What are the pressing problems for Communism today

I'm writing a paper on communism today (not for school) and I want a part where I briefly run through the political problems that a communist must confront. Obviously people will disagree here and we think each other is a problem etc., but for these purposes everything is on the table.

1) Identity Politics (all stripes). Communism must make a meaningful reply to liberal critics who object to class-based analysis, and must also engage with nationalists of all colors who oppose internationalism.

2) People's negative associations with communism. It almost seems like we should use a different word since probably trillions have been poured into making communism a dirty word. Not really though- but the problem is that people associate communism with brutal regimes and shortages. Communists today must account for the historical tribulations of communism while giving good reasons to become a communist today.

3) The question of Marxist economics. To my knowledge there isn't some grand Marxist economic answer out there, maybe a Cockshott stan can enlighten me. Still, an alternative economy to the nation-state dominated system must be formulated and shown to be practical.

4) The fact that the rich people have all the guns. The divide in arms is 100x what it was in the 1800s. Still, asymmetric warfare is on the rise (though its tactics can also be used by the powerful…). This seems to point to the necessity of dividing the bourgeoisie such that some of them at least support communism. Here a theoretical answer is needed why a capitalist would turn communist when it doesn't *seem* to be in their interest.

5) Leftist division. Even among communists there is no unity of purpose or vision. We must find a way to build collective power despite ideological difference or find a way to close the ideological gap.

6) The blurring of political economy with cultural concerns. It's not just a matter of getting people to see the economic future we can build, but also addressing the fact that people are very invested in identities which only make sense under capitalism. Everything from "Western Civ" fetishists to "SJW snowflakes" (sorry for using that term but I think it gets across what I want to) to incels to people who are proud of their shit jobs falls under here. People are worried about a lot of social questions which are not clearly addressed by an economic analysis. The Marxist category of the relations of production must be fleshed out here to address this IMO, r perhaps simply made a more prominent feature of Marxist analysis.

7) The question of whether Marxism agrees with normative science or rather has its own theory of science.

8) Communists being nerds who read a lot but have no social skills or friends (hello).

9) The question of what to do. Marches are boring and don't do anything. What will be the types of action which bring social conflict to a head, and what actions can help us set the stage and stack the deck in our favor?

10) Building the competence necessary to responsibly take/abolish power. Like I mentioned it seems clear that we must divide the ruling class, and we have to win over professionals as well (we'll need some bureaucracy and engineering etc.), but in order to do that people who are already communist must build organizations or movements credible enough for these professionals to join. This requires planning on a global scale, organizing translators, computer programmers, events, facilitating ideological debate, etc.

I came up with 10 as a round number but I'd be interested to see if anyone wants to contribute to this. Feel free to provide your solutions to these or any other problems as well, but my emphasis here is to try and diagnose the many many problems to try and get a sense of the theoretical and practical gaps in today's communism. Cheers

Attached: charles-sillem-lidderdale-the-faggot-gatherer.jpg (200x289, 15.53K)

pic related only

Attached: 1518026528356.png (485x443, 22.91K)

with local idpol issues i mean

Time to brainlet a little bit
1)Personally, non racial nationalism makes absolutely no sense to me. That doesn't mean ethnostates are the proper way to do things either, but that I can at least see where they come from. The only other differences would be the languages and cultures. I oppose silly measures that aim to preserve arbitrary traditions, such as "the song of my homeland" or, "this is our national festival funded by the state", and if people can't live in peace simply because their mother language isn't the same, then we might as well all speak spanish and be done with it.
Making a meaningful reply to "pro" LGBTQ+ critics who oppose a more egalitarian system in favor of capitalism with a rainbow font is rather tough, after all they have nothing to say but red herrings and other fallacies. I would try and remind them that the most socialist country today(Cuba) is perfectly fine with the LGBT, and that capitalism allows LGBTs to exploit others of their group.
5) Honestly, I think it all comes down to a matter of priorities. We should only trust those who put the abolishment of private property above all other ideological concerns. We do need to organize though. The third worldists even moreso.

You imply sending an army of soviet killer robots to the USA wouldn't be wonderful.

