Lets talk about RAAN

[ContrarianLemming]

A few things
-I have yet to see any mature dialogue or criticism of RAAN on here, it seems to all be just dismissive insults "Oh fuckin RAAN kiddies what do they know they need to get down with the real leftists blah blah blah"

Okey, lets do it

Who wants to start?

well I will, and lets be nice about it

After reading RAAN's main sites various material, such as their aims, their organizational structure etc, I am still having trouble figuring out what exactly RAAN stands for - that is - assides from the ultra vague, asides from the odd crimeth1nkish declearation and anti sectarianism I can't figure out what the RAAN ideology is, I tried! I really did!

I appreciate the effort these past years to make a broadly libertarian socialist group for non leninist revleftists, but the anti organizational fethish seems to be here, it whiffs of opposition to succesful tactics like syndicalism in favour of May 68' individualism (and I hate describing any group as being individualist) but they do after all explain that RAAN only exists when it's members are taking action.

Sure, ideas are bullitproof, and RAAN is all based around an idea as Nachie described (I still can't figure out what this idea is), but RAAn describes in it's principles of organization that it is essentially up to local groups how to handle it. I wouldn't really call it an organization, but rather a loose grouping of people who don't seem to agree on what RAAN stands for, but I can't blame them for that, I don't know what it stands for.

[Obs]

>Anti-sectarian
>KILL ALL LENINISTS

[Kassad]

Please keep this thread on topic from the start. I've seen RAAN threads spiral out of control, which is probably what will happen when their members find this thread, so this is a fair warning that I'm going to close this at the first sight of bullshit.

[The Feral Underclass]

Okey, lets do it

Who wants to start?

well I will, and lets be nice about it

After reading RAAN's main sites various material, such as their aims, their organizational structure etc, I am still having trouble figuring out what exactly RAAN stands for - that is - assides from the ultra vague, asides from the odd crimeth1nkish declearation and anti sectarianism I can't figure out what the RAAN ideology is, I tried! I really did!

I appreciate the effort these past years to make a broadly libertarian socialist group for non leninist revleftists, but the anti organizational fethish seems to be here, it whiffs of opposition to succesful tactics like syndicalism in favour of May 68' individualism (and I hate describing any group as being individualist) but they do after all explain that RAAN only exists when it's members are taking action.

Sure, ideas are bullitproof, and RAAN is all based around an idea as Nachie described (I still can't figure out what this idea is), but RAAn describes in it's principles of organization that it is essentially up to local groups how to handle it. I wouldn't really call it an organization, but rather a loose grouping of people who don't seem to agree on what RAAN stands for, but I can't blame them for that, I don't know what it stands for.

You can't work out what it stands for?

I find that very confusing? It seems to me very clear what they are: Anti-capitalist, anti-statist, anti-Leninist [libertarian] communists who have united into a network for the purposes of autonomous and collective action. They take their organisational tenets from the platform, but I wouldn't describe them as platformists, or at least not in the neo-platformist sense (which is decidedly leftist).

There's nothing about their Principles & Direction which is complicated at all. What is that you're having difficulty understanding?

[Jazzhands]

first, wtf is RAAN? I go away from revleft for two days, but when I come back, they're everywhere. did I miss something?

[The Feral Underclass]

first, wtf is RAAN? I go away from revleft for two days, but when I come back, they're everywhere. did I miss something?

The Red & Anarchist Action Network. It's a network for libertarian communists in America. It's been around for almost a decade in some form or another.

[Widerstand]

Okey, lets do it

Who wants to start?

well I will, and lets be nice about it


Expecting a nice discussion on RAAN at RevLeft sure required a lot of wishful thinking.



After reading RAAN's main sites various material, such as their aims, their organizational structure etc, I am still having trouble figuring out what exactly RAAN stands for - that is - assides from the ultra vague, asides from the odd crimeth1nkish declearation and anti sectarianism I can't figure out what the RAAN ideology is, I tried! I really did!

There is no unified ideology. That's the point, and that's also part (the biggest I believe) of their anti-sectarianism. They serve as an umbrella and communication infrastructure for loosely-connected individuals which can agree with their anti-capitalist, anti-statist, anti-Leninist stance and are communists/anarchists.

And yes, they have a few things in common with Crimethinc., namely the association principle and the embrace of lifestylism. Both of which are of debatable usefulness, of course.



I appreciate the effort these past years to make a broadly libertarian socialist group for non leninist revleftists, but the anti organizational fethish seems to be here, it whiffs of opposition to succesful tactics like syndicalism in favour of May 68' individualism (and I hate describing any group as being individualist) but they do after all explain that RAAN only exists when it's members are taking action.

Would you rather an organisation that exists on paper and doesn't do anything? I think this approach is quite okay. What's individualistic about it? A group is not some abstract entity, it's individuals coming together. If no individual in a group does anything, the group does nothing. There's no such thing as a "group will" or "group action" - it is always the sum of it's parts.


>Anti-sectarian
>KILL ALL LENINISTS

>greentexting
>not on 4chan

reactionface.jpg


Please keep this thread on topic from the start. I've seen RAAN threads spiral out of control, which is probably what will happen when their members find this thread, so this is a fair warning that I'm going to close this at the first sight of bullshit.

I find it ironic that you were one of the most aggressively arguing ones in the last RAAN thread we had on here.

[RadioRaheem84]

I had a thread a while back on RAAN and their disdain for Leninists, and boy did that turn into a major shitstorm. Good thing I was able to get some insight from some comrades who weren't fighting with each other. Anything else I received from the 2nd thread on anarchist presuppositions.

Good luck. I am sure this one won't be bad,

[ContrarianLemming]

It seems to me very clear what they are: Anti-capitalist, anti-statist, anti-Leninist [libertarian] communists who have united into a network for the purposes of autonomous and collective action.



right, but that's a given, all of that it taken for granted, but what sets them apart? what makes them RAAN? how are they unique?

[Widerstand]

ContrarianLemming: What exactly do you mean by "what sets them apart"? Sets them apart from what?



Good luck. I am sure this one won't be bad,

I'm somewhat skeptical. "Leninists vs Anarchists" seems to be RevLeft's version of every other forums "Atheists vs Theists" debates: Endless tl;dr, ad hominem, fallacies, stupidity, etc.; repeated every one-two weeks after the prior thread is closed.

[ContrarianLemming]

I'm somewhat skeptical. "Leninists vs Anarchists" seems to be RevLeft's version of every other forums "Atheists vs Theists" debates: Endless tl;dr, ad hominem, fallacies, stupidity, etc.; repeated every one-two weeks after the prior thread is closed.

it's all we have!

and by "sets them apart" i mean what sets them apart from us, they just seem like a less organizated anarchist group.

[Widerstand]

But who is "us"? I don't consider myself part of any anarchist or any other communist group.

[The Feral Underclass]

right, but that's a given, all of that it taken for granted, but what sets them apart? what makes them RAAN? how are they unique?

That's a completely different question to what you initially asked, which is 'what does RAAN stand for'. Are you saying that wasn't the question you were asking? You're now wanting to know what is it that's unique about RAAN? What precisely is the purpose of that question? What constitutes being "unique" in the context of revolutionary organisations?

In any case, that question could be asked of every single organisation that exists, why are you singling RAAN out? It's essentially a redundant question. People who share common ideas or values routinely get together, and their principles and directions are clearly outlined in their literature.

[Nachie]

i mean what sets them apart from us, they just seem like a less organizated anarchist group.

Well I'd say that first and foremost what sets us apart in this sense is that we are not an anarchist group. RAAN is an equal alliance between communists and anarchists and this leads us to the idea that our actions constitute "RAANismo" as a new synthesis. I cannot think of any other multi-issue alliance between these ideologies, that actually has had some presence in the street, in which both groups were still able to preserve their identities and unique strengths. Can you?

I would say that I do not agree with United Nations' assertion that we embrace lifestylism, but I can see where one would get that impression (more on this shortly). I also do not agree with your (ContrarianLemming's) statement that we have rejected the tactic of syndicalism when we have a very clear pro-union, pro-working class organization orientation in our principles. Just because we do not endlessly harp on one tactic or form of dialogue/vocabulary does not mean that we are not open to all tactics and forms of dialogue/vocabulary. As to a perceived lack of formal organizational structures, we have adopted them when necessary to a given project or when our numbers in one area become so large as to necessitate it on some level. There is no reason to suspect that our approach will not continue to be that fluid and adaptive/inclusive in the future, or that that is a bad thing.

In a sense, this is the first part of understanding what our "ideology" is - if indeed it has been so unclear thus far. One must understand that though there have been autonomist movements in the past, the United States in recent memory has never seen a good one (or even a really nationwide non-hierarchal group, for that matter) and certainly all over the world there is an extreme lack of a deliberate articulation and elaboration of how that model works in practice. For instance, CrimethInc. made a weak attempt but ultimately scuttled themselves when it came to the responsibility of actually militantly constituting themselves as an organizational model, and so now they just appear as a publishing house; ARA is essentially single-issue and has been dying out or limited in its fertility as a result, etc.

A conscious understanding of our identity as an autonomist organization with specific ideological points of departure, wishing to replicate itself as an image in the public consciousness, is the key thing that RAAN brings to the table and I would say that in terms of our strategy around this we are much more "organized" than other groups. Our militant posture as regards to our own imagery and conceptualization of self as a "communist street gang" are not fetishes but deliberate strategic moves based on our analysis of how successful groups, both political and criminal, have been able to solidify themselves as resilient presences in the past.

Articulation of the social and psychological processes by which an organizational model or symbol (in this case the organization itself) becomes a meme and - as a revolutionary group - becomes invincible through its decentralization into a culture (hence "lifestylism") that will be picked up by each new generation of idealistic radicals wishing for there to just be a practical union of communists and anarchists (hence "existing only in action") is really definitive to RAAN as far as what makes our project unique.

[Uppercut]

What I don't understand is why RAAN considers Leninists to be illegitimate Marxists. Furthermore, I understand that RAAN admits that the organization was started by supposedly "libertarian" Marxists and anarchists, but how can that be so? What Marxist doesn't support a workers' state and what anarchist does support a workers' state?

Not trying to turn this into a shit storm, just sayin'.

[Paulappaul]

why RAAN considers Leninists to be illegitimate MarxistsIn their view, Leninism has nothing to do Marxism, being that its history has created the antithesis of Marxism.

[Widerstand]

What Marxist doesn't support a workers' state.

I think there are quite a few Marxists that do, some might even be MLs in most other regards. Though I must admit I can't tell Marxist sects, especially the ones embracing ML-tradition, apart. They all seem more or less the same except with a different historical name slapped on them.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think there are quite a few Marxists that do, some might even be MLs in most other regards. Though I must admit I can't tell Marxist sects, especially the ones embracing ML-tradition, apart. They all seem more or less the same except with a different historical name slapped on them.
wait until you throw a hoxhaist, a trot, MTW-ist and a plain ol ML in the room.

[RadioRaheem84]

its like seeing the KKE and Anarchists in greece in a street fight. fucking ridiculous and a damn disgrace.

Are they?

[Paulappaul]

What Marxist doesn't support a workers' state

Marx for one.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Are they?
PAME - All Workers Militant Front(ties to KKE) vs Anarchists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EOolbDDvvI&feature=related

[Uppercut]

In response to Uppercut, the inability of Leninists such as yourself to understand how you could ever be considered illegitimate Marxists

Nice one.


as well as your belief that no ideological unity can exist between communists and anarchists

That's not what I said at all. I simply asked the question: "What kind of Marxist does not support a workers' state? I understand that many anarchists and anarcho-communists use some of Marx's works as a basis for their ideology (like Capital). Well and good. But that doesn't mean they're Marxists.


is a major impediment to revolutionary organization that we have very cleverly sidestepped entirely by just not allowing Leninists into RAAN. It's worked out really great for us.

I can tell, and I'm guessing that is where all the "RAAN kiddy" comments come from. You don't see Marxist-Leninist organizations running around with photoshopped pictures that say "fuck Bakunin".

[Obs]

Marx for one.
"I am not a Marxist" - Karl Marx

[gorillafuck]

"I am not a Marxist" - Karl Marx
That quote isn't relevant at all here. He was distancing himself from some group in France.

And I haven't seen anyone explain how functioning anarchism is different from a workers state.

[Paulappaul]

"I am not a Marxist" - Karl Marx

When people frame their ideas on him, they should know he didn't believe in a Workers State.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"I am not a Marxist" - Karl Marx

I should sure as hell hope not...that would be incredibly egotistical of the old goat.

[this is an invasion]

That's not what I said at all. I simply asked the question: "What kind of Marxist does not support a workers' state? I understand that many anarchists and anarcho-communists use some of Marx's works as a basis for their ideology (like Capital). Well and good. But that doesn't mean they're Marxists. Of course they aren't Marxists. They are anarchists. C'mon now! We are talking about an ideological and tactical unity between Marxists and anarchists. This does not mean that anarchists become Marxists or vice-versa. It simply means that we believe that is possible for a multi-issue alliance between the two groups.




I can tell, and I'm guessing that is where all the "RAAN kiddy" comments come from. You don't see Marxist-Leninist organizations running around with photoshopped pictures that say "fuck Bakunin".

We don't run around with that flyer either, so I guess we are even.

[Nachie]

And I haven't seen anyone explain how functioning anarchism is different from a workers state.

It isn't.

But I have yet to see anyone explain how functioning Leninism has anything to do with the workers.

Dammit why did I even bother replying to that. This thread has sunk.

[gorillafuck]

If an anarchist society uses repression against capitalists and has working class rule then it's the Marxist definition of a workers state. I think some anarchists understand that but it seems like a lot of them don't.

[Widerstand]

And I haven't seen anyone explain how functioning anarchism is different from a workers state.

I haven't seen anyone explain what the fuck a workers state is, except when they use the word "state" in such a manner that it simply means "having power", ergo "worker state" = "workers have power". To clarify: I am fairly certain that most Leninists see state as something different.

[Rusty Shackleford]

ok, new question. what does RAAN do to advance the struggle against capitalism(and leninism, but forget that for now)?

this question is not a "look us leninists are organized and do a shit ton more than you anarchists" question. if you take it that way, then dont even bother answering.

basically: what is RAAN's strategy? what are RAAN's tactics?

[Paulappaul]

Only big difference between the Marxist Communism and Anarchist Communism is that one is Centralized and one is a Federation.

[manic expression]

Marx for one.
"Dictatorship of the proletariat" isn't exactly an ambiguous term. Are you saying "dictatorship" can take a state-less form?

[Obs]

I haven't seen anyone explain what the fuck a workers state is, except when they use the word "state" in such a manner that it simply means "having power", ergo "worker state" = "workers have power".
Which makes a bit more sense than the anarchist definition of a state as "something all other classes but the workers can do".

[Paulappaul]

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" isn't exactly an ambiguous term. Are you saying "dictatorship" can take a state-less form?

Yes. Can you find me where Marx advocated a Workers State? I think he down right dismisses it in Conspectus of Bakunin.


If Mr Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers' cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil. He should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers' state, if he wants to call it that.

If the Council system is a "state" then I'd say every Anarchist is a Statist.

[gorillafuck]

Only big difference between the Marxist Communism and Anarchist Communism is that one is Centralized and one is a Federation.
Marxists don't necessarily rigidly believe in centralization, just class struggle, revolution, replacing capitalism with workers control and working class power, and adapting to real conditions. That can involve centralization (but what is centralization other than a way to facilitate a larger area?). I think that good anarchists are sort of anarcho-marxists.

[Paulappaul]

Marxists don't necessarily rigidly believe in centralization, just class struggle, revolution, replacing capitalism with workers control and working class power, and adapting to real conditions. That can involve centralization (but what is centralization other than a way to facilitate a larger area?). I think that good anarchists are sort of anarcho-marxists.

Yeah I would agree, generally Marxists aspire for Centralism more though. Which isn't necessarily bad, it just comes with alot of pejorative descriptions tacked on too it.

[manic expression]

Yes. Can you find me where Marx advocated a Workers State? I think he down right dismisses it in Conspectus of Bakunin.
From the Manifesto:

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.


If the Council system is a "state" then I'd say every Anarchist is a Statist.States have fairly little to do with how they're organized, they have to do with what their purpose is. If you're repressing a class (as in telling them what they can and can't do and enforcing it), you have a state. They can be councils (aka Soviets), a bicameral legislative or a monarchy...the form merely follows the ruling class.

[Nachie]

Paulappaul as a Marxist I disagree that there is anything inherently "centralized" about the application of my ideas, or really that there is a default organizational blueprint to Marxism at all, save of course for the self-emancipation of the working class. But usually I agree with most of what you post. A particular organizational model to the exclusion of all others is a hallmark of Leninism, not Marxism.

Vacant we do a whole bunch of random stuff and our tactics vary widely as well, ranging from publicized cultural events to clandestine property destruction. We reject the idea that any particular tactic might be mandated as applicable in all regions. Rather, we see that the most useful practices will by their own merit spread throughout the organization so long as the channels of communication are there and the actions can be seen as openly identified with RAAN in the public consciousness.

Currently the major influences on our project seem to be permaculture and the idea of urban food production/post-peak oil scenarios on the one hand and the current evolving confluence of class struggle theory and insurrectionary praxis on the other, culminating in long-term campaigns around organizing neighborhoods towards housing and food security.

And of course we have also our overarching strategy of simply building RAAN with the idea that as mentioned above there has never been a nationwide anti-statist organization worth a damn in the USA, so putting one together with a strong focus on making sure that our cultural base is strong seems for us to be a prerequisite to the anarchist movement ever achieving the coherence necessary for a qualitative advance in its effectiveness and an opening up of avenues of struggle which are currently nonexistent.

Aside from Vacant's more interesting question, some of y'all may want to check out this text detailing RAAN's understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat: http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html

[Paulappaul]

From the Manifesto:

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

:Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II (10 Point Program). That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."

What really hits it on the nail is,

"The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery." - Karl Marx

[Paulappaul]

Paulappaul as a Marxist I disagree that there is anything inherently "centralized" about the application of my ideas, or really that there is a default organizational blueprint to Marxism at all, save of course for the self-emancipation of the working class

Your right. There is no blueprint for Socialism or the workers' movement. I generally meant that Marxists historically strive for a more Centralized Government and a more centralized struggle.


