our leaders are too old

[scarletghoul]

"A human being has arteries and veins through which the heart makes the blood circulate, and he breathes with his lungs, exhaling carbon dioxide and inhaling fresh oxygen, that is, getting rid of the stale and taking in the fresh. A proletarian party must also get rid of the stale and take in the fresh, for only thus can it be full of vitality. Without eliminating waste matter and absorbing fresh blood the Party has no vigour." ~ Mao
Of the 20000000 radical socialist parties active in the UK, and in the western socialist movement in general, it's hard to think of any influential figure under the age of 60, let alone 30 or 40...


True, Mao would have been at least 70 when he said that; but it goes to show he recognised the problem of not only his (+the whole revolutionary leadership generation's) mortality, but his aging in itself, unlike most old communists. A big point of the Cultural Revolution was training new young revolutionaries to take the lead, something which sets Mao apart from the CPSU, the modern CPC, the various small socialist parties of different kinds currently active in this country, the old leaders of the Eastern Bloc, the Cuban party, the RCP-USA, etc. The one thing all of these had/have in common is that they became extremely "stale". No one could deny this. Compare this to the Bolshevik party in 1917, to the CPC from the 20s to 40s, the Black Panther Party, the Maoist groups engaged in revolution right now, and it's clear to see that any successful revolutionary movement must not only involve the participation of large numbers of young people, but must also be led by them.


With this in mind, our prospects seem bleak. The leadership of our UK parties can be roughly divided into 3 groups: elderly Trotskyites, elderly revisionists, and elderly Stalinists. On the international scene, our radical provocative young thinkers Badiou and Zizek are 73 and 61. This is not to say the elderly comrades have nothing to contribute (especially the philosophers who, admittedly, are not trying to be mass leaders), but can one really be surprised that our movement is failing to take root among the masses with this kind of leadership ?


Although no one could disagree with the fact that a revolution requires mass mobilisation of youth, there may be some who say "why not have the experienced older comrades lead ? We need youth but not in the leadership". But how can a group of old people effectively lead a mass of young people ? It does not happen. Just as a revolution in one country cannot be directed from another (see the Comintern's attempts to manage the Chinese revolution, or the self-righteous western Trots bemoaning the impurity of the Nepali revolution), neither can a mass movement of primarily young people be directed successfully by people 50 years older than them. It is sad but true.


For this reason, it's obvious that younger comrades, while not neglecting the valuble teachings of our more experienced and mortally-inclined comrades, should step up and take the lead. The time is one of mass discontent, of a working class and youth who hate the system but doesn't know what to do about it. The current leadership of our movement has proven utterly incapable of handling this situation, they cannot comprehend the rage of the masses, and they have no hope of channelling it as a revolutionary force. The task is thus left to the youth. Unless we seize the time it will pass us by and before we know it we will be old and degenerated ourselves.


The new replaces the old. This is a simple fact and should be obvious to anyone, especially a revolutionary and dialectical materialist. It's 8 or 9 in the morning, there's a world waiting to be lit up, but the sun is stuck in the sea talking to itself about Stalin and wondering why the world remains in the dark.

[Widerstand]

To hell with leaders.

[scarletghoul]

I agree. But the question is how do we do away with leaders ?

In order to get rid of the gun we have to take up the gun.

In order to get rid of the state we have to take up the state.

In order to get rid of leadership we have to take up leadership.

In order to get rid of authority we have to take up authority.

To say otherwise is to advocate useless liberal pacifism and to be objectively counter-revolutionary. So please don't waste anyone's time with that nonsense

[Widerstand]

I agree. But the question is how do we do away with leaders ?

In order to get rid of the gun we have to take up the gun.

In order to get rid of the state we have to take up the state.

In order to get rid of leadership we have to take up leadership.

In order to get rid of authority we have to take up authority.

To say otherwise is to advocate useless liberal pacifism and to be objectively counter-revolutionary. So please don't waste anyone's time with that nonsense

Could you clarify what exactly you mean with "take up" here? What does "take up X" mean and how does it "get rid of X"?

[The Douche]

I dunno, when I first got active and played the party game/participated in activism, I knew lots of leading figures who were in their 30s and 40s. In fact the only "old people" I usually came into contact with were the liberals, the socialist/communist/anarchist "leadership" were between 25-45.

[scarletghoul]

really, i dont know of any notable leftists who are young.

maybe its because i am geographically isolated and unable to get properly active right now, but it just doesnt seem like any young people have any influence in the movement. many parties even have a seperate 'youth wing' which to me seems ridiculous.

[scarletghoul]

Could you clarify what exactly you mean with "take up" here? What does "take up X" mean and how does it "get rid of X"?
I'm just saying the old Marxist-Leninist theory on the state really,, the proletariat makes a state to suppress reactionaries and eventually eliminate classes, meaning there's no need for a state.

Same with what Mao said about the gun. Reactionaries have guns, and we need to get rid of them. So we pick up guns of our own in order to disarm/destroy the reactionaries. When the class war is won, we will have no need for guns.

Same applies to leadership, authority,, power in general... shouldnt really have to explain that but oh wel

[revolution inaction]

I agree. But the question is how do we do away with leaders ?

In order to get rid of the gun we have to take up the gun.

In order to get rid of the state we have to take up the state.

In order to get rid of leadership we have to take up leadership.

In order to get rid of authority we have to take up authority.

To say otherwise is to advocate useless liberal pacifism and to be objectively counter-revolutionary. So please don't waste anyone's time with that nonsense

this is just bullshit, your not even trying to argue

[Widerstand]

I'm just saying the old Marxist-Leninist theory on the state really,, the proletariat makes a state to suppress reactionaries and eventually eliminate classes, meaning there's no need for a state.

Same with what Mao said about the gun. Reactionaries have guns, and we need to get rid of them. So we pick up guns of our own in order to disarm/destroy the reactionaries. When the class war is won, we will have no need for guns.

