What should be our current strategy? [Archive]

Autodidakt

15th December 2009, 15:28

Meridian has made a good point in that communists and leftists tend to have habit of looking up to past leaders whose theories, to put it plainly, have failed in their intended goals most of the time. Every socialist nation of thee 20th century is an example of that.

This is not to say their theories and beliefs do not warrant notice, but we do need to be clear: all of these leaders were living in different times than we are today. We face new circumstances, mostly due to the easy access of information, both useful and mindless. We also have against us massive media systems and social technolgoies that have a lot to lose if commmunism were to gain real power. Businesses, churches and media broadcasters are all fine examples. This was true in their times as well, but such power is now more bundled together than it has been since the medieval ages.

I believe that before we put together any kind of strategy, there are a number of steps before that kind of planning can take place. More than anything else, this movement needs clarity. Even if we cannot agree on everything, I believe leftists should be able to come up with a list of goals, realistic and the ones we know have no hope in the modern day. What the movement needs is a vision. Without that, no-one follows and nothing changes.

After putting together a unifying vision comes the easiest part: looking at and identifying opposition and social/economic/political roadblocks. :blink: Then we can feel a little disappointed and start getting to work.

Then comes the strategy which will be even harder to put together than a unified vision. The previous four internationals have taught us that. Many members believe revolution is the answer, others lean toward reform. I personally believe there are circumstances for both, and that there are perhaps other manners of change as well.

After the formation of a strategy comes an even harder part: using the strategy.

The final, and eternal, step is government. That will be the hardest part, I am sure.

So, there's the plan. The term 'uphill battle' hardly gives this predicament justice.
~Autodidakt

ComradeMan

15th December 2009, 21:47

Perhaps less dwelling on the past and what are perceived by many (rightly or wrongly) as failed regimes etc.

Perhaps less argument on dialectics.:D

Perhaps more adhesion to principles and less "our enemy's enemy is our friend" rationales.

Perhaps a more evolutive approach to principles instead of doctrinaire hardlines.

Perhaps more debate on things other than socio-economics.

A few ideas- let's look ahead instead of fighting about the past all the time, take what's good and what worked and trash what didn't!!!!

ellipsis

18th December 2009, 04:40

I would suggest that we begin at the workplace.

But why limit yourself to simply workplace organizing? While trade union centered groups did this, can't others work on community programs, others on alternative media, etc.? I do not suggested that each group go about as they see fit but more of a concentrated, coordinated multi-pronged approach?

RHIZOMES

18th December 2009, 04:51

ellipsis

18th December 2009, 04:56

And a more wild suggestion - maybe if someone had a bit of capital they could set up some sort of free food centers like the Black Panthers did, in areas of dire poverty.

Capital? Don't you have Food not Bombs in NZ? Anyways I like your suggestions. The current class situation is far too complicated to focus on workplaces, which means very different things today than the factories of Marx's days.

RHIZOMES

18th December 2009, 05:16

Capital? Don't you have Food not Bombs in NZ? Anyways I like your suggestions. The current class situation is far too complicated to focus on workplaces, which means very different things today than the factories of Marx's days.

That's a petty-bourgeois liberal franchise activism lifestylist group. I mean an actual food program run by leftists for workers BPP-style that would help win support for the revolutionary cause.

18th December 2009, 06:31

Edit

Die Neue Zeit

18th December 2009, 06:50

That's a petty-bourgeois liberal franchise activism lifestylist group. I mean an actual food program run by leftists for workers BPP-style that would help win support for the revolutionary cause.

NOW you're starting to appreciate the SPD model. ;)

18th December 2009, 07:13

We should have a presence in working-class communities, and not hole ourselves up in left-wing ghettos when the majority of our social life are other leftists. I think taking up union jobs, while noble and important (who knows, might happen with me), it is not the only thing we have to do. We have to get involved in grassroots campaigns in these communities and present a clear Marxist alternative (a campaign in my community, which is an example of this, is "Citizens Against Privatization", etc), set up Marxist study groups and meetings that are easily accessible to workers. Socialism should not be restricted to University campuses. And a more wild suggestion - maybe if someone had a bit of capital they could set up some sort of free food centers like the Black Panthers did, in areas of dire poverty. Another thing is that we should really start trying to utilize the power of the internet a bit more than we are currently doing.

^I think this is the best post in this thread. It is almost amusing to consider the actual class composition of many of these leftist organizations; the working class is probably the least represented class in the majority of them, and it only adds fuel to the perception which exists (certainly in the US, anyway) of leftists as privileged students without any direct knowledge of the lives of working class people, who preach to workers about working class interests from ivory towers.

See my posts on this in the previous threads on this very question for what the left needs to do and has failed to do for the past 20 years.

:rolleyes: No thanks. Shit, you're like a lazy version of Jacob Richter.

bcbm

18th December 2009, 09:05

I think this is the best post in this thread.if that is the best we've got on strategy, then we're probably fucked, because i don't really see much being said there that hasn't been said a million times by a million leftist individuals/groups that never got anywhere. maybe it is just me, but i imagine "strategy" being something a bit more detailed than "we should talk to working people." for leftists, i feel like that sort of thing is more "no shit" than "strategy." i mean, really

We should have a presence in working-class communitieswhat does this actually mean in concrete terms? what is a presence? how does this presence engage working people? if our presence manages to engage them, then what? how do we expand the class struggle from this vague presence?

We have to get involved in grassroots campaigns in these communities and present a clear Marxist alternative (a campaign in my community, which is an example of this, is "Citizens Against Privatization", etc)again, what does this actual mean? what is presenting a "clear marxist alternative?" what does presenting it mean? how do we advance such a platform? what is the long term goal of this?

set up Marxist study groups and meetings that are easily accessible to workers.and again, what does this actually mean? what would such a group look like? what would it do? what would it study?

And a more wild suggestion - maybe if someone had a bit of capital they could set up some sort of free food centers like the Black Panthers did, in areas of dire poverty.
That's a petty-bourgeois liberal franchise activism lifestylist group. I mean an actual food program run by leftists for workers BPP-style that would help win support for the revolutionary cause.could you explain how one leftist charity organization run by outsiders with money would be different from another leftist charity organization run by outsiders without money?

sorry to be a bit of a spoil sport here, especially because i don't think i'm anywhere near having all the answers, but if we're going to discuss strategy than we need to get beyond this vague bullshit that every leftist can more or less pull out of their ass when needed, and start addressing real, difficult questions about what the vague bullshit we say actually means.

18th December 2009, 09:48

if that is the best we've got on strategy, then we're probably fucked, because i don't really see much being said there that hasn't been said a million times by a million leftist individuals/groups that never got anywhere. maybe it is just me, but i imagine "strategy" being something a bit more detailed than "we should talk to working people." for leftists, i feel like that sort of thing is more "no shit" than "strategy." i mean, really

Well, to be fair, it is one of - what - ten posts in a single thread. Whether it should be "no shit" or not, it isn't happening. I can't seem to find a Marxist organization within a relative (say, 50 miles) proximity which is located/has meetings outside of the University District in Seattle - usually the meetings are actually in the Universities. I live in Everett, which is a very proletarian city; there are a lot of unions, some tea baggers, some La Rouchies, some Democratic Party groups, but - beyond an informal group of syndicalists I worked with a couple years ago when I was a syndicalist, which has since split up - I've never seen a single revolutionary organization in this city - not'a one. So my comment was simply to highlight the importance of leftist organizations actually having some working class representation within their ranks and the need for them to not confine their activity to the University Districts; there is plenty else they could be doing within working class communities. For example, they could get involved in protests, strikes, conferences, host lectures at community colleges or union halls or wherever, and any number of activities in other cities and make a concentrated effort to reach people - and to have representatives/branches/etc. - who aren't University students or centered around Universities, but rather, are actual workers - in cities where there aren't Universities. It may seem too obvious to even make a post about, and yet, it apparently isn't obvious enough - or perhaps it isn't important enough - because it sure doesn't seem like many leftist organizations (in my area, at least) can really be bothered with it.

Beyond that, most of your questions are regarding the specifics of Arizona Bay's comment; what about you - what do you propose?

RHIZOMES

18th December 2009, 10:32

Be aware that I've only started formulating these conclusions in the last few months, a lot of the criticisms I have made could actually be applied to both me and the wider New Zealand far left. However, I have plans to implement these into practice, and have been looking into booking rooms at a community center in West Auckland (One of the most proletarian areas of Auckland, and the place with the LEAST leftist activity). Noone has the answers, if we did we'd be in a much better state than we are now. I think it's a bit unfair though to ask me on just saying all these meaningless platitudes in basically a summarized analysis though, to go into further detail:

*The educational groups would be leftist educationals that are actual engaging, and are widely advertised on community noticeboards in working class areas. They would have to relate to the direct reality a lot of workers face rather than being some sort of fucking historical society. A way to do this would be maybe to have posters that would pique their interests somewhat (and don't ask me to elaborate here as I'm still working this point out). For example, my plan for the educationals is to start off with "Wage, Labour and Capital" and we could discuss how the theory of surplus value relates to how we're still getting shafted today. How this could be transformed into an actual working class activist base I am still working out.

*With the campaigns thing, I would say getting involved in progressive-leaning things that allow for a platform, such as "Citizens Against Privatization" in West Auckland which had quite a bit of local community support. What would happen then if an open revolutionary was participating in that, and he was clear about about his politics and why he's involved, and he was actually effective in his role, it would have leftists as actual community leaders to be admired rather than little irrelevant sectoids, and increased support for revolutionaries.

*Also I quite like the concept of "industrial branches" on communist parties, like branches for a specific industry that organize and so on. Hiero was telling how his party for instance has a Maritime branch. But this isn't an area I've delved too much into.

*Also with regards to Food Not Bombs, that's how it seemed to me from the little investigation I did into it. If I'm mistaken that it's not a consumer activist lifestylist group I apologize.

These aren't like whats gonna help us start a revolution right away, just some basic thoughts that I've had on the issue...

redarmyleader

18th December 2009, 12:28

So I have to start off by asking for some patience with my post, for while I will make every effort to make it as concise, concrete, and clear as possible I have to say what I have to say. I hope some find it helpful.

I have been a revolutionary since I was 17 (I am 26 now) and in my experience I have met quite a few people who very much did not mean what they would say. I start off saying this because the truth of the matter is that most people who call themselves revolutionaries are anything but, and the idea that people on the left should drop their disagreements and work together is both unrealistic and unhealthy. I will admit that the overwhelming majority of left-wing organizations seem to be engulfed with petty arguments between each other, as opposed to actually organizing mass movements of the workers and oppressed. Those arguments are petty, but for a different reason than most think. The overwhelming majority of the left (by this I mean self-proclaimed revolutionaries and organizations who have a particular program - and if your the "I believe in every theory and no theory" that is your program) are either not actually interested or capable of building and leading mass struggles (most of the time its both). The arguments between them are petty because no one actually mean what they say. These are people to avoid, not attempt to build an alliance with.

Theory means something. Having the right one means you win, having the wrong one means you lose. There is no universal truth, but truth does exist. And the truth is without an understanding of the dynamics of power in our current society there is no hope in our ability to change those dynamics (this is after all the whole point of revolution). We have to study history with real seriousness, learning every lesson we can. History does not repeat itself, and the moment in history we are in is unique. However, there are certain laws that class society operate on, which makes the study of history - and having the right theory - essential. In other words, while Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Leon Trotsky are my heroes I know I must be my own hero as well; we have to be our own heroes and each others heroes.

The first step of serious revolutionaries is developing an orientation to the youth. This is because the youth have shown themselves to be the vanguard; they have been prepared to act and have on numerous occasions shown their desire to change society in a fundamental way (e.g. recently the actions of students in California who mobilized in the thousands, even taking over buildings, to fight against the increase in tuition and the resegregation of the University of California system).