But usually I agree with most of what you post. A particular organizational model to the exclusion of all others is a hallmark of Leninism, not Marxism.

Well said.

[The Feral Underclass]

From the Manifesto:

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

That's what Marx thought in 1848.


States have fairly little to do with how they're organized

Except it does matters a great deal, since centralised political authority (i.e. a state) is antithetical to the establishment of communism.

It's all very well saying that a state is the tools by which one class suppresses another, but if the mechanisms which do that go against the process by which the workers establish economic and political democracy, it's quite a redundant distinction.

[manic expression]

That's what Marx thought in 1848.
And his thoughts in 1848 founded the communist movement. It's not unreasonable that we take them seriously when forming our conception of Marxism.


Except it does matters a great deal, since centralised political authority (i.e. a state) is antithetical to the establishment of communism.
Centralized political authority is necessary to the establishment of working-class rule. Without working-class rule, class cannot be abolished, and communism is impossible. So centralized political authority of the workers is the road to classless society.


It's all very well saying that a state is the tools by which one class suppresses another, but if the mechanisms which do that go against the process by which the workers establish economic and political democracy, it's quite a redundant distinction.
Well in such a case, the workers no longer hold centralized political authority, and so that's beside the point entirely.


in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months
Exactly, as a state.


the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.
Exactly, they create a new state machinery.


The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery.
And slavery will be with us until communism is achieved. Until then, we seek to overthrow the present masters and replace them with a new ruling class.

[Nachie]

Why can't we ever talk about anything cool

[gorillafuck]

Except it does matters a great deal, since centralised political authority (i.e. a state) is antithetical to the establishment of communism.
If different workers councils are working together across a region that is a centralized political authority.


It's all very well saying that a state is the tools by which one class suppresses another, but if the mechanisms which do that go against the process by which the workers establish economic and political democracy, it's quite a redundant distinction.
What do you mean?

[28350]

why can't we ever talk about anything cool
THlS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS

[this is an invasion]

Why can't we ever talk about anything cool

Because this is RevLeft

[The Feral Underclass]

And his thoughts in 1848 founded the communist movement. It's not unreasonable that we take them seriously when forming our conception of Marxism.

Sure, in its historical context. You surely can't imagine that Marx maintained the same beliefs throughout his entire life. You can't de-contextualise documents like this so you can use them to conveniently prove your point. OK, so Marx talked about centralisation of certain things in 1848, what does that mean for his views 30, 40 years later?


Centralized political authority is necessary to the establishment of working-class rule. Without working-class rule, class cannot be abolished, and communism is impossible. So centralized political authority of the workers is the road to classless society.Oh not this. With you. Again.

The argument that there can be such a thing as a "workers state" or "working class rule" in the context of centralised political authority, is objectively refuted by the material conditions that the consolidation, centralisation and institutionalisation of an emerging political class, creates. What we have seen emerge is a class of bureaucrats who claim to be managing the workers state in the name of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - to begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state, which they claim to be doing "for the workers" i.e. there own political authority (which is required of them to defend the revolution), meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the centralised political authority (i.e.the state) cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state.

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxist-Leninists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised, and directly managed horizontally, and that process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

To reiterate: the centralisation of political authority I.e a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre", dominated by a political elite, whether elected or not, whether good intentioned or not (because it matters little what your ideas are in the context of the material conditions you are creating), whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the states control i.e. centralised political authority. It's purpose is to maintain a defence of the revolution at all costs. In the process of doing that this bureaucratic minority becomes entrenched within its role, in the course of which, actual expressions of workers power are recuperated, because their divergence cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend itself (for example, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow workers collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of that centralised political authority, or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army). So, you cannot have the emergence of workers councils in factories and the creation of workers militias that express their own political power if centralised political authority exists, meaning that the two will naturally come into conflict with each other and eventually these separate expressions of workers power [to the state] are either recuperated into the state or smashed...Or we have a second revolution, when we can do what we should have done to start with. :thumbup1:

[The Feral Underclass]

If different workers councils are working together across a region that is a centralized political authority.

No.


What do you mean?See the above post I made to manic expression

[manic expression]

Sure, in its historical context. You surely can't imagine that Marx maintained the same beliefs throughout his entire life. You can't de-contextualise documents like this so you can use them to conveniently prove your point. OK, so Marx talked about centralisation of certain things in 1848, what does that mean for his views 30, 40 years later?
I wasn't de-contextualizing anything, I was pointing to where Marx clearly posited that the state would have a prominent place in working-class society. That's all. Of course context will be lost, but I could just as easily say that the communist movement hadn't figured out precisely what form the state (or whatever was going to be there during/after the revolution) was going to take until 1917, because it was impossible without a genuine working-class revolution that lasted longer than a few months.

Marx lauded the Commune, which was objectively a state. But he also had his criticisms of it. But quoting his pretty nuanced views on the Commune in 1872 wasn't as easy as quoting a passage from the Manifesto that fills the same purpose.


The argument that there can be such a thing as a "workers state" or "working class rule" in the context of centralised political authority, is objectively refuted by the material conditions that the consolidation, centralisation and institutionalisation of an emerging political class, creates. What we have seen emerge is a class of bureaucrats who claim to be managing the workers state in the name of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - to begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state, which they claim to be doing "for the workers" i.e. there own political authority (which is required of them to defend the revolution), meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the centralised political authority (i.e.the state) cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state.
To be brief, this does not argue against a working-class state, it argues against the application of such. You can rail against the "new bureaucratic class" all you like, but I can simply respond that this is hardly an inevitability, just like almost everything else in this world. And that's without contending with the supposed existence of this "new bureaucratic class".

It's quite simple, if there is excessive bureaucracy, then we can reorganize the state to counter and eliminate this.


This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxist-Leninists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised, and directly managed horizontally, and that process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.
Again, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I am sure that you do not pretend to be a prophet. Who says this supposed contradiction "will always exist"? If the earth gets hit by a comet next week, will the worker state still be impossible because of bureaucrats?


To reiterate: the centralisation of political authority I.e a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre", dominated by a political elite, whether elected or not, whether good intentioned or not (because it matters little what your ideas are in the context of the material conditions you are creating), whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the states control i.e. centralised political authority. It's purpose is to maintain a defence of the revolution at all costs. In the process of doing that this bureaucratic minority becomes entrenched within its role, in the course of which, actual expressions of workers power are recuperated, because their divergence cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend itself (for example, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow workers collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of that centralised political authority, or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army). So, you cannot have the emergence of workers councils in factories and the creation of workers militias that express their own political power if centralised political authority exists, meaning that the two will naturally come into conflict with each other and eventually these separate expressions of workers power [to the state] are either recuperated into the state or smashed...Or we have a second revolution, when we can do what we should have done to start with. :thumbup1:
This is projection. You say things like "political elite", and then accuse me of thinking in the abstract. A political elite, for example, means that there is a group of people more involved in politics than others. Is that your idea of counterrevolution? Because to everyone else, it's just a fact of reality. Not everyone is going to be Comrade Politik every day, a lot of people will want to get on with their lives as best they can: shop, have fun, fall in love, start a family and so on. But to you, this mere existence rules out socialism, because all of a sudden, we have a "political elite" by virtue of a single apathetic. Obviously, this is no rubric worth our use.

But aside from that, workers councils (aka Soviets) are centralized political power. As soon as they tell the bosses that they can't extract profit from workers' labor anymore, they are acting as a worker state. You can dress this up in any rhetoric you like...you can call it libertarian, liberated, free, unauthoritarian or whatever you come up with, the function of your worker councils is that of a state. Once again, we see that it is not the precise form of an institution, but its role, that makes all the difference.

[The Feral Underclass]

I wasn't de-contextualizing anything, I was pointing to where Marx clearly posited that the state would have a prominent place in working-class society.

In 1848.


That's all.OK, fine. We now all know that Marx advocated something in 1848.


To be brief, this does not argue against a working-class state, it argues against the application of such. You can rail against the "new bureaucratic class" all you like, but I can simply respond that this is hardly an inevitability, just like almost everything else in this world. And that's without contending with the supposed existence of this "new bureaucratic class".

It's quite simple, if there is excessive bureaucracy, then we can reorganize the state to counter and eliminate this.You haven't addressed the central point I'm making.


Again, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I am sure that you do not pretend to be a prophet. Who says this supposed contradiction "will always exist"? If the earth gets hit by a comet next week, will the worker state still be impossible because of bureaucrats?How many more times do you guys want before you realise it doesn't work? OK, I'll retract the "always exist" bit and replace it with "every time it's been tried".


This is projection. You say things like "political elite", and then accuse me of thinking in the abstract. A political elite, for example, means that there is a group of people more involved in politics than others.So you reject the idea of the party then? You reject the idea of professional revolutionaries or the vanguard? Because if not, then I think it's reasonable to refer to those people as a 'political elite'.


Because to everyone else, it's just a fact of reality. Not everyone is going to be Comrade Politik every dayBut we don't need anyone being "Comrade Politik" every day, which is the point, really.


a lot of people will want to get on with their lives as best they can: shop, have fun, fall in love, start a family and so on. But to you, this mere existence rules out socialism, because all of a sudden, we have a "political elite" by virtue of a single apathetic. Obviously, this is no rubric worth our use.What in the name of Christ are you talking about?


But aside from that, workers councils (aka Soviets) are centralized political power. As soon as they tell the bosses that they can't extract profit from workers' labor anymore, they are acting as a worker state. You can dress this up in any rhetoric you like...you can call it libertarian, liberated, free, unauthoritarian or whatever you come up with, the function of your worker councils is that of a state. Once again, we see that it is not the precise form of an institution, but its role, that makes all the difference.Again, you've failed the grasp the point I'm making. I'm making a very specific argument. It's not rhetoric; I'm not proposing a word game here. I'm identifying the objective flaw in Leninist theory.

The 'nature' of centralised political authority cannot create a communist society. Your theory has been falsified time and time again. I am offering an analysis of why.

[The Douche]

Awww man, I was hoping this thread would be about RAAN, not the boring ass arguement, which has been going on since the 1800s, about what constitutes a state.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not talking about what constitutes a state. I'm talking about why Leninists are wrong.

[bricolage]

Marx lauded the Commune, which was objectively a state.
Despite the fact that throughout The Civil War in France, Marx never actually once calls the Paris Commune a state. (He also never once writes about the absence of organised, centralised political parties in the Commune being the key component of its failure unlike Lenin and, most obviously, Trotsky did later. This is a side point but it is still pretty interesting).

Engels around the same time despite declaring the Commune to be the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' also wrote; 'All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term.' So where does that leave us?

I think it is quite clear that the reductionist assertion of a state as the imposition of class force is quite inadequate for dealing with the issue of revolutionary organisation. Especially when talking about the Commune.


But quoting his pretty nuanced views on the Commune in 18721871.

[The Douche]

I'm not talking about what constitutes a state. I'm talking about why Leninists are wrong.

I don't think, in the context of the discussion, whether leninists are right or wrong is whats important. This is what RAAN discussions are always relegated to here. "why do you hate lenin lol, morons you won't get anywhere" "lenin was wrong cause he was a statist, states are anti-working class lol read marx you tard". Its dumb and pointless, if that discussion does have to occur I, personally, would like to see it occur outside of a RAAN thread, which should exist to discuss the politics/actions of the network. Otherwise nothing good can ever come from it.

[bricolage]

Despite my last post I actually agree with cmoney.

[The Red Next Door]

Folks can we discuss ways to help and fight for the Working class? I think all of you sectarian assholes are stupid. you are just like parents fighting over who are gonna have the kids. ALL OF YOU ARE STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS!!!! :mad: I am talking to the trots, the MLs , the maoist, and anarchists. fuck!

[The Douche]

Folks can we discuss ways to help and fight for the Working class? I think all of you sectarian assholes are stupid. you are just like parents fighting over who are gonna have the kids. ALL OF YOU ARE STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS!!!! :mad: I am talking to the trots, the MLs , the maoist, and anarchists. fuck!

Our liberation depends on these issues. Its not secterian, how is it a bad thing for us to figure out the correct path forward in society? Obviously the future I envision is different from the one you do.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I don't think, in the context of the discussion, whether leninists are right or wrong is whats important. This is what RAAN discussions are always relegated to here. "why do you hate lenin lol, morons you won't get anywhere" "lenin was wrong cause he was a statist, states are anti-working class lol read marx you tard". Its dumb and pointless, if that discussion does have to occur I, personally, would like to see it occur outside of a RAAN thread, which should exist to discuss the politics/actions of the network. Otherwise nothing good can ever come from it.

I'm not brave enough to make a thread criticizing Lenin at Revleft, and I assume there are others like me who would join in on such a discussion but feel it would fall on deaf ears and turn into a typical revleft sectarian flamewar.

I suppose that is why only the RAAN threads ever bring up such a debate.

That, and I feel like many Revleft members are pretty naive to the differences of certain tendencies. Many members just want to believe we can all get along and bring about our glorious communist society without any feuds, ignoring the fact that tendencies like anarchism and Leninism just don't mix.

[manic expression]

In 1848.
Go back to the original request from Paulappaul. Does he specify what time period? No, he didn't.


OK, fine. We now all know that Marx advocated something in 1848.And in 1872.


How many more times do you guys want before you realise it doesn't work? OK, I'll retract the "always exist" bit and replace it with "every time it's been tried".That wasn't the point I was making. If your problem is in specific application and not in the basis of the concept, then that's something that can be dealt with. If you have an issue with the state that is, at its core, fundamental to the state, then that is quite another thing that cannot be dealt with.

In essence, your objections to the state are not in conflict with the state itself.


So you reject the idea of the party then? You reject the idea of professional revolutionaries or the vanguard? Because if not, then I think it's reasonable to refer to those people as a 'political elite'.I don't reject any of those things, because they're natural outgrowths of the struggle. Not everyone is going to be a committed, militant revolutionary, and thus there will be a so-called "political elite". That does not, however, make this "elite" anything else than a group that is more committed to political activity than people who would rather spend their days listening to music and enjoying life.

The issue is that you label this "political elite" a problem, when in fact it's unavoidable and has no bearing on whether or not a party/group is working for the interests of the working class.


But we don't need anyone being "Comrade Politik" every day, which is the point, really.Then the revolution won't get very far.

How do you get good at something? Practice, practice, practice.


What in the name of Christ are you talking about?It's your logic, not mine. If a "political elite" (that is, people who are more involved in politics than others) means a party/state is not socialist, then the existence of one single apathetic creates a "political elite" and disqualifies the society from being socialist.


Again, you've failed the grasp the point I'm making. I'm making a very specific argument. It's not rhetoric; I'm not proposing a word game here. I'm identifying the objective flaw in Leninist theory.What flaw? That you label something differently than someone else?


The 'nature' of centralised political authority cannot create a communist society. Your theory has been falsified time and time again. I am offering an analysis of why.Your primary analysis is that bureaucrats are bad. OK, even if we take that as truth, then we can figure out ways to minimize and do away with that factor. Thus, your main argument is shown to be compatible with the state.

Further, if it is your contention that centralized political authority cannot create a communist society because a communist society does not exist today, then it condemns your politics equally, and we're back to square one.

[Uppercut]

Folks can we discuss ways to help and fight for the Working class? I think all of you sectarian assholes are stupid. you are just like parents fighting over who are gonna have the kids. ALL OF YOU ARE STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS!!!! :mad: I am talking to the trots, the MLs , the maoist, and anarchists. fuck!

Then why is your tendency set to marxist-leninist-maoist?

Although I see what your point is, we need to discuss what is the most functional, logical, and sustainable form of workers' power. And in some cases, that means Marxist-Leninists duking it out with the anarchists.

The way I see it, anarchism= workers' control with the complete abolition of the state. Marxism-Leninism= workers' control with a state and established laws and regulations. However, both tendencies advocate workers' councils (or soviets) so it doesn't really mean that the Marxists would kill all the anarchists after the revolution and likewise (at least I hope) the same goes for the anarchists. And to be honest, I don't think many anarchists would have a problem with a Marxist Communist revolution if they knew that wasn't isn't some evil buearocratic scheme to rob workers of their freedom.

[manic expression]

Despite the fact that throughout The Civil War in France, Marx never actually once calls the Paris Commune a state. (He also never once writes about the absence of organised, centralised political parties in the Commune being the key component of its failure unlike Lenin and, most obviously, Trotsky did later. This is a side point but it is still pretty interesting).
Does that mean it isn't a state?


Engels around the same time despite declaring the Commune to be the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' also wrote; 'All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term.' So where does that leave us?
It leaves us wondering how it squares with this, written in 1873:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm


1871.
1872, too.

[bricolage]

Does that mean it isn't a state?
You wrote that Marx 'lauded' the Commune which was a state. I responded that he never actually calls it a state meaning he could have lauded it not thinking it was a state which doesn't help the argument that 'Marx supported a workers state'. If you want to have a different conception to Marx fine, I've got not problem with that. I was just point out the fallacy in your original post.


It leaves us wondering how it squares with this, written in 1873:The palaver quote is actually from 1875. Not sure what dates really mean here though...


But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed... They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.Of course Engels actually builds a strawman here, the call for the abolishment of the state is not synonymous with the abstract call for the 'abolition of authority'. Even Bakunin was pretty clear that he did not reject all authority.

Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?Actually the armed authority of the Paris Commune wasn't really what helped it survive and when actually armed conflict took place it was crushed pretty promptly. The one time it survived the incursion of Versailles troops was the 18 March and that was because the refused to fire on the Communards. The end of the Commune came about because this didn't happen in Bloody Week, because the ordinary soldiers choose Versailles over Paris, because, as Marx says, the revolution was undermined by the civil war. Quite simply the Commune suffered from the same thing that all revolutions that do not spread are destined to suffer from; isolation.


1872, too.Well he might have had the same ideas in 1872, he wrote them down in 1871 though.

