communism 101

[encephalon]

Lately, I've been considering republishing key works from the last century regarding marxism, perhaps as some kind of a beginners study guide, as well as pamphlets or *something* of that nature. Maybe as a group project or something. I know marx and engel's works are in public domain, as well as anything from soviet russia, so that seems to make it a pretty simple task, in regards to legality. Can anyone think of what might be included in such a book, and the copyright status of those works?

Also, what does everyone think about on-demand-publishing? I've done a couple of test works, and everything seems to be of a decent quality.. but I'm referring more to how the development of on-demand-publishing is affecting the working class struggle--ultimately good or bad? It does take control of ideas in book form, at least in theory, out of capitalist influence; that is, nobody is refusing to publish it (yet..), even though the means of production are still in capitalist hands. What are the pros and cons of this?

[Latifa]

Make an intro to socialism instead. Communism is too radical for a n00b.

[encephalon]

do you think so? There wasn't a very long transition period for me between socialist and communist, once I actually took an interest in politics and society as a whole.. it was pretty much going from pure social apathy (ring..ring..alienation?) to reading up on classical philosophy and then political philosophy.. I may have considered myself a utilitarian at one point, but it was a very short period in reaching communism once I actually looked into it.. compared to the rest of political and social theory, it was the only one that seemed to make a great deal of sense without contradicting itself, though it wasn't entirely perfect.

what are everyone else's experiences in that regard? Slow or fast?

[the_godless_commie]

Why not add a bit from George Orwell's Animal Farm?

[ZeroPain]

Id say include the differance between socialism and communism and show how communism is the final outcome (hopefully) and that the stage of socialism is important to obtain the all important goal of communism, make clear the reasons why in countrys like russia because of a still active social drift towards authoritarianism ended up with stalin and such.

[encephalon]

Why not add a bit from George Orwell's Animal Farm?

I may be wrong, but I believe Orwell still has an active copyright on his works.. not orwell himself, but I'm guessing some publisher does. And, I don't think there's anything more fun in the world for a capitalist than bringing charges against a communist over copyright :P

I'm gonna look into the copyright, nonetheless..

[NovelGentry]

I registered to vote as Green when I was 18 -- although I considered myself independent, it was mainly to give party support to Nader, to make his ballot position easier. I then re-registered independent when the green party dissolved into the Green-Rainbow party. I began disagreeing with a lot of it because they struck chords mainly on environmental arguments. I was sick of a lot of moral arguments, and started thinking about the practicality of existing politics including the existing political economy. Still I supported Nader, assuming that if the right guy got in something could be done. I do still believe SOMETHING could be done, just not something useful. I think it'd be completely possible to make minor social reforms, but this is obviously not the change we still look for. Thus I have equated my vote now to a tool for argument. A lot of people disagree with me on this point, but I find voting to be a blatant exercise in futility, and one which we can use as an example of the failed system. If people don't already believe the system is failed, I think the fastest way to get them there is to show that even if we do give support to certain people, nothing change. This is obviously helped along by the past two elections where strict "legality" of these elections has been questioned.

I didn't start reading any communist literature until about 6 or 7 months ago. Simply more curious about who Che was (strangely enough I knew he was a communist already)... I did a search. I started reading about him and about some of the books he'd written. So the next time I went to the book store I took a gander and picked up his Guerilla Warfare along with The Art of War. I read about half of it before I went to the bookstore again, and picked up two more of his books The Motorcyle Diaries and Reminiscence of the Cuban Revolution. I started The Motorcycle Diaries, and then started RotCR and ended up finishing them in reverse order. After that I was very interested in this ideal that this man was fighting so hardly for. So I decided to start reading about that.

I soon found out that what Marx was putting across was very much what I was looking for as definition to my ideas. As I said, before I held strictly a moral position, and still felt reform was possible, that progressed into material reasoning and lost confidence in the bourgeois politics rather quickly. And it was only about a year later that I discovered Marx had actually already come up with a lot of the things I was thinking.

I don't think the path I took is applicable to everyone. I do think that people can progress rapidly in that sense, but I think a lot of it is based (as mine was) in an already lost faith in what exist, whether it be moral or material. I know one thing is for sure, without Che I would not have ever wondered what Communism was actually all about. I remember when I was 15 I used to think communism meant that even government officials had to do hard labor every now and then. Like if someone lived to elaborately or easily they would force these people at gunpoint to go lay railroad tracks or something, HAHAHAHA.

