Why Is Communism Not As Atractive As It Was

[socialistpunk]

I was watching some old history programs about communism and it said it was very very popular in the early 19 century and i just wanted to know why it isn't as popular know as it was then. It seems to me that communism is getting alot of bad press from the democracys and dictatorships. And could there be anything done to improve its appeal and what are peoples opinions on revleft about this subject :unsure:

[Forward Union]

I think we need to disassociate ourselves with these boring old icons of failure and oppression such as Lenin and Mao. And to be honest the entire ideology of Marxist-Lenninism, we should actively oppose it in favour of more modern, Libertarian movements.

[More Fire for the People]

That is because in the 19th Century communism people saw communism as a new, humanistic way of life. Communism explored the essence of man and inspired the establishment of libertarian societies like the Paris Commune.

However, the 20th Century image of communism was that of repression of the individual. The state, no matter how working-class, perpetually alienated individuals from their being, from their labor. Solidarity meant the suppression of individuality for collective advancement, but communism is both — solidarity is both individual and collective advancement.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

A lot of people in the western world looked at 20th century "communism" and were turned off by soviet tyrany etc... A lot of people who are uneducated about what communism really is and are heavily influenced by Murdoch's media and the likes tend to associate communism with being orwellian and whatnot... Opposed to say the early 1900's where communism was much newer, sexier and nobody had been put off by seeing the dream be massacred by a bunch of autocratic bureaucrats...

[Burrito]

Heh. So that's the bourgeois first world defeatist mindset. :rolleyes: Meanwhile, throughout the vast majority of the world peoples, in India, Colombia, Nepal, China, Philippines, Venezuela, Cuba, and all the other countries of the modern working-class, the peoples' hearts are still filled with revolutionary ardour, our classes greatest leaders like Mao, Che, Stalin, Lenin, etc. are still upheld as oustanding exemplaries, and the fires of revolution burn higher and brighter every day. The beat goes on... ;)

[Ander]

Basically a bunch of idiots fucked up.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:55 PM
I was watching some old history programs about communism and it said it was very very popular in the early 19 century and i just wanted to know why it isn't as popular know as it was then. It seems to me that communism is getting alot of bad press from the democracys and dictatorships. And could there be anything done to improve its appeal and what are peoples opinions on revleft about this subject :unsure:
I think to move forward we have to shake off that image of communism, but how do we do it? That is indeed the question. ;)

You live in the UK so you know that as soon as Socialism appears on the horizon the capitalist media slap it back down again, we HAVE to break that mould somehow, we have to be able to show the masses what it's all about, the REAL purpose of it and the total equality it will bring to society.

I do see a few glimmers of hope, as the climate continues to be screwed up and people become aware that capitalism will not stop it, and is to blame for it anyway, the bleeding dry of our natural resources at a rate that simply cannot be sustained, the continued famines in Africa (which will spread across the globe as the climate changes), again with capitalism as it's cause, people will hopefully become aware of the situation, because even the capitalist media will struggle to 'hide' the true facts from everyone, when the seas are washing over your doorstep, fish stocks run out completely, the oil wells run dry etc.

We as leftists have to be ready to offer them the only alternative that will work.

It's not a pleasing thought to have to wait for disasters to afflict people before we as a movement can move forward, but in this capitalist controlled society, where they pull the strings (for the time being), I see no other choice.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Why Is Communism Not As Atractive As It Was
Because, I think, traditional communists tend to look to the past, not forward. A lot of communists are caught in the past. Not that long ago there was a guy here claiming that "the struggle between Stalin and Trotsky is the most important topic in todays world".

It's like a senile, outdated great grandfather giving advice to youth. It won't work.


And also the tendency to support undemocratic governments, and also the lack of democratic attitude ("we will kill anyone who disagree with us lol lol").


Maybe instead of debating the Mensheviks, you should debate filesharing, and how it can be a new front against the capitalist class.

Instead of debating the great tractors under Mao, you should debate around electric cars and the pollution which actually threatens our whole existance.

Instead of thinking about assasinating the children of the Czar, maybe you should think about how you can start "cyber-terrorism" against the U.S. government.

For example.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:19 AM

Why Is Communism Not As Atractive As It Was
Because, I think, traditional communists tend to look to the past, not forward. A lot of communists are caught in the past. Not that long ago there was a guy here claiming that "the struggle between Stalin and Trotsky is the most important topic in todays world".