Same applies to leadership, authority,, power in general... shouldnt really have to explain that but oh wel

Well I tend to disagree here. I don't see how a leader could do away with leader-centrism, even if he, say, urged his followers not to be his followers, the act of them not-following him would still be an act of their following, thus recreating the need for external directive action. The only way to get away with leaders is for people to reach a level of autonomy where they lead themselves, a value that is emphasized by the autonomous and anarchist movement far more than by other leftist movements, which, you could say, stems from their leaderless, yes, anti-leader, and "de-centralized" tradition, in the sense of having many theoreticians simultaneously - rather than a few following each other - and also results in their more or less leaderless present.

[Kotze]

Quotas.

[Reznov]

I don't know any leftists that are well-known leaders in the west to begin with.

[Widerstand]

I don't know any leftists that are well-known leaders in the west to begin with.

Well, I would know some that had an impact on the German political landscape, but are now either irrelevant (and have always been rather irrelevant outside Germany), really old or deceased. Also some of them can't be strictly called leaders. Examples: Oscar Lafontaine (Die Linke politician), Gregor Gisy (Die Linke politician), Joschka Fischer (Die Grünen politician, general symbol of the green part of the APO and of the "langer Marsch durch die Institutionen"), Jürgen Habermas (one of Germany's most influential, contemporary left wing intellectuals), Theodor W. Adorno (his writings heavily influenced the 68's student revolt, though Adorno and the movement split and became opposed to each other when they tried to turn him into a leader figure), Rudi Dutschke (student revolt leader, strongly involved in the APO, popularized the concept of "langer Marsch durch die Institutionen"), etc.

[Decolonize The Left]

Leaders shouldn't be qualified as one thing or another, neither in qualities of personhood, geographic area, nor sect/party. Often time the most unexpected people emerge from a given context as a leader for a period of time.

I forget who said it, but a great quote on this issue goes like 'the best leader is the person who doesn't want to be a leader.' We should be aware that our fights will not be prescripted or set in stone, and our leaders should emerge naturally from the situation at hand and merge back into the fold when their time is over. Only in this way will our struggle be strongest as there is no set boundaries for attack and defense, no figures to focus on and assassinate, only a faceless and nameless mass of the working class who are led in one time by one person, in another time by another, whereby everyone is both a leader and a soldier and a lover and a human being.

- August

[RED DAVE]

Well I tend to disagree here. I don't see how a leader could do away with leader-centrism, even if he, say, urged his followers not to be his followers, the act of them not-following him would still be an act of their following, thus recreating the need for external directive action.You are already implying a nondemocratic distance between the leader and "his" "followers." How about if the leader is elected by the other members of the organization of which they are all a part? The role of a leader is to fulfill a specific task: to lead. Not everyone can do it. And any organization larger than about 8 people needs leadership if it engages in anything other than sitting around and bullshitting.


The only way to get away with leaders is for people to reach a level of autonomy where they lead themselvesLead themselves to do what? As i said above, as soon as a group begins to engage inorganized activity, it needs leadership. To deny this means that leadership will exist anyway, but it will neither be conscious or democratic.


a value that is emphasized by the autonomous and anarchist movement far more than by other leftist movements, which, you could say, stems from their leaderless, yes, anti-leader, and "de-centralized" traditionWhat tradition that has meaning in the form of action?


in the sense of having many theoreticians simultaneously - rather than a few following each other - and also results in their more or less leaderless present.And what is the value, once action develops, such as strikes, demonstrations, putting out publications, maintaining websites, etc., of not having a leader, unless you're into confusion or action in the absence of democracy?

By the way, just so you know, in the spirit of the title of this website, I am possibly the oldest person at revleft. :D

RED DAVE

[Widerstand]

You are already implying a nondemocratic distance between the leader and "his" "followers." How about if the leader is elected by the other members of the organization of which they are all a part? The role of a leader is to fulfill a specific task: to lead. Not everyone can do it. And any organization larger than about 8 people needs leadership if it engages in anything other than sitting around and bullshitting.

Lead themselves to do what? As i said above, as soon as a group begins to engage inorganized activity, it needs leadership. To deny this means that leadership will exist anyway, but it will neither be conscious or democratic.

What tradition that has meaning in the form of action?

And what is the value, once action develops, such as strikes, demonstrations, putting out publications, maintaining websites, etc., of not having a leader, unless you're into confusion or action in the absence of democracy?

By the way, just so you know, in the spirit of the title of this website, I am possibly the oldest person at revleft. :D

RED DAVE

Well in my understanding, 'leader' either implies a centralized, autonomous decision making entity, which directs others - ergo totalitarian, undemocratic, hierarchic; or a sort of role model or inspirational personality (this second meaning is the one I used in my list above). By the sounds of it, what you are talking about I would call either 'delegate' or 'moderator'.

Also, given the sound of the OP, I wasn't talking about local or regional groups, but rather about movements of national, transnational or global reach, in which the group dynamics which lead to the emergence of 'leaders' as described in your second paragraph aren't at work so much as in small, local groups.

[WeAreReborn]

Leaders shouldn't be qualified as one thing or another, neither in qualities of personhood, geographic area, nor sect/party. Often time the most unexpected people emerge from a given context as a leader for a period of time.

I forget who said it, but a great quote on this issue goes like 'the best leader is the person who doesn't want to be a leader.'
I agree and I think age doesn't matter. Intelligence and knowing how to react is not determined by how young or old you are. Anyways, I'm not sure who said the quote but reminds me of what Plato suggested in the Republic, that being the hesitant Philosopher ruler.

[RED DAVE]

Well in my understanding, 'leader' either implies a centralized, autonomous decision making entity, which directs others - ergo totalitarian, undemocratic, hierarchic; or a sort of role model or inspirational personality (this second meaning is the one I used in my list above). By the sounds of it, what you are talking about I would call either 'delegate' or 'moderator'.Comrade, have you ever been in an organization where the leadership is elected?


