You don't need to go shouting it, but if someone starts talking politics at you, fucking own it. Some coworker is like "trump sucks", say "yeah I know, I'm a communist". Your grandpa says "trump rules", say "no he sucks ass, I'm a communist". You're on a date and they ask who you're voting for? Say "I'm a communist". Cashier asks would you like change? "Yes, I am a communist".

Be open about your politics and lay claim to the title. Be a communist.

  • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Let's do a roleplay to demonstrate. I will be the buffoonish ignoramus who only knows communism bad.

    What do you mean you're a communist? Like China or Stalin? Those guys are bad.

    • MAGAY [none/use name]
      2·
      4 years ago

      I'm gonna take this seriously like ur a coworker or stranger, u guys critique me

      Nah not like that really, more like... original Marx stuff combined with Bernie Sanders. It's not that radical when you get down to it, essentially that most resources should be democratically controlled instead of by a single weirdo like zuckerberg.

      Probably wouldn't go on that long unless they continued to seem with me

      • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Good effort, but do you think they would know what you mean by "original Marx stuff"? You should be ready to explain any terms you're introducing. They would probably know Marx purely through the lens of propaganda, so phrasing it that way may be putting an obstacle. Making a Bernie comparison is useful, though, because it gives people a touchstone to a popular and well-known figure, even if his politics are not quite where we want to be. How else could you put it?

        • MAGAY [none/use name]
          ·
          4 years ago

          You're right - swap out Marx for something like "the fact everyone knows to be true, that there are rich fucks controlling politics and the economy instead of the people as intended"

        • abc [he/him, comrade/them]
          1·
          4 years ago

          Ooh let me take a crack at this -- I love slowly introducing leftist concepts to my liberal coworkers.

          "What do you mean you’re a communist? Like China or Stalin? Those guys are bad."

          I'm not going to get into the decades of western propaganda that we've been inundated with, but no - not like China or Stalin. Why do corporations and a small handful of people, like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and many more, get to spend their lives in incredible comfort and hoard money that they only received by exploiting their workers, consumers, and others? Why is it that we, as a nation, could solve homelessness and food insecurity in weeks if there wasn't a need for someone to profit? We have the resources, the technology, hell - we have the agricultural and industrial might to feed and home every person in this country if we decided to. But we don't, because capitalism necessitates that there must always be a malnourished, underpaid, and underappreciated working class for the ruling class to exploit.

          Anyways, it sucks that you have to take unpaid time off next week to give palliative care to your dying grandfather - I'll be more than happy to cover for you it's no problem.

        • ComradeBongwater [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          A few easy, very agreeable tidbits.

          "Instead of rich shareholders owning the company and hiring management to hire workers, you have workers owning the company and electing or hiring management directly. Within that system, there is as much diversity in views on governance as is here under capitalism."

          "Instead of the government granting legal status to what we call a corporation and giving them the right to own property, we simply only grant that status to entities under the democratic ownership and control of the people who work there. Current zoning laws prevent you from putting an Arby's or strip mine in the center of your residential neighborhood. Zoning permits would similarly be used to assure that all workplaces are owned by the people."

          "You can own all the property you want, but if other people work on that property, it is now legally regarded as owned by everyone working there or the public."

          "Everyone who works for a company votes to either decide how to pay each other or the person or group of people who make those decisions."

          "Communism doesn't necessitate a strong government, or even any government. America's strong ideals of individualism would likely squash tendencies towards authoritarianism, and any practical implementation here would likely be much more decentralized than most historical examples of socialist governments."

          Don't be afraid to oversimplify things. When they inevitably ask about the details:

          • Emphasize how much diversity of thought there is within communist ideology.
          • Make sure they know there is a lot of choice within the implementation details, none of which are really more complex than the legal machinery that enable capitalism.
          • Use that opportunity to explain the various sub-ideologies, showing that none of which are inherently about coercion or control. "x-ists would say that [thing] should be done by/through ... whereas y-ists would say that [thing] should be done by/through ...."
          • Show that many of the ideas they value in liberalism like rule of law, separation of powers, or constitutionality would either be improved or made obsolete by a socialist economic system. Use whatever sub-ideology that best fits their value.
          • Make things seem as mundane/tame as our current legal classifications. Speak in as few revolutionary terms as possible, and if you do, present them as how [historical figure] saw things. Revolution implies violence, which scares the fuck out of the libs. Presenting them as simple, minor classification issues simultaneously makes them seem quite achievable and also lets people build their own disdain at the system for being unwilling to make such minor changes...which will let them come to revolutionary terms without feeling coerced.

          I'm more ML than ancom these days, but I will take whatever rhetorical position is best suited to harbor agreement and create an opening for acceptance of anti-capitalism/socialism. If you have to denounce the Soviet Union or CCP to win favor, do so. It's practically impossible to say "Everything you know about the rest of the world is the culmination of decades of propaganda. All of your worldview is bullshit and you've been accepting it as truth." You can focus on debunking MSM red scare bullshit on the real-world attempts at socialism only once they accept socialism/communism as theoretically sound.

          If you can get them to look at links, send them this brief explainer on most terminology.