[manic expression]

You wrote that Marx 'lauded' the Commune which was a state. I responded that he never actually calls it a state meaning he could have lauded it not thinking it was a state which doesn't help the argument that 'Marx supported a workers state'. If you want to have a different conception to Marx fine, I've got not problem with that. I was just point out the fallacy in your original post.
Marx supported the Commune. I regard the Commune as a state, even though Marx never specifically referred to it as such. That's hardly a fallacy. Marx writes here:

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

So back to my original question: do you submit that one can have a dictatorship without a state?


Of course Engels actually builds a strawman here, the call for the abolishment of the state is not synonymous with the abstract call for the 'abolition of authority'. Even Bakunin was pretty clear that he did not reject all authority.
So you can change the nature of something by calling it something else, then. You abolish the state but keep authority in some other form...essentially reshuffling its label.


Actually the armed authority of the Paris Commune wasn't really what helped it survive and when actually armed conflict took place it was crushed pretty promptly. The one time it survived the incursion of Versailles troops was the 18 March and that was because the refused to fire on the Communards. The end of the Commune came about because this didn't happen in Bloody Week, because the ordinary soldiers choose Versailles over Paris, because, as Marx says, the revolution was undermined by the civil war. Quite simply the Commune suffered from the same thing that all revolutions that do not spread are destined to suffer from; isolation.
And if they do not spread as we would like, what then? Give up armed authority? The fact is that Engels is right here, armed authority is what sustained the Commune, and without it the Commune would not have been the Commune.


Well he might have had the same ideas in 1872, he wrote them down in 1871 though.
But the First International went through a controversy in 1872 because of those thoughts, and that has a lot to do with the discussion at hand.

[gorillafuck]

No.
If it is repressing the bourgeoisie then yes it is. Working class power and control to suppress the bourgeoisie and abolish capitalism is the definition of dictatorship of the proletariat.

[this is an invasion]

Wait wait wait, so, what does this have to do with RAAN again? As far as I know, RAAN didn't exist during the Paris Commune.


Although if it did, I doubt we'd still be living within capitalism right now.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Wait wait wait, so, what does this have to do with RAAN again? As far as I know, RAAN didn't exist during the Paris Commune.


Although if it did, I doubt we'd still be living within capitalism right now.

thats a rather bold statement.

[Widerstand]

thats a rather bold statement.

That's because you put it in bold.

[this is an invasion]

thats a rather bold statement.

Yeah, I mean, it wasn't until you replied...

[Nachie]

That's because you put it in bold.

I wish I could just double your rep for that

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yeah, I mean, it wasn't until you replied...
first, i was making a pun. second. i was fucking serious.

saying "if only ___ were around then ____ would happen" is what you were saying.

the paris commune was a definitive first step in understanding working class power in a dominant position. even if RAAN were around, the knowledge of what to do would not have fucking existed yet. its like me saying "well, if only lenin, and a few top bolshevik cadre were around, then the whole world would be liberated from capitalism and wed be transitioning to communism by now."

it makes no fucking sense, and thats why i said it was a bold statement.

[Widerstand]

"well, if only lenin, and a few top bolshevik cadre were around, then the whole world would be liberated form capitalism and wed be transitioning to communism by now."

That, my friend, is a logical fallacy, no matter the circumstances.

[black magick hustla]

leninism only exist in the minds of anarchos btw

[black magick hustla]

"well, if only lenin, and a few top bolshevik cadre were around, then the whole world would be liberated form capitalism and wed be transitioning to communism by now."

nobody believes that except wikipedia communists and anarchists who have a penchant for strawmen

[Rusty Shackleford]

"well, if only lenin, and a few top bolshevik cadre were around, then the whole world would be liberated form capitalism and wed be transitioning to communism by now."

nobody believes that except wikipedia communists and anarchists who have a penchant for strawmen
i was pointing out the absurdity of this is an invation's post about "if RAAN were there then ___ would happen" by using the same logic.

[this is an invasion]

first, i was making a pun. second. i was fucking serious.

saying "if only ___ were around then ____ would happen" is what you were saying.

the paris commune was a definitive first step in understanding working class power in a dominant position. even if RAAN were around, the knowledge of what to do would not have fucking existed yet. its like me saying "well, if only lenin, and a few top bolshevik cadre were around, then the whole world would be liberated from capitalism and wed be transitioning to communism by now."

it makes no fucking sense, and thats why i said it was a bold statement.

That's a very serious pun.

[syndicat]

Our militant posture as regards to our own imagery and conceptualization of self as a "communist street gang" are not fetishes but deliberate strategic moves based on our analysis of how successful groups, both political and criminal, have been able to solidify themselves as resilient presences in the past.


wonderful that you take criminal gangs as a model. what is the sort of "success" you are talking about?

the problem I have with this is that I don't see workers self-liberation coming about from "communist street gangs".

[Nachie]

their resiliency, ability to adapt and self-replicate, and continued survival as cultural icons and models of asymmetric warfare are the qualities we admire, not their criminality. the black panthers were also a huge influence in terms of their very strong and deliberate presentation of self as a militant group with identifiable imagery...

we didn't see workers' self-liberation coming about from anything anyone is doing either, so in the meantime we figured "why not just be in a hella sick communist street gang", and it rules.

[Rusty Shackleford]

we didn't see workers' self-liberation coming about from anything anyone is doing either, so in the meantime we figured "why not just be in a hella sick communist street gang", and it rules.
oh god. im fucking done with this thread.

[manic expression]

we didn't see workers' self-liberation coming about from anything anyone is doing either, so in the meantime we figured "why not just be in a hella sick communist street gang", and it rules.
So in other words, you're saying you have nothing to do with the liberation of the working class, and that you're too blind to see that workers are making progress in many regions of the world. Nice to see you admit it.

[Nachie]

Actually...

Because I do not engage in political campaigns and activism, I don't have to see some artificial separation between myself and "the revolutionary subject", and so I feel perfectly content to focus on things that are immediately valorizing to my own life and those of the people I love. Isn't this essentially what TEH WORKING CLASS!!!!!1 (which apparently is made up of anyone who isn't "us") does?

PS. Fuck Leninists.

[black magick hustla]

the only reason why criminal street gangs are succesfull is because they have rackets running or they sell drugs and therefore they have money. unless our resident nachiites manage to make a sick communist racket it wont work sorry

[manic expression]

So,Nachie, your argument is that you don't care about progress for the working class. But we already knew that.

PS. If someone like you is saying "Fuck Leninists", then we must be doing something right. Thanks again.

[black magick hustla]

lenin is a sick mothefucka

[black magick hustla]

i was in a gang when i was a kid btw

[Nachie]

Wow, looks like you won this round.

[this is an invasion]

So,Nachie, your argument is that you don't care about progress for the working class. But we already knew that. Where did you get that from?


PS. If someone like you is saying "Fuck Leninists", then we must be doing something right. Thanks again.

Hey dick! That's our argument!

But reverse. OBVIOUSLY

[The Douche]

Still not talking about RAAN? Fuck, revleft is so weak.

Why do I find street gangs a model? Cause they don't waste time bullshitting about who's ideas are right, if you disagree, you get shot.


PS. Shoot leninists.

PPS Infraction here I come.:rolleyes:

[manic expression]

Wow, looks like you won this round.
All I did was let you talk yourself into a corner.


Where did you get that from?
Read his post:

...I feel perfectly content to focus on things that are immediately valorizing to my own life and those of the people I love.

It speaks for itself. No interest in revolution.


Hey dick! That's our argument!

But reverse. OBVIOUSLY
Except it doesn't work when Leninists don't really care about you.

[Widerstand]

lenin is a sick mothefucka


i was in a gang when i was a kid btw

I love you :blushing:

[manic expression]

Why do I find street gangs a model? Cause they don't waste time bullshitting about who's ideas are right, if you disagree, you get shot.
So you're saying you have no ideas.

PS. Internet threats are about as far as you're going to get.

[The Douche]

Except it doesn't work when Leninists don't really care about you.

Yet your party is literrally ordering members not to talk to/associate with RAANistas because it considers us a threat.:thumbup1:


Keeeeeeeeeeep digging.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I respect street gangs because when the popo comes around the corner they start firing rather than beg the bourgeois for handouts and favors.

And yeah, they're in it for the money. But who isn't in capitalist society? The whole fucking point of capitalism is to get rich or die trying.

[gorillafuck]

Read his post:

...I feel perfectly content to focus on things that are immediately valorizing to my own life and those of the people I love.

It speaks for itself. No interest in revolution.
I interpreted that as applying class struggle to his own life instead of focusing on ANSWER protests and whatnot.

[The Douche]

So you're saying you have no ideas.

PS. Internet threats are about as far as you're going to get.

No ideas here, I prefer to have my politics and actions dictated to me by the party, sign me up, comrade.

[Nachie]

All I did was let you talk yourself into a corner.

Yes well you know... people who happen to have their entire view of the world ideologically predetermined so as to fit into a little box (with corners) will tend to see it that way.

[this is an invasion]

All I did was let you talk yourself into a corner.


Read his post:

...I feel perfectly content to focus on things that are immediately valorizing to my own life and those of the people I love.

It speaks for itself. No interest in revolution. That's what all working class people do, bro. I mean that's the main reason why anyone would want a communist revolution. When working people go on strike, it's because they are trying to improve their lives and the lives of the people they love. It's not really ever about some abstract ideological bullshit involving dialectics and, like, a vanguard and gulags and stuff.

And really, how are you gonna ask the working class to wait around while ya'll Leninists try to make some "revolution" that may not even happen in our lifetime. I'm all for the rev, but it's just as important to figure out ways to live as much as possible now that are easily replicated. RAAN does this.



Except it doesn't work when Leninists don't really care about you.
Lenin and I were lovers. You don't even know.

[manic expression]

Yet your party is literrally ordering members not to talk to/associate with RAANistas because it considers us a threat.:thumbup1:


Keeeeeeeeeeep digging.
Right, because you have no politics and nothing constructive to say or do. Revolutionaries shouldn't associate with you because you want nothing to do with revolution. One of your fellow RAAN friends admitted that a few posts back...RAAN has nothing to do with working-class revolution (their words, not mine).

And last time you described this, it wasn't an order, so you're making stuff up.

[gorillafuck]

I respect street gangs because when the popo comes around the corner they start firing rather than beg the bourgeois for handouts and favors.
(most) Street gangs help bring hard drugs into communities and poison them with addiction and violence. That's not worth any respect.

Also, I may have misunderstood you but do you think there is any sort of problem with taking handouts from the government? Because if you do then cram it.


RAAN has nothing to do with working-class revolution (their words, not mine).
Neither does ANSWER.

[this is an invasion]

(most) Street gangs help bring hard drugs into communities and poison them with addiction and violence. That's not worth any respect. This is true, and there are many aspects of criminal street gangs that we do not want to replicate.


Also, I may have misunderstood you but do you think there is any sort of problem with taking handouts from the government? Because if you do then cram it. I am living primarily off of food stamps and financial aid. But I would prefer it if people created ways to take care of each other outside of the state, and as outside of capitalism as possible.

[The Douche]

Right, because you have no politics and nothing constructive to say or do. Revolutionaries shouldn't associate with you because you want nothing to do with revolution. One of your fellow RAAN friends admitted that a few posts back...RAAN has nothing to do with working-class revolution (their words, not mine).

And last time you described this, it wasn't an order, so you're making stuff up.

If a junior member of the party is told by another respected member not to do something, that has some weight to it. Your party is so scared of us that they don't want members to be facebook friends with RAANistas?

If we're so irrelevant than you fools must be some real punks to be scared of us. How am I supposed to see you as the vanguard when you won't even stop me from literally stealing money from you? You're gonna defeat capitalism when you can't stop some anarcho-punk from snatching your cash? LOL. Hope you know some of that money went towards making a RAAN banner.

[Nachie]

RAAN has nothing to do with working-class revolution (their words, not mine).

Dude. My post is like... only one page back. People can actually just go look right at it and see that you are blatantly slandering my position and making shit up off the top of your head. This is a very bass-ackwards way of trying to make me look stupid.

[this is an invasion]

Dude. My post is like... only one page back. People can actually just go look right at it and see that you are blatantly slandering my position and making shit up off the top of your head. This is a very bass-ackwards way of trying to make me look stupid.

One could even say that it makes him look stupid, no?

[Nachie]

I'm no mathematician, but...

[The Douche]

Lenin? More like lolin, amirite?

[manic expression]

Yes well you know... people who happen to have their entire view of the world ideologically predetermined so as to fit into a little box (with corners) will tend to see it that way.
No, it's just that you that can't argue your way out of a cardboard box.


That's what all working class people do, bro. I mean that's the main reason why anyone would want a communist revolution. When working people go on strike, it's because they are trying to improve their lives and the lives of the people they love. It's not really ever about some abstract ideological bullshit involving dialectics and, like, a vanguard and gulags and stuff.
Yes, that is there, but it's not about trying to "valorize" yourself and your loved ones, it's about fighting for your sisters and brothers, people you don't even know and likely never will. It's about realizing that no matter who you are or where you're from, we're in this together. And especially if you're coming to revolutionary conclusions before the rest of your fellow workers...you have a responsibility to them and to your loved ones to think beyond your immediate desires.

"I want mine" is certainly not a revolutionary sentiment, and that's exactly what Nachie expressed.


And really, how are you gonna ask the working class to wait around while ya'll Leninists try to make some "revolution" that may not even happen in our lifetime. I'm all for the rev, but it's just as important to figure out ways to live as much as possible now that are easily replicated. RAAN does this.
Revolutions take building. You might be more open to the anarchist model, so ask yourself...did the anarchists in Catalunya create those communes by saying "well there's no revolution coming now, so we'll just throw politics out the window and act like Al Capone"? If they said that in the 20's and 30's, then they would have gotten nowhere.

Simply put, if you're for the revolution, you have to realize that it takes a long road to get there. And walking it isn't always glorious or fun or cool, but it's necessary. Believe me, selling newspapers isn't something I think is fun, but I've seen how it brings people to the left...and right now, the way the capitalists are whipping up racism and bigotry and hatred, we need every bit of support and interest we can get. That's what this is about.

[Nachie]

Believe me, selling newspapers isn't something I think is fun, but I've seen how it brings people to the left...

http://i36.tinypic.com/spghhi.gif

[manic expression]

Dude. My post is like... only one page back. People can actually just go look right at it and see that you are blatantly slandering my position and making shit up off the top of your head. This is a very bass-ackwards way of trying to make me look stupid.
Dude.

we didn't see workers' self-liberation coming about from anything anyone is doing either, so in the meantime we figured "why not just be in a hella sick communist street gang", and it rules.

Your words, not mine. It's nice to see you choking on them. :thumbup1:


If a junior member of the party is told by another respected member not to do something, that has some weight to it. Your party is so scared of us that they don't want members to be facebook friends with RAANistas?
I love the backtracking. First it was a direct order, now it's a request with "some weight to it". :lol: Looks like I was right after all.

And again, of course revolutionaries shouldn't associate with you. You offer nothing to them.


If we're so irrelevant than you fools must be some real punks to be scared of us. How am I supposed to see you as the vanguard when you won't even stop me from literally stealing money from you? You're gonna defeat capitalism when you can't stop some anarcho-punk from snatching your cash? LOL. Hope you know some of that money went towards making a RAAN banner.
You mean taking a few bucks out of a donation barrel. Just a few posts ago, you were a gangsta who shoots Leninists...now you snatch some dollars out of a donation can. What a herb. :lol:

[What Would Durruti Do?]

(most) Street gangs help bring hard drugs into communities and poison them with addiction and violence. That's not worth any respect.

If street gangs exist, then violence obviously already exists with or without bringing drugs into the equation. Violence is a symptom of capitalism, and I'd rather die with a gun in my hand than on my knees crying for my rulers to protect me.

Also, if people want drugs I don't see what the problem is. The state causes gangs to bring drugs into communities because they don't allow any other avenues to do such besides the black market as they are often illegal. People are going to want drugs whether there are street gangs or not. You have to respect gangs a little for their high risk profession of choice, providing the masses with items the state won't let them have.


Also, I may have misunderstood you but do you think there is any sort of problem with taking handouts from the government? Because if you do then cram it.No, obviously many people rely on those handouts.

My problem is with the begging part. Such as taking part in bourgeois elections as if it's going to do any good.

[manic expression]

Oh, Nachie, on your troll post:

Because I do not engage in political campaigns and activism

...meaning you don't know what you're talking about.

And since your own words still piss you off:

we didn't see workers' self-liberation coming about from anything anyone is doing either, so in the meantime we figured "why not just be in a hella sick communist street gang", and it rules.

That's right, everyone, RAAN has nothing to do with the liberation of the workers. Nachie said so.

[Widerstand]

Believe me, selling newspapers isn't something I think is fun, but I've seen how it brings people to the left.

Holy shit I can't believe you seriously just said that.

[Nachie]

*nevermind, what i was responding to got edited out

Turns out nothing I'm doing with my life is considered revolutionary by the PSL. I hope I don't lose any sleep over that.

[manic expression]

Actually, that vein on your forehead is getting a little swollen. I hope you don't lose any sleep over this.I sleep fine.

we didn't see workers' self-liberation coming about from anything anyone is doing either, so in the meantime we figured "why not just be in a hella sick communist street gang", and it rules.

[The Douche]

I love the backtracking. First it was a direct order, now it's a request with "some weight to it". :lol: Looks like I was right after all.


What backtracking? If a senior member of the party tells a junior member "don't talk to those guys" then clearly that individual is gonna feel pressure. How is that not a defacto order? Christ, you're such a fucking nerd.


And again, of course revolutionaries shouldn't associate with you. You offer nothing to them.

The fact that you apparently only associate with other "revolutionaries" explains a lot about you.


You mean taking a few bucks out of a donation barrel. Just a few posts ago, you were a gangsta who shoots Leninists...now you snatch some dollars out of a donation can. What a herb. :lol:

I would gladly smash up a self-righteous leninist so full of themselves, like you, if they had the tenacity to organize in my area.

[syndicat]

Because I do not engage in political campaigns and activism, I don't have to see some artificial separation between myself and "the revolutionary subject", and so I feel perfectly content to focus on things that are immediately valorizing to my own life and those of the people I love. Isn't this essentially what TEH WORKING CLASS!!!!!1 (which apparently is made up of anyone who isn't "us") does?


