Significance of Communism in the Present Day

[TheTickTockMan]

Item 1:

Now, let me just separate myself from my argument here and thus preclude any ad-hominem attacks by incensed comrades here at these forums. I believe that the Left provides a just and moral framework for the future of human society: that it embodies the fundamental basis of human kindness and decency. To me, it represents the greatest hope for improving the lot of human beings on this earth, and a hope that, in the future, life will be better for people.

Having said that, however, I must wonder at the dedication of people hereabouts to Marxist, socialist, or anarchist ideas. It seems to me that, nowadays, communism is a discredited ideology -- in the mind of the general public, who take their ideas of communism from the mass media and other slanted sources. Yes, yes, I am familiar with the old refrain "China and Russia were never communist, they were degenerated workers' states or state-capitalist societies." I've repeated it often enough myself! That doesn't help alleviate the fact that if you call yourself a communist, you're colouring yourself red, and it puts a bitter tang on the back of the throats of most people nowadays.

And really, I must wonder just how much of a contribution we leftists are making. It seems to me that even as small, embattled, cynical and bitter groups of leftists protest hither and thither, squabble with their rivals on internet forums, and yell at anti-abortionists, global warming deniers, and wander about at G8 conferences, setting fires and railing against globalisation and the evils of international capitalism,
the relentless pace of capitalism marches steadily forwards to the cliff of global economic and environmental annihilation.

Just how much of a difference are we making? What's the significance of the left movement in the world nowadays? Are we a broken ideology, fit only to clamour and yell and shake our limp-wristed fists ineffectually against the unstoppable might of the capitalist machine?

What's the point of it all?

Wouldn't it just be better if we simply draw shells around ourselves, hunker down, and wait until the capitalist world annihilates itself, and then rise to reclaim the world in the aftermath amidst the smouldering ruins of the previous civilisation?

Item 2:

According to my understanding of Marxism, the capitalist system is supposed to annihilate itself through its own inner instabilities. It seems to have solved the problem of the recurring economic 'panic' by merging with enough aspects of socialism as to placate the ire of the working-class, distracting the workers with pretty consumables, television, the struggle of daily life, and enough padding in social welfare to keep them from realising the depth of their oppression.

It will have to solve the pending problem of environmental collapse. Will capitalism devise methods of recycling that allow it to perpetuate itself even without consuming all the natural resources on this planet prematurely, offsetting the problem that bacteria have in drowning in their own excrement, having been left to grow unchecked in a petri dish. Or will it perish under exhaustion and abrupt climate change?

If this is so, then what is the purpose of trying to instigate revolution, if capitalism is ultimately doomed anyhow?

?~TTTM

[Vargha Poralli]

According to my understanding of Marxism, the capitalist system is supposed to annihilate itself through its own inner instabilities.

Where did Marx or Engels or any Marxist say this ?

Seems like you understanding of Marxism is not what you assume to be.


Can you summarise what you are trying to say ?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

In 'Capital' Marx lays out a plan of capitalism that wouldn't suffer devastating 'instabilities' but that it would always suffer from crisis' of various kinds.

[TheTickTockMan]

According to my understanding of Marxism, the capitalist system is supposed to annihilate itself through its own inner instabilities.

Where did Marx or Engels or any Marxist say this ?

Seems like you understanding of Marxism is not what you assume to be.


Can you summarise what you are trying to say ?


Originally posted by "The Communist Manifesto"
... A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.

For many a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly.

In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed.

And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property.

The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. ...

The way I read it, the proletariat is supposed to eventually get fed up with all these crises, rise up, and destroy the bourgeoisie, establishing thereby a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which they appropriate the means of production and work for themselves. From there they shall transition into a stateless society -- communism.

Am I not correct?

?~TTTM

[Vargha Poralli]

Well you are correct.

And Marx and Engels do not say that capitalism will not destroy itself. It needs to be destroyed by the working class . And working class will not destroy capitalism by magically rising up one day. The struggle will be constant is taking place day to day.

[praxicoide]

Yes. We are not to sit outside our homes to wait for the carcass of our enemy to pass by.