Secondly, because the youth who have been stepping forward in building and participating in the struggles of the youth are overwhelmingly black and Latino/a youth building a mass movement against in particular racism and segregation. For the capitalist the re-emergence of a New Jim Crow policy, particular expressed against Latino/a people but including all racial minorities, a policy aimed at cementing permanent second-class citizen status is an essential part of their plan of continual dominance of their class. Beating this policy means revealing more openly all the weakness and contradictions of the capitalist and their system.

Third is rebuilding the labor movement with the leadership of the youth providing inspiration and an example to union workers, who have been sold out so many times are skeptical any mass movement could actually exist and win gains. There have been actions that express the anger and frustration of workers in the unions. In the U.S. transit workers went on strike I believe in Philadelphia against immense pressure not to (the World Series was going on at the time) and University of California system workers called a system-wide strike that coincided with student actions against major cuts. But new union leadership is needed for these actions to become the rule and not the exception.

And of course, building a mass movement against war, but on the basis of putting forward the demands that express and fight for power of the people oppressed in the Middle East (For an Independent, Secular Palestine, Political freedom of women in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc) but also the people oppressed here. We have to build an anti-imperialist movement like the one in the 1960's that made it possible for victory in Vietnam.

All of these things require a conscious, organized leadership if they are to make real gains.

An example of this perspective and what we can achieve:
In the U.S. there is an aggressive attack on public education and Detroit (where I be from!) is the center of this attack. For years young people have been fighting against charter schools, against school closings by organizing marches, demonstrations, and even walkouts. While these actions have had limited success, they are important because they express the power of Detroit's black and Latino/a youth fighting in their own interest.

So recently when the Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT), the union for Detroit Public Schools employees, were given a contract proposed by their president Keith Johnson that would essentially dismantle the union, they said hell no. Because their is an organization (BAMN) that exist in Detroit organizing and leading the fight of the youth, the teachers had alternative leadership to listen to. And BAMN has authority with the teachers and people of Detroit because we have been out front (sometimes all by ourselves) with the youth fighting for the interest of Detroit, and the rest of the nation. Not only have we been fighting with teachers to vote no on the contract, but have been helping them to build a strike committee composed of teachers, students, community and other unions in the city, and have gotten teachers to circulate an official petition to replace their sell-out leader Keith Johnson. At the DFT meeting in January DFT members will be voting on resolution to remove their union president from office! And we are bound to win that proposal, because thousands of teachers have circulated and signed the petition to get rid of him and elect a new union bargaining team and union strike preparation committee.

Because I don't want to make a really long post, or rather a longer post that what it already is I will do two things: refer people to www.bamn.com (http://www.bamn.com) and see for yourselves the stuff I was describing (the website has ton of shit, so enjoy!), and try to use my revleft blog to go into more detail for those interested in it about the things I refer to in this post.

Oh, and just to say this one last thing, by which I mean no offense: if what we do is not expressing power of the oppressed, if what we do is not creating difficulty for the capitalist to carry out their attacks we do it all for naught. In Detroit over 60% of people are unemployed. We are in the top two in the ranking of poorest cities in the U.S. And what people in Detroit need is not more soup kitchens or other charities, but people who are willing to fight FOR us and WITH us. We need people who see more than just victims because Detroit is a city of people who refuse to give up. We have a strong tradition of labor and civil rights struggles (we are home of UAW, exploded in social revolt in 1967) and have real power. But all the working class and oppressed have real power. Lets us start organizing to impose this power onto society.

ellipsis

18th December 2009, 14:38

*Also with regards to Food Not Bombs, that's how it seemed to me from the little investigation I did into it. If I'm mistaken that it's not a consumer activist lifestylist group I apologize.

I suppose that many would consider them lifestylists. But they take to the streets and distribute free food to whoever wants it and don't ask anything in return. They do feed actual workers, homeless people and retirees. They have fed me when I am unemployed and not eating enough. Additionally they help take tons of wasted food out of the waste stream.

In short, they are actually making a difference on the street level, everyday all over the world. Their member does include some real comrades and some "lifestylists" but the point is that they are feeding people.

Die Neue Zeit

18th December 2009, 15:26

:rolleyes: No thanks. Shit, you're like a lazy version of Jacob Richter.

Since this forum has been created, I have more than a few choice words to say in opposition to your cheap-shot remark.

*Also with regards to Food Not Bombs, that's how it seemed to me from the little investigation I did into it. If I'm mistaken that it's not a consumer activist lifestylist group I apologize.

The point, comrade, is to attempt to start a mass alternative culture model like the SPD did. I suggested food banks as a way to get the ball rolling on this, much like Lenin emphasized the newspaper in WITBD. What did the SPD have? Cultural societies, sports clubs, funeral homes, etc.

I think this would have to be a purely WPNZ project, though. Food Not Bombs is probably another failed example of a "united front" tactic with "lifestylists" and those with a tred-iunion mentality.

18th December 2009, 16:12

Edit

18th December 2009, 17:11

What does that even mean?

It means you write something to reference something you’ve written elsewhere, hence JR.
Except, rather than provide a link, you pretty much just say “I said something about this, dig through my comments and find it!” hence lazy. It’s just sort of a pointless way to respond to a thread, imo.

18th December 2009, 18:04

Edit

Lyev

18th December 2009, 20:32

We should have a presence in working-class communities, and not hole ourselves up in left-wing ghettos when the majority of our social life are other leftists. I think taking up union jobs, while noble and important (who knows, might happen with me), it is not the only thing we have to do. We have to get involved in grassroots campaigns in these communities and present a clear Marxist alternative (a campaign in my community, which is an example of this, is "Citizens Against Privatization", etc), set up Marxist study groups and meetings that are easily accessible to workers. Socialism should not be restricted to University campuses. And a more wild suggestion - maybe if someone had a bit of capital they could set up some sort of free food centers like the Black Panthers did, in areas of dire poverty. Another thing is that we should really start trying to utilize the power of the internet a bit more than we are currently doing.

But how though? I've been thinking about strategy a lot recently and about dogma. It's interesting, if Marx, Lenin, Engels, Stalin etc. had never existed and I posited the ideas common ownership and expropriation of the means of production then I would get a very different response than I would if all these people had existed. Are you following? These are simply logical solutions for me and seem like great ideas, but it's hard to posit them to "the masses" because they've been labeled "communist" ideas and therefore demonic ideas. Is redistributing the wealth such a crime though?There's also those liberal, arrogant wankers or look down upon socialism because "it's been tried and it's failed" or some inane sophistry like that. My point being, that there's no problem with the actual ideas, it's where they've come from, you know? This dogma lies heavy over our heads; something that needs negating is this "totalitarian" communist, Stalinist myth. I don't care if the ideas I've mentioned were first advocated by Marx or Lenin, what these men have said just seem totally irrelevant to me, in a sense. I don't care about dogma, I just want solutions to society's problems that will work. Is anyone getting where I'm coming from?

ellipsis

18th December 2009, 20:32

Food Not Bombs is probably another failed example of a "united front" tactic with "lifestylists" and those with a tred-iunion mentality.

Wow I find it astounding that an (arguably) anti-capitalist network of collectives that distributes free food to the poor and anybody else who needs it gets such an icy reception. I take it that because you said that it is "probably another failed example of... (meaningless bullshit)" that you don't actually know what you are talking about and are making baseless assumptions.

If feeding hundreds of thousands of needy people, thus exposing the wasteful nature of capitalism is a failure, you must be pretty hard to impress. This thread talks about connecting with the working class and building community, how great the BPP breakfast and free grocery programs were, etc. but then when there is an actual group of people doing it, you and others write them off as lifestylists.

Not that I am any better, but when was the last time you did any street-level work that actually improved people's quality of life?

Die Neue Zeit

19th December 2009, 02:17

Wow I find it astounding that an (arguably) anti-capitalist network of collectives that distributes free food to the poor and anybody else who needs it gets such an icy reception. I take it that because you said that it is "probably another failed example of... (meaningless bullshit)" that you don't actually know what you are talking about and are making baseless assumptions.

If feeding hundreds of thousands of needy people, thus exposing the wasteful nature of capitalism is a failure, you must be pretty hard to impress. This thread talks about connecting with the working class and building community, how great the BPP breakfast and free grocery programs were, etc. but then when there is an actual group of people doing it, you and others write them off as lifestylists.

Not that I am any better, but when was the last time you did any street-level work that actually improved people's quality of life?

It's the organizational framework involved that concerns me. The SPD's own alternative culture was organized exclusively by the SPD, not by the SPD in some front with the anti-Semitic Christian Social Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Social_Party_(Germany)). Likewise, the BPP didn't have a front to organize their alternative culture.

If Food Not Bombs were organized by a single class-strugglist anarchist organization, I would definitely be less critical.

the last donut of the night

19th December 2009, 05:00

ellipsis

19th December 2009, 05:13

If Food Not Bombs were organized by a single class-strugglist anarchist organization, I would definitely be less critical.
A centralized, international anarchist organization is a complete contradiction in terms. The beauty of such a "organizational" model is that people can start chapters where ever and whenever they want and because the food is all free, start up costs are minimal. This model is also hard for the state to attach because each chapter or cell is independent of each other so their is no head to cut off.

So your beef is really just based on tendency differences?

Die Neue Zeit

19th December 2009, 05:31

A centralized, international anarchist organization is a complete contradiction in terms.

That's the difference between being a proper political party-movement like the then-radical Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) and being a mere collection of grouplets. [See my thread in this forum criticizing D'Arcy's anarchistic spin on a "strategy of attrition."]

The beauty of such a "organizational" model is that people can start chapters where ever and whenever they want and because the food is all free, start up costs are minimal. This model is also hard for the state to attach because each chapter or cell is independent of each other so their is no head to cut off.

I know, but no coherent political message is being put across in the process. Like it or not, such coherence requires centralization.

ellipsis

19th December 2009, 06:01

That's the difference between being a proper political party-movement like the then-radical Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) and being a mere collection of grouplets. [See my thread in this forum criticizing D'Arcy's anarchistic spin on a "strategy of attrition."]

But what is the qualitative difference? Why is one more preferable to the other? Which is more effective?

I know, but no coherent political message is being put across in the process. Like it or not, such coherence requires centralization.

Their message is pretty simple and I have heard FNB members telling old ladies who were astonished at the abundance of otherwise wasted food:"Our mission is simple we want to first utilize "waste" to feed needy people and second to demonstrate the wasteful nature of our consumerist society." If all the group does is feed people and tell them that capitalism is wasteful, so what? Sure it isn't a method of/model for social change but who cares? They do their part and others do theirs.

Lyev

19th December 2009, 20:18

redarmyleader

19th December 2009, 23:30

Well, I say I still have a lot to do and see when it comes to organizations, seeing that I have been a communist for such a short span of time. However, it would be great if we all got off our asses and get out on the streets. The majority of the radical left, at least in the US, is composed of students or scholars -- not workers. How sad is this? As other members have pointed out, this fact only reinforces the belief that leftists are nerds over their heads. Most of the American workers don't know who we are. We are completely alien to them, when they should be running all of our organizations.

Sure, discussing whether dialectics work or not, or whether Maoism is a genuinely communist movement, or whether Trotsky was worse than Stalin is fun for some of us. But we all fucking know that attacking comrades in India, Nepal, or the Philippines, or attacking some other group is something we can't afford: it's pointless and even counterrevolutionary at such times when we as a whole are so weak. The working class does not care for our stupid arguments, it cares about being full and having a bed to lay on, it cares about its families and it cares about its survival.

Maybe when we reach much more revolutionary situations, we can re-start the discussions when they actually have an important role in shaping up the movement.

But now we have to fight capitalism; it is at its most destructive, destroying our planet and frantically looking for a new energy source to power it. It is close to actually collapsing humanity into total chaos. And it would suck a lot of ass if we were to let this fucking system destroy us all because it was just more interesting to read about Hoxha, or Lenin, or Pannekoek, or some other dead guys.

Seriously guys. A new world must be created.

Speak for yourself. This may be an accurate description of you and other people on this thread and website, but I want it known that you are not speaking about me.