This is an individualistic mentality. Have you ever given any thought to how the working class becomes capable of a libertarory revolution? It isn't capable of it now. So how does it change itself?



I respect street gangs because when the popo comes around the corner they start firing rather than beg the bourgeois for handouts and favors.

And yeah, they're in it for the money. But who isn't in capitalist society? The whole fucking point of capitalism is to get rich or die trying.


So you want capitalism then. Drug gangs are small scale capitalist outfits. They typically have an "owner" or maybe a partnership, and they have workers who are paid. They also don't give a shit about anybody else being in the firing range.

Do you understand the concept of solidarity?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Dude.

we didn't see workers' self-liberation coming about from anything anyone is doing either, so in the meantime we figured "why not just be in a hella sick communist street gang", and it rules.

Your words, not mine. It's nice to see you choking on them. :thumbup1:

Yeah, those are his words. So what do his words have to do with your out of context ramblings and inaccurate assumptions?

[The Douche]

This is an individualistic mentality. Have you ever given any thought to how the working class becomes capable of a libertarory revolution? It isn't capable of it now. So how does it change itself?

Fuck off to the party, bolshevik dressed in black mother fucker.

[Widerstand]

I sleep fine.

we didn't see workers' self-liberation coming about from anything anyone is doing either, so in the meantime we figured "why not just be in a hella sick communist street gang", and it rules.

There's a not-so fine line between an overtly joking lulz-statement about street gangs and the implicitly naive serious-statement that selling newspapers attracts more people to the left.

[this is an invasion]

No, it's just that you that can't argue your way out of a cardboard box. I think this is incredibly insensitive toward people who actually live in cardboard boxes.



Yes, that is there, but it's not about trying to "valorize" yourself and your loved ones, it's about fighting for your sisters and brothers, people you don't even know and likely never will. It's about realizing that no matter who you are or where you're from, we're in this together. And especially if you're coming to revolutionary conclusions before the rest of your fellow workers...you have a responsibility to them and to your loved ones to think beyond your immediate desires.

"I want mine" is certainly not a revolutionary sentiment, and that's exactly what Nachie expressed. I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.



Revolutions take building. You might be more open to the anarchist model, so ask yourself...did the anarchists in Catalunya create those communes by saying "well there's no revolution coming now, so we'll just throw politics out the window and act like Al Capone"? If they said that in the 20's and 30's, then they would have gotten nowhere. That movement, while amazing in so many ways, did go nowhere...

You're creating a false dichotomy. I think if the militant worker's struggles that came out of the 60's and 70's have showed us anything, it's that when modern workers do organize themselves, there is a general desire to live as much as possible now, while "working" towards revolution.

I don't think an organization created in the current conditions can be very revolutionary. All we can realistically do is figure out ways to take care of each other that are easily replicated and help create the conditions that can lead to a revolutionary movement.


Simply put, if you're for the revolution, you have to realize that it takes a long road to get there. And walking it isn't always glorious or fun or cool, but it's necessary. Believe me, selling newspapers isn't something I think is fun, but I've seen how it brings people to the left...and right now, the way the capitalists are whipping up racism and bigotry and hatred, we need every bit of support and interest we can get. That's what this is about.
And we've seen just how successful the Left has been.

Oh wait...

This is what I don't get about you Leninists. Ya'll have failed (along with the rest of the Left, if I'm gonna be honest), yet you still think that employing the same tactics that failed then are somehow going to magically work now.

[syndicat]

Fuck off to the party, bolshevik dressed in black mother fucker.

You are not capable of coming up with persuasive arguments. So you resort to name-calling. This doesn't say much for your organizing ability.

[this is an invasion]

So you want capitalism then. Drug gangs are small scale capitalist outfits. They typically have an "owner" or maybe a partnership, and they have workers who are paid. They also don't give a shit about anybody else being in the firing range.

Do you understand the concept of solidarity?

Do you understand the concept of reading comprehension?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

So you want capitalism then.

How in the hell do you get that from the fact that I respect people trying to make a living for themselves? You think I ENJOY people having extremely risky and deadly occupations? I think it's sad that they have to do it, but they have to do it because capitalism still exists.

Do you hate all workers for "working for the man"? I hope you aren't employed by a capitalist or you must really hate yourself!


Do you understand the concept of solidarity?

Of course I do, which is why I have solidarity with street gangs who do their best to feed themselves and their families in a violent barbaric capitalist world.

[The Douche]

You are not capable of coming up with persuasive arguments. So you resort to name-calling. This doesn't say much for your organizing ability.

I organized a car ride to the bar and a way to pay for the tab. Suck it.

[Nachie]

This is an individualistic mentality. Have you ever given any thought to how the working class becomes capable of a libertarory revolution?

Absolutely.


It isn't capable of it now. So how does it change itself?

Self-organization at the workplace and neighborhood level. I dunno how anyone expects that to start except by organizing ourselves into bodies that feel relevant to us. There is no "individualistic mentality" in finding ways to associate with other human beings that have nothing to do with capitalism or politics. It's just that the politicians are constantly butthurt that we're not inviting them to the party, so they invent stories to tell themselves about how irrelevant and useless we are. Which of course if we were, nobody would be bothering to pay attention to us and this grand old debate wouldn't even be happening.

Advice for manic: What you resist, persists. Just let it go man. If you're right then you'll never have to hear about us anywhere except on this forum, so why get so worked up about it?

[syndicat]

Do you understand the concept of reading comprehension?

do you have the ability to come up with a persuasive argument? apparently not.

[this is an invasion]

do you have the ability to come up with a persuasive argument? apparently not.

Neither do you, man, neither do you.


A few pages ago, Nachie actually explained what he likes about the street gang model. Go check it out.

[manic expression]

What backtracking? If a senior member of the party tells a junior member "don't talk to those guys" then clearly that individual is gonna feel pressure. How is that not a defacto order? Christ, you're such a fucking nerd.
Ah, yes, a "defacto order". If thinking that makes you feel better....:lol:


The fact that you apparently only associate with other "revolutionaries" explains a lot about you.
Making things up again, I see. Perhaps if you knew the first thing about what revolutionaries actually do, you wouldn't make such mistakes.


I would gladly smash up a self-righteous leninist so full of themselves, like you, if they had the tenacity to organize in my area.
Leninists deal with far more than internet threats from some wanna-be keyboard tough guy. But if you ever had the guts to carry out your little fantasies (I know, just bear with me), that's where the real irony lies: you'd be playing the part of a rightist thug for the benefit of the capitalists.

[black magick hustla]

Of course I do, which is why I have solidarity with street gangs who do their best to feed themselves and their families in a violent barbaric capitalist world.

man i bet youve never lived in a place infested with gangs. street gangs are capitalist barbarism

[The Douche]

Ah, yes, a "defacto order". If thinking that makes you feel better....:lol:


Making things up again, I see. Perhaps if you knew the first thing about what revolutionaries actually do, you wouldn't make such mistakes.


Leninists deal with far more than internet threats from some wanna-be keyboard tough guy. But if you ever had the guts to carry out your little fantasies (I know, just bear with me), that's where the real irony lies: you'd be playing the part of a rightist thug for the benefit of the capitalists.

Ya caught me, I'm a real internet tough guy. Never been in a rough situation in my life.:laugh:

[this is an invasion]

Ah, yes, a "defacto order". If thinking that makes you feel better....:lol:


Making things up again, I see. Perhaps if you knew the first thing about what revolutionaries actually do, you wouldn't make such mistakes.


Leninists deal with far more than internet threats from some wanna-be keyboard tough guy. But if you ever had the guts to carry out your little fantasies (I know, just bear with me), that's where the real irony lies: you'd be playing the part of a rightist thug for the benefit of the capitalists.

Haven't Leninists consistently set up capitalist economic systems in whatever country they take control of?

[The Douche]

man i bet youve never lived in a place infested with gangs. street gangs are capitalist barbarism

I have a number of friends in/who were in gangs. I kind of resent that, I think they are all basically decent dudes doing what they can to get by, just like lots of other people.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

man i bet youve never lived in a place infested with gangs. street gangs are capitalist barbarism

you would lose that bet

and yes, they are a RESULT OF capitalist barbarism. so why the fuck are you blaming street gangs for the existence of capitalist barbarism?

As far as you know, I'm a veteran bank robber. I don't give you shit for frying burgers for Ronald McDonald every day so don't give me shit for earning money how I choose to do it.

[syndicat]

Self-organization at the workplace and neighborhood level. I dunno how anyone expects that to start except by organizing ourselves into bodies that feel relevant to us.

how about people organizing in workplaces and neighborhoods? if it's organized on the basis of the people in the neighborhood wanting to struggle about something, or workers getting together to form an organization to struggle with the bosses, it won't be put together on the basis of agreement with ultraleft ideology.

[Nachie]

This thread was pretty cool back on like the first page

[manic expression]

I think this is incredibly insensitive toward people who actually live in cardboard boxes.
It has nothing to do with living conditions, it has to do with intellectual capacity. The two have nothing to do with one another.


I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.Because Nachie didn't talk about the revolutionary elements of that, they talked about "I want mine". That's not a revolutionary sentiment, it's what businessmen say.


That movement, while amazing in so many ways, did go nowhere...No, it didn't. For all my criticisms of it, it accomplished quite a bit and impacted history.


You're creating a false dichotomy. I think if the militant worker's struggles that came out of the 60's and 70's have showed us anything, it's that when modern workers do organize themselves, there is a general desire to live as much as possible now, while "working" towards revolution.

I don't think an organization created in the current conditions can be very revolutionary. All we can realistically do is figure out ways to take care of each other that are easily replicated and help create the conditions that can lead to a revolutionary movement.What leads you to think that? We have a working class, an incredibly repressive capitalist class and an economic crisis. What more do you want? If you're expecting history to spoon-feed you a revolution, that's fine I suppose, but don't slag off on people who are pushing history along its tracks, and don't expect to be the center of it when it gets to where you want it to be.

Basically, if you're not involved in serious, constructive political work now, why would any worker want to listen to you when the time is right? Where were you when the going was tough? It's a Johnny-Come-Lately thing.


And we've seen just how successful the Left has been.
The left has been quite successful. Ultimately successful? No, but we learn from our mistakes and shortcomings and do what needs to be done. We don't say "oh, well politics suck, let's act like a gang". Revolution, of course, is made of stronger stuff.


This is what I don't get about you Leninists. Ya'll have failed (along with the rest of the Left, if I'm gonna be honest), yet you still think that employing the same tactics that failed then are somehow going to magically work now.We haven't failed. We won some fights, lost some others, and we're ready for more. You don't surrender the war after a few defeats.

[this is an invasion]

how about people organizing in workplaces and neighborhoods? if it's organized on the basis of the people in the neighborhood wanting to struggle about something, or workers getting together to form an organization to struggle with the bosses, it won't be put together on the basis of agreement with ultraleft ideology.

So, like, everything Nachie just said?

[manic expression]

Haven't Leninists consistently set up capitalist economic systems in whatever country they take control of?
No.

[black magick hustla]

I have a number of friends in/who were in gangs. I kind of resent that, I think they are all basically decent dudes doing what they can to get by, just like lots of other people.

idk if they are terrible people of not, like i said, ive seen some of that stuff too. but definitely, i would never be in solidarity with a street gang, what the fuck. people who push dope in the streets and kill fuckers? i mean its understandable, but there is nothing to be in solidarity with

[The Douche]

idk if they are terrible people of not, like i said, ive seen some of that stuff too. but definitely, i would never be in solidarity with a street gang, what the fuck. people who push dope in the streets and kill fuckers? i mean its understandable, but there is nothing to be in solidarity with

I don't think solidarity was expressed for that. We don't stand in solidarity with workers at the tank factory for the work they do, we do it because they are workers.

[manic expression]

Ya caught me, I'm a real internet tough guy. Never been in a rough situation in my life.:laugh:
Oh, I don't doubt you showed bravery in US uniform. The question is what you do when you're on the other side of it.

[syndicat]

you mean this:
their resiliency, ability to adapt and self-replicate, and continued survival as cultural icons and models of asymmetric warfare are the qualities we admire, not their criminality. the black panthers were also a huge influence in terms of their very strong and deliberate presentation of self as a militant group with identifiable imagery...


but if the focus and the fight is carried on through the small, unaccountable revolutionary cell, what is the relationship to the working class in general? it sounds like puffing up the revolutionary cell into the center of the fight, which is substitutionist.

[The Douche]

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs329.ash1/28623_524907296481_207001562_31266950_1011926_n.jp g

This little dude is all tired from fighting leninists, you wanna go up next?

Yeah, didn't think so.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think solidarity was expressed for that. We don't stand in solidarity with workers at the tank factory for the work they do, we do it because they are workers.

actually. its different. yall folks are for that type of criminal lifestyle and organization. the only reason why gangs can be so powerful is because they run many rackets and they deal drugs. the other aspect of criminality that might be salvageable, i.e. security culture and armed muscle has been there in the communist movement for ages. i dont get what is so amazing about criminal gangs.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

idk if they are terrible people of not, like i said, ive seen some of that stuff too. but definitely, i would never be in solidarity with a street gang, what the fuck. people who push dope in the streets and kill fuckers? i mean its understandable, but there is nothing to be in solidarity with

yeah, fuck workers

i'm sure if street gangs would just stop pushing dope and killing people, dope would never be pushed and people would never die. seriously, get real.

[manic expression]

This little dude is all tired from fighting leninists, you wanna go up next?

Yeah, didn't think so.
Like I said, internet threats is all you got when you're not in US uniform.

[black magick hustla]

yeah, fuck workers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

to be honest, i was not even criticizing gang members in general. you were talking about solidarity WITH street gangs, which is a whole form of organization, its like being in solidarity with the american military

[The Douche]

Like I said, internet threats is all you got when you're not in US uniform.

Ha, you and I both know nothing productive can possibly come from this thread. Because people refuse to engage in poltics when it comes to discussing RAAN, they just obsess over the anti-statism. So fuck it, why shouldn't I act a fool? Everybody else is, but they're dressing it up in fancy language.

[Widerstand]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

to be honest, i was not even criticizing gang members in general. you were talking about solidarity WITH street gangs, which is a whole form of organization, its like being in solidarity with the american military

The Lumpenproletariat isn't half as bad as an Imperialist Army really...In fact, the only thing wrong with the Lumpenproletariat is that they are unlikely to ever acquire class consciousness and join forces with the Proletariat - ergo they are mostly uninvolved bystanders in the revolution. The Imperialist Army acts as a direct class enemy of the Proletariat.



Ha, you and I both know nothing productive can possibly come from this thread. Because people refuse to engage in poltics when it comes to discussing RAAN, they just obsess over the anti-statism. So fuck it, why shouldn't I act a fool? Everybody else is, but they're dressing it up in fancy language.

This, exactly.

[black magick hustla]

yeah, fuck workers

i'm sure if street gangs would just stop pushing dope and killing people, dope would never be pushed and people would never die. seriously, get real.

btw you could make exactly the same argument for cops. cops need to make a living too.:rolleyes: gang soldiers and cops are both the armed wings of certain capitalist factions, there is really not that much different between them, because both enforce a sort of law. the only difference is that cops make more money

[Nachie]

to be honest, i was not even criticizing gang members in general. you were talking about solidarity WITH street gangs, which is a whole form of organization, its like being in solidarity with the american military

I realize you were responding to Durruti but I just want to point out that our position is not about "solidarity" with street gangs; we were just talking about understanding their resiliency as a cultural paradigm. Some organizations, such as the Tupamaros in Venezuela (whom I have visited with and interviewed the president of) actually organized to kick cops and drugs out of their areas... but are still organized as a gang. The Vice Lords are another example in the US, and there are many others. Yes some of them still run rackets, but shit man the block's gotta eat.

Yes most of the positive aspects of street gangs have been inherent to communism forever and we don't have to fetishize gangs in order to find them, but in terms of exploring those aspects and explaining them to people for the sake of organizing around them in this day and age, it's much more effective to refer to the model of street gangs than it is to talk about something like the Red Front Fighters' League in pre-Nazi Germany.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

to be honest, i was not even criticizing gang members in general. you were talking about solidarity WITH street gangs, which is a whole form of organization, its like being in solidarity with the american military

I didn't realize a bunch of down on their luck workers started the American military so they could get some coinage in their wallets.

You seem to have the impression that every street gang is like the Corleone family from The Godfather or something.

Also, if you posted that link to say that gang members can never achieve class consciousness you are seriously deluded. Criminals are usually the most class conscious people there are in my experience, after students. Few of them may be well read in revolutionary writings, but to do a job that is in direct competition to the establishment obviously requires some oversight of how the world works and why it's ok to fight back to survive.


btw you could make exactly the same argument for cops. cops need to make a living too.:rolleyes:

Yeah, and? I have friends that are cops. It's not like I'm going to stop being friends with them just because they need to make a living.

I still have more respect for street gangs though. They don't work for the state, they work for themselves.

[black magick hustla]

First, this whole gang model appears because a group is forced into criminality, whether because it chooses armed insurrection, or because there is the threat of violence against them, either by the state or by other groups. It is nothing too novel to be honest. Guerrillas are basically gangs.
thi
I don´t find the model of gang very attractive because I dont think armed struggle is really the answer at all. The gang model appears a lot when leftists wage a substitutionalist war against the state, where their s ltruggle is simply a spectacle for average people to consume.

Now, sometimes the gang aspects that have appeared in the real communist movement (by these i mean real workers organizations, not leftist substitutionalist groups) happened because a group was subject to the violence of other groups or was forced into clandestinity. but these aspects were not there because its good to chose the gang model, but because there circumstances, in a way, forced them to do so.

[black magick hustla]

You seem to have the impression that every street gang is like the Corleone family from The Godfather or something.

.

i never said that. if you dont think there is an element of violence in gangs and racketeering average working class folk you are deluded

[Rusty Shackleford]

ok i had to come back. my mind is fried but im back. (ended up watching some surreal norwegian film in the mean time:lol:)

so let me see if i have this clear.

the whole philosophy of RAAN is just to live communism. live as workers would. living in your class interest directly.

