Is the term "communist" beyond saving (at the moment)?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Are the terms "communist" and even "socialist" beyond saving (for the present time)?



http://proletarism.com/

In the beginning, "social democracy" was coined by the founders of the German Social-Democratic Party. In spite of numerous theoretical errors, Karl Kautsky brilliantly added that the original social democracy was the "union of the labor movement and socialism."

In 1914, the "great betrayal" took place. Various "Social-Democratic" parties voted for participation in the war. In 1917, the revolutionary Marxist Vladimir "Jacob Richter" Lenin (hence my username ;) ), being disgusted at this, proposed a name changed to "Communist."

Years later, that was hijacked by the Marxist-Leninists who suppressed workers' rights in regards to independent organization (by "Marxist-Leninists," I mean "Stalinists" in Trotskyist language).

http://theredbeacon.wordpress.com/key-ideas/


Ben Seattle and Alex agree that the terms “communism,” “socialism,” and related terms like “dictatorship of the proletariat” have been completely soiled by the failures of the USSR and other “communist” regimes. While we must be able to explain what these words actually meant in context to those who ask, it is important for the Left to stop using these terms in actual practice.

The precedent for this came from Lenin in 1914. The original name for the Marxist party in Russia was “Social-Democracy.” However, in 1914, there was a split amongst the party over World War I. The act of certain party members supporting Russia’s involvement in the imperialist World War has been dubbed “The Great Betrayal of 1914.”

Lenin felt that this act had permanently soiled the name of “Social-Democracy,” and that continuing to use it would confuse the masses and turn them off. So he left the name to the reformists and imperialists, and it is now a synonymn for reformism (i.e. the belief that capitalism can be “fixed” by “saviors” within the bourgeois government). Instead, Lenin began to use the name “communism,” the term that had been used in Marx’s day.

Now, the various betrayals of Marxism in the past have soiled the terms “communism” and “socialism” in a similar fashion, and Alex and Ben believe that they should be dropped in favor of new terms. For example, the Russian Marxist party “Party of the Proletarian Dictatorship” uses the term “Proletarism.” However, they still use the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” as opposed to “workers’ rule” or the like, and it is still an “-ism.” It is likely that a new name will have to arise for the Left to be successful.

Before I proceed further, I would like to note that "socialism" is a muddled term nowadays, being publicly perceived as ranging from welfare capitalism to state monopoly capitalism to direct democracy on a social scale.

Even "communism" has become a muddled term, when considering main "Communist" parties: the liberalized "Communist" parties of the USA, Canada, and France, among others. Then there's the nationalist "Communist" party in Russia.

Now, here is my very simple solution:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rescuing-lenin-leninists-t70028/index.html


Some comrades have invented a new word with Greek and Roman origins that effectively combines "workers' democracy" without translation problems associated with the Germanic word "worker" (rabochii in Russian).

The bonus is that "social proletocracy" is superior to even the original, non-reformist "social democracy" (because of the class emphasis of the former).

I should also add that "proletocracy" is synonymous with "dictatorship of the proletariat," and that "social proletocracy" goes back to revolutionary Marxism's Erfurtian formula regarding the merger of Marxism and the workers' movement.



Thoughts?

[Prairie Fire]

Well, it's better than "Proletocracy", isn't it? (that's not even catchy.)

I realize these annoying, clumsy attempts at "Make overs" are just a rite of passage for recent-reds, but it's still no less fatiguing.




Karl Kautsky brilliantly added




that was hijacked by the Marxist-Leninists who suppressed workers' rights


:glare:.



I take it you have read some Marx, Some Engels, and some Lenin, yes?

Have you read Lenin's criticisms of "Brilliant" Kautsky?

After that, please read some Lenin, then some Stalin, and tell me of any ideological inconsistencies between Leninism and the "Marxist-Leninist hijackers".

I knwo I've heard this rant before, in almost the exact same words, but it is still no more relevant than it was then.

Communism doesn't need a PR consultant or a feel-good "Make over" it needs a party to bring it to triumph somewhere on earth.

[RNK]

First, your habit of inducing a webwork of links and references in what sometimes seems to be every post you make is becoming.. well, annoying. Perhaps it's your style; I'm just put off by having to patch together what you're trying to say from multiple sources.

