<b>Four jumpstart attempts:</b>

1) One brother, when asked at New York's occupation about the communism he was advocating, laid out a powerful idea from Marx:

<blockquote>"A society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."</blockquote>

2) Others, including Bill Martin, have popularized the expression:

<blockquote>"A society of mutual flourishing."</blockquote>

Those ideas seem like part of our goals... but a bit to fragmentary to me, and a bit to dense for a popular expression. There is more to say, right?

3) I tried to capture my own current attempt in "<a href="/http://kasamaproject.org/2011/10/14/suddenly-it-is-five-minutes-to-dawn-and-the-wind-smells-like-freedom/" rel="nofollow">Five Minutes Before Dawn</a>":

<blockquote>“Above all: Let’s consciously go for the whole thing. The change we want is about taking the accumulated wealth, technology, hard work, science, and connections of a complex global civilization — and finally (finally!) putting it into the service of us all, including the very least and previously powerless among us. It is about the voiceless suddenly speaking, and the wealthy suddenly becoming silent.”
</blockquote>


4) Our "<a href="/http://kasamaproject.org/2011/10/12/what-is-the-kasama-project/" rel="nofollow">What is Kasama?</a>" statement has its own attempt:


<blockquote>
"The problems of humanity require communism – a global change that passes through the radical overthrow of a society of rich and poor, the development of a socialist sustainability to save the biosphere, the liberation of women from ancient subordination, the final overthrow of racist oppressions in the U.S., the vicious demonization of same-sex relationships, an abrupt end to this militarized empire (its global networks of mercenary forces, its torture camps and endless wars), the social takeover of monster banks and corporations — all of which requires radically new forms of democratic control by previously powerless people."</blockquote>

I know it's brief, but I still think it's the best description. Communism is a society where we receive "from each according to (their) abilities" and give "to each according to (their) needs," as a baseline.

From there, the sky's the limit in terms of what we can accomplish.

Steve D'Arcy wrote on Facebook:

<blockquote>" A community-based, post-capitalist economic democracy, in which the public governs itself autonomously, without the mediation of unresponsive systems of power, such as market regulation or bureaucratic administration."</blockquote>

To know, to transform. Together. To eliminate all old ways for the new. No divisions by race, gender, age or any other dead ideas. (that should be under 140)

To break tradition's change while constantly teaching others to do the same, free of exploitation. To take flight and not fear our vision of what can be radically different.

Folks....in the spirit of being non-sectarian I offer the following article from Rally Comrades which is the theoretical journal of the League of Revolutionaries for a New America. Here is an excerpt:

<strong>Myths about Communism</strong>

American anti-communism is grounded in a misunderstanding of communism and capitalism. Like other ideologies of the ruling class, such as white supremacy, anti-communism subverts the development of class consciousness and ties the working class to the dominant class. The media, politicians, educational establishments, religious institutions and other purveyors of ideas have a full arsenal of anti-communist myths and lies, including: (1) Capitalism equals democracy, (2) Communism doesn’t work, (3) Communism is the same as Marxism. Let’s examine these misconceptions.

<strong>Myth # 1 </strong><strong>That capitalism and democracy are one and the same.</strong> Democracy is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. To equate one with the other is like equating factories and religion, one is the economic basis of society, the other is in the realm of the superstructure. By saying democracy and capitalism are the same, the U.S. is able to make it appear that defense of democracy is defense of the U.S., and that the United States has the right to impose its brand of democracy on the rest of the world. The superstructure – the ideas, political system, legal system, religion and culture – that arise on the basis of a particular economic system can vary greatly in degrees of democracy. The capitalist country of Denmark, for example, has a high level of democracy where people of all classes live comfortably. Nazi Germany was capitalist, as was South Africa with its brutal apartheid system

The economic system with the greatest equality of wealth and income provides the strongest base for the highest level of democracy. The fullest expression of democracy can only arise on the basis of a communist economic system.
<strong>
Myth #2 Communism doesn’t work. </strong> By the dictionary definition of communism no country in our lifetime has yet been able to establish a communist economic system. Countries like the Soviet Union and China where the proletariat came to power during the industrial revolution and sought to establish communist economic systems, were unable to achieve their goal. They were prevented from reaching full communism – in large part — because the level of technology available at that time could not produce the abundance necessary to provide for the material wellbeing of the whole community. The Soviet Union was overthrown; communism was not.

<strong>Myth # 3 Communism is the same as Marxism. </strong> Communism is not a new phenomenon and did not come into being with Marx. For over a million years, human society was organized on the basis of communist economic relations. People lived in hunting and gathering groups where cooperation was essential to survival. Human society organized into economic classes — with a dominant class living off the labor of exploited classes — is relatively new, and the economic system of capitalism has existed for less than 600 years. Almost all of human history is the history of common ownership of the means of production and distribution.

A very brief way I've been speaking of it. A world of common ownership and common liberation. Where the people really are the masters of society.

On longer explanations, more later .

Julia wrote me:

<blockquote>"I like Steve's vision, but would not call it communism. I would add on to this vision anti-authoritarianism and governed through direct democracy.

"Is there a reason you are holding so tightly to the word "communism,"

"Mike? It just seems to me that this word has been tightly linked to totalitarianism and authoritarianism at this point in history, so why not use a word/label that can help give us a fresh start and prevent divisiveness? There is a lot that we agree upon."</blockquote>


This is a great question, Julia. And it comes up all the time. Because of what the word "communism" has been associated with in education and media.

I don't assume our explanation of final goals has to include the word communism literally every time we open our mouths. I'm not even against a serious discussion about whether we should "cling to the world" (as you put it). Perhaps we should consider calling ourselves communards.

