communist pamphlet - need help with pamphlet

[koffeekommie]

I am in need of assistance in a pamphlet i am hoping to make. The pamphlet is What Is Communism? I am trying to explain what communism is to the average person. I need you to help me write it just tell me what you think of what i have and add to it what you wish, thank you.
This is the pamphlet so far.

what is communism?

*The abolition of social classes(ie no rich, no poor only people)
*The abolition of heirarchial systems.
*The workers work for the betterment of each other and society this is the motivation to work.
*Workers no loneger sell thier labor to live.
*Abolition of a monetary value system(ie no money)
*A governmental structure may exist to maintain the system of equality and help the communities. It does the frist through laws and the latter through hospitals/schools/etc.
*Most often believed to be attained trough workers revolution.
*This is more of an economic system because the government is only used to help the people and maintain the existing system. The government that may exist in communism must be democratic otherwise the it is not true communism.
*Workers own factories and means of production and work them in a collective non-heirarchial manner.
*In many cases communism wishes to abolish private property. Being that the quest for private property is cause of greed.

[hazard]

not bad

your final point should focus upon BOURGEOIS private property. call it capitalist private property. or, just say that public property is the goal. that way the brainwashed cattle herd won't think that the commies are comin to steal their elvis records.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

if this is for Americans, I can tell you what they will will think when they read this.

"what is communism?"

American: communism, that's evil, it seeks to oppress and control

"*The abolition of social classes(ie no rich, no poor only people)"

American: who would feel motivated to work if not to rise economicaly?

"*The workers work for the betterment of each other and society this is the motivation to work."

American: Who wants that?

"*Workers no loneger sell thier labor to live."

American: Selling labor? And in Communism you work for what? Wouldn't that be selling labor?

"*Abolition of a monetary value system(ie no money)"

American: What would you buy stuff with??

"*A governmental structure may exist to maintain the system of equality and help the communities. It does the frist through laws and the latter through hospitals/schools/etc."

American: Sounds a lot like what they did in Russia(sarcasm) Once a dictor is given power he'll abuse it, simple.

"*Most often believed to be attained trough workers revolution."

American: I'm a worker, I don't wanna a revolution.

"*This is more of an economic system because the government is only used to help the people and maintain the existing system. The government that may exist in communism must be democratic otherwise the it is not true communism."

American: Like in the USSR, right? (sarcasm) ever see a democratic communism??

"*Workers own factories and means of production and work them in a collective non-heirarchial manner."

American: like AmericanAirlines?

"*In many cases communism wishes to abolish private property. Being that the quest for private property is cause of greed."

American: Greed is the driving force. Communism is against human nature. Communism has already proven to not work. Communism is an oppressor. Communism is a dictatorship, I don't care what you say, FOX news said it's bad, so that's who I'll believe.

The pamphlet sounds pretty damn good, this is not meaning to put down your idea, it's just that Americans are extremely narrow-minded and will not accept anything out of the ordinary. I've spent hours and hours trying to convince cappies with proof from the internet, historical evidence, logic, human nature, and yet they always come back to the same crap about how they love America and don't want no commies around, then again, I live in Florida, where the mindset is very conservative, so maybe you'll have better luck that I did, so good luck, comrade!



(Edited by Victorcommie at 9:57 pm on April 12, 2003)

[koffeekommie]

thankyou ill

Victorcommie- ill take those responces into consideration when rewriting this, and if you or some one else could please give me some edvice for dealing with such ignorant readers.

Hazard-lol, i am worrie about reader responces to the private property statements ill probably use your idea but i need to be as direct as possible.

[Som]

You've contradicted yourself.

*The abolition of heirarchial systems.

*A governmental structure may exist to maintain the system of equality and help the communities. It does the frist through laws and the latter through hospitals/schools/etc.

All governments, by their very nature, are heirarchal structures, since hierarchy goes hand in hand with inequality, they can not be part of a communist society.

If its not stateless, it can't be classless.

[suffianr]

Hey, there are some good ideas there, but you might want to touch a little on the differences between communism in theory, and communism in practice i.e. successful left-wing policies, social programmes and trade & industry. There are heaps of useful sites on the Net, however, you'd best start with marxists.org, the nearest thing to an encyclopedia on Marxism on-line.

Also, don't forget to talk about the different leftist schools of thought; people need to know about the different theoretical approaches, lest they wind up approaching Marxism with a one-track mind. :)

p.s/ I can help edit the pamphlet, just PM me. Cheers.

