Class Against Class? Real-World Alignments for Revolution

[Rawthentic]

Class Against Class? Real World Alignments for Revolution (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/class-against-class-allignment-and-wellsprings-for-revolution/)

Posted by Mike E (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/about/) on August 19, 2009
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/black-panthers2s.jpg?w=267&h=377 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/black-panthers2s.jpg)R

Radical Eyes suggested that we make this its own post saying:

“The issue of how to grasp revolutionary polarization (”revolutionary people” vs. “class vs. class” etc) seems to me a crucial one.”
This piece focuses on what the 1960s tell us about the potential alignments and sources of revolutionary energy in the U.S.

by Mike Ely

I wrote:
“Revolutionary rumblings [in the 1960s] didn’t take the form of “class against class” in the U.S. — and never will.
Bryan writes:
“Revolutionary rumblings will take the form of “class against class,” in this country and around the world….You don’t claim to be Marxists still, do you?”
There is a great transition happening in human society — breaking out of the sharp contradiction between social production and private appropriation. But to think that takes the form of workers gathering over here, and capitalists gathering over there — and then a rumble…. well that is non-materialist and non-Marxist (if you will).

There was in the 1960s a great element of rebellion rising from below (in more ways than often appreciated) and it has much to do with the radicalization of the most oppressed and working class layers of Black people in the U.S. And I don’t believe that great revolutions will arise in our epoch without a great ferment from below — without a driving force (a revolutionary people) arising from below and bringing with them into politics a spirit of “nothing to lose.”

But that doesn’t mean revolution has to take the form of “class against class.” (And I don’t think there is anything in Marxism that requires that it take that form.)

The polarizations that produce revolutions have never been that simple, and as the last century went on this became more and more obvious. The successful socialist revolutions happened in countries where workers were a minority, and where the alliances that led to socialism were far more complex and dynamic than this mechanical notion of “class against class.”

To be clear: there was a belief among some Maoists in the 1970s that revolution would become possible when “the fundamental contradiction became the principal contradiction” — i.e. that working people would shatter the alignments emerging in the sixties by (somehow) adopting a workerist orientation and self-identification — and then, as a unified and self-conscious class, entering the field of political battle — and that this leap would be the signal that revolution had become possible. (And this conception, obviously, saw revolution in workerist terms — precisely as “class against class” and there for saw socialism requiring a particularly sharp and defining workerist identification among the poor and working people.)

I think that is unlikely and also unnecessary for socialist revolution. We need a conscious movement for socialist revolution (and all the radical changes of ideas, relations and structures that that implies) — but that does not require working people to embrace some overweening self-identification of “workers as workers.”

That has to do with the history of the U.S. — This has never been a society of class-as-caste — imposing those kinds of class identities on people (the way 19th century Germany or England did).

In the U.S., caste identities were imposed on Indians and Black people — (ile. Black people as slaves and sharecroppers, confined by the “color line” — and Indians as hunted non-people.) Often, the structure and history of this place grouped and excluded people as nationalities — while social mobility among whites prevented the consolidation of a single “hereditary working class” that self-identified as such. And so there has never been (spontaneously in U.S. bourgeois society) that much self-identification as class — compared to the way even quite conservative workers self-identify as workers in England or Germany or France.

In the U.S., revolution will arise (if it arises) from the struggles against the historic oppression of minority nationalities, and from a sweeping new movement for socialist alternative society broadly among the (multiracial) poor and working people. It will arise from collisions that entwine with the liberation of women, revolt against brutal unending wars of empire and a disdain for the dominant culture of money and dog-eat-dog. And it will certainly be spurred by the growing consciousness broadly in society that uncontrolled capitalist development is creating an ecological disaster for humanity.

Socialist revolution does not require that conscious self-identification by sociological class be a defining feature.
“What force, if not the working class leading the oppressed, will change society then?
Well there are many issues bound up here, including what does it mean for one class to lead the rest of the oppressed.

