communism/socialism for the masses

[danyboy27]

how communism/socialism could be sold to the masses.

and when i say that, dont think like a intellectual,think like a publicist, how the next door dumbass would be attracted to communism ideology/principle.

what are the key element that could be used to sell it to the masses.

[dez]

Its questionable if it should be used but people here can get deep in communist theory due to a class prejudice background, that eventually becomes class consciousness.

[Bud Struggle]

- Free health-care
- Free education
- Free pregnancy welfare
- Less working hoursAll available now, if you are on welfare.



- Higher pay (under socialism... for the majority at least) That's pretty debatable. In Communist countries (or countries that were Socialist) pay was only a fraction of what it was in Capitalist countries.


- Less emphasis on quantity, more on quality (so we don't have people dying in the work-place trying to get the last order in)
- More control over the management of your occupation

And of course, a sense of community comradeship.

OK, fine. But are you going to overthrow the entire social order in the chance that you may make a new friend? I don't know if there is anything there that's well, Revolutionary.

[Killfacer]

they are some pretty wild claims your making there Redhand.

[JimmyJazz]

how communism/socialism could be sold to the masses.

and when i say that, dont think like a intellectual,think like a publicist, how the next door dumbass would be attracted to communism ideology/principle.

what are the key element that could be used to sell it to the masses.

Call it "democracy". Because it is.

Eventually the ruling class will run out of radical words to appropriate. :p

[Plagueround]

All available now, if you are on welfare.

And in the USA, not available if you're above the line for those benefits, but below the line to where you can actually afford them. If you ever wonder why some people remain on welfare for so long, its because there isn't much else incentive to join the workforce.



That's pretty debatable. In Communist countries (or countries that were Socialist) pay was only a fraction of what it was in Capitalist countries.Here's something I always wondered, ignoring the model of previous attempts at socialism (since you encourage everyone to look toward the future), perhaps as a business owner you can shed some light on this. Do you feel there is any reason to pay someone under what they would need to live on? The average "living wage" here is much, much higher than someone on minimum wage could make to provide for a family. Do you pay everyone a living wage? If you don't, what is the reasoning behind this?


OK, fine. But are you going to overthrow the entire social order in the chance that you may make a new friend? I don't know if there is anything there that's well, Revolutionary.Revolution or not, people could stand to be nicer to each other, and business could definitely benefit by not working people ragged and letting them have more control over most occupations. Obviously you agree somewhat with your Soviet experiment.

Oh, also to clarify, I don't think you're a bad guy and I'm not trying to paint you as the big bad business owner. Just asking some questions.;)

[Bud Struggle]

Personally I believes that Communists need to hire this guy and have him make infomercials for you:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v710/richswerb/klee_irwin.jpg

:lol::lol::lol:

[Dust Bunnies]

I <3 you TomK always so humourous.

[Bud Struggle]

I <3 you TomK always so humourous.

I try to make Capitalism as seductive as possible. :)

You a Catholic? Me, too. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this whole Commie thing--the equality and fairness of Communism is the reason I'm here.

I can't quite make it all jive, the rabid materialism and the rigid belief structure vs, the strict moral code and the strict belief structure.--(Being a Catholic and a Communist at the same time--now THAT'S a lot of RULES TO FOLLOW.:lol:)

Post some thoughts--I'd enjoy hearing from you.

[Edit] I see you are in the same fraternity as Dros--now that is interesting!

Tom

[Dust Bunnies]

I'm in a fraternity with a Leninist?

[Bud Struggle]

I'm in a fraternity with a Leninist?

Nope, I saw your screen name and I thought "Avakian." Sorry about that.:blushing::crying:

[Dust Bunnies]

Lol, I <3 you Tom.

My rl name is Tom.

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry Plague, I'm too busy telling jokes to reply to a real question! :rolleyes:
And in the USA, not available if you're above the line for those benefits, but below the line to where you can actually afford them. If you ever wonder why some people remain on welfare for so long, its because there isn't much else incentive to join the workforce. True, but that's just a quirk in the system that needs to be changed and such thing's aren't easy to do. But it doesn't mean the whole syustem's bad--it's just has kinks in it.



