Why the word "communism" rubs many the wrong way.

[R_P_A_S]

Speaking from personal experience, the word "communism" meant nothing good to me a year ago. And I didn't particularly knew of any "communist leaders" I just knew that communism meant; misery, dictatorships, no freedom, no democracy and oppression. OBVIOUSLY this is wrong. And we all know who to blame for leaving many people with that impression of it.

But let's start with more simple things. before we touch on the failures of past revolutions and of past or present "communist states, etc"

Ok, on this thread we will ONLY try to talk about one thing which communism abides by and the first being this term...

1. Abolishing PRIVATE PROPERTY

Personally, That used to freak me out! As it still does many people who just as soon as they read that. They feel they don't have to read on further to understand what we mean by abolishing Private Property. Nor do they feel the need to go back to previous works of what it really means to abolish Private Property.

Is not very clear either, when you are telling the average person(proletariat) "communism can be summed up in one sentence; ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY" I can't stress enough how this just sends the wrong message, because it's so misunderstood! and it just sounds fucked up! People automatically think that no one can have anything, or enjoy anything because It's not theirs. obviously personal possessions are mistaken for this.

I'm 25 years old, and When I first read THAT about communism I was 16 years old and I had no interested to learning more about it. I even remember asking my mom why people would want to live like that? and she just told me It was sad. obviously BOTH of us misinformed and just ignorant about the true meaning and what it really means to abolish private property.

We need new ways and new approaches. The bourgeoisie as we know it controls all means of information, media and entertainment. Now in this present age there is a larger and more overwhelming presence of Capitalism on the working class. And it's the bourgeois media who is doing an amazing job at keeping us stupid and ignorant. Keeping us away from reading and finding out for our selves, since it serves us It's "news" right at our families dinner table every day!

We need to develop NEW METHODS on how to explain what this things mean. something relevant that wasn't written in the 1800's. with current words and current events. Despite being written in the 1880's the facts and the concept that drive the Communist Manifesto are still VERY relevant TODAY! but the words and the events are obviously dated! and That makes us lose many readers and many potential comrades!


I need suggestions and opinions on how we can make this particular sentence more easy to comprehend it, explain it and drive the point so it hits HOME!

"Abolition of private property"???

[luxemburg89]

basically by private property marx and engels meant business. private property as opposed to state owned property. For example Virgin is Bransen's property, its an airline, a shit train service, an awful tasting coke etc. That is what is meant by private property. Most idiots take it to be your house or your jewellery.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:08 am
basically by private property marx and engels meant business. private property as opposed to state owned property. For example Virgin is Bransen's property, its an airline, a shit train service, an awful tasting coke etc. That is what is meant by private property. Most idiots take it to be your house or your jewellery.
By the way. I now know what Marx meant by that term. so yeah. keep the simplified examples coming. and also it be good if anyone could explain, as simple as possible why this is a good thing

[Question everything]

1.Stalinism
2.Kim-Il-Jong (a.k.a. china student)
3.the Soviet Union
4.No God
5.No Money
6.No McDonalds
7.No (insert brandname here)
etc.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 12, 2007 12:51 am
1.Stalinism
2.Kim-Il-Jong (a.k.a. china student)
3.the Soviet Union
4.No God
5.No Money
6.No McDonalds
7.No (insert brandname here)
etc.
huh? ok please don't steer this thread an other direction!

[insurgent]

I also thought communism was bad a year ago. And I did not know one damn thing about it. Not one. The media and my cappie grandpa are to blame in my case.

I'm actually writing a persuassive essay on communism right now, and I'm currently writing about how abolishing private property does not mean abolishing personal property but the means of production. No private property for oppression and exploitation.

I'm gunna try to write about how reading things from the 1800's is not at the top of everyones to do list, but no one has really written any modern manifesto so there really is no choice but to read dated stuff.

[Eleutherios]

There are tons of manifestos out there. It's the Internet. You can find everybody's political opinion about everything. It's just that the concept of a "great revolutionary thinker" who publishes important pamphlets has become outdated in the digital age. We are all revolutionary thinkers, thinking together.

[insurgent]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:16 pm
There are tons of manifestos out there. It's the Internet. You can find everybody's political opinion about everything. It's just that the concept of a "great revolutionary thinker" who publishes important pamphlets has become outdated in the digital age. We are all revolutionary thinkers, thinking together.