Yes, this one of utmost importance. Whatever the way may be, I think it is ideal to aim towards radicalizing the maximum amount of people possible so that they are fine with the bloodshed of right wingers who will inevitably oppose them with by force. The less heel turners we have, the better.

Yes
But the soviets are dead and we should attempt to talk to the people not to other leftist

Only one pressing problem, FOOD

I personally would rather genocide all right wingers above the age of 18, and attempt to peacefully convince the succdems.

You are the edgy poster from the privatization post arent you…….

Attached: 4R-OjV2r_400x400.jpg (400x400, 35.84K)

bet you aren't even using a proxy lmao

user, if you do disagree with me in regards to anything at all, you just have to say it.

Public library.

Yes dude lets do a revolution
nice try,FBI

that it doesnt work, loser

Wait….. what did you mean by those?
are you against an armed revolution?
are you accusing me of being some paid shill? that shit doesn't fit here even as a joke. This feels concerning.
Explain yourself and go play something better, like the Zero Escape series.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1500x710, 1.49M)

wrong, idiot

[citation needed]

Are you claiming that communism will come if we start killing rightwingers ,agent John
ok

Attached: WT9Fjqe.gif (500x280, 958.65K)

OP here

On 3) You imply that Marxist economics is a settled matter. Do you follow Cockshott or what? I'm not skeptical about anticapitalism lmao the question is what to put in the place of capitalism. "Adapting from country to country" is too vague: adapt how, and to what?
On 4) Of course the question of communism has implications for the developed countries. Maybe we leave the model of revolution (just putting this out there as an open question), but to rule out changing the most powerful political orders is to rule out communism. Are you saying we need 3rd world revolutions first? Or to support China? Confused here.
5) Yes they will but the question is how to make a winning party.
7) On science: well no I don't consider myself a leftist because Left/Right is an inadequate analysis imo. Still, you ask as though this question is settled for Marxists. Where can I read the settled opinion? Just read dialectics of nature?
9) Are you saying to participate in Burger elections like the Democrat Cops of America is? What about the idea that we don't have time to try and win electorally. Even then, we have to get people to vote for us lmao how do we do that? Same response to 10)

1) Well, why have nationalism at all? Are you simply suggesting that people prefer those who are similar to them (especially in race) and that this is something we need to take into account? I'm fine with this we don't have to make everyone sing kumbaya it's just that we have to stop nationalism from preventing international cooperation. My pet goal is to compromise with ethno nationalists through space travel- why not make Jupiter's moon Europa the white nationalist territory? If people want to just live with people of their race it's fine, we just have to organize our resources so that this can come about for all people not just one group.
I agree with you on the LGBTQ+ question.
5) I don't disagree but I think we need to formulate what it means to abolish private property better. For example something I think of is how property means characteristics as well as possessions. So IDpol (all stripes) is an outgrowth of trying to maintain private properties in the sense of characteristics: "being-white" or "being-queer" become the building blocks of "social capital" (this is just a metaphor I'm not saying it's literally the same as material property). Thus our drive to abolish private material property could go along with abolishing private characteristic property in the sense of alleviating the need for people to define themselves in distinction. This would be accomplished by creating a collaborative order that would let people express themselves as opposed to our current alienated/terrifying order.

Yes, radicalizing people is obviously the move. But how, and into what? I don't doubt that this will come to blows, but to me the way to win is to formulate what we are for and also to formulate ideas that meet the "needs" of right-wing people better than the right can. For example by showing that each nation is better off under internationalism than by pursuing the fantasy of sovereignty. It's ideas like this which will help us bleed the numbers and morale of the right wing death squads, and each militarized right-winger we win over is like recruiting 2 liberals or even better.

You joke but I agree that communists have to take the history of "really-existing" communism into account. Still, ideally we win this point by showing that capitalism keeps many people hungry who don't need to be, and we can end hunger and poverty easily through global communism.

I don't use them. To me if the intel agencies want to get you they can, even murder you in a way where no one would suspect them. We can't live in the shadows forever. I do agree that the user you replied to is a moron. My official stance and true opinion is that I don't want to see a single person killed. That's why I emphasize the role of changing minds and showing how communism is the way forward regardless of separate interests. Obviously the powerful have brutal self-interest in mind but even then I think communism is the best way for them to gain security and maintain a world worth living in. Yes, this is a naive appeal to the humanity of the bourgeoisie, but my mentality is very much about preventing a new world war. Even if a war comes, as I said the way to win is to divide the ruling class and gain some support there, while being able to build a popular front based on common understandings. We need to build toward those things regardless of our military outlook.

