this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
1069 points (98.4% liked)
Work Reform
17232 readers
208 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
🙄 Communism isn't an economic model?
It is in fact not.
Definition
It is a system government. Although the concept of communism is extremely complex. Ideally, it would be a classless society based on shared and equal equity.
Socialism is part of it of course, but one can exist without the other.
Can't find this anywhere in the Manifesto
By Karl Marx?
I have literally provided you with a definition.
Not one from the Manifesto.
You're going to have to be more specific. Are you talking about The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels? There isn't just one "manifesto." There are numerous political manifestos written by communist parties and movements throughout history.
And even if you are referring to Marx's The Communist Manifesto, why would you expect it to explicitly define the word "communism"? Marx and Engels largely assumed their audience already understood the term. The pamphlet's purpose was to advocate for and describe the philosophy, goals, and program of the communist movement, not to serve as a dictionary.
There are countless other manifestos as well: manifestos from the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Communist Party of China, and many others. Beyond those, there are works like the Futurist Manifesto, the Fascist Manifesto, the SCUM Manifesto, and the Cluetrain Manifesto. Many of these discuss communism, socialism, or related political ideas.
So when you keep saying "the manifesto," which one are you actually talking about?
That's certainly the big one.
I would challenge you to find one that uses your listed dictionary definition.
Okay, so I'll say this: if you don't indicate exactly which manifesto you're talking about in a way that's clear, I will not continue this conversation.
As for your second point, I've already addressed it. None of the manifestos actually define the term communism, not one of them, including what I can only assume you mean by "the big one," which I assume is The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.
Are you intentionally being facetious, or are you simply unwilling to specify which manifesto you're referring to?
Sir, you're not the only person who's read it. I've read it too. In fact, after looking up the other manifestos last night, I read portions of those as well.
Reading something and comprehending it are two very different things.
And yes, I am in fact implying exactly what you're thinking.
Then you'd like to think you could bother to quote from it, rather than running to the "Communism is when Bad" definition you found on the back of a cereal box.
It was the Marian Webster dictionary. I provided you a link to it.
Let me ask you a question. Are you some kind of idiot?
There it is. Out of any coherent response so we're down to name calling
You keep dancing around this idea that there is some definition of communism contained in a manifesto.
I provided you with the official dictionary definition of communism, and you dismissed it as "the back of a cereal box."
You still have not engaged with anything I have actually said or provided any meaningful response to the points I raised. Instead, you continue to act as though the answer must exist somewhere in a document that you have not actually identified.
My question was mostly rhetorical because idiots generally do not know they are idiots. There is no way for someone to answer a question about their own inability to recognize their mistakes. And since you immediately assumed I was simply calling you a name, that reaction seems to confirm the very point I was making.
This is a pedantic comment; read "Marxist-Leninism" where you see "Communism" when a lot of people use the latter.
Marx and Lenin didn't establish or implement economic models?
I'm far from a scholar on economics, let alone socialism or communism, but my understanding of the broad strokes would be:
Lenin proposed that a vanguard party implement Marx-described socialism by force. That one-two combination is called "communism" by many.
Lenin proposed that a vanguard party lead the proletariat in reasserting their control of domestic infrastructure. The funny thing is that Lenin's biggest triumph wasn't as a violent revolutionary, but a peace activist. His coup against the Mensheviks was in opposition to their continued prosecution of The Great War. It was, in effect, a soldier's strike action.
So you have it totally ass backwards. First the Tsarists and then the Mensheviks implemented a policy of forced conscription and endless war. Then Lenin championed a radical response of mass desertion and refusal to fight. When the national leadership tried to force newly christened anti-war Communists back to the front lines - by threatening summary execution, corporal punishment, and indefinite detention in Tsarist gulags - they found themselves entirely outnumbers. And, as a result, their civil government collapsed on itself.
Afterwards, Lenin began issuing instructions on how to transform the Russian aristocratically managed economy into independently organized and managed worker's soviets. Then he attempted to organize a bureaucracy that could knit the soviets together into an international economic network without relying on the traditional methods of market mechanics.
That second part - the actual functional implementation of the Marxist economic model - is what makes him a Communist in practice and not just another Tsar or President.
That's a whole lot of writing just to say, "I agree, but I want to argue with you."
Did he or did he not use violence to throw out the Tsarists and then the Mensheviks?
Was the party he (and his comrades) created a vanguard party or was it not?
I'll never get people's allergy to reading.
He described it as such. That doesn't make it violent. Especially not within the historical context.
I don't mind reading at all as long as it isn't a colossal waste of time because there's not much substance to the text. You feel the same way even if you don't want to admit it.
Here's some reading for you about something you apparently know nothing about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin#Anti-Kulak_campaigns,_Cheka,_and_Red_Terror:_1918%E2%80%931922
To say both of those were "not violent" would be pretty clear mental gymnastics.