Second, I do not like this trend that's being going on for years to try and "whitewash" communism. I first became aware of it through mainly anarchists and Trotskyists, who appeared all too willing to respond to the usual arguements of Stalinist "brutality" with anecdotes like "Stalin betrayed the revolution" and "that's not what we're about", which seems a defeatist position compared to actually confronting the issue from a materialist standpoint. Too often comrades try and brush the experience of the Soviet Union (and China, and Cuba, and the DPRK, and Peru, and etc) off by pandering to neoliberal beliefs and in effect trying to "tell people what they want to hear".

I think it's somewhat idealist to believe that a simple name-change will turn our tides of fortune and usher in a revival of "proletocracy".


I realize these annoying, clumsy attempts at "Make overs" are just a rite of passage for recent-reds, but it's still no less fatiguing.

Probably no more fatiguing than the "I've been on Revleft longer than you, so I'm a better revolutionary" rhetoric. :rolleyes:

[Bilan]

First, your habit of inducing a webwork of links and references in what sometimes seems to be every post you make is becoming.. well, annoying. Perhaps it's your style; I'm just put off by having to patch together what you're trying to say from multiple sources.

Personally, I like it.
But RNK, I think that's a bit petty.



Second, I do not like this trend that's being going on for years to try and "whitewash" communism. I first became aware of it through mainly anarchists and Trotskyists, who appeared all too willing to respond to the usual arguements of Stalinist "brutality" with anecdotes like "Stalin betrayed the revolution" and "that's not what we're about", which seems a defeatist position compared to actually confronting the issue from a materialist standpoint.

It's tedious that this is what this shit comes back too.
Russia.
Fucks sake, that's what is annoying.

I don't think we should abandon the term, or name, communism, but to some extent, I do think it has been largely tainted, and does scare people away (to some extent) because of Russia.
But, through education, discussion, etc. on Russia, the material conditions surrounding the revolution, what the USSR actually was and why, etc. the term becomes more appealing, and less of an issue.

This is not uncommon though, and, the fact of the matter is, that this is inescapable. We are conditioned into being afraid of not 'things', but of 'labels', of 'concepts', even if in the absence of their meaning.
Thus, whatever we call ourselves, whether Communist, anarchist, socialist, associationist, we are going to be demonized by the ruling class and the media, we are going to be related, and attached to historical figures, movements, and times, which we are similar too, or which 'they' assume us to be similar too.

In my opinion, we should not try and escape this by changing our names, etc. but by counter the propaganda, by educating the people around us, by discussing, etc.

[Prairie Fire]

Probably no more fatiguing than the "I've been on Revleft longer than you, so I'm a better revolutionary" rhetoric.

Bullshit strawman. My revolutionary content has nothing to do with how long I've been on revleft, and I never claimed that it did.

The only reason that I used the term "recent-red", is because this "Make over" movement is a symptom of people who recently got into communism ,and want to make it more appealing to capitalists. I was the same way once.

[RNK]

But RNK, I think that's a bit petty.

Maybe. And oppurtunist. Sorry Jacob.


It's tedious that this is what this shit comes back too.
Russia.
Fucks sake, that's what is annoying.

It is. What's worse is some comrades' eager devouring of unsubstantiated accounts of the Soviet experience by bourgeois intellectuals and historians. But its simple fact that much of peoples' knowledge of communism comes from the magnifying glass of western propaganda -- the Soviet Union played a huge part of history in the past 60 years, and most people alive today still hear the tales of "evil communizm" they were taught in school. It's something we do have to deal with, and it needs more attention than simply brushing our shoulders of it and trying to sweep it under the rug as "not what we're about". That is anti-materialist! *thunder*


Bullshit strawman.

OMFG WTF STRAW RAAAGH HOXHALAND!

The only reason I used the term "I've been on Revleft longer than you, so I'm a better revolutionary" (I meant to add "ahahahaha" to the end but I forgot) was because its a chauvinistic position that when anybody believes something that you at one point in the past believed in but no longer do, is because of some sort of inexperience on the part of the other. Jacob's idea is a little bit more than "omg y dont we change commniusm to sometihng else so ppl dont hate us!!!1"

[renegadoe]

Both social-democracy and vanguardism are dead.

[RNK]

Best. Arguement. Ever.

[Great Helmsman]

'Proletocracy' is a bit contrived.

There's only a problem if the Third World masses are turned off by the term 'communism'. And when that happens, we know to blame Trotskyism. But if Amerikans or other exploiter populations are frightened by 'communism', then so much the better.

[Bilan]

Great Helmsman, what a piece of shit sectarian argument.
And this sounds like that MIMite nonsense.