My mom thinks I'm cool

I actually agree that an armed revolution is probably not what will win us the day. Even if you think that, remember Sun Tzu's saying that you have to know yourself and the enemy to gain victory. To me this thread was about finding those areas where we need to do more research and find creative innovations

Attached: MRChild06.jpg (400x300, 26.35K)

.>What about the idea that we don't have time to try and win electorally
Most winning parties take power in ten years from their creation, so i don’t think the ice will melt until then
We just need a good speaker
Well we first have to change a lot of things is a hard question
We need to expand the ''public" sector in order to give workers more power
We need to change education (i like the soviet model)
We need to create worker battalions with rightards(to build our cool statues)
etc…
No one can know
About what country are we talking about???
Any revolution will fail and the rebels will be considered terrorist in a western 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧democracy🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
so elections…
In general we just need to unify the leftist parties, try to use populism and capitalist problems(crisis, unemployment) to highlight the alternative, make deals with anarchists and hope for the best..

Attached: αρχείο λήψης (2).jpg (251x201, 25.51K)

Theory theory theory.
Many contemporary problems flow from theoretical confusion. There are very few well-read Marxists who can even explain Marx let alone build upon his foundations. This theoretical confusion arises from two causes: rigid dogmatism on part of the USSR, and total revisionism on part of Western Marxists. Both of these tendencies took Marxism far off the mark but in opposite directions. Identity politics and "cultural marxism" have damaged Marxist theory by mixing Marxist and non-Marxist categories and concepts. Today there is widespread confusion among Marxists about basic concepts.

It's due to impoverishment of theory that Marxists fail to build upon the momentum of genuine social upheaval or to predict and explain recurring crises of capitalism. We do have the answers but we aren't using them productively.

There is a thread here that talks about similar issues:
>>>Zig Forums59175

OP again

I like your take, that we are potentially one good speaker away from being able to galvanize something. What do you think this kind of person would do? Get in with event organizers to speak at political rallies and win people over, or make their own org to hold events? I guess make youtube videos as well. Of course, anyone like this who emerges will draw ALL the hate- what talking points should be their bread and butter?
I don't think revolution and elections are the only choices. Anyway what will lead to winning elections is winning voters which happens through highly visible and charismatic action and some unity at least.
lmao HOW do we unify the leftist parties. This transitions into my reply to the next user

Thanks for the other thread will read for sure. So, do you have any writers who you truly "got" Marxism then? Is the problem that we don't read enough Marx, and if so which Marx do you consider the most important? Capital Volume 1 I assume but I'm interested to hear where you think we should be getting the best version of Marxism from.

He will start as a youtuber i think or a party member then he will start talking changes, radical changes.
Depends on the country.
Maybe he will talk about the right to a job (Greece or Italy)
Free water,transport,health(USA)
About imperialism and the children that die cause of it..
Or about corruption
We cannot know
Yes as I said: we win in elections and 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧then🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 violence against our political enemies
The new “Lenin” will need allies and most leftist don’t hate eachother that much if they see that communism is coming they will help
Anarchist can be persuaded with some land to rule over
Also with democratic centralism all ideas can be expressed so we should not fear a new Stalin
To secure the best leftist are in charge an 4th like international could be helpful
Maybe a military wing of the international could be helpful for overseas operations (imperialism)

I find your ideas compelling. Still, I'm thinking that in addition to waiting for the new Lenin, we also have to be willing to acknowledge such a person and build the organization to support such a person when they arrive. For example maybe this person won't do video editing so they need production help with YouTube videos, for example. A potentially great leader needs followers to show the efficacy of his ideas. (Also we can acknowledge that it could be a woman or trans person who does this for all we know but probably a dude given people's biases). To that end we need to practice being good followers even though we don't have a good leader at the moment- that way when the first raw YouTube videos start dropping we can step in and make it more professional and start building the party.