Also, given the sound of the OP, I wasn't talking about local or regional groups, but rather about movements of national, transnational or global reach, in which the group dynamics which lead to the emergence of 'leaders' as described in your second paragraph aren't at work so much as in small, local groups.It is quite possible for a large organization to be democratic.

I was a member of the Letter Carriers Union. The biannual convention, which was delegated, was the largest democratic assembly in the world. It can and does happen.

RED DAVE

[lines]

Where would you like your leaders to lead you?

[revolution inaction]

You are already implying a nondemocratic distance between the leader and "his" "followers." How about if the leader is elected by the other members of the organization of which they are all a part? The role of a leader is to fulfill a specific task: to lead. Not everyone can do it. And any organization larger than about 8 people needs leadership if it engages in anything other than sitting around and bullshitting.

anarchist organisations exist which are bigger than 8 people




Lead themselves to do what? As i said above, as soon as a group begins to engage inorganized activity, it needs leadership. To deny this means that leadership will exist anyway, but it will neither be conscious or democratic.


or we could use forms of organisation designed to prevent the formation of informal hierarchies, which is what we do.

[Widerstand]

Comrade, have you ever been in an organization where the leadership is elected?

Yes, in the form of biannual elections by a majority vote of all registered members, as well as an annual election of delegates. I'm not quite sure if there was an option to recall the leadership, but if there was it has never been used. In any case, it was a largely undemocratic process, and accountability was close to zero. Transparency of the leadership was also largely lacking, unless you were formally or informally part of it (I was the latter). The one thing that kept it from getting to power-centered was the constant effort to 'renew' the leadership, to always have a mix of old and young people, and to get more new people involved. However, as said, that was 100% informal, and due to the undemocratic process of election and lack of accountability - well, the leadership was of course interested in not losing it's members - it could've taken entirely different turns, and at times did.

It's not a system I would advise to anyone.



It is quite possible for a large organization to be democratic.

Of course, but most large organizations resort to leader and hierarchy-based structuring, which per se limits the extent in which they can be democratic.



I was a member of the Letter Carriers Union. The biannual convention, which was delegated, was the largest democratic assembly in the world. It can and does happen.

The US elections are quite large and "democratic", too.

[Leo]

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/033/concept-of-brilliant-leader

[Kotze]

any organization larger than about 8 people needs leadership if it engages in anything other than sitting around and bullshitting
anarchist organisations exist which are bigger than 8 peopleDon't fight, you are both right :>

Back on topic: Use quotas. In Germany, 1/4 of the membership of the conservative party CDU is female, whereas for DIE LINKE, which has an extensive system of gender quoatas, it is way above 1/3. The membership of DIE LINKE is quite old on average, I expect a similar quota system for young people could work wonders here.

One way to make sure a board's membership meets a quota is to have separate elections, but that interferes a lot with what people want besides meeting the quota. Another way to do it is to have one election for that board and to use a rule modification that doesn't interfere much when the election would have come close to meeting the quota without it and interferes more in other cases.

If the result has to meet only 1 constraint like a minimum of people of a specific sex, this is really easy to meet, since it implies a maximum of people of the other sex.

Reweighted Range Voting (described in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/voting-ratings-t143429/index.html?t=143429)) knows 2 states that candidates can assume during counting process, not yet (and maybe never) elected and elected. All you have to add is the possibility of disqualification. Such a modification works like this: During the counting process of normal Reweighted Range Voting a candidate gets declared elected, the ballots that supported that candidate get deweighted, then another candidate gets elected and so on. So all you have to do in the modified version with the constraint is to wait until one group reaches its allowed maximum (if that happens at all) and then disqualify all the not-yet elected candidates of that group from the count.

With STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote) it's slightly more complicated to have a constraint, since STV is a bit more complicated than Reweighted Range Voting. With normal STV you already have 3 states for the candidates — hopeful, elected, disqualified. Hopeful is every candidate at the beginning of the count, in the course of counting every candidate gets assigned to either the elected or disqualified camp. Like before you make sure to disqualify all remaining candidates of a group that has reached its allowed maximum of seats. In addition, you can't allow the process of disqualifying candidates that normal STV uses to go on until a group falls below its guaranteed minimum.

Things get hairy when you have several constraints, but it's not impossible, and indeed it has been done, see David Hill: STV with constraints (http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE9/P1.HTM).

[revolution inaction]

Don't fight, you are both right :>



are you claiming that anarchist just sit around bullshiting?

[Widerstand]

are you claiming that anarchist just sit around bullshiting?

Of course not. We also do a great lot of spray painting and dumpster diving.

But it is true that Anarchists don't engage in serious political work, like keeping party conventions, engaging in the 9001st International, support Communist Cuba or fight revisionism.

That ahead, FUCK Die LINKE.

[Reznov]

Well, I would know some that had an impact on the German political landscape, but are now either irrelevant (and have always been rather irrelevant outside Germany), really old or deceased. Also some of them can't be strictly called leaders. Examples: Oscar Lafontaine (Die Linke politician), Gregor Gisy (Die Linke politician), Joschka Fischer (Die Grünen politician, general symbol of the green part of the APO and of the "langer Marsch durch die Institutionen"), Jürgen Habermas (one of Germany's most influential, contemporary left wing intellectuals), Theodor W. Adorno (his writings heavily influenced the 68's student revolt, though Adorno and the movement split and became opposed to each other when they tried to turn him into a leader figure), Rudi Dutschke (student revolt leader, strongly involved in the APO, popularized the concept of "langer Marsch durch die Institutionen"), etc.


Ahh, sorry. I meant to say any current Left leaders in the West.

[Decolonize The Left]

Of course not. We also do a great lot of spray painting and dumpster diving.

But it is true that Anarchists don't engage in serious political work, like keeping party conventions, engaging in the 9001st International, support Communist Cuba or fight revisionism.

That ahead, FUCK Die LINKE.

I don't think it's fair or wise to characterize one sort of activism 'serious political work' visa-vie another sort. Activism is a relative term and being an activist means different things in different contexts.