The main point communists raise when speaking of capitalism as self-destructive is its large amount of contradictions, which lead to crises and so forth, and that the liberal ideology pushes everything forward and dissolves it, to make everything fall into the optic of commodity and capital, becoming almost indifferent to any content ("capitalists will sell us the rope to hang themselves with"). We have to take advantage of this however, because it is not a determination or prophecy.

A very important contradiction, which is never to be forgotten is class struggle. The adoption of "socialist policies" and other similar actions by the state are a result of the current state of the class struggle. It can be said that all actions taken to promote class consciousness will aid the class struggle and be reflected in the state apparatus, ideological makeup and economic conditions.

I therefore don't see the communist movement as pointless.

[peaccenicked]

Communism is significant in that it is like a pension plan for the human race, our children's children etc. Marx's essential criticism of Capitalism is that is wasteful.
Wasteful of human life and resources. War and poverty throughout the world testify to this. Marx did not live long enough to see the rise of imperial militarism WW1, The rise of counter revolution as both Stalinism and fascism. The post war boom in the west, the decline of US imperialism and the rise of China. Yet the need for the world economy to be planned for the benefit for all, and not for the few has never been so great, even if we don't include the ecological crisis.

If one cant see the need for a socially planned economy then I wonder what planet one is living on.


Where are communists now? Doing what they usually doing. Teaching workers,unemployed, pensioners, disabled, and all around us who are oppressed
or need our help, the value of organisation.
We are smaller in number than we like, and many us spend more times at each others throats than helping people out of the mire and bringing about confidence and trust in a genuine communist future.

We believe our day will come because of the clear necessity of structuring the economy on the primacy of need over profit.

No matter how they attempt to destroy our movement from outside and within, the force of historical need will sweep aside the corrupt, the backward and narrow leaderships that most likely are manipulated by the secret police in most countries,
and bring to bear the pressing needs of the people for peace, secure housing, and a safe and healthy environment for children and adults to live in with as much harmony between people that can allow them to plan the future together.

[TheTickTockMan]

Yes, yes, peacenicked, that's a very inspiring and hopeful bit of propaganda, but that doesn't really answer my question, which, at the core, is:

If communists are few and isolated, surrounded by a world of ignorance, whose people are downtrodden and cynical and highly sceptical of such words as 'communism', 'bourgeoisie', 'equality', 'good of the many', 'proletariat' and 'labour theory of value' and the like, then how do they expect to achieve revolution?

Moreover:

How can the communists speak of a growing revolutionary movement when the world, by and large, seems to have passed by that tumultuous point in history and seems to be comfortably settling into acceptance of capitalism?

Or, even more bluntly:

Do we see the results of any active communist movements anywhere? Are we making any successes? Any inroads? Any progress whatsoever?

In other words: Why communism? Why advocate revolution when the masses seem content with the way the world is already?

It seems, to this humble leftist anyway, that we are in a far worse-off position nowadays than our forebears were in the 19th century. Nowadays people are more likely than not to ignore the revolutionary, lecturing on the streets on a soap-box, than to gather round and listen to what she has to say.

?~TTTM

[Tatarin]

If communists are few and isolated, surrounded by a world of ignorance, whose people are downtrodden and cynical and highly sceptical of such words as 'communism', 'bourgeoisie', 'equality', 'good of the many', 'proletariat' and 'labour theory of value' and the like, then how do they expect to achieve revolution?

Why not teach those people? The revolution will come later, the main struggle right now is to educate people as to what communism really is, so that they in turn can teach others, their own children and friends. The more people that knows about as time goes, the better.

If people don't know about communism, then of course there won't be any motivation by anyone to struggle for it.


How can the communists speak of a growing revolutionary movement when the world, by and large, seems to have passed by that tumultuous point in history and seems to be comfortably settling into acceptance of capitalism?

I don't think all communists think so. I'd rather say growing environmental, political and justice movements.

And it's true that it may seem that people may have become disillusioned. After all, "we've already tried every possible ideology, and so far, capitalism is the only one that 'works'". But that doesn't mean that people will always be happy with capitalism.

