Communism needs a new name

[commiecrusader]

A while ago someone made a thread about whether Communism needed a new name, and at that time, I said 'no', believing education was what is needed. But having just returned from a travelling trip round Europe encompassing some
ex-Eastern Bloc countries such as Poland, East Germany, and Hungary, I have come to the conclusion that Communism is very much in need of a new name.

Only the older generation in these countries looks back on their 'Communism' with any positivity, apart from that, everything there is anti-communist, even guide books. For example, in a Polish brochure:
'...but Communism being Communism, Poland sufferred terribly...' blahblahblah about how its only just regaining its feet. There is also a lot of anti-communist graffiti.

Whilst the youth in these countries still often share leftist ideas, they shy away from the title 'Communism', and are often seemingly ill-educated ideologically. I saw one bit of graffiti about the EU saying 'the EU is a bourgeois dictatorship under the guise of democracy'. Surely democracy is also a tool of the bourgeoisie???

In short, our movement needs a new name, and to reach out better to the young of all generations.

[mod_plod]

I could not agree with you more. The bad rap given to socialist movements through out the world is one of the main reasons they struggle to gain support from the people.

But as for a name change, what good would it do? it would only show to people that we wanted to runaway just coz' we don’t like our history or being called names. The actions of the Soviet system could not rightfully be called communist any longer. Stalin and his political descendants cursed the name, we must live with it and fight to rebuild peoples faith in socialist movements. The name Communist is used because it says what we stand for. Community.

Although as the capitalists could see it, a new name could be; The Social Coalition against imperialistic order

just a brain fart....



(edited for spelling)

[OleMarxco]

Hmm, I don't know...I'm kind of pulled in both directions with this one. One part of me says that; "Yes, the name of "Communism" has often been tarnished up the years, let's change it to prove we're taking distance from the previous "attempts" at it" - but another is that "No, Communism is the old-school world for it (the marxistic ideological-society) and we should respect it as a good word for community (as mod plod said". So I say; Let's do both. Keep the old and the new: And call our NEW Communism for....Neo-Communism, as an answer to....Neo-Conservatism! ;)

[monkeydust]

Yes, I see where you're coming from.

I suppose it would be fairly futile to take existing communism as it is and just "rebrand" it. However, a number of people on here who deviate somewhat from orthodox communism - in particular by abandoning Leninism and adopting aspects of anarchism - might conceivably find some use in adopting a new name.

The inevitable question, however, is "what name should it be?"

[More Fire for the People]

I often get weird looks when I say I'm a communist at school, so I have started saying I am a Marxist.

They ask "What is that?"

To which I reply (I am dealing with Republican-brainwashed children in a rural community so I know this statement is not even a small description of Marxism but meh), "It is when worker's control the business they work at."

They seem vaguely interested in that description but when they search for resources on their own they find out that Marx wrote about Communism and continue to give me weird looks.

In short, nobody cares about what we call our ideology they just have been told to hate it.

[Matthew The Great]

I have to deal with brainwashed conservatives in a small town, too. They support any Republican no matter what. It's pretty amusing/angering.

The only thing they care about is abortion and "lazy people who feed from the government".

Sometime during the election season our US history teacher made us take one of those online tests that told you who you aligned with more: Bush or Kerry. (Yes, they both suck.) I thought it was hilarious when 95% of them got Kerry.

They were all like "What? I'm against abortion! I thought I was a Republican!"

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:31 PM
I could not agree with you more. The bad rap given to socialist movements through out the world is one of the main reasons they struggle to gain support from the people.

But as for a name change, what good would it do? it would only show to people that we wanted to runaway just coz' we don’t like our history or being called names. The actions of the Soviet system could not rightfully be called communist any longer. Stalin and his political descendants cursed the name, we must live with it and fight to rebuild peoples faith in socialist movements. The name Communist is used because it says what we stand for. Community.
Errr...no. We NEED a name change because we NEED to become a new movement. People is not very aware of, for example, anarchist ideas, therefore if we create a new momvent and call it with a new name and suddenly it seems like it came out of nowhere and that it is growing, people will feel curiousity.

But for such a movement to work we need a new, good, accurate, efficient economical plan, and some strong manifesto (without that word in its name or it will bring them memories of the communist one), and basically a new identity. No more mentions of the word "bourgeoisie" (to be replaced by at least something like "powerful elite"), emphasis on how did such a society came into existance, examples of how behaviour is modified by this elite and what could be their aims when they do so. Also, no more defense of past icons like Stalin or Lenin, emphasis on how they&#39;ve been hiding stuff from us, emphasis on how did fascist tyrannies came into existance when (guess what...) the "powerful elite" had their interests threatened, emphasis on how did private property came into existance (and things such as europeans killing indians to get their lands as their property) and examples on how the media has been manipulating information. Analogies between "god" and Big Brother, as well as between "god" and "<name of the elite> will be required. Science to be defended from superstitions and unfalsifiable "theories".
That, my friends, would look more or less like a "new movement" that suddenly gets people interested in it since it will look "strong" and with ambitions. NO MORE "# point plans". No more "charity", from now on charity is evil since it hides the problem and makes some give others the few things they have while rich people doing so will just be defending their system and they won&#39;t mind losing a bit. From now on we are a group of "self-interested" but NOT really "selfish" people, who see society as oppresive by nature since we are being used. No more one-dimensional political spectrums, no more "we are leftists", we are a NEW movement, something that might have been in some way in the head of many leftist thinkers in the past but were repressed by the rest of the left or by the authoritarian society they lived in.

Some might say that the bourgeoisie will eventually realize what we once "stood for", but if we "set it up" pretty quickly it will be too late for them to act if we start having success, and if we can actually "get to the people" they will understand that we have different points from what the folk think the "left" has. Since this new movement will basically be criticizing the suspicious foundations of our society, people will have to defend them, which is something they hardly do since they accept capitalism and authorities as a given and as a "natural" thing, without much more evidence than claims about "self interest". Some will complain of my request for making the "left" think on new detailed economical alternatives but there&#39;s a big amount of possibilities that would be useful on such a society.

