>The #1 reason why Communism hasn't been successful in the West is because [idealism]
Yeah no, you're a theorylet. The left didn't succeed because the working class was first bought off with kaynesianism, and then was simply destroyed by deindustrialization (and by extention China but yall not ready for that conversation). The reason why the left is non-existant now because there is no constituency outside of depressed academics and edgy teenagers (aka the decapitaded head of the progressive movement) that would subscribe to communism, because the traditional organized industrial proletariat is gone. That's why the stupidest thing you could do is focus on pointless culture shit like old propaganda on long-dead and rotting progressive projects, instead of, OH I DON'T KNOW, ORGANIZING YOUR WORKPLACE OR YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD?!?!?!
this has a hole in it, and that's the fact that communism is not a theory in a vacuum. If we're talking about winning people over to idealist socialism, then you'd be right, but ultimately the real decisive factor to me is the total dismantling that the working class movement has faced.
If anything this mindset is indicative of the problem. Communism is not something to win people over to one at a time. It's something that will become apparently necessary through the activity of class struggle. And our place as communists is helping the class struggle first and foremost, and adequately summarizing the experiences therein. This doesn't have anything to do with convincing people specifically of the need for communism. That's for the already advanced workers who are serious and political already. For these people, it doesnt matter much if we defend the positives of historical socialist projects or explain their failings. Both are needed and reflect a facet of their reality. But ultimately what this position amounts to is saying we don't have communism because of a lack of a vanguard. Well the vanguard arises from the politicized working class (and adjacent petite-bourg and lumpens who get pulled in), and seeing as the working class's power as a whole and militancy has severely waned, i place that as the primary factor.
>>1102422>(and by extention China but yall not ready for that conversation).
I'm 100% pro-PRC but let's be honest, if it wasn't for Deng, world capitalism would have collapsed a long time ago, or at least have seen a lot more serious crises.
>>1102422>OH I DON'T KNOW, ORGANIZING YOUR WORKPLACE OR YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD?!?!?!
To what end? This is pointless and a waste of time, if the people in those neighborhoods believe that "socialism is when the evil dictator puts everyone in the gulags and kills 9999 trillion people". Anything remotely associated with leftism is tainted with the anti-communist propaganda narrative.
because this is how they gain increased political consciousness anon (and you will too)
t. man who unironically plays Hearts of Iron 4
At this point I'd trust Putin to accelerate Capitalism's collapse over any B*ltic.
You are presuposing 1920/1940 conditions for a society where organized labour has been dead for like 50 years. Even if there was ZERO propaganda, there is no one out there who would take up arms for socialism. There is no organized working class, no clas conciousness around being a prole, no communal bonds towards a wider project of progressive politics. And even the intelectual vanguard is still deep-stuck in electorialism, with a small mix of sprinkled in personality cults or larper brigades.
Maybe industrial labor, but I don’t understand Y no organizing the service sector
replies like this fucking proves to me leftypol retards have zero fucking experience in having a job, "muh working class"
service sector labor has been tailor made by corporations to be as disposable as fucking possible, to aggressively prevent any form of unionization or organization within the workplaces
how the fuck are you gonna organize if you're just a contract worker at risk of getting fired any day?
He isn't entirely wrong. I do believe the future for the left involves organizing such jobs, but of course, they are barely possible to organize. Hence why I fully subscribe to Phil A. Neel's vision that a wide and unorthodox in Marxist theory alliance that organizes based on disposession rather than work, hopefully lead by a vanguard that originates from this constituency. This is why I also believe Black Panthers are probably the best example for organizing to follow in the present moment, except with the removal of the racial element - organize neighbourhood support groups, community outreach, try building from bottom up via a network of small local chapters, but ubder no pretense try to play yourselfs as some radical revolutionaries, rather just always focus on doing what you can to help the local issues. Eventually, this can
grow into dual power, and creating a party structure if the movements are enough of a success to contest local municipal positions in the national bureaucracy.