[koffeekommie]

som: i agree with you. I am very glad you pointed that out. i ask you, though, how can i word this so that i do not dive into anarcho-communism?

suffianr: can you be a little more detailed about the differences between comunism in theory, and communism in practice. Also what do you mean PM you?

[Som]

som: i agree with you. I am very glad you pointed that out. i ask you, though, how can i word this so that i do not dive into anarcho-communism?

The term anarcho-communism is really a sort of redundant statement, but the anarcho just is there to differenciate communist anarchists and marxists.

You could just mention that communism is the final stage of marxism. Lenin called socialism the first stage of communism and communism the final stage.

[suffianr]

As to the difference between theoretical communism and practical communism, essentially what I mean is this: how have communist policies been implemented successfully (and in which countries?), and to what degree are those policies consistent with theory?

You could start by pointing out how certain communist policies are theoretically more efficient than capitalist ones, and provide real life examples in specific situations like healthcare policies in Havana etc.

PM = Private Message. Look at the bar at the top of this post, and click on the Message icon. There you go.

[Nick Yves]

I would watch what you say about the abolishment of money. Thats just another of the many ideas...not to mention VERY VERY VERY far fetched. Im talking, a LONG time away, after everyone on this bored is dead. Communism I think can be achieved (true communism) in our life time, unless your talking about the whole pure communism, utopia sorta thing...but a moneyless country..thats wishful thinking in my opinion.

[Robot Rebellion]

Quote: from koffeekommie on 4:48 am on April 12, 2003
*A governmental structure may exist to maintain the system of equality and help the communities. It does the frist through laws and the latter through hospitals/schools/etc.Marx, Engals, Trotsky, Stalin, Lenin and all have through quotes alluded to communism being where the state has withered away. Call the politician in charge of capital a benevolent king, or a feudal land baron, it makes no difference...

I would replace this section with mentioning the withering away of the state.

[praxis1966]

If you want my opinion, don't use the word communism in the pamphlet at all. Use a term that most people are less familiar with, like syndicalism or socialism. Unfortunately, my experience has been that the second people here the word communism a big neon light starts flashing in their heads that says "Evil Empire." This inevitably leads to your intended audience automatically closing their minds to anything you have to say.

Chances are they'll do what I do with all the Jesus Saves pamplets I get: wipe their asses with them. No offence or anything, I'm a pinko commie bastard myself. Just remember, most people place more emphasis on semantics than substance.

[koffeekommie]

jetgrind: most of us here would disagree with you. the main two points of this pamphlet is to teach the truth about communism and to make it appealing but i refuse to remove the truth just to make it more appealing.

Robot Rebellion: i am greatly confused by what you are trying to tell me. i understnd that you want me to convey that the government must wither away into a more anarchic state, but what do mean about leaders?

praxis1966: i agree with you but the point of this pamphlet is to get in touch with the people that will open there minds they are my intended audience. I dont care about the ones that ignore it.

[Robot Rebellion]

Quote: from koffeekommie on 4:32 am on April 18, 2003
Robot Rebellion: i am greatly confused by what you are trying to tell me. i understnd that you want me to convey that the government must wither away into a more anarchic state, but what do mean about leaders?They are bad. You can't have a communal existence led by a tyrant (to which all politicians are). Capitalism as a label is kind of meaningless... It is what it represents, that is the issue, to which that is hierarchy or class, and it is that which need be targeted... If Stalin incorporated all of Soviet Russian into Stalin incorporated, to which he owned all capital/wealth, and the laborer worked to access their own labor, but by Stalin's good grace, then while the capitalist wouldn't complain about such, this is just as bad... Call the feudal guy a state-socialist King, or a properterian feudal baron, there is no appreciable difference, as both are reflections of class and hierachy. Voting for your favorite politician doesn't make a difference, as they force you to delegate, that which just can't be delegated, and to which the system perpetuates itself, as it controls the means by which the system can be changed (think Jeb Bush disqualifying all those black votes illegally, laws don’t get repealed, correlation between money and winning, and on and on). Now of course there is debate as to how the transition period should come about, with big names on both sides of the isle. I can't believe we can go forward, by stepping backward, and an evil to right an evil can never work, to which we should skip Marxist socialism and go straight to communism...

If I misinterpreted your post, to which you were inquiring about the quotes of the leaders associating communism with the withering away of the state, then I’ve got them here:

Engals on the withering away of the state:"The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."

Marx: "The working class, in the course of development, will substitute for the old bourgeois society an association which will preclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power groups, since the political power is precisely the official expression of class antagonism in bourgeois society."