In addition we should also acknowledge the weakness of relying on leaders. To that end we should clarify theory in order to keep the fire alive no matter who gets assassinated. But the skepticism of leaders has led to a limiting decrease in people willing to put themselves out there

Dont think of him as the chosen plz
He/she could be an average party leader that connects with the people or knows how to control the masses
The thing is that we could be a new generation of leftist
Tbh we should just try to be our best as people and as leftist…
Also leftist from here should try to join a party and try to improve it.

I think the last big wave of real Marxist theory came during the Lenin period. Lenin and others began reading Marx and compiling his manuscripts and found that people like Eduard Bernstein were actively revising and editing them to suit their own interpretations. So the early Soviet leaders did a lot of work in trying to find and publish Marx's writings that had been lost or unknown.
What's important is understanding the main ideas and not necessarily reading volume after volume of his works and notes. Nobody but an academic has time to do that. Richard Wolff is very useful on the left because he explains things in very simple terms that people can understand. But to answer your question, something like Robert C. Tucker's Marx-Engels Reader is pretty good because it provides a survey of Marx's thought without any real bias.

Ordinary people shouldn't be expected to understand the past 150 years of Marxist theory. But intellectuals and leaders do need to understand theory. I think there's enough talent floating around but it's not well organized and tends to be split along sectarian lines. A lot of intellectuals are also "trapped" in academia because that's how they make a living. And they're trained to write long essays and provide works cited and etc but that kind of stuff has no effect on ordinary people since they'd rather be watching American Idol or something.

The modern scientific theory didn't exist in Marx's time, and is not incompatible with Marxist ideas.

I think people should throw away the old stereotype that communism is a monolithic ideology.

Like capitalism, communism has branched into multple sub-ideologies (just look at this fucking place). Dividing communism can not only counter the "muh real gommizm" argument, but attract people who have moderate opinion of the ideology to the cause.

The combination of labour value accounting, payment in labour credits, computerised planning, markets only in consumption goods, direct democracy and planned economy constitute a feasible new socialist model that builds on the experience of the past without repeating past mistakes.

The practical question is how society could move towards that. It is here that one must take seriously, but in an updated form, the old Lenin criticism of economism. The central point of that critique was that focussing on economic issues was not enough, to build a revolutionary movement it was necessary to bring to the fore the political struggle for democracy. In the context of Czarist Russia that was seen as the struggle for a republican constitution – but one still seen as parliamentary representation with universal adult suffrage. Today the struggle for democracy still has to be in the first place, but the aim has to be to overthrow existing constitutions and replace them with direct democracy.

By consistently advocating this, it should be possible for socialists to mobilise behind us people who may not share our socialist goals, but who are still still hostile to elite domination.

Once a genuinely democratic republic is established, without professional politicians, we would have the best possible environment to win support for a radical transformation of property relations.

This has always been the case. Communism as a monolith is because of M-Ls and Maoists enforcing ideological purity.

Although I'm no fan of any Stalinist party-state model at least they actually managed to survive instead of devolving into whiny irrelevance like every other special brand of communism.

But it will be amusing to watch the same people who preached "left unity" start tearing each others throats out in the future. It's just a shame they'll have to continue setting communist progress back by so many years.

OP here I chose a flag

Is the chosen a reference to the Lego Movie or where to you get that vernacular I find it interesting
Well you say they can be an average party leader that connects with people, but "control the masses"? This is something the richest governments in the world are trying and arguably failing to do. So I'm not sure whether you mean that the central movement will in some sense arbitrarily gravitate around the first person "good enough" to crystalize it, or whether we are indeed talking about a Great Person who will catalyze the process through their own remarkable qualities.
I totally agree that around now is the time. Whenever I hear communists talking about how these aren't revolutionary times I just shake my head. Still, my favorite thinker Baudrillard forecloses revolution but perhaps it is possible to distinguish different forms of movements and classify revolution as a mainly 19th/20th century phenomenon. But there's no question that big changes are happening and that a bunch of shit is coming to head- high leverage history on the way and being made every day.
Not sure we should join existing parties. I think it would be best for a group to start outside a more formal one because formal orgs are always have strong biases they can't easily change because of human psychology and also because they're a brand. I would rather learn about a cool 5 person org in some city that has super strong internationalist and anti-private property politics than I would entertain the prospect of "radicalizing" my local Democrat Cops of America group. It's not even that these people are far from a good outlook- it's just that it's harder to change minds when people are surrounded by others who disagree with you at a gathering you didn't organize.