It's like a senile, outdated great grandfather giving advice to youth. It won't work.


And also the tendency to support undemocratic governments, and also the lack of democratic attitude ("we will kill anyone who disagree with us lol lol").


Maybe instead of debating the Mensheviks, you should debate filesharing, and how it can be a new front against the capitalist class.

Instead of debating the great tractors under Mao, you should debate around electric cars and the pollution which actually threatens our whole existance.

Instead of thinking about assasinating the children of the Czar, maybe you should think about how you can start "cyber-terrorism" against the U.S. government.

For example.
As usual, a direct and 'to the point' post from NWOG. ;)

I believe we are on the same 'wavelength'.

What NWOG is talking about is discussing REALITY.

Not 'this' theory or 'that' theory or whether Marx's beard was nice or not.

Dealing with the reality of our current situation, because until we do we can't give our answer to the masses.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

As usual, a direct and 'to the point' post from NWOG. ;)

I believe we are on the same 'wavelength'.

What NWOG is talking about is discussing REALITY.


Thanks. :)

I believe we are on the same wavelength, too.



Not 'this' theory or 'that' theory or whether Marx's beard was nice or not.

Dealing with the reality of our current situation, because until we do we can't give our answer to the masses.

Yes, exactly. :)

[Red Polak]

I think the main problem is education.

In the early 19C there was no one sitting about telling people from the moment they're born that "Stalin was a communist, Pol Pot was a communist; communism leads to mass murder, oppression and dictators" which meant that people were far more willing to listen to what communism is and may even have bothered to read the books and find out for themselves. Whereas now, people are told "communism = genocide" and this makes it rather unattractive to them. I think also the difference in people's attitudes to politics has changed - most people are pretty much politically apathetic. They go out and vote in big elections but really only give a shit about the PM's wife's hair the rest of the time and not actually care all too much about what's going on. This makes it difficult to raise any sort of awareness with these types.

So these two, political apathy and ignorance about what communism actually is, combined mean that getting out the message about communism is extremely difficult and before we can even start to convince people why it's good, we have to overcome the prejudices they'll already hold about it.





Originally posted by NWOG+Jul 2 2006, 11:19 AM--> (NWOG @ Jul 2 2006, 11:19 AM)
Why Is Communism Not As Atractive As It Was
Because, I think, traditional communists tend to look to the past, not forward. A lot of communists are caught in the past. Not that long ago there was a guy here claiming that "the struggle between Stalin and Trotsky is the most important topic in todays world".

It's like a senile, outdated great grandfather giving advice to youth. It won't work.[/b]

Ah, but even a great grandfather can sometimes give very good advice. :P We can usually learn from elders.


[email protected] 2 2006, 11:19 AM
Maybe instead of debating the Mensheviks, you should debate filesharing, and how it can be a new front against the capitalist class.

Instead of debating the great tractors under Mao, you should debate around electric cars and the pollution which actually threatens our whole existance.

Instead of thinking about assasinating the children of the Czar, maybe you should think about how you can start "cyber-terrorism" against the U.S. government.

For example.

I agree with that, good idea; it makes communism accessible to modern people who might have no idea about past regimes.

However, I don't think we should ever forget the past - we can learn a huge amount from looking at the mistakes of the past and try not to repeat them, whilst looking what was done right and then applying it to the modern world.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 2 2006, 11:04 AM
I think also the difference in people's attitudes to politics has changed - most people are pretty much politically apathetic.

So these two, political apathy and ignorance about what communism actually is,
100% correct, unfortunately, they're are a lot of people on this forum (including members of the CC) who simply don't understand that point.

They seem to think that they're knowledge of the theories of communism will magically 'rub off' onto the consciousness of the masses :rolleyes: .

The reality of the situation, as you show in the above quote and as I've stated in many posts (and been laughed at by some of those people), is very very different.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:55 PM
I was watching some old history programs about communism and it said it was very very popular in the early 19 century and i just wanted to know why it isn't as popular know as it was then. It seems to me that communism is getting alot of bad press from the democracys and dictatorships. And could there be anything done to improve its appeal and what are peoples opinions on revleft about this subject :unsure:
I'm not so sure that communism is less popular. Less organised yes but less popular maybe not. I think its the rise of neo-liberalism that has given rise to the myth that communism is dead, moribund or past its sell by date. So many of the far left shamefully turned in to social-democrats post USSR.

