Hints for socialist writers

[peaccenicked]

1) Do not explain the moral high ground, assume your audience is with you on that.
2) Try to bring new knowledge to your subject, go beyond accepted wisdoms.
3) Be as short or concise as possible.
4) Prize objectivity over subjectivity-this tends to hammer home the truth of what you are saying better than "I" statements.


More are welcome

[INDK]

Be decisive and don't ramble, but be rich and informative in information, and remember it's okay to use lots of other people's words to explain theories, as long as you commentate them and interject your own new ideas. It's also a nice thing to see writers critique and analyze other writers, even those of the Left. You can't be afraid to do that. I like especially the writing style of Noam Chomsky, rich in text-cites and new ideas furthering the theory put forward.

[Enragé]

In general, dont use the word proletariate, use working class, avoid the use of the word bourgeoisie (though less so than proletariate), use ruling class. Central in any basic critique of capitalism is the extraction of surplus value from the working class by the bourgeosie (in this sense, the economic, do use bourgeoisie), and if writing simply a critique on capitalism, be prepared to explain in detail what this exploitation is, and that it objectively IS exploitation; central in any fundamental critique of capitalism is alienation.

If you want to dazzle your professor, convince someone in academic circles, if you can, write [somewhat] like the young marx or Guy Debord (not just in argumentation but also in style), do so. If you want to write something people can understand, for fuck sake, try to stay understandable ^^ (i.e, if you read it once you'd have to get it for 99%)

If writing a piece specifically about why communism would be a good idea (or things related to it), distance yourself from the USSR etc, concisely argue why you distance yourself, then leave it behind you, let it not cast a shadow over the whole text (for example, when describing communism, how to achieve it etc, it is not necessary to continuously say, "so this is not like the USSR". Do it once, explain briefly why, get on with it).

[INDK]

In general, dont use the word proletariate, use working class, avoid the use of the word bourgeoisie (though less so than proletariate), use ruling class. Central in any basic critique of capitalism is the extraction of surplus value from the working class by the bourgeosie (in this sense, the economic, do use bourgeoisie), and if writing simply a critique on capitalism, be prepared to explain in detail what this exploitation is, and that it objectively IS exploitation; central in any fundamental critique of capitalism is alienation.

The last points are fine, but I don't see any problem using "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie", especially in intellectual text; in introductory text, you should simply explain what they are: most people would think working class is "people who work", not "those who do not posess their own means of production and must thus sell their labour-power to survive". If the purpose is to educate, well, educate.

[Wanted Man]

If writing a piece specifically about why communism would be a good idea (or things related to it), distance yourself from the USSR etc, concisely argue why you distance yourself, then leave it behind you, let it not cast a shadow over the whole text (for example, when describing communism, how to achieve it etc, it is not necessary to continuously say, "so this is not like the USSR". Do it once, explain briefly why, get on with it).

Why? I mean, even if you are a trotskyite, I still don't see the point of having to include a "disclaimer" in all your writings. If anything, if you're going to write about communism, the socialist countries' achievements (in education, housing, healthcare, social security, etc.) add examples to what would otherwise simply be utopian drivel.

[Enragé]

true, in intellectual texts bourgeois and proletariate are fine.

in response to I&A:
1. Im not a trotskyist
2. Augmented survival is not living. The actual poverty of capitalism has nothing to do with differences in income, the gap between rich and poor (which was indeed less in bureaucratic societies), that is merely something which flows out of the actual poverty of capitalism, being the exclusion of the vast majority of the power to decide, to be free, to be creative (to externalise what is within, without losing control over it, and to externalise that what is within each subject, not just the capitalist subject in the quest to make more money, to be then able to make even more), to, in effect, live. Therefore, central to any critique of capitalism is the critique of that bureaucratic part of capitalism by some still adhered to as being socialism.

As i said earlier, "Central in any basic critique of capitalism is the extraction of surplus value from the working class by the bourgeosie (in this sense, the economic, do use bourgeoisie), and if writing simply a critique on capitalism, be prepared to explain in detail what this exploitation is, and that it objectively IS exploitation; central in any fundamental critique of capitalism is alienation."

[Wanted Man]

I am flattered that you are seemingly trying to "dazzle" me, but I am not your professor. Please keep things in plain proletarian English, so that I can understand. What "academic circles" are you moving in, exactly? Their influence can't be too good, as I liked you much better when you spoke more clearly. This simply has relatively little substance.

In summary: you believe that the socialist countries actually constitute(d) "bureaucratic capitalism". Fair enough, that theory is not uncommon, and deserves the merit of being discussed. But what exactly is the reason behind this? What kind of class does the bureaucracy constitute? Why does it lack or weaken some of the characteristics of capitalism that you so clearly describe above?

That said, you do make good points. I do observe some communists who are unable to explain why the extraction of surplus value is exploitative. Without being able to understand it, it's not going to hit home with a lot of people, who simply think that the present order of things is good and logical. Also, the subject of alienation IS sorely underrepresented in most of our lecture, and should be explored more. That makes your intervention useful in the end.

[blackstone]

I personally stay clear of words such as "communism", "socialism" and "anarchy", those are loaded words in today's age.

I instead use things such as self-managed economy and society, participatory society and economy, or even post-capitalist.

I usually try to refrain from using proletariat and bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie when writing articles. I rather use working class, corporate community, upper class and ruling or power elite.

Use revealing statistics to back up claims, not to point fingers or blame the masses(ala RCP). Don't take the moral high ground.

Know your audience. If its a primer, use simple language. If it's more academic then please use sources.

[Enragé]

What "academic circles" are you moving in, exactly?

Sociological circles. But this is more due to me reading the society of the spectacle xD my apologies for that ^^
but yeh


This simply has relatively little substance.


Yes it does. Look at capitalism in western countries, and bureaucratic societies (Cuba, USSR in the past etc), what have they achieved? The only thing they have achieved is more shit, more goods, more commodities. In bureaucratic so-called socialist societies commodities were more evenly distributed. However, all this accomplishes, is "augmented survival", not living. All it accomplishes is that we have more commodities, not that we are more free, that we can act on our creative impulses, that our labour is free, it's augmented survival (the economy has progressed, human life has not). We are not any less alienated because we are in possesion of more commodities, or because commodities are more equally divide amongst the population.


What kind of class does the bureaucracy constitute?

They're a subsitute class of sorts, doing what the bourgeois class did in earlier stages of capitalism in the west. The difference between the bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie is that each bourgeois owns the means of production (or better said, a part of it), whereas each bureaucrat doesnt own anything by himself, only in relation to the collective of bureaucrats (which owns the whole of the means of production).

The only way bureaucratic societies are different is in the more equal division of commodities. Following from a basic critique, based on the gap between rich and poor (and in fact ignoring surplus extraction by the bureaucrats as did the bourgeoisie), you might say bureaucratic capitalism is "better". It is however better only quantitatively (i.e wealth is more equally distributed), but not qualitatively (i.e we're not any less alienated, not any less unfree).

Our struggle is not a struggle for survival, its a struggle for the right to live (i.e to be the master of what we create, and create what we decide we create). The central feature of a human being is that it has consciousness, that we can contemplate things that right now do not yet exist, that we can imagine situations we have never encountered before. Under capitalism, both under the bureaucratic as well as the conventional form, we cannot externalise (i.e put into reality, through making something, or altering something) what is within. The state we find the human race under in capitalism is therefore a state of unconsciousness, where all that is human in us has been destroyed, where life has been destroyed. All that remains is survival.