Ok cool, I'm not up to date on Marxist philosophy of science. I know that Marx argued against "vulgar materialism," but I've yet to truly understand the difference between vulgar materialism, dialectical materialism, and physicalism.

I don't think this helps you win the debate since to an anti-communist it sounds just like you are saying not real communism since you're saying that what you mean by communism isn't what they mean.
I agree that communism cannot be monolithic that's why I'm really interested in Marx's quote that "communism is not the goal" in the 1844 manuscripts. Or the quote about how communism is not the end but the end of pre-history.
I think it is important to theorize difference within a political project of unlimited ambitions (communism seeks to unite the world and take over the project of expansion into space). We all have to be part of the same thing sort of, yet at the same time it must be open enough to mean different things to different people. I think a lot of people are afraid of the homogenizing stereotype about communism, but I think a plank of our argument has to be that people are rigidly controlled and isolated under capitalism and communism will let people express themselves more by reducing working hours and fostering camradery among people.

OP again I can't believe I sometimes forget to attach random pictures

Yeah, I think you're right that it could work. The whole problem is that these friggin capitalists have all the property, or else the state has it. And they're no good. So we need to rearrange control of all these special objects and tools we have (capital). The political problem here is addressing people's anxiety about changing behavior when they have done the same thing (or similar things) for a long time without cataclysm. The reason why there are revolutions when things get really bad is that people have less to lose and the "normal route" seems even less certain than taking the leap of faith in a new direction. Also central is the question of authority- if we don't want the current proprietors owning such and such property, how is it to be seized and by whom? Especially given the advantage that any mature state apparatus has over any upstart, the question of political legitimacy becomes central because it consecrates the sacred law of property under capitalism.
I had a crazy idea to suggest to you that we could articulate the demand for communism as the demand for a provisional treaty written by your country and addressed to any other state (or perhaps even rich person? Maybe this would have to be two different things). This provisional treaty would express openness to form a Union with any other country in the world under certain conditions. These conditions could be unrealistic at first and would express simply the furthest demand or polemic of that country to the world. The goal would be to organize movements to ratify the treaty in all countries. Thus each struggle would take a national and local character in organizing and movement building, but it would also be oriented directly toward the supercession of the present political order. At least in terms of framing a movement (if you want to call it that) through a "demand" I think that's an interesting idea.
Basically before, people demanded nations. The nation has run its course so the establishment of a new republic must be a gesture toward the whole world. I know nations are important but each has its own destiny wrapped up in the destinies of all other countries.

Yup it shouldn't be uncontroversial to say communism is larger than Marxism

Did the Soviet Union survive? I forget
Not sure what future cataclysm you're referring to but I guarantee you won't have time to find it amusing. We're better off trying to avoid such unpleasant circumstances.

Attached: loki-with-a-fishnet_0.jpg (454x288, 25.32K)

No, but if you finish off killing them, then it will, naturally. What bothers you about that, Rothschild user?
Now that I think about it, I would have loved to sabotage the CIA by working as a soviet spy. I can only dream now..
Reading is good, and 999 came before your gay rapeish anime kidd.

Do you believe that we will achieve the spread of socialism peacefully? surely you bamboozle me…
Violent revolutions by the third world sound inevitable.
Indeed, I said it myself: I don't know how we can improve, but only what we need to improve. Our ability to convince the cursed pacifist succdems and the politically ignorant is of utmost importance.

Nice try Mr. FBI but it's going to take more than that to spook me.

They are irrelevant because you purged them. Idiot.

Marxism and communism are nearly synonymous. Rather, much of this disagreement is in Marxist thought.

Not peaceful but the idea of a frontal confrontation between a standing army and a communist militia may be anachronistic. So for example in 4th gen warfare psychological warfare is really important- that's what I mean by dividing the ruling class and fostering dissent among the propertied. It's not that this prevents violence, but that it makes us more likely to win when we do things that eliminate enemies by turning them to friends rather than by eliminating them.

Still being afraid of the government? You mean targeted assassination by intelligence agencies yeah I'm sure that never happens rofl. What does Trump have to do with this…?