I think we have remember that its capitalism that is primitive and in need of changing. Communism hasn't been born yet, its as fresh an as relevent as it ever was.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

However, I don't think we should ever forget the past - we can learn a huge amount from looking at the mistakes of the past and try not to repeat them,
Of course, just like everyone else we should learn from the past. But we should not be caught in it.

Some communists seem so obsessed with the past that I can imagine them wanting to storm the Buckingham Palace, dig up the bones of Marx and place the skeleton on the throne, with an antique rifle glued to the skeleton's hand.


Ah, but even a great grandfather can sometimes give very good advice. :P We can usually learn from elders.
True. But it will be more difficult when the great grandfather is out of touch with today's reality, and senile. The youth might ask "how do you think we can solve the copyright problem", and since the great grandfather is not where we are, but 70 years back in time in his head, he will tell you not to worry about it, because "back in my days copyright problems were non-existant, so naturally it is not a problem for you".
The youth wants answers from a wise person on today's problem, not the problems that existed 70 years ago, which might not be relevant for today. So even though the great grandfather might have been wise when he was younger, and might have given good advice when he was in touch with reality, a good answer will be more difficult now that he is outdated.

It doesn't matter how good the cheese once was, when it has been stored too long and fungus is starting to grow on the cheese. Nobody wants a yucky cheese full of mold and fungus, even if it is from a quality brand.



I agree with that, good idea; it makes communism accessible to modern people who might have no idea about past regimes.

"These days", everyone knows about this, I think. A lot of people learn "communism is bad" when they are very young.
When the say "okay, good theory, but Stalin/Castro/Mao/Whatever killed a lot of people and banned abortion/Beatles/the violin", then maybe we should tell them about the racist apartheid in the U.S., the Norwegian forced abortions on handicapped people, or the racial divisons in Sweden with the mission to keep Sweden 'White'.

And that this existed at the same time the rule of the rule of Stalin/Castro/Mao/Whatever, but that no one blame todays capitalists in the U.S., Norway or Sweden for that, so why should we be blamed for what someone did ages ago, even if they did it under a red flag?

If we are to be blamed for those deaths, then certainly the capitalists in the U.S. should be blamed for the deaths of U.S. slavery.

When a communist says "Hail [insert dead guy's name here]", then we are making a fool out of ourselves, and we are renewing the 'dictorial mass murder' stamp we have received

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 11:30 AM
I think we have remember that its capitalism that is primitive and in need of changing. Communism hasn't been born yet, its as fresh an as relevent as it ever was.
Wonderful quote. ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

If their is a quote of the month competition or if this site needs a motif THAT IS IT!!!
Keep that outlook and take it to the people!!!

They don't know communism because they've never seen communism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Fuck bourgeois lies about communism. We need to get the truths that counter them into the hands of as many people as possible.

As for strategy and tactics, I agree with looking towards the future, but we must keep the past in mind as well. What's needed is the stance that the Free People's Movement has adopted: "We are not yet another political party formed around a particular doctrinaire, dogma, or “ism”, but rather a movement which bases its actions on current material conditions, the failures and achievements of the past (and the lessons they have taught us), and on the living – and constantly developing – revolutionary scientific theory of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels." - Manifesto of the Free People's Movement (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/manifesto.html)

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 1 2006, 05:02 PM
I think we need to disassociate ourselves with these boring old icons of failure and oppression such as Lenin and Mao.
Yeah, to hell with people who actually did things! We need more experts sitting around internet forums. If we get enough of them we can start a petition to end capitalism!

The reason communist policies can no longer be described as “popular” is that this is not (surprise, surprise) the 19th century any more. Its not even 1917. The material conditions in the West have changed as living standards have continued to improve. Workers no longer view society through the prism of class struggle (its not “us vs them” anymore) and why should they? Capitalism has matured to the point where it no longer needs strike breakers. Capitalism today, by and large, is working for the vast majority of people.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Capitalism today, by and large, is working for the vast majority of people.