Only a decade after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, people were talking about the rise of dangerous corporate power - which among other things contributes much to global warming, use of children in labour, and using politics to extend their control (see the documentary The Corporation).

So while it may seem that capitalism is the only one standing, and the final stage of human evolution (within politics), it is not.


In other words: Why communism? Why advocate revolution when the masses seem content with the way the world is already?

The masses may seem content - but with a closer look, are they really? The rift between the poor and the rich is growing, crime is growing - while voting has gone down, people work longer hours for lower wages. Very few people have very few problems, and very many people have many problems. The UN is set to wipe out poverty by 2015 or so. With all these problems, imagine how the world will look like in 20, 40, 80 years from now.

The thing is, many may not realize that many of these problems actually arise from capitalism. That is one thing that people need to understand - what capitalism is doing to them.


Nowadays people are more likely than not to ignore the revolutionary, lecturing on the streets on a soap-box, than to gather round and listen to what she has to say.

We have the internet. And people do not ignore things. Millions went to protest against the war in Iraq - an issue that was close to people's lives (i.e., their children were going to go there and risk their lives, and so on). Just like the war is important to people, so should communism also be important - the knowledge about capitalism and that it actually affects people, just like war.

[TheTickTockMan]

Why not teach those people? The revolution will come later, the main struggle right now is to educate people as to what communism really is, so that they in turn can teach others, their own children and friends. The more people that knows about as time goes, the better.

If people don't know about communism, then of course there won't be any motivation by anyone to struggle for it.

That's very sensible. But I wonder -- how many times will communist revolution come and go? It seems that the last time we had communist revolutions, it was like sixty or seventy years ago. Does it move in periodic cycles?



I don't think all communists think so. I'd rather say growing environmental, political and justice movements.

And it's true that it may seem that people may have become disillusioned. After all, "we've already tried every possible ideology, and so far, capitalism is the only one that 'works'". But that doesn't mean that people will always be happy with capitalism.

Only a decade after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, people were talking about the rise of dangerous corporate power - which among other things contributes much to global warming, use of children in labour, and using politics to extend their control (see the documentary The Corporation).

So while it may seem that capitalism is the only one standing, and the final stage of human evolution (within politics), it is not.

I never said that capitalism is the be-all-end-all in societies. Someday, perhaps, technology shall make it as easy to duplicate material objects as it is to duplicate software, and then capitalism will be in big doo-doo.

But it seems that at present, from my own experience, people are disillusioned with aspects of capitalism, but at the same time are quite sceptical of the promises of socialism. I'm wondering just what is it that these people really want.


The masses may seem content - but with a closer look, are they really? The rift between the poor and the rich is growing, crime is growing - while voting has gone down, people work longer hours for lower wages. Very few people have very few problems, and very many people have many problems. The UN is set to wipe out poverty by 2015 or so. With all these problems, imagine how the world will look like in 20, 40, 80 years from now.

The thing is, many may not realize that many of these problems actually arise from capitalism. That is one thing that people need to understand - what capitalism is doing to them.

And once they understand what capitalism is doing to them, will they rise up in arms, in anger and fury? People know history too, and they are smart. They will be wary of revolutions, as revolutions have had a chequered history of producing tyrants. Reform would seem to be more palatable to the people.


We have the internet. And people do not ignore things. Millions went to protest against the war in Iraq - an issue that was close to people's lives (i.e., their children were going to go there and risk their lives, and so on). Just like the war is important to people, so should communism also be important - the knowledge about capitalism and that it actually affects people, just like war.

This is some cause for hope. But Iraq and the communist revolution are very separate issues. They share the same spectrum in terms of left/right issues, but on the one hand, we have people outraged at an expensive and miserable war being waged on the slightest of pretenses. On the other, we have this abstract ideal that makes a spark shine in the eye of the 19th century worker, when people were more optimistic of such things.

But does the vision of red flags waving and scuffed men and women taking over factories do anything but turn that shine to a dull glaze in the eye of the modern person?

The Iraq war is tangible, and close at hand. A communist utopia is cloaked in the verbose rhetoric of its purveyors, lofty, floating high above in an empire of words. What can be done to bring the communist ideal down to the level of the common man?