Yea I know there are a ton of manifestos but i havnt really found any outstanding ones that really appeal to me. A lot of them make a lot of good points but theres always a few things that I totally disagree with.

Why cant there be a revolutionary thinker that publishs his material online? I dont think that the concept is outdated at all.

[DiggerII]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:24 am
[QUOTE=Marijuanarchy,February 11, 2007 08:16 pm]

Why cant there be a revolutionary thinker that publishs his material online? I dont think that the concept is outdated at all.
if such a thinker did publish his stuff online it'd be a matter of getting everyone to read it. not to mention the idea that the fbi would be on him faster than you can say engels.

[R_P_A_S]

uh.. we aren't trying to simplify the term people!!!

[insurgent]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:30 pm



if such a thinker did publish his stuff online it'd be a matter of getting everyone to read it.

The internet is so popular and easy to access I'm pretty sure that it wouldnt be to hard to advertise and get a lot of people to read it.




not to mention the idea that the fbi would be on him faster than you can say engels.


:lol: HAHAHAHA



What about this forum? I'm sure there are people on here that shouldnt be. The FBI perhaps.

[DiggerII]

SORRY lol. Well the only thing that i think american's respond to in sensationalist media and such. Would we be willing to infiltrate the system, so to speak in order to preach change?

[insurgent]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:41 pm
SORRY lol. Well the only thing that i think american's respond to in sensationalist media and such. Would we be willing to infiltrate the system, so to speak in order to preach change?
The media is just entertainment, and I'll admit it is entertaining :lol:

I think that there are people that are willing to infiltrate the system to preach change even though they will get shot down, maybe even literally. There are people that come on TV, Radio or print that preach change but they are asked loaded questions and made to look stupid.

We've talked about all that before, but the internet is the last hope if you ask me. Remember all those videos we watched about the privitization of the internet. Damn that was scary. My dad was reading what I just wrote and says privitization is a good thing :lol:



What was that internet/radio thing, Air America or whatever that no one listened to and went bankrupt. They preached change. And look what happened to them.

[Eleutherios]

SORRY lol. Well the only thing that i think american's respond to in sensationalist media and such. Would we be willing to infiltrate the system, so to speak in order to preach change?
FOX News reporter: "This just in. The station has just been taken over by a group of angry communists, who present to you this video about why you should help to abolish private property and the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie.

As Karl Marx explained, economic power ultimately belongs to whoever controls the means of production..."

[DiggerII]

Originally posted by insurgent+February 12, 2007 04:49 am--> (insurgent @ February 12, 2007 04:49 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 08:41 pm
SORRY lol. Well the only thing that i think american's respond to in sensationalist media and such. Would we be willing to infiltrate the system, so to speak in order to preach change?
The media is just entertainment, and I'll admit it is entertaining :lol:

I think that there are people that are willing to infiltrate the system to preach change even though they will get shot down, maybe even literally. There are people that come on TV, Radio or print that preach change but they are asked loaded questions and made to look stupid.

We've talked about all that before, but the internet is the last hope if you ask me. Remember all those videos we watched about the privitization of the internet. Damn that was scary. My dad was reading what I just wrote and says privitization is a good thing :lol:



What was that internet/radio thing, Air America or whatever that no one listened to and went bankrupt. They preached change. And look what happened to them. [/b]
point taken, but i still don't think that americans will eagerly log on to the new hip website "the truth about communism". Let's face it, they hear the term, go on a tirade and go the other way.

If anything it probably starts in the educating system. Teachers will have to assign websites and such for reading. I don't think this would happen until communism because a confrontable force in the U.S. though. They'd only want to read it if they knew it had some sort of relavence to their lives.

For now i don't know what we can do except to talk about what we know on an individual basis. The journey of one thousand miles DOES begin with a single step.

[insurgent]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:52 pm
point taken, but i still don't think that americans will eagerly log on to the new hip website "the truth about communism". Let's face it, they hear the term, go on a tirade and go the other way.

If anything it probably starts in the educating system. Teachers will have to assign websites and such for reading. I don't think this would happen until communism because a confrontable force in the U.S. though. They'd only want to read it if they knew it had some sort of relavence to their lives.

For now i don't know what we can do except to talk about what we know on an individual basis. The journey of one thousand miles DOES begin with a single step.