I think we should be approaching the different ideologies (anarchism, left communism, marxism-leninism) from the idea that they all have an underlying anti-capitalist approach and whatever form the activism takes it a positive one.

Conventions, support for one struggle or another, and anti-revisionism are all important in one sense, but one person spray painting on a building wall can be just as effective under certain circumstances. Likewise an anarchist talking to a social-democrat in a coffee shop can be serious activism if that social-democrat questions the basis of their beliefs and decides to turn further to the left.

We should be supporting a diversity of forms and manifestations of activism without question so long as they drive the same basic line: anti-capitalism and pro-revolution.

- August

[RED DAVE]

I would like to ask anarchists how they would structure a large, national organization, with, say 5,000 members, that has the purpose of evolving a political line (including the presence of political minorities in the organization), engaging in concerted action on a national and local basis, running a national office and putting out a publication and maintaining a website.

Especially, how would you deal with political minorities, ethnic and gender divisions when it comes to united action over a long period of time?

RED DAVE

[Widerstand]

I would like to ask anarchists how they would structure a large, national organization, with, say 5,000 members, that has the purpose of evolving a political line (including the presence of political minorities in the organization), engaging in concerted action on a national and local basis, running a national office and putting out a publication and maintaining a website.

Especially, how would you deal with political minorities, ethnic and gender divisions when it comes to united action over a long period of time?

RED DAVE

In a de-centralized or, ideally, a distributed manner:

http://www.cffn.ca/img/articles/Centralized-Decentralized-And-Distributed-System.jpg

I'm against centralized mass organisations. A network of small, autonomous groups which operates with recallable delegates and councils on either a consensus or 'agree-to-disagree' basis seems much better.

[Decolonize The Left]

I would like to ask anarchists how they would structure a large, national organization, with, say 5,000 members, that has the purpose of evolving a political line (including the presence of political minorities in the organization), engaging in concerted action on a national and local basis, running a national office and putting out a publication and maintaining a website.

Especially, how would you deal with political minorities, ethnic and gender divisions when it comes to united action over a long period of time?

RED DAVE

I'll speak for myself on this question.

I would maintain a large network of small, local, organizations (say, 50 groups of 100 members each) to deal with local and semi-local issues. There would be one 'head office' which would be comprised of nothing other than the server upon which the website was maintained. Each local group would have space on the site to update their activities and space in the paper for the same.

As for political minorities and ethnic and gender divisions, I would believe that the composition of any one local group would depend highly on the makeup of the local community. So one group could be composed of primarily ethnic minorities, another of primarily women, etc...

As for united action, if you mean a large gathering of members then this would depend upon finances and timing. Most folks work so a set date would probably never occur for everyone but I don't see this as a problem. I'd rather have 50 smaller gatherings, 3-5 times a year, each of which gains in size as they continue to occur than one large gathering once a year which gains little in terms of substance.

- August

[revolution inaction]

I would like to ask anarchists how they would structure a large, national organization, with, say 5,000 members, that has the purpose of evolving a political line (including the presence of political minorities in the organization), engaging in concerted action on a national and local basis, running a national office and putting out a publication and maintaining a website.

Especially, how would you deal with political minorities, ethnic and gender divisions when it comes to united action over a long period of time?

RED DAVE


here is our constitution

http://afed.org.uk/online/afed_constitution_2008.html



....

The organisation is based on the following fundamental criteria –
Federalism: We are a membership organisation in which individuals join both a local group and the national organisation. However, the main basis of the organisation is a federated structure of groups which have joined together to form a national organisation. The federation develops theory, strategy and tactics through debate and discussion, aiming for participation of all members in decision-making such that effective consensus can be reached. The federation has no centralised decision-making body and all officers work within the mandates given to them by the National Conferences and National Delegate Meetings, and are subject to recall. We actively fight against any tendencies within the federation for hierarchies and inequalities to develop.
Political Unity: The federation is based on a common set of aims and principles. Members must agree with these aims and principles. We also have a particular approach to how we organise which is written in this constitution. New members must also agree to adhere to these principles. In addition, we may adopt policies and analyses that are the result of discussion and elaboration by all the members. As these will be developed collectively, it is expected that they will reflect the views of the whole organisation.
Tactical Unity: The federation seeks to act in a co-ordinated way, developing strategies and tactics through discussion and debate which members are expected to implement where appropriate.
Collective Responsibility and Solidarity: Members must not act so as to undermine the federation but instead must seek to support the federation in practice and show solidarity for other members.
Free Association and Autonomy: The individual does not subsume his/her identity into the collective. A member is one who has chosen to associate with others and retains their autonomy. If a member or group does not agree with policies, strategies or tactics adopted by the national organisation once they have become members, then they do not have to implement these decisions and may express their disagreement. Members may also argue for making changes to the aims and principles or constitution but this must be the result of a genuine change of view emerging from new ideas and experiences since their joining the organisation. When an individual joins, it is expected that they join as a result of genuine agreement with the political and organisational principles of the AF. The Federation will be responsible for ensuring that new members fully understand the aims and principles.



...

[revolution inaction]

I'll speak for myself on this question.

I would maintain a large network of small, local, organizations (say, 50 groups of 100 members each) to deal with local and semi-local issues. There would be one 'head office' which would be comprised of nothing other than the server upon which the website was maintained. Each local group would have space on the site to update their activities and space in the paper for the same.

As for political minorities and ethnic and gender divisions, I would believe that the composition of any one local group would depend highly on the makeup of the local community. So one group could be composed of primarily ethnic minorities, another of primarily women, etc...

As for united action, if you mean a large gathering of members then this would depend upon finances and timing. Most folks work so a set date would probably never occur for everyone but I don't see this as a problem. I'd rather have 50 smaller gatherings, 3-5 times a year, each of which gains in size as they continue to occur than one large gathering once a year which gains little in terms of substance.