What are you talking about? :blink:

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jul 2 2006, 12:18 PM--> (Si Pinto @ Jul 2 2006, 12:18 PM)
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 2 2006, 11:04 AM
I think also the difference in people's attitudes to politics has changed - most people are pretty much politically apathetic.

So these two, political apathy and ignorance about what communism actually is,
100% correct, unfortunately, they're are a lot of people on this forum (including members of the CC) who simply don't understand that point.

They seem to think that they're knowledge of the theories of communism will magically 'rub off' onto the consciousness of the masses :rolleyes: .

The reality of the situation, as you show in the above quote and as I've stated in many posts (and been laughed at by some of those people), is very very different.[/b]
Of course it won't rub off magically - that's why communists have to be out there informing people (yeah, I realise the irony of posting this on a internet board) and actually educating them. Nothing will happen otherwise.


[email protected] 2 2006, 05:52 PM
Capitalism has matured to the point where it no longer needs strike breakers. Capitalism today, by and large, is working for the vast majority of people.
if you look at the number of people in the world, and the number who live in poverty, starvation etc and then you look at the number in capitalist countries who apparently have capitalism "working" for them, then you can see they're certainly not the majority in the world.

Capitalism is, as always, working for the minority of people, everyone else is being fucked over whether they realise it or not.

Look at England - the racist, fascist nazi bnp party gained a load of votes in the last election because of working class support. People are so fed up with what new labour is doing to england they they are willing to vote for the extremist bnp. Clearly the system isn't working for them.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by NWOG+Jul 2 2006, 12:31 PM--> (NWOG @ Jul 2 2006, 12:31 PM)
However, I don't think we should ever forget the past - we can learn a huge amount from looking at the mistakes of the past and try not to repeat them,
Of course, just like everyone else we should learn from the past. But we should not be caught in it.

Some communists seem so obsessed with the past that I can imagine them wanting to storm the Buckingham Palace, dig up the bones of Marx and place the skeleton on the throne, with an antique rifle glued to the skeleton's hand.[/b]

:lol: lol, yeah obsession = not good, but we can still learn from it.


Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:31 PM


Ah, but even a great grandfather can sometimes give very good advice. :P We can usually learn from elders.

True. But it will be more difficult when the great grandfather is out of touch with today's reality, and senile. The youth might ask "how do you think we can solve the copyright problem", and since the great grandfather is not where we are, but 70 years back in time in his head, he will tell you not to worry about it, because "back in my days copyright problems were non-existant, so naturally it is not a problem for you".
The youth wants answers from a wise person on today's problem, not the problems that existed 70 years ago, which might not be relevant for today. So even though the great grandfather might have been wise when he was younger, and might have given good advice when he was in touch with reality, a good answer will be more difficult now that he is outdated.

It doesn't matter how good the cheese once was, when it has been stored too long and fungus is starting to grow on the cheese. Nobody wants a yucky cheese full of mold and fungus, even if it is from a quality brand.

yeah, of course. But general advice which can surpass the time difference is still possible. That was my point - of course we can't ask for details about modern issues which have only just developed, just like we cannot consult Marx for these issues either. but what we can do is to ask about things which have continued to have an effect despite the number of years which have passed.


[email protected] 2 2006, 12:31 PM

I agree with that, good idea; it makes communism accessible to modern people who might have no idea about past regimes.

"These days", everyone knows about this, I think. A lot of people learn "communism is bad" when they are very young.
When the say "okay, good theory, but Stalin/Castro/Mao/Whatever killed a lot of people and banned abortion/Beatles/the violin", then maybe we should tell them about the racist apartheid in the U.S., the Norwegian forced abortions on handicapped people, or the racial divisons in Sweden with the mission to keep Sweden 'White'.

And that this existed at the same time the rule of the rule of Stalin/Castro/Mao/Whatever, but that no one blame todays capitalists in the U.S., Norway or Sweden for that, so why should we be blamed for what someone did ages ago, even if they did it under a red flag?

If we are to be blamed for those deaths, then certainly the capitalists in the U.S. should be blamed for the deaths of U.S. slavery.

When a communist says "Hail [insert dead guy's name here]", then we are making a fool out of ourselves, and we are renewing the 'dictorial mass murder' stamp we have received

nice argument.