[mod_plod]

People is not very aware of, for example, anarchist ideas, therefore if we create a new movement and call it with a new name and suddenly it seems like it came out of nowhere and that it is growing, people will feel curiosity.

The communist party in Italy Split over the name change, the people who changed moved closer to the center in their ideals ( the democratic party of the left) while the remainder (renamed them selves’ ‘The reformed communist party&#39;) lost a lot of strength to this new part.

At the start people did flock to this new party over those offered by the right, but over time the DPL became nothing more than an escape route for those not wanting to vote right.

In changing name we will succeed only in dividing the left even more and weakening our selves, leaving the remainder to be seen as even more extreme.

[Djehuti]

It is not about what we call ourselves, it is about who we are and what we stand for&#33;
There is no advantage in changing our names, only the opposite. Should we change our whole terminology because it might seem dirty to others? And would the bourgeosie care? No, they fight us because that we are communists, not because we call ourselves communists.


Anyway, for me, it just seems complicated and impractical to change our names.
But if our polish comrades prefere to change their names, well it is up to them. They are still our comrades, as stated it is about what we are not what we call ourselves.



BTW, you should read Engels letter to Eduard Berstein, 18 january 1883. Unfortunatly I could&#39;nt find them on english. It tells about these things.
Engels advice is to strike twice or thrice (?) for each blow the enemy deals.


It could also be interesting to see how old the ruling class&#39; hate is against the association the word "communism" gives:

It’s funny how the word ‘communio’ is often reviled in just the same way as communism nowadays. Thus, for example, the priest Guibert of Nogent writes:
‘Commune, a new and thoroughly bad appellation’.
Marx To Engels 27 July 1854
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...rs/54_07_27.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/letters/54_07_27.htm)

[Enragé]

Well perhaps we dont need a new name, but a new ideology. This ideology should comprise of both anarchist and communist ways of thought (mixing Marx with, say, Kropotkin).
How about calling it Solidarism

:P

but yeah im serious about this.

On top of that, this will be a unifying thing in the leftist community. Never again should anarchists be forced to fight communists or vice versa (which happened in the Spanish civil war, severely weakening the Republican Army)

[Paradox]

I say we stop calling ourselves Communists, and start calling ourselves Communists. Oh wait... that doesn&#39;t help. :lol: I don&#39;t see a problem calling myself Communist, and no matter what "new" name you come up with, people will eventually find out that it&#39;s Communism you believe in. I mean, the only other label I put on my ideology when telling people is Luxemburgist. Either way it&#39;s Communism, so what&#39;s the point if people will find out you&#39;re a Commie anyway? This doesn&#39;t make much sense to me.

[Rockfan]

As long as it involves marxists ideology it wont matter what it&#39;s call because to the stunch opposition it&#39;s not the name there worried about, it&#39;s what the ideology calls for. Plus if you do then people intrested in "it" (what ever this new name would be) will be told to read the "communist" menifesto.

I think we just need to find away to demonstrate, on mass, that we don&#39;t want to be associated with the USSR and we resent what it did.

[redstar2000]

"Revolutionary Workerism"? (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1104033517&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[guerillablack]

I think we should change the name of certain words, because the world itself is changing. As a Marxist we must always analyze the world which we live in. That means creating new words. I don&#39;t even like to call myself a Marxist because i feel dogmatic.

[Sukhe-Bator]

We should get some things straight. I think these are the conventions (correct me if I&#39;m wrong):
"communism" with a lower-case C means standing up for the rights of workers/advocating communism as a social system.

"Communism" with a capital C means &#39;official&#39; communism, in other words, the line of the Communist Party in a given country, and thus Communism=Stalinism because due to the Soviet control of the Comintern, all Communist Parties were and are Stalinist.

"Marxism" is a particular brand of communism, distinguished from other communisms and pro-worker ideologies by 2 things: 1) Marxists always support the interests of the international, worldwide movement and 2) Marxists support the political independence of the proletariat from non-proletarian forces with non-proletarian interests.

I am a communist, but I&#39;m not a Communist. And given the pro-Democratic Party line of the CPUSA, most Stalinists in the US aren&#39;t Communists either.

I think we need to stick with the name "communism." True, a lot of people are suspicious of that "communism." But as Rotmutter made clear, they&#39;ll find out we&#39;re communists once they get into our ideas, and they&#39;ll be even MORE suspicious if they think we&#39;re trying to conceal our "evil motives" behind nice, pretty names.. so let&#39;s skip the time that would be wasted and the suspicion begotten (not to mention the confusion caused) by renaming ourselves, and just bear on the same title that our comrades of previous generations always have.

[NovelGentry]

"Marxism" is a particular brand of communism, distinguished from other communisms and pro-worker ideologies by 2 things: 1) Marxists always support the interests of the international, worldwide movement and 2) Marxists support the political independence of the proletariat from non-proletarian forces with non-proletarian interests.

MARXISM IS NOT A BRAND OF COMMUNISM :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[mod_plod]

We should stop to bicker between our selves about a name, we should start to review what it means to carry to title communist / socialist or anarchist.

How about coming up with something like &#39;the lefties handbook&#39;? An essay that outlines the basic practices and beliefs of all divisions of the left. No matter how far you swing.

I mean, once we understand that a name is all that separates us from each other, then, maybe the importance of that name will begin to flounder.

We need a new manifesto to reflect our time and place in this never ending struggle, not a new name&#33;

[Paradox]

"communism" with a lower-case C means standing up for the rights of workers/advocating communism as a social system.

"Communism" with a capital C means &#39;official&#39; communism, in other words, the line of the Communist Party in a given country, and thus Communism=Stalinism because due to the Soviet control of the Comintern, all Communist Parties were and are Stalinist.

:huh: Never heard of this "difference." Moreover, I don&#39;t see how this would matter, because whether you capitalize the "c" in the word or not, the ruling class is gonna be all over your ass&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: Communist, communist, Marxist, whatever. Changing the name in my opinion will hardly make a difference, if any at all.

