Do we need a new name?

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I apologize for not posting much these days.

I just read a very interesting article, and I will provide the link below. The author, Ben Seattle, insists that the name "communism" should be abandoned. His argument is based on what he considers a historical precedent.

The global working class movement from the late 1800's, with the support of Marx and Engels, was called social democracy. When most of the social-democratic parties abandoned internationalism at the start of World War I, Lenin insisted the true fighters for workers' liberation required a new name. Thus, Lenin and the Bolsheviks refashioned themselves as "communists", leaving "social-democrat" for the nationalist lapdogs of the Second International.

Mr. Seattle believes the failure of the Soviet Union marks a similar massive failure, a degeneration to use his term. He proposes that we separate ourselves from Stalin and the rest by abandoning the name they abused, just as Lenin abandoned social-democracy when it became abused by apologists for imperialist war. Seattle proposes that the new name be "proletarism."

I am intrigued by the logic of this, though I do not particularly like the specific term of "proletarism." It just doesn't roll off the tongue like "socialist", "communist", or "anarchist" does. In any event, I hope you take time to read the article and think about this for yourself.

Here is the link to the article:
http://struggle.net/proletarism/

[YKTMX]

I can personally see the logic of this. I don't even use the term "Communist" anyway. I usually just categorize myself as a Socialist or Marxist. I don't feel these names really carry the same stigma as "Communist", which has been bastardized beyond all recognition.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

The thing is no matter what we call ourselves the capitalists will just find new ways to tarnish what we call ourselves. Even if we decided to discard the name "Communism" and replace it with "Proletarism" or "International Socialism" or even "Ice Creamism", they'll just muddy up THAT name and drag our banner through the mud.

I don't think Communists should hide what they are- we should proudly call ourselves Communists and use Communist symbols and imagery. After all, Marx and Engels said in The Communist Manifesto that "Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims"! We should be proud of our Communist history where we have been victorious, and we should be constantly working to expose the lies put forward about Communism and educate the masses of people about what Communism is really all about. In fact, the Revolutionary Worker has been publishing a series of articles called "Setting the Record Straight", which is meant to help clear up the lies about Communism and what it stands for, so that we can boldly and proudly reclaim the "C" word as the true name of the ideology of the proletariat!

[YKTMX]

It's not a question of them dragging it through the mud. It's a question of us dragging it all the way ourselves. Of course, they latched onto this, but once a "Communist Party" was involved in the Moscow Trials or forced collectivization, we were just asking for trouble.

[HueyPNewton26]

I would suggest this to be a topic we, as a communist community, seriously consider. Many people who may otherwise support our cause may be lead away because of what comes to mind when the word communism is said. A new name may make our cause a more welcoming one to outsiders, which would benefit the fight against capitalism greatly.

[Urban Rubble]

I've got it !! How about "Communalism". They'll never guess !!

But yeah, I've stopped saying Communist for the most part. Usually it's just "far left" or "Socialist".

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Why should we let the bourgeoisie and phony-communists/revisionists set the terms for our movement? I think it is important that we maintain the name "Communist" simply for the sake of sticking to our principles and what we stand for, not allowing the enemy to suffocate us or take away history from us. If a "Communist" party is involved in oppressing the masses or doing something screwed-up, then we should expose them as phony-communists (or- if it is an error committed by a genuinely revolutionary part- openly and honestly criticize their errors) in front of the masses. We should also be constantly showing our successes and what is GOOD about Communism, and work diligently to educate people so that they see Communism for what it truly is.

I refuse to give up the "C" word, and I think Marxists around the world are wise in sticking to it and boldly calling themselves Communists. I know I personally am very loud and proud about what I am: I am a COMMUNIST!

[RedAnarchist]

I couldnt agree more, Andrei. They cant take our name, or else they will already have won a major battle in the war.

[Edelweiss]

Actually I think the term communism existed before "social democracy", but because communism was so demonized by the ruling class ("A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of communism...), communists used to describe themself as "social democrats". So "social demorats" already was a term communists choosed for tactical reasons.
I think tactically it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to act under a new "brand" again after the failure of Marxism-Leninism, which just too many people equate with communism.

[Djehuti]

The problem is not us calling ourselfs communists, but us being communists.
The bourgeoisie dont care what we call ourselfs, its our ideas they want to kill.
And if we resign on this, they will soon enought try to attack the term "socialism",
and et cetera. Instead, we should fight for our terminology and attack theirs, for every strike they make against us, we should strike three blows back. Capitalism is allready dirty, let us attack terms like "liberalism", lets challenge them on their grounds.

[RagsToRevolution]

The term socialist has been destroyed, its a term often used to describe any sort of liberal by the neo-conservative movement in the U$.

The term Marxist is often used in the phrase "Masonic Marxist Jewish conspiracy", also used by the neo-conservative movement to describe anything that threatens their "Judeo-Christian heritage."

The term communist needs not be explained.

Personally, I am keeping my self description of "Marxist," as I find it unnecessary to hide what I am.

[Zingu]

Marxism and Marxist doesn't rub people as badly as Communism/Communist, I call myself a Marxist actually since everyone seems to associate Communism with Marxist-Leninism these days.

Oh! Oh! I know! Instead of Marxist, how about Engelist and Engelism? :lol:

[NovelGentry]

There is an article here that explains how the words in essence have been reversed, that is, socialism and communism. Make what you will of it -- I don't think it's anything that's necessary as long as we have a shared understanding of what both actually mean now. I have no clue about the qualifications for this guy... etc...

http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue24/robeso24.htm

[redstar2000]

"Proletarism" has come up a couple of times previously in this forum...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...&hl=proletarism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26768&hl=proletarism)

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...&hl=proletarism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26173&hl=proletarism)

I think in English-speaking countries, the term would be workerism -- since there's no reason to confuse people with a Latin derivative.

It would symbolize our commitment to a future society where all political and economic power would be directly in the hands of the working class itself...and not mediated through a "vanguard party" or "great leader".

I confess this idea is not without appeal to me...even though, as Andrei Mazenov correctly points out, the ruling class will not be "fooled" and will start throwing shit at the word and the ideas behind it instantly.

There's no way to advocate a classless society and not be maliciously slandered by the ruling class.

Nevertheless, the word "workerism", "workerist", "a workers' society", etc. might have an unanticipated appeal to people who've been taught to believe "communism = Stalin = baby-eaters" and such. It might gain us some listeners who won't listen now.

The phrase "revolutionary workerist movement" sounds kind of "strange"...but that's just because it would be something new.

:redstar2000:

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

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 03:41 AM

I think in English-speaking countries, the term would be workerism -- since there's no reason to confuse people with a Latin derivative.

"Proletarism/Marxist-Proletarism" or "Marxist-Proletarianist" sounds "cooler" though.

[YKTMX]

It would symbolize our commitment to a future society where all political and economic power would be directly in the hands of the working class itself...and not mediated through a "vanguard party" or "great leader".

That name would also be useful for the ruling class because it would assure them that we never intended to organize a serious revolutionary party to defeat them.

