Biggest disadvantage to anarchists/communists?

[LebaneseCommunistParty]

I hate to state the obvious but do you think the main reason why we have such complications is that we need the people who live among us to support us, whereas the capitalist system can exist with people opposing it? do you think this is our biggest difficulty? And is it moral to exist without the people's support?

[Fawkes]

I think the biggest disadvantage to the left is just how tarnished the names of communism and anarchism are because of various historical events and the efforts of the ruling class to cast leftism in a bad light.

[Eleutherios]

I'd second that. The second biggest disadvantage has to be the pervasive patriotism/nationalism/racism in our culture, which divides the working class into arbitrary groups which are unable to properly unite because they're too busy hating each other.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:30 pm
I hate to state the obvious but do you think the main reason why we have such complications is that we need the people who live among us to support us, whereas the capitalist system can exist with people opposing it? do you think this is our biggest difficulty? And is it moral to exist without the people's support?
No.

Communism can also exist with some people being against it, as can capitalism. Communism as well as capitalism however will both fail if the majority becomes opposed to it (though capitalism might take longer to go down, it will go down if opposed by the majority)

[Janus]

And is it moral to exist without the people's support?
It's not a "moral" issue as it is a practical one. How can an entity exist for an extended period of time without the people's support?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by NKOS+March 07, 2007 11:38 pm--> (NKOS @ March 07, 2007 11:38 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 05:30 pm
I hate to state the obvious but do you think the main reason why we have such complications is that we need the people who live among us to support us, whereas the capitalist system can exist with people opposing it? do you think this is our biggest difficulty? And is it moral to exist without the people's support?
No.

Communism can also exist with some people being against it, as can capitalism. Communism as well as capitalism however will both fail if the majority becomes opposed to it (though capitalism might take longer to go down, it will go down if opposed by the majority) [/b]
I basically agree. However, is it really a matter of direct opposition by x% of people? Direct opposition is a tough thing to reach in most cases, while reaching a point where enough people see that the system is unacceptable and consent to a new one is more attainable. Furthermore, the destruction of a given system is dependent upon many variables, which can change in any situation.

[RGacky3]

try this one time, talk about Anarchist-Communist principles to your average non-political joe but without using the term Anarchist or Communist or Socialist, and see his reaction, 99% of the time its positive, next try to another guy but start of using the words Communist, see the reaction, many times when people hear Communist, all they hear is USSR, and when they hear Anarchist, all they here is Somalia.

I personally think thats why the IWW does so well, it labels it self just as Anti-Capitalist and a revolutionary Union, it goes by Anarcho-Syndicalist principles, but its a very down to earth, American friendly union that doesn bog people down with Marxist theory and things like that, its practical and down to earth. Thats what Anarchists and Communists need to work on, especially in the US.

[Guerrilla22]

The fact that the modern capitalist states have spend decades demonizing these ideologies to the point where many of its citizens consider them to be evil is a large aprt of the problem, the global integration of most of the known world into the capitaist system is another problem and sectarianism amongst leftist, whoa re already a marginalized group is another problem.

[More Fire for the People]

I think the biggest disadadvantage towards 'official', i.e. ideological, communists and anarchists is their tendency to divorce theory from practice and an emphasis on expressing fighting the grand antagonism — i.e. revolution — over fighting its particulars — i.e. the strugge for food, water, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:30 pm
I hate to state the obvious but do you think the main reason why we have such complications is that we need the people who live among us to support us, whereas the capitalist system can exist with people opposing it? do you think this is our biggest difficulty? And is it moral to exist without the people's support?
Communism to be installed as a real society must of course have widespread support. It is a society that shall exist because it has violently destroyed the previous political system and so it must first have unity and goals to succeed. The success of the revolution does not really rest on people telling workers what they should be thinking or doing, it rests on workers emancipating themselves and acting in unity to destroy capitalism. The working class is the revolutionary class because only the working class has the collective strength, ideology and proper relationship to the means of production to succeed. Every worker has the potential to be revolutionary and when the material conditions are right we will see revolution and the first taste of a great new society that humanity is capable of. Workers must collectivise to destroy capitalism and it is through this unity of action that the natural progression to communism becomes apparent.
In the end the workers can act for themselves, they need no support.