?~TTTM

[Faux Real]

There are plenty of contradictions in capitalism as you well know, the time when workers will finally overthrow that system(or have the chance to) will be when those fundamental contradictions collide with each other and the workers feel the brunt of it. Say, a global economic depression/crisis or what have you. That's when revolution is prominent and possible. The best we can do is prepare for it, and try to educate people, organize and fight for little concessions, although temporary, from the bourgeoisie.

[Comrade Phil]

The leftist movement remains relevant in many places throughout the world.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/402/708..._Hemisphere.gif (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/402/708/1600/Socialist_Map_Western_Hemisphere.gif)
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/402/708..._Map_Africa.gif (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/402/708/1600/Socialist_Map_Africa.gif)

While much of this leftist activity is simply reformism, it all helps preserve class consciousness, opposition to capitalism, and the ideals which leftism is founded on. In many Western countries, radical leftism does appear to be discredited by the masses, however, discontent with current circumstances still remain. We must continue to counter the negative attitudes towards our ideology with whatever practical means available to us.

Our movement is not a lost cause because billions of workers worldwide still feel the harsh oppression of capitalism and are willing to create change. Should we give up because the people of the most reactionary nations seem complacent?

[VukBZ2005]

If I could interject myself into this discussion;


That's very sensible. But I wonder -- how many times will communist revolution come and go? It seems that the last time we had communist revolutions, it was like sixty or seventy years ago. Does it move in periodic cycles?

The last real Communist revolution that has taken place so far, took place in Hungary during its 1956 revolution against its so-called socialist government. But that depends on whether or not one how happens to call themselves revolutionary considers it to be a real Communist revolution. I do, but there are others, primarily "Marxist-Leninists" who don't and consider it be a Capitalist uprising, but I digress.

Now, on the issue of cycles; real Communist revolution does not happen in cycles; it does not operate on some mystical framework of reality that predestines when people who are working class in both the industrialized regions of the world and the most industrialized of the non-industrialized regions of the world decide that it is in their interests to get rid of the Capitalist system and begin a real Communist revolution.

It happens when there are four material realities. The first material reality is created by the emergence of a credible and active, truly revolutionary organization in a Capitalist society that actually has a working class majority, that is, when the majority of the population is forced to sell their labor-power (i.e., their productive energy) in order to survive by whatever means may be necessary. I am making an implication towards the most developed parts of the non-industrialized regions of the world, not just the industrialized regions of the world itself.

In this material reality, this truly revolutionary organization, due it's importance, manages to establish a base within Capitalist society and enables a revolutionary praxis to develop that will manifest itself through the active participation of that revolutionary organization and the forces aligned with this revolutionary organization in the creation of suitable structures that will replace Capital and would become the core of a real Communist society.

Now, in this situation, there would be two dependent factors what would determine the outcome of it actually moving away from a short-term revolutionary situation to a long-term situation which would ensure the existence of this new, real Communist society for substantial amount of time.

The first dependent factor is how strong the Capitalist class in that society would be at that time and how would it counteract the opposite structures that have been developed in order to preserve itself and preserve their world order; the world order of Capitalism.

As history has shown us, that is, if you have payed attention to history long enough, the Capitalist class and the forces that are aligned to the Capitalist class, will use any dirty trick that is in the book and will invent new dirty tricks even, in order to counteract the new structures that have emerged.

The Feudalists did it with the Capitalists when the Capitalist order was emerging out of the Feudal plane of human reality. It is only a natural reaction, which makes them reactionaries in the plane of human reality that the Capitalist class created by actualizing themselves completely.

What becomes important then, is the organization of these new structures, the communication that takes place between these new structures, how effective are the defense mechanisms of these new structures and how effective is their strategy of crushing the power of the Capitalist class and replacing that power with the direct control of the population over the social, cultural, political and economic aspects of their lives through these new structures, actualizing real Communism and de-actualizing Capitalism.

