No Communist Manifesto

[hclasalle]

I disagree with medieval-esque bookburning.  Let the free exchange of ideas happen.

I also profoundly disagree with the idea that labeling someone a communist or a socialist is an insult.  This is not the 19th or the 20th Century: everywhere there's a combination of the attributes of both capitalism and socialism, the world is too complex.

Canada and the Scandinavian countries are social democracies, and their standard of living is way superior to our own.  Our country needs to face these facts. 

We can't AFFORD to get sick here due to the for-profit health "care" system.

A citizen of Finland can become a DOCTOR, curtesy of the state, whereas if you try that in the US you'd get into over 100,000 dollars of debt.

In Germany, they have TWO MONTHS OF GOVERNMENT MANDATED VACATIONS, here if THEY LET you take two weeks off, you feel GUILTY for it.

But more to the point: there's A LOT that we owe to the stinky hippy American communists and socialists of previous generations:

• the minimum wage


• the forty hour week, and eight hour day, and overtime pay


• pension benefits


• social security benefits


• the abolition of child slavery


• unemployment insurance (to which we have a right, it's not a 'benefit', it's a mandated insurance)

And so you see we have a LOONG history of American socialism.

People take all these things for granted.  That needs to stop: all of this took STRUGGLE, for many years, people were jailed, marginalized, stigmatized, difamated by government and corporate propaganda.  These things weren't just 'given' to us: they're the fruit of the STRUGGLES of American socialists of previous generations. 

We never honor them because their history is never told, and when it's told it's never from their perspective, we're brainwashed into believing history is written by a few wealthy individuals and not by the people struggling and organizing. 

Now after decades without mass struggle, we're seeing sweatshops and human trafficking again in the US.  Most employers know how bad workers have it so they hire twice as many part-timers to avoid paying their benefits and workers lack the dignity of living wage but they have no choice.

Also keep in mind that the ruling class PLANTED our distrust and hatred of socialist and communist ideas in our culture because they know that any criticism of the social order that they have instituted will come from the perspective of class war. 

Class war is what they do, and they wanna make it taboo to say this.

Noice it's never class war when the foreclosure crisis transfers millions of homes from the poor and working class back to the hands of the banking cartel, them being the wealthiest corporations – that's one of the biggest transfers of assets from the poor to the rich in history, thousands will never retire or transfer their wealth to their children, their children will in turn have to continue being wage-slaves – but to them and to corporate media it's only class war when WE say "STOP!", it's never class war when the richest in society take the assets of the poor.

So naturally they're scared of socialists, communists and the class-war discourse.  We need to ensure that this discourse continues to become mainstream.  They're gonna label us communists and socialists because they're scared. 

We're not all socialists, many people believe in free market capitalism but the discourse still applies.  There are many Ron Paul and small-gov't conservatives in the OWS movement.

In the end, whatever comes out of Occupy Wall Street it's important that the class-war discourse never dies and that we don't forget how we got to this point, and that there's room for people who label themselves socialists to be part of the public discourse to ensure transparency among those in power.

I dont believe in a class-less utopia, but I do have to question the book-burning idea: if Marx didn't have a point, then what are people so terrified of?  Why not engage people of opposing ideas openly and transparently and learn?

We need to challenge everyone's fear of our revolutionary knowledge and let the Marxist critique of capitalism evolve into the 21st century.

I personally have no fears with regards to having two months of mandated vacation like Germany, or having free universal health care like Canada, or being able to become a doctor like in Finland with NO DEBT.  Only the BANKS and corporations that want to keep us as wage-slaves and sheep fear that.

[CYoung]

If you want to do "a comparative study of various economic models" that is impartial (this is key), I'd be all for that.

 

Also, nobody suggest anything about burning books, lets prim the patter down.  No need for hyperbole directed at each other.  Labeling others based on their beliefs doesn't help.  Derogatory language like calling people sheep doesn't help.

 

Labels divide us.  Divided we cannot win.