RANNistas(is this correct) dont see any use in attempting to organize workers movements because they separate workers from workers or something like that.

see leninists as a direct threat. possibly equal to the bourgeoisie?

i honestly had no fucking clue about RAANs philosophy or whatever. im merely seeking to understand it right now.

[this is an invasion]

ok i had to come back. my mind is fried but im back. (ended up watching some surreal norwegian film in the mean time:lol:)

so let me see if i have this clear.

the whole philosophy of RAAN is just to live communism. live as workers would. living in your class interest directly. the point of RAAN is to give a common identifier to actions that are committed by anarchists and communists (I'm using actions extremely vaguely here - anything from community gardens to work place sabotage to strikes to property destruction). And yes, it is also to attempt to live communism as much as possible now (through communizing resources, organizing our neighborhoods and workplaces, taking space, etc.). We would like to see our neighborhoods and work places organized in such a way that people are able to relate to each other on a human basis, take care of each other, and create a space to attack both the state and capital.


RANNistas(is this correct) dont see any use in attempting to organize workers movements because they separate workers from workers or something like that. We believe that only workers can organize themselves. We don't see ourselves or refer to ourselves as a body outside or separate from the working class. RAAN as a tendency is an expression of struggle that is born from working class communists and anarchists. We see RAAN as a tool for people to use to organize themselves.


see leninists as a direct threat. possibly equal to the bourgeoisie? We see Leninism as a direct threat to actual proletarian communist revolution. Many of us believe that a lot of Leninists are sincere people sucked into an ideology that is very anti-worker and counter-revolutionary in the communist sense.


i honestly had no fucking clue about RAANs philosophy or whatever. im merely seeking to understand it right now.

And I hope what I said made a little bit of sense, regardless of whether you agree with it. I am incredibly tired at the moment.

[Nachie]

Sweet! Real discussion! I could kiss you, Vacant!



the whole philosophy of RAAN is just to live communism.

No, it is to concretely unite communists and anarchists in various forms of struggle.


live as workers would.

This implies that we are not workers?


living in your class interest directly.

Consciously. Which is, after all, our only option given that we are consciously defining ourselves as anarchists and communists, or RAANistas, or whatever.


RANNistas(is this correct) dont see any use in attempting to organize workers movements because they separate workers from workers or something like that.

This is totally wrong. We view leftist organizations and their historical models as well as the roles they have played in society as being what separates workers from workers, but that doesn't mean we don't see the validity of organizing ourselves towards various ends, including short-term "reformist" goals such as wage/benefit increases, etc.


see leninists as a direct threat. possibly equal to the bourgeoisie?

They are the most imminent threat to our primary goal (see above) insofar as they walk amongst us, yes they are a direct one, and historically they have served as the left wing of capital and chief executors of the recuperation of radical social movements back into the capitalist mode of production and politics. I don't think that makes them "equal" to the bourgeoisie but it certainly sets a firm basis as to why one wouldn't want to work with them.


i honestly had no fucking clue about RAANs philosophy or whatever. im merely seeking to understand it right now.

I hope that helped?

EDIT ADD: Damn, this is an invasion's answer was way better than mine :blushing:

[Rusty Shackleford]

We believe that only workers can organize themselves. We don't see ourselves or refer to ourselves as a body outside or separate from the working class. RAAN as a tendency is an expression of struggle that is born from working class communists and anarchists. We see RAAN as a tool for people to use to organize themselves.i dont see myself as separate form the working class. i dont see how being a leninist or part of a leninist organization qualifies as being disassociated with the working class at all. i can understand your perspective though. i have read some 19th century anarchist lit.

We see Leninism as a direct threat to actual proletarian communist revolution. Many of us believe that a lot of Leninists are sincere people sucked into an ideology that is very anti-worker and counter-revolutionary in the communist sense.how can leninism be a direct threat if leninism has been the spearhead of the majority of socialist revolutions and national-liberation movements? sure the strategy is different but it is not against the working class.



And I hope what I said made a little bit of sense, regardless of whether you agree with it. I am incredibly tired at the moment.yes what you said has helped to clarify things a bit. i am still opposed to the tendency but its helpful to have a discussion about it.

one thing though, this whole thread has gotten me on the verge of actually hating anarchists in general by how seemingly obnoxious some of the stuff is in here. i dont want that. i dont want to hate anarchists.

EDIT: i began replying while nachie also replied. let me have a cigarette and then ill be back. ill revise this post or just respond to any further response. can we all agree on some sort of check to keep this from derailing? also, disclaimer. im new to socialism. ive only been strudying for 2 years. and only had any real practical experience since january. my contribution to the discussion may be limited... so yeah...

[Nachie]

i dont see myself as separate form the working class. i dont see how being a leninist or part of a leninist organization qualifies as being disassociated with the working class at all. i can understand your perspective though. i have read some 19th century anarchist lit.

It is true that Leninist organizations have often had strong roots in the working class, and indeed have been well placed to ultimately manipulate or otherwise affect the vitality of struggles arising from that sector. I would recommend some much more recent anarchist (or even better, communist) lit that would provide you with an historical analysis of Leninist movements (after all, we're talking about things that have happened after the 19th century). Perhaps take a look at this thread (http://www.redanarchist.org/forum/index.php?topic=118) on the RAAN forums.


how can leninism be a direct threat if leninism has been the spearhead of the majority of socialist revolutions and national-liberation movements? sure the strategy is different but it is not against the working class.

Because those socialist revolutions have not ever achieved socialism. We believe that the real history of the role Leninist organizations have played in hindering working class self-organization is well documented but entirely hidden or ignored by those who perpetuate the sad insanity of Bolshevism.


one thing though, this whole thread has gotten me on the verge of actually hating anarchists in general by how seemingly obnoxious some of the stuff is in here. i dont want that. i dont want to hate anarchists.

We don't want to hate human beings in general! But it has literally been impossible to ever reasonably/calmly discuss our ideas here without suffering various ad hominem attacks and slanderous extrapolations of what our actual positions are. We do not attack people personally, just state our opposition to Leninism as an ideology and organizational model, and then that is more than enough for us to be immediately torn apart as individualist lifestylist petit bourgeois primitivist ultra-leftist naive etc. etc. etc. We are simply calling into question the central myth of leftist movements' belief in their own ultimate effectiveness.

I'm going to bed, thank you for bringing this thread back to a reasoned discussion :)

[this is an invasion]

i dont see myself as separate form the working class. i dont see how being a leninist or part of a leninist organization qualifies as being disassociated with the working class at all. i can understand your perspective though. i have read some 19th century anarchist lit.
Leninist organizations exist above the working class. They seek to lead and organize the working class. Historically, they have always existed in positions of power over the working class.


how can leninism be a direct threat if leninism has been the spearhead of the majority of socialist revolutions and national-liberation movements? sure the strategy is different but it is not against the working class. I would say that those revolutions were not working class revolutions. Workers stayed workers. There were still police and jails. There was still exploited and alienated labor.

And instances where Leninists were not in control of workers, they worked with the state to kill the insurrection.The thing with Leninism is that it requires there be a working class, which implies a ruling class.



yes what you said has helped to clarify things a bit. i am still opposed to the tendency but its helpful to have a discussion about it. fa sho


one thing though, this whole thread has gotten me on the verge of actually hating anarchists in general by how seemingly obnoxious some of the stuff is in here. i dont want that. i dont want to hate anarchists. I hate anarchists too sometimes. But you can't really deny that the other side wasn't just as silly :P


EDIT: i began replying while nachie also replied. let me have a cigarette and then ill be back. ill revise this post or just respond to any further response. can we all agree on some sort of check to keep this from derailing? also, disclaimer. im new to socialism. ive only been strudying for 2 years. and only had any real practical experience since january. my contribution to the discussion may be limited... so yeah...
smoking is bad! D: lolololol

[Rusty Shackleford]

It is true that Leninist organizations have often had strong roots in the working class, and indeed have been well placed to ultimately manipulate or otherwise affect the vitality of struggles arising from that sector. I would recommend some much more recent anarchist (or even better, communist) lit that would provide you with an historical analysis of Leninist movements (after all, we're talking about things that have happened after the 19th century). Perhaps take a look at this thread (http://www.redanarchist.org/forum/index.php?topic=118) on the RAAN forums.
ill check it out some time.



Because those socialist revolutions have not ever achieved socialism. We believe that the real history of the role Leninist organizations have played in hindering working class self-organization is well documented but entirely hidden or ignored by those who perpetuate the sad insanity of Bolshevism.
and for anarchist revolutions? yes, i agree that socialism has failed to last through the 20th century, with the exception of cuba. there are reasons why they have failed though. i do not believe it is the theory of leninism but just when and where these revolutions took place. almost all of them have taken place in either colonized lands or places with a very small proletariat as compared to the peasantry.

a revolution has not yet occurred in the us. its hard to write of leninism if it has not had any real test in the west, where capital is most accumulated, and the proletariat is most developed. capitalism is a its strongest here. it is the true test of any theory if ever capitalism is overthrown in the US.

leninism, when it was applied, had to take on 2 roles. developing the working class so it can actually self manage and even exist, and defend a revolution at the same time.



We don't want to hate human beings in general! But it has literally been impossible to ever reasonably/calmly discuss our ideas here without suffering various ad hominem attacks and slanderous extrapolations of what our actual positions are. We do not attack people personally, just state our opposition to Leninism as an ideology and organizational model, and then that is more than enough for us to be immediately torn apart as individualist lifestylist petit bourgeois primitivist ultra-leftist naive etc. etc. etc. We are simply calling into question the central myth of leftist movements' belief in their own ultimate effectiveness.

I'm going to bed, thank you for bringing this thread back to a reasoned discussion :)ill agree. i feel like im on the verge of outright sectarianism. and yes. it is easy to write of anarchists on the grouds you just said. but it is just as easy to write off leninists for being authoritarian, militarist, centralized, statist, stalinist, tankie and all that.


Leninist organizations exist above the working class. They seek to lead and organize the working class. Historically, they have always existed in positions of power over the working class.
I would say that those revolutions were not working class revolutions. Workers stayed workers. There were still police and jails. There was still exploited and alienated labor.

leninist parties seek to act as the vanguard organization for the working class, yes. do we seek to be independent of the working class? no. we seek to have the vanguard party having state power with and for the working class. in history, as i have said, these parties have had the dual role of developing the working class, and defending a revolution.

the state is inherently oppressive. i agree. but the state is a weapon for classes to wield. when the working class has state power, it oppresses the bourgeoisie or any counter-revolutionary element anywhere in society.



And instances where Leninists were not in control of workers, they worked with the state to kill the insurrection.The thing with Leninism is that it requires there be a working class, which implies a ruling class.
im guessing this is about spain, and the KKE in greece right? if so, i cant comment. i dont know enough history.

fa sho
I hate anarchists too sometimes. But you can't really deny that the other side wasn't just as silly :P

smoking is bad! D: lololololit seemed like a circle jerk on both sides but the RAAN clan(it rhymes and theres no k) was uber aggressive. lets jsut set this aside though.

and yeah, smokings back. im sick but im also stressed. this thread was kind of the straw that broke the camels back lol.

if theres any grammar or spelling problems. wel yeah, read the sig. im not going to take the time to clean this up i already spent a lot of time thinking and writing :lol:

[Devrim]

Ha, you and I both know nothing productive can possibly come from this thread. Because people refuse to engage in poltics when it comes to discussing RAAN, they just obsess over the anti-statism. So fuck it, why shouldn't I act a fool? Everybody else is, but they're dressing it up in fancy language.

I think people are engaging with the politics here though of course there is some going on about the 'state'.

To address that issue quickly:


What Marxist doesn't support a workers' state and what anarchist does support a workers' state?


For the record the ICC thinks that it is a contradiction in terms.

On the subject of street gangs which is a particular political issue that is being addressed, I would agree with the majority of what Maldoror and Syndicat say.

Devrim

[AK]

No.
Wage slavery and the working class being subordinate to a ruling class which controls capital and the means of production are both hallmarks of a true socialist system, no doubt.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think, in the context of the discussion, whether leninists are right or wrong is whats important.

Well, that's what the discussion is and actually I think its really fucking important to identify why Leninists are wrong, since they want to control my revolution

[The Feral Underclass]

Go back to the original request from Paulappaul. Does he specify what time period? No, he didn't.

And in 1872.

That wasn't the point I was making. If your problem is in specific application and not in the basis of the concept, then that's something that can be dealt with. If you have an issue with the state that is, at its core, fundamental to the state, then that is quite another thing that cannot be dealt with.

In essence, your objections to the state are not in conflict with the state itself.

I don't reject any of those things, because they're natural outgrowths of the struggle. Not everyone is going to be a committed, militant revolutionary, and thus there will be a so-called "political elite". That does not, however, make this "elite" anything else than a group that is more committed to political activity than people who would rather spend their days listening to music and enjoying life.

The issue is that you label this "political elite" a problem, when in fact it's unavoidable and has no bearing on whether or not a party/group is working for the interests of the working class.

Then the revolution won't get very far.

How do you get good at something? Practice, practice, practice.

It's your logic, not mine. If a "political elite" (that is, people who are more involved in politics than others) means a party/state is not socialist, then the existence of one single apathetic creates a "political elite" and disqualifies the society from being socialist.

What flaw? That you label something differently than someone else?

Your primary analysis is that bureaucrats are bad. OK, even if we take that as truth, then we can figure out ways to minimize and do away with that factor. Thus, your main argument is shown to be compatible with the state.

Further, if it is your contention that centralized political authority cannot create a communist society because a communist society does not exist today, then it condemns your politics equally, and we're back to square one.

Just like the times before, you don't understand what I'm saying. I can't be fucked to make it any simpler for you.

[The Feral Underclass]

If it is repressing the bourgeoisie then yes it is. Working class power and control to suppress the bourgeoisie and abolish capitalism is the definition of dictatorship of the proletariat.

You said workers councils constitutes the centralisation of political authority. I say no, it doesn't.

You said nothing of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[The Feral Underclass]

So,Nachie, your argument is that you don't care about progress for the working class. But we already knew that.

But what is "progress" for the working class? Come on, tell us...

[bricolage]

Marx supported the Commune. I regard the Commune as a state,
Well that's fine but the original argument was about whether Marx supported 'workers states'. Fact is you still can't prove this with reference to the Commune, even you admit it...
even though Marx never specifically referred to it as such.


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other.
I think you have to be quite blinded to think the Commune was somewhere 'between capitalist and communist society'. We could run through its economic measures if you want, it definitely did not alter ownership of the means of production, hence it's the 'political form at last discovered' (which I agree with), not the economic form.


So back to my original question: do you submit that one can have a dictatorship without a state?
If by dictatorship you mean 'class rule' then yes I think that can be separated from the state which is a (increasingly unclear) set of institutions and social relations.


So you can change the nature of something by calling it something else, then. You abolish the state but keep authority in some other form...essentially reshuffling its label.
No. The state is construed as centralised, hierarchical authority, it is not seen as the start and end of all authority. Anarchists have never claimed to be against authority, only centralised hierarchical (thus illegitimate) authority, where decision makers are separated from those that are supposed to represent etc etc. This is all quite boring though.


And if they do not spread as we would like, what then?
Then the revolution is doomed.


Give up armed authority?
Not at all.


The fact is that Engels is right here, armed authority is what sustained the Commune,
Not really. Versailles could have crushed the Commune at pretty much any point if they had so wished, Thiers didn't want to do this as he was trying to work out how he could maintain a stable Third Republic. He was pushed into it by Bismarck saying he would do it. The only time the Commune tried to enforce 'armed authority' was in its dying days and guess what it lost.


and without it the Commune would not have been the Commune.
Well sure, but then without a lot of things lots of things would not have been lots of things. This is a pretty meaningless statement.
Noone as ever said the Commune shouldn't have armed itself.


But the First International went through a controversy in 1872 because of those thoughts, and that has a lot to do with the discussion at hand.
Does it? I don't really think it does.

[bricolage]

Jesus, didn't see what a load of shit this thread had turned into before I posted that.
To be honest I'm boring and would quite like to discuss the Paris Commune and/or the state but this thread was supposed to be about RAAN, if someone split all the Commune stuff that would be nice.

[The Douche]

This thread started to take a much better turn. Lets not take it off topic again.


Well, that's what the discussion is and actually I think its really fucking important to identify why Leninists are wrong, since they want to control my revolution

I would just like the opportunity, for once on this board, to talk about RAANs actual politics and tactics.

[manic expression]

Well that's fine but the original argument was about whether Marx supported 'workers states'. Fact is you still can't prove this with reference to the Commune, even you admit it...
But the role of the state hadn't been clearly set out in the socialist movement at that point. Unless Marx had a crystal ball, and knew such a controversy would arise over that issue, there was no reason for him to put too fine a point on it. He had already made clear that working-class state power was a necessity for the march to communism, and he made this clear in the years following the Commune.


I think you have to be quite blinded to think the Commune was somewhere 'between capitalist and communist society'. We could run through its economic measures if you want, it definitely did not alter ownership of the means of production, hence it's the 'political form at last discovered' (which I agree with), not the economic form.
Well, by virtue of its political form, it wasn't bourgeois society and it wasn't communism, so it's quite reasonable to say it was somewhere between the two.


If by dictatorship you mean 'class rule' then yes I think that can be separated from the state which is a (increasingly unclear) set of institutions and social relations.
The state is class rule. One is not possible without the other.


No. The state is construed as centralised, hierarchical authority, it is not seen as the start and end of all authority. Anarchists have never claimed to be against authority, only centralised hierarchical (thus illegitimate) authority, where decision makers are separated from those that are supposed to represent etc etc. This is all quite boring though.
Then they're against all authority, because no authority involves everyone equally, by definition. So again, anti-statism and reality are in disagreement.


Then the revolution is doomed.
Comrade Chicken Little...best you change your black flag to a white one.


Not at all.
But armed authority separates those who make decisions from those who have decisions made on them. When you attack something, the decision makers have not ratified the decision with the targets. So you're contradicting yourself.