I capitalize the "c," don&#39;t really know why, but I do. But, as you can tell from the quote in my signature, I ain&#39;t no stalinist. Far from it. :D

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 08:10 PM
The communist party in Italy Split over the name change, the people who changed moved closer to the center in their ideals ( the democratic party of the left) while the remainder (renamed them selves’ ‘The reformed communist party&#39;) lost a lot of strength to this new part.

At the start people did flock to this new party over those offered by the right, but over time the DPL became nothing more than an escape route for those not wanting to vote right.

In changing name we will succeed only in dividing the left even more and weakening our selves, leaving the remainder to be seen as even more extreme.
I don&#39;t see the relation between "starting from scratch as a marketing strategy" and "a (seemingly) social-democrat &#39;communist&#39; party goes down after splitting", and I don&#39;t see why such an organization would split "the left". In fact the left is "split" already, a "refreshing"/"update" on strategy and "marketing" would unite people that is still having fights or do not realize they have things in common. And I don&#39;t give a damn about stalinists who disagree with "the new group", they can rot in hell. The new movement will have more chances of freeing the masses than a suspicious, tyrannical, already-with-people-having-prejudice-against-them totalitarian "leftist" vanguardist dictatorship that will achieve nothing. Also, this new movement will NOT make people say "I&#39;m a <insert name of movement>-ist", but rather "I support the <insert name of movement>-ist principles/platform/ideas/proposal", which will be as accurate and short as possible, leaving "alternative views" inside the movement as secondary and irrelevant to the overall aims of that new movement (the movement&#39;s basic tenets should be something like "we oppose authoritarianism and propose this system of democratic control", so if someone thinks leaders must be elected and most people inside the movement don&#39;t and prefer a "direct democracy", it&#39;s not an issue to be "regulated", rather it&#39;s something which is not relevant to the movement&#39;s short term aims). From now on, "labeling" is OVER (even if the opposition will use the -ists to attack, but the aim of this is making people aware of what they&#39;ve never known).

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:02 PM

Only the older generation in these countries looks back on their &#39;Communism&#39; with any positivity,
Uh you mean the generation thats old enough to remember living under Communist states has positive feelings towards it...and the generation that hasn&#39;t experianced it first hand does not? HMMMMM

If you let the capitalists control the termonologies used, if you surrender words to them as in "Oh, I&#39;m not Communist, Communists are oppressive authoritarians who take away your freedom, I&#39;m a harmless, freedom loving, socialist/social democrat/anarchist/anacrho-communist/liberal/freedom lover/ect, not an evil commie" it allows them to rewrite history unchallanged and thats percisely why the younger generations who grew up on rightwing revisionism find communism distasteful and the people who actually lived it do not.

Also i think the word, Communism, and communist symbols, don&#39;t provoke strongly negative reactions in youth either, which would be the only reason to change them...you can see people wearing t-shirts or with bags with red stars or &#39;cccp&#39; or hammer and sickles (and of course, pictures of Che) who aren&#39;t even communists but think that its a cool kindof retro thing...the same way that you can see people wearing things with union jacks on them even if they have no special affection for the British government...Communism and its associated symbols are really not so offensive and certaintly not shocking, most young people in the west, i think would find it more irrelevant or anachronistic then anything else.

Lastly, it would be stupid for leftists in a few nations to use specialized termonology when the rest of the world has no historical context for adopting a similar termonology (like, if Polish teens are more receptive to the phrase &#39;social democracy&#39;&#39; and associate &#39;communism&#39; with oppression and Cuban teens are more receptive to the phrase &#39;communism&#39; and associate &#39;social democracy&#39; with center left imperialist parties, even though they might share the same political ideology in fact, they&#39;re politically alienated from each other by their termonology.)

[coda]

:rolleyes:

[Black Dagger]

It was mentioned before, but Workerism is kind of catchy... Workerism o muerte~&#33;

But if &#39;we&#39; come up with a new name, there needs be a distinct break from traditions of the past as well. It must be made clear that it is not in any way related to Leninist (and related) ideologies. If this &#39;new&#39; tradition is to be established along anarcho-marxist lines, it could work- but it will be a hard slog.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by TragicClown
Lastly, it would be stupid for leftists in a few nations to use specialized terminology when the rest of the world has no historical context for adopting a similar terminology (like, if Polish teens are more receptive to the phrase &#39;social democracy&#39;&#39; and associate &#39;communism&#39; with oppression and Cuban teens are more receptive to the phrase &#39;communism&#39; and associate &#39;social democracy&#39; with center left imperialist parties, even though they might share the same political ideology in fact, they&#39;re politically alienated from each other by their terminology.)

That&#39;s an interesting point.

But, conversely, using the same terminology for historically different meanings is also going to be inevitably confusing.

In the "third world", the word "communism" probably mostly means Maoism...but it&#39;s certainly not what I mean by the word. I don&#39;t want to live in a Maoist society...even though it would be a big step forward for them.

And I have a similar problem with the word "anarchism" -- I don&#39;t want to be associated with diet fads, new age religions, and who knows what else.

So I would like a new and distinct name -- one that could stand for real working class power without being confused with either Leninist "communism" or anarcho-nutballism.

I like the suggestion "Revolutionary Workerism"...but I&#39;m open to others.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Black Dagger]

anarcho-nutballism

That&#39;s catchy&#33;



I like the suggestion "Revolutionary Workerism"...but I&#39;m open to others.

As i said, Workerism is ok with me, but isn&#39;t &#39;revolutionary workerism&#39; akin to &#39;revolutionary communism&#39;? Ie. If &#39;workerism&#39; is to replace &#39;communism&#39;, surely &#39;revolutionary&#39; becomes redundant? Is there any difference between communism and &#39;revolutionary communism&#39;?

[Raisa]

Hell nah&#33;

:blink:

Change the name?

nooooo. We believe in communism. that is the word for how we believe soceity should be organized.
In believing in communism we believe in equality, respect, and progress...and the liberation of the working class. Change the name and it is still the same thing, lets not bullshit the people here. Lets be good people and hold our heads high and represent well what we believe in, and not sell out the name because of some wack capitalist text book stories.

