NationStates Jolt Archive

... is why do "communists" waste time trying to tell people that their "communism" is different to the soviet-union-style "communism", when it would be much easier to just come up with a new name for their ideology?

...Stalinism you mean?

Even if communism didn't originally mean soviet-union-style rule, it effectively does nowadays, considering how many people use it that way.

Well, that's their problem, not ours. Real Communism is Communism, plain and simple.

Soviet-style Communism was Totalitarian bullshit.

Hey, Soviet style communism was damn close to communist... but the Bolsheviks slaughtered vigarous Soviets until only the meek and the ignorant were left with the selfish. Soviets actually faced-down the Red Army with words, and convinced them; and later fought deadly battles against the Red Army forces sent against them by Trotsky.

Soviets are not bad things, but unfortunately the Soviet Union even before it fully existed, in the early '20s, was no more Soviet than it was communist.

Anyway, I call it communism because the word actually makes sense. In English, and not in some dead classical language.

Well, that's their problem, not ours. Real Communism is Communism, plain and simple.

Soviet-style Communism was Totalitarian bullshit.

If by "they" you mean non-communists, then I don't see how it is their problem. They're using a widely-accepted usage of a word, and communists are being misunderstood. Looks like the communists have the problem here (if you count being misunderstood as a problem).

Communism is whatever the person you say it to thinks it is. Your views may be conflicting, but in the spirit of enabling communication of your views without immediate bias against them it'd probably be a wise idea to come up with a new term, at least while you start to explain.

If by "they" you mean non-communists, then I don't see how it is their problem. They're using a widely-accepted usage of a word, and communists are being misunderstood. Looks like the communists have the problem here (if you count being misunderstood as a problem).
you make a good point. although it is wrong this, totalitarianism/Stalinism, is what most people think of when they hear "communism". its a shame but i don't really think we can just come up with a new name for the ideal. i mean for a start it'll just confuse all the communists out there and god knows we're fragmented enough already :p

maybe ordinary people should simply be better educated ;)

... is why do "communists" waste time trying to tell people that their "communism" is different to the soviet-union-style "communism", when it would be much easier to just come up with a new name for their ideology?

The last thing the left wing needs is more -isms.

you make a good point. although it is wrong this, totalitarianism/Stalinism, is what most people think of when they hear "communism". its a shame but i don't really think we can just come up with a new name for the ideal. i mean for a start it'll just confuse all the communists out there and god knows we're fragmented enough already :p

maybe ordinary people should simply be better educated ;)

It's not a mere matter of education. Knowing that there is another meaning to the word won't necessarily let you know which meaning someone is using.

It's not a mere matter of education. Knowing that there is another meaning to the word won't necessarily let you know which meaning someone is using.
well if everyone were better educated to know the differece between Communism and Stalinism/Totalitarianism then i don't think there would be a problem. i mean, communists talking to other communists manage to get the difference accross fairly well

well if everyone were better educated to know the differece between Communism and Stalinism/Totalitarianism then i don't think there would be a problem. i mean, communists talking to other communists manage to get the difference accross fairly well

The problem is that they have to be "educated" towards your definition of communism.

Because most real communist don't realize that after a certain point, to sustain communism a government must become totalitarian in nature. Its the reason why absolute democracy isn't possible at the US' size. It can ONLY happen in local areas. Most are ignorant of it.

But after a certain size and population... management must be done to prevent capitalism, and other forms of economic development. Thus the reason why real communism will ALWAYS fail. A communistic country has NEVER succeeded in human history, and capitalism or socialism has.

After a while, just tell them to get a clue.

Or,

"Why is Communism even necessary, when capitalism immediately adapts to the desires of an altruistic society?"

That's really why any real communist party, will inevitably fare poorly: There are so many bad connotations, and as said before, much is it based upon previous anit-communist propaganda, which still exists today, as many people would be anit-communist without even studing communism.

... is why do "communists" waste time trying to tell people that their "communism" is different to the soviet-union-style "communism", when it would be much easier to just come up with a new name for their ideology?

There aren't really many names for it. Kropotkinism is less likely to arouse stereotypes of terrorists or totalitarians than anarcho-communism, but sounds too much like a cult of personality if you ask me.

Many trotskyist-communist groups label themselves as socialist to stop people labelling them as stalinist.

When the words were first invented commusist was what we would call democratic socialist, and a socialist was just a utopian.

It wasn't until 1904 when the german Social Democratic Party was set up that the use of the words again changed, and socialism became a 'real' system, and after stalin fell in russia, that communists had a rebrand.