Anyway, that's my story. Personally I think your book is a good idea. It seems like an important cause, personally, however, my book is devoted to those who are already communist though. Although there are parts dedicated to how I think we can spread communism more effectively.

[encephalon]

I find voting to be a blatant exercise in futility, and one which we can use as an example of the failed system.

I felt that way for about a year before officially looking into communism in detail.. which leads to something else you said..


but I think a lot of it is based (as mine was) in an already lost faith in what exist, whether it be moral or material.

I agree with this fullheartedly. The thing is, and pardon my use of the term, but don't you think communism can capitalize on this fact quite well in America? It may be opportunistic, but I'm thinking more and more that it's a natural consequence of capitalism--and therefore something communists should indeed take advantage of, because it's actually what should lead people to communism.

Even on a very good year, only half the population votes.. how many people think it's actually because only half the population cares? I've never voted, in the past 6 years I've been able to, and this is simply because I didn't think it mattered, not because I was too lazy or didn't care. I'm almost positive those that don't vote, by a large majority, don't do so for the same reason. They see things for what they are, but don't know how to fix it. And most of those people that don't vote, incedentally, are the proletariat.


I know one thing is for sure, without Che I would not have ever wondered what Communism was actually all about.

Although people would have probably considered me "on the left," I didn't really think twice about communismm or even socialism. For the longest time, I just accepted the popular falsehood that socialism failed, and that what I know is a welfare state now was what I thought a socialist state was then.

Che didn't influence me much until I actually started on my way to labeling myself as a communist. What actually influenced me the most was learning about Marx at a rather bad period of my life.. I was hospitalized for about a month and a half, and in this time people brought me random books to read (though, admittedly, it is kind of hard to read when you're pumped full of demerol). Since people knew I was getting into philosophy, someone brought me a biography of Marx. It was good, too, I wish I remembered the author.

Regardless, at the same time I was wondering: How the hell am I going to pay off $70,000 worth of hospital bills? Moreso, how can anyone expect someone like me to pay anything remotely close to that? I come from a poor family, and make ten thousand dollars a year working full-time while trying to get through college, too.. how is anyone supposed to really obtain a better life? I kept thinking about it.. and maybe it was the demerol :P.. but about the same time I started reading Marx's bio I decided the problem wasn't me.. which honestly I always thought (and still do, most of the time), but the nature of class.

All the rest is pretty self-explanatory, I think.. once I read the bio I went through all the basic marx texts, and some lenin. The one thing the whole time that stopped me from being a communist, I'm almost positive, is the fact that I wasn't exposed to it.

and I think that might be the case a lot of times.

[NovelGentry]

I agree with this fullheartedly. The thing is, and pardon my use of the term, but don't you think communism can capitalize on this fact quite well in America?

Yes, but I don't think it's a useful argument for possibly reactionary non-voters. Anyone can say the system doesn't work. But anyone in turn can say "well how do you know?" It's a shit scenario to begin with, because they can always say "well it MIGHT work if enough people cared." This seems to be the argument of the democrats after the last election when Nader didn't "spoil their win." Now they blame the simple fact that enough people weren't pissed off enough. The question is, would it have mattered? We see the answer as no, no matter what happens.

To us Kerry is little (if at all) different from Bush. And as I've said before, if we are constantly choosing between the lesser of two evils, we will get evil every time. To them, however, Kerry is a WIN! So they're convinced you get enough people agitated and they'll go do their "civil duty" and will walk away with proper representation in the white house. :lol:

These are the people we have to push the most. These and those who aren't necessarily burned out, but simply inactive. It's a lot easier to see someone who's halfway there follow through with the rest. It would seem a lot more difficult to get people who are still thinking their vote matters to do this.

I'm not sure you disagree on this point, what people tend to disagree with me on is HOW we do this. Most people say "well we just yell at them that their vote doesn't count." I don't think this will work... for some it may given enough past evidence, but others will see you as one of the burn-outs who's just mad their candidate from 20 years ago didn't win.

Now before I explain further let me reiterate something: I DO NOT THINK MY VOTE DOES MATTER, AT LEAST NOT AS A VOTE.

How I do think my vote matters is by presenting to people that work within the system fails. We know we can very easily point out the flaws that exist in ANY capitalist politician, from the left most party to the right most. The fact alone that they're willing to take part in capitalist politics shows US that they are accepting of capitalism.