[Vallegrande]

It&#39;s just that communism has been given a bad reputation since the early 1900&#39;s. Many impoverished people in the US actually accepted communism (I think the IWW was one organization), but the gov&#39;t made so much propaganda that the name is just negative now in the US.
And I still get confused with the difference between socialism and communism. Is socialism just an offshoot of communism?

[Paradox]

It&#39;s just that communism has been given a bad reputation since the early 1900&#39;s.

And what makes you think that whatever new name we give Communism will not soon get a bad reputation as well? After all... IT WILL STILL BE COMMUNISM&#33;&#33;&#33; The people will still find out that it&#39;s actually Communism we believe in once we outline the society we invision, and the ruling class will quickly point this out. So, no matter what we decide to call ourselves, we are STILL COMMUNISTS. Changing the name makes no sense.

[kurt]

Changing the name of our political ideology would be superficial and useless. It&#39;s true that communism has a bad name due to the stalinist regimes of the 20th century, and that bad image is only amplified by bourgeoisie propaganda constantly being hammered into peoples heads from birth.

The CPC (Communist Party of Canada) has had discussions on this matter before, and it was decided that such a move is counter-productive. Back when communist parties were outlawed in Canada from 41&#39; up until 59&#39; and the CPC was known as the Labour-Progressive party. Despite this fact, the media would still attach (Communist) behind their name in the polls and when they reported on them.

We can try to change our name all we want, but it will be to no avail. We are communists, and should be proud to fight for equality everywhere. Work to change perception of the name, as the ideas are what will shape minds, not some catchy title.



And I still get confused with the difference between socialism and communism. Is socialism just an offshoot of communism?

Communism is a classless, stateless society in which the entire population owns the means of production. There are varying opinions on what true socialism should be, but the jist of it is that it is a workers state. The workers own the means of production, and control it via elected councils from within their ranks.

[Re-visionist 05]

We dont need a new name, we just need revision on its image in the western countreis, every damn history class in the us makes you think of gulags,A-bombs, long bread lines, cold, bleak apartment blocs, and U-boats. You really dont get a true explaination of what it is these days, only what it looks like on cable TV and bad movies.

[cccpcommie]

i feel u can call it what u want but one day it will happen like it or not

[KickMcCann]

Although I understand the reasons for changing the name, I think its unnecessary. We all just need to patient. Now that the CCCP is dead and gone and the cold war is over, the word communism is quickly vanishing from the repertoire of mainstream conversation and language in the west. Its an abstract word and concept that people are quickly becoming unfamiliar and indifferent to. Its been relegated to kooky historical clichés delivered as jokes on "The Simpsons" and other comedic media. Besides the occasional movie, tv show, or video game involving the USSR, the only time current generations are briefly exposed to even a hint of the idea are in the history classes they are forced to drudge through, and most only pay enough attention or consideration to pass their tests and then forget about it.
Altough some may feel disheartened by the fact that the ideas of socialism/ communism barely exist in the west anymore, they should be cheerful and optomistic. It is much easier to introduce and advocate communism to a neutral and uninformed public than it is to slam into the wall of a heavily indoctrinated, antagonistic, prejudiced public.
This fact of human nature can be used for good and bad. The only reason we should want people to forget about the USSR is not so we can recreate an authoritarian, statist bureaucracy, but so we can start fresh and not be hindered by the mistakes of the past in our pursuit of economic democracy.

Or if you want, you could just call communism "Economic Democracy" ;)

[Shredder]

I think we need two things. I think we need the old communist ideology to still exist. But on top of that, we must work to replace the sappy, idealist, and sell-out elements liberal/democrat/social-democracy with a new, strictly materialist trend of ideas.

The language we, communists, speak in cannot penetrate the years of capitalism that have hardened and now cake the skulls of the masses. We need a trend of thought which explains communist ideals in modern every day terms and reaches out to things people care about. If you talk about revolution, you are simply stepping out of bounds of acceptable public discourse and your opinions are completely ignored. But if we create a nonrevolutionary yet materialist, class conscious ideology we extend the realm of public discourse in our favor.

The modern leftist ideologies, of course, are such dismal excuses for leftist that they merely follow the lead of the most reactionary parties. The progressive media in america is highly idealist and goes about business by letting the right do whatever they please and only responding by attempting to sound reasonable rather than be right. In concrete terms the democrats let the republicans do whatever they please and then simply announce how unhappy they are about it. They are incapable of making any progress because they try to answer capitalist ideology in capitalist terminology instead of inventing their own. The only alternatives they try to offer are merely compromises.

What is needed is organization of communists and anarchists claiming no particular relation to communism or anarchy, and emphasizing what we believe in rather than wasting time whining about how the USSR wasn&#39;t "really" communist. This movement would appear as if organized into soft-teirs of ideology, as at the most outer level would exist slogans about the defense of worker rights, pledging to protect them from extremist corporate takeover. Interested people would then begin to delve deeper into the ideology with stimulated interests, to be exposed, on the one hand, to the realities of class consciousness and the material interests that drive society; and, on the other, to materialist ideology, in plain every day terms, explaining how abstractions about "freedom" and "democracy" are ideological constructs used as weapons against them and that real justice lies in the mutual interest of the masses, by which can only be meant the working class. As individuals come more invested into the ideology, they would inevitibly come to know the revolutionary communism that neccessarily underpins it all.

This is the only right way to propagandize class consciousness. No other ideas or marketing schemes work by coming right out and saying things that are at such extreme odds with the status quo. Racists today do not preach racism. Instead, the hook preteens by appealing to them with completely reasonable sounding statements. They claim they do not hate black people, they are just looking out for the rights of white people in case they be forgotten&#33; And once they are hooked with such ideas, they begin reading some literature and in no time flat are certified members of the klu klux klan, spouting the same innocent sounding bullshit that hooked them in the first place.