Good all round.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
That name would also be useful for the ruling class because it would assure them that we never intended to organize a serious revolutionary party to defeat them.

Ah yes, for those unfortunates who equate "seriousness" with some wretched sect and self-appointed "great leader".

None of that "workerist" shit for them. :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[Hate Is Art]

I just stick to Communist, no one seems to mind really. Although I agree Stalin dragged out name through the mud, I don't see a reason to change it.

[pandora]

The only problem with "workerism" is that a.) workers in some countries, the U.S. for instance only equate worker or union rights with those who are currently working, and of those, those who are skilled craftsman due to the past attentions of the AFL/CIO.

Also due to unions past dismissal (not the IWW of course) of immigrants and low wage workers as insignificant for representation, most jobs are not, and were not unionized in the U.S., rather the unions became associated with a sense of male hierarchy and elitism which women and immigrants, or even person's of color felt they were not apart of and had little rights to apply to.

In countries like England where there is a sense of the working class, this would be much easier.

b.) The unions in the U.S. due to their elitism towards many workers, such as the service industry, became almost a dirty word to many lower income people, who saw their needs not only being ignored by unions, but that unions sold out to managers, and actual discrimination against them as workers,

That's not to say all unions are bad. The idea of a union which actually engages in critical dialogue with all parties is a marvelous thing. But with current conditions managers see no reason to step to the table due to reliance on globalizm.

I like the idea of philosophically being a Marxist, and politically in terms of vision a social democrat, although I fear the association with that party as they rolled over in Germany to Hitler and his secret police.

Communism causes :o which is not a bad thing. I think the idea of it is so strong that it wakes people up, they are literally afraid of it. As Subcommandante Marcos says "they cut of the ears of teachers who were suspected of being 'Communist',"when he was young.

I like the ideas of "true democracy" that the Zapatista focus on. The idea of local representation on a much wider scale feeds deeply into the idea of true communism. The idea of "true democracy" could be explored more as a tool, but I would not abandon the word communism entirely as it points to the idea of equality.

[commiecrusader]

I think when it comes to politics, name is largely irrelevant. Does the Labour party in Britain have anything to do with a true workers party? People said Blunkett was too authoritarian and had abandoned his socialist beliefs, but none of those motherfuckers have a socialist bone in their body. Stick with Communism, and demonstrate that all the 'Communist' disasters in the past are far from what we would call Communism.

[__ca va?]

Some posts I found interesting:


I couldnt agree more, Andrei. They cant take our name, or else they will already have won a major battle in the war.

And here is a fact: not only have they won many battles, it seems as if they were winnig the war! The Soviet attempt to make communism was a failure, a disgrace, the world-wide, internationalist proletarian revolution hasn't happened, and is not likely to happen in the near future.

Besides it seems like they (capitalists) are many times more than us, socialists, so it would be insane trying to change them and not ourselves.
So we shold do something fundamentally new...

[bolshevik butcher]

I call myself a socialist sometimes, other times I call my self a communist because of the stigma attached to it so that I can convince them how wrong they are about us.

[Famepollution]

How about the term Populism instead of workerism/Proletarism. Since Populism has a connatation to all, and not just the proleteriat.

.... Explaining how communists are not totalitarian goons gets really tiring after the first lecture. I for one am tired of showing how My ideas dont correspond to the forced collectivization of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others. I think a name change for communism might garner more support from the apolitical. Plus what is name? As long as we still adhere to the principles Of marxism then How could a name change mean anything besides the sidestepping of the Stalins atrocities?


hell I think we should get rid of the whole hammer and sickle/ lone star icon too.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Famepollution+--> (Famepollution)How about the term Populism instead of workerism/Proletarism?[/b]

It carries some rather unsavory historical baggage of its own -- including racism and religious fundamentalism.

Of course, you could argue that "no one remembers" -- but the ruling class has a good memory and many historians on its payroll. A "neo-populist" group would be hammered with accounts of the first populists at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

Pat Robertson is very much a kind of neo-populist, though I don't believe he uses the label.


pandora
The only problem with "workerism" is that a.) workers in some countries, the U.S. for instance, only equate worker or union rights with those who are currently working, and of those, those who are skilled craftsman due to the past attentions of the AFL/CIO.

Also due to unions past dismissal (not the IWW of course) of immigrants and low wage workers as insignificant for representation, most jobs are not, and were not unionized in the U.S., rather the unions became associated with a sense of male hierarchy and elitism which women and immigrants, or even person's of color felt they were not apart of and had little rights to apply to.

A not unreasonable objection -- though I imagine Latin immigrants would recognize "Trabajorismo Revolucionario" (spelling?) as something potentially appealing.

As always, practice would be the key: if revolutionary workerists were found to be consistently on the side of women, gays, immigrants, minimum-wage and temp workers, etc. who were resisting in some fashion the existing rulers, then I think, over time, the fog and smoke of the AFL-CIO would be dispersed.

:redstar2000:

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

[RedAnarchist]

I usually call myself a Communist, and if some capitalist doesnt like it, tough! :hammer: :D

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think that instead of changing our name, we should start calling all supporters of capitalism fascists.

[YKTMX]

Don't think that'll catch on somehow.

[flyby]

first: our movement has a name "communist" because our goal is communism -- classless, liberated society.

second: you can change your name all you want, but our enemies (the oppressors and reactionaries of the world) will heap it with slander and shit. Avakian wrote: If we called ourselves something totally new and neutral -- say "greengrassism" -- these fucks would make "greengrassism" something evil and notorious within days.

third: some people who want to give up "communism" as a name should give it up, since they aren't really communist. Some people see no further than a kind of welfare state socialism. Let them drop "communism" and let communism really be the movement and ideology of "all the way revolution" for really overthrowing the 4 alls, and moving the whole world to a future without nations, oppression, classes -- where human beings voluntarily and consciously remake themselves and society.

For example: should our movement call itself "proletarianism" -- i.e. define itself by its class base, not its goals? No. That would be like calling us "the labor movement." Puleez! What defines us is not that there are workers in the movement, or that this class is the social base for revolution -- what defines us as a movement is our goal (communism) WHICH ALSO INVOLVES THE ABOLITION OF THE PROLETARIAT AS A CLASS. Focusing on a class, and a class nature, is a goal far short of communism -- which is the abolition of classes and class society. It is essentially a plan for replacing our lofty and radical goal, with a kind of class "identity politics" where we wallow in "being workers" and see that as our essense.

That would be a step backward, and a step away from all the way revolution -- in many ways.

The 4 alls (that are the core of what moving to communism means) are drawn from the summary by Marx of what the communist revolution aims for and leads to: the abolition of all class distinctions (or "class distinctions generally"); the abolition of all the relations of production on which these class distinctions rest; the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production; and the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations. (See "The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850.")

I read and then re-read those goals. And marvel at the radicalism of them. As the Gang of Four said "Marx said all! not just some!" not some class distinctions, not some social relations, not some ideas. ALL! It is a vision of society sprung in the air, and changed forever, to its very roots.

