Classless social democracy: replacement for "communism"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/great-betrayals-dumping-t77143/index.html



"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." (Frederick Engels)



Notwithstanding my neologisms, with the demise of "social democracy" as we know it today, would it be appropriate to replace "communism" as a word describing classless society with "classless social democracy"?

Etymologically speaking, the word "communism" refers to small-scale communes and what not. Heck, the first Paris Commune itself (1789 to 1795) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune_(French_Revolution)) was probably the basis for Marx adopting the term "communism" to describe classless society.

Unfortunately, for most people, even the best rendition of "communism" represents little more than an advanced form of "socialism" (welfare capitalism), with complete or near-complete state ownership (democratic or otherwise).

The only problem with the term I have proposed is the ridiculousness of calling oneself "classless." Thoughts?

[trivas7]

Etymologically speaking, the word "communism" refers to small-scale communes and what not. Heck, the first Paris Commune itself (1789 to 1795) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune_%28French_Revolution%29) was probably the basis for Marx adopting the term "communism" to describe classless society.

In the early 19th century a host of critics and idealistic revolutionists arose in Germany, but more important was the survival or revival of Babouvism in secret French and Italian revolutionary societies, intent on overthrowing the established governments and on setting up a new, propertyless society. It was among them that the terms communism and socialism were first used.

[Tower of Bebel]

Communism is still valid. Even if Marx took it from the 'Enragés' it still means something like 'a collective society'. And I don't know why you want to use 'social democracy instead'!?! Social democracy was Germany's progressive liberalism taken over by marxism. Even proletocracy is better than 'classless socdem'. Of course communism has lost most of its attraction due to what happened to the Soviet Union, but that also counts for 'revolution' and 'revolutionary'. Maybe you want to change that to 'upside-down reformism' or something?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, "proletocracy" and "social proletocracy" do not indicate classless societies. I stress the use of those two distinct terms because "socialism" (as opposed to "communism") as a term has been muddled down to the level of corporate bailouts, and because "DOTP" doesn't sound good.

You are right about complimenting my neologisms above "classless social democracy," however. ;)



[Maybe "classless socialism" sounds better, even if it doesn't explicitly indicate any sort of democratic process. :crying: ]

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I don't know, but I do believe that the term "communism" is a sort of "taboo" term; at least in America (I'm an American); maybe a "friendlier" term might be in order.

Regardless, if I am to believe what I have read, that has been proselytized to me and what makes logical sense; wouldn't what we define as "communism" probably not occur in any of our lifetimes? So does it really matter?

TGOW

[Mala Tha Testa]

I don't know, but I do believe that the term "communism" is a sort of "taboo" term; at least in America (I'm an American);

TGOW

yes, to many people, it is.

[Random Precision]

At least people will fucking recognize the term "communism". Going on about "classless social democracy" will just make us look like a bunch of bumbling academic blowhards- which we definitely don't need more of in the movement right now.

[piet11111]

i like communism its a word people recognize and its nice and simple.

too bad collectivism can not be used

[Hyacinth]

I’m inclined to agree with the majority of comrades here in saying that the term “communism”, despite the occasional negative historical association, is, for the time being, fine. It is recognizable, and in many parts of the world still carries a positive connotation (even if it is mistakenly associated with Soviet-style state capitalism).

That being said, I don’t see any reason why communism (what JR calls “classless social democracy”) can’t be repackaged for the American market (so to speak) if it indeed carries such a negative connotation in the minds of Americans. I’ve found, often, that if one presents Marxist ideas to people who might otherwise be biased against them, but without explicitly referring to them as Marxist, they are more likely to be receptive to them. In that sense there is some virtue in repackaging Marxist ideas. Though I have issue with “classless social democracy” (even if it is descriptively accurate) insofar as it is more cumbersome than “communism”. Can’t we come up with a nice one-word expression?

[RevolutionaryKluffinator]

Communism is still completely relevant and should be used.

Do people dislike it? Yep, but, that's because they don't understand it.

"Classless social democracy" just sounds like a form of compromise to me.

[al8]

What about the word; glaff. ?

I checked in the dictionary and it still isn't being used. It is there for the taking.

[MarxSchmarx]

Though I have issue with “classless social democracy” (even if it is descriptively accurate) insofar as it is more cumbersome than “communism”. Can’t we come up with a nice one-word expression?

Is this really a problem? One word ideologies like "conservaitism" and yes "communism" have a tendency to become incredibly dogmatic. Of course, there is something to be gained from the zealotry this engenders.

But generally speaking, this strategy only makes sense if we are interested in setting up a political party that can be easily branded. That is, if campaign advertisements and the need to be readily recognized on the ballot are important, then it is important to have a succinct phrase describing our views. I rather think something vaguely useless like the "Social Justice Party", "United for Change", etc... does just fine for these kinds of objectives. Or we could come up with some catchy acronym.

Indeed, this conflates our aims with convincing a handful of impressionable zealots or a large swath of voters whose role in the struggle is limited to voting every few years even to start. I am in full agreement with JR in thinking neither of these objectives should be our priority. Hence, it makes little sense in my book to fret too much about the broader perception of what we call ourselves.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I’m inclined to agree with the majority of comrades here in saying that the term “communism”, despite the occasional negative historical association, is, for the time being, fine. It is recognizable, and in many parts of the world still carries a positive connotation (even if it is mistakenly associated with Soviet-style state capitalism).

That being said, I don’t see any reason why communism (what JR calls “classless social democracy”) can’t be repackaged for the American market (so to speak) if it indeed carries such a negative connotation in the minds of Americans. I’ve found, often, that if one presents Marxist ideas to people who might otherwise be biased against them, but without explicitly referring to them as Marxist, they are more likely to be receptive to them. In that sense there is some virtue in repackaging Marxist ideas. Though I have issue with “classless social democracy” (even if it is descriptively accurate) insofar as it is more cumbersome than “communism”. Can’t we come up with a nice one-word expression?

I just noticed:

Social-Democratic Party of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_America)

American "social democracy" is still stained by the legacy of Shachtman and his "State-Department-Socialist" ilk. :(