There has never been the case where a class simply united to lead anyone.

In major revolutions, there were deep divisions in the working class (certainly that is true in Russia). And what led the oppressed in some cases were radical political forces (the communists generally) who saw themselves as representatives of the working class (and its objective interests) — and who won the allegiance of important sections of that class (often minorities, but significant sections nonetheless).

But again, to say that revolutionary forces identifying with the working class lead broader alliances of the oppressed — is precisely to adopt a vision that is not simply “class against class.”

For example: It is not true that we need to somehow “unite the working class” (as a prerequisite for a socialist revolution). We should seek to unite working people (and other oppressed people) around a radical, socialist program. But there will be no simple class-wide unity in this process. Given the highly stratified nature of the U.S. working class, and the impacts of imperialism… it is quite possible that a revolutionary movement may serve to further polarize different sections of the working class from each other in the U.S.

And not only is this compatable with Marxism, but also Lenin’s experience. Lenin famously said that the revolution does not consist of workers lining up on one pole, and the capitalist lining up at the other, and pointed the historical fact that revolution commonly takes the form of a war between two sections of the people. And even if all this were not compatible with the texts or beliefs of Marx or Lenin, it would still be true.

In the 1960s, the actual alignments in the U.S. (the rise of Black liberation, the eruption of youth rebellion, the conservative expressions among some white “blue color” Democrats etc.) exploded the expectations of some rather crusty and conservative forms of Marxism who expected a repeat of their-romanticized-memory of the 1930s.

[Saorsa]

Way to not engage with the points raised NHIA. Rather than posting a whole heap of links why not actually critique in your own words the line Kasma is raising?

[Devrim]

I think that really this sort of quasi-Maoist rejection of the working class can only really be succesful in the US due to the weakness of the working class there.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

Alastair:

It must be due to RevLeft's incredibly low level of actual, substantial engagement.

Folks should take a look at the debate in Kasama around this.

[Devrim]

It must be due to RevLeft's incredibly low level of actual, substantial engagement.

Sometimes the quality of discussion on RevLeft is good. Sometimes, as you say, it is low.

I would include posting Mike Ely's quasi-Maoist writings without any comments as one of the low points. The possible reason that people tend not to engage with them is that they are not at all interested.

Devrim

[Nwoye]

If the revolution is not one resulting from class antagonisms and a desire to abolish these class distinctions, then what kind of end-goal is this revolution aiming for? I mean, the ultimate goal of communism is the abolition of classes (among other things), and if our focus isn't on the inherent class conflict of capitalist society, then we run the risk of failing to achieve our ultimate goal.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

That has to do with the history of the U.S. — This has never been a society of class-as-caste — imposing those kinds of class identities on people (the way 19th century Germany or England did).


But it has now become one (a class-as-caste society). There is less social mobility now than in the past centuries and we've been in a period of capitalist decline since the 1970s. There's no longer the "open" western frontier country in the US for poor people on the East Coast to run off to and farm on. People are stuck at low-paying jobs in a stagnating economy, and class tensions are growing.


In the U.S., caste identities were imposed on Indians and Black people — (ile. Black people as slaves and sharecroppers, confined by the “color line” — and Indians as hunted non-people.) Often, the structure and history of this place grouped and excluded people as nationalities — while social mobility among whites prevented the consolidation of a single “hereditary working class” that self-identified as such. And so there has never been (spontaneously in U.S. bourgeois society) that much self-identification as class — compared to the way even quite conservative workers self-identify as workers in England or Germany or France.While Indian and Black people remain nationally oppressed groups, there is a trend within the American bourgeoisie to diversify, which is defusing these types of tensions, imo. The president of the USA is now a black man. Undocumented workers represent another highly oppressed caste-class in American society, and I think the revolutionary spirit is strongest with the most oppressed groups, however the revolution won't be born of Latino workers fighting against Anglo workers. All workers need to unite to fight against the capitalist class.