But I suspect (when all is said and done) that communism will prove to be a good (wonderful!) choice.

And I have to say that I am <em>not</em> in favor of <em>retreating</em> to the label "socialist" -- because of some built-in implications and slippery slopes. It seem connected (at neck and ankle) with a politics of lowered sights, meat-and-potatoes visions, and a not-so-subtle side-stepping avoidance of important questions.

I also don't think anyone will be "fooled" if we try to commpletely drop the word "communism" -- and just talk descriptively about a global egalitarian society... Won't everyone know it is a discussion of a communist vision? What would we call ourselves?

(When the Z-mag people speak about "parecom" -- doesn't everyone know it is a form of decentralized, anti-authoritarian socialism, under a kind of re-packaging?)

My assumption is that we should ( a ) take the high moral ground, ( b ) assume we have an opening to re-introduce the word to a new generation, ( c ) reclaim it, straight into the wind of anti-communism. If the choice is discard communism, or "be communist, clear and proud" -- my sense is that people will respect some backbone, and will not respect a mealy-mouthing or fudging (when it is obviously a communism that we want!)

When we raise communism, people will (naturally and understandably) want to hear our discussion of state repression, commodity scarecity, non-democratic state rule, etc. And they should. And we will need to give deep and credible answers (not apologics of various kinds). No one wants a future that looks like the Soviet Union 1937 -- and we have to explain what we learned and unlearned based on such events.

But I don't think a name change will enable us to "get around" sharp and understandable questions raised by people looking at history.

And more to the point: I think we should associate "communism" with what we want -- not with what we had. And we should energetically reinject it with a communal, experimental, radically dangerous and liberatory quality.

When can we talk about abolishing private property? C'mon folks! This is what its all about.... from Occupy -to- Subprime Mortgage -to- Homland security... there IS a thread and Karl made it his foundation.

I appreciate your post, Mike, but a problem for me is that describing something as "communist" and saying that Kasama is a "communist project" tends to raise more questions than it answers, given the huge range of positions that also describe themselves as "communist."

There is the Chinese Communist Party, there is the RCP, there is the ISO, there is the Cuban Communist Party, there is the Progressive Labor Party, there is Toni Negri, there is the FARC, there is John Holloway, there is Marx, there is Trotsky, there is Mao, there is Pol Pot, etc., etc—all of these individuals and groups describe themselves as "communist" and have legitimate and defensible reasons for doing so.

Are they ALL communists? Or is there one "real" communist position among them? Which one is that? And how does Kasama fit into this enormous diversity?

So, when you say that you are a "communist," it is hard for me to derive much content from that, other than a very general commitment to social justice. And when you say that you're "rethinking" communism (which I support) it seems to further underscore the ambiguities and suggest that you are presently uncertain about where you stand on the great questions of revolutionary theory and strategy.

I can understand why one might think that defiantly proclaiming yourself a communist could silence critics, but the problems that revolutionaries face seem more theoretical than moral to me right now. Yes, courage is a good thing, but it is no substitute for insight.

For my sake, I tend to think that it is important for revolutionaries to focus on the inadequacy of old traditions (in order to highlight new tasks) and also, as a rule, to concentrate less on ideologies than the social structure itself. I do not mean suggest that it is an "either-or" (that you can really separate theory from inquiries into society), but simply to caution against the danger of falling into an ideological echo chamber.

&gt; And I have to say that I am not in favor of retreating to the label “socialist” — because of some built-in implications and slippery slopes.

While no one should imagine that they can "retreat" from the word "communism" by hiding behind the word "socialism," there is also a reverse corollary to that. When Lenin founded the Third International he insisted that the member parties should call themselves "Communist" as a way of distinguishing themselves from the Social Democrats of the Second International. But by the 1930s the Comintern had reverted back to seeking coalitions with the Socialists, Radical Democrats, and even just plain Democrats. So the use of the title "Communist" didn't really have the big implications of marking the Comintern parties apart from the rest which had been expected.

No one should imagine that they are somehow going to build up a new party without having Bill O'Reilly brand them as "Communist." In that respect the word should be accepted without qualm. But neither should one think that using the word will somehow make a big difference. "Socialism," "Communism," "People's Democracy," "People's Republic," even "Party of Labor of Albania," are all words and phrases which have been mish-mashed together in one big stew. None of them are really distinctive in the present context.

The main point is to aim for clarity. To think that one is going to somehow sneak a "Left-wing" agenda in through the backdoor while voting for Barack Obama or Ron Paul is insane. But there are no Left-wing buzzwords which can offer a protection against backsliding in the way that the Comintern did in the 1930s.

I've always thought it important to distinguish between the Marxist categories of socialism and communism, and to think about things historically, in a process of evolution.

Socialism is something we have seen (or---some of use born early enough---saw in the twentieth century). We have a record of its extraordinary achievements, as well as its colossal failings

Communism (classless society) is something that we observe here and there in the Amazon rain forests, or the Andaman Islands. W know it existed for hundreds of thousands of years of human prehistory. But no modern class society has evolved into a communist one.

When Stalin posited in the 1930s that the USSR no longer had antagonistic classes and had arrived at an initial stage of communism, he was making a serious mistake. Mao's central contribution to Marxist theory, in my opinion, was his insistence upon the acknowledgment that throughout the socialist "stage" classes persist, and only with the progressive shrinkage of the sphere in which the "law of value" operates can we ultimately establish classless society.