[hclasalle]

CYoung said:

If you want to do "a comparative study of various economic models" that is impartial (this is key), I'd be all for that.

... 

Labels divide us.  Divided we cannot win.

Point made.  I apologize if sounded like labeling.

As for comparative study: here we are.  100 years of Federal Reserve has inflated our currency persistently.  No fiat currency has lasted forever, and ours has an expiration date that is approaching.

Unregulated capitalism has made us a rich country full of misery, poverty, greed and marginalization, and the tentacles of the same banking cartel that is our master are being pushed further and further into the international scene: we are funding their global plutocracy.  Unregulated capitalism is absolutely dangerous to the continuation and propagation of democracy on Earth.  

While "a comparative study of various economic models" is healthy, I just have to say that Capitalism with no human values, as we have experienced it here, is not an option anymore: the water wars that took place in Bolivia will most likely happen everywhere very soon as water resources become scarcer. (The former capitalist gov't of Bolivia sold all their country's water to an American company, Bechtel, and the prices went so high that people had to take their kids out of school and retirees had to go back to work to buy water, it was illegal to catch rainwater, there were four months of riots on the streets and eventually this led to Evo Morales being elected as the first indigenous and anti-capitalist president there).

Do we really want to wait for this to happen globally?  Do we really want to keep waging wars for oil, which is a resource that will exhaust soon?  And then what?  We'll have to EVENTUALLY instate a sustainable energy infrastructure, why not now?  Why wait until oil is so expensive that we wont be able to drive or fly or have a sense of normalcy anymore?

Again: look at Canada, Germany, Finland, Norway and Sweden.  What I notice is that in these countries:

1. there is a strong, organized left which is represented in gov't

2. unlike the relatively unsuccessful socialist attempts (USSR, Cuba), these countries have multiparty elections -- which the US doesn't have, we only have two parties and both are owned by corporations - even presidential debates are privately funded and when Ralph Nader, who happens to be a consumer advocate :) ran we learned that third parties aren't allowed, ergo: in our system of gov't it's the CORPORATIONS who pre-screen who we may vote for and the system's rigged, we are ruled by big money

3. which leads these countries to a social democracy, socialist in spirit but open and democratic and these are some of the least corrupt countries on Earth, their jails are virtually empty, they ALL have some of the highest standards of living on Earth ...

4. having multiparty socialism naturally leads to there being checks and balances within that system just as it would in any other system

5. ergo, I favor a social democracy in the US comparable to Canada's and Scandinavia's

6. with MULTIPARTY ELECTIONS - our two party system leads to a gov't where there's an absolute and shameful lack of transparency.  We need strong third, fourth, and perhaps fifth and sixth and seventh parties.  We need a discourse where ALL the voices and perspectives of the people are heard and not this monopoly of information that corporate media has shoved on us for generations.

Solidarity!

[LeftWing]

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with original post. 

Putting out or touting or promoting in any way, shape or form "The CM" will greatly  our opponents and mislead people who want to join us but are put off by a faiiled doctrine that hurt Russia. 

[LeftWing]

meant to say, talking and discussing The CM  as if it were taxes or socialism or democracy will greatly "HELP" our opponents.  As I indicated it's the wrong thing to do. 

[nwbtcw]

Has is occurred to you that perhaps the Communists/Socialists/Marxists aren't co-opting your movement, but that you're co-opting theirs?Or that perhaps, as everyone has said since the beginning, this movement belongs to the 99% of which even Commies are a part?

Have you thought about the fact that maybe the Communists do actually share your interests, and that's why they're out there? In solidarity, not in some plot to take over?

Did you consider that perhaps instead of worrying about alienating people who might potentially join, you should worry about all the people that are already there that you're going to alienate with this kind of thing?

You're trying to cut a group out of the dialogue based on backward Cold War era/McCarthyist fears which have no basis in reality. You're perpetuating the persecution and marginalization of people based on their political beliefs. This is a real problem in our society, people can lose jobs, have difficulty publishing,lose friends,get harrassed,etc, and for what? For critiquing Capitalism.