      • Cummunism [they/them, he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        i find im able to slam rich people around pretty much anyone, although most people still have this crazy inability to make the last 20% of the connection.

        • MAGAY [none/use name]
          1·
          4 years ago

          Fuck you, the way everyone is so hyper-critical online has been so annoying to me lately. Every single earnest post attracts a swarm of intellectuals ready to condescend. The reality is though, marxist-sandersism, or whatever I'm describing that you're laughing at, is not a laughably shitty explanation, you're just being a dick. What would you say to the coworker after they accuse you of supporting Stalin? Say yes he's le epic and based? Yeah that'd be very normal and not laughably awkward in reality. Yes this was a wild overreaction but like I said I'm sick of everyone just cumming themselves at how clever they are for cringing and loling at everything earnest

      • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        oh no, I'm scared

        Let's pause the roleplay. I think that maybe you should avoid speaking Russian before establishing a comfortable rapport.

              • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
                ·
                4 years ago

                That's a common misconception, actually! Two things: First, socialist states like the USSR and China get a lot of accusations of causing famine. And it's true that they both had major famines in their early years. What's important, though, is that famines were normal in those areas before the revolution. After the revolution, they had one major famine and then completely solved food insecurity issues. Today, China has some of the best food security in the world. Second, capitalism causes plenty of famines of its own. The Irish Potato famine happened because the British government exported food from Ireland to sell for a profit during a crop shortage. Today, enough food is produced to feed everyone in the world, but it's not profitable to give it to poor starving people.

                  • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    Good point about the two famines in the USSR. That was my mistake. The second famine, which was in Ukraine, is a really complex topic. What's clear about is that the Soviet efforts to mitigate the famine underestimated the scale of the situation, which was exacerbated by wealthy peasants destroying crops in protest to wealth redistribution efforts. Either way, the same fact applies: the USSR lasted for another 60 years without any food issues at all.

                    Good question about the economy. What we should remember about the economy is that it follows the rules we set for it. You're right that under a capitalist economy, things wouldn't function if we prioritized feeding the needy over generating profit. Your point is actually one of the strongest condemnations of capitalism I can think of.

                    As far as the pilgrims go, I would need time to look over that paper and get back to you. I don't want to rush to answer something I'm not familiar with. What I can confidently say is that we are in a fundamentally different position today than the early settler pilgrims were four hundred years ago. We have the technology and organizational capacity to do they things they never could have dreamed of.

                      • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
                        ·
                        4 years ago

                        Well it's a two step process, right? I did the first step: capitalism bad. Next step is communism good. I'd point again to China's food security.

                          • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
                            1·
                            4 years ago

                            They are! In the US, for example, COVID has pushed food insecurity from around 11% to around 30%. In China, on the other hand, food insecurity is about 8%. 20 years ago, it was 17%, so China is making significant progress while the US worsens.

                            And on the topic of the very poor in China, that number is in constant decline as well. In the late 70's China's poverty numbers were above 95%. Today they are less than 5%. Half of the reduction happened since 2000. China is by far the global leader in poverty reduction and is on track to completely eliminate poverty within the decade. Can you see that happening in America?

                    • Sampson80 [none/use name]
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      😬 It's not particularly cool to blame the peasants for their own starvation. Some kulaks butchered heads of their cattle so they could at least get some benefit from them, but the effect on the extent of the famine was negligible. It's a very convenient scapegoat for a communist government, blaming "wealthy peasants" behaving selfishly and wastefully, but that itself should be a cause for scepticism.

                      • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
                        ·
                        4 years ago

                        Oh, I'm definitely not blaming the majority of the peasants! And I'm not absolving the Soviet government of blame. There was real mishandling of the famine. What I'm saying is that wealthy peasants had turned themselves into a landlord class and intentionally exacerbated the famine via destruction of cattle and crops well beyond normal numbers because their class position was threatened by the Soviet government. The majority of peasants, who were poor, suffered due to this. Like any famine, there is a confluence of factors.

                        1. Environmental conditions

                        2. Insufficient government response

                        3. Landlord sabotage of food stores

                        • ComradeBongwater [he/him]
                          ·
                          4 years ago

                          Drop the word "peasants". It's unnecessary and detracts from your argument in practice.

                          Very few actually know about the exact socioeconomic conditions of the Ukraine at the time beyond as a meme, and if they do, they're either one of us or an experienced propagandist whom engaging would be a waste of time.

                          I'd suggest using the phrasing "the wealthy destroyed their own crops to prevent the populace at large from benefiting from the wealth others labored to bring them." and "they preferred their own countrymen starve to not having social and economic power over them."

                          Mentioning mismanagement in handling the fallout is a good idea. Criticize something (mildly) first if you want someone to open their mind to the positives of that thing.

                          Also, it wouldn't hurt to split "environmental factors" by enumerating the tangible causes. I always try to mention disease and drought separately.

              • guppyman [any]
                ·
                4 years ago

                'You probably will not be surprised to hear that the colonists starved. Men were unwilling to work to feed someone else’s children. Women were unwilling to cook for other women’s husbands. Fields lay largely untilled and unplanted.'