Let's not settle for anything less.

And lets not even consider backing down from our goal of communism, our international movement, our connection with the past socialist experiences, our use of the word "communist" for our ideology, our movement and our goals.

Back down on the word "communism" is really a plan for giving up on our goals. (And many who propose this never REALLY were thinking about something as radical as communist society anyway -- or never REALLY thought it was a goal relevant to what we are doing.)

Bob Avakian writes: "There has to be a real and living link between whatever you are doing at any given time--and the objectives and forms of struggle then--and the final goal. There has to be a fundamental identity between these things, even while they are not identical in the mechanical sense. In other words, you can't try to implement communism before the basis has been created for that, worldwide; even during the socialist transition, you can't just "leap over stages" and try to implement communism on a voluntarist basis. But there has to be a dialectical link between where things are at, at any given point, and the final aim of communism. It is not enough for communism to be merely a "propaganda point"--something that is "thrown in" as an abstract goal--and if you reduce it to that, and sever the living link between the struggle at a given point and the final aim of communism, then you have gutted the final aim of all meaning and you have cut your line and actions loose from the path leading to that final aim."

http://rwor.org/a/v23/1130-39/1138/ba-gogs12.htm

[NovelGentry]

I think that instead of changing our name, we should start calling all supporters of capitalism fascists.

villify away!!!!!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby+--> (flyby) First: our movement has a name "communist" because our goal is communism -- classless, liberated society.[/b]

That was what we were told, anyway. But you know as well as I that what was "achieved" under the banner of communism was, however progressive, very far from a "classless, liberated society".

That's the historical record...and "everybody" knows it.

Just as "everyone" was conscious of the record of Social Democracy in 1919 when Lenin proposed changing the Russian party's name. He didn't want to be identified with the corruption and treason of social democracy...and properly so!

Do we want to be identified with 20th century communism as a whole?

Considered in an all-around way, was/is 20th century communism "something to build on" or has it become "a stinking corpse"? You recognize that phrase, of course...it's what Lenin himself used to describe social democracy -- he didn't think social democracy was "something to build on".

It strikes me (and others) that all the Leninist variants have no future -- they don't appeal to workers in the "west", they are perceived as dogmatic and oppressive, etc. And I see no reason why that perception should change...since it is historically true.

If what we actually want is a "classless, liberated society", then we need to do some things very different from what is known by most people as "communism".

And if we're going to do things differently, why shouldn't we have a name that reflects that?


Second: you can change your name all you want, but our enemies (the oppressors and reactionaries of the world) will heap it with slander and shit.

Andrei Mazenov made the same point in an earlier post...and I agreed with him then as I do with you now. The ruling class has a keen perception of its real enemies...and their shit would come flying at us before the ink was dry on the new name.

But how much would stick? How much "extra shit" sticks to us now because of the track record of 20th century communism?


Third: some people who want to give up "communism" as a name should give it up, since they aren't really communist.

I think that's wishful thinking...though it does happen over extended periods of time -- I think German Social Democracy finally repudiated Marx around 1958.

It would be very convenient if all political groups and ideologies called themselves by their real names...but history is rarely so kind.


For example: should our movement call itself "proletarianism" -- i.e. define itself by its class base, not its goals? No. That would be like calling us "the labor movement." Puleez! What defines us is not that there are workers in the movement, or that this class is the social base for revolution -- what defines us as a movement is our goal (communism) WHICH ALSO INVOLVES THE ABOLITION OF THE PROLETARIAT AS A CLASS. Focusing on a class, and a class nature, is a goal far short of communism -- which is the abolition of classes and class society. It is essentially a plan for replacing our lofty and radical goal, with a kind of class "identity politics" where we wallow in "being workers" and see that as our essence.

That's a cogent point...though adding the term "revolutionary" weakens your point somewhat.

That is, I think "revolutionary workerism" would not convey any connection with the traditional trade-union bureaucracies. It would have an "aura" of "identity politics" surrounding it...but I don't necessarily see anything "catastrophic" about that.

You know as well as I that bourgeois ideology will "seep" into any group no matter what it calls itself...and will have to be confronted and struggled against.


And let's not even consider backing down from our goal of communism, our international movement, our connection with the past socialist experiences, our use of the word "communist" for our ideology, our movement and our goals.

No one is advocating "backing down from our goal" of classless society (at least no one that I would bother listening to).

But, to be honest, I personally feel very little "connection" with "past socialist experiences". It seems to me that they were pretty grim -- though, of course, not anything like the "hell-holes" that the bourgeois ideologues told us they were.

Most importantly, the working class had no power in those societies...how can I or any real communist "connect" with that?

I know...you want us to accept the proposition that a "great leader" can, in some mystical sense, "be" the working class "in power".

But I'm not a Hegelian and I can't see it!


Bob Avakian
It is not enough for communism to be merely a "propaganda point"--something that is "thrown in" as an abstract goal--and if you reduce it to that, and sever the living link between the struggle at a given point and the final aim of communism, then you have gutted the final aim of all meaning and you have cut your line and actions loose from the path leading to that final aim.

But that's exactly what 20th century communism did...and is perhaps the main reason why the word "communism" is held in such disrepute today.

"The communists promised this and this and this...and delivered nothing like those things at all!" That's a response that we often receive even from working people who are friendly to us and willing to listen.

The word itself has become tainted by association with regimes that did not deliver on their promises.

Of course, that's not to rule out the possibility of rehabilitating the word.

But perhaps new words would serve us better.

Also, keep in mind that Marx and Engels themselves were not "wedded to terminology"...they freely used different words ("communism", "scientific socialism", "social democracy") according to their utility in given historical circumstances.

As long as we avoid lying, I see no reason why we shouldn't pick new names (and even new terminology) for ourselves that will make more sense to people.

---------------------------------------------------

One other point that doesn't relate to anything above -- but I wanted to mention it because it was raised and never answered in one of the older threads.

When Lenin revived the name communism, he did so at a time when both his personal prestige and the prestige of the Russian party was at "an all-time high"...people accepted this word because it was associated with a successful proletarian revolution (or so it then appeared).

We don't have that "going for us". Gaining acceptance for "revolutionary workerism" among revolutionaries themselves will be an "uphill battle". People are used to their favorite labels -- communist, anarchist, whatever-ist and probably won't give them up easily.

So that would be a serious obstacle.

:redstar2000:

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

[flyby]

redstar writes: "That was what we were told, anyway. But you know as well as I that what was "achieved" under the banner of communism was, however progressive, very far from a "classless, liberated society". That's the historical record...and "everybody" knows it."

Communists have led socialist revolutions. It takes a transitional period, and a growing success worldwide to approach worldwide communism.

So yes, communist revolutions (there have only been two) have not yet produced communism, and couldn't.... they could however (and did) start on the road to communism.

Communism is our goal, a world historic goal for the planet and humanity.

And a great deal HAS been achieved under the banner of communism -- and needs to be summed up, both positive and negative -- without abandoning that banner!

There are things to celebrate and things to grieve.