- August


i think that is a network not an organisation

[Decolonize The Left]

i think that is a network not an organisation

It's a network of an organization... the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

- August

[scarletghoul]

In a de-centralized or, ideally, a distributed manner:

http://www.cffn.ca/img/articles/Centralized-Decentralized-And-Distributed-System.jpg

I'm against centralized mass organisations. A network of small, autonomous groups which operates with recallable delegates and councils on either a consensus or 'agree-to-disagree' basis seems much better.
That image shows quite well a problem with the 'centralisation or decentralisation' dichotomy: if you just add some more links/stations coming out of the stations in the centralised picture (A) (that is, you make it more detailed) you will end up with (B). And if you were to simplify (B) you would end up with (A). They're different ways of illustrating the same thing.

[Widerstand]

That image shows quite well a problem with the 'centralisation or decentralisation' dichotomy: if you just add some more links/stations coming out of the stations in the centralised picture (A) (that is, you make it more detailed) you will end up with (B). And if you were to simplify (B) you would end up with (A). They're different ways of illustrating the same thing.

It's a false dichotomy indeed. Decentralization is simply less centralization. However, as you may have noticed, all these three images have the same 'stations' in the same places (represented by the dots), but with different links (lines).

Decentralized is different from centralized in the regard that it has different 'levels' of centralization, in this model two: Every station is connected to a hub which is connected to the center. In a way, this is less democratic than a centralized system, because the individual stations cannot directly communicate with the central but have to rely on the hubs.

This is exactly the issue with ISPs and the Internet nowadays, even though, at large, the Internet is a 'distributed' system: Every station has links to other stations, and if one station drops out (or in the concrete example, if one part of the organization goes batshit/on a power trip), the others are still able to communicate with each other - the network is still functioning.

[Ravachol]

I agree. But the question is how do we do away with leaders ?

In order to get rid of the gun we have to take up the gun.

In order to get rid of the state we have to take up the state.

In order to get rid of leadership we have to take up leadership.

In order to get rid of authority we have to take up authority.

To say otherwise is to advocate useless liberal pacifism and to be objectively counter-revolutionary. So please don't waste anyone's time with that nonsense

In order to get rid of capitalism we have to take up capitalism! :rolleyes:

Gimme a fucking break bro....

[Kotze]

I thought this thread was originally meant to be more about how to get get more young people into radical groups, rather than how much hierarchy is needed, but oh well. Some people seem to have a problem with that statement: In order to get rid of [X] we have to take up [X].

Some guy jumps at me and tries to kill me with a gun. What should I do? Am I wrong if I try to get his gun? I admit it would be more cool if I somehow managed to kick his ass without taking his gun, but the odds for me surviving are already shitty enough.

Of course there is a risk of a new bourgeoisie rising. There are ways to reduce that risk, like a max income limit, better voting methods and sortition, affirmative action for people with a non-bourgeois background. And I dunno, maybe also affirmative action for young people?


Gimme a fucking break broIn order to give you a fucking break we have to become your fucking boss :P

[Widerstand]

Some guy jumps at me and tries to kill me with a gun. What should I do? Am I wrong if I try to get his gun? I admit it would be more cool if I somehow managed to kick his ass without taking his gun, but the odds for me surviving are already shitty enough.

The problem with that analogy is that you don't get rid of the gun, you merely give it to someone else - which is exactly what happens (and happened) when people try to "take up the state/capitalism to get rid of the state/capitalism".

[Q]

here is our constitution

http://afed.org.uk/online/afed_constitution_2008.html

Interesting, I say this doesn't differ from the principle of democratic-centralism in a general overview (irony! ;) ), but I would like to make two criticisms that actually make this form less effective and democratic:

- Less effective: What about tactical decisions that need to be implemented now? For example, there is a strike going to happen within 24 hours. How would such a structure react? In a "leninist" organisation, you have a central organ that could make a leaflet or organise other things deemed necessary in such a short timespan. Of course there can still be discussion about this action, whether it was appropriate, etc. afterwards, so the organisation could learn as a whole from the experience and become more effective next time.

Also, the constitution says: "Tactical Unity: The federation seeks to act in a co-ordinated way, developing strategies and tactics through discussion and debate which members are expected to implement where appropriate." Which I think contradicts with: "Free Association and Autonomy: The individual does not subsume his/her identity into the collective. A member is one who has chosen to associate with others and retains their autonomy. If a member or group does not agree with policies, strategies or tactics adopted by the national organisation once they have become members, then they do not have to implement these decisions and may express their disagreement."

Could you explain this? I agree with the first quote (adding that members may still disagree about it and air their views), but I think the second quote is the result of some kind of compromise.

- Less democratic: The text doesn't contain anything on organised platforms, tendencies or fractions. The last bit on Free Association and Autonomy comes some way, but remains vague on what status individuals and groups have and how exactly they could air their views. The text also stays unclear on whether dissenting views can only be aired internally or openly. Personally I'm in favor of the latter given the educational role that flows from this to the wider class movement.

Also, the formulation "Members may also argue for making changes to the aims and principles or constitution but this must be the result of a genuine change of view emerging from new ideas and experiences since their joining the organisation." is understandable and probably formulated to avoid any kind of "entryist" tactics (is this actually an issue in AFed?), but how about other groups merging, nationally or internationally? Are you simply presenting your constitution as a final deal or is it open for discussion with other groups?

[scarletghoul]

It's a false dichotomy indeed. Decentralization is simply less centralization. However, as you may have noticed, all these three images have the same 'stations' in the same places (represented by the dots), but with different links (lines).

Decentralized is different from centralized in the regard that it has different 'levels' of centralization, in this model two: Every station is connected to a hub which is connected to the center. In a way, this is less democratic than a centralized system, because the individual stations cannot directly communicate with the central but have to rely on the hubs.