In the U.S., revolution will arise (if it arises) from the struggles against the historic oppression of minority nationalities, and from a sweeping new movement for socialist alternative society broadly among the (multiracial) poor and working people. It will arise from collisions that entwine with the liberation of women, revolt against brutal unending wars of empire and a disdain for the dominant culture of money and dog-eat-dog. And it will certainly be spurred by the growing consciousness broadly in society that uncontrolled capitalist development is creating an ecological disaster for humanity.The oppression of "minority" (i.e., non-WASP) nationalities and women, and imperialist wars are part of capitalism. This whole paragraph confuses me because it seems to suggest that sexism, racism, and the culture of "dog-eat-dog" can be separated from capitalism. They can't be separated because they are all intertwined with capitalism. Only a workers' movement against capitalism will be strong enough to stop them. Latino workers and black workers can't expect help from black and latino members of the bourgeoisie based on some sort of imaginary national solidarity. This is illustrated by Obama's anti-black positions on issues like poverty, blaming black people for their disfavored position rather than the true culprit, the capitalist system.


Socialist revolution does not require that conscious self-identification by sociological class be a defining feature.
“What force, if not the working class leading the oppressed, will change society then?Socialist revolution can only come out of a working class movement. The workers' movement must color itself black, brown, and white.

[Rawthentic]

Zerohour puts what I wanted to say best:


I think what’s being challenged here is not whether the proletariat should, or will, lead a socialist revolution but what sorts of social conflicts will drive the polarizations, what configuration of alliances will come together, and what the forces on each side will look like.


The popular notion, quoted above, that the proletariat must liberate itself, has led people to posit the that the proletariat will somehow realize its class interests as one big bloc [even with some degree of internal division] during times of revolutionary crisis, which can then be forged into a cohesive force against a clearly differentiated class enemy. But this has not been the case throughout history. People can throw out all the quotes they want, but reality is what it is. However, I think the idea of “class against class” is not just about denying the existence of internal conflicts within the proletariat or downplaying the broad alliances that will emerge, but also about denying the possibility that there will be some overlap of people from different classes on both sides of the struggle.


Do people really think a revolution will be workers on one side and bosses on the other? Who do they think will comprise the armies of reaction – middle and upper management? No, most likely it will be other proletarians. At the same time, sections of the petty bourgeoisie and maybe even the bourgeoisie [I imagine small sections] may be won over to the revolutionary forces or at least neutralized. We have to be strategically clear on the social bases we must focus our work on now, but there’s no reason to preclude all sorts of future alliances before we can make concrete assessments.


And no, I’m not talking about class “collaboration”, but a revolution carried out under a leadership that is setting the political terms, is not driven by notions of class revenge, and understands the need to win over broad sections of society without any illusions about the contradictions involved. My formulation’s a bit imprecise but I hope people have some sense of what I mean.
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/class-against-class-allignment-and-wellsprings-for-revolution/#comment-16891

So, the issue here is the real-world complexity of a socialist revolution. It has never been and will never be a simple case of workers one side and capitalists in another. Reality is far more dynamic than that. Socialism won't come along with workers recognizing they are workers and on that basis uniting. That's called identity politics, and can never transcend bourgeois society. We need a movement with a fuckin radical vision of overthrowing all oppressive social relations and liberating humanity.

Devrim, Mike Ely and I (and those around Kasama) are not quasi-Maoists. Maybe in your dogmatic, sectarian world, that is the case, but we recognize Marxism (and Maoism) not as biblical texts, but as radical guides to action according to specific material conditions.

NHIA, all the struggles you pointed out occurred in VERY different historical epochs. Surely you understand that. Also, they all involve a majority of white, male workers. You don't see a problem with any of this?