In mainstream political parlance during the Cold War, "communist" countries were those in which a self-defined communist party held power. The mainstream representation of communist thought centered around the idea that the (so-called) communist societies were leveling, oppressively equalizing prison camps. (I'd like to say that this depiction distorted Marxist theory, but Stalin by conflating socialism and communism lent some legitimacy to this interpretation.)

The fact is, there were some societies which under the leadership of Marxist-Leninist parties did make great strides towards social equality, while the goal of "to each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" remained a distant goal. Because communism is NOT readily obtainable. Mao's conversation with Pol Pot during the last months of Mao's life (which by the way is extremely interesting) stressed the impossibility of doing what the Khmer Rouge tried to do: establish communism overnight.

Communism should be discussed (as Mike puts it) as a "final goal." In advocating it we should argue for socialism, as a long transitional stage, distinguishing it from the "socialism" in the common conception (such as the Swedish model) by linking it to the use of state power to organize production to progressively establish equality.

#3 leaves me weepy and excited. No, I'm not be sarcastic or snarky:

"“Above all: Let’s consciously go for the whole thing. The change we want is about taking the accumulated wealth, technology, hard work, science, and connections of a complex global civilization — and finally (finally!) putting it into the service of us all, including the very least and previously powerless among us. It is about the voiceless suddenly speaking, and the wealthy suddenly becoming silent.”

I like that.

The Revolution has Begun! Everything for Everyone!

That is the best revolutionary slogan I've come across to date. At my Occupy in Wellington, New Zealand, it taps into the same current as the 99% slogan but with a sharper view of the possible future.
I think though, the role of the slogan or the analogy is to lay the ground for a wider, deeper discussion. Cartoons have also been very useful when putting together the Occupied Dominion Post in conveying comple ideas in a relatively clear form.
We've been able to talk about class through the use of the 99% term as well as the on the ground realities of a meatworks lockout 100kms up from Wellington which our Occupy has aligned with. These ideas move from being abstracted theoretical discussions to being concrete practical realities.
The power in a slogan is the ability to unpack a discussion from the slogan...

Dear comrades

I would prefer to stress the following:

Communism is the result of a worldwide struggle against imperialism: against the globalized exploitation of the riches in the world. Against the rein of capital and for the power for the people, led by the proletariat.
Against parasitism (in which the monopoly games and bets are no more aimed at productivity) and against the assassinations and abuses on the people.

After eliminating all that, we can start building afresh all the communitarian cooperation and a communist fellowship for everyone.

Communism is a whold new system. After slavery, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism.

I think no one has won over Marx yet

I can come up with a few different notions, but let's start as simple as I can make it:

Occupy Earth

"Nothing should be made by man's labour which is not worth worth making; or which must be made by labour degrading to the makers" - William Morris

I sometimes think about how many of the worlds problems would be solved if the economy was guided by this simple idea

Where the working class, together with its allies, takes political power to discard the old order and build a new one, freeing both themselves and all humankind, moving to a classless future

Co-creating an I-Thou relationship between peoples and between peoples and the global environment. Mutuality is the basis of communism and it is important that this mutuality be extended to the planet.

I like Mike's idea (whimsical, perhaps) of being revolutionary Communards. In contrast to "ism" and "ist" -- which always seem to ossify into dogmatic tenets and templates -- communards evokes a living struggle where consciousness and transformation flourishes out of paying attention to what is emerging, what is dynamic, what constitutes the leading edge of resolving contradictions.

What does it all mean?

To work together, to share together, to free ourselves by liberating all of humanity.

Communism: a system that provides for the collective satisfaction of human needs in order to bring forth the full flowering of human potential.

ADVICE TO COMMUNISTS *


It follows from our exploitation,
No matter gender, race, or creed,
That working people have no nation
So are best placed at routing GREED.
Like capital we’re international;
Unlike it though we can be rational.
If we can put class in first place
We will arise a human race.
But only after revolutions
Have turned the world all upside down
And capital has lost its crown,
Will workers’ co-ops’ contributions
Make any sense; but then you’ll see
What turns an “I” into a “We.”

* This “poem” argues that, as Marx argued, despite all differences working people, the world over, have ONE BIG THING in common: their exploitation. It does not mean that we are not divided by a host of differences. But unless communists bring this ONE BIG THING to the forefront we will never have a basis for overcoming these differences. This is the special task assigned to communists.

Possible Tweets:

Communism is....

the realization of socio-historical possibilities which fulfill the dreams of the Utopians, the longing of mankind for a society worthy of its best potential.

the ending of politics, and the triumph of a world community of brotherhood, each caring for each other as they would care for themselves, in a united, peace filled Earth

a liberated world where humanity, and individuals are united in one, where people gain conscious control overall all the social expressions of their humanity in making the world a place that brings the maximum happiness for all, and on the backs of none.

Communism allows for the humanizing of humanity, the establishment of the humane as norm as our nature and conduct towards all life not as its end but also as its means; it's the creation of the cooperative conditions for a full well rounded development of all people to flourish in a unified society to their full potential. And such qualities in people are themselves also the requirements for communism.

"s I see it, communism is immanent in this society. It is a real force and movement literally bursting through every pore of this society. It is a force and movement that is striving to be realized, to be fully articulated and consciously grasped. And the socialist revolutions of the 20th century were expressions of this — partial, incomplete, contradictory, compromised, and ultimately defeated or reversed to be sure — but in their initial motion still unmistakably expressions of this striving and therefore important for us to own and answer for even if our answers are, to paraphrae Marx, ruthlessly critical."

well no they weren't expressions of that tnl, the 20th century revolutionaries were ideologues of the same strand as the ones a century before that simply found the terms communism and socialism to be friendly to the emergent new forms of technocratic rule, this is after marx and engels destroyed the imaginative ideas of socialism and communism which for me died with fourier, that was a man that really did try to construct a science of human freedom, with M&amp;E it became a chess game(just look at M&amp;Es diaries on the outcome of the franco prussian war). How about when Engels says 'to let workers run the show is tantamount to abolishing industry itself(he was an industrialist of course)' M&amp;E and the diseases they spread did not have the prefigurations for an authentic human freedom, taylorists like lenin cannot apply for anarchy in the world, they don't want it. There was nothing contradictory about those 20th century occupiers of the historical dustbin, they believed what they believed and are being punished accordingly by those who really do want a new way of living.