This is exactly the issue with ISPs and the Internet nowadays, even though, at large, the Internet is a 'distributed' system: Every station has links to other stations, and if one station drops out (or in the concrete example, if one part of the organization goes batshit/on a power trip), the others are still able to communicate with each other - the network is still functioning.
Thing is every state has branches that manage smaller branches and so on. There's never been a 100% centralised state, as far as I know. The most 'totalitarian' places have provinces, regions, councils, etc. It's not like in the picture where there's a fixed number of 'stations' and its just a case of how theyre linked up..
The example of ISPs isnt quite right to transpose onto a state, because a state involves a variety of diferent kinds of 'stations' whereas the internet is more uniform and has far fewer dimensions than a state.
But yeah I agree 'distributed' model seems pretty cool. Though in some cases it could be inefficient.. especially in the early stage of a socialist state (or whatever you wanna call it). Russia needed a lot of centralisation because a few cities were far more developed than the rest of the country. If theyd had a 'distributed' model after the revolution the whites + invaders could have just picked the vast weak areas of the country, most of which would have been linked only to other weak areas and not to the workers' power-centers. So unless all the 'stations' are about equally strong there will have to be some centralisation

[revolution inaction]

Interesting, I say this doesn't differ from the principle of democratic-centralism in a general overview (irony! ;) ), but I would like to make two criticisms that actually make this form less effective and democratic:

- Less effective: What about tactical decisions that need to be implemented now? For example, there is a strike going to happen within 24 hours. How would such a structure react? In a "leninist" organisation, you have a central organ that could make a leaflet or organise other things deemed necessary in such a short timespan. Of course there can still be discussion about this action, whether it was appropriate, etc. afterwards, so the organisation could learn as a whole from the experience and become more effective next time.

ok I'm not sure if you have read the entire constitution or just the bit I quoted?



PUBLICATIONS: Groups and individuals may publish articles, pamphlets etc. as they see fit under their authority. Newspapers, periodicals and other publications produced in the name of the Federation are under the control of the NDM which is empowered to nominate and remove editors, production teams etc.

So any group is able to publish something under there own name, and we have means of internal communication so that anything produced can be shared with the rest of the organisation and activities coordinated.




Also, the constitution says: "Tactical Unity: The federation seeks to act in a co-ordinated way, developing strategies and tactics through discussion and debate which members are expected to implement where appropriate." Which I think contradicts with: "Free Association and Autonomy: The individual does not subsume his/her identity into the collective. A member is one who has chosen to associate with others and retains their autonomy. If a member or group does not agree with policies, strategies or tactics adopted by the national organisation once they have become members, then they do not have to implement these decisions and may express their disagreement."

Could you explain this? I agree with the first quote (adding that members may still disagree about it and air their views), but I think the second quote is the result of some kind of compromise.

We we can't force our members to take part in any specific activity, if for example the organisation decides it will produce anti election propaganda and carry out a campaign centred around this but there is a member or members who think this is a waste of time, then they would be free not to take part.
This doesn't mean a member can do anything they like, they must not do anything that contradicts the aims and principles (http://afed.org.uk/organisation/aims-and-principles.html) and they must not take part in activity that is harmful to the organisation or its members, also members are expected to take part in activity as members of afed, so if a member refused to do anything than i expect that eventually they would be expelled.


The sole grounds’ for the AF disassociation from any members or groups are:

* A. Racist or sexist behaviour, harassment or abuse;
* B. Other abuse, threatening intimidating language or behaviour;
* C. Assault;
* D. Unconstitutional disruption or other action or non-action, which sabotages, damages or undermines the AF.
* E. Behaviour, which adversely affects the credibility and relationship of the AF with individuals and organisations with whom we associate or cooperate.
* F. Membership of political parties or other organisations whose aims, methods or principles of organisation are incompatible with those of the AF and which sabotages, damages, undermines or adversely affects the credibility and relationship of the AF with other individuals and organisations.





- Less democratic: The text doesn't contain anything on organised platforms, tendencies or fractions. The last bit on Free Association and Autonomy comes some way, but remains vague on what status individuals and groups have and how exactly they could air their views. The text also stays unclear on whether dissenting views can only be aired internally or openly. Personally I'm in favor of the latter given the educational role that flows from this to the wider class movement.

Again I think you have probable not read the whole constitution (maybe I should have been clearer that i was only posting a part of it)


FACTIONS: Groups may work with and contact each other in the Federation but if such relationships effectively constitute a faction at variance with Federation policies, then this should be made clear in public pronouncements. This consideration applies to minorities in general. So clearly dissenting views can be aired openly, but they must be stated as such. Also secret factions are not permitted.




Also, the formulation "Members may also argue for making changes to the aims and principles or constitution but this must be the result of a genuine change of view emerging from new ideas and experiences since their joining the organisation." is understandable and probably formulated to avoid any kind of "entryist" tactics (is this actually an issue in AFed?), but how about other groups merging, nationally or internationally? Are you simply presenting your constitution as a final deal or is it open for discussion with other groups?
Our constitution is changed occasionally, usually to reflect changes in our practice, or things we have decided to change. Our aims and principles are more important in many ways, all members are required to understand and agree to them.
If another organisation wished to merge with us then i don't know what would happen exactly, I imagine it would be extremely complicated and involve a huge number of meetings :)
Internationally we are a member of IFA (http://i-f-a.org/), there is more variation of politics between the IFA member federations than within afed, but all are class struggle anarchists.
I don't know how big an issue entryism is, we are the bigist anarchist organisation in the uk and are probably bigger than most marxist organisations too, so its a possibility.

I should point out anything I say on revleft is in my personal capacity, that is to say it does not necessary reflect the views of afed as a whole, I have no mandate to speak on the organisations behalf

[Zanthorus]

It's interesting you should bring up this topic, on saturday I was discussing with two members of the ICC on the subject of politicisation among the youth. Apparently they've noticed an upsurge in the amount of young people becoming interested in politics, whereas the 80's and 90's were mostly stagnant for various reasons. Certainly the collapse of the Soviet Union had a big effect in enforcing the ideology of no alternatives and instilling apathy in the prospect of fundamental political change. It could just be that the reason we there aren't many young leaders in the big 'leftist' organisations is that there hasn't been much in terms of an influx, and organisations have been hanging onto their older cadre. The current period seems to be market by an upsurge in struggle, so perhaps we will see some new material flooding in and a few shakeups.