If the organization of these new structures are not based on horizontal and equal means, then, like the popular assemblies that emerged in Argentina in 2001, during its economic crisis, they would be subverted by reactionaries in the disguise of revolutionaries, it would fall apart out of the lack of interest that would come from the re-constitution of the alienation that Capitalism produces, but within those organizations instead of the actual society itself or it would be torn apart effectively by Capitalist forces.

If the communication that exists between these new structures are not done through whatever effective means that seem to be possible, then the Capitalist class would find it easier to isolate and to disorganize those new structures. It has happened more than once.

If the defense mechanisms are not effective enough to defend these new structures, then, the Capitalist class and its assistants, would use force to crush these new structures, if they feel that they are becoming too threatening and if they feel that this new level of activity weakens the already-weak defense enough as so to effectively take advantage.

If the strategy to destroy the Capitalist class and its reality is not effective enough, then these new structures are stuck in a state of dual power; a state that can not last for long; as the Oaxaca revolt has shown. Eventually, the Capitalist forces will gain strength through external assistance and will crush the new structures with even greater force.

See, if everything is done correctly enough, the first factor becomes moot and we do not need to worry about it that much, except when it comes to suppressing the remaining forms of Capitalist counter-revolutionary existence, which would be done just as effectively, because we got everything right in the beginning.

But then, the second dependent factor comes into play; Capitalist forces in other countries would instantly perceive the effective establishment of a real Communist society in another country that is Capitalist as an example that threatens the global Capitalist order that continues to exist outside that country. This eventually causes an invasion and historically, it is this that has destroyed real Communist revolutions more than anything else.

So now, this is a situation must be effectively countered on sufficient weaponry, sufficient tactics to defend the revolution and above all, a massive increase in communication between the new structures, because then, such an increase would allow everyone in the country that the real Communist revolution is taking place in to see the big picture and carry out the most appropriate strategies of self-defense.

If there is an invasion, then, the above steps taken would practically destroy and counter that invasion, which would probably provoke revolutions in other countries because there would probably be multiple countries invading the country experiencing that revolution, or conversely, would provoke a revolution in the country that is invading the country experiencing that revolution.

The second material reality is created when one of the Capitalist classes of the industrialized regions of the world and some of the most developed parts of the non-industrialized regions of the world, through their object desire to expand their wealth, built on the generations of dead surplus-value that they extracted from the workers of their own countries, in addition to the living surplus-value that they continue to extract, invades another country, as so to increase their profits and increase the chances of their own valorization externally, not just internally.

Now, of course, there would be an anti-war movement, but, unless that anti-war movement is practically "taken over" by a legitimate and truly revolutionary organization or by legitimate and truly revolutionary organizations, that movement would remain reformist and thus, reactionary for as long as that does not happen.

Should that happen, as it practically did during the Vietnam war or during the latter part of World War I and the beginning Russian Revolution, then the same processes that were described in the first material reality will apply, except that it would have to be implemented at increased pace.

The third material reality is created when one of the Capitalist classes of the industrialized regions of the world and some of the most developed parts of the non-industrialized regions of the world permits an economic situation to develop in which the means of production overproduce. Usually, this causes them to create artificial scarcity, because they need to prevent an overabundance of the products that they produce from flooding the market and driving down prices, thus driving down profits. But if it occurs too often, then decline in both prices and profits will occur anyway, which would eventually increase speculation, even under controlled and regulated instances, and would lead to a depression.

Now, things would be difficult and more people will be awakened to the general situation, but they would be brought off with reforms should it become necessary at some point during the depression in order to put them back to sleep, unless a viable and truly revolutionary organization emerges and takes advantage during the early stage. Again, the same processes that were discussed in the first material reality will apply here if the truly revolutionary organization is there and takes advantage of the situation.

The fourth material reality is created when one of the Capitalist classes in the industrialized regions of the world lifts up their tariffs to significantly high and ridiculous amounts and allows foreign products from other Capitalist countries to enter, weakening the industries of that country and eventually causing those industries to be outsourced to the most developed parts of the non-industrialized world.

This is like the case of overproduction, except that it is the importation of those products instead of their domestic mass production that are eventually causing the decline of profits and prices, except this time, it is also causing a decline in living standards. This will also lead to depression and the same kind of thing being described in the third material reality. This is also the material reality of the United States and many parts of the industrialized world.