[Devrim]

Devrim, Mike Ely and I (and those around Kasama) are not quasi-Maoists. Maybe in your dogmatic, sectarian world, that is the case, but we recognize Marxism (and Maoism) not as biblical texts, but as radical guides to action according to specific material conditions.

It is not about being 'dogmatic and sectarian'. It is about recognising that Maoist cross class nationalist movements and 'people's war' have nothing to offer the working class except dying on behalf of bouurgoise political factions up in the mountains somewhere.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

Hmm.

There is actually no substantial difference between what Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto and what Mike Ely is putting forward in this article.

If a socialist revolution isn't led, if people aren't uniting around the revolutionary politics of the proletariat, you won't have an actual socialist revolution. What you are calling for is another form of identity politics; uniting on the basis of being a worker (or in other cases, on the basis of being Black, or being a woman, etc.). When people unite on such a basis, it many times (and usually) ends up becoming about "getting ours." In other words, workers uniting on the basis of being workers is many times used as a means to gain certain material and political gains, and when such is done, the unity is dissolved. And there really is nothing new to what you are saying, it's the same tired formula that has thrown away precious revolutionary opportunities and led to disastrous political lines.

We need a movement that looks at the totality of all oppressive social relations under capitalism, and realizes a political movement guided by the only class whose outlook and historic interests can (finally) liberate humanity. Marx wrote (and Mao elaborated on) what is called the "Four Alls", which are: 1)the abolition of class distinctions; 2)the production relations on which those distinctions rest; 3)the social relations corresponding to these production relations; and 4)the revolutionizing of the social ideas bound up with these social relations.


If a revolution breaks out in the U.S. that is not an outbreak of open class war that is fundamentally class against class, then it isn't proletarian revolution and it isn't going to eliminate wage slavery or exploitation and isn't going to lead to communism.How do you see this "class war" breaking out? In what form? I think, looking at the ground reality in the United States, a socialist revolution would (in many ways) be a struggle between different sections of the people, even while it maintains its essence of being a class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. For example, the struggle against national/racist oppression will be one which unites people from many different classes and strata (such as working Black and Latino people, middle class Black and Latino ppl, and even some within the ruling class) against other strata (such as working people in historically racist areas). Would you downplay the issue of national oppression and all the social contradictions that is bound up with in order to forge some vague notion of "class war" and "worker unity"?

Notice how none of what I write is against a sense of "class against class" or that the proletariat will be the revolutionary agent. This has more to do with how a real-world socialist revolution can look like, which I think is far more complex. Because the fact remains, the working class (which will not be one homogenous mass due to the effects of imperialism) will need to win over broad sections of people, many of which will be in other strata. But, according to your narrow vision, that is "anti-marxist" since they aren't workers.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Hmm.

There is actually no substantial difference between what Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto and what Mike Ely is putting forward in this article.

If a socialist revolution isn't led, if people aren't uniting around the revolutionary politics of the proletariat, you won't have an actual socialist revolution. What you are calling for is another form of identity politics; uniting on the basis of being a worker (or in other cases, on the basis of being Black, or being a woman, etc.). When people unite on such a basis, it many times (and usually) ends up becoming about "getting ours." In other words, workers uniting on the basis of being workers is many times used as a means to gain certain material and political gains, and when such is done, the unity is dissolved. And there really is nothing new to what you are saying, it's the same tired formula that has thrown away precious revolutionary opportunities and led to disastrous political lines.

We need a movement that looks at the totality of all oppressive social relations under capitalism, and realizes a political movement guided by the only class whose outlook and historic interests can (finally) liberate humanity. Marx wrote (and Mao elaborated on) what is called the "Four Alls", which are: 1)the abolition of class distinctions; 2)the production relations on which those distinctions rest; 3)the social relations corresponding to these production relations; and 4)the revolutionizing of the social ideas bound up with these social relations.