Here's something I always wondered, ignoring the model of previous attempts at socialism (since you encourage everyone to look toward the future), perhaps as a business owner you can shed some light on this. Do you feel there is any reason to pay someone under what they would need to live on? The average "living wage" here is much, much higher than someone on minimum wage could make to provide for a family. Do you pay everyone a living wage? If you don't, what is the reasoning behind this? There's two issues here. The first assumes that the business owner has some business in how his employee conducts his life. In America at least--that has nothing to do with the employer. He offers a wage for a certain job. The employee is free to accept of reject the job. It's the employee's responsibility to make sure he gets enough to live on--not the employer. The employee is a free contractor that has a duty to himself to educate and train himself to the best of his ability to make the most amount of money for himself that he can.If the employee hasn't made himself marketable to an employer for higher wages than he just has to accept what is offered.

The second issue is SHOULD the employer be responsible to see that his employee gets a living wage--and the answer is yes, if he wants to be a good business man. The best employee (and I truly believe this) is the one that is content with his job and his wage. But in order to be content he has to KNOW how to make money for his company so his company can give him a better wage. And the employer has to teach that to the employee. In the best situation the employer and the employee work hand in hand to make the employee more profitable to his companty and to himself. It's a win win situation.


Revolution or not, people could stand to be nicer to each other, and business could definitely benefit by not working people ragged and letting them have more control over most occupations. Obviously you agree somewhat with your Soviet experiment. I do if for two reasons 1. I'm a Catholic and I follow the Catholic's Church's teachings on the respect and dignaty that is due to a working person. My father worked in a factory all his life and I saw that good and the bad of how a business treats employees. And 2. I'm a good businessman and I make more money (as do my employees) if they are happy and earning a good wage with the possibility of earning even more through self determination. Easy as that.



Oh, also to clarify, I don't think you're a bad guy and I'm not trying to paint you as the big bad business owner. Just asking some questions.;) No problem, happy to explain. I think there's a lot of good stuff you Communists are doing but frankly it gets lost in all this talk about Stalin and Marx and Dialetics the Revolution. Personally, I don't have the time or the patience to wait around for some Revolution to change the world around. I do what I have always done in life--I change things that I want changed the way I want them changed.

And I don't do stuff in isolation. There are other business men watching what I am doing with a lot of interest. So we'll see. :)

[danyboy27]

There are other business men watching what I am doing with a lot of interest. So we'll see. :)

THAT what i call marketing of the revolution.

i am sure it have much more impact than a bunch of teenager waving the red flag during as manifestation.
even if its not communism, he Tomk repeat to his buisness friend what he doing is somehow communism, and other buisnessman make the link between the word communism and prosperity, its gonna roll.

even if its not real communism it dosnt matter much, what matter is that the whole principle of commmunism in that case gain reputation and prestige.

[Dust Bunnies]

THAT what i call marketing of the revolution.

i am sure it have much more impact than a bunch of teenager waving the red flag during as manifestation.
even if its not communism, he Tomk repeat to his buisness friend what he doing is somehow communism, and other buisnessman make the link between the word communism and prosperity, its gonna roll.

even if its not real communism it dosnt matter much, what matter is that the whole principle of commmunism in that case gain reputation and prestige.

Genius!

[danyboy27]

Linux for exemple, that another good exemple of potential marketing for communism /socialism.

with time linux moved from a awkward console basded shit to a user friendly application!

at first, people adopt those tools to save money, but then they start to realize its cool to beat the system, its cheap, work well, better than the one runned by the corporation.

this kind of shit work man, we only need to be more inventive, use the market society to spread the word.

we never be able to confront that society, better use its own tool to change it: marketing, publicity etc.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You could always advertise that people who hate communism should stop breathing our communal air. :)

[Plagueround]

Sorry Plague, I'm too busy telling jokes to reply to a real question! :rolleyes: True, but that's just a quirk in the system that needs to be changed and such thing's aren't easy to do. But it doesn't mean the whole syustem's bad--it's just has kinks in it.

Unfortunately, I don't know that the capitalist system wants to change that badly, beyond the small concessions occasionally made to appease the people...FDR said as much.
I would like to believe that we could make capitalism play nice, for a long time that was what I believed in (I was so into Obama a while back I watched the campaign trail daily). If I saw any evidence that the system was all of the sudden going to stop its imperialist conquests, stop placing profits above the welfare of its people, and stop letting people die of diseases that have available cures, I might believe in it again. But that is about as likely as the fetishizied (is that a word?) "march on the streets with AK-47s revolution" some people are convinced is the only reality in our future.



There's two issues here. The first assumes that the business owner has some business in how his employee conducts his life. In America at least--that has nothing to do with the employer. He offers a wage for a certain job. The employee is free to accept of reject the job. It's the employee's responsibility to make sure he gets enough to live on--not the employer. The employee is a free contractor that has a duty to himself to educate and train himself to the best of his ability to make the most amount of money for himself that he can.If the employee hasn't made himself marketable to an employer for higher wages than he just has to accept what is offered.