Yea they wont go onto the truth about communism, but we are on it right now. Why? How did we get into it? If we can somehow figure how to change the anti-communist opinion of the general public we'd be able to get somewhere. I say we start by taking all the civics books at school and putting the correct defintion of communism in the damn thing, that really pisses me off that the book is totally wrong. It makes communism really boring, and says its dead and doesnt matter any more. No kid would ever decide to look up the real definition after reading the book.

We'd have to fix the education system first because it sucks. Lets make the standard history book a peoples history :)

See, it does affect their lives significantly the question is how do we get them to realize that? I dont know.

[DiggerII]

we haven't the clout to "fix" the education system unfortunately. I agree that it would help tremendously, but as of now people are so entrenched with their monolithic oulook: "MOSCOW WAS THE NINTH CIRCLE OF HELL" that it'd be pretty tough.

I mean personally, I know i've gotten a lot of people to think. I can't count how many times i've lent out the manifesto. I'm sure most of you feel the same way.

Moreover, the material conditions of workers are becomming more and more horid, the truth will come about all in good time. Perhaps we simply need to be patient for now while being active with out communities.

[insurgent]

The education system should be the first thing fixed, but the goddamn government cuts education spending for the fucking war machine.


Actually, I would say that the US government shouldnt work to fix the schools because they'd just end up fucking them up more than they already have.


Kids are just told that moscow is the 9th level of hell, but they dont actually know much of anything about it.


Thats why I rock the Che patch even though its now a fashion statement for stupid ass kids that dont know anything about communism. But you know that it has started so many conversations. Kids ask who he is all the time, and I tell them, and then ask them if they want to read about and they always say no. But at least communism is entering their thoughts and they are thinking about it, hopefully not in a negative light like they are taught to

[R_P_A_S]

we are supposed to talk about better ways to explain the abolition of private property and why is best for it to be done away, as it will get rid of exploitation and other class antagonism.. HELLO????

[insurgent]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:23 pm
we are supposed to talk about better ways to explain the abolition of private property and why is best for it to be done away, as it will get rid of exploitation and other class antagonism.. HELLO????
:lol:

I was just going to say that



we got a little off topic. my bad

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I'm reading the Grapes of Wrath for my English class right now. I was searching the internet for articles that analyze its anticapitalism and I found this, which I think really sums up abolition of private property well.


31. The novel is not just a protest against super-exploitation; its critique is more radical than the reformist argument that capitalism can produce terrible conditions. Steinbeck's analysis attacks the logic and consequences of private property itself -- including a description of how it damages the psyches of capitalists. This critique begins in earnest in Chapter Five, an interchapter that records a mock exchange between a landlord and a tenant who is being evicted. The tenant wants to fight back, to "shoot" someone, but the owner maintains that the tenant is not being evicted by a person, but by the "monster," which emerges unnamed as capitalism itself (34). The landlord is a company, which is in debt to the banks, which are controlled by bigger banks and companies in "the East." The big companies are not human: "They breathe profits; they eat the interest on money. If they don't get it, they die" (35). Moreover, the monster has to grow to stay alive: "the monster has to have profits all the time. . . . When the monster stops growing, it dies. It can't stay one size" (35). In effect, this passage reproduces Marx's description of capital accumulation: capital cannot rest in equilibrium, but must always be in motion, constantly producing more capital. Therefore, it cannot be reformed into submission, into a system where the mass of peoples' needs are met; as the narrator notes, "Men made it, but they can't control it" (41). Thus, whether or not the landlord feels remorse or anger about having to evict people is immaterial; "all of them were caught in something larger than themselves" (34). Yet, Steinbeck eschews the customary politics of naturalism; the chapter does not end with human powerlessness or hopelessness. The tenant remarks that "We've got a bad thing made by men, and by God that's something we can change" (41). In other words, the system cannot be made humane, because its operations are inherently monstrous; but the system as a whole can be changed because it is social.

http://clogic.eserver.org/2002/cunningham.html

[phoenixoftime]

point taken, but i still don't think that americans will eagerly log on to the new hip website "the truth about communism"

Has anyone tried to put together such a website? It might not change the world but it is certainly a start. Top of a Google search is Wikipedia, followed by the Museum of Communism:


Alleges that mass murder, widespread slave labor, and other human rights violations were committed by Communist regimes.

There's communism.org at #3, but from a design / marketing point of view it's pretty terrible.