I hadn't thought about the whole US slavery argument and how it could be used like that before.

cheers. :)

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by NWOG+Jul 2 2006, 06:23 PM--> (NWOG @ Jul 2 2006, 06:23 PM)
Capitalism today, by and large, is working for the vast majority of people.


What are you talking about? :blink: [/b]
Do you want me to repeat? In the West capitalism works. The bourgeoisie is still, or until recently has been, progressive. The evidence - we are still living under the capitalist mode of production.


Red Polak
if you look at the number of people in the world, and the number who live in poverty, starvation etc and then you look at the number in capitalist countries who apparently have capitalism "working" for them, then you can see they're certainly not the majority in the world.
Since when does capitalism working mean that the majority are happy? The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie mean anything to you?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 2 2006, 07:29 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jul 2 2006, 07:29 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:23 PM

Capitalism today, by and large, is working for the vast majority of people.


What are you talking about? :blink:
Do you want me to repeat? In the West capitalism works. The bourgeoisie is still, or until recently has been, progressive. The evidence - we are still living under the capitalist mode of production.


Red Polak
if you look at the number of people in the world, and the number who live in poverty, starvation etc and then you look at the number in capitalist countries who apparently have capitalism "working" for them, then you can see they're certainly not the majority in the world.
Since when does capitalism working mean that the majority are happy? The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie mean anything to you? [/b]
But you said capitalism is working for the vast majority of people, i.e. it is working in favor of the vast majority of people. This simply isn't true, as Red Polak pointed out.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 1 2006, 05:02 PM
I think we need to disassociate ourselves with these boring old icons of failure and oppression such as Lenin and Mao. And to be honest the entire ideology of Marxist-Lenninism, we should actively oppose it in favour of more modern, Libertarian movements.
This is the reason right here: 'Leftists' who prefer to believe any and all bourgeois lies about communism. That the Left has swallowed anti-communism hook, line and sinker is the reason why communism isn't popular.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:36 PM
But you said capitalism is working for the vast majority of people, i.e. it is working in favor of the vast majority of people. This simply isn't true, as Red Polak pointed out.
many people in the west perceive the system to be working and chose to lay blame on immingrants, multiculturalism etc for any problems which arise instead of the true causes of the world's problems...

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Kevis+Jul 2 2006, 07:58 PM--> (Kevis @ Jul 2 2006, 07:58 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 07:36 PM
But you said capitalism is working for the vast majority of people, i.e. it is working in favor of the vast majority of people. This simply isn't true, as Red Polak pointed out.
many people in the west perceive the system to be working and chose to lay blame on immingrants, multiculturalism etc for any problems which arise instead of the true causes of the world's problems... [/b]
Well then it would be correct to say that capitalism is percieved to be working, not that it is.

However, this path of laying blame on immigrants and multiculturalism will inevitably give rise to extreme nationalist, and in some case fascist groups and movements, who will eventually tire of capitalism allowing immigrants to "take our jobs" ( :rolleyes: ). When this happens, capitalism's strategy of keeping the masses ignorant will completely backfire, and capitalism will lose its base of support (i.e. the morons). And of course, while those who were previously most loyal to capitalism will grow weary of capitalism, the rest of society will grow weary of racism and, seeing capitalism's imminent demise (after losing its support base) will turn to socialism.

Hopefully :D

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 2 2006, 08:29 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jul 2 2006, 08:29 PM)Since when does capitalism working mean that the majority are happy? The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie mean anything to you?[/b]

er......

Red Polak
many people in the west perceive the system to be working and chose to lay blame on immingrants, multiculturalism etc for any problems which arise instead of the true causes of the world's problems...

indeed, which is why I gave the example of the bnp in england.

The bnp are exploiting the working class' unhappiness with the current system by directing their anger at the immigrants rather than at those responsible really (ie. the cappies).



RedStar1916: I agree with that mainly.
BUT the problem with fascism is that it tends to get a very good hold on people's minds, I don't think they'll give it up that easily. There will ultimately be some sort of confrontation between fascists and communists as has been demonstrated before in history (eg. Italy and Germany). The idea this time, is to win!

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+Jul 2 2006, 07:36 PM--> (RedStar1916 @ Jul 2 2006, 07:36 PM) But you said capitalism is working for the vast majority of people, i.e. it is working in favor of the vast majority of people. This simply isn't true, as Red Polak pointed out. [/b]
Simple question - is the average Western worker better or worse than they were when communism was "popular", ie a century ago?


