Understanding Communism (Then & Now)

How are we defining Communism?

From my local newspaper (says "DIW proposes: compulsory bonds for the rich", subtitled "Divine Amusement").

Tells you everything you need to know... was accompanied by the most apologetic newspaper article I've read this year (ranting against a proposal by the DIW to introduce taxes on "the rich"), I'll never touch this right-wing piece of shit tabloid no more...

From my humble studies on Communism, I can tell you that prior to War Communism and the solidification of the nascent Soviet state, Communism was no doubt viewed in a more positive light amongst wider sections of national populations, be they in Russia, Germany, or the United States.

Thanks to an excellent history book entitled "There Is Power In A Union," by Philip Dray(Which I highly recommend), I found out that much of the modern "facts" we are treated to about Anarchism and Communism in the U.S. came from none other then government propagandists in the late 1800's.

The U.S. government was panicked as a result of the recent crushing of the Paris Commune, which only served to rally the international proletariat around Communism and Anarchism.

The local city police force went as far as to drive out a peaceful rally in one of New York City's squares, fearful that workers would rise up and form a New York Commune.

Later, following the Hay market Affair, the government attempted to paint Anarchism inherently as a violent ideology.

The late 1800's saw labor radicalism take center stage, and Anarchism, Communism, and labor unionism were seen as threats to the policy of "business as usual."

In 1877, during the Great Railroad Strike as it became known as, much, if not most, of the U.S. national economy was crippled. Eugene V. Debs was subsequently vilified by the mainstream press of his time, nicknamed "King Debs," who tried to paint him as a power hungry labor unionist who wanted to seize state power on the backs of the workers.

No doubt events such as 1877's railroad strike are why movements such as Occupy Wall Street or the West Coast Port shutdowns are so scrutinized against-they have the ability to be a repeat of 1877's railroad strike.

As for Communism, even during War Communism were people running around championing Soviet socialism. It wasn't really until during Stalin's power trip that many started to see Communism in a negative light(before, it was usually the ruling classes whom were afraid of Communism.)

Stalin's reign of terror and the Cold War served as perfect excuses to vilify radical ideology, where at least in the U.S. many remain opposed to radical left-wing ideologies, unaware of what they even mean for real.(Cold War propaganda no doubt served it's purpose well)

The chief thing we can do to combat this is educate: use real history against the false history we are often force fed in school and beyond.

I hope I answered your question, comrade.

RedFlagg's post was good. I'd just like to add that I think communism has better "PR" today than it did immediately after the fall of the USSR/during the 90s, though that's not to say it's good.

It's probably selection bias from the sorts of people I find myself talking to politics about, but when I bring up communism (specifically anarcho-communism) now (fours years after the 2008 crash) I find that people are more just skeptical, whereas before they were almost offended.

Communism of any variety, due to misunderstandings(many continue to believe that Communism = Stalinist rule) will still offend certain people.

Yet, back in 1877, there was a real possibility of implementing radical socialism in the United States(through a general strike).

That's what even some radicals don't understand, and as a result of the recent backlash against modern Communism, I often hear offline and online that "I won't see a Communist revolution in my life time!"

Communists have historically been beat down, and when seem in conjunction with the "fall of Communism" in 1991, it only leads to apathy.

Yet, radical socialism is not only possible, but necessary. In fact, I'd argue that conditions to implement it in the U.S. are even greater then they were in 1877.

With the advent of social networking, shutting down a port, protesting, or even launching a wildcat strike has been made easier, hence why many nations now tend to crackdown on both social networking sites and spontaneous protests and strikes in a heavy handed manner.

If one hasn't noticed by now, even self-described "democracies"(in name only) in Spain, Greece, the U.S., etc. are brutally cracking down on any form of dissent(Real Democracy Now in Spain, the Greek movement of the squares, Occupy Wall Street, etc.)

What all three movements listed above have in common is this: They represent class struggle in it's purest form.

They are all harbingers of what is to come, as the world economy continues to worsen.

Interestingly, probably due to the lack of any real existing revolutionary ideology, these movements tend to be rather primitive or even redundant in theory(true democracy, for example, was something demanded in Russia through the soviets way back in 1917, and is just now being resurrected from the dead after a long period of capitalist counter-revolution, which I'd argue has lasted from 1991-2007 in recent years.)

What we are seeing is the international proletariat testing their new found strength, in ways that in the '90's would have been considered absurd(why protest when liberal democracy has triumphed and class antagonisms have ended?!).

This is, as everybody on the radical left knows, called class consciousness, which was rudely interrupted in 1991(with the supposed fall of Communism), and only revived in 2008 with the economic meltdown. It is nascent yes, but growing all the more.

This proves the lie of the bourgeoisie that class antagonisms have ended. Instead, 1991 only served to lessen class struggle-it wasn't even really postponed, instead it was always there, most evident in the third world.

So comrades, come rally 'round the red flag!

Do we not have a world to win?

I was just educated.