                Starving yourself and your family to own... yourself and your family.

    • CorporalMinicrits [he/him]
      1·
      4 years ago

      “Well, what I believe in is something called Marxism-Leninism. It is a marriage of both Marx and Lenin. It primarily advocates anti imperialism, anti capitalism, and economic and social justice.”

      I will hold back on redpilling them on the benefits of Stalin and the PRC for a later date

        • CorporalMinicrits [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Sure, he was. But how do you know for certain that’s the real reason why he shot Kennedy? I mean, the guy that shot Reagan did it to impress Jodie Foster. And because Oswald was murdered before he could testify, you can’t say for certain.

          I wouldn’t give him the talk about why Lee Harvey Oswald was a heroic man and should be on every 20 dollar bill.

            • CorporalMinicrits [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              I mean, He was the most likely person to have done it. I don’t think that the grassy knoll theory is fully credible.

              • YeahISupportLenin [none/use name]
                ·
                4 years ago

                i wouldn't say it's very likely that he could have shot jfk from the 6th floor of the texas school book depository while eating lunch in the cafeteria at the same time

                • CorporalMinicrits [he/him]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  Bonnie Ray Williams testified that Oswald ate lunch on the 6th floor that day, and that he finished as early as 12:10, although I’m not certain that is realistic. How long does it take for someone to eat lunch? Let’s take 10 minutes for now. He was seen downstairs at noon sharp at the latest. He’d probably climb the 6 story staircase in around a minute and a half, considering he was in good health. Then, he eats lunch on the 6th floor and takes around 10 minutes. It’s very likely he could have finished by at the latest 12:20, and then get into position. Kennedy was shot around 12:30.

                  • YeahISupportLenin [none/use name]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    Bonnie Ray Williams testified that Oswald ate lunch on the 6th floor that day, and that he finished as early as 12:10

                    Ray Williams never said that? He said he himself ate lunch on the 6th floor and went back downstairs at approximately 12:20pm.

                    He was seen downstairs at noon sharp at the latest.

                    Not true. Harold Norman and James Jarman both testified that they say Oswald in the Domino Room (first floor cafeteria) after they re-entered the TSBD, no later than 12:23pm. Oswald himself testified to seeing two African-American men walking while he was eating in the Domino Room , he didn't know their names, but knew one of them as Junior, the nickname of Jarman.

                    Kennedy was shot around 12:30.

                    Correct. But as far as Oswald (assuming he's the shooter) was concerned, Kennedy would be passing the TSBD at 12:25, according to the schedule published in a local paper.

                    • CorporalMinicrits [he/him]
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      While my timeline of event may be off, it’s still quite possible that he could have done it. Initial plans can go wrong in a lot of assassinations, but things can recover. Remember that Gavrilo Princip had positioned himself at just the right time, even after believing that things had gone wrong and that he needed to wait more.

                      Also, I’d like to know who you think framed Oswald and had Kennedy shot dead

                        • CorporalMinicrits [he/him]
                          ·
                          4 years ago

                          I don’t see what superpowers were necessary. He wasn’t eating lunch at 12:30.

                          Why would the CIA have Kennedy killed? He was pretty beneficial to them. I can see the mafia connection, sure, but the CIA didn’t have too much reason to remove Kennedy

                          • YeahISupportLenin [none/use name]
                            ·
                            4 years ago

                            No, but he was eating lunch at 12:25, the time he would have thought Kennedy would be passing the TSBD. If Kennedy was supposed to pass at 12:25, why was Oswald not on the sixth floor before then?

                            Are you joking? In what way did Kennedy benefit the CIA? He screwed them over after they intentionally botched the Bay of Pigs, they felt he had surrendered to the Soviets after the Cuban Missile Crisis, he issued directives to pull troops out of Vietnam, intending to fully withdraw by 1964, he fired Allen Dulles and straight up said he wanted to dismantle the CIA

    • MorelaakIsBack [comrade/them]
      1·
      4 years ago

      "Tell you what. If you can get 100 words down, on paper, without using the internet, explaining how "China Bad" and "Stalin Bad" are effective retorts that disprove dialectical materialism and render the entire concept of Communism null and void, then I will stop being a Communist."

    • REallyN [she/her,they/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I just had a dream last night that my sister was watching a documentary on the soviet union and basically had this conversation. It didn't go well.

      • ComradeBongwater [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        What I consider to be necessary for a communist government is largely just a communal concern for well being, both ours and everyone else.

        At the expense of being called a revisionist, I actually disagree that this is necessary. Too many people are self-centered assholes to make this a requirement for our movement. We will need quite a few self-centered assholes if we want any chance at succeeding. You just need to convince them that our goals are good for their goals. If they aren't upper management or a business owner, it isn't all that difficult.

        It's quite easy to frame things in an individual perspective. "YOU should get the full benefits of YOUR work. Rich assholes who don't give a fuck about YOU are basically stealing what you make."

        Just reframe "taxation is theft" into "profit is theft". The tragedy of the commons just needs to be presented as "how greedy elites are fucking people like you and me over"