[RNK]

Yeah, I agree, that's both needlessly sectarian and also fucking crazy. first of all from a material standpoint, why do you want the entire population of the United States, with all the economic and military power at its command, resolved and united against communism? Second of all, where do you get off trying to incite some reverse-discrimination shit, and then continue to call yourself progressive or revolutionary? Workers in the west are exploited, and though many of them are indifferent (and largely uneducated) about the disastrous effects they take part in, they are still subject to the same control (albeit in different, more subtle forms) as the third world proletariat.

[Great Helmsman]

I'm not trying to be sectarian because I'm criticizing Trotskyism when in creeps up in non-Trotskyist organizations. But I could foresee lots of potential committed revolutionaries being turned off of communism because their 'comrades' in the imperialist world tell them they shouldn't support real national liberation and united fronts.

[Devrim]

This is a ludicrous proposal. The word 'proletocracy' isn't even in my dictionary.

In some countries in East Europe, our comrades don't put the word in big bold letters on the top of every document, but they obviously still talk about it.

In some countries like ours communism still has a positive image.

Devrim

[RNK]

First of all, that is not strictly a Trotskyist tendency (infact I know many Trotskyists who oppose this view and many non-Trotskyists who support it). Secondly, you were not voicing materialistic criticism of Trotskyism, you flatly said Trotskyism would be at fault if the third world rejected communism.

[RNK]

The word 'proletocracy' isn't even in my dictionary.


Well that's not all that good a reason to reject the proposal. Though I agree; the word communism does not have nearly the same moral baggage associated with it in the third world as it does the first. I suppose the white-washing tendency I raised earlier can be identified as a mainly western phenomenon. Hell, in some places, communism, the hammer & sickle, and all that goodly iconism is astonishingly popular.

[Bilan]

I'm not trying to be sectarian because I'm criticizing Trotskyism when in creeps up in non-Trotskyist organizations. But I could foresee lots of potential committed revolutionaries being turned off of communism because their 'comrades' in the imperialist world tell them they shouldn't support real national liberation and united fronts.

This is a completely baseless assertion, not to mention absurd.
First of all, national liberation movements are not something we should be really be supporting, anyway. (And I find it ironic a Marxist would hold this position).
Communists, and all revolutionary class struggle tendencies, want class war and the emancipation of the proletariat, not of a particular 'nation'.

So, turning people away from national liberation movements isn't necessarily
a/ a bad thing
b/ a result of Trotskyism.

You are simply being sectarian. Nothing more.

[Devrim]

But I could foresee lots of potential committed revolutionaries being turned off of communism because their 'comrades' in the imperialist world tell them they shouldn't support real national liberation and united fronts.

Please, tell us where you live.

Devrim

[Great Helmsman]

Yeah, I agree, that's both needlessly sectarian and also fucking crazy. first of all from a material standpoint, why do you want the entire population of the United States, with all the economic and military power at its command, resolved and united against communism? Second of all, where do you get off trying to incite some reverse-discrimination shit, and then continue to call yourself progressive or revolutionary? Workers in the west are exploited, and though many of them are indifferent (and largely uneducated) about the disastrous effects they take part in, they are still subject to the same control (albeit in different, more subtle forms) as the third world proletariat.
It's good to look for splits in the imperialist camp, but I doubt the U$ would devote anything less than its full might to preventing a revolution anyway. Western workers aren't exploited in the strictest marxist sense, but maybe they will turn revolutionary if conditions change.

[Devrim]

Trotskyists support national liberation.

Devrim

[Great Helmsman]

"First of all, that is not strictly a Trotskyist tendency (infact I know many Trotskyists who oppose this view and many non-Trotskyists who support it). Secondly, you were not voicing materialistic criticism of Trotskyism, you flatly said Trotskyism would be at fault if the third world rejected communism."
I should have been more careful by saying the difference lies in the way both mistakenly ignore the truth of the labour aristocracy.

"This is a completely baseless assertion, not to mention absurd.
First of all, national liberation movements are not something we should be really be supporting, anyway. (And I find it ironic a Marxist would hold this position).
Communists, and all revolutionary class struggle tendencies, want class war and the emancipation of the proletariat, not of a particular 'nation'.

So, turning people away from national liberation movements isn't necessarily
a/ a bad thing
b/ a result of Trotskyism.

You are simply being sectarian. Nothing more."
It's important to support national liberation because of the blows it strikes against imperialism. National liberation in the broader context is class struggle because in many cases even the TW petty-bourgeoisie class has common cause with the workers.

"Please, tell us where you live.

Devrim"
What's the difference, isn't it true anywhere in the world?