And in the next round we want to do much better -- and can do better, in part thanks to the experiences positive and negative of the last round.

That is how progress, and scientific thinking, works. Even the erroneous theories and mistaken policies are part of the process of finding the way forward.

And the main thing is to link our present struggle to a vivid sense of where we are going. And that "living link" is what keeps us on the communist road -- through struggle and with leadership. And the very fact that we need to "keep our eye on the prize" (i.e. communism) means that we must not remove the name of our goal and future society from the banners of our cause.

or we give up our cause.

[pandora]

I do think there needs to be an ecology and sustainability element entered, we could think of Green Socialist Party, or Socialists for Global Sustainability.

However, the Greens who are trying to go halfway by having corportations use biodegradable packaging, and selling themselves to the corporate interests in the bargin would flip out. But I think it would be good for them to be perceived with a Marxist alliance, as to really ever truly put sustainability and communalism into practice requires socialist democratic, if not communist communities, with strong forums. But the Greens have resisted this because they are afraid being labelled Communist will cause them to be further exiled by the corporate community they mistake a pandering pat on the head for some sort of acceptance towards real power.

If we really want to save this planet past peak oil Greens and Socialists are going to have to allay and have common goals.

[VukBZ2005]

I would rather perfer the use of the word Proletarianism than "Proletarism" or "Workerism"
- although i'm Used to the word Communism.

[Commie Rat]

its funny i only get shit if i say ima commie WHICH I AM but when ui say socilist or anyfing else no 1 gives a crap

ah well

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
Communists have led socialist revolutions. It takes a transitional period, and a growing success worldwide to approach worldwide communism.

Well, you see the problem then with the word communism. "Pie in the very distant future" but a far less palatable substance on "the day after the revolution".

Why shouldn't working people perceive this as a "bait-and-switch" con?

If words were really used with respect for their meanings, then the "Revolutionary Communist Party" would actually be called the "Revolutionary Socialist Party" -- because you want to lead a socialist revolution that will establish socialism.

The "Socialist Workers' Party" (U.S.) is better-named in this respect; they are not revolutionary and socialism is what they actually want.

The "Communist Party" is horribly named; they would piss themselves at the prospect of communism or even socialism.

So what are people who are real communists -- who want a revolution that will result in the establishment of communism -- to do? How are we to distinguish ourselves in the popular mind from all the people who use "communism" like a radio commercial -- you know, with all that rapid mumbling at the end to explain why the purchaser is not going to get what the commercial promises.

Communism? Based on availability and dealer participation; offer not valid in all states; black-out dates excluded; taxes, title, and insurance extra; does not apply to destinations in Hawaii or Florida; certain additional fees may be required; subject to credit approval; all normal terms and conditions apply; cannot be used in combination with other discounts and promotions; list of winners on request.

We find ourselves in a very unenviable position: the word communism has been "discredited" by both capitalist ideologues and those who called themselves communists.

We cannot help what reactionaries will say -- they will hate us and try to throw shit at us no matter what we call ourselves.

But why do we have to be associated with those who make a mockery of communism? Those who can, at best, offer us "class society with a human face"?

(In some cases, we know whose face...but that doesn't help!)

I have no idea if a name like "revolutionary workerism" could "catch on" or not -- there may turn out to be new words that haven't even been thought of yet.

But I think something must be done about this...and the sooner the better.

:redstar2000:

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

[flyby]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 18 2004, 03:03 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 18 2004, 03:03 PM)
flyby
Communists have led socialist revolutions. It takes a transitional period, and a growing success worldwide to approach worldwide communism.

Well, you see the problem then with the word communism. "Pie in the very distant future" but a far less palatable substance on "the day after the revolution".

Why shouldn't working people perceive this as a "bait-and-switch" con?

If words were really used with respect for their meanings, then the "Revolutionary Communist Party" would actually be called the "Revolutionary Socialist Party" -- because you want to lead a socialist revolution that will establish socialism.
[/b]
This is actually at the heart of the issue.

The RCP is not about "reaching socialism" -- it is about reaching COMMUNISM.

If your goal is just getting to (and consolidating) socialism, you will end up back in capitalism.

It is not a bait and switch, because socialism (with all its contradictory nature) is a necessary transition to communism -- objectively.

Let me give you an example.

We load a bus in New York City, bound for LA.
A day later, redstar turns to me (the bus driver) and says "You muthafukka, you said this was the bus for LA, but we are in St. Louis."

Well, that would be an just complaint if we STAYED in St. Louis. If I didn't have the map, the gas, the intention of heading out of town, leaving St. Louis behind, and heading across the plains.

but it is lunacy, infantile fantasy, to think we can drive from New York City to LA without going through the midwest somehow.

We can take the southern route, or the northern route. We could get lost or stuck underway. But ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, you have to cross the mississippi river to drive from NYC to LA.

And it doesn't help to have redstar whining the whole way, that he was promised LA, and only got pittsburg, cleaveland, chicago, st louis, omaha, casper, las vegas.... etc. If and when we make our way to LA (finally! through struggle and work!) all this backseat complaining that we aren't at our final goal yet won't have helped with the REAL WORLD PROBLEMS of actually getting there.

There are material reasons that humanity can't go instantly or overnight from capitalism to communism -- there are nation states, imperialists still exist, there are huge gaps between mental and manual labor (with all that this implies), urban rural contradictions, uneven development, vast forms of scarcity (requiring restricted, planned but continuing forms of bourgeois right and commodity exchanged)

And the answer is not to demand (or fantisize) about some linear direct leap to communism, but to grapple with the real world transition, and what it will take, and what we have to do to make it.

The other example:

Professor Bill martin once joked about PLP's demand that society go "straight to communism" after the revoltion. And he said "look, i'm fat, and i've tried dieting repeatedly and failed. But now I see the light -- I will give up dieting, and all the work and sweat it requires, and I will resolve just to go straight from fat to thin!"

And as anyone can see, that won't work. It is a fantasy -- and when offered as a theory it is the real "bait and switch."

We need reality, and true communist theoretical insights into reality, not fantasy that won't work.


I urge you to check out DICTATORSHIP AND DEMOCRACY, AND THE SOCIALIST TRANSITION TO COMMUNISM (http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/new_speech/avakian_democracy_dictatorship_speech.htm)

let's rumble (i mean "wrangle"!)

:P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To expand your analogy, if you want to get from New York to LA, the best thing to do is Take a plane! (IE, get working straight to communism from day one of the revolution!) That way you can avoid all those pointless stops in the midwest.

[redstar2000]

I shall resist the temptation to poke a little fun at flyby's notions of geography west of Manhattan...his "road to LA" is pretty "dialectical".

But his analogy isn't; it implies that the "road to communism" is literally "like a journey"...from point A to point B to point C and finally to the final destination, Point Z.

There are many such analogies in human affairs that might be called upon -- it's a common and often useful way of simplifying complex processes.

Cooking a meal, building a house, making a journey, raising a crop, etc. It's important in activities like this to proceed in an orderly fashion, doing each portion of the task in its proper place...otherwise the meal is inedible, the house collapses, you get lost, and the crop is ruined.