&

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

&

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly--only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Lenin: "Only in Communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely broken, when the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., there is no difference between the members of society in their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state ceases to exist," and " it becomes possible to speak of freedom ."

Trotsky: "Having agreed with the anarchists that the State, even the workers' state, is the offspring of class barbarism and that real human history will begin with the abolition of the State, we have still before us in full force the question: what ways and methods will lead, ultimately, to the abolition of the State?..."

&

"To deduce Stalinism from Bolshevism or from Marxism is the same as to deduce, in a larger sense, counter-revolution from revolution."

&

"Marxists are wholly in agreement with the anarchists in regard to the final goal: the liquidation of the state. Marxists are 'state-ist' only to the extent that one cannot achieve the liquidation of the state simply by ignoring it."

Stalin sort of understand this too...:"We are for the withering away of the State. And yet we also believe in the proletarian dictatorship which represents the strongest and mightiest form of state power that has existed up to now. To keep on developing state power in order to prepare the conditions for the withering away of state power - that is the Marxist formula. Is it 'contradictory'? Yes, 'contradictory'. But the contradiction is vital, and wholly reflects the Marxist dialectic . . . Whoever has not understood this feature of the contradictions belonging to our transitional time, whoever has not understood this dialectic of historical processes, that person is dead to Marxism."

[Sabocat]

Quote: from praxis1966 on 11:18 am on April 17, 2003
If you want my opinion, don't use the word communism in the pamphlet at all. Use a term that most people are less familiar with, like syndicalism or socialism. Unfortunately, my experience has been that the second people here the word communism a big neon light starts flashing in their heads that says "Evil Empire." This inevitably leads to your intended audience automatically closing their minds to anything you have to say.

Chances are they'll do what I do with all the Jesus Saves pamplets I get: wipe their asses with them. No offence or anything, I'm a pinko commie bastard myself. Just remember, most people place more emphasis on semantics than substance.


I agree completely. In all my discussions with people here in the good ol' US of A, when you start talking to them about a classless society and all, it goes pretty well. They even seem to stay interested when you use the word Socialism. But, holy shit, the minute you use the word Communism, they'll go off on a tear about what a failure it is, how it can never work, look at Russia, all the same shit we hear all the time.

I would avoid trying to spread the word in the U$ using the word Communism.

[Xvall]

(sarcasm) ever see a democratic communism??

Moldova.

[ComradeRiley]

koffeekommie when you have a finished copy of your pamphlet can you send me a copy so I can print it out and distribute in England please?

im at [email protected]

[koffeekommie]

sorry ive been gone my isp shitted out on me and liberaries only let me see half the pages.

This is the updated version of the pamphlets in which i have taken what you have said into consideration.

what is communism?

Contents(... means that i greatly need help with this)

-Nearly every aspect of society and culture is dictated by the philosohpy of "From each according to ability, to each according to need"
-The abolition of social classes(ie no rich, no poor; only people)
-The abolition all heirarchial systems but government.
-Workers no longer sell thier labor to live. This means that workers work for the better of themselves and society as a whole this is thier motivation...
-Abolition of a monetary value system(ie no money)
-A governmental structure may exist to maintain the system of equality and help the communities and collectives. It does the frist through laws and the latter through hospitals/schools/etc.
-Often believed to be attained trough socialism and worker's revolution...
-This is more of an economic system because the government is only used to help the people and maintain the existing system. The government that may exist in communism must be democratic otherwise the it is not true communism and the government will become tyrannical.
-Workers own factories and means of production and work them in a collective non-heirarchial manner.
-Communism wishes to work for the replacement of private ownership (in general) with collective and community ownership. This is because the quest for private property is cause of all greed.
-Communism wishes to work for a more free society; one even less dependent apon a government. Largely communism believes that the government must slowly withers away into an anarchistic society.
-Communism is often confused with socialism but the to are largely different. Socialism does have monatary value systems and social classes...
-Communism has never truely exixted outside of the paris commune. China, russia, north korea, and cuba are not and have never been communist societies no matter how much the capitalist media tells you they are. They have gained this reputation as a result of capitalist right wing media and cold war propaganda.

Please criticize and help.

Presentation
try to divide it into sections --- should i use the format i did for my anarchist pamphlet? if not give me some ideas
it must be written grammatically in a manner simple enough that almost any literate person can read.
i need someone to write this in an essay format. If you think that it shouldnt be written in an essay format please comment and explain.

[ComradeRiley]

excellent work Koffee