[Pilar]

We have two large problems:

1. We have a history of people claiming they are "true" socialists, while all the time they are two bit husslers. There's something base and wrong about 50' posters of leaders paraded around. Reminds everyone of Joseph Stalin or North Korea, or Big Brother. It's our notion of no bosses, no hunger, and no one dying because they can't afford to pay for heating oil in Freezeyourassoff, Minnesota that should be our biggest attractions, and not Kim Jong-II ugly mug spread across a nation of starving farmers that people should be reflecting on when they think of communism.

2. We've never won. All those saying they're commies have never built a commie society. They've just built a cappie one with a very big social security program. If the southern parts of Mexico ever burn all their money and live off of the vision of socialism, and kill anyone who tries to take from them the society they built, THEN we'll have a win, and others will copy it, and nothing succeeds like success. (That's probably an American "capitalist" expression. Please don't restrict me. :P )

3. Capitalism has been pounded into the brains of children at day one that it is normal. By the time you're 8, if you don't get what you want in a cappie household, you freak. Socialism is a long term achievement. No exactly most kids' forte.

[RNK]

In reply to #1, the problem of Communism's "bad name" is twofold. On the one hand you have the honestly uninformed, who know nothing about Communism other than what they've seen in the movies, on TV and in the utterly biased history books. On the other hand, you have those that have a basic understanding of Communism, but still haven't been able to break the programming. They understand that the goals Communists "claim to aspire to" are nice, but still believe that all Communists just use those "good parts" as excuses to do terrible things, or, alternatively, do not believe it will work.

As for the first group, we must educate. They'll either join Group 2 or join us. With the second group, we really need to "win hearts and minds", to use that imperialistic terms. We have to be unwaivering in our commitment to our goals, our morality and most of all to the masses. We must always show up to fight for and defend them, until we earn their trust and respect. Then they will support us.

Of course there is another small group who will always oppose us and who can never be won over. All we can do for them is either kill them off (which might upset people) or remove their ability to harm society.

[Okocim]

I think apathy's a pretty big problem. Whilst in Marx/Engels/Lenin/Trotsky's time there was quite a large public interest in politics, and people would actually react to bad government policy, now people are far more apathetic, they don't think they can change things, or they are simply content with their widescreen tv so don't bother. I don't think Marx predicted this. I find it extemely difficult to get people involved in political campaigns quite simply because they often don't care. it's a very clever move by capitalists: in the papers, magazines, tv programmes, schools politics is often marginalised for young people so they don't bother (at least in the UK, I know a lot of european comrades are different - France, Greece etc).

This, along with the previously mentioned "record" of "communism" which we often have to deal with are I think our biggest problems. Although they do link: due to the apathy of people they simply believe what they're told "communism" is (ie. the soviet union, cuba, china, north korea, vietnam etc) without bothering to find out the truth, so we have to work against this as well as against the apathy.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:45 pm
I think apathy's a pretty big problem. Whilst in Marx/Engels/Lenin/Trotsky's time there was quite a large public interest in politics, and people would actually react to bad government policy, now people are far more apathetic, they don't think they can change things, or they are simply content with their widescreen tv so don't bother. I don't think Marx predicted this. I find it extemely difficult to get people involved in political campaigns quite simply because they often don't care. it's a very clever move by capitalists: in the papers, magazines, tv programmes, schools politics is often marginalised for young people so they don't bother (at least in the UK, I know a lot of european comrades are different - France, Greece etc).

This, along with the previously mentioned "record" of "communism" which we often have to deal with are I think our biggest problems. Although they do link: due to the apathy of people they simply believe what they're told "communism" is (ie. the soviet union, cuba, china, north korea, vietnam etc) without bothering to find out the truth, so we have to work against this as well as against the apathy.
When people start to feel actual effects, they will get political real quick. A lot of people in deprived communities are very angry, a lot of workers are fed up with the crap they have to deal with; we need to show them that there is another way. If we can get a viable movement, we can influence people who want change. When more people start to feel the inevitable results of capitalism taken to its logical conclusion (consolidation of wealth, monopolies, undeniable class war), more and more will want change.

Apathy will disappear as quickly as people's savings.

[sexyguy]

The Western imperialist economic system (and its global domination) is irretrievably condemned to ever-worsening economic 'overproduction' crisis and slump, and to ever more hysterical US-led warmongering as a cover-up diversion from capitalism's humiliating collapse (and for use as an 'excuse' for economic devastation which the slump was going to create anyway) This is what will trash all the pesimism and apathy.