And whatever ism or descriptive you attach to a post authoritarian society is something that is immanent in all times and all places, progressive anthropology and new age psychedelicticians suggest it was very much a reality before 10 000 years ago it was immanent in Russia which came oh so close to skipping modernity to get there and the anti bodies against authority have showed up elsewhere, but its always been knocking, soon the authoritarians will be show the door...ALL of them.

I like the statement from “Five Minutes Before Dawn” a lot. It struck me when I first read it and it still resonates and rings true with me today:

“Above all: Let’s consciously go for the whole thing. The change we want is about taking the accumulated wealth, technology, hard work, science, and connections of a complex global civilization — and finally (finally!) putting it into the service of us all, including the very least and previously powerless among us. It is about the voiceless suddenly speaking, and the wealthy suddenly becoming silent.”

This is also true:

I'M A MAOIST

I think that it is sharp, fresh and real to be a maoist.

I feel good saying I am a maoist. I‘m proud to be a maoist. I am proud to be a conscious revolutionary person, and, when speaking to people that respect that, I am proud to call myself a maoist. I can defend mao and maoism and am eager to do so, especially with awakened and conscious people.

Maoism is not just the highest expression of internationalism and communism, maoism is the part of communism that is most sharp, most fresh, and most true.

I want to introduce myself as a maoist.

I know that not everybody that posts to or reads Kasama is a maoist. I appreciate the broad dialogue. But, I have to say that, my first and best answer to the questions raised by this post is that I am a maoist.

I'M A COMMUNIST

All maoists are communists. But, lots of other people call themselves communists also. The best approach to the burden on the word ‘communism’ is from the perspective of maoism. The maoist understanding of revisionism, dialectics, the GPCR and the continuing class struggle within socialism all address the faults of the revisionists and the failures of communism.

IMAGINING COMMUNISM

It seems idealist to me to project too much onto trying to imagine what communism will be like.

I don’t want to argue against imagining communism. It is a good thing in so far as it helps to prepare or test ideas.

But, I am not convinced that imagining communism is important to motivate the advanced. To me, imagining communism has too often felt abstract or academic and has not particularly been a part of motivating me to be a revolutionary. Maybe other people are different and imagining communism will strike a chord with them.

In the main, our job is to awaken and enable the masses to make revolution so as to move forward and to define, while building, that future. We can’t fully imagine that future because, really, it is to be imagined and built in the course of the revolution that we want to bring into being.

Maoism helps me to understand that it is not really up to us, now, to try to imagine what communism will be like. Our role is to help awaken and enable the masses to make a revolution so that they, through the course of the struggle to carry the revolution forward, can imagine and build communism.

WHAT WOULD I SAY?

In the length of a tweet:

“I’m a maoist. I want to change the world. I want revolution - people becoming aware and transforming themselves and building a new world.”

There is a taste of revolution in occupy and people love it. That is motivating. It speaks directly to mass line, maoism and communism. My description of revolution aims to resonate with that.

Somebody more eloquent than me might better describe revolution in terms of the flowering of social liberation and empowerment of revolutionary democracy.

To the person active in occupy, in a context of mutual acquaintance and respect:

“I’m a maoist.”

Sometimes, I would start by saying that I am an anti-authoritarian maoist. Then, explain that maoism is anti-authoritarian at its core, so that the ‘anti-authoritarian’ part is redundant. So, really, I am a maoist.

“There was music in the cafes at night, And revolution in the air.”

There is the taste of revolution in occupy - it is liberating and intoxicating. It is the freedom and liberation of our mutual interaction and realization of our power in solidarity. And, it is the appreciation of our being in this moment of history. Occupy is a taste (only a small taste, but still intoxicating) of what revolution feels like. Mass line, dialectics, the cultural revolution, and maoism speak to that.

While that is true, it is also true that:

In other times, places and movements, the vision of communism that most resonates will be different than that which resonates with occupy.

Our “final goal”, is a complex and multi-faceted thing. Different movements might draw inspiration and motivation from different parts.

@Equalize, who says:

<blockquote>Maoism is not just the highest expression of internationalism and communism, maoism is the part of communism that is most sharp, most fresh, and most true.</blockquote>

To whom?

I can appreciate a good deal of Mao's work, especially that prior to 1950, but this is a religious confession of faith, especially when you designate someone's teachings who died in the 1970s, and had little to say about some of our current problems, as 'the highest.'

Communism—hmmm.

Think the sticky-wicket for moi is the thinking that wraps one’s head around “final goal.” Rather than some finality, I think communism (in the broadest sense) is a real beginning in the emancipation and more so transformation of humankind with steps toward liberating the planet.

This may sound idealistic (am not sure there is anything all that terrible about being an idealist if you can try and imagine and create something better with the world as we know it. Rather than squelching dreams, it encourages dreaming—way beyond one's own little scope.)

But IMO communism, philosophically speaking, embodies a universality, a real humanism and worldview, and embodies some universal truths for the majority.