[Devrim]

Please, tell us where you live.
What's the difference, isn't it true anywhere in the world?

I presume that that means North America. I was just pointing out the irony of this statement:


But I could foresee lots of potential committed revolutionaries being turned off of communism because their 'comrades' in the imperialist world tell them they shouldn't support real national liberation and united fronts.

In actual fact, particularly with the Maoists on RevLeft it tends to be those in the 'First World' arguing for support for national liberation, generally against opposition from people who live somewhat closer to the events.

Devrim

[Raúl Duke]

I've heard of "Revolutionary Workerism" as a suggestion in the past...

I think there's a member who into that suggestion.

Although to me it sounds odd. :p

[Bilan]

It's important to support national liberation because of the blows it strikes against imperialism. National liberation in the broader context is class struggle because in many cases even the TW petty-bourgeoisie class has common cause with the workers.


The petty bourgeois having common cause with the working class does not constitute class struggle.
National liberation movements strike blows at Imperialism the same way throwing a bomb into parliament sparks the revolution.

Organizing along the lines of nation allies the workers with the bourgeoisie, and is contradiction to the class struggle.
Realistically, the working class have nothing in common: they're in total and complete opposition to each other.
This is not the case in national liberation struggles.

[RNK]

In actual fact, particularly with the Maoists on RevLeft it tends to be those in the 'First World' arguing for support for national liberation, generally against opposition from people who live somewhat closer to the events.

There's no accounting for some special "insight" based on geographical location. Those closer to the third world who reject national liberation movements against imperialism tend to be reactionary, anyway.

[RNK]

The petty bourgeois having common cause with the working class does not constitute class struggle.

Actually, it kinda does. Imperialism inflicts upon a society many of the same afflictions as fuedalism; it is a great regressive force upon the social and economic development of a country. It is, therefore, in the worker's best interests (as well as the national bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie) to unite to oppose imperialism just as it is in their best interest to unite against fuedalism. This does not constitute any kind of contradiction to class struggle; it is infact a product of it, as it is in the worker's best interests to first destroy the hugely regressive external force of imperialism, and then target their bourgeoisie.

Unless you're surmising that Israel or the United States would allow a worker's revolution in Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Bilan]

Unless you're surmising that Israel or the United States would allow a worker's revolution in Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan.

I don't think they'd really allow them to succeed from, or push out the imperialists either?

[Bilan]

Could an admin/mod split this thread?

[RNK]

I'm not sure if I understand the wording of your question correctly, but I'm assuming you mean that imperialism would likewise fight in its own defense as well as the defense of the bourgeoisie (if a worker movement so threatened them, which it does in most cases). Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that a worker's revolution is impossible when a population is currently being oppressed by the much more powerful force of imperialism, unless it first confronts directly and defeats that imperialism.

[Bilan]

Oh, sorry.
What I meant was, I don't think that the Imperialist nations would 'allow' smaller nations to be totally independent without violent struggle; and even the only way to get them out, much like the bourgeoisie, is by force.
Essentially, what I'm saying is that, Imperialists aren't going to allow either, but perhaps, are more likely to allow 'independence' rather socialism.

[Devrim]

There's no accounting for some special "insight" based on geographical location. Those closer to the third world who reject national liberation movements against imperialism tend to be reactionary, anyway.

No, there isn't. It was, however a Maoist who raised the point about location. For you communists who oppose national liberation are 'reactionary'. To us all organisations that support it are bourgeois.

Devrim

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Communism is not beyond saving, but I've never found it condusive to a good discussion. You have to do all that work explaining that no, Kim Jong Il isn't a communist, we don't want to go back to gulags and purges and so on, and it's really fucking tedious.

I've had some success with "direct democrat" but that's kind of abstract and not really the full story.

"Planned economist" is my personal favourite, or just saying you believe in workers' democracy, or public ownership.

-Alex

[Die Neue Zeit]

Bullshit strawman. My revolutionary content has nothing to do with how long I've been on revleft, and I never claimed that it did.

The only reason that I used the term "recent-red", is because this "Make over" movement is a symptom of people who recently got into communism ,and want to make it more appealing to capitalists. I was the same way once.

Why would this name change be more appealing to CAPITALISTS? :glare:

Tell me: why did the revolutionary Marxist Lenin disavow "social democracy" and adopted the name "communist" for the RSDLP(B), if not for the reasons outlined above?



BTW, a "recent-red" isn't one who has been a communist for 10 years and counting. :p


I've heard of "Revolutionary Workerism" as a suggestion in the past...