The point is; real Communist revolution happens whenever the first material reality comes about or when any of the three other material realities come about and if there is a truly revolutionary organization to make complete use of any of the three other material realities.


I never said that capitalism is the be-all-end-all in societies. Someday, perhaps, technology shall make it as easy to duplicate material objects as it is to duplicate software, and then capitalism will be in big doo-doo.

But it seems that at present, from my own experience, people are disillusioned with aspects of capitalism, but at the same time are quite sceptical of the promises of socialism. I'm wondering just what is it that these people really want.

What they want is simple; they want direct control over their lives and they think that real Communism can not give it to them because they have been thought about it by forces that are against the establishment of real Communism as being it being like the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (U.S.S.R); totalitarian, oppressive, anti-democratic and anti-human.

Real Communism, that is, Communism without the state as it is conceived of in the present tense, is the absolute destruction of structures that alienate people from all important aspects of life and their replacement with structures that unite people with all important aspects of life; it is not totalitarian, it is not oppressive (except towards reactionaries) is not anti-democratic (in fact, it is the realization of democracy; there is no democracy, the democracy that real Communism is, in the world today and there never has been, except for the kind that existed in its Athenian birthplace during ancient times; actually what we have is a representation of democracy, a fake democracy) and it is not anti-human (in fact, it is the human society; Capitalism is anti-human because it alienates people from the most important parts of their lives and it forces one set of humans to survive on the whims of another set of humans.)


And once they understand what capitalism is doing to them, will they rise up in arms, in anger and fury? People know history too, and they are smart. They will be wary of revolutions, as revolutions have had a chequered history of producing tyrants. Reform would seem to be more palatable to the people.

People know history, yes, but they know history from the perspective of which they have been thought; the Capitalist perspective. That means that even if they do know things like the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or the Spanish Revolution of 1936, they only know about them from the Capitalist perspective and thus, they can not connect them in the right context.

People are wary of fake Communist revolutions, such China in 1949. And because people know of the other real Communist revolutions from a Capitalist perspective, they don't know that they were actually real Communist revolutions, only just as revolts or uprisings, thus, leaving them to believe what the Capitalist class wants them to believe; there is no alternative. A truly revolutionary organization would undo this damage greatly.

Reform is only appealing because people are generally not aware of the total situation and the actual history behind that. If there was a strong, truly revolutionary organization, then, reforming the Capitalist system would be less insignificant and the idea of working class revolution would be more significant.


,but on the one hand, we have people outraged at an expensive and miserable war being waged on the slightest of pretenses. On the other, we have this abstract ideal that makes a spark shine in the eye of the 19th century worker, when people were more optimistic of such things.

The War in Iraq is not the most important thing right at this moment. What is more important is your generalization of Communism; how is it an abstract ideal in the eye of the 19th Century worker? Communism emerges from the revolutionary activity of the working class; it comes out of the most important actions that the working class makes. It is just that a lot of times, it emerges unconsciously as opposed to consciously.

To call it an "abstract ideal", although you are using it to ask a bigger question, is to continue the legitimization of the lies of the Capitalist class against real Communism and to continue to validate that lie in the eyes of your class.


But does the vision of red flags waving and scuffed men and women taking over factories do anything but turn that shine to a dull glaze in the eye of the modern person?

Again, Communism is about putting direct power of all important aspects of our lives into the hands of the entire population. That means that our communities must be taken over by the structures that would be at the heart of a real Communist society. And that means that the means of production, that is, the factories, the farms, the ports and so on, must also be taken over by those new structures.

It is apart of the bigger strategy to bring Communism into actualization, but in other words, that vision supports that idea and there is nothing wrong with that idea and that vision. The only reason why that is viewed as dull and possibly, as wrong, is because people have been taught in the Capitalist perspective of things.


A communist utopia is cloaked in the verbose rhetoric of its purveyors, lofty, floating high above in an empire of words. What can be done to bring the communist ideal down to the level of the common man?