Your comment is the kind of thing I meant when I said in my earlier post that there are people who don't believe in what they actually say. I hear you complaining about how "we" should all do something, and yet I see you offer not a single thing that people should do. Not to blow my own trumpet but in my post I put forward some concrete proposals and examples of organizing and building a mass movement of the workers and specially oppressed

I think your comment is very unserious and disengeniuous because of the fact that not only do you not offer any positive things, but you could not even get yourself to engage in either my post, or Arizona Bay, or even Autodidakt's in a serious way. Even if you disagreed, or was not actually sure of what you thought about my post and that of Arizona Bay or Autodidakt you could have at least put in an effort to engage.

So your new to stuff. I understand. But what right do you have to act frustrated about people who you see are merely talking and engaging in abstractions when you ignore and/or not engage with people who are actually talking about concrete stuff? Did you even read the posts?

Arizona Bay in his/her post at least tried to formulate some ideas, openly admitting that she/he was still working these ideas and ways to implement them. And Autodidakt put forward coherent sounding ideas. I don't agree with the some of Arizona Bay's ideas to prioritize (the Foods Not Bomb Stuff), nor do I think some of her ideas deal with society deep enough, though I agree with the need to branch out and organize everywhere we can and like the emphasis on education. And I take fundamental issue with Autodidakt's ideas because our grandchildren will be dead and none of the stuff he said will be done if we try it like he proposes. But I can and do appreciate the effort.

While I don't mean to attack you personally - because I think your statement reflects the general practice and tendency of most people on this post, and also on this site - I do mean to show irritation at what I consider an unserious approach. If you are actually serious about doing something, about being a revolutionary, than you need to start engaging with people who are showing themselves to be serious. And I am certainly putting myself in that category because of the activities that I do, which are expressed in my post.

I am on this site because I know I am not the only person who wants fundamental change in society. I am here, not as often as I like but when I can, to find people like me who take themselves seriously and are searching for a way to movement this society forward. I realize that these people are unfortunately a very small minority of people on this site. But that is okay to me because I know what a few determined, conscious, and guided can achieve (and it is a lot). I am also okay with it because I interact with people all the time outside this site (aka reality) who want and see themselves as leaders and fighters of the oppressed.

If you RedManatee - and anyone else reading this - are serious and want to have a serious conversation about revolution and how it is we make building a mass social movement strong enough to overthrow the capitalist I pledge myself to be available. I can't say if differences with one another will get solved. Hell, once we start engaging with one another I will find out we have more disagreements than we do agreeements. I certainly disagree with you about criticizing left-wing organizations; because most of them hinder and hold back struggle the truth must be told about them. But serious people owe it to one another to test each other out and see where things go.

ellipsis

20th December 2009, 01:30

Lyev

20th December 2009, 02:10

Wow intense post redarmyleader... it made me realize that I hadn't even put forth what I think our strategy should be. In no hierarchical order:

1. Arm ourselves/create worker's militias for defensive purposes. We must be able to defend ourselves,comrades, community and any gains that the movement makes.

2. Begin meet needs/rights of worker's that the state and the bourgeois has failed to meet. Feed the hungry, heal the sick, educate the ignorant, create worker's co-operatives and worker controlled economic blocs, guard the weak, etc. In other words create a REAL community, one modeled on anti-capitalist principles.

3. Among the existent organizations, parties, members, etc. of the revolutionary left, we need to each struggle in our own way but also create dialogue, co-ordinate, and in general work with people with whom we share fundamental common objectives. If this means inviting food not bombs to cater your ISO/SP-USA rally/conference/ reading circle, then do it. If this means showing up to another party's rally to give it some real numbers do it. If this means showing up at a tea party counter-demonstration to provide some muscle, do it.

Tactics is a whole different story and obviously differs greatly, but those are three guiding principles that are pretty solid.

I know you said no hierarchical order, but I think absolutely first and foremost before we (the left) "arm ourselves" we need a concrete, tangible ideological premise from which we can base this "worker's militia" on. Call me a liberal or whatever, but violence is really hard to properly justify; I'm all for usurping injustice, but we must provide a coherent reason why said injustice must be usurped.

Another point I was gonna add is that, following on from redarmyleader's post, since this is a very new sub-forum, shall we make some sort of rule that if you're to going put forward a criticism or problem, you must back it up with a solution or something to deal with what you've just said? If that makes sense. Basically, if there's a strategic problem in the left that you see or something that needs to doing, rather than simply pointing it out, posit a solution or an idea that can maybe go someway to solving your problem.

ellipsis

20th December 2009, 05:17

Lyev

20th December 2009, 14:12

Defending oneself is its own justification. Liberal.

Also that rule is kinda unenforceable and doesn't really make sense. People can offer a critique while not offering a solution. Maybe there is no solution. A dialectical argument requires that the antithesis merely expose contradiction in the thesis, and not provide a synthesis.

Well the criteria for "defending oneself" can be quite subjective at times. My point was; there's no point running around with guns shouting "viva la revolution!" without any solid ideological premise as I said.

Well OK, not a rule, but it's almost counter-productive to just criticize; there's no point in this sub-forum if all we do is come up with theses, and not any anti-theses or even a synthesis. The whole point of a strategy sub-forum is to answer a thesis with an anti-thesis then synthesis. It wouldn't be strategy if all we did was come up with a thesis and then not bother answering that proposition. A reaction to said proposition and then, if we can, a reconciliation between proposition and reaction is what we should aim for, at least that's how I see it.

the last donut of the night

20th December 2009, 16:03

Speak for yourself. This may be an accurate description of you and other people on this thread and website, but I want it known that you are not speaking about me.

Your comment is the kind of thing I meant when I said in my earlier post that there are people who don't believe in what they actually say. I hear you complaining about how "we" should all do something, and yet I see you offer not a single thing that people should do. Not to blow my own trumpet but in my post I put forward some concrete proposals and examples of organizing and building a mass movement of the workers and specially oppressed

I think your comment is very unserious and disengeniuous because of the fact that not only do you not offer any positive things, but you could not even get yourself to engage in either my post, or Arizona Bay, or even Autodidakt's in a serious way. Even if you disagreed, or was not actually sure of what you thought about my post and that of Arizona Bay or Autodidakt you could have at least put in an effort to engage.

So your new to stuff. I understand. But what right do you have to act frustrated about people who you see are merely talking and engaging in abstractions when you ignore and/or not engage with people who are actually talking about concrete stuff? Did you even read the posts?

Arizona Bay in his/her post at least tried to formulate some ideas, openly admitting that she/he was still working these ideas and ways to implement them. And Autodidakt put forward coherent sounding ideas. I don't agree with the some of Arizona Bay's ideas to prioritize (the Foods Not Bomb Stuff), nor do I think some of her ideas deal with society deep enough, though I agree with the need to branch out and organize everywhere we can and like the emphasis on education. And I take fundamental issue with Autodidakt's ideas because our grandchildren will be dead and none of the stuff he said will be done if we try it like he proposes. But I can and do appreciate the effort.

While I don't mean to attack you personally - because I think your statement reflects the general practice and tendency of most people on this post, and also on this site - I do mean to show irritation at what I consider an unserious approach. If you are actually serious about doing something, about being a revolutionary, than you need to start engaging with people who are showing themselves to be serious. And I am certainly putting myself in that category because of the activities that I do, which are expressed in my post.

I am on this site because I know I am not the only person who wants fundamental change in society. I am here, not as often as I like but when I can, to find people like me who take themselves seriously and are searching for a way to movement this society forward. I realize that these people are unfortunately a very small minority of people on this site. But that is okay to me because I know what a few determined, conscious, and guided can achieve (and it is a lot). I am also okay with it because I interact with people all the time outside this site (aka reality) who want and see themselves as leaders and fighters of the oppressed.

If you RedManatee - and anyone else reading this - are serious and want to have a serious conversation about revolution and how it is we make building a mass social movement strong enough to overthrow the capitalist I pledge myself to be available. I can't say if differences with one another will get solved. Hell, once we start engaging with one another I will find out we have more disagreements than we do agreeements. I certainly disagree with you about criticizing left-wing organizations; because most of them hinder and hold back struggle the truth must be told about them. But serious people owe it to one another to test each other out and see where things go.

I appreciate the seriousness and honesty of this post, and that you did call me out on my failings. It is very true that I should have offered other alternatives, but my post was just destined to the more intellectual types here -- who although may be part of an organization (I actually am not) -- may just be armchair activists, preferring to engage on the more historical debates here than anything else. It was just more of a response to the serious academic and intellectual tone the higher circles of the left may take, which many workers find pretentious and alien.

I apologize for the patronizing tone of my post; I didn't intend it to be that way. However, since then, I have come up with some ideas on how an organization should start getting some new members. It seems a lot of leftist organizations are too centered on the student movements, and thus always stick to college campuses. That, again, probably fuels the common stereotype here in America that all leftists are dreamy middle-class students.

My proposals are the following. As several members pointed out, the Black Panthers would have soup kitchens, so I believe a good method would be for parties to set up community meeting places -- as not a lot exist in the inner cities. It would be good if an organization were to set up:

Soup kitchens, or places where the homeless (the ones most rejected by capitalism) could stay for a warm meal
Community centers, places for mothers to put their children to work; these centers could also give several lessons on basic Marxism
Finally, a vibrant presence in the community

Again, these ideas need to be discussed. They are expensive, especially for the small size of leftist parties in the US today. However, I would assume that they could also work as charity organizations (but then I think that that would prohibit them from taking a political stand). I hope more experienced members can help me out with this.

RED DAVE

20th December 2009, 16:31

Especially for Americans:

• Educate yourself and others. Read and organize reading groups around issues and history. And it's a damn shame if you know more about Russian or Chinese history than American history.

• Get a union job. If you don't have a union on your job, get ready to organize one. If there is one, start organizing a rank-and-file caucus. If these are impossible look for an organizing campaign or rank and file group whose work you can support.

• Get involved in the antiwar movement around the notions of immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan and Democratic Party.

• If you're a student, organize on your campus around the economic crisis, the war, etc.

• If there are genuine, community-based organizations around, such as a group tryuing to prevent evictions, join and/or work with them. However, beware of doing social work. Things like food distribution, legal representation, literacy work, etc., are done much better by volunteer or government organizations and they do not, in general, lead to an increase in consciousness, especially not in the long run. Unless these organizations are backed by another movement, such as the labor movement, they're a bottomless pit to work in.

• Learn about the programs, history and, most important, the actual actions of the various left-wing organizations. Consider becoming a contact or joining the one whose actual activities correspond to what you believe in.

RED DAVE

ellipsis

20th December 2009, 16:44

Well the criteria for "defending oneself" can be quite subjective at times. My point was; there's no point running around with guns shouting "viva la revolution!" without any solid ideological premise as I said.

Not for me, if the life or well-being of me or mine is being threatened in the present, I have a right to stop it, with force if necessary. But yes there should be a clear ideological foundation to any organization.

Well OK, not a rule, but it's almost counter-productive to just criticize; there's no point in this sub-forum if all we do is come up with theses, and not any anti-theses or even a synthesis. The whole point of a strategy sub-forum is to answer a thesis with an anti-thesis then synthesis. It wouldn't be strategy if all we did was come up with a thesis and then not bother answering that proposition. A reaction to said proposition and then, if we can, a reconciliation between proposition and reaction is what we should aim for, at least that's how I see it. I don't know if that is the "whole point" of the sub-forum. Yes it would be a positive thing and constructive dialogue is needed, but people can't and don't have to respond to everything everybody writes and reaching a synthesis is a continual process.

redarmyleader

20th December 2009, 16:52

I really appreciate the response to my post from folks. It is good to meet people who are serious in dealing with the questions of our day. Before I respond to people's ideas (you guys are making me think about a lot of stuff!) I wanted to point out an error in the last paragraph of my previous post. I meant to so say that when we engage with each other WE might find more disagreements than agreements, and not that I am certain that I disagree with people. Though it seems most people got the point. Again, thanks.
Though I actually have something quick to say about the BPP. I think a lot of things need to be learned from them because while they certainly have left a positive mark on history, there were some fundamental mistakes they made that doomed them to the type of failure they experienced. One of those things is under-estimating the power of the state. I am in agreement of building defense guards, but don't believe they are just something you create at the whim, but when the class struggle necessitates them. The Panthers believed that walking around with guns made them powerful and an inspiration to the black community. In reality, it made them a target of the state.

