Results 1 to 20 of 25
How to think like a communist
Hi all, I'm new to the forum. I have read through quite a few posts here before signing up and it's clear to me that many of the best posters here have a completely different way of thinking about things to me. I would never be able to come to some of the conclusions that other members come to, with the reasoning skills I currently have. Am I right, is there a specific way of reasoning that communists have? And how do I learn it?
There is no necessary means of reasoning associated with just 'being a communist' - which in any case depends on what exactly you mean by that. Would it include anarchists, or 'Stalinists'? If you are interested in any specific members, you could just ask them. Or, whatever, send signals into space, it might reach them either way.
Perhaps you mean 'Marxist'? That might mean commitment to certain things - although it depends on which Marxists you mean, again.
All people are different. There isn't any one way communists think. But one thing we have in common and that you might be noticing is that we are materialists. Another thing is that we are "awake". The vast majority of people are slumbering in the system, unaware of what they truly are in relation to society and the world. Once you become aware of the game that is being played, your whole perspective changes. There are times when I will have an idea or come to a conclusion, only to find that some other socialist thinker already beat me to it. Once you start seeing in color, things start becoming very obvious, and once that spell is broken there is no going back to the old way of seeing things, ever.
Thanks for your reply, Location C. I think the "awake" part is what I'm really lacking. Reading your article on materialism, I find that I can read the words but don't actually understand - I'm missing something to trigger a deeper understanding of what I'm reading
It's tough stuff man. I certainly don't understand it all. If only you knew the difficulty I have reading Engels's work. This is common. 18th century socialists were pretty smart dudes. They didn't have all the modern distractions we have, so all they did was read and ponder. But the more you understand some things, the more you start to understand other things. The best advice I can give you is to not doubt yourself and just try your best. If I can learn, anyone can, believe me.
I'm gonna go a different direction and say that yes, there is a way that pro-revolutionaries think. It's not a formula though, if that's what you meant. It's a way of critically engaging with the world. It's looking at the world, identifying the issues that threaten your autonomy, and being able to articulate why you hate it and what you can do about it or if there is nothing you can do at that time.
Socialist Standard is currently doing a series of articles on rational thinking and logic here
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/s...ional-thinking
That sounds like a very adept description of Anarchists.
Ⓐ
tumblr_ndw2ujVBkU1u1sr1lo1_1280.jpg
"It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
"Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
"Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."
This, I mean this 100%, totally misses the ENTIRE point of Communism. This makes Socialism a MEME. Lets take what you said and apply it to the real world.
I am a racist white-supremist that likes calling Blacks 'niggers' in the street and likes spitting at gays and the 'liberal' state passes laws against that. What you seriously claim this "inhibits my autonomy" and places me in the camp of the 'Anarchists'!?
The best way to think about it is to accept that labor exploitation exists. That virtually all the major world-wide controversies and systemic issues are subordinate to this one thing (racism, homophobia, ethnic genocide, world-wide poverty, child abuse etc...). Once you accept this, once this is the pivot you base your political beliefs in, I think that is sufficient to put you on the right path. But do not simply fall for the 'piece-meal' issue. Meaning, do not focus on racism to the exclusion of everything else and certainly not the class-issue. Because again, they are all subordinate to it.
The fact that you are a racist white-supremist that assaults gays is what threatens your autonomy.
Just like any other ideal it requires for you to understand it completely to understand it.
your argument is specifically the point of anarchism.
The anarchist realizes that in order to have autonomy you must have interdependence between free individuals in society.
Racism is anti-autonomy as it reduces your freedoms; not just the freedoms of those around you.
The argument has the same missing elements that Capital anarchists dont understand.
Freedom is only a possibility when everyone enjoys it. That the capitalist is not free because he has power and others dont; he is a victim of his own acts as he creates those who will oppose him.
Fascists create the Anti-Fascists that will attack them.
Capitalists create the workers that will strike against them.
Governments create the revolutionary that will overthrow them.
Autonomy and individualism both logically lead to cooperation and communalism. The self interest of the individual is to support his community and his fellow being as society is the interdependence between individual animal organisms.
The Mutual Aid of Anarchists.
The Solidarity among the working class.
The revolution!
"It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
"Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
"Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA
Tell me I am dreaming. I just can't even fathom someone is this stupid.
I think you misunderstood what I said (which, going through old threads, you have a history of doing).