How do you see this "class war" breaking out? In what form? I think, looking at the ground reality in the United States, a socialist revolution would (in many ways) be a struggle between different sections of the people,

If it is a socialist revolution, the struggle between "different sections of people" will be between the worker section and the capitalist section.


even while it maintains its essence of being a class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie.But the essence of your "struggle between different sections of people" includes members of the bourgeoisie fighting other members of the bourgeoisie, thus it is not a socialist revolution, but some type of "ethnic cleansing" war. In this case the enemy of my enemy is not true. Black and Latino members of the bourgeoisie are just as much full fledged members of the bourgeoisie as their WASP friends are. You are nuts if you think Barack Obama is going to support the socialist revolution just because he's black, which is basically what you're arguing here... "the Bourgeoisie will support socialist revolution if they're black." WHAT?? That's crazy!


For example, the struggle against national/racist oppression will be one which unites people from many different classes and strata (such as working Black and Latino people, middle class Black and Latino ppl, and even some within the ruling class) It is not a communist position to suppose that members of the ruling class will participate in a revolution against themselves. The bourgeois people of color are guilty of participating in the same criminal capitalist system as the white bourgeoisie.



against other strata (such as working people in historically racist areas). Would you downplay the issue of national oppression and all the social contradictions that is bound up with in order to forge some vague notion of "class war" and "worker unity"?
There will probably always be some working class people who side with their masters, but these people are what we call scabs, assholes, or confused individuals.

But that doesn't mean that we should accept members of the exploiting class into our exploited class movement.

I don't see the class war as a vague notion. We want to abolish wage slavery and capitalism. If capitalists aren't the enemy, then how can it be a socialist movement? Yes, racists and sexists are social enemies but there are even some Conservative/Neo-liberal groups that claim to oppose racism and sexism. For example, the french president Sarkozy put an Arab woman in his cabinet, does that mean we should applaud it as a decisive blow to sexism and racism? Of course not, because capitalism continues to produce sexism and racism in France.


Notice how none of what I write is against a sense of "class against class" or that the proletariat will be the revolutionary agent. This has more to do with how a real-world socialist revolution can look like, which I think is far more complex. Because the fact remains, the working class (which will not be one homogenous mass due to the effects of imperialism) will need to win over broad sections of people, many of which will be in other strata. But, according to your narrow vision, that is "anti-marxist" since they aren't workers.It's anti-marxist because when you say we need to "win over broad sections of people" you're talking about winning over members of the exploiting class; people like Barack Obama, Bill Cosby, Alan Keyes, and Carlos Slim aren't going to "hop on board" for the socialist revolution because they are members of the oppressive capitalist class, even if their origins are from historically oppressed nations.

You are advocating class collaborationist Liberal capitalist reformism here.

[Nwoye]

Hmm.

There is actually no substantial difference between what Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto and what Mike Ely is putting forward in this article.

If a socialist revolution isn't led, if people aren't uniting around the revolutionary politics of the proletariat, you won't have an actual socialist revolution. What you are calling for is another form of identity politics; uniting on the basis of being a worker (or in other cases, on the basis of being Black, or being a woman, etc.). When people unite on such a basis, it many times (and usually) ends up becoming about "getting ours." In other words, workers uniting on the basis of being workers is many times used as a means to gain certain material and political gains, and when such is done, the unity is dissolved. And there really is nothing new to what you are saying, it's the same tired formula that has thrown away precious revolutionary opportunities and led to disastrous political lines.

we're not talking about identity politics and the fetishism of labor or anything like that: what we're recognizing here is that the fundamental driving force (and this is the core of Marxism) of social development is class antagonisms. Classes arise out of differences among the society in relationship to productive assets, and the labor process. These classes (peasants, proletarians, bourgeoisie, etc) have fundamentally different and opposing interests, and these antagonisms when they come to a crescendo, result in a quantitative shift in the mode of production - feudalism to capitalism, capitalism to socialism. This is marxism 101.

the point is, we're not playing identity politics, or inventing fake enemies to protest against. We're are pointing out real and tangible differences in the interests of two distinct social groups. Obviously since we're communists we're supporting the working class, probably because that's where our class interests lie.