The fact that you characterize our beliefs as "utopian" (among other incorrect things) leads me to believe that perhaps instead of worrying that the Tea Party will get the wrong message from the presence of Communists/Socialists/Marxists in the movement, you should attend a teach in, talk to a Communist, and ACTUALLY represent what this movement is about- freedom, equality, justice, and democracy.

[1forthepeople]

this movement should take note of the successful 15M movement in Spain.  I think it's extremely vital for this movement to remain completely nonpartisan. 

[DavidMichael]

I totally agree with No Communist Manifesto. If people don't consider how this is regarded by the general public and how that can negatively affect our growth then they are very uneducated on real life, regardless of how "intellectual" they may believe they are. Aside from that, it doesn't serve our groups immediate educational needs.

[phys431]

This was posted in "End Fractional Banking" because the sentiment of reforming the Fed is not capitalist in nature, more socialist because of the idea of modifying monetary policy as well as banking policy. It's here as an information exchange to get others aware of what's being talked about.

Here's the post:

There have been posts (a whole forum topic, actually) which seeks to keep the OWS-Chicago movement from not being labeled as synoymous as a Communist Manifesto. There were arguments back and forth, one person who I think is pro-communist, which was very appalled that there was a sentiment to strike anything/everything "communist" from the movement. There were others who were pro-capitalist in their speech and rebuttals, but I think many of the ideals of this movement are actually socialist in spirit.

I need to brush up again with the meaning, theory, and practical aspects of communism, but I thought communism was a socialist-based form of socieo-economics, led by a political party (called the Communist Party). My understanding is that there is little difference in ideology between communism and socialism, but big difference with political parties. So what's my rambling all about???...

My point is that people are upset over many (similar) things: lack of jobs, wealth is profoundly unevenly distributed, corporations have a stronger influence in politics (based on their wealth/power). My first knee-jerk reaction is that the capitalist would say, "Tough. Go get a degree, get a job, earn money, and kick/bite your way to the top. Whatever spoils you earn is yours for the keeping." Sounds a lot like what really goes on, doesn't it?

To make new mechanisms where one doesn't have to "kick or bite" their way to the top means that the one's who are fighting for the top positions now have to compete in ways where they may lose, kicking/biting will not work in achieving the top positions. This move is not capitalist. While we are in the process of formulating the means to the ends we hope (we WILL!!!) bring about, those means are not capitalist either.

Any rate, I gotta go. I think I made my point, that a balance needs to be struck even if we don't put the C-word in our language. Using the S-word (socialism) might be more accurate.

BTW, I'm going to transfer this post to that one topic to help the information exchange. I'm seeing that OC needs information exchange so others know what others are doing/saying.
End post.

[nonlinear]

One thing I've noticed while trying to become more educated myself is that our movement, this movement, is what has been predicted for a long long time.

I think the socialists and communists get a bad name because people have tried to force what we're seeing now. What's happening is the organic movement now, that hasn't happened before.

We are actually spontaneously moving towards/demanding socialism, don't you see? And this is the pure kind, not the kind brought about by a few "professional revolutionaries". The people are finally engaging in the class war of their own accord. I think it's fascinating.

Just as a side note, I learned about the term "Dictatorship of the proletariat" today. Perhaps you should check it out before demanding we burn these texts.

In Marxist socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist state in which the proletariat, or the working class, have control of political power. Such an idea was purported by the founders of Marxism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in the 19th century. The use of the term "dictatorship" is controversial, and does not refer to the Classical Roman concept of the dictatura (the governance of a state by a small group with no democratic process), but instead to the Marxist concept of dictatorship (that an entire societal class holds political and economic control, within a democratic system).

Following on from the theories of Marx and Engels, Marxists believe that such a socialist state is an inevitable step in the evolution of human society. They argue that it is a transitional phase that emerges out of the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", or capitalist society, in which the wealthy classes own the means of production and exploit the working classes for the generation of private profit, and that it will itself eventually come to be replaced by an entirely classless, stateless form of society known as pure communism.