The second issue is SHOULD the employer be responsible to see that his employee gets a living wage--and the answer is yes, if he wants to be a good business man. The best employee (and I truly believe this) is the one that is content with his job and his wage. But in order to be content he has to KNOW how to make money for his company so his company can give him a better wage. And the employer has to teach that to the employee. In the best situation the employer and the employee work hand in hand to make the employee more profitable to his companty and to himself. It's a win win situation.The glaring flaw I see in this win win situation is that many employers simply don't value their employees that much. If they can find a way to pay people less, eliminate positions, or automate jobs previously done by humans, a lot of them will (and have). Look at the number of jobs in America people put their lives into and invested their futures in, only to have them shipped to other countries when companies figured out how much they could save by paying someone overseas less. (Please note I don't blame said people, they need jobs too.) Those people played the game right, they were a valuable asset, yet when the bosses figured out how to make things cheaper they were tossed out. Look what those practices have done to entire towns like Flint, Michigan. (I'm not a Michael Moore sockpuppet I swear...its a good example. :laugh:)

Besides those examples, using an extreme example, look at the average McDonald's. Unless you're a store manager, none of those people make enough to adequately provide for a family. Yet for many, those are literally the only jobs they can manage to get. Should we deny these people the opportunity to better themselves? Many of them don't have the means to pay for schooling or qualify for student loans, they don't have the opportunity to make themselves "more attractive" to employers that pay more. Should we simply throw these people under the bus and let them remain in that job? Should we look down on them and label them lazy and unproductive, even though they're feeding millions of people everyday who don't feel like cooking? Even if you don't agree with the idea that employees "owning the means of production" is the way to equality, I don't see how anyone can justify letting people live in poverty while working.



I do if for two reasons 1. I'm a Catholic and I follow the Catholic's Church's teachings on the respect and dignaty that is due to a working person. My father worked in a factory all his life and I saw that good and the bad of how a business treats employees. And 2. I'm a good businessman and I make more money (as do my employees) if they are happy and earning a good wage with the possibility of earning even more through self determination. Easy as that.I was raised Catholic. Groovy people, most of them. I think what you're doing is noble, and I suspect most people on this site think so, otherwise you wouldn't be so popular and be a restricted member. I wish more businessmen would think like you do.



No problem, happy to explain. I think there's a lot of good stuff you Communists are doing but frankly it gets lost in all this talk about Stalin and Marx and Dialetics the Revolution. Personally, I don't have the time or the patience to wait around for some Revolution to change the world around. I do what I have always done in life--I change things that I want changed the way I want them changed.

And I don't do stuff in isolation. There are other business men watching what I am doing with a lot of interest. So we'll see. :)Here's my feelings on "Revolution". I don't necessarily see the revolution as this one massive event or a huge armed conflict where we go around and kill a bunch of businessmen, politicians, and police like some here do. To me, revolution is a mindset, a viewpoint. I aim to change the world for the better, to make a world that accounts for and takes care of all people. "A brotherhood of man" if you can imagine that.

To me, that could mean pushing for reforms, it could mean setting up soviets in your factory, it could mean standing up and striking for better wages or mass civil disobedience marches to end inequality, and it could indeed mean armed conflict. I don't know exactly, and anyone who tells you exactly how the revolution is going to go down isn't living in the here and now. I just know I won't limit myself to the idea that only social reform will work, that only voting for change will work, or that only violent conflict or only mass protest will work. In that regard, I believe in revolutionary politics. People will take it as far as they are willing to.

I tell people I want to smash the current system, but I will be honest that that can be accomplished in so many ways, it would be foolish for me to commit to one rigid ideal. Maybe that does mean "working out the kinks" as you put it, and maybe it means "forcing the bourgeois to surrender the means of production and creating a dictatorship of the proletariat" as Marx put it...I don't think anyone truly knows for sure. To be honest, and as I wrote in a letter to a few people around here who have been "interested in my work" recently, I don't think reforms will do much good and they've run their course...only time will tell.