My claim is that it is a metric of intelligence to be able to articulate why you hate capital and civ, and be able to come up with effective plans to battle it in your life whether through workplace actions or through sabotage or through direct warfare, or whatever means you come up with. I did not make the claim that not being able to fling racial slurs was what I was opposed to (On the grounds of some liberal idea of free speech? Give me a break.), my larger point is being able to articulate how my position in class society is my damnation and what I am going to do about ti if anything can be done at all. Don't twist my words to fit your preconceived idea of whatever you think I am. I can guarantee you are wrong about me, 100%.
I suspect by the way you speak that your vision of the future is different from mine. For one, I have no love of the proles/working class. I am not talking about an uprising of the workers, blacks, queers, women, etc... to overthrow the current social order and implement a new one based on the ideals of camaraderie and free access to the means of production. I can safely say that I don't give a fuck about the means of production outside of its role as a weapon against me. Autonomy carries a much greater and deeper meaning to me than that.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think you'd consider me an anarchist.
Thanks for your link, The Idler, I'll be sure to have a read through
What do you mean by autonomy, Wessex Way Monster? Do you agree that some people can be free while others aren't or do you believe that one person's freedom needs everyone to be free? I'm struggling to get my head around what you mean
Revolutionaries have to look at the social world objectively / scientifically, so here's the scientific method illustrated in a *spatial* framework:
You Are Here
Then you're not a communist.
So you dont think that it is everyone's best individual interest to achieve communism? to live and produce together freely? To achieve what can only be called Utopian by the limited imagination of morons.
If you dont think it is in your best individual interest to achieve communism then why the fuck are you here?
My individual interest is for freedom. Freedom from state control; Freedom from capitalist production and free from class relations.
That freedom can only exist if everyone shares in it; or more accurately that freedom can only exist for me if I either become the oppressor or destroy the oppressor.
Anarchy is solidarity with equals in freedom so I dont accept the fact that others are enslaved by capitalism.
Individualism logically leads to the best system to support each individual part of the whole organism (community).
Logic leads to communism.
"It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
"Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
"Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."
You seriously don't think that cooperation and individual autonomy aren't mutually exchangeable? If I were in a socialist community, of course I would care about myself the most out of all other people (with the potential exception of close family), but what would tie me to that society is mutual benefit in being a part of the structure as a whole.
I would agree with you about sociology or topics like statistics and scientific research, but I can't say that the scientific method can be applied to all concepts we use. For example, I think the scientific method is invalid with the fields of economy and politics, they just can't work.
I'll cite the video here for most of the meat in my logic (enjoy the penguin): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fcQWkWfucg
However, there is also something I want to personally say about it: you need to have a formalized experiment that has variables that can be manipulated and are either both or one of the variables is quantitative. Politics can't have this, as the Paris commune's rate of success can neither be put into any sort of graph or can the ''experiment'' be repeated. A leftist can use the scientific method, yes, but should also use logic and even some philosophical axioms to prove their points. We aren't peer reviewed journals here, we're pundits.
Autonomy for me is the ability to pick your actions without coercion. I can have autonomy while others do not, however I would say that the systems that impose on others' autonomy would have a high probability of encroaching on my own.
It is irrelevant to me if I am a communist or not (however I think I do fall under that banner, just not your tradition of communism).
I'll tersely disagree with you on your assertion here because you're thinking that the scientific method / deductive reasoning is only meant for *predictive* capabilities. I happen to find this aspect of the scientific method / science to be rather *passive*.
So perhaps the scientific method is "invalid" in *this* regard, instead, concerning matters of economics and politics -- that, strictly, it can only be used in response to *existing* empirical stuff, and cannot be used in any kind of *forward-looking*, *anticipatory* kind of way since that would be outside the scope of strict deductive reasoning.
I developed a framework that uses spatial dimensions to supply a 'universal context' for any situation -- applicable to backward-looking investigations of past historical events, present-day matters of politics / policy, and also to *forward-looking* directions of practice, planning, and expectations:
universal context
Furthermore I developed a *model* for a post-capitalist implementation of liberation-based politics and economics, so all relevant aspects / components for the same have been systematically included in comprehensive dynamic relations within the model:
labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'
But, all that aside, I was impressed just the other day with one particular formulation about the left-right political spectrum, at another thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...11#post2875511
---
So this egalitarianism - fragmentation formulation of the left-right political spectrum posits an *objectivity* onto the continuum that could be argued to be lacking otherwise.
And, finally, in terms of *scale* (think from the individual, outwards, or from the external environment, 'inwards'), we can validly posit a pan-contextual axis of internal-external, which applies to all kinds of political and/or economic situations:
Worldview Diagram
[6] Worldview Diagram
---
Ugh -- please don't do that again. I don't want to have to listen to a mini-lecture and take notes just to respond here at RevLeft. Here are my notes, btw:
(See my initial point above.)