This is "common sense" -- linear and straight-forward.

Is revolution "like that"? Is the transition from capitalism to communism a simple matter of doing A, then B, then C, etc.?

So that socialism is "reformed" into communism by a series of linear stages?

And does it have to be like that? Is that the "only way" to "do it"?

Perhaps we should discard analogies altogether...and reason directly from the historical data that we possess.

We know from history how one form of class society changes into another; a combination of gradual reforms and great convulsive upheavals slowly or quickly replaces an old ruling class with a new one...and over the following decades the old cultural artifacts gradually fade away and are replaced by new ones that favor the new ruling class.

The Leninist paradigm proposes an analogous sequence of events for the transition to classless society -- first the old ruling class is overthrown; then the leadership of the party "restores order" only without that old ruling class (socialism); then a gradual transition begins that will ultimately result in communism.

The problem here is that no materialist explanation has ever been offered as to why the revolutionary leadership must or even should "push" in that direction or be "pulled" in that direction.

"Good intentions" is not an explanation.

Indeed, historical experience suggests that a revolutionary leadership that wins power should replace the overthrown ruling class with itself and its most loyal supporters.

It is in its own material interests to do that!

On the other hand, consider a proletarian revolution that is consciously motivated with communist ideas. It involves great masses of workers and their allies in direct participation in the whole project. Egalitarianism and "ultra-democracy" are conscious priorities -- there are no "permanent leaders" though there may be "influential militants". There's little sentiment for "restoring order" except through communist methods. When problems arise (and, of course, they will), communist solutions are sought -- anything that hints of "the old ways" is dismissed out of hand as unacceptable.

These folks are serious about communism as a working system, not simply an abstract ideal. They are motivated by the desire to find ways to make it work. Right now!

And, to be sure, that is not an "easy" task and will involve many false starts, mistakes, etc.

There will be a "transition period"...but it will not be called "socialism", will not be "orderly", or have any of the other characteristics associated with that concept; it will be a period when communist methods directly "take over" from the methods of all previous class societies.

I don't mean to imply that humans will become "angels" -- there will certainly still be reactionary ideas, people with swollen ambitions, etc. who will threaten the restoration of capitalist society. But the explicit egalitarianism of the revolution and its practice will "cut the materialist ground" from under such types. In practical terms, I don't even think such people will be able to sustain their own numbers, much less grow.

Ambition is pointless in a society which has no formal hierarchy; you may gain status but you cannot gain power or wealth. If you try to do that stuff anyway to the point of annoying people, they will kill you.

They don't want to go back to being wage-slaves again.


...but it is lunacy, infantile fantasy...

For those still trapped in the mind-set of class society, it must seem that way indeed.

Much as feudal lords once anguished over the "problem" of "masterless men", our remaining Leninists anguish over the "problem" of "leaderless revolutions" and "imminent classless societies". These things simply "cannot be".

Or can they?

:redstar2000:

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

[YKTMX]

As you are so keen to talk about "historical records" of what you call "Leninism", just look at the "historical record" of attempts to make revolutions without a committed Marxist revolutionary party. Germany, Britain, Italy. Disaster after disaster. It's not "Leninism" that has blood on it's hands, it's bloody reformism and mealy mouthed pseudo revolutionary a-hisotircal babblinds that does.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 10:07 AM
As you are so keen to talk about "historical records" of what you call "Leninism", just look at the "historical record" of attempts to make revolutions without a committed Marxist revolutionary party. Germany, Britain, Italy. Disaster after disaster. It's not "Leninism" that has blood on it's hands, it's bloody reformism and mealy mouthed pseudo revolutionary a-hisotircal babblinds that does.
Theoretically speaking, your response has all the content of a noisy fart!

The question is not one of "how much blood" has been shed...the capitalist class is always murderous.

The question is getting what we want -- communism or socialism.

All of the Leninists up to this point claim to be "communists" but even when they are successful in their "great leadership", they've delivered nothing more than "class society with a human face". The leader's face, to be precise.

If that's all you want, fine -- go for it.

But the western working classes have disdained to follow you and I see no reason why they should start now. You don't have anything to offer other than a slightly more humane version of what we have now.

That's not only not worth a revolution...it ain't even worth a broken fingernail.

You have little right to reproach reformism for its wretched record; your own suckage is not trivial. As a matter of fact, most Leninist parties are reformist in their practice...nearly all of them can be found playing at bourgeois electoral politics in one way or another.

You may also, if you wish, regale us with your indignant squawks because we decline to worship at Lenin's shrine.

Since you have no real arguments, that might be your best strategy.

:redstar2000:

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

[sanpal]

It looks funny if as soon as someone will change the name "communism" on something different term then enthusiasts will rush to create renamed communism. People are led not by terms but by the idea and they have been taught with failures not to believe ideas without analyses of historical experience. That is right but it is not complete conception. Such way (method of attempts&faults) is too long. So where is the scientific conception of creating of the new social and economic structure? Where is adaptation of marxism according to nowadays situation (i.e. mechanism of production and distribution of articles of consumption)? etc. I've seen the redstar's utopian dreams about afterrevolution situation, where altruists will love each other and do goods not for exchanging but as "a present"only. But this is not science.

Not there you dig

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by sanpal
I've seen the redstar's utopian dreams about after revolution situation, where altruists will love each other and do goods not for exchanging but as "a present"only. But this is not science.

Not there you dig

If you are correct, then we should shut down this board and go get good-paying jobs in some reformist racket.

You can lead the way. :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It's not particularly altruistic - in purely Darwinistic terms, the goal of genetic perpetuation is often best served in co-operation and mutual aid, and particularly in the context of modern social conditions.

You don't really need to be altruistic to believe in communism, you just need a handle on history and a . . . distracted . . . Jack Lalane Power Juicer?

In any case, I expect Redstar has these things (even if he doesn't share me recent Dawkins-fixation :P), and cheap digs and saying he's idealistic (a) ignore the substance of his arguments (He's not asking you for idealism! He's raising valid critiques of Leninism!) and (b) have nothing to do with the topic at hand!

In any case, I think "name" is part of manufacturing an image/myth - and thus falls into the catagory of propaganda. What is effective propaganda, and most likely to move the most people toward the real goal of proletarian emancipation? Is it touting "communism" and playing apologist for the term? Rejecting old associations? Is it using an entirely different term? I think, as most things, it's a question of specific situations. Personally, I've called myself everything from an "Anarchist," through "Libertarian Socialist," "Marxist," "Leftist," "Radical Ecologist," "Post-Marxist," "Situationist-inspired Anarchist," and everything in between depending on when, where, and to whom I was speaking!

[Guest1]

Meh, no need for the movement to rename itself.

As has been pointed out, just be aware of your audience, I call myself Anarcho-Marxist to some people, Anarchist to others, Marxist to still others, plain old Communist, etc...

It all depends on who I'm talking to.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 11:03 PM


We load a bus in New York City, bound for LA.
A day later, redstar turns to me (the bus driver) and says "You muthafukka, you said this was the bus for LA, but we are in St. Louis."