All I know is I strive for all men and women to be free from oppression and I aim to live my life in dedication to those ideals. Wherever that carries me or takes me in life, so be it. It is with those beliefs in mind that I promote the ideals I hold to be important and worth sharing. People I talk to about such things keep asking me when the revolution is, often when skepticism and doubt in their voices. I tell them “The revolution is already happening…you just need to decide how quickly it happens.” Everything I do is with the aim of freedom. Every idea I promote, every interested person I get to listen to me, every person I influence to look forward to what we can accomplish is revolution in my mind. Revolution to me is our constant struggle against all oppressors, and revolution is indeed coming...we just have to wait and see exactly what that means.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well said (I think):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch01.htm

Friends and enemies of the Socialists agree upon one thing, and that is that they constitute a REVOLUTIONARY party. But unfortunately the idea of revolution is many-sided, and consequently the conceptions of the revolutionary character of our party differ very greatly. Not a few of our opponents insist upon understanding revolution to mean nothing else but anarchy, bloodshed, murder and arson. On the other hand there are some of our comrades to whom the coming social revolution appears to be nothing more than an extremely gradual, scarcely perceptible, even though ultimately a fundamental change to social relations, much of the same character as that produces by the steam engine.

So much is certain: that the Socialists, as the champions of the class interests of the proletariat, constitute a revolutionary party, because it is impossible to raise this class to a satisfactory existence within capitalist society; and because the liberation of the working class is only possible through the overthrow of private property in the means of production and rulership, and the substitution of social production for production for profit. The proletariat can attain to satisfaction of its wants only in a society whose institutions shall differ fundamentally from the present one.

In still another way the Socialists are revolutionary. They recognize that the power of the state is an instrument of class domination, and indeed the most powerful instrument, and that the social revolution for which the proletariat strives cannot be realized until it shall have captured political power.

[Bud Struggle]

I replied to this post yesterday but a whirlwind comprised of a dog a girl and a ball deleted wverything I wrote before I could post. Here's another try.


Unfortunately, I don't know that the capitalist system wants to change that badly, beyond the small concessions occasionally made to appease the people...FDR said as much. The capitalist system doesn't WANT to change in the least. But it always keeps changing and adapting to markets. They are intrested in pmproving sales and markets and continually finding better and innovative ways to improve profits. That's all they do. Any concessions they offer is because it is profitable to do so.



I would like to believe that we could make capitalism play nice, for a long time that was what I believed in (I was so into Obama a while back I watched the campaign trail daily). If I saw any evidence that the system was all of the sudden going to stop its imperialist conquests, stop placing profits above the welfare of its people, and stop letting people die of diseases that have available cures, I might believe in it again. Now THAT is the job of governments. They make and enforce laws to make businesses (and citizens) work and play fair. That's why we need good governments to enforce laws that benefit people.



The glaring flaw I see in this win win situation is that many employers simply don't value their employees that much. If they can find a way to pay people less, eliminate positions, or automate jobs previously done by humans, a lot of them will (and have). There is a two edged sword here--it's the employee's DUTY to himself to improve himself so that he is valuable to the employer. If he makes money for the employer his value increases. If he is just another cog in the wheel--well, there's the prroblem. A worker must always remember WHY he/she has been hired--it is to produce profit for the employer. On the other hand it's and employer's DUTY or increase profits--so if an employee is happy and doing a good job, it behooves him as a businessman to do what is necessary to keep the employee happy. It's just good business. The business that will succeed will have the best employees--here's a quote from a woman in an unrelated thread in "Workers Struggles." She explains exactly how businesses should function to get the most out of their employees.

I work for the government this month. I get a national holiday, three obliged payed days off, a holiday bonus and a New Year's bonus. Mobile phones are very allowed, smoking is cool, the atmosphere is great, everyone is relaxed, ... And the weird thing is: we actually do a lot of work. It's like having quality time with so much bonuses and freedoms.

For the past two years during summer vacation, I worded for a month at a shipping company. It was filled with people who hadn't had a vacation in three years, who were all stressed out, who needed a cigarette break, who were running around constantly (ocean freights don't wait until their cargo list is done: the captain expects it to be on his desk on time), ... And the weird thing is: things slowed down. Lot of people hated their job.

Without a doubt businesses with happy workers will do better in the marketplace.



Look at the number of jobs in America people put their lives into and invested their futures in, only to have them shipped to other countries when companies figured out how much they could save by paying someone overseas less. (Please note I don't blame said people, they need jobs too.) Those people played the game right, they were a valuable asset, yet when the bosses figured out how to make things cheaper they were tossed out. Look what those practices have done to entire towns like Flint, Michigan. (I'm not a Michael Moore sockpuppet I swear...its a good example. :laugh:) It's not the employer's job to be responsible for changing markets. The world is going global--and no one is going to stop it. The employer is looking out for himself--AND THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD DO THE SAME. The Employee should always work to improve his situation in life--complacency in this world means death. For both businesses and workers.