What I think we should try and do is push the vote further and further left. And I think we should be very open about WHY we vote (explaining in much the same way I'm explaining now). Eventually what I believe will happen is that we'll hit a stop. Hell, we may very well hit it earlier than I think given how the US's electoral system is set up. Most people don't even understand that their vote literally doesn't mean a damn thing here. They'd understand that damn fast if some crackpost socialist candidate won every state and yet somehow the democrat gets elected. Would the electoral college actually make their power that obvious? I'm not sure.

One argument used against my method is that by voting it appears as though we condone bourgeois politics. I do and don't agree with this. I don't think it does if we explain our position on voting, to display it's blatant futility to make it more obvious to people who don't yet see it. For those who cannot hear our explaination it may very well seem like this, but what does it really matter if in the end the result is what we want? (a full on blatant display of it's futility). Then everyone sits there questioning the vote, from that point on we have a much better case of revolution over reform.

In the end I believe revolution will be necessary, no matter what we do. How we're able to show the majority of working class Ameircan's that is questionable, but I just gave you my basic theory. Although, much like other Marxists, I do feel there will be some point where it won't even necessarily matter. I suppose what you could say I'm attempting to do is accelerate us to that point. Get us to OBVIOUS non-representation as soon as possible rather than sit around and wait for it to happen naturally while explaining that some day it'll be obvious. In one thread I went as far as to say "I hate to say it, but maybe we should HOPE that Bush gets "elected" again." Things DO need to get worse before they get better strictly materially and strictly politically, we will have to face it one day or another.

Does this mean we should support fascism for the sake of showing it's bad. No. We should never make it a point to actually support it or condone it even if we're lying. There's nothing GOOD about what Bush is doing or bourgeois politics in general. Like I said, it may need to get worse before it gets better, but we should be pushing for the left most border in order to make the right most border look more and more left. Eventually democrat candidates may look just as bad to democrats as republicans look to them. Hopefully we can get to the point where ANY bourgeois politican looks that bad. THEN we've got something.


Che didn't influence me much until I actually started on my way to labeling myself as a communist.

Even still, I think selected portions from the works of Che and other people who have actually been in revolution will be a good addition. Like I said, what made me really question was "what is so special about communism that this man is willing to sacrifice his life for it." Unfortunately this is something you can't get from someone like Lenin, who I'm unaware took the same risks as someone like Che. I coudl be wrong on this obviously, but it seemed Lenin was much better at convincing others to mobilize and fight rather than actually putting himself in the line of fire. Obviously his life was in danger simply BECAUSE of what he was telling others to do, but there's a large different between that and actually being on the lines.


though, admittedly, it is kind of hard to read when you're pumped full of demerol

Well that explains your warped interpretation of his writings... hehehe j/k (I've not actually seen too much of what you interpret it to mean yet, looking forward to it when your post count gets into triple digits.)


someone brought me a biography of Marx. It was good, too, I wish I remembered the author.

This isn't so much a biography, but I have a very small book called "Marx: A Very Short Introduction" by Peter Singer. It is by far one of the best works I've ever read as a general summary to his life and his ideas.


and I think that might be the case a lot of times.

I agree, at least for people who already lean slightly left. But it's tough to really tackle more centrist or right individuals... and strangely there are working class people who are right. Not a LOT, but enough.

[Pawn Power]

Make an intro to socialism instead. Communism is too radical for a n00b.
That is reactionary; we should always be working towards communism.

[Rockfan]

It depends what type of communism you aiming for. Lots of lenists hate animal farm aye.

[flyby]

there are some great, short basic communist essays for beginners here: http://rwor.org/a/ideology/mlm.htm

topics like:

On Criticism and Self-Criticism
Hatred for Oppression--It's Not Just a Personal Thing
What is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, And Whose Ideology Is It?
Fighting For Complete Liberation--Not to Get New Oppressors
Making Revolution--and Keeping on Making Revolution
Serving the People vs. Serving Yourself, Being Down for Revolution vs. Being "Out for No. 1"
Communism: Imagine...In Living Color
Communism is Not a "European" Ideology--It Is the Ideology of the International Proletariat
Facing Life as It Is--In Order to Radically Change It
Incentive and Initiative
Keep the Fires Burning

In addition here are some other beginning essays:

Capitalism's dirty little secret
http://rwor.org/a/v22/1052-059/1057/secret.htm

Is Revolution Possible in the USA
http://rwor.org/a/chair/ask1e.htm

Only Proletarian Revolutin Can Liberate Women
http://rwor.org/a/chair/ask5e.htm

[Latifa]

Originally posted by Revolution is the [email protected] 3 2005, 10:34 PM

Make an intro to socialism instead. Communism is too radical for a n00b.
That is reactionary; we should always be working towards communism.
That is not reactionary, socialism is a nice step on the way to communism.