Not really. Versailles could have crushed the Commune at pretty much any point if they had so wished, Thiers didn't want to do this as he was trying to work out how he could maintain a stable Third Republic. He was pushed into it by Bismarck saying he would do it. The only time the Commune tried to enforce 'armed authority' was in its dying days and guess what it lost.
The Commune was enforcing armed authority from the beginning. What do you call troops shooting commanding officers through firing squad?


Well sure, but then without a lot of things lots of things would not have been lots of things. This is a pretty meaningless statement.
Noone as ever said the Commune shouldn't have armed itself.
When the Commune armed itself, it used authority over others, separating the Commune from those who opposed it. This is what all revolutions do.


Does it? I don't really think it does.
Yes, because anarchists and socialists being at odds has nothing to do with this conversation....

[manic expression]

Ha, you and I both know nothing productive can possibly come from this thread. Because people refuse to engage in poltics when it comes to discussing RAAN, they just obsess over the anti-statism. So fuck it, why shouldn't I act a fool? Everybody else is, but they're dressing it up in fancy language.
This doesn't work when posters like this is an invasion are posting constructive political points that deserve consideration. So no, "everybody else" isn't acting like you.

And we did get something productive out of this, we found out that your bravery only comes with a US uniform and air/armor/artillery support.

[blake 3:17]

I would just like the opportunity, for once on this board, to talk about RAANs actual politics and tactics.

That'd be good. I'd love a better discussion of anarchism and anarchist activism. In Toronto we've seen both comings together and splits between anarchists and socialists in the past couple of months.

I took a quick look at the RAAN site and saw a few interesting things, but was not impressed by some of the claims of vandalism. The anti-RCP stuff seems dopey.

[RED DAVE]

One must understand that though there have been autonomist movements in the past, the United States in recent memory has never seen a good one (or even a really nationwide non-hierarchal group, for that matter) and certainly all over the world there is an extreme lack of a deliberate articulation and elaboration of how that model works in practice.Is it possible that, in practice, such a group is impossible?

RED DAVE

[The Douche]

This doesn't work when posters like this is an invasion are posting constructive political points that deserve consideration. So no, "everybody else" isn't acting like you.

And we did get something productive out of this, we found out that your bravery only comes with a US uniform and air/armor/artillery support.

I have plenty of constructive posts all over this board (otherwise I would've been banned a long time ago). But there is still very little constructive discussion going on in here, and it didn't start until you stopped posting. And now that you're back I see by the bolded comment that you want to start the foolishness back up again. Whos the internet tough guy now?

[The Douche]

Is it possible that, in practice, such a group is impossible?

RED DAVE

I think, if we look at groups like autonomia, that it is entirely possible.

[manic expression]

I have plenty of constructive posts all over this board (otherwise I would've been banned a long time ago). But there is still very little constructive discussion going on in here
There is political discussion going on. If you really have something to add, like you say you do, then join in. The choice is yours.

And on edit, the truth does hurt sometimes, doesn't it?

[The Douche]

There is political discussion going on. If you really have something to add, like you say you do, then join in. The choice is yours.

And on edit, the truth does hurt sometimes, doesn't it?

As I said before I don't think that arguing about the state is what should be going on in this thread. I think if the thread is about RAAN, then we should actually discuss RAANs politics and tactics as laid out in our documents. How would you like it if every time a thread was made about the PSL people from RAAN came in and derailed it to talk about the state or leninism?

Are you finished yet?

[manic expression]

As I said before I don't think that arguing about the state is what should be going on in this thread. I think if the thread is about RAAN, then we should actually discuss RAANs politics and tactics as laid out in our documents. How would you like it if every time a thread was made about the PSL people from RAAN came in and derailed it to talk about the state or leninism?

Are you finished yet?
If you don't think that discussion has some place here, then you think that RAAN shouldn't have to answer critiques of its ideology. That begs the question, though, what are we supposed to talk about, if that is to be the case?

And just as a refresher, you admit that you aren't interested in serious discussion. So instead of you making good on your promises of "RAANs politics and tactics", we get this:


Lenin? More like lolin, amirite?

So when political issues are brought up, we get your internet tough-guy routine, and when that act grows thin, you protest that no one is engaging you in political terms. That's because you refuse to engage in politics...because you can't.

[The Douche]

So when political issues are brought up, we get your internet tough-guy routine, and when that act grows thin, you protest that no one is engaging you in political terms. That's because you refuse to engage in politics...because you can't.

Actually, you'll find that my very first post in this thread was this:


Awww man, I was hoping this thread would be about RAAN, not the boring ass arguement, which has been going on since the 1800s, about what constitutes a state.

and then it was this:


I don't think, in the context of the discussion, whether leninists are right or wrong is whats important. This is what RAAN discussions are always relegated to here. "why do you hate lenin lol, morons you won't get anywhere" "lenin was wrong cause he was a statist, states are anti-working class lol read marx you tard". Its dumb and pointless, if that discussion does have to occur I, personally, would like to see it occur outside of a RAAN thread, which should exist to discuss the politics/actions of the network. Otherwise nothing good can ever come from it.

After 5 pages of no useful discussion about RAAN, and some semi-useful but not on topic discussion about the state, and a somewhat useful and somewhat on topic discussion about gangs. Yeah, it was apparent to me that there was no need to take this thread seriously.

So my suggestion to you, is that you look through RAANs main political documents.

Principles & Direction-http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/p&d.html
Principles of Action-http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/praxis/2/principlesofaction.html
No bullshit policy-http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/praxis/2/nobullshit.html

And after doing so, find some issues that you think ought to be critiqued and your solutions, how it can be done better, and what is a more effective way of achieving communism as opposed to our methods.

[Nachie]

Is it possible that, in practice, such a group is impossible?

RED DAVE

Seeing as how it is simply an attempt to describe and move naturally with the various ways that ideas, tactics, and momentum are organically generated in autonomous struggles which exist and are continually reborn without centralized organization, I would suggest that to believe such a thing would be bordering on ridiculous.

[blake 3:17]

I find this pretty interesting: http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/parkour.html

I could provide the Right (or fairly Left) Socialist critique in my sleep. I'd like to hear from the anarchists on this.

Pedestrianism seems to fit with certain kinds of Left Communism/Anarchism (egs. Situationism, Deleuze & Guattari), and as a dedicated pedestrian, and relatively liberatarian socialist, then what does this stuff mean?

[Widerstand]

I find this pretty interesting: http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/parkour.html

I could provide the Right (or fairly Left) Socialist critique in my sleep. I'd like to hear from the anarchists on this.

Pedestrianism seems to fit with certain kinds of Left Communism/Anarchism (egs. Situationism, Deleuze & Guattari), and as a dedicated pedestrian, and relatively liberatarian socialist, then what does this stuff mean?

Why exactly do you want to criticize Parkour? I find nothing critiqueworthy about the art.

[blake 3:17]

Is it possible that, in practice, such a group is impossible?

RED DAVE

Maybe this should go in with FRSO & Solidarity thread... I'm unsure of how Autonomism relates to Revolutionary Pluralism...

[manic expression]

After 5 pages of no useful discussion about RAAN, and some semi-useful but not on topic discussion about the state, and a somewhat useful and somewhat on topic discussion about gangs. Yeah, it was apparent to me that there was no need to take this thread seriously.
But this is an invasion was making serious posts about RAAN and issues pertaining to its views. I was trying to engage with them as best I could, as honestly as I could, because it helped me better understand that viewpoint. So sure, some of this isn't fully on-topic (even though stuff like the state does matter because RAAN, like many groups of the same ideological bent, bases a lot of conclusions on the definition in question), but some of it is.

If you don't take the thread seriously, fine. No one's saying you have to be all serious all the time, but what I am saying is that if you're going to post here, you need to join the dialogue at hand or bring up new issues to be considered. That works best for everyone involved. I've seen you do that on other threads, so there's no reason why it shouldn't happen here.

[The Douche]

I find this pretty interesting: http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/parkour.html

I could provide the Right (or fairly Left) Socialist critique in my sleep. I'd like to hear from the anarchists on this.

Pedestrianism seems to fit with certain kinds of Left Communism/Anarchism (egs. Situationism, Deleuze & Guattari), and as a dedicated pedestrian, and relatively liberatarian socialist, then what does this stuff mean?

I think nachie could probably relate parkour to politics the best.

Our RAAN crew did parkour for a while here (we don't do it anymore, I took a bad fall and we pretty much quit after that) but we saw it more as something just to do as a group for fun, not with political connotations. (though there are going to be political connotations when you gather up a bunch of revolutionaries who are out to run around the town I guess)

I always interpretted it to be the appropriation of the bland, boring, and alienating urban landscape, and turning it into something of common use and community building. But I don't think parkour is necessary for that. (Debord advocated detournment, which was essentially, taking a walk, and I think skateboarding or bike riding or anything like that can all be equally effective)

[blake 3:17]

Why exactly do you want to criticize Parkour


"Critique" doesn't mean Negative/Bad/Stinky/Wrong. It is a process of understanding, criticism, and praise. The aim is to understand.

[The Douche]

But this is an invasion was making serious posts about RAAN and issues pertaining to its views. I was trying to engage with them as best I could, as honestly as I could, because it helped me better understand that viewpoint. So sure, some of this isn't fully on-topic (even though stuff like the state does matter because RAAN, like many groups of the same ideological bent, bases a lot of conclusions on the definition in question), but some of it is.

If you don't take the thread seriously, fine. No one's saying you have to be all serious all the time, and actually it's good to not be, but what I am saying is that if you're going to post here, joining the dialogue at hand or bringing up new issues to be considered works best for everyone involved. I've seen you do that on other threads, so there's no reason why it shouldn't happen here.

Fair enough.:thumbup1:

[RED DAVE]

I think, if we look at groups like autonomia, that it is entirely possible.If you are talking about the Italian group, it only lasted a few years. This is not encouraging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomia_Operaia

RED DAVE

[Nachie]

a revolution has not yet occurred in the us. its hard to write of leninism if it has not had any real test in the west, where capital is most accumulated, and the proletariat is most developed. capitalism is a its strongest here. it is the true test of any theory if ever capitalism is overthrown in the US.

But a moment ago you were using all the other socialist revolutions in history as the justifier for Leninism's validity? Now all the failures of the past can be ignored because the centralized Leninist party has hadn't a chance to shine in the belly of the beast? Howabout all the opportunism that ruined the CPUSA, which in the 20's and 30's actually still was revolutionary? Political formations engage in politics, I'm sorry.


leninist parties seek to act as the vanguard organization for the working class, yes. do we seek to be independent of the working class? no. we seek to have the vanguard party having state power with and for the working class. in history, as i have said, these parties have had the dual role of developing the working class, and defending a revolution.

But it actually says right there in the Communist Manifesto that "The Communists do not organize themselves as a party in opposition to the other working-class parties". Somehow in Leninism this got turned into "communists need to make a political party to lead the working class, which is too dense to lead itself".


the state is inherently oppressive. i agree. but the state is a weapon for classes to wield. when the working class has state power, it oppresses the bourgeoisie or any counter-revolutionary element anywhere in society.

I agree with you entirely; I am a proponent of the dictatorship of the proletariat and I am not afraid of using that term. But Leninists seem to have forgotten that the state is supposed to wither away! Lenin's shining inspiration for the blueprint of a socialist state was... the bureaucratic Prussian postal system/ how liberating!. And let's not quote Lenin's State and Revolution, let's look at what he actually did.

"(...) in all past revolutions, the mode of activity has always remained intact and the only issue has been a different distribution of this activity and a redistribution of work among different persons; whereas the communist revolution is directed against the mode of activity as it has existed up till now and abolishes work and the domination of all classes by abolishing classes themselves, because it is carried out by the class which is no longer, in society, considered as a class and which is already the expression of the dissolution of all classes and all nationalities, etc. within society itself (...)" (Marx, The German Ideology, 1845-46)

Communism isn't about putting the working class in power, but destroying/transcending both power and the working class.


im guessing this is about spain, and the KKE in greece right? if so, i cant comment. i dont know enough history.

It would be good to find out about some history if you're going to be committing yourself to a political ideology with so much baggage! I myself was a Leninist for almost two years starting when I was 14-15 because I just thought communism was the way to go, and like with many people Leninism appeared to me to be the "default" school of Marxism (deliberately changing this is another one of RAAN's primary missions). Then somebody pointed out to me that "Stalin didn't fall from the moon" and suggested that I read up on the Makhnovichina and Kronstadt. Once I did, I knew there was actually no reasonable way for me to continue as a Leninist unless I engaged in a constant process of self-delusion that would have been extremely draining for me at an emotional level. Ron Tabor's excellent book "A Look at Leninism" was also a key thing that I stumbled on seemingly by providence around this time.

Anyway, there are more examples of where Leninist organizations have scuttled workers' struggle than I could possibly name here or even claim to be aware of. Some of them are of course Russia, Ukraine, UK, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, France again, etc. ad infinitum.

It's important to note that we do not take up the self-referential anarchist position of condemning Leninists only whenever they have slaughtered and/or destroyed anarchist movements, but rather condemning Leninists whenever they have slaughtered and/or destroyed the movement of the working class as an independent force.

But this thread has again became about Leninism and Manic's personal attacks against cmoney and not about RAAN, so I'm just gonna leave it at that.

[Meridian]

Reading through this thread makes me feel incredibly incredibly non-American. Though I think Nachie has some decent posts I'm not sure how being based on a street gang model is too good of an idea. I could see it being alienating to a large portion of the working class. That said, I don't know exactly the conditions of the American working class.

[The Douche]

Reading through this thread makes me feel incredibly incredibly non-American. Though I think Nachie has some decent posts I'm not sure how being based on a street gang model is too good of an idea. I could see it being alienating to a large portion of the working class. That said, I don't know exactly the conditions of the American working class.

I think "based on a street gang" is the wrong way to put it.

1) We find interesting things (from a sort of, sociological perspective) in street gangs.
2) When the term "communist street gang" is used, it should be understood in a specific way. It is not meant as a regular street gang who holds some affinity for communism. But organizing ourselves like a gang (which does not necessarily have to do with rackets or extortion) fighting for communism. Things like flying RAAN colors, street art, claiming territory, building neighborhoods into no-go zones for the police, taking care of our communities ourselves, providing necessary parts of life (food, protection, etc). These are things which gangs do/have historically done and that we seek to do, not as a street gang, but as a communist street gang.

[Honggweilo]

RAAN is an equal alliance between communists and anarchists and this leads us to the idea that our actions constitute "RAANismo" as a new synthesis

I lol'd

[Nachie]

I think nachie could probably relate parkour to politics the best.

It is the most serious and comprehensive strategic proposal I have ever seen from any group out there for a way to provide decentralized militaristic physical training to an organization of revolutionaries of any size. Since right now we don't want to create a centralized "armed wing" to train specialists in combat and organizing openly as a standing army also seems impossible, especially given that we have no "training camps" and can only use our immediate environment, diffusing training strategy through something like PK seems rather brilliant.

But as cmoney said there are also the Situationist influences, the liberatory catharsis one experiences when practicing the art, and the highly social aspect, all of which reinforce the effectiveness of it as a training/organizing tool for the network. Many people have called us lifestylists for enjoying Parkour, always without an appreciation for the long term implications of widespread dynamic physical training in a radical group and why we would have suggested that it could have a revolutionary character. To the extent that we have not had success in spreading it as an organized form of training in the anarchist movement (because the anarchist movement is not organized enough to train itself, even with parkour), since 2007 we have stopped publicly trying to organize Parkour groups outside of the network - something which was covered in the short essay "Whither Parkour?" in Emotional Poverty #5.

Blake since you seem to actually be engaging with some of our ideas perhaps you would like to comment on our old journal Emotional Poverty, since it is much more updated in content than a lot of the other texts on the site. Sloppy transcriptions of the last three issues are available here:

http://www.redanarchist.org/forum/index.php?topic=22.0
http://www.redanarchist.org/forum/index.php?topic=23.0
http://www.redanarchist.org/forum/index.php?topic=24.0

(they are eventually going to be cleaned up and posted as HTML documents as well as published in a single collection, we just haven't gotten around to it)

[Pirate Utopian]

RAAN is basically about being RBG (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RBG&defid=3762789).

Did I get that right?

[The Douche]

RAAN is basically about being RBG (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RBG&defid=3762789).

Did I get that right?

Some people in RAAN will probably agree with that and may even refer to themselves in that way.

I don't think it fits me though. Mostly because I assocaite RBG with hood culture, and I don't really identify with that very much.

[RED DAVE]

When the term "communist street gang" is used, it should be understood in a specific way. It is not meant as a regular street gang who holds some affinity for communism. But organizing ourselves like a gang (which does not necessarily have to do with rackets or extortion) fighting for communism. Things like flying RAAN colors, street art, claiming territory, building neighborhoods into no-go zones for the police, taking care of our communities ourselves, providing necessary parts of life (food, protection, etc). These are things which gangs do/have historically done and that we seek to do, not as a street gang, but as a communist street gang.(1) This is a serious distortion of the history and purposes of gangs.

(2) As a form of political organization, with a political program like this you've got to be kidding if you think this will get anywhere with the US working class right now.

RED DAVE

[ContrarianLemming]

What have i done?

by god close this thread! it will destroy us all!

[What Would Durruti Do?]

(1) This is a serious distortion of the history and purposes of gangs.

(2) As a form of political organization, with a political program like this you've got to be kidding if you think this will get anywhere with the US working class right now.

RED DAVE

Yeah, we've already been enlightened that selling newspapers is the only reasonable way to appeal to the working class by one of your comrades.

[RED DAVE]

Yeah, we've already been enlightened that selling newspapers is the only reasonable way to appeal to the working class by one of [RED DAVE's] comrades.The way to "appeal" to the working class is to work within and alongside the working class. This is a commitment that takes years. I have, personally, never found selling papers to be that important.

On the other hand, left-wingers imitating members of a street gang is activity best left for Halloween.

RED DAVE

[Nachie]

Actually we are members of a street gang who you are insisting should start imitating left-wingers, an activity best left for Halloween.

[The Feral Underclass]

I would just like the opportunity, for once on this board, to talk about RAANs actual politics and tactics.

