Where Do We Go From Here

[Victus Mortuum]

Comrades,

The name's Aaron and I'm from KC/MO/US. I'm relatively new to the area and am still exploring the left organizations here. I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist/Social Proletocrat (I've been in correspondence with J Richter for quite some time, for those of you familiar). I've long been into philosophy and read the works of Marx and many others. I think a big issue that needs addressed is ACTUAL ORGANIZATION AND ACTIVITY. Where we actively need to be going and what we need to be doing. Anyway, look forward to getting to know the boards here.

- Aaron

[Magón]

First off, welcome.

Second, by activity do you mean straight up Revolution, or just getting people into the mindset to start Revolution? Because if you haven't realized already in the US, the US Working Class is not the best place right now for a Revolutionary start. As for Organization, I dunno? There's the SPA, RAAN, IWW, blah, blah, blah that you could look into.

[ContrarianLemming]

From here, take a left, two rights and keep going till you hit a dead end and go down the stairs and through the door at the end leaving you at a place called "Chit chat".

[Sentinel]

Welcome to Revleft! :)



(I've been in correspondence with J Richter for quite some time, for those of you familiar).


When you said Social Proletocrat, that kind of made me suspect that you might know him. ;)

I've had the privilege of belonging to this community together with Die Neue Zeit (Jacob Richter) for a couple of years by now, and I generally think he's a nice person.

[Os Cangaceiros]

LOL, that makes two "social proletocrats" one this site. :lol:

[Victus Mortuum]

Second, by activity do you mean straight up Revolution, or just getting people into the mindset to start Revolution?

I mean something like breaking people from false ideologies and developing a means of continuing activeness and gaining press/larger scale awareness (due to positive things) with a clear long-term plan that has an end goal that is effectively necessitated by the steps...


Because if you haven't realized already in the US, the US Working Class is not the best place right now for a Revolutionary start. As for Organization, I dunno? There's the SPA, RAAN, IWW, blah, blah, blah that you could look into.

Eh, the workers in the US are rapidly falling off their pedestal, and they and the rest of Western workers will continue to grow worse and worse off until they must organize more radically. Besides, I have found that people are incredibly receptive to radical ideas, if they aren't presented in words that have lost or changed their meaning to the general public.

[Nachie]

Yep, join RAAN.

[Q]

Welcome dear social proletocrat :)

[Sentinel]

join RAAN.


Does RAAN currently have many Social Proletocrat members?

;)

Long time no see, btw Nachie :)

[Victus Mortuum]

If there's a word that is most counter-defined by the radical left and popular culture it is anarchism. To call yourself an anarchist is to necessarily alienate yourself from the overwhelming majority (due to drastically different definitions of the term).

[Nachie]

Which is why you organize and gain influence based not off some ideology but rather the gestalt created by your imagery, culture, and physical activities. As you said, many people are incredibly receptive to radical ideas but they have to be presented as an activity, as a lifestyle, not as an ideology.

[Magón]

I mean something like breaking people from false ideologies and developing a means of continuing activeness and gaining press/larger scale awareness (due to positive things) with a clear long-term plan that has an end goal that is effectively necessitated by the steps...



Eh, the workers in the US are rapidly falling off their pedestal, and they and the rest of Western workers will continue to grow worse and worse off until they must organize more radically. Besides, I have found that people are incredibly receptive to radical ideas, if they aren't presented in words that have lost or changed their meaning to the general public.

I agree on the US Workers, etc. As for everything else...

We Anarchists have the Black Bloc and RAAN. (RAAN like to smash up parking meters and stuff. :lol: ) Though the Black Bloc is usually seen on the news or whatever, when G20's happening. Plus we've got the NYC and SF Anarchist Book Fair.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Belated welcome to a comrade!

[Oh, and ignore the RAANites. The only anarchists worth considering for serious discussion are class-strugglist anarchists (generally they call themselves "anarcho-syndicalists"), despite their economism. Everyone else is a utopian, lifestylist, hooligan, or "insurrectionist" anarchist.]


LOL, that makes two "social proletocrats" one this site. :lol:

Correction: That's two official Social-Proletocratic comrades. There are other comrades who have accepted the basic positions, but are hesitant to call themselves such.

[AK]

Belated welcome to a comrade!

[Oh, and ignore the RAANites. The only anarchists worth considering for serious discussion are class-strugglist anarchists (generally they call themselves "anarcho-syndicalists"), despite their economism. Everyone else is a utopian, lifestylist, hooligan, or "insurrectionist" anarchist.]