Nah dog communism has roots in religion as well, and utopian socialism predates Marx you can stop with the intellectual imperialism thank you

Ignore that user. His comment is completely useless because there's no such a thing as being too careful. Oh… and
That depends on how big of a militia it is. If we're talking about half the country, then porky and subhuman right wingers would need to mass murder their own countrymen. Of course, if that did happen… then this is a bad timeline indeed. If it doesn't, then there will still be some bloodshed. The government won't just give up day 1. Oh, and yeah. I do agree with you. It would be useful to have petit/ bourgeois fighting each other. That's what China's for too. God, I want China to take over the world just we can do a turnabout on them. It would be soo much easier.

You're not wrong but the problem is the technology will get 1000x as powerful in the 10 years it will take for China to remake the world.
And fine, I readily admit if you get 50% of the population it's another story. But then the theoretical/charismatic/cultural question becomes paramount because hello, 50% of the first world for communism? I'm not a total defeatist like boo hoo their robots make us not have agency but I'd also rather avoid a war with billions of casualties.
Despite power there is more which renders life worth living, to kill billions of your own kind who you know don't have to die would make bitter the potentially endless life which our technology could allow. Much better to keep possibilities going for when we get bored ten billion years from now.
And yeah in any case there will likely be bloodshed, I mean it's the fate of the world at stake. But the people are outgunned by the state and among the people the "Right" outguns the "left" for the most part. So paramount to any military strategy must be forming alliances. I think the space is opened for this by the obivous crisis to which late capitalism is inexorably leading. We would be better served thought to make decisive moves in this before-time because whoever is best organized at the outset of hostilities in any open warfare will quickly carry the day. They can easily murder 100 million people in one day with drones, they can automate them so no person has to pull the trigger.
As far as dividing the ruling class I honestly think the answer is to let them save face and give them a little bit of glory for creating capitalism which got us all these dank means of production. They can go down as good guys as long as they give up control and we allocate resources equitably.
I reiterate here my outlandish demand proposal earlier. But also within each country we can make pressure for wealthy people to donate their property to communist projects basically. This could be one bank, like if we demanded USA and China form a true world bank and then all billionaires cede all their property to the world bank which is used for development projects, maintainance, and R&D.
In this transition I'm drawn to Marx's quote from the introduction to the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right:
"The modern ancien régime is rather only the comedian of a world order whose true heroes are dead. History is thorough and goes through many phases when carrying an old form to the grave. The last phases of a world-historical form is its comedy. The gods of Greece, already tragically wounded to death in Aeschylus’s tragedy Prometheus Bound, had to re-die a comic death in Lucian’s Dialogues. Why this course of history? So that humanity should part with its past cheerfully. This cheerful historical destiny is what we vindicate for the political authorities of Germany."
We need a comic outcome, one that lets the "villains of history" save face and allows us to let go of our attachment to the past (private property and historical vendettas) and focus on the potential for collaborative internationalism as a foundation for populating space. We have a destiny beyond Earthly matters- a destiny among the stars and even other dimensions. Our current struggle for mastery of the world will in future resemble a vicious brawl between toddlers over a popsicle: the vainglorious self-sacrifice for the grandeur of a pittance- what is more important than possession of objects or power is the appreciation of the deep interconnectedness of all reality and the endless potential for exploration of the (inner and outer) cosmos can open up to us through the transcendence of traditional human conflict.
I guess Marx would say that proletarian revolution is how we leverage capitalists' dependence on labor into the seizure and subsequent abolition of power by the proletariat. But I think the question of the superstructure and the base remains instructable. Consider memes: the existence of memes probably has changed material reality and the relations of production a lot recently. So how do we differentiate the economy and culture when so much economic development involves capturing consumers within simulated societies designed to structure the lived experience not just of workers, but every human on the planet? The upshot of what I'm saying is that "armchair" activity can fit under the heading of psychological warfare. Therefore I don't think it's so easy to differentiate between "clear-eyed" revolutionists who eagerly anticipate the days of shooting their class enemies vs. those who dread ever being in a battle but are committed to aiding in the struggle to avoid conflict, win supporters to the correct side, and build up the internal functions of the correct side. Recruitment is one of the central tasks of any military.