Then talk about them...

[What Would Durruti Do?]

The way to "appeal" to the working class is to work within and alongside the working class. This is a commitment that takes years. I have, personally, never found selling papers to be that important.

On the other hand, left-wingers imitating members of a street gang is activity best left for Halloween.

RED DAVE


Things like flying RAAN colors, street art, claiming territory, building neighborhoods into no-go zones for the police, taking care of our communities ourselves, providing necessary parts of life (food, protection, etc).

How are these things not working within and alongside the working class while making our politics visibly clear? Are we also not the working class suddenly just because we choose different tactics than your typical campus communist who never once takes their politics out of the classroom/internet discussion and into the real world?

And while I would like to see the conversation stay on topic about RAAN, I'm curious about what your Leninist definition of "working within and alongside the working class" is. You said newspapers aren't that important, so what is important?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

But a moment ago you were using all the other socialist revolutions in history as the justifier for Leninism's validity? Now all the failures of the past can be ignored because the centralized Leninist party has hadn't a chance to shine in the belly of the beast? Howabout all the opportunism that ruined the CPUSA, which in the 20's and 30's actually still was revolutionary? Political formations engage in politics, I'm sorry.
Did the corruption of CPUSA not have anything to do with imperialist intervention, white counterrevolution, Stalin's revisionism and appeals to nationalism, racism, and killing the original Bolsheviks?

I don't want to ignore the past; let's try to learn from it. To say that the past proves the inability of a revolutionary vanguard to build a revolution is false. We can also see that although various groups which claimed to be Leninist made mistakes, they made some gains that materially challenged the exploitation and hegemony of capitalism.


I agree with you entirely; I am a proponent of the dictatorship of the proletariat and I am not afraid of using that term. But Leninists seem to have forgotten that the state is supposed to wither away! Lenin's shining inspiration for the blueprint of a socialist state was... the bureaucratic Prussian postal system/ how liberating!. And let's not quote Lenin's State and Revolution, let's look at what he actually did.

Does RAAN have an actual definition of "Leninism" that isn't just a strawman? Leninism is just the idea that we need a revolutionary party of the working class to build communism.


"(...) in all past revolutions, the mode of activity has always remained intact and the only issue has been a different distribution of this activity and a redistribution of work among different persons; whereas the communist revolution is directed against the mode of activity as it has existed up till now and abolishes work and the domination of all classes by abolishing classes themselves, because it is carried out by the class which is no longer, in society, considered as a class and which is already the expression of the dissolution of all classes and all nationalities, etc. within society itself (...)" (Marx, The German Ideology, 1845-46)

Communism isn't about putting the working class in power, but destroying/transcending both power and the working class.

Of course communism is without social classes, but it can be achieved only by a movement of the working class because social classes are the real manifestations of capitalism's inherent contradictions. He is saying that the communist revolution is carried out by the working class, which is only dissolved after working class consciousness advances to the point where it realizes the need to abolish capitalism because it is opposed to its material interests. The basis of communism is class struggle, and that means working class power. How else can the working class be abolished but by seizing the power to redefine society?


It's important to note that we do not take up the self-referential anarchist position of condemning Leninists only whenever they have slaughtered and/or destroyed anarchist movements, but rather condemning Leninists whenever they have slaughtered and/or destroyed the movement of the working class as an independent force.Are Leninists the only group susceptible to corruption?

[ContrarianLemming]

Are Leninists the only group susceptible to corruption?

I'll step in here and point out how the anarcho-syndicalist CGT, in one of it's votes, disallowed regular rank and file members from voting because they believed they were to reformist and stupid, compared to the anarchist delegates. Let it never be said anarchists don't do all the same shit Leninists did.

hurrah for anti sectarianism

[Rusty Shackleford]

But this thread has again became about Leninism and Manic's personal attacks against cmoney and not about RAAN, so I'm just gonna leave it at that.
dont forget RAAN having a thank-fest circle jerk. leninists do it too, dont be ashamed. (something along the lines of agreeing with people who have a similar tendency)

anyways, fine. well leave the discussion for some other place. i want to respond but ill respect this.

ok, sell me RAAN. or at least make this about RAAN.

[Nachie]

Fly Pan, I'm not ignoring your comments but I just have absolutely no interest in continuing to talk about Leninism. The whole existence of RAAN is predicated on the idea that Leninism, the Bolshevik tradition, the vanguard party, etc. is counterproductive to revolutionary struggle and that justifying those forms is not a valid use of one's time, nor is it conducive to practically uniting anarchists and communists. The only point at which interesting things start to happen is when Leninism is no longer in the picture.

Some may see this as a cop out, and so be it.

[ContrarianLemming]

dont forget RAAN having a thank-fest circle jerk. leninists do it too, dont be ashamed. (something along the lines of agreeing with people who have a similar tendency)


look at the first page, holy fruitcake

[ContrarianLemming]

The whole existence of RAAN is predicated on the idea that Leninism, the Bolshevik tradition, the vanguard party, etc. is counterproductive to revolutionary struggle

i thought it was about anti sectarianism, or class war, or revolution, or anti vangaudism, or..hey I can't blame ya for conflicting answers

[Nachie]

ok, sell me RAAN. or at least make this about RAAN.

There really isn't one grand sales pitch, though if you've read some of our more serious posts in this thread and the links I offered to Blake you could certainly be said to have had access to the "gist" of what we're bringing the table here.

If I knew more about your individual interests and experiences I would be able to approach you in a way more conducive to explaining how RAAN's strategy is applicable to your life... but over the Internet all we can really say is that we see it as the best possible way for radicals to start coming together and developing new approaches that are dynamic and flexible enough to actually work, both through the common creation of new theory and the simultaneous experience of various forms of organizational activity. This isn't to say that that is the end goal, but that we have to start there if our foundation is ever going to be strong enough for future goals to be achievable or even recognizable.

[ContrarianLemming]

There really isn't one grand sales pitch, though if you've read some of our more serious posts in this thread and the links I offered to Blake you could certainly be said to have had access to the "gist" of what we're bringing the table here.

maybe you cud sum up

[Nachie]

i thought it was about anti sectarianism, or class war, or revolution, or anti vangaudism, or..hey I can't blame ya for conflicting answers

Oh christ are you going to start bringing lazy slander into this, too?

One of those is actually the exact same thing you were quoting me on! Furthermore, anti-sectarianism between anarchists and communists is only possible via anti-Leninism, something revleft loves to prove through example again and again.

Class war or revolution were never presented as "the basis" of RAAN's ability to exist as an autonomist network, though of course they are very important to our ideological conception of self, and goals we work towards.

[Nachie]

maybe you cud sum up

I feel like I already made a valiant attempt in response to your question back on the first page (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1843749&postcount=14).

And as TAT said, it's really not rocket science. We're an organization of anarchists and communists working together under a single banner, using diversity of tactics and rejecting a "single-issue" focus. All of our documents are readily accessible on our website. What more do you want?

[ContrarianLemming]

anti-sectarianism between anarchists and communists is only possible via anti-Leninism

why?

[Nachie]

why?

It's something we noticed in the course of practical organizing. RAAN originally started as inclusive of everyone from Maoists to anarchists and very quickly we realized that it wasn't going to work at all haha

If somebody wants to prove us wrong they're more than welcome but in the meantime we will stick to just organizing with people who aren't ideologically tied to vanguardism and defense of Lenin as a historical figure.

EDIT: I'm not saying that anti-Leninism is the key point of unity between anarchists and communists in RAAN or in general, but it most certainly is a necessary step towards that unity ever existing in any sort of practical sense.

[Rusty Shackleford]

how big is RAAN anyways?

[Nachie]

It's hard to say, especially because we had no hub of communication for the better part of the previous 2 years, and things have happened during that time like the formation of several RAAN collectives on the east coast and in Canada that we have only heard about through independent internet documents. Although our website and forum seems fairly centralized, it in no way encompasses everyone who is reproducing RAANismo in some sense; for instance we recently had a comrade who was on tour with his band send us a photo of RAAN graffiti from a part of North Carolina (I think?) where to the best of our knowledge we have never been active in. I also just got into touch with people in Philly who were heavily influenced by the crew we used to have there, but have not made attempts to formally organize "as" RAAN. We have also had illegal direct actions take place in the network's name in places where no "above ground" presence is known to exist, so we cannot know how many people actually participated in said actions.

But to stop beating around the bush, I would say right now that we are a dozen to two dozen "core" members and then a wider radius of people who are influenced, supportive, or engage in RAAN actions occasionally but do not use the network as their primary identifier (which of course is fine). Also a large number of individuals who unfortunately are very pro-RAAN but do not make the connection that they do not need to be contacted or "recruited" by official representatives in order to begin acting in the network's name.

There is also a white supremacist blog from Australia which several years ago claimed to have pictures of two RAAN members from that country, but to the best of our knowledge we haven't been active there. You have to understand that only the most visible and consciously-reported actions ever even get displayed on our website. We do have a group of people that recently came together in London though, but again there is no way to say how many people are actively involved nor would it seem responsible to do so.

[syndicat]

Things like flying RAAN colors, street art, claiming territory, building neighborhoods into no-go zones for the police, taking care of our communities ourselves, providing necessary parts of life (food, protection,
etc).
How are these things not working within and alongside the working class while making our politics visibly clear? Are we also not the working class suddenly just because we choose different tactics than your typical campus communist who never once takes their politics out of the classroom/internet discussion and into the real world?


A group is not a class group just because its members are sociologically members of the working class (which is something like 75 percent of the population). It depends upon whether it is formed on a class basis, such as an organization in a workplace that is open to, tries to bring together, all those workers prepared to fight the boss, or a tenant organization that organizes people willing to fight their landlords.

Your words sound substitutionist. if a liberatory revolution is an action of the class, than it needs to emerge from, be a product of, an organized class movement.

and doing social welfare work like food giveaways does not overcome the substitutionism.


I'll step in here and point out how the anarcho-syndicalist CGT, in one of it's votes, disallowed regular rank and file members from voting because they believed they were to reformist and stupid, compared to the anarchist delegates.

I'd like to see evidence for this. various criticisms of this type are produced by anarchist sectarians...such as the claim that the CGT accepts police or prison guards as members (which is not true).

[What Would Durruti Do?]

It depends upon whether it is formed on a class basis, such as an organization in a workplace that is open to, tries to bring together, all those workers prepared to fight the boss, or a tenant organization that organizes people willing to fight their landlords.

And we aren't? Or is your point that RAAN isn't a class organization because it isn't just single-issue? Because that is just silly.


Your words sound substitutionist. if a liberatory revolution is an action of the class, than it needs to emerge from, be a product of, an organized class movement.

Ok...

[this is an invasion]

A group is not a class group just because its members are sociologically members of the working class (which is something like 75 percent of the population). It depends upon whether it is formed on a class basis, such as an organization in a workplace that is open to, tries to bring together, all those workers prepared to fight the boss, or a tenant organization that organizes people willing to fight their landlords.



Well, like, those are some of the things we would like to be able to do in the future. In Modesto we are in the beginning stages of creating a tenants organization similar to Seattle Solidarity Network...

[Chambered Word]

Every single RAAN thread I see confirms my expectations of the group as being one big jerk off. In the time I set aside to do political work, I would much rather be doing 'boring' things like selling papers, going to demonstrations, having discussions and talking to workers about politics than smashing up parking meters.


There is also a white supremacist blog from Australia

Link?

[this is an invasion]

Every single RAAN thread I see confirms my expectations of the group as being one big jerk off. In the time I set aside to do political work, I would much rather be doing 'boring' things like selling papers, going to demonstrations, having discussions and talking to workers about politics than smashing up parking meters.



Link?

I have no idea why it's so hard for Leninists to comprehend the No Bullshit Policy, or why ya'll think RAANistas only do property damage.

[Nachie]

Link?

look at the second post down (http://whitelawtowers.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html) <--- WARNING: This appears to be a racist website posting images of radicals, so if that's not cool by forum guidelines to post, please remove it. I am merely responding to C. Lewis' question in the interest of not looking like I made the whole thing up. As I mentioned I cannot speak as to if there is/was RAAN in Australia, but the other pictures there are from our Radical Anti-Authoritarian Defense (RAAN's RAAD) trainings several years ago in Montana.

Also here is a link to the No Bullshit Policy (http://illvox.org/2007/06/the-functioning-of-a-network-a-no-bullshit-policy-versus-the-lethargy-of-activism) this is an invasion just mentioned, for those who haven't seen it or didn't realize that we have one.

[syndicat]

And we aren't? Or is your point that RAAN isn't a class organization because it isn't just single-issue? Because that is just silly.


there is a distinction between an organization like RAAN that is put together on the basis of political agreement with a revolutionary ideology, and a class/mass organization. this is why most of the organized class struggle anarchist movement in the USA adheres to dual organizationalism. the RAAN principles makes reference to the Platform but the Platform is dual organizatonal in that it is careful about respecting the autonomy of the masss organizations in which members of the specific or libertarian communist organization are active. this means there is inevitably going to be diversity of views in class/mass organizations. and this also means we have to have the patience to respect this in the mass struggle organizations and campaigns.

[Nachie]

the RAAN principles makes reference to the Platform but the Platform is dual organizatonal in that it is careful about respecting the autonomy of the masss organizations in which members of the specific or libertarian communist organization are active. this means there is inevitably going to be diversity of views in class/mass organizations. and this also means we have to have the patience to respect this in the mass struggle organizations and campaigns.

I'm sorry but in what way does RAAN not allow for this? Please actually give a tangible example. Sure, Leninists and liberals are not welcome in RAAN (the "specific" organization) but that doesn't mean we haven't worked in close proximity to them in various other campaigns. Quite a fair bit of the organizing done by RAANistas is not done "as" RAAN and given the high level of an individual's autonomy in our organization it is ridiculous to claim that we somehow restrict people from working with other groups outside of our organization.

There is a huge difference between pointing out that RAAN does not match your description of a mass/class organization, and making stuff up about how we don't "respect the autonomy" of mass/class organizations and campaigns. I really think you're just grumpy and don't like us?

[GreenCommunism]

i am very interested in RAAN , i wondered if you could be part of it and another party since i joined a leninist party not so long ago, i changed to a left-communist a month or 2 after i paid my dues but i still like them since they allow me to speak my point of view and they don't seem sectarian.

[Nachie]

Absolutely! We do not infringe on the autonomy of individual members to participate in any other activities outside of RAAN, we just expect that when presenting the positions of the organization or speaking for it or acting in its name, you adhere to the founding principles (IE, we are not down for vanguardism, we consider anarchists to be comrades, etc).

You know how to get a hold of us, so let us know if there's anything we can do to help you out with any projects you might be interested in! :)

[Os Cangaceiros]

I really like the structure of RAAN, personally. I think that it strikes the right balance between autonomy and collective purpose/action. The cell structure also has the benefit of allowing members to take part in direct action against the state/capital without putting the entire organization in jeopardy (I have no illusions about the benefits of possibly illegal action insofar as "making the revolution" is concerned, or even harming capitalism in any sort of meaningful way, but I don't necessarily oppose it, either).

And all of you who wish to portray the group as a bunch of dumb hooligans with no real working-class ethic as far as organization goes: my family background is one of unionists and union organizers. I've seen first-hand the benefits of workers organizing together in order to prevent being royally screwed by those who wish to profit from them, and I believe that only through organization can the exploited classes survive. And I also sympathize with RAAN...in fact I don't see any reason why one couldn't be a member of RAAN and also be a member of NEFAC, or even whatever their local union is. (A point that Nachie has already mentioned, and obviously has failed to sink in over the course of other RAAN threads.)

[black magick hustla]

I guess I am going to point down what are my beefs with RAAN, in a constructive manner, rather than typing one line trolls.

-I don´t like the celebration of criminality. I think it is hella immature and silly. Yea I know early 20th century stirnerites with guns where hella sick but seriously dawg. Raanistas are not certainly the first to try the whole red street crew thing. Even if we see recent history, we see antifascist street gangs and a whole subculture revolving around rash and red skinheads. Gangs´ purpose is generally one of violence, and I dont think this is what is necessary.

-I think militancy and centralized organizations are useful. I do agree that some militants take it into ridiculous extents and appear like robots, but what is wrong with an average, paying dues organization? They serve as a hub to reunite people from different places and clarify politics and give a shape to outside militancy. For example, I will put as an example the ICC. The American section has basically survived because it is part of a centralized, international organization. The sections from third world countries are routinely helped financially by the richer, first world sections. The council communists dissappeared from the face of the earth because of their distrust for political organizations.

-Obviously I have some more abstract, theoretical concerns with RAAN. I dont think the main contradiction in the world today is between order givers or order takers, but between capitalist and workers. Obviously there is some correlation, but they are not the same thing. I think this is a problem with anarchists because they fetishize a particular form of organization out of fear of class stratification. I am with Bordiga on this, that democracy (or organizational concerns in general) should not be elevated into a principle, but strategy should be subservient to the goal of communism. Now nachie might say he is not an anarchist or whatever, but I do think he is. He might use a lot of marxist rhetoric, but he is in the same vein as people who call themselves libertarian marxists (i.e. anarchists that like marxists) because of that distrust for centralism and the antiauthoritarian rhetoric, the latter which is not really part of marxist thought imo


-RAAN is more or less the effect of what the ICC terms as modernism, which arrised in the 60s with people like Cammatte, Dauve, or the Situationists. Its not necessarily counterrevolutionary, but its a bit murky. Modernism is exemplified into two main fronts, the idea that the working class has been integrated to capitalism and it loses its revolutionary potential (Camatte), or the distrust of political clarity ,organization, and militancy (Situationists, Dauve). Obviously a revolution will not happen by the sheer will of a few militants and their correct theoretical line, BUT, the militant is essentially part of the class, and it is spitted by it. So, the political strength of communist militants correlates with the strength of the class and it is a component of the communist movement.

I would put here the fact that I appreciate Lenin, but tbh lenin is dead so whatever. However, the kindof immature stance of anti leninism does betray a distrust of centralism which comes from the idea that the world is divided between order givers and order takers, which is not true.