Marx wrote (and Mao elaborated on) what is called the "Four Alls", which are: 1)the abolition of class distinctions; 2)the production relations on which those distinctions rest; 3)the social relations corresponding to these production relations; and 4)the revolutionizing of the social ideas bound up with these social relations.
this is totally correct. But if our goal is the abolition of classes shouldn't our immediate action be pointing out these class distinctions and working against them? I'm not saying we shouldn't support black rights or gay rights movements, but if we make them the focal point of our revolutionary agenda then why kind of society will we end up with should we succeed? Sure there will be no more inequality based on gender or ethnicity or whatever, but classes will remain, and chances are the society will be just as oppressive as before.

[Rawthentic]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I don't mean we should focus our efforts exclusively on womens rights or Black liberation. I think we need to (through study and investigation of real conditions) determine what social struggles have the best possibility of developing revolutionary openings and revolutionary consciousness amongst the people.

If working people were able to develop their own revolutionary consciousness from within their direct economic struggles, then what need would there be for us as revolutionaries and communists? We need to be "tribunes of the people", exposing the broad nature of the system and the need for a new society. So, yes, I do think revolutionary consciousness comes from WITHOUT the direct experience of working people, and needs to include a broad vision of internationalism, revolutionary history, politics, economics, and the struggles of people abroad. We need a spirit of "serve the people" that can really liberate humanity. If socialism were about self-identifying as a worker and on that basis uniting and working, how does that transcend bourgeois society?

The point I made on the Four Alls is that this movement needs a vision of liberating humanity, because only on that basis, and not on the basis of a workerist orientation, can all oppressive social relations be overcome.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I don't mean we should focus our efforts exclusively on womens rights or Black liberation. I think we need to (through study and investigation of real conditions) determine what social struggles have the best possibility of developing revolutionary openings and revolutionary consciousness amongst the people.

If working people were able to develop their own revolutionary consciousness from within their direct economic struggles, then what need would there be for us as revolutionaries and communists?

When did the ability of working people to develop revolutionary consciousness through economic struggles come into doubt? That video NHIA posted illustrated that ability quite well. The communist movement should be made up of working people. Our role is to help other working people come to a revolutionary class consciousness and wage class warfare in this way.


We need to be "tribunes of the people", exposing the broad nature of the system and the need for a new society. So, yes, I do think revolutionary consciousness comes from WITHOUT the direct experience of working people, and needs to include a broad vision of internationalism, revolutionary history, politics, economics, and the struggles of people abroad. We need a spirit of "serve the people" that can really liberate humanity. If socialism were about self-identifying as a worker and on that basis uniting and working, how does that transcend bourgeois society? Indeed we should promote the liberation of humanity, but it should be through class struggle. "Workers of the world unite!" transcends bourgeois society because the interests of working people are diametrically opposed to the interests of bourgeois society.


The point I made on the Four Alls is that this movement needs a vision of liberating humanity, because only on that basis, and not on the basis of a workerist orientation, can all oppressive social relations be overcome.Capitalism, sexism, and racism are all things that humanity needs liberating from, but oppressive social relations can't be overcome within capitalist society. Let's abolish all oppressive social relations! You are suggesting that we side with the oppressors.

[Rawthentic]

I deviate a bit from Mike Ely's position. I do see our struggle as one between two diametrically opposed classes, as Fly Pan Dulce puts it, but in quite a different sense, and this has to do with how I see people's consciousness and revolution developing.

I see this as a class struggle in the sense that it is led by the only class in human history which can overcome ALL oppressive social relations, and with a broad vision of liberating humanity, not "getting ours" or incorrect notions of class revenge.