Well, that would be an just complaint if we STAYED in St. Louis. If I didn't have the map, the gas, the intention of heading out of town, leaving St. Louis behind, and heading across the plains.



We can take the southern route, or the northern route. We could get lost or stuck underway. But ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, you have to cross the mississippi river to drive from NYC to LA.

And it doesn't help to have redstar whining the whole way, that he was promised LA, and only got pittsburg, cleaveland, chicago, st louis, omaha, casper, las vegas.... etc. If and when we make our way to LA (finally! through struggle and work!) all this backseat complaining that we aren't at our final goal yet won't have helped with the REAL WORLD PROBLEMS of actually getting there.

There are material reasons that humanity can't go instantly or overnight from capitalism to communism -- there are nation states, imperialists still exist, there are huge gaps between mental and manual labor (with all that this implies), urban rural contradictions, uneven development, vast forms of scarcity (requiring restricted, planned but continuing forms of bourgeois right and commodity exchanged)

Flyby my friend you have been fed a line of neo-colonialist crap haven't you?
First the perception of scarcity and the so-called "Green Revolution" of the 50's whereby large areas of tropical rainforest with low soil retention(after removal of trees for lumber) and inch deep nutrients were swept away by erosion after one season following the timber sale, or slash and burn policy resulting in the sharecropper farmers being poorer (if possible than they were before) only with their bodies assaulted by mind numbing labor, same for areas of oil exploration and mining in the rainforest or jungles of the so-called third world, only now add the pollution of the water and contamination of the soil resulting in the sharecroppers and indigenous populations of these areas having cancers and liver failure on top of their poverty, and not an inch of decent growing land to show for it no matter how many chemical fertilizers you throw on it year after year from a certain company(Monsanto) which sells them the same petroleum back again in products it stole from them and polluted the water with in the first place.

Oh but we wouldn&#39;t want to hold up that progress would we? :lol: No let Monsanto continue for another 40 years, we&#39;re only in St. Louis <_<

Look to migrant workers desperately trying to earn enough money to buy chemical fertilizers because now that they&#39;ve used the cocktail once the soil will not grow without it, plus they have to buy the seed from Monsanto because the seed from last year automatically sterilizes itself to prevent repeat crops, as has been the tradition through thousands of years of agriculture, but really now we wouldn&#39;t want to immediately stop the sale and continuation of such products because then we would have scarcity. :ph34r:
Besides we&#39;re only at the Mississippi :D

One if not the most polluted rivers in the US and not about to be any less so with the tankers going up and down for domestic trade of say, potatoes to Jamaica or dairy to Jamaica fully subsidized which makes it impossible for Jamaican farmers to compete so they must dump the milk till they kill their cows and eat the meat.
But we can&#39;t save the farmers of Jamaica, we&#39;re only in Ohio :lol:

With the newest assaults of global capitalism if it were to stop tomorrow more communities and lives would be saved not lost if areas were able to go back to regional economies, that would be the midway sustainable socialist economy.

Neocolonialism tears down the trees ships the timber out of country as fast as possible leaving people in the Philliphines to die in landslides, and the people of Kenya to live without rain, as well as its women to live as indentured servants to face life imprisonment for such crimes as "pulling up a coffee plant."

But no youre right we should go slow, through the Southern states, and forget California while we watch millions of people starve and suffer. "Necessary transition?" Every day in the "third world" another family suffers for the delay.

The problem with your "miseducation" is you assume everyone is "fat" by the global economy, I believe you used the image of a fat professor dieting, and not "thin."
Many are in fact starved. And there are areas that capitalism has just begun to penetrate, in fact it&#39;s growing more intense daily. In some of these areas, there is no need to transition, because capitalism isn&#39;t entrenched, in others, more socialist systems are either more similar to original practices, are have been maintained in some semblence as of late.

The problem is if you give too much time to transition it simply allows business as usual long enough for the ruling class to escape to an enclave on Aruba leaving less resources for everyone else to live on as they wreck everything in their path to make a few more dollars to retire on before the end.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 02:10 AM

If you are correct, then we should shut down this board and go get good-paying jobs in some reformist racket.

You can lead the way. :lol:


I&#39;m not "your leader". I&#39;m spectator in an auditorium of this board :lol:
And I&#39;m curious how much close the West or the East teorists approach to the true (scientific) marxism :lol:

Difference takes place of course ;)

[YKTMX]

The question is not one of "how much blood" has been shed...the capitalist class is always murderous

Yes, it is. But if ther had been a "German" Bolshevik party, there might not be a capitalist class anywhere anymore.


All of the Leninists up to this point claim to be "communists" but even when they are successful in their "great leadership", they&#39;ve delivered nothing more than "class society with a human face". The leader&#39;s face, to be precise.

Once again, you lapse into the assumption that "Leninism" has existed somewhere else apart from Russia between 1917-24. Any regimes who have claimed to be Leninist apart from this one, weren&#39;t. Any more than they were "Marxist".


You don&#39;t have anything to offer other than a slightly more humane version of what we have now.

Funny, I&#39;ve never considered Tyrannical Bonapartism "more humane" than liberal, democratic capitalism. Though I know, funnily enough, that you do have a little soft spot for Uncle Joe and Chairman Mao.


As a matter of fact, most Leninist parties are reformist in their practice...nearly all of them can be found playing at bourgeois electoral politics in one way or another.

It seems clear to gain any support or recognition whatsoever amongst the masses some "electoral" politics is needed. You don&#39;t have to worry about such things though.


Since you have no real arguments, that might be your best strategy.

Strategy? "We need to rethink everything" is not a strategy.

[vivalache22]

We not only need a new name. We need new principles. The Marxists, Leninists, Socialist, and Communists of this country and others and too far scattered in their thinking. We need to be united under one baner if we ever wish to rise again. But if you just want to sit and waist time talking on Forums, they stay divided, and let the rich abuse you. Cause thats what they want. Divide and conquer

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana
It all depends on who I&#39;m talking to.

Well and good if you&#39;re talking to another person or even a small group of like-minded individuals.

What happens when we are talking to millions?

That may sound "too far in the future" to worry about...but we don&#39;t know that.

In as short a period as five years, we could find ourselves part of a large movement opposed to U.S. imperialism in Iraq and other places...and if we want to talk about more than just imperialism, we will need a name for ourselves to distinguish us from those who want different things than we do.

To working people in the English-speaking world, "communism" means "Stalinist baby-eaters" -- and we will be compelled to spend enormous amounts of time and energy trying to explain the real meaning of the word.

Anarchists have a similar problem now -- anarchism "means" chaos and gang-warfare to most people and anarchists have to explain over and over again that it means no such thing.

At this time, while the revolutionary left is very small ("beneath the radar"), may be the best time to select a more useful and attractive name for ourselves.

Then, when we are large enough to attract popular attention, people may be willing to at least listen to what we have to say instead of dismissing it as "the same old shit".