[black magick hustla]

fuck this im gonna smoke and continue reading physics this was prolly a waste

[black magick hustla]

i should be drunk instead its friday

[meow]

very interesting discussion. i have to say i like what i read of raan. can i join? (:p) i just wish more people around were interested in anarchist politik.

maldoror has interesting analysis too. i am intersted in what raan people have to say in response. more particularly the bits about modernism and council communism. is raan doomed?

[Magón]

My only problem with RAAN, is that you guys are too spread out so you don't know your numbers. I like how you're sort of autonomous from one another, and deal with your own shit, in your own neck of the woods. But I do have a problem with you guys not knowing your numbers. I think something like a world wide census to get a reasonable RAAN numbers could do, but then again, I'm not sure how many RAANista's would be down for taking a simple census that would just basically say: Yes or No to the question "Am I apart of RAAN".

[Widerstand]

He might use a lot of marxist rhetoric, but he is in the same vein as people who call themselves libertarian marxists (i.e. anarchists that like marxists) because of that distrust for centralism and the antiauthoritarian rhetoric, the latter which is not really part of marxist thought imo

I don't think you can, let alone should, separate Anarchism from Marxism. As far as I know, most Anarchists agree with a lot of Marx' analysis and theory, and the parts where they disagree really comes, in most cases, down to state vs. no state. Also, weren't some early Anarchists - Bakunin comes to mind - greatly influenced by Marx? Sure, it's always been sort of a love/hate love, but love nonetheless.

[Raúl Duke]

My only problem with RAAN, is that you guys are too spread out so you don't know your numbers. I like how you're sort of autonomous from one another, and deal with your own shit, in your own neck of the woods. But I do have a problem with you guys not knowing your numbers. I think something like a world wide census to get a reasonable RAAN numbers could do, but then again, I'm not sure how many RAANista's would be down for taking a simple census that would just basically say: Yes or No to the question "Am I apart of RAAN".

But what's important about knowing the numbers in RAAN?

Like, why?

On a side note related to this, I feel that some sections left has a pre-ocupation with membership numbers that a lot of the activities stem towards increasing members (sometimes in a way that is ineffective because they don't resolve issues or set up things in a way that stops people from leaving soon afterward; i.e. a revolving door) but really does little or nothing in terms of agitating the working class, increasing working class militancy, move us "toward revolution," etc.

[The Douche]

-I don´t like the celebration of criminality. I think it is hella immature and silly. Yea I know early 20th century stirnerites with guns where hella sick but seriously dawg. Raanistas are not certainly the first to try the whole red street crew thing. Even if we see recent history, we see antifascist street gangs and a whole subculture revolving around rash and red skinheads. Gangs´ purpose is generally one of violence, and I dont think this is what is necessary.


I don't think this is universal through out RAAN. And RAANs conception of the gang is in a lot of ways influenced by Red Action (before they reversed their position) and RASH. There was a pretty big influx of RASH deserters/dissenters into RAAN a few yers back. I disagree with your assertion that the purpose of gangs is violence, I think the purpose of a gang is to be a structure of support. The gang provides a family structure, you have people to rely on for all your needs, does that involve violence sometimes? Yes, but I think you know, cause you're a real working class kid, and not just some middle class grad student, that violence is nothing abstract to many of us in the real world.

As far as the glorification of criminality, meh, I certainly don't think everybody feels that way, but this is nothing exclusive to RAAN, and I think you're probably familiar with the theory of social war, and how simple acts of criminality, when directed against state and capital, can and do become politically charged.


-I think militancy and centralized organizations are useful. I do agree that some militants take it into ridiculous extents and appear like robots, but what is wrong with an average, paying dues organization? They serve as a hub to reunite people from different places and clarify politics and give a shape to outside militancy. For example, I will put as an example the ICC. The American section has basically survived because it is part of a centralized, international organization. The sections from third world countries are routinely helped financially by the richer, first world sections. The council communists dissappeared from the face of the earth because of their distrust for political organizations.

Just because we don't have dues, we're not an organization? I don't see how we're not, we have defined politics, publications, a website etc. RAAN's publica face, in a large way, disappeared for a few years and people who we never met or talked to still managed to claim RAAN and do things with it, and individual members were still able to keep in touch and get things put back together, now look, RAAN is a large part of the discussion on this site.


-Obviously I have some more abstract, theoretical concerns with RAAN. I dont think the main contradiction in the world today is between order givers or order takers, but between capitalist and workers. Obviously there is some correlation, but they are not the same thing. I think this is a problem with anarchists because they fetishize a particular form of organization out of fear of class stratification. I am with Bordiga on this, that democracy (or organizational concerns in general) should not be elevated into a principle, but strategy should be subservient to the goal of communism. Now nachie might say he is not an anarchist or whatever, but I do think he is. He might use a lot of marxist rhetoric, but he is in the same vein as people who call themselves libertarian marxists (i.e. anarchists that like marxists) because of that distrust for centralism and the antiauthoritarian rhetoric, the latter which is not really part of marxist thought imo

This just seems like an "agree to disagree" sort of thing. I have experience with a traditional political party (SP-USA) and with the IWW, and I don't think their organizational principles were effective. I kind of expected, when I joined the IWW, for somebody to at least email or call and say "where do you work? what are the prospects for you to organize? what can we help you with? we're sending you some info to help you start building a union", but I never did anything but pay my dues and get a newspaper. In the SP there was a constant expectation for our chapter to 1) report back on what we were doing and 2) get more members, so we ended up pressuring anybody we worked with to sign up, which led to really wishy-washy and inactive people in the chapter. It meant that pretty much everything was pushed onto me, responsibility wise, and it meant that we were doing pointless actions with liberal anti-war groups.

I think its a little rude to call nachie an anarchist despite what he says. I don't think he is an anarchist. Maybe you ought to become more familiar with autonomist-marxism?


-RAAN is more or less the effect of what the ICC terms as modernism, which arrised in the 60s with people like Cammatte, Dauve, or the Situationists. Its not necessarily counterrevolutionary, but its a bit murky. Modernism is exemplified into two main fronts, the idea that the working class has been integrated to capitalism and it loses its revolutionary potential (Camatte), or the distrust of political clarity ,organization, and militancy (Situationists, Dauve). Obviously a revolution will not happen by the sheer will of a few militants and their correct theoretical line, BUT, the militant is essentially part of the class, and it is spitted by it. So, the political strength of communist militants correlates with the strength of the class and it is a component of the communist movement.


I had a thread involving Camatte on the RAAN board, and pretty much no RAANistas were familiar with him, and I'm pretty sure you were the one who suggested him to me.(thanks btw) I don't think Camatte has a big influence on RAAN, the only thing I can see about him, or primitivism in general that applies is alienation. The situationists and Dauve though, I think have a pretty big influence on RAAN, unfortunately I have yet to read my Situ. Anthology so I don't feel comfortable talking about it.

Other than all that, I think I agree with the second half or your post. I don't think Dauve disagree with clarity, organization, or militancy. But perhaps we have different understandings of those terms.


I would put here the fact that I appreciate Lenin, but tbh lenin is dead so whatever. However, the kindof immature stance of anti leninism does betray a distrust of centralism which comes from the idea that the world is divided between order givers and order takers, which is not true.

Sorry, but, how is it not?

[Nachie]

Some stuff to add to what cmoney just laid down:

- Comparing us to RASH and red skinheads doesn't make sense to me because those groups are by their very nature subcultural: only skinheads were ever going to get involved! We are not trying to organize a subculture but perhaps create a brand new, more diverse one: RAANismo. And I use subculture very lightly here; we're not trying to become a subculture really, it's just that our attempts to create a strong identity for the organization can be described by some as subcultural.

I also don't agree that our primary purpose is violence, even if that of many street gangs is. Speaking personally I think violence is abhorrent and runs counter to my personal growth and the health of my community so in terms of my personal expressions of RAANismo I'd rather be planting fruit trees and organizing free urban gardens. However the ability of something as divergent from that as property destruction to be taking place simultaneously through the same organization is quite a strength.

I should add, that clandestine direct action was primarily taken by RAAN during years when it was suspected that nobody took us seriously, so certain militants took it upon themselves to try and use those tactics to create "credibility" for the organization. In some senses it worked, but I think it was mostly a wasted effort since these "flashy" actions were often alienating in the sense that they did not directly result in very many new people understanding RAAN as a project that they could take up for themselves.

- There's nothing wrong with paying dues for people who want to pay dues, and we have provisions for regional branches and even nationwide frameworks within the network to set up membership requirements, etc. as they feel them to become necessary. But at the same time we hold that nobody would have to be an official member of said regional branch or project to still be able to carry out activities in the name of RAAN either as an individual or as a separate group. We believe in a diversity of approaches because we want to pull in a lot of different involvement and understand that over time it is only the effective models that will survive via meritocracy - we just don't presume to already know which "effective models" to impose upon the movement.

- I agree with you that the main contradiction in the world is between capitalists and workers rather than order givers and order takers, and I respect that this theoretical framework of an irreconcilable difference in world views is where you're coming from and the analysis that you wish to fit us in, but we simply don't see it that way. I mean, where do we say that the main contradiction isn't the economic mode of production? We actually have a section AGAINST democracy in our principles, that was written by a Bordgist!

As for your assertion that I personally am in fact an anarchist, I find it pretty laughable but do not take offense. One of the nicest things about RAAN (though it can also be frustrating) is that all the anarchists think we're communists and all the communists think we're anarchists. This must mean we're doing something right!

- Camatte (only one "M"), Dauve (yes!), and the Situs have definitely been influences on us (though as cmoney pointed out, Camatte much much less so). However again I don't see how this allows you to cram us into the ICC's theoretical framework of "Modernism"; none of those writers are our primary influences or anything, and I don't know where in RAAN you see a distrust for organizations or militancy since we are so obviously trying very hard to create a very physical (in terms of its existence) militant organization. I think our drive is very much to build the "political strength of communist militants", much more so than many so-called communist organizations who engage in wishy washy opportunism, etc.

- On the whole Lenin thing, our principles state clearly "...some members of RAAN may hold sympathy for some of Lenin's ideas..." but as you said, the dude is dead. But many people don't realize that! What we are against is the image of Lenin being paraded around as some sort of God, which is what the Leninists love to do. We are, yes, also diametrically opposed to organizational structures which allow men like Lenin and Stalin to become entrenched in power or for the interests of the "party" in one country to supersede the interests of internationalist revolution as a whole, but again I don't think this comes from what you insist is our only viewing the world as being divided by order givers and order takers...

The true reason we are so anti-Leninist though is not based on an anarchist analysis of hierarchy but because we have so many ex-Leninists in our ranks! Many anarchists have actually said that we're way too harsh on "fellow leftists" (hah!) but those of us who have spent time in Leninist groups or whatever have an absolute visceral hatred for the kind of things they produce and are determined to never see RAAN go down that path. So yes, it's personal.

Also I just wanna give some extra support to what Raul Duke said! And Nin, I think it is a ridiculous notion that RAAN is ineffective unless we know exactly how many members we have, especially given that some of us are involved in illegal activity and wish to stay anonymous. We have people who don't consider themselves "RAANistas" but help us out with theoretical development, graphics, and design of publications, and then we have people even on this forum who maybe don't consider themselves RAANistas or have never been physically involved in a RAAN project (which technically is the only moment in which anyone is a "full member of RAAN") but still speak up in support of our project. All these different layers of activity are very important and it does us no good to try and draw a line in the sand about who is really with us and who really isn't because often times the people who claim they are can't be counted on to actually do anything in the long term and then the people who don't claim they are, are the ones who really come through in the end when it comes to actually making something happen :)

[bailey_187]

i completly disagree with nearly all of what RAAN has to say, but the members on this board generally seem less uptight than most others.

[bailey_187]

we could be friends if there wasnt a mutual understanding that its very likley one of us will be executing the other one day :(

[The Douche]

we could be friends if there wasnt a mutual understanding that its very likley one of us will be executing the other one day :(

Its cool, we'll give you a show trial first.;)

[revolution inaction]

I've been wondering, does raan have any internal structure at all? cause i get the impression from what the raanist have been saying that it doesn't, and if this is the case how is it an organisation?

[The Douche]

I think "organization" is the wrong word. We have at times called RAAN an "(anti)political (dis)organization". Our name denotes us as a "network" which is probably more accurate, as anybody who agrees with the p&d can organize/act as RAAN.

[Devrim]

- Comparing us to RASH and red skinheads doesn't make sense to me because those groups are by their very nature subcultural: only skinheads were ever going to get involved! We are not trying to organize a subculture but perhaps create a brand new, more diverse one: RAANismo. And I use subculture very lightly here; we're not trying to become a subculture really, it's just that our attempts to create a strong identity for the organization can be described by some as subcultural.

Why would anybody want to 'create a subculture'. I suppose it is something to do if you are in the marketing business, but I don't think that it has much to do with communist politics. Even when you put it down to 'creating a strong identity for the organization' surely that is something that should be done by its politics, not by 'building an image'


I also don't agree that our primary purpose is violence, even if that of many street gangs is. Speaking personally I think violence is abhorrent and runs counter to my personal growth and the health of my community so in terms of my personal expressions of RAANismo I'd rather be planting fruit trees and organizing free urban gardens. However the ability of something as divergent from that as property destruction to be taking place simultaneously through the same organization is quite a strength..

The alternative you present is just as bad politically, though possibly slightly more pleasant on a personal level. What does 'organizing free urban gardens' have to do with communist politics?


I should add, that clandestine direct action was primarily taken by RAAN during years when it was suspected that nobody took us seriously, so certain militants took it upon themselves to try and use those tactics to create "credibility" for the organization. In some senses it worked, but I think it was mostly a wasted effort since these "flashy" actions were often alienating in the sense that they did not directly result in very many new people understanding RAAN as a project that they could take up for themselves.

I don't think that you created any 'credibility' for yourselves. I think that you just made yourselves look rather foolish. I mean what was all that nonsense about attacking a Maoist bookshop. Now, I think that Maoism is a completly reactionary, nationalist anti-working class ideology, but I don't see how vandalising one of their bookshops is anything but stuntism. What does it have to do with working class politics.

Also I think that their is a very distinct thread of substitutionalism that runs through things like 'clandestine direct action'. It is not the job of communists to substitute themselves for the class.


- There's nothing wrong with paying dues for people who want to pay dues,

I don't pay dues because I 'want to'. I do it because it is necessary for running a political organisation.


But at the same time we hold that nobody would have to be an official member of said regional branch or project to still be able to carry out activities in the name of RAAN either as an individual or as a separate group

Surely the communist project is a collective endeavour, not an individual one, and with that comes collective responsibility to your comrades.


- Camatte (only one "M"), Dauve (yes!), and the Situs have definitely been influences on us (though as cmoney pointed out, Camatte much much less so). However again I don't see how this allows you to cram us into the ICC's theoretical framework of "Modernism";

It is a pretty poor framework to be honest.

Devrim

[Raúl Duke]

I've been wondering, does raan have any internal structure at all? cause i get the impression from what the raanist have been saying that it doesn't, and if this is the case how is it an organisation?


I'm not involved physically with RAAN, but I assume that RAAN is foremost a network between individuals (and/or groups of individuals) who at times form ad-hoc groupings with other RAANistas and friends for the purpose of accomplishing something (whether short-term action or a long-term project) and than the group, in an organizational sense (since they may be friends or become friends, and friendship doesn't dissolve this way), more or less dissolves after this activity (which may or may not carry the RAAN banner/designation).

Even the network itself has a bit of informality to it, in essence from what I gathered (my understanding) is that RAAN is, in its smallest denominator, like an organizational banner.

[The Feral Underclass]

So RAAN are like anti-Leninist, right?

[Os Cangaceiros]

So RAAN are like anti-Leninist, right?

http://www.gomonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/can-of-worms.jpg

[Nachie]

haha RAAN of worms! (totally gonna be our new symbol)

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_organisation


Even when you put it down to 'creating a strong identity for the organization' surely that is something that should be done by its politics, not by 'building an image'

For sure, and we don't want to give the impression that the image we're building is hollow, because we definitely believe that there is weighty content to our politics and analysis - particularly in terms of the elaboration of the organizational model. Those politics are what build the image, but there also has to be a conscious effort to direct the form of the image so that it is easily replicable and therefore creates as many point of access to the politics as possible. Right now communist politics are not very accessible to most people so building a cultural point of reference for them seems like a good long-term strategy.

Also every time I see this thread I think,

Let's talk about RAAN, bay-bee
Let's talk about you, and meee

[Devrim]

Right now communist politics are not very accessible to most people so building a cultural point of reference for them seems like a good long-term strategy.


Do you think that this is down to the weakness of the working class or to bad marketing?

Devrim

[Nachie]

a little bit of both, really. certainly the inaccessibility of communist politics to the working class is indicative of its weakness as a class, but the inability of communist/anarchist militants to not be total fuckups and have to reinvent the wheel over and over in every city does have something to do with terrible marketing in terms of how much we've failed to become a coherent movement.

*shrug*

[The Douche]

Do you think that this is down to the weakness of the working class or to bad marketing?

Devrim

I would say that it is definitely both. Of course here in that states we are at a low point of militancy but also the left has not recovered from the soviet and Chinese attempts.

[Zanthorus]

We actually have a section AGAINST democracy in our principles, that was written by a Bordgist!

I find it pretty difficult to believe that any "Bordigist" would actually write anything for the principles of an "anti-Leninist" organisation. I also don't see how you can be both anti-democracy and anti-Leninist since most of the objections to Leninism seem to be questioning the revolutionary role of minorities.

You claim that Leninist organisation structures allow "men like Lenin and Stalin" to take power and subordinate the interests of internationalist revolution, but all decrees of the early Soviet government were voted on by Sovnarkom and ratified by the Central Executive Committee of the All-Russia Congress of Soviets and Lenin never held any extra-constitutional role. It was the Bolshevik party as a whole with it's intense factional debates which ruled the early Soviet Union. You are also conflating the Leninist organisational structure with the issue of wether the party should take power and exercise it's own party dictatorship. I think the two are analytically separate, and that it's possible to support a "Leninist" type party structure without supporting the seizure of power by that party.