I think there's a member who into that suggestion.

Although to me it sounds odd. :p

"Workerism" has translation problems due to its Germanic origins. In Russian, it would translate into some variant of rabochii, while the Greek and Latin "proletocracy" would translate into proletokratsiya (a new word, but it's a good addition).

[Winter]

I think Jacob Richter brings up a very interesting topic. I mean, how will we win the masses if we continue using the term Communism. The media and politcians have demonized the term a great deal. Explaining what we really stand for to the average worker is great, until we say "Oh, by the way, this is called Communism."

The fact of the matter is that certain words bring particular frames into the human mind. Just as if I were to say "dog" an image of a dog will appear in ones mind. The word Communism brings forth images of dictatorial police state where everyone stands in line for a loaf of bread. Nobody wants that! We may have been enlightened by the truth, but the masses have not.

IF we were to continue using the term communism, the next question would be: How do we make sure the right frames ( images ) appear in the mind of the common worker?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Rhetorical question: How come the word "Marxist" isn't attacked by the media as much as "Communist"? Lenin, not Marx, was the "founder" of "Communism." I remember a right-wing newspaper commentary on Stalin many years ago (National Post, Ravenblade and RNK) that explicitly distinguished between Marxism, "Communism," and bourgeois notions of Stalinism.]


Both social-democracy and vanguardism are dead.

In regards to the former, do you mean just mere semantics (because "democracy," unlike "proletocracy," doesn't imply the rule of any particular class), or do you reject the merger formula that is the one of the foundations of revolutionary Marxism? :glare:

democracy to lose its revolutionary character in order to accommodate "petit-bourgeois socialism" and a whole host of anti-Marxist BS.]

As for "vanguardism," you really need to brush up on the history and dynamics of revolutionary Marxism. :glare:

[Somebody let you in, but it looks like I'll have to keep a VERY close eye on you. :( ]

[RNK]

I mean, how will we win the masses if we continue using the term Communism.

How will we win the masses if they don't even know who we are, because everytime something remotely wrong occurs, we frollick around and dash away from it and try to hide from it as if it never existed?


IF we were to continue using the term communism, the next question would be: How do we make sure the right frames ( images ) appear in the mind of the common worker?

Don't get me wrong, i fully understand the challenge the name poses. But we can't be afraid of challenges, particularly when those challenges are anti-materialistic and can be scientifically confronted. We can't just pretend Stalin was never born -- whatever we call ourselves we will have to confront and analyse and dissect that problem, and we ought to damned well get to it.

In any case, I've had particularly good success when confronted about communism, Stalinism and Maoism, with people whom I work or associate with. Sometimes it helps to appeal to their neoliberal heart strings; a favorite line of mine is "Did you know that after the Chinese revolution, Mao argued against banning political parties, and that political parties were infact not banned until Mao was ousted by China's current deeply corrupted and state capitalist regime?" Of course, this only plays into the fallacy that the existence of political parties is the pinnacle of "freedom", but it usually ignites a little spark, and opens the way to interest and further discussion.

If anything, I'd refer to myself as a Marxist-Leninist or Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, though I'm usually not shy about admitting that I'm a "flaming commie".

[Die Neue Zeit]

By your definition, Lenin "frollicked around and dashed away from [Social Democracy] and tried to hide from it as if it never existed." :glare:


Don't get me wrong, i fully understand the challenge the name poses. But we can't be afraid of challenges, particularly when those challenges are anti-materialistic and can be scientifically confronted.

So Lenin was a coward for the renaming, then?

[RNK]

This is true, however, Lenin's reaction to the Social Democrats was as much a reaction to the liberalization of the SD's as it was the degrading legitimacy of the name. In short, Lenin had material reasons for rejecting social democracy on theoretical lines; what you're surmising is abandoning the word "communism" simply because people have been taught not to like it. That's an important difference, I think.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ There are theoretical and material reasons behind my reasoning, too. :(

The liberalization of the SDs? What about the "vote Democratic" CPUSA, the Communist Party of Canada (alas, there's no revolutionary Marxist organization for me to join, hence my proposal for a Cascadian "social-proletocratic" organization in Chit-Chat), the PCF (France), and the nationalist CPRF (Russia)? :glare:

Then there's the one in Cyprus, the one in Moldova, etc.

[All of them having one thing in common: they're the MAIN "Communist" parties.]

Plus, the word "communist" does NOT reflect that all-important revolutionary concept of the merger of Marxism and the workers' movement.