:redstar2000:

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

[YKTMX]

In as short a period as five years, we could find ourselves part of a large movement opposed to U.S. imperialism in Iraq and other places

Were you asleep on February the 15th?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 10:28 AM

In as short a period as five years, we could find ourselves part of a large movement opposed to U.S. imperialism in Iraq and other places

Were you asleep on February the 15th?
Ceremonial demonstrations don&#39;t count.

They are, at best, an introduction to anti-imperialism. A real anti-imperialist movement -- such as that organized under the auspices of SDS from 1965-69 and which continued to operate into the early 70s -- functions on the grass-roots level and takes place on a daily basis.

Something happens every day in a number of places -- we gave "no rest to the wicked".

From campaigns against ROTC, military & corporate recruiters, etc. to draft resistance and work with GI coffee-houses and underground papers at military bases to local demonstrations against Johnson, Nixon and other war-criminals whenever and wherever they appeared in public -- that&#39;s what a large movement looks like.

At present, there&#39;s nothing like that in the U.S. -- except perhaps in San Francisco and New York City (kind of).

But it might be possible and even likely that something like that will emerge over the next five years.

And yes, I probably was asleep on February 15th -- us old guys need our rest. :P

:redstar2000:

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

[YKTMX]

Well, I suppose that&#39;s a question of tactics and also how one defines a "mass movement". I say a "mass movement" is a global protests of tens of millions. You categorize it as agitation by a few hundred Maoist students, with little or no connection to anybody.


local demonstrations against Johnson, Nixon and other war-criminals whenever and wherever they appeared in public -- that&#39;s what a large movement looks like

Well, the STWC in Britain is usually there when Bliar appears in public, and during the war we reguarly took part in civil disobedience (blocking roads and such).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
I say a "mass movement" is a global protests of tens of millions. You categorize it as agitation by a few hundred Maoist students, with little or no connection to anybody.

SDS was not "Maoist" and involved more than 100,000 students who "had connections" with many non-students.

The global protests were "one-shot events"...that looked very impressive on the dummyvision but have not yet led to anything...although the British STWC may be promising. The "big coalition" outfits in the U.S. haven&#39;t amounted to anything so far.

We also had such events, by the way, during the Vietnam war; every April and October, there&#39;d be a "really big" demonstration in New York City or Washington, D.C. (a half-million to a million would show up) and a sister demonstration on the west coast (San Francisco) with perhaps 250,000 or so participants.

It was like a ritual; go to one of these "shows" and feel good about yourself.

The real action was elsewhere.

:redstar2000:

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

[YKTMX]

SDS was not "Maoist" and involved more than 100,000 students who "had connections" with many non-students.

Well, considering what it spawned. it appears to be both partly Maoist and it&#39;s "connections" must have been tenuous.


It was like a ritual; go to one of these "shows" and feel good about yourself

Yes, 10 million people just decided to make themselves feel better. Ridicilous

[redstar2000]

YKTMX, would you like to return to the discussion of the main point of this thread?

You remember, do we need a new name?

:redstar2000:

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

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 11:40 PM
do we need a new name?


Is renaming of the "communism" a try to go out from the crisis in which the communist movement is? If revolutionaries have no scientific theory of communism (i.e. marxism) or don&#39;t know it or interpret it falsely then they will fail without doubt each time. And renaming wouldn&#39;t help. As I understand in Redstar&#39;s case it takes place partly lack of knowledge (economy of communism) and partly false interpretation (neglected transition stage). And as honest man he says: be quiet. Let&#39;s to unite associates - "furuncle will mature and break". How long to wait ...?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by sanpal
Is renaming of the "communism" a try to go out from the crisis in which the communist movement is?

Yes and no.

Yes, it implies an escape from the dead-end of Leninism. It does not, however, guarantee such an escape.

The more practical reason is to gain us a hearing from the western working class...most of whom think that "communism = Stalinism = baby-eaters".


If revolutionaries have no scientific theory of communism (i.e. Marxism) or don&#39;t know it or interpret it falsely then they will fail without doubt each time. And renaming wouldn&#39;t help.

No doubt.

But it wouldn&#39;t hurt, either.


Let&#39;s to unite associates - "furuncle will mature and break". How long to wait ...?

What does that mean??? :blink:

:redstar2000:

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

[YKTMX]

YKTMX, would you like to return to the discussion of the main point of this thread?

I&#39;ve already said that using the name "Communist" isn&#39;t helpful.

However, your suggestion ("workerist") sounds autonomist. That isn&#39;t helpful.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 22 2004, 12:40 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 22 2004, 12:40 PM)
sanpal
Is renaming of the "communism" a try to go out from the crisis in which the communist movement is?

Yes and no.

Yes, it implies an escape from the dead-end of Leninism. It does not, however, guarantee such an escape.


The more practical reason is to gain us a hearing from the western working class...most of whom think that "communism = Stalinism = baby-eaters".



[/b]
Not only western working class but eastern one do think so. And it is natural.

Assume that a new fine sounding word was thought out ... What then? You have to explain in science view what it means, haven&#39;t you? And you have step by step to explain all theory (marxism?). But why you couldn&#39;t do the same with the "communism"? Endeavor needed not less.


Yes, it implies an escape from the dead-end of Leninism

The "dead-end of Leninism"? Do you mean the necessity in "the dictatorship of the proletariat"? And from it you have done the conclusion that Leninism=>Stalinism?
I think you are deep wrong. I have a link about "Stalinism" as the "communist&#39;s" economic mistake (false interpretation of marxism) but, unfortunately, only in Russian language (it is obvious I don&#39;t do for professional translator :( )




Let&#39;s to unite associates - "furuncle will mature and break". How long to wait ...?

What does that mean??? :blink:

It&#39;s incident of my bad English :D
I meant ... how long to wait the collapse of capitalism because of quantity united associates

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by sanpal
Assume that a new fine sounding word was thought out ... What then? You have to explain in science view what it means, haven&#39;t you? And you have step by step to explain all theory (marxism?). But why you couldn&#39;t do the same with the "communism"? Endeavor needed not less.

Yes, the same amount of work would be required.

The difference is that more people might listen&#33;


The "dead-end of Leninism"? Do you mean the necessity in "the dictatorship of the proletariat"? And from it you have done the conclusion that Leninism=>Stalinism? I think you are deep wrong.

Fine...then there&#39;s no reason for you not to stick with the word "communism" -- it doesn&#39;t make you any worse off than you already are.

Since the word "communism" has been appropriated by people who don&#39;t actually want communism except, perhaps, "in the distant future", I think those of us who want a working class revolution that proceeds at once to the establishment of a classless society need a better name for ourselves.

Then I can stop annoying the Leninists by calling myself a "real communist" and they can stop annoying me with their suggestion that the road to liberation must pass through an indefinite period of "enlightened despotism".

We&#39;ll both be better off. :D

:redstar2000:

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

[Raisa]

This is an issue of perspective.

If the communists are ashamed of their own name, what do you think that is showing the rest of the world about communism?