In Detroit we had something similar to the Panthers, but a little more advanced, called the League of Revolutionary Black Workers. I remember talking to a founding member and him telling me that he refused to engage with the BPP because they were too sloppy and open to police infiltration. History shows us that he was right in making that call.

I good thing to read is pamphlet that RWL member wrote called Socialism and Black Liberation (http://www.bamn.com/misc/soc_black_lib_p%20df.pdf):

Walt

20th December 2009, 16:58

Even though I'm relatively new to the whole leftist 'culture', I can see that one of the major problems, if not biggest problems, would be lack of information people have about the truths of communism. Sure, we have revleft, and a few other websites, but I don't like that's enough. We should use the internet to our advantage.
We should start off with making a website simply to just debunk common myths people spread around, and provide starting material to beginners. We can spread this information through Facebook, Twitter, other forums, or whatever. More people just need to know the ultimate goal of communism, and how capitalism is destroying society as we know it.

bcbm

20th December 2009, 20:05

Well, to be fair, it is one of - what - ten posts in a single thread.

yes, i know. i just thought it was a good one to pick out and try to use to push the discussion further.

Whether it should be "no shit" or not, it isn't happening. I can't seem to find a Marxist organization within a relative (say, 50 miles) proximity which is located/has meetings outside of the University District in Seattle - usually the meetings are actually in the Universities.i think we should give groups some credit- most socialist groups would love to have a presence outside of the universities. obviously this isn't happening though, and that's why i'm saying more strategy is needed than "talk to working people." every socialist group wants that, but it never happens. why and how can this be overcome?

Beyond that, most of your questions are regarding the specifics of Arizona Bay's comment;i wasn't really asking them in hopes of getting answers, but more as a way to show how vague a lot of what leftists talk about in terms of strategy is in hopes of getting some more concrete ideas.

what about you - what do you propose?i don't propose anything. personally i'm trying to "find each other" and "build the Party."

ellipsis

20th December 2009, 21:41

From my own writings:

[QUOTE]If one looks at trends over time, there is an inverse relationship between the number of “white supremacist attacks on blacks and civil rights workers” and the number of “black activists' attacks on whites and shootouts with the police;” as the Black Panthers and others began to defend themselves through violence, the amount of violence committed against them dropped dramatically.

Source:Ross, Jeffery I., and Ted R. Gurr. "Why Terrorism Subsides: a Comparative Study of Canada and the United States." Comparative Politics, Vol. 21, No. 4. (Jul.,1989): p.415.

Expropriate-For a theoretical frame work of armed self defense, research Robert Williams and Malcolm X.

originofopinion

20th December 2009, 23:14

redarmyleader

21st December 2009, 03:31

quick response to theredson. I think the Deacon of Defense and Robert Williams are way better examples of what you are trying to communicate (and I do agree with you) than the BPP. The Deacons of Defense were in the South, looking after civil rights organizers. And Williams was fighting against the racist. The BPP is the most known and therefore get credit that they actually don't deserve.

The pamphlet that I linked was written by a leading member of the RWL who use to be a BPP member. He speaks from experience. The BPP made some contributions to history, but their mistakes must be identified in order for us to overcome them.

ellipsis

21st December 2009, 04:27

their mistakes must be identified in order for us to overcome them.

Agreed but equally we must learn from their successes as well.

redarmyleader

21st December 2009, 16:09

*before I begin I totally agree with your last post theredson*

So to continue with our useful conversation about our priorities and perspectives for action and building struggle I wanted to comment on three things and see what people had to say about them. Too help people see it better I will make three separate post so it wont look like an endless class essay. I will post all three parts on my blog and put them one at a time on the post so people can get a chance to respond to one before I put up another. And please don’t take my rather lengthy posts as an expression of my “great wisdom and knowledge that I am bestowing upon you”. I am a wordy person, and I am anal and want to make sure I am communicating the right things clearly. Sorry if I come off a little bit arrogant (sometimes I can) because all I want to express is my experience in the class struggle and that of my organizations collective experience that I call my own.

The first thing I wanted to comment on is about people's interest in doing work around providing services for poor and working people. I think this shows some real empathy on people's part about the daily sufferings that people face under capitalism. I also think it shows your desire to have an impact on people's lives right now. Unfortunately this work, besides maybe making you feel good, does nothing in the way of changing the power between labor and capital. Interesting enough Marx and Engels covers this issue explicitly in the Communist Manifesto (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm). They labeled it conservative or bourgeois socialism because it does it not challenge the relationship between labor and capital, and in fact sends a message that the only thing that workers could hope to achieve is material gain in society, not social or political freedom and power. Because of this capitalists - both liberal and conservative - receiving much support from the middle-class and their various organizations make it there projects to promote such projects aimed at helping the "poor suffering masses". I might add that they do so on the cheapest and limited way possible.

The Manifesto quite rightly points out that far from challenging the bourgeois state, such activities assist it by making it cheaper and easier to due such tasks. And the added bonus is that it is much less confrontational fighting for a community center as opposed to a decent contract, affordable housing, access to health care, full citizenship for all undocumented immigrants, access to quality, integrated public education, and accessible, integrated colleges and universities. The capitalist would be delighted and some of them even encouraging if we choose to get bogged down in what would be a endless, never ending, never really solving the social crisis, effort. The passage I am referring to is in the third section (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm) of the Manifesto under the second numbered title called "Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism".

To put my point in another way, when I was in the 11th grade, my house caught on fire. My family and I lost essentially everything and had no place to go and it was in the dead of winter. The Red Cross came, found us a hotel to stay in, and even gave us stipends to get clothes. But they of course, were limited in what they could do. They could only afford to put us in the hotel room for a couple of days. Lucky for us I had a job and could pay for the hotel room (which the managers gave us a deal on) and so we stayed there for two whole months, including Thanksgiving and Christmas until we could find a house to live in. What I needed most was something that everyone in Detroit needs, and only the means of production under workers control could provide: decent housing with regular maintenance and check-up, something that would have prevented my house fire. The fire started because the electrical wiring for the house was too old; the fire fighters said that the fire was burning inside the house walls for practically two weeks!

The point I am trying to make here is our activities have got to aim at change the dynamics of power, or else it is quite useless activities. Liberals, who are not interested in the working-class and mass oppressed gaining political power over and against the capitalist, would much rather build a shelter than a movement. That is why it is up to us revolutionaries to build mass, social struggle.

RHIZOMES

21st December 2009, 23:17

Their message is pretty simple and I have heard FNB members telling old ladies who were astonished at the abundance of otherwise wasted food:"Our mission is simple we want to first utilize "waste" to feed needy people and second to demonstrate the wasteful nature of our consumerist society." If all the group does is feed people and tell them that capitalism is wasteful, so what? Sure it isn't a method of/model for social change but who cares? They do their part and others do theirs.

Why not "capitalist" society though? Everyone including elements in the mainstream media talks/complains about "consumerism". Not that the people behind FNB don't know what they're talking about - it's more how it's communicated. To most people complaining about "consumerist" society just means they should buy less shit. If you said capitalist society then it'd be indicting the whole economic system rather than the latest manifestation of it.

Lyev

21st December 2009, 23:19

....
I definitely agree that we should "change the dynamics of power", but I believe things like "providing services for poor and working people", like:

Soup kitchens, or places where the homeless (the ones most rejected by capitalism) could stay for a warm meal
Community centers, places for mothers to put their children to work; these centers could also give several lessons on basic Marxism
Finally, a vibrant presence in the community

are incremental steps towards actually changing the relationship between labour and capital, because they raise awareness and bring the community together. I believe presently under capitalism there's nothing at all wrong with organizations similiar to the Red Cross if they simply improve upon current conditions (admittedly the Red Cross isn't at all leftist). I don't think we necessarily need to jump in at the deep end with activism, just because we're not trying to change "the dynamics of power" straight away doesn't mean we're never going to.

If something like the Red Cross was run a by a leftists then it could be a useful step up on the ladder to a community consciousness. If we had an organization that were wholly immersed in the community rather than something run by "Liberals, who are not interested in the working-class and mass oppressed gaining political power over and against the capitalist, would much rather build a shelter than a movement". Then this could work in our favour. I underlined "shelter than a movement" because my point is that a shelter can very much lead to a movement, if the shelter sets out with the aim of building a movement. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I do not believe the setting up of a community centre is always directly "opposed to a decent contract, affordable housing, access to health care, full citizenship for all undocumented immigrants, access to quality, integrated public education, and accessible, integrated colleges and universities" because something like a community centre builds consciousness that can lead to a want for, and the realization of a need for, all the above mentioned things.

bcbm

22nd December 2009, 00:40

I don't think we necessarily need to jump in at the deep end with activism, just because we're not trying to change "the dynamics of power" straight away doesn't mean we're never going to. i think if a community building model is to be pursued, its absolutely essential to challenge the dynamics of power immediately. a leftist version of the red cross wouldn't achieve anything more in terms of building consciousness, even if it wanted to, because it would still be fundamentally based around the principle of charity. the haves organizing to give to the have-nots doesn't build anything except more resentment. to build an empowered community you need to actually destroy the power relations that exist by making community initiatives for food/healthcare/housing/etc self-managed.

i've only skimmed this (http://libcom.org/library/take-over-city-italy-1972-lotta-continua) text, but if its talking about the events i've read of elsewhere, its a pretty good example of empowering community response.

RED DAVE

22nd December 2009, 04:46

I definitely agree that we should "change the dynamics of power", but I believe things like "providing services for poor and working people", like:

Soup kitchens, or places where the homeless (the ones most rejected by capitalism) could stay for a warm meal
Community centers, places for mothers to put their children to work; these centers could also give several lessons on basic Marxism
Finally, a vibrant presence in the community

are incremental steps towards actually changing the relationship between labour and capital, because they raise awareness and bring the community together. I believe presently under capitalism there's nothing at all wrong with organizations similiar to the Red Cross if they simply improve upon current conditions (admittedly the Red Cross isn't at all leftist). I don't think we necessarily need to jump in at the deep end with activism, just because we're not trying to change "the dynamics of power" straight away doesn't mean we're never going to.

If something like the Red Cross was run a by a leftists then it could be a useful step up on the ladder to a community consciousness. If we had an organization that were wholly immersed in the community rather than something run by "Liberals, who are not interested in the working-class and mass oppressed gaining political power over and against the capitalist, would much rather build a shelter than a movement". Then this could work in our favour. I underlined "shelter than a movement" because my point is that a shelter can very much lead to a movement, if the shelter sets out with the aim of building a movement. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I do not believe the setting up of a community centre is always directly "opposed to a decent contract, affordable housing, access to health care, full citizenship for all undocumented immigrants, access to quality, integrated public education, and accessible, integrated colleges and universities" because something like a community centre builds consciousness that can lead to a want for, and the realization of a need for, all the above mentioned things.With all due respect, Comrade, what you are suggesting is social work. And social work done by leftists is still social work, which the ruling class and its hirelings are far better at than we are.

So-called community organizing, which was one of the buzzwords of the Sixties, unless it is supported by a large, active movement outside itself, is not sustainable. It does not, especially in the long run, in the absence of other, strong movements, lead to an increase of consciousness. What it leads to is leftists spending time, money and enthusiasm in the bottomless pit of capitalist misery. You may end up feeling noble for what you've done, but it's a venture in political masochism.

Believe me: I have been there and under conditions far more auspicious than today. During the 60s, I was involved with community organizing: specifically, rent strikes on the Lower East Side in New York City (before the hippies got there and renamed it the East Village). At various times, chapters of CORE and other civil rights groups had hundreds of buildings out on strike at once. We gained large amounts of publicity, helped people get rent reductions, repairs on buildings, etc. There were many leftists involved with all this, and all of it was a part of the civil rights movement. Many of the organizers were members of leftist groups: indpendent socialists, Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, etc. We were all involved with this work.