Red Polak
The bnp are exploiting the working class' unhappiness with the current system by directing their anger at the immigrants rather than at those responsible really (ie. the cappies).
Are you seriously using one tiny fringe party as an example that the workers are unhappy with capitalism? I have no idea how many more workers vote for Labour, the Lib Dems or even Tory but I am fairly sure that its a mangitude far greater than the BNP's voter base.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Simple question - is the average Western worker better or worse than they were when communism was "popular", ie a century ago?
First of all, I hate to break it to you but there is life outside the Western world, and in actuality, the "average Western worker" doesn't even constitute a majority (globally speaking, of course).

Second of all, your question is irrelevant; comparing capitalism to capitalism doesn't demonstrate how capitalism works in favor of the majority. Capitalism does, and always has, worked in favor of the ruling class. It doesn't work for the majority of Western workers, although I'll grant you it does keep them alive--most of them, anyway (even in the United States there is widespread poverty. However, as for the millions of people worldwide who are dying of starvation, imperialist and greed-fuelled wars, homelessness and poverty-related diseases, as well as the many millions more who live pitiful existences as a result of sub-standard wages or unemployment as well as the factors described above, capitalism most certainly is not working.


Are you seriously using one tiny fringe party as an example that the workers are unhappy with capitalism? I have no idea how many more workers vote for Labour, the Lib Dems or even Tory but I am fairly sure that its a mangitude far greater than the BNP's voter base.
Forgive me if I'm wrong (and I may well be, so I'm not going to get too involved with this section of the debate), but I do believe far-right groups and nationalist movements are on the rise again. Of course, they still constitute only a stark minority, and indeed they have considerably less members than they did in, say, the aftermath of WWII or during the black-rights struggles, but considering there has been no apparent single agitation that would lead to a rise in extreme nationalism and racism, such movements are growing quite rapidly.

[Dreckt]

Forgive me if I'm wrong ... but I do believe far-right groups and nationalist movements are on the rise again.

Yes, at least here in Europe. This is a very bad development. But I must say that this is probably mostly a reaction against the usual leadership, i.e. the usual parties that get voted into power, they bow to the buorguise, thus people think that voting for right-wing parties will do something "good" - since right-wing parties promise strong countries, that is, patriotism, superiority etc...

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:40 PM
Yes, at least here in Europe. This is a very bad development. But I must say that this is probably mostly a reaction against the usual leadership, i.e. the usual parties that get voted into power, they bow to the buorguise, thus people think that voting for right-wing parties will do something "good" - since right-wing parties promise strong countries, that is, patriotism, superiority etc...
My point exactly. People are tiring of centrist bourgeois politics, which never accomplishes anything, so they're looking for alternatives. The problem is, they're looking right instead of left. This is incredibly worrying, and I think the left, specifically in economically developed countries, should do more to promote socialism as an alternative to both capitalism and fascism. Otherwise, when capitalism finally does collapse, the world will take a giant leap backwards as opposed to forwards.

[Raj Radical]

I was watching a documentary on english and german white-power hate music.

Its really frightening how much support they recieve even from the working class youth, especially in Germany.

It was disturbing to say the least.

[Ferg]

Communist revolutions are harder now in the "1st world". In the 19th and 20th, was the time when major empires such as England and France were collapseing, and drastic changes were happening overnight. Now a days, we are part of a different world that has a base established so therefore, Communism would be something that would be hard to have. Not to worry though, societys have a habit of collapsing often and I see a drastic change in 100 years.

[Marion]

How about the following suggestions (from a very Western perspective)? I'm not saying any of these views are necessarily correct, just that I genuinely feel that these are a lot of the issues people have with communism.

1) Communism is seen as a joyless, self-denying ideology. Capitalism (falsely as we know) holds out the possibility of joy and fulfilment in the short-term through consumerism, the American Dream etc - against this, how can Communism compete?

2) Communists are seen as sterile, joyless, boring individuals who do not know how to enjoy themselves. Communist parties (and trade unions) are seen as sterile, joyless, boring places where intellectuals discuss theory and, while they talk endlessly about alienation, the need to be fully human etc, they appear incredibly, incredibly, incredibly dull and removed from the needs of most people.