By being ashamed of their own name, they are showing the world that they believe in something that is bad and deserves to be ashamed of. Youre doing the
work of the ruling class, and their not even paying you for that one&#33;

Calling it something else is not the answer, telling people what the word means IS. Mud washes off&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Raisa
If the communists are ashamed of their own name, what do you think that is showing the rest of the world about communism?

That we are not what they think we are, of course.

Why should we be "stuck" with the crappy reputation of 20th century "communism"...which wasn&#39;t even communist to begin with?


By being ashamed of their own name, they are showing the world that they believe in something that is bad and deserves to be ashamed of. You&#39;re doing the work of the ruling class, and they&#39;re not even paying you for that one&#33;

You give the ruling class far too much "credit". If the so-called "communist" parties had actually made a plausible start at building communism, then there would be nothing to be "ashamed of".

You know as well as I that they did no such thing...and a good deal of what they did do was pretty rotten.

Sure, the ruling class told lots of lies about the USSR, China, etc. But many times, the plain truth would have been bad enough.


Calling it something else is not the answer, telling people what the word means IS. Mud washes off&#33;

It&#39;s not just "mud" -- a better analogy would be a toxic waste dump.

And yes, even those can be "cleaned up"...but consider the time and energy required for that formidable task.

And how difficult it is to get people to even give us a "fair hearing".

If your menu proclaims the featured meal of the day is "SHIT", who&#39;s going to order the dish and check it out for themselves? No matter how much time you spend explaining to them that "it&#39;s not really shit -- that&#39;s just the traditional name for it".

:redstar2000:

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

[Xanthor]

I want to apologize right now if I&#39;m simply repeating wht someone has already said because I haven&#39;t read all the posts (I&#39;m too lazy to read them all). Well I believe, yes, we should abandon the term Communism because with the massive attacks on the Communist philosophies by capatilist nations in the Cold-War, and even before then, Communism has become a term most recognized by people of the so called ""Free-Nations"" has mass murdering, oppresion, war, people have no rights, etc. etc. I have become almost afraid to say I&#39;m Communist or Socialist because of this. People living in the ""Free-Nations"" have been brainwashed by this propaganda to believe all of that. If we are to continue our struggle we need to educate the masses with our message, but if the masses believe that we are all "evil", they will simply not listen. I experience this problem almost daily where people just shrug me off and dont even open their minds to something that is different to what they are told is right.

[Zingu]

Wouldn&#39;t be easier just to all call ourselves "Revolutionaries"? All these

"Marxist-Leninist/Maoist/Trotskyist/Proletarianist, Anarchro-Syndaclist/Communist ect. ect. ect. ect." can REALLY confuse a ordinary person, sure we have differences, but is it really worth strutting around the long title?

Instead of the "Marxist-Leninist CP of Whatevervania", how about the "Revolutionary Party of Whatevervania", lets just keep it simple.

[Xanthor]

A "Revolutionary" is nothing more than a term givin to anyone who is against the reigning government whether they be fascist commuunist imperialist totalrian [excuse my spelling]. But yes i agree with you why do we have different "denominations" or "classes" in that we all believe in a classless society. we should just call ourselves Marxist because whatever interpretaion we prefer we are all still the "offspring" of Marx and we cant say otherwise.

[h&s]

In my opinion, as long as the people are educated as to what we really stand for, it doesn&#39;t matter what we call ourselves. A name is just a name, I couldn&#39;t care less what we are called, it doesn&#39;t make the slightest bit of difference.

Marxist-Leninist/Maoist/Trotskyist/Proletarianist, Anarchro-Syndaclist/Communist ect. ect. ect. ect." can REALLY confuse a ordinary person, sure we have differences, but is it really worth strutting around the long title?
Forget about ordianary people, they confuse me. Personally I think that those parties who go around with their rediculously long names are deliberatly trying to mislead people, and we should never do that.

[flyby]

i think that communism is very straight forward.

It is about common people owning and changing things IN COMMON.

It is about us doing things together (in common) -- a world where we do things in common (not divided by ownership, nation, class, etc.)

It is where we are going.

Our movement should be named after our goals, not after our social base. That is why "communism" is better than "workerism."

Besides, communism is not just in the interest of workers.... it is a movement for the future of all humanity (not just one class.) There is one class capable of leading this, but the cause is not "workers cause" the cause is humanity&#39;s cause.... communism.

Marxism is not nearly as sharp or clear. And besides, marx has been dead for over a century. Our movement is not about him, or what he said, in some narrow or limited sense (i.e. our communist movement has done and learned and summed up many things since the days of Marx -- and even since the days of Lenin or Mao&#33;)

Again: I think we should stand for a new world, a communist world. And I don&#39;t agree with the idea that the last century has been all negative. The RIM says: There have been things to celebrate and things to grieve. And we can&#39;t help people learn from all that complex experience by simply DISTANCING OURSELVES from those early experiments, and pretending we just reject them as "failures."

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby+--> (flyby)And I don&#39;t agree with the idea that the last century has been all negative. The RIM says: There have been things to celebrate and things to grieve. And we can&#39;t help people learn from all that complex experience by simply DISTANCING OURSELVES from those early experiments, and pretending we just reject them as "failures."[/b]

On the part of many, it&#39;s not a matter of "pretending"...they were failures -- they did not function as a transition to communism.

They didn&#39;t even try.

I don&#39;t deny that there were both objective and subjective reasons for that.

But that&#39;s not much help when the subject arises while speaking to ordinary people who lack much political sophistication. They think that "communism=Stalinism=baby-eaters" -- and they&#39;re generally unwilling to listen to a 10-hour speech or read a 500-page book on the complexities of "what really happened".

Calling ourselves "communists" links us -- like it or not -- to Lenin, Stalin, and Mao and what they did.

Further, whatever "positive" lessons you think may be drawn from those experiences, there&#39;s no way you can link what they did to what we actually want -- except in words.


h&s
Forget about ordinary people, they confuse me.

Um...they are the ones who will actually make the revolution -- saying "forget them" is cutting our own throats.

Having said that, I&#39;ll admit they often "confuse" me too. I attribute that to my own shortcomings, not theirs.

:redstar2000:

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

[encephalon]

why don&#39;t we just use "reds?" Granted, it might technically encompass more than just communism, but the color has been associated with struggle against the establishment for quite some time now.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the color associated with republicans is red? It&#39;s like completely different uses of the same symbol..

[Xanthor]

People would think the same thing if they were to here &#39;I&#39;m a red&#39; as if i were to say &#39;I&#39;m Communist&#39; plus calling us a color is just weird.

[encephalon]

People would think the same thing if they were to here &#39;I&#39;m a red&#39; as if i were to say &#39;I&#39;m Communist&#39; plus calling us a color is just weird.

I&#39;m not so sure, really.. most especially with younger people--and poorer people--it&#39;s hard to get them to recognize a hammer and sickle accurately (sadly).

Really, I don&#39;t really think people are going to think you are any weirder for calling yourself a red than they would calling yourself a communist, anyhow :)

[Xanthor]

haha good point but to another communist &#39; are you a red too&#39; im sorry but thats just weird