So, yes, the working people need to unite. Of course. But the question is: on what basis and what does this mean? I think people (and I say ppl, because a real socialist revolution will be waged with broad alliances of ppl from different strata) need to unite around a radical socialist program for revolution, rather than an identity (being a worker). And there is a world of difference between the two orientations. One seeks to unite people based on the need for global human liberation, the other seeks to unite ppl on a vague, workerist orientation that simply wont transcend bourgeois right, because it is based on class revenge and not an actual appreciation of the contradictions inherent in making revolution.

As far as revolutionary consciousness goes, let's take a look at the outbreak of the Civil Rights struggle and Black liberation against national oporession and in particular Jim Crow. Why didn't Black people rise up against this in 1890? Why not 1920 or 1930? The reason it happened in the 60s and 70s is because the social contradictions inherent within the system at the time (and today) broke out and unleashed this rebellion. I mean, if economic struggle was what led to this revolutionary consciousness, shouldnt it have happened way before? The fact is that issues such as the Chinese revolution, the Cuban revolution, the African liberation struggles, etc., were the things which "raised the sights" of Black people and radical people in the US. It was not directly from the harsh economic conditions which existed far before the 60s and 70s. The development of this consciousness indeed came from without, and led to a real revolutionary spirit of serving the people and uniting to liberate humanity.

Hope this makes sense.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It's so funny that everyone is accusing rawthentic of not being able to realize that the proletariat exists. They obviously don't know what he's even talking about.

Globalization and rationalization is facilitating the creation of a global informal working class – a reserve army that work in the "special economic zones", and that migrate from Bangladesh and India to build palaces in Dubai. That dislocation of industrial production has meant that, sadly, there are far less industrial workers in our country. The industrial proletariat can never again possess the same social and economic weight that it use to have back in the day (i.e. - in the struggles of the twenties and thirties), as much as many people that romanticize that kind of worker would like to dream that they will.

The issues of rent, employment security, minimum wage, public health, and unions (and other economic struggles) are important, but they're not what will bring people into radicalism – this is what this article is about. If you engage in projects that can easily be co-opted by liberalism and electoral politics, then you aren't going to be creating a revolution.

[black magick hustla]

I think that really this sort of quasi-Maoist rejection of the working class can only really be succesful in the US due to the weakness of the working class there.

Let me elaborate on this because it is an important point. Maoist weirdness is not the only fucked up thing that is promine the US. The other day a friend of mine gave me this http://www.hermetic.com/bey/taz_cont.html, this is what people were discussing in the biggest anarchist circle in Lansing by the way. When some pedophile motherfucker is taken seriously with calls of "ontological anarchism" and "poetical terrorism" where in other places no anarchist would take the time to read this garbage, one could say there is something wrong with the US.

The US has a very weak working class. There is not a strong tradition of general strikes, student riots, etc as there is in Mexico, France, Quebec, Iran, etc. This is why there is a ton of maoists in the US. This is why american anarchists sound like watered down version of french cultural theory. This is why Ive only heard about american third worldists. Long story short, rather than taking this people seriously, one has to understand the conditions that give rise to this people.

[black magick hustla]

Let me elaborate on this because it is an important point. Maoist weirdness is not the only fucked up thing that is promine the US. The other day a friend of mine gave me this http://www.hermetic.com/bey/taz_cont.html, this is what people were discussing in the biggest anarchist circle in Lansing by the way. When some pedophile motherfucker is taken seriously with calls of "ontological anarchism" and "poetical terrorism" where in other places no anarchist would take the time to read this garbage, one could say there is something wrong with the US.

The US has a very weak working class. There is not a strong tradition of general strikes, student riots, etc as there is in Mexico, France, Quebec, Iran, etc. This is why there is a ton of maoists in the US. This is why american anarchists sound like watered down version of french cultural theory. This is why Ive only heard about american third worldists. Long story short, rather than taking this people seriously, one has to understand the conditions that give rise to this people.


I mean critical, not cultural theory lol.