That is how ideas spread. The idea of simply telling people about revolution is a fantasy. Anyone who has ever tried to speak frankly to average people about communism should know that such things are immediately dismissed as madness by an overwhelming majority of people.

[bky1701]

How about “Equalists – Equalism”?

People are, generally dumb, so, we need to make them think it&#39;s something new, and that “communism” is old and they are right that it was bad and whatnot.

I&#39;d also say the red should go – it&#39;s still a giveaway to have an “Equalist” country have a red flag. Maybe green or blue.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:43 PM
How about calling it Solidarism

Solidarism is the word&#33; If we start promoting &#39;Solidarism&#39;, and explain our ideals and ideas independently of Marx, Engels and Lenin, people will flock to our side because we are right&#33; ...maybe not. But it will gain us support.

But what is more important for Communism to survive in western society than the names is the education of the people - they need to think indepently and from the right premises. Our current education and culture doesn&#39;t cut it. But a new name is a good start. I&#39;m gonna start calling myself a &#39;solidarist&#39;.

[Iroquois Xavier]

We cannot change the name of what we believe in. Communism is what we stand for and despite our tarnished reputation we will remain communists till the end. Remain United My Comrades

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:32 AM
How about “Equalists – Equalism”?

People are, generally dumb, so, we need to make them think it&#39;s something new, and that “communism” is old and they are right that it was bad and whatnot.

I&#39;d also say the red should go – it&#39;s still a giveaway to have an “Equalist” country have a red flag. Maybe green or blue.
Red is the colour of Revolution and should so remain&#33;Despite my love of the colour Green, Communism is represented best as Red.It is more of an emotional and powerful colour. anyway ive heard that the colour green provokes the least amount of reaction from humans, and i hate the colour blue. :) Equalist is nice but sounds like a piss poor hippy group.

[Shredder]

Following up on my previous post above, I have determined that Worker Democracy would be the most effective name for an ideology in the present climate. It is a dastardly hook that exploits Americans&#39; complete unquestioning subservience to the ideal of democracy.

[gilhyle]

The cart is before the horse

The name has changed twice before - first to social democrat and then to communist (revived from obscurity by Lenin).

What do both these occasions share ? Roughly, the change in name reflected the building of a new international.

Basically, you need a mandate to change a name like this and that mandate only comes from the successful building of a mass international movement.

Because the movement is in shreds, its name is in shreds.

Because the movement is disorientated, its names are disorientating.

Because the movement is small, its names are ineffective

[bky1701]

Originally posted by Iroquois Xavier+Jan 12 2006, 12:24 PM--> (Iroquois Xavier @ Jan 12 2006, 12:24 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 11:32 AM
How about “Equalists – Equalism”?

People are, generally dumb, so, we need to make them think it&#39;s something new, and that “communism” is old and they are right that it was bad and whatnot.

I&#39;d also say the red should go – it&#39;s still a giveaway to have an “Equalist” country have a red flag. Maybe green or blue.
Red is the colour of Revolution and should so remain&#33;Despite my love of the colour Green, Communism is represented best as Red.It is more of an emotional and powerful colour. anyway ive heard that the colour green provokes the least amount of reaction from humans, and i hate the colour blue. :) Equalist is nice but sounds like a piss poor hippy group. [/b]
I agree on the name sounding a little bad, but it needs changed none the less. The first thought that comes to people&#39;s minds is "evil" when you mention communism. They don&#39;t even know why, that&#39;s just what they have been told all their lives, and it&#39;s hard to fight it, even if they know it&#39;s not true. The same thing happened to me when I first became communist, and it took time to overcome.

Maybe the color needs changed to yellow; it&#39;s used in communism now, it&#39;s just not related to it in most people&#39;s minds.

[Floyce White]

I&#39;m with Raisa, Paradox, comradekurt, et al. The name has been decided by mass lower-class movements of history. Those who don&#39;t want to be communists and don&#39;t want to be called "communists" can please go service and gratify the bourgeoisie and stop pretending to be part of the workers&#39; movement.

The name of the system in socialist countries is "socialism." And just for note, it&#39;s the "socialists" and other pro-capitalists who are doing the "whining" about names.

[Janus]

Yes, the word communism has many negative associations that tend to push people away from it. When many ordinary people think of communism, they sometimes think of totalitarian dictatorships where the leaders have personality cults like North Korea. However, I think that we should educate people concerning their misleading opinions rather than find a whole new word.

In the past, many organizations have called themselves socialist and avoided the communist in order to gain more acceptance. However, did this accomplish much?


And I still get confused with the difference between socialism and communism. Is socialism just an offshoot of communism?
There is great confusion surrounding the meaning of the word socialism. However, socialism is not a branch of communism. Socialism is a form of society in which the means of production and distribution will be controlled by the state. The state could be a highly bureacratic government or a popular collective depending on the ideology. Some consider communism to be a branch of socialism.

[bky1701]

Those who don&#39;t want to be communists and don&#39;t want to be called "communists" can please go service and gratify the bourgeoisie and stop pretending to be part of the workers&#39; movement.

It&#39;s not about anyone not wanting to be called something, and I hope you see that. It&#39;s about trying to get people to listen to you, that have no idea what communism is. If you don&#39;t want new supporters, then stop saying you want a revolution, because it&#39;s not happening. If you want new supporters, you need to realize changes must be made to allow you to “market” the ideal, even if they are insignificant.

Someone who fights for your ideal but does not share it is still important to your ideal, and you shouldn&#39;t be turning them away. That type of BS is why communism is failing today. You need to find out why they don&#39;t share that ideal and fix that, not tell them to go away and help your enemy. That&#39;s just dumb and is not helping any "workers".


However, I think that we should educate people concerning their misleading opinions rather than find a whole new word.

That is hard to do if they will not hear you and are sure they know everything about you.

[OkaCrisis]

I know this isn&#39;t on the scale of mass movements, but maybe worth mentioning nontheless. After all, the way to build a mass movement is one person at a time...