With all the creativity and imagination that should “flourish” (I like that choice of words because it is in motion and not stilted) and be unleashed, who is to say what this planet and all its inhabitants will experience.

And to me, communism signifies the highest stage that we are aware of for now, in not only transforming the world, but is a key part in a much needed evolutionary process.

No faith. No religion. Maoism is not mao's 'teachings'. Maoism is still being developed and deepened. Kasama is part of doing that.

I am not trying to argue here for the truth of Maoism. Or even to go that much into what is Maoism. That is not the topic of this thread.

I am speaking to this thread. I am arguing that the word 'Maoism' is not exhausted in the way that communism is. It is a strong thing, from a pedagogical viewpoint, to present yourself first as a Maoist.

@Equalize

I would put socialism first, since that's actually the next order. then communism or classless society to divide socialism in two, and to point out the aim of our brand of socialism, the self-emanicipation of the working class, which in turn frees all. I'd leave the 'isms' with men's names in front of them for last, if at all, save perhaps for Marx.

Am anarcho-Denguist. Problem?

Twitter is the single greatest technological innovation politically of the decade (would #Jan25 have even been possible without it?). I think it should speak to Twitter as much as to the aims of communists.

In that spirit, Tweeted this: @ajagbeadewole #communism is the spectre of sustainability realized, a society based on flourishing and shared abundance, not robbing joy.

I'm still thinking about how I would actually describe communism in compelling, contemporary Twitter-length way. But I generally say something about radical new forms of mass agency. For me that's always a key component.

But more generally, I want to say here that we need a good balance between the meat and potatoes conception of a socialism that's not in the distant future, and a far more radical conception of communism. The fact is that, especially in the early stages, there will be a lot of overlap between existing society and revolutionary socialist society; precisely because socialism is not some static arrival point, but is rather an intensified battle between capitalist and communist tendencies, and many paths open up (some of them are liberatory, some are not). There will be the immediate necessity of providing housing, health care and so on. These are pressing problems that are alive in existing society. We have to be able to speak on these, and revolutionaries will have to develop working strategies for solving them.

On the other hand, my engagement with Kasama over the past year has further convinced me that we should not be myopic in how we define our politics and seek to orient ourselves. We need to define ourselves in terms of our long-term goals. Those conceptions of socialism that don't talk about communism very much are pretty conservative. Imagining a more radical version of the welfare state is not all that radical. And it's a type of thinking that leads to the fetishization of forms improvised over the course or revolution, and which sees the consolidation/preservation of these as the principle task of continuing the revolution (or rather the revolution is see as something basically accomplished and in need of preservation). Didn't the Soviets announce during the Khrushchev era that they had achieved socialism? Wasn't this a rather decadent and conservative turn of events? Wasn't the struggle in revolutionary China, with a conception of socialism as a continuation of class struggle, sharply in contradiction with all that, and wasn't it in fact much more radical and revolutionary?

As I see it, communism is THE question. Derrida talks about two kinds of futurity, I've heard from a secondary source. There's the kind of futurity of relatively predictable unfoldings. There's a future that we can talk about with some certainty. (We're going to need to do something about the immediate problems of housing and health care, and there's going to be continuities with how these things are worked out in existing society.) Then there is a futurity is stranger, more other. It is a futurity of the really unexpected, realities that are REALLY different than what we already know. We should think about communism is that type of futurity. It's difficult to talk about or symbolize. It can't be captured in a purely operational logic of up-close class analysis or plans for dealing with the exact problems that people are facing in late capitalist society. But who in China in 1949 could have foreseen the Cultural Revolution, and the radical foreshadowing of communism that it represented (and what the implications of such a struggle were). But it's nevertheless important to orient ourselves to such a futurity at all times. That's the only way to remain radical. It's not just because of anti-communist propaganda that thinking about "final" goals in terms of something like a "workers' state" sounds pretty Orwellian. It IS Orwellian lol! The path of communism is not about moving towards a finalistic, grey sunset of history. It is about orienting ourselves to many unforseen dawns. Forgive me if I sound too poetic here, but I think that that's irreducibly a part of it and is not anti-realist except in the most vulgar sense! I think it's no accident that, in the early days of Russian/Soviet socialism, avant-garde art was in vogue. All that is part of a new imagination taking shape.

Capital multiplies &amp;

does many wonderous things

but! capitalism can’t

house &amp; feed humanity

To borrow from Lenin's 'Soviet power plus electrification' as a definition of socialism, how about 'Popular power as communes, led by the working class, plus fully automated fully cybernated production that meets the needs of all and shrinks the working day toward zero.' That only 142 characters, easily put in a Twitter feed

@Carl

Tl;DR

Communes + nanotechnology

Shorter.

Yeah, SKS, but in that case, you need to be a red geek to get it

ECONOMIC JUSTICE (FOR A NEW LABOR MOVEMENT)


We stand for economic justice
But not the Democratic way;
For, like Obama, they will bust us,
Then laugh and say it’s A-OK.
So let’s get down to class tectonics
Of justice in our economics:
Where workers can appropriate
The profits bosses cumulate.
This follows from our exploitation.
(Which means that bosses really steal
What is produced by commonweal.)
And so there’s no equivocation
We’ll have to take it with a fight
So: WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

Please see more at http://poemsonaffairsofstate.blogspot.com/

"Imagine the possibilities in a world without a 1%."


"Topple the 1%. We can run this world ourselves."


"What joys could we unleash if we abolished the gut-grinding fear of hunger or homelessness from every last corner of this earth?"


"A world without exploitation or oppression. Where human needs are priority #1, including that truly human need: to satisfy another's need."

So that government of, by, and for the 1% SHALL vanish from the Earth.