I'm a "RAANite"
I place huge emphasis on class struggle
I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist

Why is that?

[Ravachol]

[Oh, and ignore the RAANites. The only anarchists worth considering for serious discussion are class-strugglist anarchists (generally they call themselves "anarcho-syndicalists"), despite their economism. Everyone else is a utopian, lifestylist, hooligan, or "insurrectionist" anarchist.]

As an anarcho-syndicalist I say: :laugh:

Honestly bro, do you ever listen to yourself.
What's with the ad-hominems on this board... "Everyone else is (utopian/lifestylist/hooligan/insurrectionist/revisionist/social-fascist/anarcho-trot/brezhnevite/lumpenscum)" :rolleyes:

[bricolage]

Correction: That's two official Social-Proletocratic comrades. There are other comrades who have accepted the basic positions, but are hesitant to call themselves such.
Don't flatter yourself.

[Q]

Correction: That's two official Social-Proletocratic comrades. There are other comrades who have accepted the basic positions, but are hesitant to call themselves such.

Yeah well, "social-proletocrat" is a rather awkward term... I'll just stick with communist or somesuch.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Paul Cockshott suggested social-ergatocratic, but the main point is that the c-word is appropriate in only one instance: the communist mode of production.

[Q]

^^^ Paul Cockshott suggested social-ergatocratic
Not much of an improvement :p

but the main point is that the c-word is appropriate in only one instance: the communist mode of production.
I disagree. I'm a communist in that I strive towards (the lower phase of) communism.

[revolution inaction]

[Oh, and ignore the RAANites. The only anarchists worth considering for serious discussion are class-strugglist anarchists (generally they call themselves "anarcho-syndicalists"), despite their economism. Everyone else is a utopian, lifestylist, hooligan, or "insurrectionist" anarchist.]


this is bullshit, i'm not a syndicalist

[Q]

this is bullshit, i'm not a syndicalist

Hence you're not up for "serious" discussion? ;)

[BeerShaman]

For me anarchists are diversified by these two labels, social and individualist. So simple, no more diversity needed.

[revolution inaction]

Hence you're not up for "serious" discussion? ;)

i suppose if DNZ doesn't want to have a "serious" discussion with me its not so bad :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

this is bullshit, i'm not a syndicalist

According to my classification, you're probably an insurrectionist.

[revolution inaction]

According to my classification, you're probably an insurrectionist.

thats because your an idiot

[Paul Cockshott]

^^^ Paul Cockshott suggested social-ergatocratic, but the main point is that the c-word is appropriate in only one instance: the communist mode of production.
Not clear what that means!

[Paul Cockshott]

^^^ Paul Cockshott suggested social-ergatocratic, but the main point is that the c-word is appropriate in only one instance: the communist mode of production.
Not clear what that means!

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Paul Cockshott suggested social-ergatocratic, but the main point is that the c-word is appropriate in only one instance: the communist mode of production.Not clear what that means!

"'Great Betrayals': Dumping 'Communist,' 'Socialist,' and Various Other Labels" in my CSR theoretical pamphlet and the neologism emphasis in that work was the same as your emphasis on "new socialism" back in the 1990s as a more politically palatable labelling for those advocating the communist mode of production. Even the "new communism" of David Harvey isn't enough:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-enigma-of-capital-and-the-crises-of-capitalism-by-david-harvey-1958010.html


Harvey argues that each major capitalist crisis has been worse than the last one, and more difficult to surmount. He accepts that capitalism, with all its resilience and inventiveness, is quite capable of overcoming this crisis too; but he is sceptical, and believes that this is the moment that a revived anti-capitalist movement can seize the opportunity to put forward a realistic alternative to capitalism as a way of organising the economy.

This is perhaps where the argument is least convincing. The anti-capitalist left is fragmented and not particularly numerous. Radical political responses during previous capitalist crises have often favoured the right. The rise of China and India, both of which have continued to grow through the recession, suggests that the fundamental shift in the balance of the global economy is only just beginning, and if it continues is likely to provide huge potential for growth and absorption of surplus, provided certain political conditions are met.

This will not be easy but is certainly possible. Marx thought that no social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed. On the evidence Harvey himself provides, capitalism still has a long way to go before that is the case, and no gravediggers are in sight.

But this book is a welcome addition to the literature on the crisis. It provides a lucid and penetrating account of how the power of capital shapes our world, and sets out the case for a new radicalism and a vision of alternatives. What we need, he argues, is not just a new world but a new communism, following the failure of the old - although he does accept ruefully that using "communist" as a political label may not bring instant success in the United States.