What did we gain from all this? Practically nothing. Much of our work was a source of pride to us, and the people in the community we served were appreciative. But did we contribute to the growth of a revolutionary movement? No. We didn't even contribute much to the growth of the civil rights movement, and as that movement receded, so did our efforts.

If you need further evidence, consider the Black Panther free breakfast program. Did children get food that they needed? Sure. Were they appreciative of what they received and did they praise the Panthers? Sure. Did this effort, beyond gaining publicity, contribute much to the growth of the Panthers? No. Was it torpedoed by the pigs with ease? Yes.

I hope I've made my point. Community organizing as a revolutionary tool, in and of itself and in the absence of an already existing, powerful movement, is not a viable strategy. It has been tried, and it failed. You can get all sentimental about it if you want to, and talk about soup kitchens, daycare centers, community centers, etc., but the Left has been there, with hundreds if not thousands of organizers, all across the country, during far more radical times than these. And we were not successful in building community organizations that contributed to the growth of "The Movement" as we called it, let alone recruiting people to overtly revolutionary organizations. People became burned out, dropped out, and little, if nothing, was accomplished.

RED DAVE

Red Saxon

22nd December 2009, 04:48

Education and technology have always been safe haven for leftists, but I think we need to infiltrate other aspects of society.

Or another large scale labor movement could spring up, although I doubt it.

Chambered Word

22nd December 2009, 05:38

We really need to debunk the myths surrounding communism and anarchy if we don't want people to be scared off by our ideas.

As for a charity to feed the poor, I like the name 'Food And Bombs'.

Lyev

22nd December 2009, 18:06

You guys are a lot more experienced than me, so I can accept when I'm totally wrong :lol: Sorry if I seem a little naive in replying to your responses; I just want to learn.

With all due respect, Comrade, what you are suggesting is social work. And social work done by leftists is still social work, which the ruling class and its hirelings are far better at than we are.

So-called community organizing, which was one of the buzzwords of the Sixties, unless it is supported by a large, active movement outside itself, is not sustainable. It does not, especially in the long run, in the absence of other, strong movements, lead to an increase of consciousness. What it leads to is leftists spending time, money and enthusiasm in the bottomless pit of capitalist misery. You may end up feeling noble for what you've done, but it's a venture in political masochism.

Believe me: I have been there and under conditions far more auspicious than today. During the 60s, I was involved with community organizing: specifically, rent strikes on the Lower East Side in New York City (before the hippies got there and renamed it the East Village). At various times, chapters of CORE and other civil rights groups had hundreds of buildings out on strike at once. We gained large amounts of publicity, helped people get rent reductions, repairs on buildings, etc. There were many leftists involved with all this, and all of it was a part of the civil rights movement. Many of the organizers were members of leftist groups: indpendent socialists, Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, etc. We were all involved with this work.

What did we gain from all this? Practically nothing. Much of our work was a source of pride to us, and the people in the community we served were appreciative. But did we contribute to the growth of a revolutionary movement? No. We didn't even contribute much to the growth of the civil rights movement, and as that movement receded, so did our efforts.

If you need further evidence, consider the Black Panther free breakfast program. Did children get food that they needed? Sure. Were they appreciative of what they received and did they praise the Panthers? Sure. Did this effort, beyond gaining publicity, contribute much to the growth of the Panthers? No. Was it torpedoed by the pigs with ease? Yes.

I hope I've made my point. Community organizing as a revolutionary tool, in and of itself and in the absence of an already existing, powerful movement, is not a viable strategy. It has been tried, and it failed. You can get all sentimental about it if you want to, and talk about soup kitchens, daycare centers, community centers, etc., but the Left has been there, with hundreds if not thousands of organizers, all across the country, during far more radical times than these. And we were not successful in building community organizations that contributed to the growth of "The Movement" as we called it, let alone recruiting people to overtly revolutionary organizations. People became burned out, dropped out, and little, if nothing, was accomplished.

RED DAVE

You've left me a bit confused. How else can the left campaign if not through the methods you have mentioned? And you say you gained nothing from it, but in the previous paragraph you say you "had hundreds of buildings out on strike at once. We gained large amounts of publicity, helped people get rent reductions, repairs on buildings, etc. There were many leftists involved with all this, and all of it was a part of the civil rights movement. Many of the organizers were members of leftist groups: indpendent socialists, Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, etc. We were all involved with this work."

Also this was kind of my point: "It does not, especially in the long run, in the absence of other, strong movements, lead to an increase of consciousness." what if "community-organizing" could be conducive to "strong movements"? But then again, as I said, you're a lot more experienced than me, and if the methods I mentioned have been tried and failed, well then, fair enough.

i think if a community building model is to be pursued, its absolutely essential to challenge the dynamics of power immediately. a leftist version of the red cross wouldn't achieve anything more in terms of building consciousness, even if it wanted to, because it would still be fundamentally based around the principle of charity. the haves organizing to give to the have-nots doesn't build anything except more resentment. to build an empowered community you need to actually destroy the power relations that exist by making community initiatives for food/healthcare/housing/etc self-managed.

i've only skimmed this (http://libcom.org/library/take-over-city-italy-1972-lotta-continua) text, but if its talking about the events i've read of elsewhere, its a pretty good example of empowering community response.

I appreciate what you're saying: "the haves organizing to give to the have-nots doesn't build anything except more resentment." that's kind of like socialism-from-above, isn't it? What if there was some sort of organization that was organized inside the communities themselves? And why wouldn't you achieve anything if you based your principles around charity?

ellipsis

23rd December 2009, 21:58

Red Dave, I think you are right that community outreach won't get anywhere without broader political/social movements. The BPP was obviously on the fringe of the larger civil rights and anti-war movements and these tactics were just part of their broader activities. Your actions also were contextualized by the "revolutionary" milieu of the time. If there wasn't enough social movement/activism back then, what kind of broader movement to accompany community organizing are you talking about?

Also these tactics are based in social contract theory. A government's legitimacy/sovereignty is based on their ability to provide material well-being, security for foreign aggression and domestic violence, and maintain social order/rule of law. Many revolutionary movements pick up responsibilities that the state had neglected and are able to form counter-states. Examples include the cuban revolution, zapatistas, and Hezzbollah.

redarmyleader

25th December 2009, 08:13

Sorry for replying late. Had work. I apologize for the post being kinda everywhere, but wanted to respond to whole discussion thus far.

The fight for community centers, for lunch programs, i.e. services for the poor becomes a fight for power, and therefore a fight to be led, waged, and encouraged by revolutionaries, when their is a SOCIAL DEMAND for the resources of society (produced by social labor of workers and oppressed sections) to be used ON A SOCIAL BASIS. Homelessness, hunger, lack of education and culture are SOCIAL problems CREATED by capitalism, a system whereby the means of production are socialized but the resources created by them are privately owned and distributed. And any movement demanding that these problems be dealt with by the state expresses both a recognition and challenge of this fact. The job here of revolutionaries is to show working-class and the massed oppressed that only a socialist revolution ending with the dictatorship of the proletariat can really solve these problems.

Fighting for a community service fully funded by the capitalist but under worker/community control is an expression of this. Fighting to establish a community center on the same basis as liberal charities, that is on the basis individual sacrifice of individual resources (e.g. donations of either money or labor) is not. And even if community is collectively sacrificing, they are sacrificing a small - noble! - but nevertheless small amount versus the immense resources of society. Such sacrifices only mean something when they are used in struggle for power (e.g. strike funds, money for printing materials, transportation for mass mobilizations, etc)

People should realize that things like Social Security, Food Stamps, Low-Income housing, public education, and even the majority of community centers that exist were products of struggle. These services were not originally provided by government, but were established as a response to mass social struggle demanding more prioritizing and resources for the workers and oppressed.

Revolutionaries fight for reforms because we are for anything that makes life better for workers and other oppressed masses in their current state, and because the winning of reforms express shift in dynamics of power, and gives confidence to workers and oppressed of their collective power. What Red Dave was describing in his post about rent strikes is something that activists today would and of course should be involved in. Though notice that these activities, with mass social movements as its backdrop, including the mobilization of thousands of people in the community was not on the basis of trying to provide to each other better low-rent housing than the state could do (how can I give you something which I myself do not have?), but again a challenge to the state, and therefore its power to put people before profits, the antithesis to capitalist order.

I believe the point to get out of Red Dave's post is that militant, mass actions in and of themselves mean nothing. Only if we are building organization, building consciousness for the need for revolution and a vanguard party, and for the expansion of social struggle on every basis do these struggles mean something. And it is my belief that the left, as described by Red Dave, did not get anything from these actions because they saw these struggles as ends of themselves, and not as a means to build stronger, more conscious struggle that put political and social rule of the proletariat on the order of the day. This was a very typical problem of the left, a problem that persist even today.

Expropriate, a question I have for you is who among the left has money and resources to establish long-term housing that is decent to a dozen people, let alone whole cities of people? To make the point that I was trying to make about the Red Cross in a different way, think about the NHS. Could the left do that to the same extent as the state under current conditions? No. But the state has shown itself to being capable of performing such a service. Does the state actually want to provide national health care? No. Does it look for every opportunity to cut it? Yes. Why? Because it is not a profitable enterprise. So why was NHS created? Because the power of the working-class in Britain forced them to. So NHS expressed power of the British working-class? Absolutely. NHS has it shortcomings, but that is because it exist within capitalism and the only way to have real, nationalized healthcare is the overthrow of capitalism and abolishment of private property.

And Expropriate, We can bring communities together by building social struggle around, in Britain, defeating the EDL and BNP, and building a movement fighting for real equality of Black and Asian people, beginning with the right to tell the truth about racism. These things may not be as popular, or rather less controversial, than building community shelters or soup kitchens, but not only is it possible to build mass movement around these issues, but to do so will present real challenge to British capitalism and express the real power of our side.

Theredson, I think your examples do not quite fit. The Cuban revolution took state power, and if between the time of them taking state power took up responsibilities of the state, it was on the basis of dual power, when their was a direct competition between the socialist and the capitalist over who controlled the means of production. This was the case in the Russian Revolution between the Soviets and Provisional Government after the February Revolution.

As for Hezzbollah, you do realize that they want to create an Islamic state, which would be a capitalist state with religious rule, like Iran, and therefore explains why they have money to throw around. Hezzbollah is a petty-bourgeois movement supported by section of capitalist of the Middle East who want ownership and control of region. Besides, they have mass support because they are prepared to fight imperialism, and not so much because of their community programs. [The people of Lebanon, and the people of the Middle East, always have demanded and fought for a secular state.] The West Bank is an example of how the capitalist will always do "community service" better, because they have the resources to do so (the conservative leadership of Fatah leads the West Bank because are able to provide region better services than Hamas could).

But theredson I think you are getting at important issue of Dual Power. It is just a question as to when such a situation actually exist that we have to figure out.

ellipsis

25th December 2009, 16:21

Never said anything about Hezbollah being good.

Che and others provided medical services to peasants which I turn gave them support among the peasantry. My examples do fit; we are talking about creating
dual power systems; you take down capitalism by replacing it.

RED DAVE

25th December 2009, 16:56

I believe the point to get out of Red Dave's post is that militant, mass actions in and of themselves mean nothing. Only if we are building organization, building consciousness for the need for revolution and a vanguard party, and for the expansion of social struggle on every basis do these struggles mean something. And it is my belief that the left, as described by Red Dave, did not get anything from these actions because they saw these struggles as ends of themselves, and not as a means to build stronger, more conscious struggle that put political and social rule of the proletariat on the order of the day. This was a very typical problem of the left, a problem that persist even today.Just a couple of points in response to a very good post.