[encephalon]

orwell's works are copyrighted, at least in the U.S. (not in russia, australia or canada, however.

I would like to attempt to make it somewhat non-partisan, and include works from the different communist "factions", hopefully giving the reader a very basic sense of the differences between them, however great or slight. If anything, that would hopefully make some kind of unity easier, in concerns to newcomers (and therefore the future of the movement).

I'm unsure, too, if it's going to be solely communist works, or cover all shades of red (all the way to black..).. I'm conflicting with my own views on that one, and haven't yet decided:P

flyby: do you think the rcp would mind having those works published outside of their own bookstore/mag? I don't think they'd be big lovers of copyright (and hopefully, none of us are..)--but those articles are used, I assume, to fund the party, in part.

Maybe not now, since they're freely available on their site.. but hey, I'm not quite eager to get on the rcp's bad side :P

Anyone have a clue about that?

[Comrade Marcel]

As far as I know, Orwell's works are now in public domain (or atleast most of them).

You can read 1984 and Animal Farm here:
http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/

Gutenburg also has some of his stuff, but it is in text:
http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty.html#orwell

I will aks my Trotskyite comrade who is a fan of Orwell if there is another archive with nicely formatted html around..

[Erin Go Braugh]

Orwell is brilliant. He pretty accuratley describes communist government so far in his famous line
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
When I read those words it changed my life.

[encephalon]

if it's on gutenberg, then it most definitely should be in public domain.. hrmm...

[Rage Against the Right]

I don't know if you've written anything geared towards a newbie before, but i think the best way to go about it is to have a short paragraph covering the main points of an idea i.e. the Communist Manifesto then have a link to the full document. Then progress to narrower topics i.e. Marx himself, keeping each concise with links to a more indepth look so people can pick and choose their learning experience in the beginning. If you ease them into it I think they'll find it easier to swallow.

[Comrade Marcel]

This is an older version, and the study group has been updated since, but it is still a very good study guide....

Intro to Marxism version 2.1 (http://school.rebelyouth.ca/intro21a.html)

[Seuno]

Republish chapter three of the 1848 Communist Manifest. It's the best for to present the proletariat our place in history.

The evolution of socialism as a bourgeois instrument and the erroring communists (critical and utopian)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ifesto/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm)


Communists do not oppose other working class parties nor seek to mould the proletariat into their sectarian differences.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ifesto/ch02.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

[Donnie]

I would first start with the simple plain stuff :

1)Socialism what is it? (Core concepts)
-Equality
-Co-operation
-Common Ownership
-Community
-Class

2) Roads to Socialism. Means and ends!
-Revolutionary Socialism
-Evolutionary Socialism


3) Marxism
-Class
-Marx Philosophy aka Marx History
-Alienation
-Capitalism
-Dictatorship of the Proletariate

4) Is Marxism dead? Can it be aplied to Modern society?

5) Lennism? What is it?

6) Stalinism? What is it?

7) Trotskyism? What is it?

8) Our role in the Revolution

9) Bibleography

Thats how i would do it, if it was a n00bs guide to Communism, you have got to ease them into things. I mean you can start talking about how the revolution will happen and how it will be done....you will scare the guy half to death.
A person who is not familier to communism needs to understand the basic principles of socialism. As they say you do want a "Rebel without a cause"

[Famepollution]

Orwell is brilliant. He pretty accuratley describes communist government so far in his famous line
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
When I read those words it changed my life.

What the fuck? I sure hope this line was in jest cause communism is not defined by that line. Infact I would go so far to state that Orwell did a horrible injustice to the name of communism with that book. I'd suggest that you read up on communism perhaps Communism (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) by our good friend Redstar would be a appropriate beginning.


I would first start with the simple plain stuff :

1)Socialism what is it? (Core concepts)
-Equality
-Co-operation
-Common Ownership
-Community
-Class

2) Roads to Socialism. Means and ends!
-Revolutionary Socialism
-Evolutionary Socialism


3) Marxism
-Class
-Marx Philosophy aka Marx History
-Alienation
-Capitalism
-Dictatorship of the Proletariate

4) Is Marxism dead? Can it be aplied to Modern society?

5) Lennism? What is it?

6) Stalinism? What is it?

7) Trotskyism? What is it?

8) Our role in the Revolution

9) Bibleography


God I hate it when communists dont mention anything other than marxist derivatives when they talk about communism. Come on people! Doing a Intro into communism should always include all the different paradigms of Communism. The people need to know about anarcho-communism, left/council communism and any other communist paradigm so that the novice in question can make an educated choice.