3) Communists have a dreadful record at listening to the needs of "ordinary" people, and a very good record at telling them that its not they that really know about their situation, but the Communist Party or Marx or whoever, which has the true, "objective" view of things.

4) For a movement that places so much emphasis on rejecting the "great man" theory of history, Communist parties have a dreadful record of throwing up their own "great men" and then having to revise its opinion of them as times change.

5) The record of internal democracy within most Communist parties is shocking.

6) The lack of interest and involvement in elections in the West has not benefitted Communist parties because they are seen as just as bad as any other politicians and just as intellectually dishonest.

7) George W Bush has a black-and-white, Manichaean view of the world where "you're either with us or against us". Communists are seen to do exactly the same. This is seen to result in them generally uncritically supporting anyone who appears against the US or against Capitalism and then having to turn around 10, 20 or 30 years later to admit that there were actually serious flaws in whoever they were supporting.

8) Communism is seen to be based on a world view that is completely outdated. Communists are seen to be obsessed with quoting from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao etc, with the huge proportion of people seeing these people and their views as irrelevent. Most people are as convinced by quotations from these people as militant atheists are by people explaining modern society using quotes from the Bible.

Any opinions?

PS I'm sure people in general would make these (or similar) criticisms of anarchism, autonomous Marxism, anyone against Capitalism etc so don't feel I'm trying to single out any particular group.

[Si Pinto]

The areas were the BNP have made ground are also the areas with the lowest turnout.

Only 18 - 25% of people are voting and out of this the BNP has got about 15 - 20% of the vote, maximum.

That is only about 1 in 10 of the eligible voting public voting for the BNP, and that is in the areas were the BNP is supposed to be doing well!!

They are a minority party which is making progress because politics is a minority interest for a lot of working class people, they are simply not interested in voting, and this is not a rejection of 'this' form of government or 'that' form of political system, they are simply not bothering to vote.

The capitalists are happy for this to be so, they don't want the working class to be politically aware for obvious reasons.

The capitalist media is constantly playing the 'race' card, targeting immigrants and racial minorities and drumming up the jingoistic support, so the BNP has profited from this but don't think for one minute that the BNP is anything but a fringe party, but one thing I'll say for them is that they are better organised than their socialist counterparts.

In one recent election in my area as well as the usual 3 parties (Labour, Cons and Lib Dem), there was a Green candidate, a UK independent and four !!! different socialist candidates!!!!

Everyone of those 4 got about 100 votes and all lost their deposit.

The socialist movement in the UK is broken up into tiny little parties who are full of their own importance, instead of getting together and uniting, they fight each other for the 'scraps' that the other parties leave behind.

Until the parties of the left all speak with one voice they will never gain the support of the working class and get them voting again.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:56 PM
First of all, I hate to break it to you but there is life outside the Western world, and in actuality, the "average Western worker" doesn't even constitute a majority (globally speaking, of course).
And you’ll find that outside the West communist parties/groups are about as popular as they were in Europe a century ago.


Second of all, your question is irrelevant; comparing capitalism to capitalism doesn't demonstrate how capitalism works in favor of the majority.
How do you figure that out? A simple comparison of capitalism in 1900 and capitalism now clearly demonstrates the vast improvement in the living standards in the West. Like it or not it is no longer a case of robber barons living in solid gold mansions while everyone else starved. The evolution of capitalism has changed that.

If I break a leg or develop a tumour then the state will pay for the medical treatment, albeit after months on a waiting list, and if I am unemployed then the state will subsidise me. The vast majority of families, in Ireland at least, can afford a car. For most people in the West capitalism is working.

This is of course because it is no longer feasible for the bourgeoisie to rely on force and brutality to keep the proletariat in line. The last century has seen the rise of imperialism geared to provide a superprofit with which the workers may be appeased. Which is where the misery of the Third World comes in. It also explains that while communism is “unpopular” in the West, there are a number of large insurgencies and powerful communist parties in the rest of the world.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

and I see a drastic change in 100 years.

It's funny. Some old guy say "I see drastic change in 60 years" (when he is dead), and the younger guy says "I see drastic change in 100 years", when he too is most likely dead.

Why 100 years?