Only leninist or maoist groups still calll themselves communist, i think :headbang:

Even if communism didn't originally mean soviet-union-style rule, it effectively does nowadays, considering how many people use it that way.

Just because people mis-use a word doesn't mean those who use it properly should start mis-using it too. The meaning of the word "communism" pre-dates the USSR, and is still used today by those with any degree of proper education.

To give up the word to such an appalling perversion of its meaning would be to surrender to scare-mongering propaganda which has effectively seized control of so many minds.

The problem is that they have to be "educated" towards your definition of communism.
which is the correct definition ;)

"Why is Communism even necessary, when capitalism immediately adapts to the desires of an altruistic society?"
I could respond with an Ayn Rand quote, getting all the commies here all riled up - arrgh, I can't resist! :D

Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other
-Ayn Rand

Hey, Soviet style communism was damn close to communist... but the Bolsheviks slaughtered vigarous Soviets until only the meek and the ignorant were left with the selfish. Soviets actually faced-down the Red Army with words, and convinced them; and later fought deadly battles against the Red Army forces sent against them by Trotsky.


Huh? The Red Army was the communist military force which establised the USSR. They were fighting Tsarists and counter-revolutionaries during the Russian Civil war, not Soviets (Soviets were worker's unions of sorts, right?)

At what point before, during or after the Russian revolution did the Soviets, which I can only assume were non-military organizations, fight "deadly battles" against the Red Army (who were on their side)? Are you sure you've got your Russian history totally nailed?

Huh? The Red Army was the communist military force which establised the USSR. They were fighting Tsarists and counter-revolutionaries during the Russian Civil war, not Soviets (Soviets were worker's unions of sorts, right?)

At what point before, during or after the Russian revolution did the Soviets, which I can only assume were non-military organizations, fight "deadly battles" against the Red Army (who were on their side)? Are you sure you've got your Russian history totally nailed?
I reckon he means the original forces which backed up the Soviets, the Kronstadt Sailors, who played big part in the success of February 1917. After October, the Kronstadt sailors began dissenting the Soviet regime, saying that it was not what thye had fought for. Having been turned into legendary icons in Bolshevik propaganda, they had to be silenced, and, as such, Trotsky led a massive force of Red Army troops across the ice between it and Petrograd to attack the Kronstadt base.

... is why do "communists" waste time trying to tell people that their "communism" is different to the soviet-union-style "communism", when it would be much easier to just come up with a new name for their ideology?That's exactly what capitalism did in the USSR. However, why change a name which states quite clearly what it is....Commun-ism.

When you start to deceive, then you end up with people like Bush and Stalin.

I reckon he means the original forces which backed up the Soviets, the Kronstadt Sailors, who played big part in the success of February 1917. After October, the Kronstadt sailors began dissenting the Soviet regime, saying that it was not what thye had fought for. Having been turned into legendary icons in Bolshevik propaganda, they had to be silenced, and, as such, Trotsky led a massive force of Red Army troops across the ice between it and Petrograd to attack the Kronstadt base.

Ah right. I didn't know he was referring to the Kronstadt incident.

... is why do "communists" waste time trying to tell people that their "communism" is different to the soviet-union-style "communism", when it would be much easier to just come up with a new name for their ideology?

Because they will come up with this new name and then Americans upon listening to the ideas will still link it back to the cold war and get scared of the ideals again.

... is why do "communists" waste time trying to tell people that their "communism" is different to the soviet-union-style "communism", when it would be much easier to just come up with a new name for their ideology?
It is different. I believe Stalinism is a Trotskyite term, but I'm not sure.

Just because people mis-use a word doesn't mean those who use it properly should start mis-using it too. The meaning of the word "communism" pre-dates the USSR, and is still used today by those with any degree of proper education.

To give up the word to such an appalling perversion of its meaning would be to surrender to scare-mongering propaganda which has effectively seized control of so many minds.

Oh please. It's not a mis-use of a word to associate commonly held connotations of it's meaning. Just because you think communism means one thing only, does not mean other definitions are invalid.

"Giving up the word," no. It's your decision to use that word. But don't get mad when no one is keen on YOUR definition of it.

Seriously, how many times do you see in arguments, a communist aggressively trying to define for others what "true" communism is, it's 'correct usage.' So much time is spent trying to cling to your doomed, one-size-fits-all definition that your idealogy is lost totally. Words are for communicating, and when you insist on being "noble" by being largely incomprehensible to most other people, your messages don't get anywhere, and that is certainly one reason why communists are inevitable minorities (at least in real countries like the USA). Then again what do I care if you don't communicate your idealogy well?