What is needed is to show them the truth and explain to them what Communism really is in non-intellectual language; not to mention, putting real Communist ideas into action. But this can only be done if there is a credible, viable and truly revolutionary group in existence. It can also be done on an individual basis, but it would not be of any substantial importance to a large segment of the population.

[Tatarin]

That's very sensible. But I wonder -- how many times will communist revolution come and go?

They come either when they are necessary or when one or another group pushes for one. The general thought, I believe, is that a true revolution can only happen when the majority wants it. As for a communist revolution, well, I don't think there have ever been one. In case of Lenin's revolution, well, I agree that it was socialist (since they established a state), but not communist.


Does it move in periodic cycles?

I wouldn't say cycles, since there has been like only one "leftist" revolution. All the others, throughout the 20th century, were more like popular revolutions. I guess we will see what happens during the next global depression...


Someday, perhaps, technology shall make it as easy to duplicate material objects as it is to duplicate software, and then capitalism will be in big doo-doo.

You must know that the ruling class will never let something happen unless the people fight for it. Even if we had "replicators", those would be owned by corporations. They would create things for free, but sell them for profit. Then, of course, it would take a great amount of security to protet those...


I'm wondering just what is it that these people really want.

Another thing with capitalism is that it creates "want" (like commercials). Why do children want this or that toy? Why toy a, but not toy b? Amongst other things, commercials, entertainment and media creates false wants for people - a life in which you buy and buy, but never get it all. Why do people need 4 cars? Or a huge house with a pool?

I think this struggle is also one of thought, in that perspective. Communism moves the idea of yours and mine to the idea of our. People immediately think that communists only take, but never asks what they themselves get. Movies and music, for example, can easily be distributed to everyone through the internet. Books can too, but can also be borrowed from the library.

There is only so much time in our lives where we actually use the stuff we buy. We can't enjoy a book when we don't read it, right?


And once they understand what capitalism is doing to them, will they rise up in arms, in anger and fury?

To be aware of capitalism is one step. To want a new and better society is the next. People must want communism in order to create a communist society. Otherwise, they may very well establish another form of capitalism, or just scale the corporations and "reset" it to the beginning or something like that.


They will be wary of revolutions, as revolutions have had a chequered history of producing tyrants.

That is another question. If people want one type of society, then they will also understand how that society should look like. With the increase of technology - like the internet - people would now have a better oversight over what their leaders (if they want leaders) are doing.


Reform would seem to be more palatable to the people.

While it may be true that reform have done some useful stuff, those are just that - reforms. Scandinavia have reformed over a hundred years, and just 6 months ago they elected a right-wing coalition. Reform also depends on capitalism (if you mean welfare). If the market is going good, so does the welfare state. But there are still rich and poor people there. The rift between them is also growing there.

Reform is "capitalism with a smile".


What can be done to bring the communist ideal down to the level of the common man?

Like I said, people's awareness of capitalism and how every person is connected to it - wheter he or she likes it or not. Democracy does not equal free market.

[Janus]

Wouldn't it just be better if we simply draw shells around ourselves, hunker down, and wait until the capitalist world annihilates itself, and then rise to reclaim the world in the aftermath amidst the smouldering ruins of the previous civilisation?
Simply put, no one can guarantee when capitalism will collapse and I doubt that anyone would be so deterministic enough to accept such a line anyways. If Marx had believed that there would be no need to do anything to further the demise of capitalism, I doubt he would've actually gotten involved in the working class movement at all. The point is that we need a direction and a foundation to build a successful post-revolutionary society on and that is what a preexisting social and political movement will provide: active praxis and unity of struggle.




If this is so, then what is the purpose of trying to instigate revolution, if capitalism is ultimately doomed anyhow?
Again, that is an extreme deterministic misrepresentation of Marx who believed that the working class will need to make a "final push" against capitalism.
inevitable collapse of capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66945&hl=+capitalism++collapse)

[peaccenicked]

While it is true that humanity is at a crossroads.With Castro's Socialism or death, replaced by patriotism or death, the epoch of empire was at its height with the collapse of the USSR.
The ongoing military defeat in Iraq is the first sign of universal imperialist collapse.
This will happen not because of marxist jargon but because it is an objective reality.