Many of us who participated in community actions were revolutionaries who did not think of these struggles as ends in themselves: we conceived of them as part of an ongoing struggle against capitalism on many fronts. My point is that this "front" was found to be nonproductive. Even during the best moments of, say, the rent strike struggle in New York, we were not capable of recruiting people in the community to a revolutionary outlook.

And, of course, as the movements which sustained us, especially the civil rights movement (which in New York was based in left-wing unions) receded, we ended up doing the social work I described. Then when the capitalist state took a social democratic lurch, the so-called War on Poverty, we were immediately overshadowed by vastly better funded, and professionally staffed, institutions that were created almost overnight.

Community organizing, Comrades, is a dicey strategy at best. Best to concentrate our efforts in the labor movement and other mass movements; especially, the antiwar movement.

The same was not true of trade union struggles during this and subsequently during the later 60s and 70s. During this time, left-wing militants were intimately involved in these struggles. And before the wave of militancy subsided, in the later 70s, we were able to recruit workers to revolutionary politics. Some of these influence, e.g. in the Teamsters Union, are present to this day. During this same period, the community organizing efforts vanished virtually without a trace.

RED DAVE

redarmyleader

25th December 2009, 18:19

My point is that this "front" was found to be nonproductive. Even during the best moments of, say, the rent strike struggle in New York, we were not capable of recruiting people in the community to a revolutionary outlook.

RED DAVE

And why do you think this was the case? I in general accept that building a sustainable movement on the basis of rent strikes, etc. are difficult. But given the back drop of the civil rights movement, why was it at that moment difficult to recruit people to a revolutionary outlook?

Theredson, a point of clarity? When you say that the way to take down capitalism is to replace it, what do you mean?

RED DAVE

25th December 2009, 19:30

Many of us who participated in community actions were revolutionaries who did not think of these struggles as ends in themselves: we conceived of them as part of an ongoing struggle against capitalism on many fronts. My point is that this "front" was found to be nonproductive. Even during the best moments of, say, the rent strike struggle in New York, we were not capable of recruiting people in the community to a revolutionary outlook.
And why do you think this was the case? I in general accept that building a sustainable movement on the basis of rent strikes, etc. are difficult. But given the back drop of the civil rights movement, why was it at that moment difficult to recruit people to a revolutionary outlook?This has to do, I believe, with the dynamics of capitalism itself. It is not a matter of community organizing being more difficult. The barrier is structural and endemic to capitalism itself.

When we do organizing on a shop-floor basis, we are addressing the basic issues of capitalism: wages, hours, conditions, benefits. Basically, we are dealing with the control of surplus value, which is at the heart of class struggle. The issues are presented in a fairly straightforward way: the control of the remuneratin and conditions of labor.

Under socialism, we control; under capitalism, they control.

This is not all that difficult to understand. Also, it is easy to point out that, so long as one remains a worker, there is no individual solution. Yes, you can go to school at night, become a lawyer and join another class. Or brown-nose for a foreman's job. But unless a person is determined to do this, the general laws of capitalism are pretty easy to see. So, over time, as class struggle gets more intense, as it did during the late 60s and early-to-mid 70s, it is possible to propagandize successfully for a revolutionary position.

However, in a rent strike, say, the situation is quite different. While ownership of the building remains in the hands of the landlord, a good deal of amelioration is possible: rent reduction, repairs, better heat or just plain moving away to a real or imaginary better place. Individual solutions are quite possible: an aggressive tenant can either argue the landlord into repairs or haul him into court or move out. Compare this with a labor situation where such ameliorations or individual solutions are virtually unobtainable. Superficially, the struggles appear similar. But, in reality, they are very different.

A comrade of mine once said, "The community atomizes; the factory unites." The workplace is the nexus for the basic struggle within capitalism. This is not just a theoretical point but the producer of consciousness. Community struggles can only produce class consciousness on a very limited, short term and uneven basis. Why should I go out on strike? My landlord has always been okay to me? Rent strikes, to stick with this example, reveal the contradictions of capitalism as between owners and renters. This is not the central contradiction.

On-the-job struggles produce consciousness on a systematic basis because they reveal, much more basically, the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, between workers and capitalists.

RED DAVE

Ben Seattle

25th December 2009, 19:37

Hi everyone,

Only recently have I begun to post much on RevLeft and only now did I even notice that there is an entire section heading on strategy.

Like many people here, I have written a lot about this kind of thing but am unsure how to even begin a conversation here. To be honest I have not read all the comments in this thread that preceded this one. People who post here have different amounts of experience as political or revolutionary activists. People here also have different abilities to express themselves. My focus, frankly, is to interact mainly with the more experienced and mature people here--not so much those who are here largely for the social interaction (social interaction is good, of course, but it is not my purpose here).

I have written about the creation of a revolutionary mass organization and the kinds of projects that might unite the efforts of activists from many different backgrounds and lead to such an organization. This is in How to Build the party of the Working Class (http://struggle.net/ben/2008/HowTo.htm).

My conclusion is that the kinds of work and projects that will unite the left will revolve around information war.

Some readers here may be interested in this recent essay where I describe my work in a number of different communities of struggle:

Conscious Forces Will Bring Us Certain Victory (http://struggle.net/ben/2009/conscious_forces.htm)
How in the coming period of intensified class struggle,
activists will use open communities and
information war to win ever-increasing attention
and support and create the conscious forces
that will bring us certain victory

http://struggle.net/ben/2009/images/fire_triangle.jpg
Equation for our victory in the 21st century:
Heat, Fuel and Oxygen creates the Digital Fire
Fuel = Conditions of exploitation/misery
Oxygen = Ease of communication
Heat = Conscious Forces
Some readers may be interested in this thread:

Steps towards a Revolutionary News Service (http://www.revleft.com/vb/steps-towards-revolutionary-t125508/index.html)
with an active audience of millions (http://www.revleft.com/vb/steps-towards-revolutionary-t125508/index.html)

http://struggle.net/ben/images/refinery_animated.gif
Also, some readers here may be interested in this essay:

Seventeen Theses on the Destiny of
the Revolution in Communications
and the Concept of Workers' Rule (http://struggle.net/17/index.htm)

I. Eight Theses on the Destiny of
the Concept of Workers' Rule

II. Nine Theses on the Emerging
Revolution in Communications
and its Significance for the Awakening
of Proletarian Political Life and Consciousness
That's it for now.

Sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
http://strugle.net/ben/

RED DAVE

26th December 2009, 00:17

Ben Seattle

26th December 2009, 04:23

RED DAVE

26th December 2009, 04:30

With all due respect, Comrade Seattle, I see nothing in your lengthy documents that I have perused, or your post that mentions struggles inside the working class, including workplace or intra-union rank-and-file struggles.
First, my thanks for having the fortitude to take a look at the articles I linked to.

What kinds of struggles inside the working class do you believe it would have appropriate for me to discuss--and why?Comrade, the essence of revolutionary Marxist work, is work in and with the working class.

You could start with: union organizing, strike support work and rank-and-file struggles against union bureaucracy.

RED DAVE

Ben Seattle

26th December 2009, 06:18

Comrade, the essence of revolutionary Marxist work, is work in and with the working class.
You could start with: union organizing, strike support work and rank-and-file struggles against union bureaucracy.

Hi folks,

I want to be responsive to the more serious people here.

Like many people here, I have experience in workplace organizing, struggles against the trade union bureaucrats and so on. One comrade of mine was blacklisted by a corrupt union bureaucrat. But I do not usually write about this in my articles because the most fundamental problems of the revolutionary movement are deeper than a failure to take part in workplace struggles.

For example, many different political groups have been involved in workplace organizing and this has been going from at least the 1870's or so. And yet the revolutionary movement is deeply unhealthy at this time.

I made up my mind a long time ago to confront the deeper issues in the revolutionary movement.

My initial impression of Dave, on the basis of his post, is that he is something of a blowhard. I checked out some of his previous posts, however, and found that he has had a lot of intelligent things to say in the past.

It is important that I do my best to make a solid connection with this comrade, who has decades of valuable experience in the revolutionary movement. And the same time, however, it is also necessary that I take action to defend my focus in my work on this forum.

The problem here could be Dave's. Or it could be mine. But it does not make any difference whether Dave's post was shallow--or whether I am so shallow that a thoughtful post by Dave appears to me to be shallow. It still represents a distraction.

Therefore, as a temporary measure, I have added Dave to my "Ignore List" that the RevLeft forum software provides. I will remove Dave from this list in 30 days or so. During this temporary period, I will not see Dave's posts. This will reduce the potential for shallow or unproductive exchanges between Dave and me and, in the longer term, hopefully, make it easier for me to develop a solid connection with a comrade who has decades of valuable experience.

During this temporary period, if Dave raises an intelligent question to which any other reader would like me to respond--feel free to quote the question. I will see the quote in your post. I am still a bit new to this forum and I am interested in experimenting with or developing methods to be responsive while also maintaining a clean focus.

sincerely and revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/

RED DAVE

26th December 2009, 09:23

It strikes me that Comrade Ben is either an extremely pretentious person, a crank or emotionally disturbed.

RED DAVE

Forward Union

26th December 2009, 16:43

Stop making personal attacks please

RED DAVE

26th December 2009, 21:01

For purposes of discussion, I'm bumping this "program" I posted earlier:

• Educate yourself and others. Read and organize reading groups around issues and history. And it's a damn shame if you know more about Russian or Chinese history than American history.

• Get a union job. If you don't have a union on your job, get ready to organize one. If there is one, start organizing a rank-and-file caucus. If these are impossible look for an organizing campaign or rank and file group whose work you can support.

• Get involved in the antiwar movement around the notions of immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan and Democratic Party.

• If you're a student, organize on your campus around the economic crisis, the war, etc.

• If there are genuine, community-based organizations around, such as a group tryuing to prevent evictions, join and/or work with them. However, beware of doing social work. Things like food distribution, legal representation, literacy work, etc., are done much better by volunteer or government organizations and they do not, in general, lead to an increase in consciousness, especially not in the long run. Unless these organizations are backed by another movement, such as the labor movement, they're a bottomless pit to work in.

• Learn about the programs, history and, most important, the actual actions of the various left-wing organizations. Consider becoming a contact or joining the one whose actual activities correspond to what you believe in.

RED DAVE

black magick hustla

26th December 2009, 23:18

i dont see how joining trade unions is a new, exciting strategy. there are loads of socialisr groups that exist beyond "college", there are even some socialist groups that force their members to join fucking meat packing jobs. i dont see how this is "new" or it helps in any new way.

tbh i dont think its a matter of how much organizational prowess the "left" has that we are in this state, if there is a sort of revolutionary group its gonna emerge kindof organically, from heightened struggle. it has nothing to do with marxists becoming some kindof professional activists.

Leo

27th December 2009, 01:09

This is an interesting question I think, and a very political one actually, or perhaps one that is very related to politics.

There are some groups such as, for example, some Trotskyist and Stalinist organizations, which are aiming to become mass-organizations. These groups tend to have a core leadership around which they want to constitute their organization. Based on the period, they go where they can recruit easiest and as many as possible. What counts for a mass-party being the head count, they go to the working class when the working class is struggling, and they go to other spheres when the class isn't struggling. In any case, these groups are out there to recruit, and no matter how anti-sectarian they appear, when it comes to their "property" of heads, they are the most aggressive sectarians you can find, attacking any attempt to "poison" the minds of their recruits with everything they've got - including, of course, physical force. The mode of organization of these groups tend to include one or more front or campaign organizations and/or practice entryism in social-democratic parties and the trade-unions. Regardless of the specific relations between the party and the front, the latter is meant to be the ground of recruitment to the former, and never is unless the party in question is illegal and the front is consciously and willingly acting as the legal cover.

Then there is the semi-formal, decentralized structures of organization, mostly without an awareness of what they want to achieve, without any coherent and collective political line and without any regular activity. Such structures are basically political friend groups, people join them exactly the same way they join a group of friends, leave again exactly like that and rejoin perhaps again in the same way. While small and ineffective for one political group of friends, many political groups of friends coming together have shown themselves able to form a mass that could make the organizations striving to be mass parties very jealous. Unsurprisingly, of course, the outcome of such incidents tend to be simply random, and often bring little more than negative results for the very people involved in them.