what does this mean?>>1102463
phone numbers, organizing people who are already on the edge, etc. Recently previously precarious jobs have been unionizing so it's not impossible. One hurdle though is boomers who are scared of change and have stayed in the same job for 30 years. But even they'll get shafted by management eventually and pissed off.
the bpp still required disciplined people in their group though, which is quite difficult in modern burgerland
the answer might be unironically meme warfare
the most prominent persistent social movement in the USA recently is probably unironically MAGAchuhdhdery
and that had the shitposts of the grassroots that gave it its measure of odd vitality, in addition to the money from the bourgeoise of course
>The #1 reason why Communism hasn't been successful in the West is because of the omnipresence and pervasiveness of anti-communist propaganda about 20th century AES countries.
The labour movement isn't a war of ideas, people don't act like a class simply because someone on twitter told them about how based cuba is>If everyone is duped into believing that Communism was a nightmare and caused nothing but poverty and misery every time it's ever been tried, of course they will oppose Communism.
You don't have to be a communist to work towards the demise of capitalism, at all time no matter how strong a labour movement is only a minority of the proletariat and population will ever be communist>If you don't constantly challenge the propaganda narrative about 20th century Communism being a horror and disaster, you're not doing your job as a Communist.
This is genuinely retarded, if you want to go around telling people what go think and how they should live their lives then go become a priest> Whoever imagines that socialism can be achieved by one person convincing another, and that one a third, is at best an infant, or else a political hypocritehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/may/06.htm
>Hence, nothing prevents us from making criticism of politics, participation in politics, and therefore real struggles, the starting point of our criticism, and from identifying our criticism with them. In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm
The "dictator 100 zillion dead" doesn't stop the fascists, though. They successfully influence people to join hands with them, despite anti-Nazi propaganda being just as strong and true.
The refusal of the modern left to read its history, especially recent history and observations from the 1970s onward, is the greatest crime against the cause of socialism. An entire generation of internet commies retreading Marx and Lenin like it's fucking 1917 or 1968 instead of 2022.>>1102467
Phil Neel is adjacent to communization theorists like Joshua Clover and the people who write Endnotes. I think it's critically important to point out that their idea of a 'broad street movement of the dispossessed' basically played out in 2020, where it demonstrated obvious limits and roadblocks. Read accounts from George Floyd protesters and you can see the extreme difficulty of ad hoc organizing anything coherent out of a street movement, the nihilistic violence of those not attached to industry, the refusal of workers to carry the protest movement inside the factories and disrupt production. 2020 seems like a strong critique, if not an outright refutation of the kind of movement you're talking about, and I'm saddened to see there's not a lot of productive reflection about that.
My own pet idea for the 'future of the left' would be the promotion of networks of communal firms using internal labor time calculation as an 'alternative lifestyle economy' people could opportunistically join as an alternative to wage labor. But of course when I tell the Leninists about this they start seething about utopianism, lifestyleism, etc.
Rare good Grillpill post.>>1102430>This is pointless and a waste of time
It's actually the best possible thing you can do right now.>socialism is when the evil dictator puts everyone in the gulags and kills 9999 trillion people
In my experience nobody really cares about this shit apart from liberal politics nerds. Most people have a vague idea that "communism bad" which they absorb from the ambient ideology of liberal society, but this knowledge doesn't exactly loom large in their minds, and they don't necessarily believe it fervently. If they see communists helping to improve their daily lives then they will begin to shed this ideology, especially since virtually nobody in the West supports the political establishment with any kind of enthusiasm anymore. Even if they retain their anti-communist beliefs, this doesnt change the fact that an organized working class (even if lacking full class consciousness) is still an objective good. Grillpill is right, propaganda is not the decisive factor here, it only reinforces a pre-existing material basis for the complacency of the Western worker (first social democracy and then deindustrialization).
The closest France was to communism was in 1968 just a coup away but the communist party's leadership cowardly followed Moscow's recommendation of doing fuck all, and the only reason they eventually supported the movement was because the working class was well into mass strikes. There it's the AES simps who really fucked communism.