[Wanted Man]

In response to the OP: that's why it's good to have a youth organisation, provided that it actually adds something (i.e. being more than just a miniature party). In all organisations, it's not a good idea to have a high turnover, but it is good to have a regular flow in terms of generation.

Of course, there is bound to be a big gap between people in their 20s and 50s, but it's still encouraging to see a good amount of people in their 30s and 40s being highly active in the party, while people in their late teens and early 20s mostly take charge in the youth movement, along with a few more experienced activists in the late 20s and early 30s.

[Amphictyonis]

Our "leaders" are too dead.

[The Hong Se Sun]

In response to the OP: that's why it's good to have a youth organisation, provided that it actually adds something (i.e. being more than just a miniature party). In all organisations, it's not a good idea to have a high turnover, but it is good to have a regular flow in terms of generation.

Of course, there is bound to be a big gap between people in their 20s and 50s, but it's still encouraging to see a good amount of people in their 30s and 40s being highly active in the party, while people in their late teens and early 20s mostly take charge in the youth movement, along with a few more experienced activists in the late 20s and early 30s.


I have to disagree mainly because the youth wing of a group usually has no power and to be honest I would never join a Party/ORG that has a youth wing unless that wing had just as much power and sway over the regular party/org. Ive never like the youth wing idea because it tells the youth that they are different and are not in the "big kids" party.

[scarletghoul]

That's what I think about the youth wing too. It essentially excludes the youth from the party proper, and this not only keeps the party stale but also probably puts off some youngsters. (certainly it puts me off).

Imagine if the Black Panther Party had made a seperate organisation for members under 25. The majority of members, including some of the greatest revolutionaries in world history (Huey Newton himself, Fred Hampton, etc), would have been excluded from proper party activity and the movement would not have took off at all.

[Widerstand]

That's what I think about the youth wing too. It essentially excludes the youth from the party proper, and this not only keeps the party stale but also probably puts off some youngsters. (certainly it puts me off).

Imagine if the Black Panther Party had made a seperate organisation for members under 25. The majority of members, including some of the greatest revolutionaries in world history (Huey Newton himself, Fred Hampton, etc), would have been excluded from proper party activity and the movement would not have took off at all.

Eh, I think your view is too party-centered. What I mean by that, is that youth organizations can be solid autonomous actors, for example the German SDS in the 60s and 70s, which then was more or less a youth (student) group of the SPD (social democrats), and rose to a leading role in the APO and student movement. Also the modern day "Linksjugend ['solid]", a youth organization of "Die LINKE", which often has more presence on ground than their affiliated organization, and often takes rather different stances.

[Q]

Eh, I think your view is too party-centered. What I mean by that, is that youth organizations can be solid autonomous actors, for example the German SDS in the 60s and 70s, which then was more or less a youth (student) group of the SPD (social democrats), and rose to a leading role in the APO and student movement. Also the modern day "Linksjugend ['solid]", a youth organization of "Die LINKE", which often has more presence on ground than their affiliated organization, and often takes rather different stances.

On the other hand, ROOD, youthorganisation of the Dutch SP, has no autonomy whatsoever. It is even formally a subsociety of the SP. There is zero political discussion in it and certainly nothing that differs from the SP. It was only setup recently back in 2004 I think as the SP was afraid that any youth organisation wouldbe exactly that: too much following their own line. With the ROOD setup they took care that this was surely not going to happen. It is the ideal of the party leadership in how the rest of the party should be.

To make clear how much the ROOD leadership is bent on making sure no political organisation happens by the rank and file: one CWI comrade, who was in ROOD at the time, was expelled for the high crime of spreading leaflets to try and mobilise other ROOD members to go to a big anti-fascist demonstration in Cologne (this was in 2008), as the ROOD leadership was not going to call for it (with the argument that "Cologne is not on our territory" and "antiracist demonstrations are way too radical", this against the background of even bourgeois parties in Germany mobilising for this demo!).

I heard they "studied" Marx this year on their summerschool. Of course such a subject only became acceptable after they expelled the Marxists from ROOD.

It is a truly worthless organisation that only exists to filter new layers of prospective bureaucrats.

[Widerstand]

Well, there's a difference between the ROODand both the SDS and Linksjugend ['solid], namely that the ROOD, as you said was a "setup" organization, which if I'm not mistaken means that the Dutch SP created it out of nothing.
Both SDS and Linksjugend ['solid] have been formed as autonomous groups. The SDS then decided to allign with the SPD, however, the SPD demanded communists to be expelled, and there were various quarrels over political matters, especially the DDR-friendly stance of the paper konkret, which then lead to a split of the SDS from it's more centrist parts, and the SDS ultimately parted from the SPD. After some time of autonomous action and more splits, the modern SDS alligns with Die LINKE. Likely, Linksjugend ['solid] has been formed as an autonomous group, but since it's start in cloth relationship to Die LINKE.

I find the Dutch SP/ROOD, from what you described, completely unsupportable. Yes, the German bourgeois parties very often mobilize for anti-fascist demos, as do the bourgeois unions. Hell, some of our politicians even got 'arrested' for blocking a Nazi march in Berlin.

[Q]

Well, there's a difference between the ROOD's youth organization and both the SDS and Linksjugend ['solid], namely that the ROOD, as you said "setup" it's youth organization, which if I'm not mistaken means that they created it out of nothing.
Yes, it was an artificial construct by the SP leadership. By the way, ROOD is the youth organisation.