Besides those examples, using an extreme example, look at the average McDonald's. Unless you're a store manager, none of those people make enough to adequately provide for a family. Yet for many, those are literally the only jobs they can manage to get. Look, it's not Mc Donald's job to be responsible for the choices and conditions of it's workers--that every person's own responsibility. Every person makes thousands of choices on how their life will progress--they decide to study in school, they decide to not study and flunk a test. They decide to quit school, they decide to do really well. If people end up in McDonald's they have made a myrad of decisions in life to get there. McDonald's is a place to earn extra dollars for High School kids--which is fine. It's not a career move.


Should we deny these people the opportunity to better themselves? Many of them don't have the means to pay for schooling or qualify for student loans, they don't have the opportunity to make themselves "more attractive" to employers that pay more. Should we simply throw these people under the bus and let them remain in that job?
Should we look down on them and label them lazy and unproductive, even though they're feeding millions of people everyday who don't feel like cooking? Even if you don't agree with the idea that employees "owning the means of production" is the way to equality, I don't see how anyone can justify letting people live in poverty while working. That's why there are these wonderful creations (I phsh my employeesto go there every chance I get) Community Colleges. They are practically free (I pay all the fees, etxc. for my employees) and they teach VALUABLE trades and professions. There is no better way for person of limited ability and meansto get ahead. The think is--those people that are stuck in dead end jobs, already have madelots of bad choices in life to get them where they are--so they have to backpeddle a bit. Butif they are determinged--they can succeed. I've seen it done lots of times. BUT these people have to be encouraged. they have to be shown examples



I was raised Catholic. Groovy people, most of them. I think what you're doing is noble, and I suspect most people on this site think so, otherwise you wouldn't be so popular and be a restricted member. I wish more businessmen would think like you do. I'm a businessman--happy employees make money for me and money for themselves. And workers know their jobs better than I do--let them make decisions for themselves.



Here's my feelings on "Revolution". I don't necessarily see the revolution as this one massive event or a huge armed conflict where we go around and kill a bunch of businessmen, politicians, and police like some here do. To me, revolution is a mindset, a viewpoint. I aim to change the world for the better, to make a world that accounts for and takes care of all people. "A brotherhood of man" if you can imagine that. I believe all that, too. That's why I'm here on RevLeft. I don't give a crap about Stalin and Manifestos and what happened during the Spanish Civil War and legalized drugs and ass wiping robots. But how best to make workers part of the wage earning and the decision making process is really interesting. And that's the real Revolution. It's not about me giving anything to anyone--but it's about workers earning more and more through their creativity and devotion to their jobs. And I want to see business owners and managers see that THEY could own more by sharing their responsibilities and their profits with their employees.


To me, that could mean pushing for reforms, it could mean setting up soviets in your factory, it could mean standing up and striking for better wages or mass civil disobedience marches to end inequality, and it could indeed mean armed conflict. I don't know exactly, and anyone who tells you exactly how the revolution is going to go down isn't living in the here and now. I just know I won't limit myself to the idea that only social reform will work, that only voting for change will work, or that only violent conflict or only mass protest will work. In that regard, I believe in revolutionary politics. People will take it as far as they are willing to.I think the Revolution is happening as we speak. And when people read about this age 500 years from now they will say, "Those early 21st century people were pretty stupid not to see what was going on all around them."


tell people I want to smash the current system, but I will be honest that that can be accomplished in so many ways, it would be foolish for me to commit to one rigid ideal. Maybe that does mean "working out the kinks" as you put it, and maybe it means "forcing the bourgeois to surrender the means of production and creating a dictatorship of the proletariat" as Marx put it...I don't think anyone truly knows for sure. To be honest, and as I wrote in a letter to a few people around here who have been "interested in my work" recently, I don't think reforms will do much good and they've run their course...only time will tell. I think any change like "forcing the Bourgeois to do xyz" that doesn't come around organically will just substitute a new set of bosses for the old set of bosses. Worthless in the end. The Revolution of the Proletariat will come about when they make themselves indispensable to business. Business with thrive and so will the people.