>>1102735>There it's the AES simps who really fucked communism
Literally always been the case, in the 30s while Chicago steel workers were getting gunned down by police in the street for striking the communist party of the US was too busy to help because it was devoting it's time and efforts towards helping new deal democrats get elected as directed by the Comintern
Why wasn't communism successful in Vietnam?
Inb4: the US bombed them.
>Tried a top down socialist system long after the war. Abandoned it in the late 80s early 90s and liberalized their economy a full decade after the war. ended . No indication they are abandoning commodities (read the English edition of any Vietnamese newspaper) and currently beg for FDI from places like Korea.
It’s funny, back when I knew active IRL Marxists they told me to stop obsessing over countries like the USSR because it’s irrelevant to the task at hand, this take causes immense seething with internet posters tho
The USSR's decisions during the Cold War make me want to slam my face into my desk until I go into a coma and the people who still to this day insist on not questioning le ebin AES should be purged from every communist party
No it's cause literally the only communist program is "maybe you'll get paid less, maybe more, maybe you'll work less, if you don't you'll magically enjoy work more, also socdem tier shitty welfare, now let's fight against NATO and kill the bourgeoisie, after that's done we can talk about the communism thing"
>>1108061>liberalized their economy a full decade after the war
Most of Vietnam's economy is state owned.
>>1102422>The #1 reason why Communism hasn't been successful in the West is because [idealism]<Yeah no, you're a theorylet. The left didn't succeed because the working class was first bought off with [idealism]
what did he mean by this
bro i have seen this take like a million fucking times on here
are you a spambot or something
Since WWII, the working class in the U.S. had begun transitioning into academic institutions. Left-wing intellectuals began to designate students as the newly emerging revolutionary subject, since the leisure time, skill set and working class background of this wave of students was seen as allowing for an alternative to the need of a petit-bourgeois "vanguard" intellectual group to organize the workers movement.
In retrospect, this was simply a shift in the working class away from strictly "blue collar" work. The U.S. model of education was about training people to cope with the disruption/crisis of capitalist society. Industrial unions declined following a period of technological innovation (automation under capitalist hands, which weakens the bargaining power of workers), and later rapid deindustrialiation and outsourcing, leading to the breakup of the factory.
There was no clear way to deal with franchised service industry workers, and unions increasingly involved professional staffers who integrated into capitalist institutions (e.g. through lobbying). The profitability crisis of the 70's was partially restored in the 80's, but despite this, many unions (typically in the non-government sector) were dissolved.
This, combined with the divorce of Black Nationalism from communist parties in the 60's alongside communists refusal to break with the democrats (until very recently), lead to the adoption of a methodology that favours reformism and the status quo. Currently, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is collapsing and the socialist left, embodied by the DSA, is sinking along with it as a consequence of being tied to progressive liberalism, due to an overlap of rhetoric and history.
Despite the popularity of progressive policies, the progressive movement (which has a base that mostly consists of urban petit-bourgeois or cartelized labour-aristocratic interests) is the least popular in mainstream U.S. politics. Through NGO-ization and bureaucratic drift, the burgeoning socialist left in the U.S. was co-opted into a controlled opposition in the Democratic Party.
State ownership isn't sufficient for socialism, but it is necessary. Frankly I don't know enough about Vietnam to form an opinion about whether or not it's socialist, but thr supposed "liberalization" of its economy is far more limited than libs seem to think. It's actually closer to Cuba than it is to China in terms of the size of its private sector.
>>1108061>Abandoned it in the late 80s early 90s and liberalized their economy a full decade after the war. ended
I dunno mate, I think something happened in the late 80s that fucked up second world countries big time..
CHYNA didn't deindustrialize the west, the crack fiends needing their next fix of sweatshop labour to provide axorbitant rates of profit did. Don't blame the country who knew what needed to be done for a properly functioning economy. how can one man be this profoundly retarded?
most intelligent /leftypol/ack
>>1102417>we'll win over western normies by convincing them the very real and recorded crimes of "aes" are actually an illuminati conspiracy
Unique IPs: 27