Both SDS and Linksjugend ['solid] have been formed as autonomous groups. The SDS then decided to allign with the SPD, however, the SPD demanded communists to be expelled, and there were various quarrels over political matters, especially the DDR-friendly stance of the paper konkret, which then lead to a split of the SDS from it's more centrist parts, and the SDS ultimately parted from the SPD. After some time of autonomous action and more splits, the modern SDS alligns with Die LINKE. Likely, Linksjugend ['solid] has been formed as an autonomous group, but since it's start in cloth relationship to Die LINKE.
I guess ROOD's construction is the result of a long lack of any youthmovement here in the Netherlands. Germany has much more dynamism among the youth.


I find the ROOD, from what you described, completely unsupportable.
The only reason why we were active in it was to find those few activists that would genuinely be interested in socialism. Sadly, things were not that easy.


Yes, the German bourgeois parties very often mobilize for anti-fascist demos, as do the bourgeois unions. Hell, some of our politicians even got 'arrested' for blocking a Nazi march in Berlin. That aside, I don't even know what exactly the ROOD is :/
Perhaps I was unclear, here is their website (http://rood.sp.nl/overzicht/), here is a wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROOD).

[Wanted Man]

I have to disagree mainly because the youth wing of a group usually has no power and to be honest I would never join a Party/ORG that has a youth wing unless that wing had just as much power and sway over the regular party/org. Ive never like the youth wing idea because it tells the youth that they are different and are not in the "big kids" party.


That's what I think about the youth wing too. It essentially excludes the youth from the party proper, and this not only keeps the party stale but also probably puts off some youngsters. (certainly it puts me off).

Imagine if the Black Panther Party had made a seperate organisation for members under 25. The majority of members, including some of the greatest revolutionaries in world history (Huey Newton himself, Fred Hampton, etc), would have been excluded from proper party activity and the movement would not have took off at all.

These are all good points, but unfortunately it's not the Black Panther Party any more. Right now, there is often a contrary effect, namely that kids are unsure whether they want to commit themselves to a big political party (or something pretending to be that, anyway). Right now, most organisations that don't have youth orgs are either full of old men, or are purely university-based propaganda groups with no form of continuity. Another thing is that there is now a massive generation gap within the left (except for the aforementioned kinds of groups).

I'm not saying that every organisation should form a youth wing. They should only do that when it is both possible and useful. But I definitely think that it allows the organisation new entrances, new opportunities, etc. Of course, the model of ROOD and the like is wrong. Quite often, the youth wings of bourgeois parties aren't much better than the parties themselves, because they train bureaucrats and asskissers, rather than militants. This is certainly the case with the youth wing of the Green Party in the Netherlands, for instance, which is more neo-liberal than the party itself.

[Widerstand]

Yes, it was an artificial construct by the SP leadership. By the way, ROOD is the youth organisation.

Wups yeah I misread that :blushing:



I guess ROOD's construction is the result of a long lack of any youthmovement here in the Netherlands. Germany has much more dynamism among the youth.

Not that much. The majority of youngsters is completely apolitical (at best) or reactionary ( :( ).



The only reason why we were active in it was to find those few activists that would genuinely be interested in socialism. Sadly, things were not that easy.

Did you have any success though?



Perhaps I was unclear, here is their website (http://rood.sp.nl/overzicht/), here is a wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROOD).

Meh from the wikipedia article they don't sound spectacular :/

[Q]

Did you have any success though?
Not much. Given the nature of the organisation by far most members a pretty apolitical and inactive. Those few that are active are very loyal to the organisation. To raise a political criticism almost automatically means your loyalty is doubted. At a general members meeting in 2008, the one that expelled another comrade over the leaflet thing, one ROOD member actually attacked me very explicitly on this basis, saying: "to who are you loyal anyway? to the SP or to the Committee for a Workers' International?", presenting himself somewhat cocky, as if he had uncovered a great secret or something.

I could give many more anecdotes, but this one is representative for the stupidity that is quite common in that organisation.

[Wanted Man]

It used to be that ROOD drew quite a bit of activist types, but even the people from ~5 years ago seem to have become crooked. For instance, one ROOD figure over here became a city councillor, and he sided with populist parties by demanding a quotum for the amount of students in the city (it is a typical student city; but there are always a few "worried citizens" who think students should have the same position as Moroccans in the rest of the country. There are some local populist parties giving them an outlet, but "socialists" siding with them is something else).

There are quite a few dedicated activist types left, but even they can't do much in the end. It's certainly possible to work with them, but it's hard to get more than semi-commitment. They always consider the possibility of butting out and starting their own action with the usual cookie-cutter SP material and members of parliament.

[black magick hustla]

These are all good points, but unfortunately it's not the Black Panther Party any more. Right now, there is often a contrary effect, namely that kids are unsure whether they want to commit themselves to a big political party (or something pretending to be that, anyway). Right now, most organisations that don't have youth orgs are either full of old men, or are purely university-based propaganda groups with no form of continuity. Another thing is that there is now a massive generation gap within the left (except for the aforementioned kinds of groups).

I'm not saying that every organisation should form a youth wing. They should only do that when it is both possible and useful. But I definitely think that it allows the organisation new entrances, new opportunities, etc. Of course, the model of ROOD and the like is wrong. Quite often, the youth wings of bourgeois parties aren't much better than the parties themselves, because they train bureaucrats and asskissers, rather than militants. This is certainly the case with the youth wing of the Green Party in the Netherlands, for instance, which is more neo-liberal than the party itself.

the state has historically murdered/tortured teenagers for being communists. if that is the case, then dedicated teenage militants need to be treated with as much respect as an older dude

[Q]

the state has historically murdered/tortured teenagers for being communists. if that is the case, then dedicated teenage militants need to be treated with as much respect as an older dude

Speaking on this subject I do have to note that age does play a role, as cliché as it may seem. The youth in an organisation often represent the inexperienced, yet enthusiastic and impatient layer of comrades. In contrast, the older comrades are often more experienced, yet become somewhat conservative in their ideas. An efficient revolutionary organisation combines the revolutionary enthusiasm and new insights with experience and patience. A bad organisation combines amateurism with dogmatism.