When I meet new people (school, work, volunteering, socially, etc.) I never tell them right away that I&#39;m a communist/socialist, mostly because it doesn&#39;t come up directly.
But they learn slowly as they get to know about me and my beliefs that I don&#39;t support this or that system for these reasons, and eventually when they come to know what I stand for as a person, they ask, or I tell them that I am a communist.

And then they make the connection: that I&#39;m not evil&#33; That communists are not evil&#33; And that maybe it&#39;s worth their time to consider some alternative systems before they continue to support this supposed "democracy" that we live in.

Of course, it just as often happens that they learn I&#39;m a communist and then try until their deaths to convert me or prove me wrong... And at some point you just have to stop arguing with people and encourage them to actually read some books instead of spouting verbal diarrhea about how "I want this country to end up just like the USSR and China".

Anyway. I think the best way to &#39;clean up&#39; the soiled name of Communist is by being a living, breathing example of the best Communist you can be (given the restrictions of your society/situation). After all, Communism as it exists today is first and foremost a lifestyle. Even Marx himself said that it wasn&#39;t a State to be reached in the future, but a way to live today.

Building a mass movement begins with us, comrades.

[ComradeOm]

At the risk of making a pointless post, I fully agree with OkaCrisis&#39;s well written response.

[piet11111]

how about a radical new aproach ?

lets act like communist instead of calling ourselfes communists.

[ack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:17 PM
Many impoverished people in the US actually accepted communism (I think the IWW was one organization), but the gov&#39;t made so much propaganda that the name is just negative now in the US.

Really&#33; Communism is synonymous with un-American. People say things liek, "You don&#39;t liek baseball? What are you, Communist?" And I say, "Actually, yes." Then they walk away.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Call it Fred, Fred is a good unthreatening name. Everybody will want to join Fred. Fred is good shit and will watch your back.

[Abood]

"You don&#39;t liek baseball? What are you, Communist?"
i like baseball :lol: hehe

anyway, communism shall not change its name. communists are always and will forever be communists. i dont like the way people add the word "neo" to their ideology, its not like anythin wudve changed. communists are people who believe in the communist manifesto. and the capitalist countries will always try to damage the reputation of communism no matter what name it got.

[Guerrilla1008]

I think that we should change our name only if its necessary. we should use the word communism and if we begin to get negative feedbak and we hit a brick wall then change the name a little but make sure you still have the communisnts ideas. the most important thing is to tell the people and teach them about our ideas and preach to them in the end there wil be no need to change the name unless completley neccessary

[Seong]

You can call it whatever you want, but it doesn&#39;t change what it is. I&#39;m against changing the name or the colour. I love what both stand for, and who are we to take what is IMO the most significant political movement in history and change it?

We need to fight the Right&#39;s propaganda war, with our own propaganda. 100 years ago a certain word starting with &#39;N&#39; was a derogatory term for the African American people. Yet over time this word has been reclaimed by the same people through street culture, and is now a term for brother.

What we need is some really kickass PR. :P

[obliterate_the_state]

If I was a communist I&#39;d be more worried about the Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist, Stalinist parts because it makes communism seem very culty and brainwashed. That&#39;s not a dis- it really does.

[Floyce White]

"Neither master nor slave?" Nonsense&#33; That&#39;s the mystique of classlessness.

If lower-class people had a non-class escape, they&#39;d all take it.

Otherwise, yeah, "leaderism" can also be called "followerism."

[LtnMarxist]

Changing the name of our destination is not the answer. But it is true the capitalist propaganda has turned many off to the words socialism and communism, even those who share the same hopes and aspirations as us but because of whatever reason, think of the words as "bad". Marxist-Leninist are also aware of the fact that during a pre-revolutionary period, as such in the U.S., we are not the most popular, because the bourgeoisie hold state power and thus control the mass media and educational system. What is needed is further propaganda and agitation from our camp. Which requires new young people joining the struggle for the human and financial development of the organized working class party. But how can one recruit new comrades, if the world is turned off to our language. The answer is to meet people where they are at; we should be trained revolutionary&#39;s who can talk to any sector of the working class in the language they are comfortable with. Talking about bread and butter issues. Talking about a society where human need is meet, where the economy is planned and beneficial to all, where we can have free healthcare, free education. Once you win people over to these ideas, then you can use your Marxist language to further the political analysis and believe me, if they were won over to the ideas of socialism, they won&#39;t care what name you give it. This is not every case of course, because many are ready to hear the word communism and find out more about it right now. You have to feel your audience out and help everyone realize that we are all by nature, socialist and naturally strive and struggle for a just world, communism.

[KC]

". Marxist-Leninist are also aware of the fact that during a pre-revolutionary period, as such in the U.S., we are not the most popular, because the bourgeoisie hold state power and thus control the mass media and educational system.

I think all communists realize that. :rolleyes:


Once you win people over to these ideas

The proletariat will not be "won over" by a bunch of communists attempting to educate them. They will only become class conscious through the development of capitalism.

[LtnMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:10 AM
The proletariat will not be "won over" by a bunch of communists attempting to educate them. They will only become class conscious through the development of capitalism.
You are right the objective conditions do compel us to evaluate our situation and look for ways to better ourselves. And Marxism is the expression of this class conscious, spawned from the struggle of the working class. So these "bunch of communists" you are referring to, are the organized proletariat themselves. I am of the working class, so don&#39;t try to make me as a Marxist seem as if I am foreign to my class because I use the science of Marxism in my struggle for emancipation. I am an expression of this "they (who) will only become class conscious through the development of capitalism."

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by LtnMarxist
Talking about bread and butter issues. Talking about a society where human need is meet, where the economy is planned and beneficial to all, where we can have free healthcare, free education.

Help us overthrow capitalism and we&#39;ll all create the best welfare system ever&#33;

There are lots of perfectly good traditional names for this...and communism isn&#39;t one of them.

It&#39;s predicated on the assumption that the working class is "inherently incapable" of grasping the idea of emancipation from wage-slavery.

Well, is that true?

If it were true, then Leninist reformism would be a perfectly rational strategy...and, in the long run, might well lead to "the best welfare system ever".