While RevLeft is great, its format is more suited for debate and discussion, rather than a slick looking introduction to get people interested to start with.

Are there many (balanced) TV docos out there debating the pros and cons of communism? Perhaps someone should look into producing a new one?

[insurgent]

While RevLeft is great, its format is more suited for debate and discussion, rather than a slick looking introduction to get people interested to start with.

Ah if we could only get more people interested in finding out about a subject and debating it. That would make a big difference for sure.


Are there many (balanced) TV docos out there debating the pros and cons of communism? Perhaps someone should look into producing a new one?

:lol: not that I know of. But what is balanced anyway? Showing both sides? Everybody has an opinion on everything, even things they know absolutly nothing about. In my opinion, everything is biased. Even that last sentence. :D

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

It's the most daunting thing in the world to get people aware of this sort of thing, but it needs to happen. Maybe all of us at RevLeft can make the composite starter's guide to Leftism website.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:46 am
It's the most daunting thing in the world to get people aware of this sort of thing, but it needs to happen. Maybe all of us at RevLeft can make the composite starter's guide to Leftism website.
im dedicating my time to simplifying this stuff. and i can used all the help i can get!

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Let's see. Are we planning to be as pluralistic as possible, presenting the Leninist view, the Left or Council Communist view, and the anarchist view in one tidy package? This would be best, but also hardest to keep impartial.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:00 am
Let's see. Are we planning to be as pluralistic as possible, presenting the Leninist view, the Left or Council Communist view, and the anarchist view in one tidy package? This would be best, but also hardest to keep impartial.
lets for RIGHT now focus on what the thread is about.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Fair enough. I think it all boils down to the Reagan-era lambasting of the USSR and the strange notion that they were "communist." Seriously, try to mention communism ona mainstream forum or games server or whathaveyou and it's madness. They all knee-jerk say "it can't work! It killed 100 million people!"

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:12 am
Fair enough. I think it all boils down to the Reagan-era lambasting of the USSR and the strange notion that they were "communist." Seriously, try to mention communism ona mainstream forum or games server or whathaveyou and it's madness. They all knee-jerk say "it can't work! It killed 100 million people!"
ok. but again.. its about what we mean by abolition of private property..

[KickMcCann]

The underlying concept of this discussion- the nature of fame, publicity, and access to the wider public is worth addressing if anyone is to reach the world's people with a new treatise on socialism/communism.

Walk into any bookstore or library and you will see thousands or millions of books, each one an attempt by the author to convey a message to the masses. However, only a certain few authors ever reach the level of widespread readership that all authors seek. We can easily recognize the names and works of such authors as Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Mark Twain, and Fyodor Dostoevsky, their works are considered primary sources of original content, but what of the countless authors and literary works published everyday that are largely ignored by society? Why cannot they reach the same large-scale audience and importance as famous literary legends?

First is an issue of content. Great authors, even though they are learned and inspired by the works of others, produce new content and new ideas from a primary point-of-view. Lesser authors merely discuss the ideas of others, forming a world-view through someone else's eyes.

Secondly is association. Marx didn't just sit down one day and write down his opinions and observations, there was a context and mission relating his ideas to the physical outside world. Marx write The Communist Manifesto to express the sentiments and goals of the Communist League, an organization actively participating in daily life.

Third is action. Whether through success or failure, iliterary works are best publicized through action inspired by the ideas they present. The Communist Manifesto did not become an international legendary work over night. This book's popularity and familiarity grew along with the actions of communists, with the uniformed public growing curious about the ideas behind the events they were experiencing/witnessing.

This community of leftists easily contains all of the modern, relevant ideological, informative, and advocative puzzle pieces needed to assemble an anti-capitalist treatise that could allay the doubts of a confused proletariat, visibly disturb the comfortable ruling class, and inspire people (maybe just a few in the beginning) to take radical action.
The are countless books pondering Marx, communism and revolution gathering thick coats of dust on bookshelves across the world, save yourselves the time and don't write another one. IF you do want to write an important work, which I certainly believe could be assembled, you must be clear, modern, relevant, direct, and write from a primary-source point of view. And most importantly the work must be capable of proscribing direct action the reader can pursue and why they should act.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+February 12, 2007 07:25 am--> (R_P_A_S @ February 12, 2007 07:25 am)
[email protected] 12, 2007 07:12 am
Fair enough. I think it all boils down to the Reagan-era lambasting of the USSR and the strange notion that they were "communist." Seriously, try to mention communism ona mainstream forum or games server or whathaveyou and it's madness. They all knee-jerk say "it can't work! It killed 100 million people!"
ok. but again.. its about what we mean by abolition of private property.. [/b]
Well i'll try to simplify it as best i can. By abolishing private property, we mean the abolition of private ownership of factory's, corporations, and farms etc.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by ComradeR+February 12, 2007 09:49 am--> (ComradeR @ February 12, 2007 09:49 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:25 am