These modes of functioning, while they may be dominant, are not suitable for the functioning of a revolutionary organization. While the in one kind, the aim is to create and direct "struggles" emerging from thin air and the only interest in real class struggles is the aim to take control of them and recruit, in the other the feeling of wanting to everything alone prevails, and not much attention is given to what people outside the groups or a number of groups does. In order to understand how a real organization of revolutionary communists function, I think it would be important to highlight where such organization comes from: it comes from the class, and hence its strength is determined by how combative and conscious the class is. Knowing this, militants of the organization do not recruit, but openly discuss and patiently explain before they integrate militants. A revolutionary communist organization has to be aware that only the class itself, and the class as an independent force in which the organization will act from within, is capable of creating real struggles and making social revolutions and that only the class as a whole is capable of taking power and creating a communist world. Only with these qualities can an organization be truly one of the most advanced section of the class. This also means that such an organization is going to be necessarily tiny when the working class is weak, and that it is going to take a lot of effort, patience and determination on the parts of the militants to construct the future vanguard party of the working class. Such an organization always has the task of participating and intervening in the struggles of workers. Marx writes in the Communist Manifesto that communists are distinguished from the rest of the working-class only by this: "1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole." From being a small force with no strength to change the course of events to being a main power in the class struggle and in history, the organization of communist revolutionaries always needs to be international, centralized, united, tight and disciplined in order to fulfill these tasks successfully. Even when it is at its most massive form, the vanguard party, the organization of the revolutionaries has to be one that regroups only the most class-conscious and determined minority of the class. Even when it is tiny, in needs to coordinate its activities internationally, integrate only serious, determined and politically and theoretically clear revolutionary militants who are fully conscious of the risks of revolutionary activity and sure that they want to devote their life to the revolutionary cause. Revolutionary politics ain't no game.

Only after taking principles as a basis can revolutionaries approach the question of strategy. Communists being a part of the working class and being fighters of the proletarian cause, the activities of communists are where the class is, and perhaps more importantly where the class is struggling. In the workplace, the task of the communist militants is not to organize the workers under the banners of the organization (or one of its campaigns or fronts) or for the trade-union, but to actively participate in the attempts of collective discussion and self-organization of the workers in the workplace, trying to create a discussion. The communists have the duty of assisting every struggle of the class, not by an activist frenzy but by calm, sober and patient efforts for workers themselves about taking the struggle into their own hands (and from those of the trade-union bureaucrats), and extend the struggle as widely as possible to the other sections of the class not yet involved. The communist have this duty not from an activist obligation but because they see every struggle of workers as the struggle of the working class as a whole and thus as their own struggle. Aside from these, communist revolutionaries surely have to pay special attention to the problems posed by politicized proletarians who are interested in communist theory and politics. This is where political discussion groups come into the picture of course. It is also important for communists to be active among the unemployed workers, the housewives, even the retired workers and of course among the students from working-class backgrounds, in other words among the sections of the proletariat which currently do not have any jobs. Universities are fertile grounds for all sorts of politics of course, and several posters on this thread expressed worry about how problematic this is. I would say it is problematic only for groups who lose most of the members they recruited in the university when they graduate and become full-time workers. Being aware of time, having a long-term perspective is absolutely necessary for a communist organization. Serious youngsters coming in to stay for life is, thus, always positive for revolutionary organizations. As for communist activities in proletarian neighborhoods, the most important point in my opinion to remember would be that "community struggles" are generally not class struggles, and communist activity in proletarian neighborhoods can only be on a class basis as well, that is the class problems of the workers, unemployed workers, housewives and proletarian youth of the neighborhood, rather than that of the community as a whole. Hence communist activity in the proletarian neighborhoods necessarily would have a connection with the workplace.

RED DAVE

27th December 2009, 02:19

i dont see how joining trade unions is a new, exciting strategy.I don't recall using either the words "new" or "exciting." I'm concerned with "effective."

there are loads of socialisr groups that exist beyond "college"Yes, there are.

there are even some socialist groups that force their members to join fucking meat packing jobs.That's a pretty serious assertion. Can you document this.

i dont see how this is "new" or it helps in any new way.As to forcing members to get working class jobs, I doubt it helps much. But encouraging them to do this is another issue.

tbh i dont think its a matter of how much organizational prowess the "left" has that we are in this stateThat's only partially true. A certain amount of "prowess," as you put it, or perhaps "experience and intelligence," as I would put it, certainly comes in handy.

if there is a sort of revolutionary group its gonna emerge kindof organically, from heightened struggle. it has nothing to do with marxists becoming some kindof professional activists.Comrade, who is saying that there is, will be, or should be a group of "professional activists"? It is precisely from the experience of getting inside the class and participating in its struggles that a revolutionary group can grow.

As to "organically," I'm not sure what you mean by that.

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

27th December 2009, 02:22

Comrade Leo, given your long and pithy entry, could you answer the following:

(1) What, concretely, would you recommend that an nonaffiliated marxist do, right now?

(2) What, concretely, would you recommend that a revolutionary organization do, right now?

RED DAVE

Leo

27th December 2009, 10:27

(1) What, concretely, would you recommend that an nonaffiliated marxist do, right now?

Clarify his or her positions, discuss his or her positions with organizations, decide which organization he or she agrees with, decide whether to be a sympathizer or a militant.

(2) What, concretely, would you recommend that a revolutionary organization do, right now?

Participate in and intervene in the struggles of the class, discuss with politicized proletarians, have an alive and healthy internal life of discussions. The ways of doing these can be numerous: leaflets, posters, papers, magazines, forming discussion groups, holding public meetings, arguing in the mass assemblies formed by proletarians who are struggling, arguing for the formation of them if they don't exist, arguing for the formation of workers councils in the assemblies and so forth, as for internal activity holding regular internal meetings, bringing out internal bulletins, have regular territorial, regional and international conferences or congresses and so forth.

RED DAVE

27th December 2009, 16:02

Comrade Leo, given your long and pithy entry, could you answer the following:

(1) What, concretely, would you recommend that an nonaffiliated marxist do, right now?
Clarify his or her positions, discuss his or her positions with organizations, decide which organization he or she agrees with, decide whether to be a sympathizer or a militant.I find it interesting that none of these things are direct actions in or with the working class. They are actions that an unaffiliated marxist might do either alone or with an organization, and all of them are, basically, intellectual.

(2) What, concretely, would you recommend that a revolutionary organization do, right now?
Participate in and intervene in the struggles of the classOkay, but I sense a problem here. What do you mean by "intervene"? This seems to imply action toward or with the working class without any presence within the working class. It implies that at this stage of the class struggle, there is no role for a marxist organization inside the class.

discuss with politicized proletariansOkay, but how did these people become politicized as opposed to just active?

have an alive and healthy internal life of discussions.No one could argue about that. I assume that organization members, in the course of these discussions, engage in the usual discussions that marxists engage in under those circumstances: the need to go beyond local struggles, the need for a political perspective, for class unity, a revolutionary party, etc.

The ways of doing these can be numerous: leaflets, posters, papers, magazines, forming discussion groups, holding public meetingsAgain, all these are good, but they are all forms of intervention from the outside.

arguing in the mass assemblies formed by proletarians who are struggling, arguing for the formation of them if they don't exist,I'm not sure I know what kinds of mass assemblies you are talking about. As far as I know, no such exist.

arguing for the formation of workers councils in the assemblies and so forthAgain, I'm confused. What does this have to do with activity right now since such assemblies do not exist?

as for internal activity holding regular internal meetings, bringing out internal bulletins, have regular territorial, regional and international conferences or congresses and so forth.Kind of vague. I'm glad you're involved in international congresses right now.

I find it disturbing that not once in your post did you use the word "union."

RED DAVE

Leo

27th December 2009, 16:40

I find it interesting that none of these things are direct actions in or with the working class.

Since you called yourself a "marxist" I presumed you would be against individualistic direct actions.

Certainly discussing with fellow workers is a given, there is not much you can do other than participating in struggles of the workers though and to do this you do not have to be politicized in any way either.

Okay, but I sense a problem here. What do you mean by "intervene"? This seems to imply action toward or with the working class without any presence within the working class. It implies that at this stage of the class struggle, there is no role for a marxist organization inside the class.

No it doesn't. It means action within the working class in the first place.

Okay, but how did these people become politicized as opposed to just active?

I would say in order to be politically active, one has to politicized first, and only with politicization can political activity come with.

There are many individual reasons to why people get politicized of course.

Again, all these are good, but they are all forms of intervention from the outside.

Not necessarily, not all of them. Besides what is "inside" and what is "outside"? Is proletarian militants giving out leaflets to workers striking in a workplace they have no presence in an intervention "from the outside" or is it a form of solidarity from "inside" the class as a whole?

I'm not sure I know what kinds of mass assemblies you are talking about. As far as I know, no such exist.

Well, I am talking about the sort of organs that come into being in the heat of the struggle as a way of workers collectively taking control of their own struggle, not leaving it to the union bosses. There have been many mass assemblies in many different proletarian struggles, recently in the struggles in al Mahalla in Egypt, the struggles in Greece, those in France and even, to an extent, the ongoing struggle in the TEKEL factories in Turkey where I live in.

Again, I'm confused. What does this have to do with activity right now since such assemblies do not exist?

I think you understand permanent assemblies when I am talking about mass assemblies. They are temporary forms created by the class while the class struggle is going on.

I find it disturbing that not once in your post did you use the word "union."

Probably that is because most unions are corrupt, integrated into the state, aim at preventing the workers' from struggling and in general express not the interests of the workers but of the bosses. Activity within the working class does not mean activity within the unions.

ellipsis

27th December 2009, 17:23

Probably that is because most unions are corrupt, integrated into the state, aim at preventing the workers' from struggling and in general express not the interests of the workers but of the bosses. Activity within the working class does not mean activity within the unions.
I have worked a bunch of jobs and none of them have been union jobs. And for what I have heard from people who are represented in unions, they pay a bunch of money and don't see any results.

RED DAVE

27th December 2009, 18:20

... most unions are corrupt, integrated into the state, aim at preventing the workers' from struggling and in general express not the interests of the workers but of the bosses. Activity within the working class does not mean activity within the unions.
I have worked a bunch of jobs and none of them have been union jobs. And for what I have heard from people who are represented in unions, they pay a bunch of money and don't see any results.Comrades, this is extraordinary. Apparently, the 30+ year hiatus of union activity we have gone through since the last period of mass working class activity has caused a major lapse in left-wing memory.

Comardes, the essence of activity in the working class must revolve around unions. This work includes contract struggles, resisting plant closings and outsourcing, organizing rank-and-file struggles, organizing the unorganized, strike and work action support.

And a goodly portion of this work must be accomplished from within. This is done by, of cross, recruiting organized workers, and, when possible, encouraging comrades to take working class, especially unionized, jobs.

Leo, your criticism of unions is ultra-leftist. Do you really conceive of significant working class activity in this period that doesn't involve unionized workers? theredson, you are following rumors. Within any industry, unionized jobs always pay higher than nonunionized jobs.

Maybe we need a separate thread on the role of unions. Frankly, comrades, I'm a little shocked.

RED DAVE

bcbm

27th December 2009, 19:07

Comrades, this is extraordinary. Apparently, the 30+ year hiatus of union activity we have gone through since the last period of mass working class activity has caused a major lapse in left-wing memory.

Comardes, the essence of activity in the working class must revolve around unions.

as i recall, unions have typically been at the forefront of suppressing workers, trying to force deals with the bosses and containing the most militant sections in the struggle in order to strengthen the position of the union bosses and their connections with the employers and various reformist outfits. why should our activity revolve around those organizations that have continually betrayed our class and destroyed momentum?

ellipsis

27th December 2009, 19:52

Comardes, the essence of activity in the working class must revolve around unions. This work includes contract struggles, resisting plant closings and outsourcing, organizing rank-and-file struggles, organizing the unorganized, strike and work action support.