Imagine a "high tech" Cuba and how well it could meet all our material needs.

We&#39;d never even have to "think" about that stuff...our smiling leaders would just "take care of it" for us.

There&#39;s just that nagging little problem of spending all of our lives at wage-labor in order to survive. :(

That&#39;s not what I want&#33;

Marx had a different goal: the abolition of wage slavery.

That&#39;s what he meant by the word communism.

And that&#39;s what I want&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[commiecrusader]

We&#39;d never even have to "think" about that stuff...our smiling leaders would just "take care of it" for us.
We don&#39;t really want that either do we Redstar? Power corrupts when concentrated in one individual/a small group. It has to be diffused throughout the society.

[La Comédie Noire]

even if we did change the name what would that do? <_<

People would just call us communists in "disguise". And what would we say to that? "oh no were not communist honest&#33;" I think a name change would give the burgeois politicians ammo, they could say something totally stupid like "Not even the communists themselves want to be communists anymore&#33;". And you know what? People would probably beleive that.

I think a name change would be worthless and yes even harmful to our cause. Gaining people&#39;s respect and understanding does not lie in names it lies in our actions.

[LtnMarxist]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2006, 12:02 PM
Gaining people&#39;s respect and understanding does not lie in names it lies in our actions.
Right on comrade&#33;&#33;&#33;

[RNK]

I prefer the simple term Revolution, Revolutionary, Revolutionist, Revolutionism.

[piet11111]

to me a communist revolutionary is someone who talks with his fellow workers about how things are in their country and how things could be turned for the better.
trying to go to the point where is co-workers say that such a thing would never be possible and then make them say why that is.
provoking such thoughts often enough in your friends will force them to become class aware and you will make them more revolutionary without having to wave the books of marx in his face.
and if they finally become interested in this topic you could tell them to read marx since he was writing about this very topic.

[Ol' Dirty]

Take a verb, turn it into a noun, and teun it back into a verb, add an -ism, and you have a philosophy... or was it take a noun, turn it into a verb...

Never mind :lol: .

I really like coopritavism. Kinda catchy, and it gets a point across.

Consider it.

[KC]

Consider it.

No.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:27 PM


Consider it.

No.

Thanks for being so elaborate. Why can&#39;t you be a little bit more open, and why can&#39;t you put detail in your "sentences"?

Also, although I like communism&#39;s name now, I think we need to make a change for the better.

[KC]

Also, although I like communism&#39;s name now, I think we need to make a change for the better.


No we don&#39;t. Why the hell would we need to change the name of communism? The proletariat is going to revolt anyways. It doesn&#39;t matter.

[Ol' Dirty]

Also, although I like communism&#39;s name now, I think we need to make a change for the better.



No we don&#39;t. Why the hell would we need to change the name of communism? The proletariat is going to revolt anyways. It doesn&#39;t matter.

You still haven&#39;t answered my question. I&#39;ll give it to you again:

Why won&#39;t you try my name out?

What I&#39;m saying is this: we as leftists should think of name that would better our movement by refuting our old name. It would be a rebirth.

[Floyce White]

Ernest: "I prefer the simple term Revolution, Revolutionary, Revolutionist, Revolutionism."

An uninformed remark. The name "Revolutionary Party" has a long and sordid history. Don&#39;t believe me? Translate it into Chinese.

[KC]

Why won&#39;t you try my name out?

Because we don&#39;t need to.



What I&#39;m saying is this: we as leftists should think of name that would better our movement by refuting our old name. It would be a rebirth.

No, it wouldn&#39;t. It wouldn&#39;t be any such thing. It would still be recognized as communism, and a "name-change" would just be used against us by the capitalist media. Of course, you still haven&#39;t answered my question:

Why do we need a name change if the proletariat is going to revolt anyways?

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:19 AM


Why won&#39;t you try my name out?

Because we don&#39;t need to.



What I&#39;m saying is this: we as leftists should think of name that would better our movement by refuting our old name. It would be a rebirth.

No, it wouldn&#39;t. It wouldn&#39;t be any such thing. It would still be recognized as communism, and a "name-change" would just be used against us by the capitalist media. Of course, you still haven&#39;t answered my question:

Why do we need a name change if the proletariat is going to revolt anyways?
Seeing how Communism has been progressing, it seems arogant to say that the prolitariat will rise up. A new name may not help; I was just making a suggestion. You make good points, but I have seen a great upsurge in capitalist nations. We need some sort of change, or Communism wil die.

[KC]

Seeing how Communism has been progressing, it seems arogant to say that the prolitariat will rise up...We need some sort of change, or Communism wil die.

Communism isn&#39;t progressing at all. Capitalism is. I suggest that you read this book (https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45625). It is a basic outline of Marxist economics. As you don&#39;t seem to be very informed on the subject, it will help you a lot.

[ItalianCommie]

Changing the name to our ideology is UNTHINKABLE.

Millions of workers around the world look up at this name and feel one thing: hope.

If americans think it&#39;s an option to try and compensate your unpopularity in your country, it isn&#39;t for the rest of the world.

Communism isn&#39;t dead; it may seem like it in the USofA, but it isn&#39;t here in Europe or in the rest of the world, where communists fought and still fight epic battles against fascism and capitalism, sometimes winning, sometimes losing.
Today, for many all seems lost, in an era where capitalism reigns supreme over the globe. We are rising up again. My party in Italy has 8% of the vote. When the USSR fell, it only had 3%. Today is an era where new shoots are waiting for spring to come back.
An Italian communist song, "scarpe rotte"(broken boots)written during WWII(when communists were persecuted by the fascist regime, forming up in bands of partisans), says:

"Fischia il vento, soffia la bufera,
scarpe rotte, eppur bisogna andar.
A conquistare la Rossa Primavera,
dove sorge il sol del&#39;avvennir&#33;"

In italian that&#39;s:

"Blows the wind, thunder cracks,
broken are our boots, yet we must go on.
To go forth and conquer the Red Spring,
Where the sun of the future shall rise&#33;"

In other words, my dear comrades, NEVER GIVE UP, NO MATTER WHAT&#33;
Changing our name is like giving up to the capitalist media.

