If you enjoy this video, then please like,
subscribe and help me survive by donating
a dollar or two per month on Patreon.
Link in the description below.
Sorry for doing this at the start of the video,
but it really worked the last time.
So yeah, we're done!
Let's get started.
I can't help but notice that - even on the
left - many of us are still hesitant to use
THAT word...
You know, the one in the title.
Bad Mouse got quite a bit of backlash for
his video "Why 'Communism' Is Important" back
in January 2019, and I can't help wondering,
why are we so afraid of this word?
Today I'd like to contribute to the conversation
started by Bad Mouse by teasing out the meaning
of the word a bit more (specifically by adding
one left-libertarian's definition of the word).
So what does "communism" mean?
Personally, I find the anarchist David Graeber's
Marx-inspired definition from Debt: The First
5,000 Years to be the most useful:
"I will define communism here as any human
relationship that operates on the principles
of "from each according to their abilities,
to each according to their needs.""
Graeber suggests that communism is something
that people do.
We communise.
If you're having dinner with friends, you
might ask someone to pass you the salt.
Here we see communism in action: You NEED
the salt, and you expect others to give it
to you because they are ABLE to easily do
so.
You don't expect them to charge you for their
time, nor will you give them any kind of IOU
after.
Graeber continues:
"Communism is the foundation of all human
sociability.
It is what makes society possible.
There is always an assumption that anyone
who is not an enemy can be expected to act
on the principle of "from each according to
their abilities," at least to an extent: for
example, if one needs to figure out how to
get somewhere and the other knows the way."
Asking for directions is a key example of
doing communism.
And people are generally quite comfortable
with these kinds of interactions when actual
money is not explicitly involved.
"The same goes for small courtesies like asking
for a light, or even for a cigarette.
It seems more legitimate to ask a stranger
for a cigarette than for an equivalent amount
of cash, or even food; in fact, if one has
been identified as a fellow smoker, it's rather
difficult to refuse such a request.
In such cases - a match, a piece of information,
holding the elevator - one might say the "from
each" element is so minimal that most of us
comply without even thinking about it.
Conversely, the same is true if another person's
need - even a stranger's - is particularly
spectacular or extreme: if he is drowning,
for example.
If a child has fallen onto the subway tracks,
we assume that anyone who is capable of helping
her up will do so."
As humans, we always imagine and expect that
anyone capable of saving the life, will.
It's simply common sense for us.
And yet, the world's richest, don't - because
they aren't cuddley commies like us.
In 2018, Jeff Bezos could have bought every
single homeless person in the United States
a home, and still had 19.2 billion dollars
left over.
That's over half a million people suffering
on US streets because Bezos doesn't want to
help them.
Many of those have died since that time, and
- like if you didn't save someone from drowning
when you were easily able to - the blood is
on Bezos's hands for letting those deaths
happen when he could easily have prevented
them.
I daresay that if Bezos were living his life
more in alignment with communist principles,
this wouldn't be happening.
So, we begin to see how we can start from
very small interactions, like passing your
friend the salt at dinner, or giving directions
to a stranger, and expand and scale these
kinds of actions upwards all the way to the
organisation of society as a whole.
This would lead to a fully communist, stateless,
classless society.
And now we see the socio-economic organisational
definition of the word emerge.
Of course, this has arguably never actually
occurred in true fruition in any civilisation.
But communism as an action, a mode of interaction,
is present all around us all the time.
And if you like that kind of stuff - you know,
strangers helping you out with directions,
people passing you salt, lighting your cigarettes,
collective ownership of the means of production,
etc. - then you're probably a filthy, dirty,
degenerate commie like me.
Of course, the word "communism" generally
conjures up images of Stalin and Mao, and
people often try to distance themselves from
that by emphasising that they're Anarchists,
or that they're DEMOCRATIC socialists or what-have-you.
Why, Even Murray Bookchin used the word "communalism"
as a line of distinction between his and the
more "top-down" approaches to communism - but
it's still communism.
I suppose their argument is that, to quote
the great Marxist, William Shakespeare, "a
rose by any other name would smell just as
sweet."
But, unfortunately, this completely fractures
the left.
No longer are we all glorious comrades who
collectively dream of achieving communism.
Instead we're atomised into Marxist-Leninists,
Maoists, anarcho-syndicalists, egoists, ancoms,
etc.
And we'll never, EVER, work together - which
is, of course, very convenient for those who
hold power.
We could all be united under the umbrella
of "communist", regardless of the particular
paths we each believe would be best to get
us there, and provide a true counter-hegemonic
block against the power of the right wing.
We need to take this word back so that we
on the left can offer a true alternative vision
to neoliberal tyranny.
So why aren't we?
Well, probably because even we have internalised
the militant, organised anti-communist efforts
that we've been subjected to over the past
100+ years.
And this has had a hugely detrimental effect
on our societal development, especially for
those living in the United States:
To quote Blanche Wiesen Cook from 1989:
"Everything creative, fine, and imaginative
in American thought has been splattered and
soured by the anti-communist vitriol.
Anti-communism has narrowed the American mind
and has been responsible for the incredibly
shrinking American heart.
It has polluted our discourse; destroyed our
national credibility; vitiated our democracy.
After decades of Red Scares and Red Squads,
of MK-Ultra and COINTELPRO, of covert and
overt operations, and counterinsurgency capers
on every continent, we stand morally isolated
before the world, allied with [apartheid]
South Africa and other killer countries, on
the wrong side of every movement for human
justice and national liberation - always bellowing,
when we are not shrieking, and thumping and
bumping and burping our guns and tanks and
missiles: communist! communist! communist!"
Of course, while Cook is referring specifically
to the US here, the US holds such cultural
power globally that this applies virtually
everywhere.
The anti-communism of those in power hurts
us all, and we, who want to improve our world
for everyone (not just the few elites at the
top), need to push back against it.
"Socialism", too, was a dirty word for a long
time.
But over the past few years, it has become
almost ubiquitous because we've been working
hard to take the word back by teaching people
what it actually means.
Now let's keep pushing that Overton window
to the left and see if we can do the same
thing with "communism".
It won't happen overnight, but let's keep
trying.
Thanks for watching and thanks especially
to Rare Hero and the rest of my Patrons.
I have so much love
for you all.
Take care, gang!