Leo, your criticism of unions is ultra-leftist. Do you really conceive of significant working class activity in this period that doesn't involve unionized workers? theredson, you are following rumors. Within any industry, unionized jobs always pay higher than nonunionized jobs.
Almost all of the U.S. manufacturing is gone, the plants have closed. The labor market is very different than thirty years ago. Unions are still important, but only because they are filled with workers not because of they represent workers and act on their behalf.

Union jobs may pay more, but subtract 60 bucks a month. Also all I said is that they pay for something they cannot see. Most union workers are not active in the union itself.

Leo

27th December 2009, 19:56

Comrades, this is extraordinary. Apparently, the 30+ year hiatus of union activity we have gone through since the last period of mass working class activity has caused a major lapse in left-wing memory.

Quite the contrary, what I am saying is mostly based on the sabotages the trade unions have been staging on behalf of the states they are parts of since the turn of the last century.

Comardes, the essence of activity in the working class must revolve around unions.

This is what the ruling class says as well.

This work includes contract struggles, resisting plant closings and outsourcing, organizing rank-and-file struggles, organizing the unorganized, strike and work action support.

It is the workers themselves who struggle for their interests and who organize and coordinate their struggles. The union doesn't do shit if the workers aren't struggling, and when the union does something, it generally tends to be something at best aiming to take control of and at worst sabotaging the workers struggling themselves.

Leo, your criticism of unions is ultra-leftist.

Doesn't make it any less true.

Do you really conceive of significant working class activity in this period that doesn't involve unionized workers?

It sometimes does, and sometimes doesn't, although unionized workers do not equal the union either. In any case, if they and the non-unionized workers can't get beyond the union boundaries, their struggles are bound to be defeated.

Within any industry, unionized jobs always pay higher than nonunionized jobs.

This is not true in all cases at all, and is far from being a universal truth.

redarmyleader

30th December 2009, 21:32

So it took me a while to read the post here, and for reasons that can be explained from my general tendency of procrastination to actually focus on responding. Though I find the current discussion really interesting because it touches on some issues that I wanted to bring up (and in fact I did post the issue on my blog (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=708)).

There seems to be a weird combination of tendencies going on and intersecting in this discussion, ranging from a kind of trade union fetishism to ultra-leftism that from time to time expresses itself in workerism. Reading people's post made me realize why dialectics is such an essential tool for Marxist.

I am a union member of SEIU as home healthcare worker, but also work in a non-union job at a hospital and there is, even with the sad state of unions, a difference in having a union. The fact that I can get fired at anytime without explanation at my job at the hospital really sucks, and is possible because there is no union, because with a union you have a grievance process that allows you to complain or contest an action by management. This, along with seniority, is an essential part of job security and can only exist with the existence of unions, and on that basis alone makes them extremely valuable. And I make this point to respond to the tendency to dismiss unions as non-essential because they are not, and revolutionaries have to let every person and every worker know this essential fact.

At the same time though, it must be recognized that the labor movement is in a very pathetic state of affairs. And it is most certainly true that the union bureaucracy has at every chance they have gotten a completely reactionary role, selling out and stifling workers struggle. But this is a problem of the union leadership, and not the unions as a whole. Throwing "the baby with the bathwater" as the saying goes is a completely ultra-leftist, and at the same time sectarian, act that no serious revolutionary can commit because unions are still mass organizations of the working-class, the class that is the most revolutionary and without them there can be no talk of revolution.

The question that this discussion has posed, but has not given an answer to is how, and indeed is in even possible, to replace the sell-out bureaucracies and revitalize the labor movement? My question is absolutely. But it is not possible focusing solely on the unions, for it will be the mass social struggles of the youth that will make the revitalization of the labor movement possible. The trade unions are NOT EVERYTHING, and to treat them so is nothing more than trade-union fetishism [a not uncommon feature of good trade unionist], something most debilitating for the workers the people who hold this tendency struggle so much with and on their behalf.

In the U.S. it is building a new civil rights movement led largely by black and Latino/a and other minority, and anti-racist white youth fighting to to defend public education, for equal, quality, and integrated education, for immigrant rights in particular and against racism and sexism generally. And to quote my first post of how such a perspective can actually revitalize labor:

"In the U.S. there is an aggressive attack on public education and Detroit (where I be from!) is the center of this attack. For years young people have been fighting against charter schools, against school closings by organizing marches, demonstrations, and even walkouts. While these actions have had limited success, they are important because they express the power of Detroit's black and Latino/a youth fighting in their own interest.

So recently when the Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT), the union for Detroit Public Schools employees, were given a contract proposed by their president Keith Johnson that would essentially dismantle the union, they said hell no. Because their is an organization (BAMN) that exist in Detroit organizing and leading the fight of the youth, the teachers had alternative leadership to listen to. And BAMN has authority with the teachers and people of Detroit because we have been out front (sometimes all by ourselves) with the youth fighting for the interest of Detroit, and the rest of the nation. Not only have we been fighting with teachers to vote no on the contract, but have been helping them to build a strike committee composed of teachers, students, community and other unions in the city, and have gotten teachers to circulate an official petition to replace their sell-out leader Keith Johnson. At the DFT meeting in January DFT members will be voting on resolution to remove their union president from office! And we are bound to win that proposal, because thousands of teachers have circulated and signed the petition to get rid of him and elect a new union bargaining team and union strike preparation committee."

*To give an update on the fight in the teachers union, there was a yes vote for the contract, which our caucus is contesting internally (cause a lot of votes were thrown out), but we are still fighting for the removal of the DFT President with a motion that will be voted on inside the general membership meeting of the DFT, and are putting together slate of delegates to go to American Federation of Teachers (AFT) convention and fight against this sell-out policy with the national union leadership who have nothing but praise (they wrote about the DFT contract in their newsletter and website) of the sell-out DFT President for getting the contract through.

REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL

3rd February 2010, 21:32

There have been a lot of great posts here, and most of the posters here make arguments that sound plausible to me.

However, at the moment the far left finds itself very unpopular, and hardly known to the working class at all. While I can see how the typical Marxist position of "get involved in whatever workers are doing" followed by "Workers will gain class conciousness the more they struggle so we need to help them struggle (and presumably, advocate struggling regardless of what the class as a whole feels about it, or the welfare of the individuals in question, which clearly does happen, and what is in the self intrest of "mass parties" who's main aim is to build membership?_

Surely we can say that history has refuted this outlook? Hard for me to say as it seems to make sense to me. I can't think of any real reasons why it hasn't worked, or what to replace this kind of attitude with (the other side of the coin, with the whole anarchist "community" based decentralized activity seems likewise not to of worked) but I don't see why people like "Red Dave" are simply advising activists to do what they have already been doing for the past 150 years and has gotten us nowhere!

Likewise with the people at the start of the thread who just advocated things like "get involved with the working class and spend less time intellectualizing" - everyone has been saying that for 150 years! Your just like the guys who join the Labour party or the democrats in hope of "changing things" from the inside - sounds easy to do on paper, but nothing actually happens.

If anyone here has some kind of alternative idea or strategy, i'd be very glad to hear it? What Leo said sounds intresting - defo seems to me that "unions" as a whole are a dead end.

The Red Next Door

12th February 2010, 23:23

It's the organizational framework involved that concerns me. The SPD's own alternative culture was organized exclusively by the SPD, not by the SPD in some front with the anti-Semitic Christian Social Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Social_Party_%28Germany%29). Likewise, the BPP didn't have a front to organize their alternative culture.

If Food Not Bombs were organized by a single class-strugglist anarchist organization, I would definitely be less critical.
You know people who are getting feed by them, who probably have different views from them doesn't seem to care, so i would like to see you say that stuff about them, if you're ass was starving in the streets.

The Red Next Door

12th February 2010, 23:40

We should ask people what would they like us to do instead of acting like we know what best for them.

Belisarius

14th February 2010, 15:39

We should ask people what would they like us to do instead of acting like we know what best for them and try not to be mean, if they ask for something that go against are positions.
of course we should do what the people wants us to do, but on the other hand if you would just bluntly ask people waht they want, you will hardly get any valuable answer. if i would ask in belgium what major subject people would want me to slove, then i would get answers like "get rid off all moroccans", or "Flanders independent", hardly usefull answers. of course we shouldn't be mean to them then, but we should explain them why these things are not the real problem. so in some sense we do know what's best for them (as everyone knows some stuff better than others). sometimes the people just doesn't know what it really wants. take for example the case of the moroccans: the problem of crime in the immigrant population is rather a problem of education than of race, but people generally don't think that far. so we should be first an educator and then an actor.

The Red Next Door

14th February 2010, 16:12

of course we should do what the people wants us to do, but on the other hand if you would just bluntly ask people waht they want, you will hardly get any valuable answer. if i would ask in belgium what major subject people would want me to slove, then i would get answers like "get rid off all moroccans", or "Flanders independent", hardly usefull answers. of course we shouldn't be mean to them then, but we should explain them why these things are not the real problem. so in some sense we do know what's best for them (as everyone knows some stuff better than others). sometimes the people just doesn't know what it really wants. take for example the case of the moroccans: the problem of crime in the immigrant population is rather a problem of education than of race, but people generally don't think that far. so we should be first an educator and then an actor.
i didn't mean it to put it like that let me edit.

~Spectre

16th February 2010, 06:39

The expansion of dissident and socialist forms of media to take advantage of the shrinking power of print media, and the power of the internet. This can be useful in networking with the various unions that are under increasing attack.

~Spectre

16th February 2010, 06:56

I'd also add that the independent, anti-corporate music scene has a lot of sympathy for our cause, and some openly promote our message. That sort of networking is useful, especially in winning over younger generations.

ZombieGrits

24th February 2010, 01:33

"Any small difference is a large difference if insisted upon." - VI Lenin

That being said, the point is to not be a dick about it and not insist upon small things that don't matter. Leftist movements have more similarities than they do differences, so lets all cooperate for our initial goal (fighting back capitalism) and worry about the particulars later, shall we?

down012

24th February 2010, 23:23

our reponsibility as socialists is to educate . that must start as the smallest seed . I have children I teach them, they teach their peers. we have to accept that revolution is non-existent in the northern hemisphere at least, so our strategies must be long term. I will work now in the hope that when I am gone and my children our parents there will be a revolution. If this seems too simplistic I say we have forgotten the true ethos of socialism and left wing beliefs and disappeared up our collective over analized over read backsides:crying:

Victory Of The People!

23rd April 2010, 07:05

We should have a presence in working-class communities, and not hole ourselves up in left-wing ghettos when the majority of our social life are other leftists. I think taking up union jobs, while noble and important (who knows, might happen with me), it is not the only thing we have to do. We have to get involved in grassroots campaigns in these communities and present a clear Marxist alternative (a campaign in my community, which is an example of this, is "Citizens Against Privatization", etc), set up Marxist study groups and meetings that are easily accessible to workers. Socialism should not be restricted to University campuses. And a more wild suggestion - maybe if someone had a bit of capital they could set up some sort of free food centers like the Black Panthers did, in areas of dire poverty. Another thing is that we should really start trying to utilize the power of the internet a bit more than we are currently doing.

You make a very good point. I have noticed this as well. Among the Left, we tend to isolate ourselves from the very communities we are trying to lead. While organizing and debating among the intelligentsia is an important part of organization-building, it is by no means our only, or most important task.

Almost all the Marxist organizations i have come into contact with place little or no emphasis on mass outreach. By mass outreach I mean bringing our message to people who have never heard it before, or may even be openly hostile to it. If our sphere of influence remains forever centered around rebellious intellectuals we will NEVER build a mass-movement of the proletariat, let alone lead a successful revolution against the capitalist system.

Our ideas should be so widespread that we are more well-known that anyone on tv. The only way to do this is to spread our ideas on the grassroots level. Like Malcolm X once said "We need to organize the people of Harlem door to door, person to person, street to street." Thats the way to get our ideas out there and become "mainstream" so to speak.