[RNK]

If you made the proposal on the basis of liberalism of communism then I might agree, because liberalism is an actual issue that threatens communism (though the adjective revolutionary added to a name usually fixes that problem -- but we're in deep shit if reformists start adopting the revolutionary name..).

Opinions of Stalinism and Maoism on the other hand are largely bloated propaganda and the stated reason for wanting to change the name communism comes from misconcieved notions about it, not its actual aspects.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Thank you for your corrective note regarding liberalization. I have added an extra paragraph to my original post to reflect your input.

However, you have not considered my final point: the "Kautskyite" necessity to merge Marxism with the workers' movement.

[RNK]

To me, personally, Marxism is already merged with the workers' movement (it's just that nobody realizes it yet, not workers nor Marxists!). The majority of us on this site are workers (or working-class students). The majority of communist activists are workers in the proletarian sense. I consider communists to be nothing more than ideologically advanced (ie conscious) workers, and efforts undertaken by them nothing more than the efforts of (advanced sections of) the working class.

But maybe you mean something different? Elaborate?

[Vanguard1917]

proletocracy


In my opinion, that's a very bad suggestion. Marxism is not workerism, and the end goal of Marxism is to abolish all classes, including the proletariat.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To me, personally, Marxism is already merged with the workers' movement (it's just that nobody realizes it yet, not workers nor Marxists!). The majority of us on this site are workers (or working-class students). The majority of communist activists are workers in the proletarian sense. I consider communists to be nothing more than ideologically advanced (ie conscious) workers, and efforts undertaken by them nothing more than the efforts of (advanced sections of) the working class.

But maybe you mean something different? Elaborate?

I think that, like Kautsky, I do mean something different. I THINK I'm referring to broad support of Marxism by the workers' movement and active self-organization by huge elements of the working class (by then already fighting for reformist demands, if not those plus revolutionary demands), as well as more effective revolutionary-Marxist organization surrounding issues pertaining to minimum and reformist demands (in addition to by-then-already-effective revolutionary-Marxist organization surrounding revolutionary demands).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/minimum-and-maximum-t71845/index.html

[Please let me know if you can't see the thread material above. :( ]

[mario_buda]

It can not be salvaged so long as authoritarianism remains associated with it. Rather than an end to capital, state socialism represents the left wing of capital. A new class of people will rise above the proletariat in its apparent interests and become its saviour. No wonder no one takes "communism" seriously. No one wants to join the game you call revolution. It's laughable. It's miserable. It's transparent to anyone but you.

People are very rightly suspicious of "communism" because authoritarian communism presents a false difference between differing authoritarianisms. The only difference is that authoritarian communists claim they speak for the working class and other authoritarians do not have these naive negative illusions, but find other rhetoric to justify their state worship.

What always purplexs me is how anyone can claim competing with capitalism in its repression and domination will or ever could be liberatory?

[RNK]

Wow, not sleeping for a long time is not helpful...

Basically, it sounds like a rather optimistic idea on co-operation between revolutionary, reformist, etc elements in the working class.

This sort of thing has always appealed to me, but the practical idea is usually met with stubborn-headedness and I am unsure of its viability.

It would be nice to see what I've called a "multi-pronged assault", a sort of idealist dream where all the different revolutionary and progressive tendencies come to accept that each has a part to play.

The main issue is the inherent hostility between communists. The reformists are adamant in their view that those who reject parliamentarism are far-left loonies with violence fetishes; the more radical leftists are adamant in their view that the reformists are idealistic wussies fighting a battle they'll never win.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Not at all. I am well aware of the genuine reformists' (not the faux petit-bourgeois ones like LSD and his "social-democratic" ilk) historical inability to stand their ground and actually fight for their own reformist demands. They'll fight for the minimum, but tons of them will waver for reform, and all that are left will crumble in the face of revolution.

[MarxSchmarx]

So sorry I'm butting in so late, but why the obsession with labels?

Why can't we just say "we believe in XYZ and want to do ABC to get there"?

If you must name your group or yourself, you'd get further among the general public, at least in the English speak world, with "Friends of Global Progress" than the "Workers and Peasants and Students Revolutionary Communist Party" even if that is what you are.

Among the general public, it strikes me as pretentious grandstanding to call yourself a "Anarcho-Marxo-Whatever Communist".

And among the likes that visit this forum, no name change is necessary.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So sorry I'm butting in so late, but why the obsession with labels?

Why can't we just say "we believe in XYZ and want to do ABC to get there"?