[Seong]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 05:27 AM


Consider it.

No.
LOL

As always, Lazar wastes no time beating around the proverbial bush.

[Janus]

An uninformed remark. The name "Revolutionary Party" has a long and sordid history. Don&#39;t believe me? Translate it into Chinese.

I&#39;m not really sure what you mean by that. Revolutionary party in simplified Chinese is 革命党 or Ge ming dang in Hanyu pinying (screw the Wade-Giles system). This is the party that Sun Zhongshan tried to form in 1917 but later gave up because he couldn&#39;t convince many of his former comrades to join it. The term revolutionary was used later by the CCP but there was only one "Revolutionary Party". So I&#39;m not sure what you mean by a long and wretched history. However, I do agree that communism doesn&#39;t really need a new name simply because few people even know what it means.

[Ol' Dirty]

...In other words, my dear comrades, NEVER GIVE UP, NO MATTER WHAT&#33;
Changing our name is like giving up to the capitalist media.

I agree. I withdraw my proposal.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:00 PM



Seeing how Communism has been progressing, it seems arogant to say that the prolitariat will rise up...We need some sort of change, or Communism wil die.


Communism isn&#39;t progressing at all. Capitalism is.

I already said that.


As you don&#39;t seem to be very informed on the subject, it will help you a lot.

If my opinions are different than yours, that does not mena that I am un informed.

[La Comédie Noire]

Communism is not dead In the United States either it is merley hiding amongst the bushes at Burgeois garden partys, waiting for the ample time to strike.

[Floyce White]

Janus: "Revolutionary party in simplified Chinese is 革命党 or Ge ming dang in Hanyu pinying (screw the Wade-Giles system). This is the party that Sun Zhongshan tried to form in 1917 but later gave up because he couldn&#39;t convince many of his former comrades to join it. The term revolutionary was used later by the CCP but there was only one &#39;Revolutionary Party.&#39;"

The point is that the capitalists labeled themselves "revolutionary party" on the eve of major attacks on the workers&#39; movement. If I am not mistaken, the KMT also referred to itself as the "revolutionary party" for awhile.

[Janus]

The point is that the capitalists labeled themselves "revolutionary party" on the eve of major attacks on the workers&#39; movement.
I recognize your point yet that never occured in China before the 1927 anticommunist purge. The whole event was orchestrated by Chiang and the other conservatives with the help of the Green Gang. Yes, the Guo Ming Dang was known as the Ge Ming Dang from 1914 to 1919 since that was the party that Sun Zhong Shan orginally founded in exile. They didn&#39;t necesarily change their name, Sun simply resurrected the Guo Ming Dang because of low support.
I think that some of the confusion results from the fact that certain historians refered to the Guo Ming Dang was revolutionary particularly in light of the 1926 Northern Expedition.

However, I realize that I am getting off topic. I don&#39;t think that we should use the term revolutionary party but the word revolutionary itself isn&#39;t wrong.

[RedStarOverChina]

The point is that the capitalists labeled themselves "revolutionary party" on the eve of major attacks on the workers&#39; movement. If I am not mistaken, the KMT also referred to itself as the "revolutionary party" for awhile. The KMT or the "revolutionary party" was, in fact, revolutionary. They were bourgeoisie revolutionaries who&#39;d shaken the foundation of the Manchu dynasty.

One of CCP&#39;s accusations against the KMT was that it was not following Dr. Sun Yetsen&#39;s revolutionary party line.

[Revolution 9]

I believe that Communism is definately the best name out there, and coincidently I&#39;m from Poland. :lol:

The only reason why Poland is so Anti-Communist because Poland (naturally) is Anti-Russian, and since Bolshevism (i.e. Marxist-Leninist Communism) is Russian and later was a tool of Russian Imperialism on Poland, we Polish must hate it. Of course, Marx was a German Jew, which doesn&#39;t help much either, since Poland is also Anti-German, and we&#39;re OK at best with the Jews. Poland is just totally nationalistic, so that will make it harder to put Communism into action there. I suggest turning Communism more towards the original French thinkers such as Blanqui and Babeuf (see my topic in the Learning forum).

Anyways, if a name change would be ABSOLUTELY necessary, I would change it to "Collectivism," although I still think Communism sounds better. :)

[Ol' Dirty]

I conncur.

[wet blanket]

Why even bother giving it a name in the first place? It makes it much harder for the bourgeois academics and ideologues to take on revolutionary actions of individuals if these actions lack the banner(chains) of ideology.
Drop the pretentious naming conventions and begin taking action for yourself.

[piet11111]

having been doing a lot of thinking on why i used to be suspicious about communism (caused by education and the media) i always bumped into the same things over and over again.
namely stalin pol pot lenin mao etc.
its not communism itself but its the "great leader" aspect of many spinoffs of marxism that makes everyone suspicious and uninterested in communism.
and that only makes sense what fool would choose to willingly be subjected to the likes of avakian and chomsky ?

im usually quite blunt with social interaction and i once asked a qestion to chomsky that to me was not a big deal.
man i was wrong :D i asked him what he did with the money he earned with his books.
normally i would expect from a communist to bring out a list of the things he was doing to further the education of the working class.
the only thing i got was that he would not lower himself to such childish qestions.
thats something i would expect from a capitalist who hides his money out of fear the working class comes knocking on his door.
seems to me that chomsky is just a closet capitalist with despotic ambitions like so many others.
this is one of my personal encounters with a not so "great man" that is gathering a cult in the communist niche of society.

what are your opinions about the "great men" i think its time to show we ourselfes are going to run the show instead of a "benevolent king" or "enlightened despotism"

[wet blanket]

:D i asked him what he did with the money he earned with his books.
Hahahaha, oh geez. That&#39;s probably the best question anyone could ask Chomsky.

As far as I know, he lives in an affluent suburb in Mass. and has a rather nice house. But the guy must be making millions off of his oppositional schtick if you consider his MIT salary, speech fees, books/audio publications, etc.