We need words to describe what is going on. I believe we will be isolated more if we behave in a timid manner. Revolutions happen when the conditions are there for them.
The classic conditions are 1)the ruling class cant rule in the old way.
2)the middle or professional strata start coming over to the working class
3)The working class cant live in the old way and are willing to give their lives to change things

We aint seen nothing yet. The economic social and ecological turmoil is just a pip waiting to snowball. Castro even talks now of the internationalisation of genocide.
The struggle is for dear life itself.

US imperialism cant rule in the old way, it is over stretched, South America is talking about going to the euro, Iran is talking about it, China now dominates Africa more. Daily the lying ugly face of the western imperialism
is causing more and more anger. Meanwhile food is being linked to fuel prices.

The housing market which is propping up the deindustrialised western economies is
on a spiral downwards. The ecological crisis, the disappearance of millions of bees is causing crop failures in the US, Spain Taiwan.

Everywhere confidence is being lost in the old system.

Still we live in pre revolutionary conditions. The real truth comrades is that the people will turn to us when there is no one left to turn to.
We have to prepare to respond to the growing crisis and leave dogmas and stolid programmes behind us.

The official left is insignificant.

[xskater11x]

Good points comrade. It is true the US housing market is blamed for the overall downfall in recent closing stock prices, but overall, it would not be enough to have people turn to us. In the end, the EU may come out dominate, as it slowly seems to be gaining popularity and power, but it is no better then the US, especially if it grows more powerful then US imperialism has been in the past. Once they gain control, they will succumb to corruption and all the other problems faced by the US, except it would be larger scale, and the more troublesome.

But if it came to that point, and the EU (or possibly changed to World Union by that point) failed, I could see us being a last resort ideology, but to bring it around, we need to still attempt to educate those who are even possibly open minded to the cause we share right now, instead of waiting for the time to be right.

[peaccenicked]

Comrade, thankyou, for your acknowledgements.
The redistribution of imperial power is not a communist goal per se, but when world dominance hits the fan. We have to see how dangerous it is to the movement, look at Chile 72 etc. The end of unipolarity and the beginning of multi polarity is era changing. In my view, it sets humanity back on course for world revolution. If we have a foothold in a significant country, then we best have our enemies divided than in one large bloc governed by one military bully.
As to when to let people know, as to when to do something. Right now, is as good a time as any to let people know whats going down.
Doing a revolution when there is not the conditions is perhaps is futile. The task right now is to prepare for the coming fight.
Fight battles right now, that bring out the nature of the State we live in but our main task is to bring people towards us by showing our awareness of what is happening to them. We have to challenge old ways by going ahead with explaining new ways confidently. Our ability to do this is the greatest challenge, it depends largely on our subjective resources.
However, it is better to light one small candle than curse the darkness.

[redflag32]

I often wonder if by using the word communism or socialist are we doing ourselves any favours at all? Maybe we should come up with new phrazes for our ideas? Anyway thats besides the point, basically you either believe that capitalism is the end of history, the best man can achieve, or you believe that what comes after it can be the savour of man and earth.

If you believe capitalism is the end of history and what comes after it will be inhalation then yes,you are wasting your time being active, but if you believe, like most lefties should, that their is the possiblity of another system to come after capitalism that is more just and democratic then why should you not atleast try to spur this idea on?

Sure we have most of the world against us but i think you will find that the peoples support for capitalist parties etc.. is based on their belief that they represent their best interests, as soon as they realise this isnt true, through economic depression or some other crisis within capitalism they will realise that the only system that can represent their best interests is a system whuch includes them totally,a social system,socialism.

[peaccenicked]

I think words like socialism and communism are best used in a context, ie in a discussion between interested parties, the main thing is to expose the old ways as wasteful and unecessary, we dont necessarily need an ism to demonstrate a corrective measure.

[redflag32]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 01:56 pm
I think words like socialism and communism are best used in a context, ie in a discussion between interested parties, the main thing is to expose the old ways as wasteful and unecessary, we dont necessarily need an ism to demonstrate a corrective measure.
Yea i agree with you there mate.