Why don't you ask the dead corpse of Lenin? :confused:


If you must name your group or yourself, you'd get further among the general public, at least in the English speak world, with "Friends of Global Progress" than the "Workers and Peasants and Students Revolutionary Communist Party" even if that is what you are.

Did you take into consideration Gramsci's notion of cultural hegemony? A "name change" could be part of an overall counter-hegemonic strategy.

[MarxSchmarx]

Did you take into consideration Gramsci's notion of cultural hegemony? A "name change" could be part of an overall counter-hegemonic strategy.

Admittedly I did not.

Would the idea here be that a name change would affect our self-identification, not just how we appear to others?


It seems to me any "counter-hegemonic strategy" would require many heterogenous different tendencies. On some level, the Hoxhaists would have to make common cause with the anarcho-syndicalists, not to mention the Maoists. Finding an umbrella term to call everyone beyond maybe the "left" seems to me like herding cats, given our history. It might be best to let sleeping dogs lie.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry for not noticing the above post. :(


Would the idea here be that a name change would affect our self-identification, not just how we appear to others?

Had I replied to your post sooner, I would have said it was just how we appear to others (the stigma of "dictatorship" versus the non-stigma of "-cracy").

However, time has passed. It would affect our self-identification, too. The "social-proletocratic" label is a blatant acknowledgement that ordinary Marxism - which is apart from the workers' movement and prone to reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism - must be merged with the latter (http://www.revleft.com/vb/merge-marxism-workers-t70141/index.html) as part of the process which will make it revolutionary (free from reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/internal-challenges-revolutionary-t70556/index.html)).



P.S - "Social Democracy" was a flawed attempt at such acknowledgement, because the merger was between petit-bourgeois interpretations of Marxism and the broader popular "movement" (workers, petit-bourgeois elements, managers, etc.).

[Sendo]

I have no problem using the label communism as long as I've told someone just once that Stalinist totalitarianism is not Communism. I find such little familiarity with communist history among today's people is that I rarely if ever hear Communism will always degenerate from Lenin to Stalin. I have mixed feelings on Lenin, and certainly never advocate using his writings like some ritual guide or Bible. I usually just get aversions to Stalinism (which can be quickly handled and aren't as common as they used to be) or the argument that socialism/communism never works. I have noticed a quick decline as a child in post-Cold War America of association of communism with a dark ages-esque Russia. Also it's no longer illegal in the USA so I'm not sure why Trotskyists at the ISO always use "socialism" in its place. Today's Americans can't discern the difference.

The second of those counter-arguments is by far the harder to overcome. I hear more association of Communism with abysmal failure than with gulags. FoxNews still champions Reagan-era Red Scares, but in my area I don't get that. My battles seem more to be in showing how socialism brings about hidden benefits in contrast to capitalism's hidden costs and bringing up examples of successful practices of socialism. I usually cite Paris Commune, Amerindians (non-Aztec empire), and Catalonia. Also the October Revolution (though I'm not a fan of the Bolsheviki super centralism), because it provides a great example of revolution that was quick and painless. All of these examples were crushed by outside militaries meddling.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"I do not consider the term ‘communism’ suitable for general use today; rather it should be reserved for cases in which a more exact description is required and even then it would call for an explanatory note having virtually fallen out of use for the past thirty years."

Engels to Karl Kautsky, 13 February 1894 (Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 50, p. 269)

[Enragé]

A term is never beyond saving, unless we adhere to the terms imposed on us by the system. Concepts are concepts are concepts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ So why are no revolutionary Marxist groups calling themselves "Revolutionary Social Democrats," then?

"I do not consider the term ‘communism’ suitable for general use today; rather it should be reserved for cases in which a more exact description is required and even then it would call for an explanatory note having virtually fallen out of use for the past thirty years."

Engels to Karl Kautsky, 13 February 1894 (Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 50, p. 269)

[P.S. - I also qualified my original question: at the moment. Perhaps "revolutionary social democracy" can come back, but only as social proletocracy (my sig). :) ]

[Enragé]

because no three people have had the idea under the current circumstances to form such a group. Probably because of the connotations, and the effect it would have with people (put simply "WTF?! o0")

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You really should accept PMs and post in our user group, you know. ;)

[Enragé]

^^^ You really should accept PMs and post in our user group, you know. ;)

You last visited: 30th March 2008 at 23:03
Private Messages: Unread 0, Total 453

errr?