[email protected] 12, 2007 07:12 am
Fair enough. I think it all boils down to the Reagan-era lambasting of the USSR and the strange notion that they were "communist." Seriously, try to mention communism ona mainstream forum or games server or whathaveyou and it's madness. They all knee-jerk say "it can't work! It killed 100 million people!"
ok. but again.. its about what we mean by abolition of private property..
Well i'll try to simplify it as best i can. By abolishing private property, we mean the abolition of private ownership of factory's, corporations, and farms etc. [/b]
yup. here is an other thing. when you don't really know more in depth about it, or don't grasp the whole concept around it. those words can be very freighting still!

Most people as they get older and go through school want to "own stuff!" everyone wants to own a successful business and be a boss! thats what we are taught!

So if you tell them they could never do this. because we want to get rid of it. They arent gonna like it!! we have to jump into explaining why you won't need to be a boos or own a business yet still be well off and happy. etc.

[Psy]

Originally posted by insurgent+February 12, 2007 06:17 am--> (insurgent @ February 12, 2007 06:17 am)
phoenixoftime

Are there many (balanced) TV docos out there debating the pros and cons of communism? Perhaps someone should look into producing a new one?

:lol: not that I know of.[/b]
The Take (http://www.thetake.org/) is a documentary about occupation of factories by workers in Buenos Aires.

[Jazzratt]

Abolishing private propety isn't taking away the shit you own, ithat isn't property - that's posession. Private property is what the rich ****s own, the factories and the mansions and all that shit - the stuff for the leeches (bourgeoise) - they don't use it, they don't know shit about it, but it makes them money and this is stupid and why we oppose it.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:07 am
Abolishing private propety isn't taking away the shit you own, ithat isn't property - that's posession. Private property is what the rich ****s own, the factories and the mansions and all that shit - the stuff for the leeches (bourgeoise) - they don't use it, they don't know shit about it, but it makes them money and this is stupid and why we oppose it.
That is why I say 'means of production' instead of property, it too causes confusion (yes we means infrastructure too) but not as much.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:07 am
Abolishing private propety isn't taking away the shit you own, ithat isn't property - that's posession. Private property is what the rich ****s own, the factories and the mansions and all that shit - the stuff for the leeches (bourgeoise) - they don't use it, they don't know shit about it, but it makes them money and this is stupid and why we oppose it.
mansions don't produce anything though.

[R_P_A_S]

again what are other ways we can explain why getting rid of private property would be better... in simple plain words what does Private Property cause? and what is the alternative?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+February 13, 2007 03:58 am--> (R_P_A_S @ February 13, 2007 03:58 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 02:07 am
Abolishing private propety isn't taking away the shit you own, ithat isn't property - that's posession. Private property is what the rich ****s own, the factories and the mansions and all that shit - the stuff for the leeches (bourgeoise) - they don't use it, they don't know shit about it, but it makes them money and this is stupid and why we oppose it.
mansions don't produce anything though. [/b]
Yeah, sorry about that, mansions is a very poor example. However you could argue that they are a place of employment (maids, butlers, pornstars and so on) and therfore a form of property.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+February 15, 2007 09:11 pm--> (Jazzratt @ February 15, 2007 09:11 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:58 am

[email protected] 13, 2007 02:07 am
Abolishing private propety isn't taking away the shit you own, ithat isn't property - that's posession. Private property is what the rich ****s own, the factories and the mansions and all that shit - the stuff for the leeches (bourgeoise) - they don't use it, they don't know shit about it, but it makes them money and this is stupid and why we oppose it.
mansions don't produce anything though.
Yeah, sorry about that, mansions is a very poor example. However you could argue that they are a place of employment (maids, butlers, pornstars and so on) and therfore a form of property. [/b]
damn you are right! good one bro!