All I know is I strive for all men and women to be free from oppression and I aim to live my life in dedication to those ideals. Wherever that carries me or takes me in life, so be it. It is with those beliefs in mind that I promote the ideals I hold to be important and worth sharing. People I talk to about such things keep asking me when the revolution is, often when skepticism and doubt in their voices. I tell them “The revolution is already happening…you just need to decide how quickly it happens.” Everything I do is with the aim of freedom. Every idea I promote, every interested person I get to listen to me, every person I influence to look forward to what we can accomplish is revolution in my mind. Revolution to me is our constant struggle against all oppressors, and revolution is indeed coming...we just have to wait and see exactly what that means.I agree--except I don't believe we have to wait. We can do a lot right here and now.

Good post!

[Captain Morgan]

I personally view communism to be in pretty much same position than fascism today. No, no, I'm not saying that I'm lumping them together, fascists don't get even a microscopic amount of respect from me, but attitudes towards them in eyes of a average Joe or Dolly are quit the same. Dead, bad ideologies.

Fascism was vanquished as an ideology during the world war 2 and "communism" was "vanguished" as an ideology after the cold war. Impact of all that Soviet bullshit is just too great, and the symbols you are so eager to wave around are not going good for your cause: the average American or European, the doer, does not like you. That's what 70 years of totalitarian dictatorship combined with neocon foaming do.

Get new symbols. Most actually potent neo-nazisque organizations in the political field have already abandoned symbols like Celtic crosses and swastikas, as they know using them isn't really such a good idea. Do you really want to fall behind them?

Get a new, flashy and sexier name, get some symbols that doesn't give you flashbacks from the Great Purges or the Cultural Revolution. World has changed a lot since 1893 and we, the evil bourgeois must be fought with different weapons.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Has anyone else noticed that right-libertarians adopted Soviet propaganda techniques? They use words like "revolution," "theft," "brother-in-arms," and "fight!" They also create a personality cult around Von Mises and Ron Paul, and some of the fringe talk about creating pro-capitalist communes. It's hysterical.

If people are so easily persuaded by cultural images that they reject the hammer and sickle as a symbol of oppression, they're probably not going to be class conscious. :cool:

[Sendo]

Talking points:

1. Capitalism constantly grows, but demand is not infinite. Capitalism constantly grows, but the planet is not infinite.

2. Socialists don't want to return to 1940s Russia. Socialism is not what your high school textbooks says it is.

3. Socialism would mean free health care, no debt slavery, no wage slavery, accessible transit, production for need not greed. Meaningful involvement in workplace and in community.

4. Socialism has worked; your history textbooks don't talk about the Paris Commune, or Catalonia do they? 1980s USSR and modern PRC are not socialist. Cuba, while imperfect has free health care and education for all as well as the only sustainable economy.* Now imagine if you spread out the wealth in a rich country like the USA.

*the journal Nature, 2007.

Just back up these statements with theory and historical cases. Also practice arguing with right-libertarians, they're very good at snappy one-liners and phony populism and soundbites. But break them down with facts. Like every Milton Friedman-ite experiment has failed. If they continue with their rationalizations the chinks in their armor appear: equating cost-cutting with "efficiency" (especially flimsy in an energy-economy-conscious society), "entrepreneurs invent the greatest things" (most inventions done by eccentric guys like Tesla, salaried R&D researchers, or through the State [like computers and the internet])

[Sendo]

the average American or European, the doer, does not like you. That's what 70 years of totalitarian dictatorship combined with neocon foaming do.


Most people aren't ready to fully embrace violent revolution, but enough talk will get most working people to be sympathetic to the idea. But the biggest obstacle is the widespread assumption that socialism has no widespread appeal.

If people turned off CNN long enough or read a poll, they'd see that the vast majority of Americans, for example, have long wanted universal health-care, lower military budgets, more workers' comp, more involvement in local govts and schools, and harbor resentment toward managers and the bourgeoisie.

Having internet access through your own personal computer automatically puts you into an elite group, so to speak. Despite the promise of progressive internet-based news, we must remember most of the world has no telephone. Hence we First-Worlders, much like the rich minorities of the Third World come across in our daily, whitey-white lives and in our *internet* travels encounter a non-majority demograph, mostly. Suburbanites can rattle off how many people they know who are reactionary, but I remind them that they don't represent the *majority* of people, just the majority for that neighborhood.

[mikelepore]

what are the key element that could be used to sell it to the masses

I believe the two most fundamental statements, related to the system that people are already familiar with, are: (1) Goods should be priced at their cost of production, and no profit taken. (2) The workers instead of stockholders should elect the management.

There is more, but that's enough for a novice to digest for a few hours.