Communism is the science of liberation.

It seems to me that there are several ends to which to optimize soundbites:

1) Bumper stickers, graffiti, stencils: media where the ability to speak further is limited or nonexistent; this is all you'll be able to say. "Stop bitching; start a revolution;" Bezdomni's "Communism is the science of liberation;" a hammer and sickle icon. Here, enigmas are acceptable, even encouraged; the purpose is to pique curiosity, a goal which in conversation is accomplished the minute you say "communist."

2) Soundbite explanations; "so what is communism/why are you a communist?:" here enigmas are unacceptable, if someone asks you what communism is or why we should support it and you say it's the science of liberation, you're going to sound, frankly, circular and cultlike. Ideally this sort of soundbite should answer what and why at once.

3) Intra-communist regulations: short little ideas to inspire us and keep our eyes on the prize. Obviously arguing by slogan is stupid and awful, but since everyone does it just a little bit, I suppose the slogans can be optimized for this purpose.

4) Others? Surely there are a bunch (and surely the above can be further subdivided.)

Ideally a tweet-sized definition would somehow encompass the:
* refusal to compromise with the existing system,
* destruction of hierarchies of all types: economic, sexual, racial, ...,
* opportunity to advance economically faster than has been possible under capitalism,
* continuity with the best of our species' cultural and scientific heritage
while expressing them as a unity, rather than as a list of logically separable demands.

It seems to me that one thing that unites these - at least in my mind - is a return to a sort of optimistic rationalism/high modernism that's fallen by the wayside recently, and that the main things to reject when evoking that group of themes is a set of antimonies - reason:West:male::unreason:colonized:female, belonging vs individuality - which are utterly poisonous. We want to recover or construct a deracialized and degendered Enlightenment concept of Man. That's obviously a tall order, given how deep those assumptions are driven into the concept (Enlightenment Man doesn't raise children, &amp;c.) and the formal restrictions in place here.

Every time I try to formulate something, though, I realize how much better "free development of each as a precondition for the free development of all" is. Maybe it can serve as a springboard for less snappy but clearer Facebook-sized bits?

"To borrow from Lenin’s ‘Soviet power plus electrification’ as a definition of socialism, how about ‘Popular power as communes, led by the working class, plus fully automated fully cybernated production that meets the needs of all and shrinks the working day toward zero.’ That only 142 characters, easily put in a Twitter feed"

Of course you'll never critique production as such will use carl.

Communist Revolution-1. throw out the creeps who have oppressed us, patronized us, relentlessly attacking the poorer classes-2-a peoples congress that includes all working class parties with as much political liberty that is possible, while marginalizing corporate-right-wing political parties-3-an economic system that excludes no one and leaves no one to slip through the cracks into poverty-4-the goal, at very least, that resembles all the utopia of John Lennon's "Imagine"-

They best I can do with only Tweet space.

@Novel

'Never critique production'? Not sure what you mean. My whole politics is anchored in an ongoing critique of production--cybernetically, ecologically and altering the structures of power.

Do we need to describe the abolition of borders? Of the state? Of wars and national domination?

Some descriptions focus on the relation of the individual to the society -- but don't the people we are talking to also want to know what happens to the biosphere and racism? What intimate relations would be like?

There also seems to be a tension between describing structures (how things are decided, distributed etc.) and results (end of poverty and classes, empires... etc.)

Which should we focus on? How much should we describe the horrors of class society that will have been abolished (state, class, war, gender oppression, etc.), and how much should we envision the nature and parameters of what will now be possible (mutual flourishing, abundance, full individual potential, unalienated work, non-exploitative global synergies of culture, etc.)

As such carl

@Novel

Production is critiqued concretely and historically, not 'as such', unless you want to go into the realm of Plato and his forms. That's the path that got Heidegger into a muddle.

Cosign on Redpines, also to crudely quote myself: "This not for the pawns dreaming of being kings but for those dreaming of bringing a world without kings into being." — http://youtu.be/KxtwGwXs_U8

Assuming that we are talking about how to open a conversation, I like to begin with a focus on social relations and move from there. I think the communist ethic was expressed well by Marx: "Nothing human is alien to me."

The revolutionary transformation of economic and political institutions is ultimately about creating a world in which we can mutually thrive. A definition of communism that focuses on controlling the means of production isn't going to sound attractive to anyone. Of course we have to control the means by which we produce and reproduce society, but that's only the means to an end not an end in itself. That's why I believe calls for "workers' revolution" or in fact "workers" anything don't resonate with anyone. Who wants to fight for a society in which labor is the primary determinant of their worth?

Here's how Marx described communism:

<blockquote>"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.” </blockquote>

Here he is clearly opposed to the permanent specialization and compartmentalization of human capabilities.

Many people have some idea about what a better world could look like; sometimes it sounds like communism, but it's then dismissed as an unrealistic pipe dream. Because they have been subject to anti-communist conditioning, short-term thinking, notions of "human nature" and because real-world socialism had serious shortcomings, people are unwilling to believe that exploitation, oppression and environmental destruction have systemic roots, much less that we can create something new and better.

It's imperative that we address these concerns honestly and openly, but I think that if we can't even agree that it's possible to conceive an egalitarian world, then we can't have a meaningful conversation about communism.

So do we start a discussion with a vision of the world we want to live in and can achieve, or get bogged down in responding to criticisms right at the outset?

For my tweet, I'd say that communism refers to <i>a society in which we can recognize ourselves in each other, in which we take collective concern for the well being of each other and the environment, the guiding values are compassion and rationality.</i>

I didn't do a character count, that's probably over 140. I think if we start there, we can have a discussion about the details of history and theory from a more favorable position.