And like, i will, point is, it's all so much reading good ol' Lenin. Nothing against lenin, it's just... old.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You obviously haven't read the actual threads there besides the titles. :(

There's stuff on Luxemburg, Connolly, Bordiga, AND KAUTSKY.

"I do not consider the term ‘communism’ suitable for general use today; rather it should be reserved for cases in which a more exact description is required and even then it would call for an explanatory note having virtually fallen out of use for the past thirty years."

Engels to Karl Kautsky, 13 February 1894 (Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 50, p. 269)

[Enragé]

There's stuff on Luxemburg, Connolly, Bordiga, AND KAUTSKY.

the same applies which applies to Lenin. Yea, im a n00b, i hate long blocks of texts written by people long dead. I'll get to reading it, i hope, if i have time/am bored of typing stuff like this, and then i'll give my 0,5 cents ^^ [hopefully tomorrow, if i didnt find a place to get drunk/stoned/laid]

[Q]

Are the terms "communist" and even "socialist" beyond saving (for the present time)?



http://proletarism.com/

In the beginning, "social democracy" was coined by the founders of the German Social-Democratic Party. In spite of numerous theoretical errors, Karl Kautsky brilliantly added that the original social democracy was the "union of the labor movement and socialism."

In 1914, the "great betrayal" took place. Various "Social-Democratic" parties voted for participation in the war. In 1917, the revolutionary Marxist Vladimir "Jacob Richter" Lenin (hence my username ;) ), being disgusted at this, proposed a name changed to "Communist."

Years later, that was hijacked by the Marxist-Leninists who suppressed workers' rights in regards to independent organization (by "Marxist-Leninists," I mean "Stalinists" in Trotskyist language).

http://theredbeacon.wordpress.com/key-ideas/



Before I proceed further, I would like to note that "socialism" is a muddled term nowadays, being publicly perceived as ranging from welfare capitalism to state monopoly capitalism to direct democracy on a social scale.

Even "communism" has become a muddled term, when considering main "Communist" parties: the liberalized "Communist" parties of the USA, Canada, and France, among others. Then there's the nationalist "Communist" party in Russia.

Now, here is my very simple solution:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rescuing-lenin-leninists-t70028/index.html



I should also add that "proletocracy" is synonymous with "dictatorship of the proletariat," and that "social proletocracy" goes back to revolutionary Marxism's Erfurtian formula regarding the merger of Marxism and the workers' movement.



Thoughts?
While there where big differences between the social-democracy and the socialists (they grew in fact to two different political streams) proved to be incompatible, the difference between communism and "proletocracy" is a mere "toying with words" that only adds to the confusion. Let's bring clarity about where we stand by explanation, not by inventing new terms.

That is not to say that I'm opposed to any new term. "Workers democracy" is indeed a more modern and common term than "dictatorship of the proletariat". But I don't see "proletorcracy" getting any popularity among the masses, as it is hardly a selfexplaining term, so you still need to explain where you stand. And while we're explaining, why not use "socialism" and "communism" then anyway?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^

"I do not consider the term ‘communism’ suitable for general use today; rather it should be reserved for cases in which a more exact description is required and even then it would call for an explanatory note having virtually fallen out of use for the past thirty years."

Engels to Karl Kautsky, 13 February 1894 (Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 50, p. 269)



In the case of "socialism," there are too many meanings associated with that word nowadays, anything ranging from corporate bailouts ("socialism for the rich/Big Business, capitalism for everyone else") to more typical welfare capitalism to reformist socialism. Our "socialism" (both Marxist political socialism and the socialist mode of production itself) is in the margins.

The term "communism" will remain in the foreseeable future impaired by the "Marxist-Leninist" (read: Stalinist) legacy. [Board Hoxhaists should be ashamed of "Comrade" Stalin's realpolitik.]

The term "workers' democracy" for some reason doesn't imply enough of our political socialism. :( This is also the reason why I'm opposed to using the word "proletocracy" by itself except when referring to the DOTP or as an adjective (like proletocratic centralism), hence social proletocracy.

Not enough implication = not enough acknowledgement of Kautsky's merger formula

[redstar2000]

Yes it might be. What we see is a single word that convey to people what we really want. ANd that the problem with new words based on proletariat is that the word is not in common usage in North America and that includes Canada.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Like I said earlier, the Germanic word "worker" has international translation problems. In Russian, it's rabochii (whereas the Russian word for "proletocracy" would probably be something like "proletocratsiya"). Nevertheless, you do have a point there in regards to exposure in the US and Canada.

I wrote a chapter-section just now: United Social Labour (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html). My proposal is a two-stage process.