[Seuno]

Yes, it is valuable to learn the BS forms of 'communism', but it is not a priority. The priority is to learn to think for oneself correctly checking for errors and contradictions. The communist manifest of Karl Marx is the shortest and most helpful historical lesson of the teacher scientist. Karl Marx is the originating teacher and leading thinker of that great old group.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ifesto/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm)


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm

Understanding this quote from Marx is valuable: "We can see how subjectivism and objectivism, spiritualism and materialism, activity and passivity, first lose their character as opposites under social conditions, and therefore their existence as such opposites. We can see how the solution of theoretical oppositions is only possible in a practical way, only through the practical energy of man. Their resolution is therefore by no means a project for knowledge but a project of actual living. Philosophy cannot solve them precisely because philosophy grasps them only as theoretical problems....." Karl Marx

[Seuno]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:39 PM
I would first start with the simple plain stuff :

1)Socialism what is it? (Core concepts)
-Equality
-Co-operation
-Common Ownership
-Community
-Class

2) Roads to Socialism. Means and ends!
-Revolutionary Socialism
-Evolutionary Socialism


3) Marxism
-Class
-Marx Philosophy aka Marx History
-Alienation
-Capitalism
-Dictatorship of the Proletariate

4) Is Marxism dead? Can it be aplied to Modern society?

5) Lennism? What is it?

6) Stalinism? What is it?

7) Trotskyism? What is it?

8) Our role in the Revolution

9) Bibleography

Thats how i would do it, if it was a n00bs guide to Communism, you have got to ease them into things. I mean you can start talking about how the revolution will happen and how it will be done....you will scare the guy half to death.
A person who is not familier to communism needs to understand the basic principles of socialism. As they say you do want a "Rebel without a cause"
"Do we keep the right-wing out of power while campaigning for and education
people about socialism and communism?"

Yes.

We may write a pamphlet that may contain something of the following:

"We can see how subjectivism and objectivism, spiritualism and materialism, activity and passivity, first lose their character as opposites under social conditions, and therefore their existence as such opposites. We can see how the solution of theoretical oppositions is only possible in a practical way, only through the practical energy of man. Their resolution is therefore by no means a project for knowledge but a project of actual living. Philosophy cannot solve them precisely because philosophy grasps them only as theoretical problems....." Karl Marx

We have seen in the past one hundred years that the giant beaurocracies of bourgeois communism does not work for the proletariat, that the giant beaurocracies are only able to form that oppressive, hypocritcal, insincere bourgeois communism. We know from the newer studies of Jean Piaget and his cognitive studies that the proletariat is not intellectually matured enough because of the various forms of education oppression in those hundred years past. It is from this understanding that we advance education for the proletariat as the present priority and form an intermediate economical financial plan for the proletariat. Find herein attached a copy of the 1848 Communist Manifest, The Taxation Justice plan and survey and a summary brief of the cognitive theoretical outline of Jean Piaget.

1 Communist Manifesto 1848 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...festo/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)

Especially see chapter 3 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ifesto/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm)

2 http://groups.msn.com/TaxationJustice/taxationpageone.msnw

3 Cognitive Development http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html

Stages of Cognitive Development. Piaget identified four stages in cognitive development:

Sensorimotor stage (Infancy). In this period (which has 6 stages), intelligence is demonstrated through motor activity without the use of symbols. Knowledge of the world is limited (but developing) because its based on physical interactions / experiences. Children acquire object permanence at about 7 months of age (memory). Physical development (mobility) allows the child to begin developing new intellectual abilities. Some symbollic (language) abilities are developed at the end of this stage.

Pre-operational stage (Toddler and Early Childhood). In this period (which has two substages), intelligence is demonstrated through the use of symbols, language use matures, and memory and imagination are developed, but thinking is done in a nonlogical, nonreversable manner. Egocentric thinking predominates

Concrete operational stage (Elementary and early adolescence). In this stage (characterized by 7 types of conservation: number, length, liquid, mass, weight, area, volume), intelligence is demonstarted through logical and systematic manipulation of symbols related to concrete objects. Operational thinking develops (mental actions that are reversible). Egocentric thought diminishes.

Formal operational stage (Adolescence and adulthood). In this stage, intelligence is demonstrated through the logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts. Early in the period there is a return to egocentric thought. Only 35% of high school graduates in industrialized countries obtain formal operations; many people do not think formally during adulthood.




http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ifesto/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...festo/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)