No carl, in order to critique production historically and concretely it has to be critiqued as such, basically it comes down to the separation between what is produced and me and mine as Albert Libertad would say, the individualists anarchists were the first to nail it down(the continentalist stirnerians), later marxists like Cammatte finally got around to catching up, I can assure you these intellectual currents were very concrete in their critique and internally consistent to a T.

Many fine ideas here ...

Just for the record, my formulation was/is,

<blockquote> "A <em>*global community*</em> of mutual flourishing."
</blockquote>


I also like the idea of "a truly *social* society." This is expressive, I think, of the idea of the resolution of the contradiction between social production and private accumulation. It also reminds us that we live in the paradoxical state of an "anti-social society."

We also need to find good ways to express the idea that global capitalism and imperialism already require fantastical levels of cooperation (e.g., aircraft carriers and everything that goes with them--fighter jets, tender ships, etc.--don't build themselves or operate themselves, etc.), but all of it harnessed to the creation of profit for the capitalists, and this is done through competition between units of capital and between imperialist nation-states.

(Leave aside for the moment that, in the imperialist superpower that is the United States, the leading factors of capital, namely the finance capitalists, want a guarantee that they cannot lose out in the competition.)

The level of cooperation required demonstrates (as Marx showed in the middle of the nineteenth century, and as many had suspected for some time before that, though perhaps without certain key concepts and without the detailed illustration that Marx supplies in *Capital*) that the only real *contributions* of the capitalists *qua capitalists* are to suck off surplus value from the production process and to make "investment decisions," many of which are immoral (in some sense the use of napalm in Southeast Asia was simply an "investment decision" of the capitalists as a national bloc contending with the Soviet Union in the division of the world) and some of which are just plain stupid.

Even when these decisions are "brilliant," some part of the world's laboring masses are going to be hurt.

But my basic idea is this, and it is just a slight restatement of what Marx argued: Modern production is cooperative, and capitalism requires a great deal of cooperation; let's get rid of the extra bit, the competition for profits, which does not serve the broad working masses who cooperate to produce (indeed, it hurts these masses sooner or later).

Perhaps some forms of competition are good, perhaps some forms of competition can help everyone, but not when cooperation is subsumed within competition. We need things to be the other way around, and then we would have a quite different view of what kind of competition might be good.

I personally don't do twitter, but if I had to make this point in a much shorter form, I would say,

<blockquote>"Let's turn the world right-side up. Society already requires tremendous cooperation--let's get rid of the capitalists and their idiotic, world- and people-destroying competition, and instead place competition under cooperation to make a world where people have the possibility of realizing their immense human capabilities."
</blockquote>


All of this is already well-expressed in many of the posts here, sometimes better--thanks everyone.

Today's Hyperbole, Tomorrow's Axiom!

@Novel

Send me a link to one of these critiques of production 'as such' that you are calling for so i can read it directly. I still have no idea what you are talking about. Or better yet, do one yourself and share it with us,

Communism is the exhilirating freedom and connection to others that you sometimes feel on the internet spread through all of society. (134 characters)

Carl Davidson said;
"Production is critiqued concretely and historically, not ‘as such’, unless you want to go into the realm of Plato and his forms. That’s the path that got Heidegger into a muddle."

I would argue that Socialism is the link between Capitalism and Communism and that link should connect reality to historical visions. In the end something has to work in the concrete world.

@Otto

Exactly, Otto. I agree.

This is clearly not "modern" but here's my trial (cut &amp; past from 2 traditions of my language sphere) : "communism is the conspiracy of equals to create of society of masters without slaves".

I cannot describe what communism is; I can only say what I believe communism should be. A society where each one contributes according to their abilities, and has their needs fulfilled. A society where everyone treats others as they would want to be treated. A society where everyone has the opportunity to develop their abilities and desires in peaceful cooperation with everyone else. A society where fairness is a guiding principle, and where people liive in harmony with nature, but still have a decent material standard of living. A society where coercion is no longer necessary, and where truth and scientific principles are prized and considered the normal guides to knowledge.
These are all ideals and guides to action, and can never be perfectly and finally attained. Practical, real-existing communism, will be different in different countries and cultures, and at different stages of human development.
But this is all utopian dreaming unless we are intelligent and patient enough to work toward those ideals in a way that helps to bring them, even partially, into reality.

Socialism is a form of surplus labour and overall does not depart from top down capital ordered relationships therefore fail. Communism if the word is to have any hope should be a reflexive human movement where the no intentional non ordered conjugate space enframes who we are.

Oh and old commi there is no with nature, nature is not outside, we are nature nature is us, there is no separation, come to terms with it and orchestrate oneself accordingly.

A little too simple, 'Novel.' We are that part of nature that can reflect back upon itself, mull it over, and make changes if we care to.

"We are that part of nature that can reflect back upon itself, mull it over, and make changes if we care to."

I think the idea that our activities and inventions are not "natural" is what Novel is addressing.

Yes we can reflect on and re-configure the world, but that is a result of our evolutionary process. Most people consider "nature" to be that which is found and untouched by human labor, but that is an arbitrary definition that separates us from other animals on the wrong basis. Beavers build dams, bees build hives, etc., Every living being re-shapes their environment to the extent that their capabilities allow them to. Humans happened to have evolved more extensive capabilities so when we create computers or airplanes, that's natural too.

No argument from me, Zerohour. After all, I'm a natural rights and historical materialist guy who thinks the productive forces are quite important, and a critical part of nature, or at least the human-made part of it.

