Their beliefs in a nutshell is that all the countries in the world must switch to communism at the same time, so they fill "communist" (I use the world lightly) must run the capitalist establishment until all countries are ready to make the leap. Until then they would funnel corporate profits to the developing countries. Great idea...

I see Redstar has posted on this thread already and was surprised to see he did say that was the "Leninist&#39;s" goal. :P

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:10 AM
"And before we hang the last capitalist, he will sell us the rope with which to
do it." - Lenin

I thought about this sentence for a while, and I came up with an idea, and I think it is very good. The plan is basically to infiltrate the bourgeois system. We will become the bourgeoise. We will take control of the media in countries (we all know that media is more powerful then guns). When we also have control of corporations, we can do many things. We can use the profit to:

1. Give the workers in that corporation the profit
2. Give the profit away to communist groups in other countries
3. We could give the profit to organizations that we have ourselves created, that will help poor socialist countries, like Cuba, for instance.
4. We could donate the money to the communist parties, or
5. a combination of everyone of these options.

I believe this is the most effective way to take control of a country and win over them. When we have control of the media, we can promote the communist party, revolution, make documentaries about USSR, Cuba etc. and make people interested in class struggle.


What do you think?
One party in America wants to do something along those lines. The Revolutionary Communist Party&#33; Their beliefs in a nutshell is that all the countries in the world must switch to communism at the same time, so they fill "communist" (I use the world lightly) must run the capitalist establishment until all countries are ready to make the leap. Until then they would funnel corporate profits to the developing countries. Great idea...

I see Redstar has posted on this thread already and was surprised to see he did say that was the "Leninist&#39;s" goal. :P

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:10 AM
"And before we hang the last capitalist, he will sell us the rope with which to
do it." - Lenin

I thought about this sentence for a while, and I came up with an idea, and I think it is very good. The plan is basically to infiltrate the bourgeois system. We will become the bourgeoise. We will take control of the media in countries (we all know that media is more powerful then guns). When we also have control of corporations, we can do many things. We can use the profit to:

1. Give the workers in that corporation the profit
2. Give the profit away to communist groups in other countries
3. We could give the profit to organizations that we have ourselves created, that will help poor socialist countries, like Cuba, for instance.
4. We could donate the money to the communist parties, or
5. a combination of everyone of these options.

I believe this is the most effective way to take control of a country and win over them. When we have control of the media, we can promote the communist party, revolution, make documentaries about USSR, Cuba etc. and make people interested in class struggle.


What do you think?
One party in America wants to do something along those lines. The Revolutionary Communist Party&#33; Their beliefs in a nutshell is that all the countries in the world must switch to communism at the same time, so they fill "communist" (I use the world lightly) must run the capitalist establishment until all countries are ready to make the leap. Until then they would funnel corporate profits to the developing countries. Great idea...

I see Redstar has posted on this thread already and was surprised to see he did say that was the "Leninist&#39;s" goal. :P