But there was a time when the Earth lacked human beings and social creatures of any sort. Even a time before any living things at all. But since it's all nature, all the way back, we then have a nature with at least four 'natural' levels of hierarchy--inorganic, organic, social and intellectual--each resting on the one prior to it, but not completely dependent upon it, and with its own independent rules. It's the last one that 'reflects back upon itself, mulls things over, and works the solves problems it deems necessary to solve, and make self-designed changes. A little different from the bees and beavers.

I'm a monist, and then dividing one into two, I get experience and nature, and as you go all the way down, so to speak, it becomes harder to define, like The Tao. Likewise thinking about the future. It's both full of limits and open at once. You're free, but not just as you like, also a little different from bees and beavers. More in Hegel's sense of freedom, the ability to act creatively, bringing new things into the world, but through action in accordance with necessity.

Materialism is part of that great contrived separation that goes back thousands of years, Aristotle gave it working power with his concept of the unmoved mover, all modern ideology is predicated on this, a hefty bit of science particularly quantum theory has proven materialism wrong, if any thing as the 1st(or is it 2nd) rule of the Kabalian goes, the universe is mental, there is no escaping mind in any kind of phenomenological accounting, and the ultimate default to that is the individuated experience.

How about universe (Bucky Fuller always referred to it without the 'The') as the Tao, ever changing and unnameable, with patterns of value manifesting as both material and mental at various levels, ie, Pirsig's metaphyics of quality. Id you're interested, google my 'pirsig's zen pragmatism' for the longer argument. Don't know if I can fit that on twitter or not! Perhaps a return to the topic at hand is in order.

I want to support Equalize's position (#29) of describing himself as a Maoist (communist). In my view, this refers to the political strategies/parties we need to get to communism, to socialist societies under Maoist leadership, and to the goal of communism itself. It is particularly important for today's revolutionary activists to learn about and from the great leaps forward made during the socialist period in China, 1949-1976, particularly the 10 year period of the Cultural Revolution. A detailed discussion of the Cultural Revolution and its historical legacy by the MLM Revolutionary Study Group can be found at www.mlmrsg.com. Even though it was defeated, the Cultural Revolution is the highest point reached by the international working class so far.

I would add that particularly for communists in the imperialist countries, it is essential to base ourselves on Marxism-Leninism, which Lenin developed 100 years ago to guide making revolution in a backward imperialist country. It of course must be further developed based on current conditions, but it can only be ignored at great risk. We are not starting all over.

While it is fine to discuss and re-envision communist society, it is more important to re-envision socialist society in the US and the long and protracted class struggle that will be necessary to keep on the socialist road to communism. Some contributors to this site write as if communist society can be achieved in the US, or in other individual countries, by themselves. One of the most important duties of a socialist state in the US will be to support struggles for national liberation and socialism internationally, and move together towards the worldwide defeat of capitalism and the goal of communism.

<blockquote>1) Bumper stickers, graffiti, stencils: media where the ability to speak further is limited or nonexistent; this is all you’ll be able to say. “Stop bitching; start a revolution;” Bezdomni’s “Communism is the science of liberation;” a hammer and sickle icon. Here, enigmas are acceptable, even encouraged; the purpose is to pique curiosity, a goal which in conversation is accomplished the minute you say “communist.”</blockquote>

Communism at this level should be presented in a very primal, negative way. In other words, it needs to made crystal clear that communism is the negation of bourgeois society. In this vein let me offer the following:

Communism: because somewhere, right now, a little girl is starving to death to pay for Lloyd Blankfein's 6th yacht. (A true statement given Goldman's manipulation of futures markets.)

Communism: because imperialist war is a racket and proletarian victory in the global class war is its negation.

Communism: because you're sick of going to war for the 1%.

Communism: because the 1% will hate you for it.

Communism: because your boss will hate you for it.

Communism: because the 1% tells you it's impossible.

Communism: because without the sword of Lenin, Gandhi's vision of the world is impossible. (One for the liberal peace police.)

Communism: because despite all their lies you know that human equality is the truth.

Communism: because they tell you that this is freedom. (Poster of homeless folks in the U.S./Poster of family's home being foreclosed on/Poster of Jamie Dimon's mansion on one side and a family living in a hovel on the other/poster of police thugs attacking Occupy protesters/poster of mutilated body of Afghan child/poster of family being raided by ICE/poster of young black man pulled over and harassed by pigs/poster of clear-cut forest/poster of enormous open pit mine/poster of tar balls washing ashore from BP oil spill)

Here's an interesting approach

'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need' --Karl Marx, from The Holy Bible

"The first ones now will later be last, the times they are a changin' Bob Dylan from the Holy Bible

Communism: because your life wasn't meant to be spent making others rich.

Communism: one Earth, one people, united, and free.

Communism: because nine million children a year sacrificed to profit is nine million too many.

Communism: because we all want to be free.

imagine no possessions
i wonder if you can
no need for greed or hunger
a brotherhood of man
imagine all the people
sharing all the world

@ Chegitz, #73: all lovely.

@ Carl, #72: very interesting approach. It reminds me of how, back in the late 60s, longhaired activists would set up tables in front of grocery stores and malls and whatnot and ask people if they would sign on to statements about freedom and rights that had come from the U.S. constitution (including the Bill of Rights) and Declaration of Independence, and some people recoiled and said, "We can't sign that, that looks like some communist thing!" It's time for this sort of provocation again, as a way of showing that communism has very old roots (as Marx wrote, "humankind has long been in possession of a dream, and now humankind is in a position to instantiate this dream") and as a way of challenging "free-market Jesus" bullshit.

@ Investigacionesmilitantes: Long live Lennonism!