joining leftist organizations...

[Os Cangaceiros]

Sometimes I feel like I should join an org, just so I could connect with some like-minded people (I don't really have any ambitions of being part of the vanguard or anything). But does anyone else have the problem of, when looking at a list of positions of some group, just not agreeing with some point? And it seems like a lot of groups say "in order to join you MUST AGREE WITH ALL THESE POSITIONS!" I understand the need for theoretical unity/rigour or whatever, but...

Another thing is defending every single statement and action of your group to the death on these boards. I am too lazy to do that, so I think I'd just let critiques of whatever shitty statement my group wrote slide, and that wouldn't make me a good member either. Like, for example, if my group was trying to distance themselves from the troublemaking rioters in the UK, I think I'd probably join in with the critics and say "yeah....fuck those guys." (those guys being my organization) :o

[Il Medico]

Perhaps you could be an affiliate of some organization? You know, go to meetings and stuff but not be an actual member.

[bcbm]

Sometimes I feel like I should join an org, just so I could connect with some like-minded people (I don't really have any ambitions of being part of the vanguard or anything).

i've hung around with a couple different groups here, i find i meet more link minded people just drinking gin at the bar by myself than joining these groups. i dunno, whether its the iso or the iww or whatever else, they all just feel too rigid and occasionally cultlike for me. prefer autonomous connections

[o well this is ok I guess]

i find i meet more link minded people just drinking gin at the bar by myself than joining these groups. I'm jealous.

Anyways, bcbm is right. It's infinitely more preferable to meet like-minded people outside of organization. Otherwise they'll just shove their orthodoxy down your throat.

[bcbm]

just go drink a ton and then when somebody says anything be like 'have you heard about these wall street motherfuckers?!' and build on it

[o well this is ok I guess]

cheers to that.
Shit man, there's no better display of solidarity than between drunks.
Late night revleft proves this.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sometimes I feel like I should join an org, just so I could connect with some like-minded people (I don't really have any ambitions of being part of the vanguard or anything).

1) If you are only interested in groups for being able to be around other leftists, then don't join a group. RevLeft is probably better for socializing or maybe you can find a reading circle where the point of the group would be to have open discussions that didn't need to be "settled" and then acted upon by the group.

IMO that is the only reason why groups should come up with some basic points of political agreement - in order to be able to act on their common ideas. In other words, I wouldn't want to be part of a group that though of socialism as a nationalized economy run by a party or a group that thought that thought we should all buy some land and start a commune.

2) If you are a worker, or ally of workers I guess, who thinks that capitalism should be replaced by working class rule... then you are most likely a member of the vanguard already. It's like one of those "You might be a redneck" jokes :lol:


But does anyone else have the problem of, when looking at a list of positions of some group, just not agreeing with some point? And it seems like a lot of groups say "in order to join you MUST AGREE WITH ALL THESE POSITIONS!" I understand the need for theoretical unity/rigour or whatever, but...If there is no room for real debate or reflection on the politics of the group, then I think that's problematic even just merely on the level that such a group would be too ridged to consider its theory and practice and try and figure out what is needed now and what works now.

I think most groups with a more outward and activist focus probably would be more flexible than a more inward-looking group that put theory above praxis.


Another thing is defending every single statement and action of your group to the death on these boards. I am too lazy to do that, so I think I'd just let critiques of whatever shitty statement my group wrote slide, and that wouldn't make me a good member either. Like, for example, if my group was trying to distance themselves from the troublemaking rioters in the UK, I think I'd probably join in with the critics and say "yeah....fuck those guys." (those guys being my organization) :oWell that's probably a bigger disagreement than two members of a group who debate if a movement should stage a sit-in or have a march... it's a more fundamental disagreement and I'd say if that was the case, time to move on.

I think the real reason that we should all be trying to organize in groups and trying to put forward what we consider to be the best ways forward for our class is because simply we can have more of an impact through organizing. Also because class struggle isn't a direct line up or down but is an explosive and dynamic process with lots of unexpected twists and upsurges and downturns, being part of a group enables radicals to better navigate these waters because maybe things are on a downturn in one movement or in one town but somewhere else things are picking up - being able to network and have people in various movements and workplaces who have a common framework and project means that there is a better chance to get a clearer understanding of what the class struggle looks like and therefore a better chance of finding out what is working, what workers are doing to win in other places and if that can be applied in your location.

[Jimmie Higgins]

BCBM, that's too bad ISO and IWW members are my favorite political people to get drunk with. :lol:

[black magick hustla]

currently i am in the process of joining one although i been thinking hard about it because i used to think centralism was important but centralism is only important when there is a class party, i.e. an organ that is historically significant. centralism can be turned into a caricature when it is used by tiny groups to "defend the line". i think organizations should draft a list of positions but not a 10pg platform. i think its worth to be part of an organization for the fact that you meet like minded people. i met some very interesting people through the icc. my other problem with centralism is that i am not too keen of orthodoxy either

[Tablo]

ES, I understand how you feel. That's one reason I like SDS. It is very broad left and the people in the org are from various leftist tendencies. It is nice and relaxed. I've heard of some sectarianism(which I'm sure some loser internet revolutionary started) within SDS, but my chapter is very relaxed. My chapter used to be dominated by punk anarchists(shit politics anarchists), but now we are a very egalitarian group of relaxed and chill members. I know you're not a student, but I think it is generally a good idea to get involved with a broad left org. The relaxed environment makes it so much more fun to organize with these people.

Not saying sectarianism doesn't have its place, it does, but for most people that bs is just annoying and I like to hang out with people focusing on general class warfare rather than lame party politics.

Btw, drunk. :lol:

[manic expression]

I mean, if there are some things you can't agree with, you can always be an active supporter of the group...

[NoOneIsIllegal]

bcbm: you're from Madison, right? Because if so, your judgment of the IWW might be a little off. I'd hate to say it, but in all honesty, the Madison branch is considered a joke by many others. Not to hate on my fellow workers :( But if not, that's understandable, some branches are bound to be like that. My branch is militant but has a large bag of mixed ideologies.

ES, it wouldn't be a bad idea just to sit in and get involved with groups. I would hold off on joining anything (the group may not like that), but it's always a good experience just to test the waters, see how things are, and make connections. 100% agreement on political ideology isn't major if you're just meeting people and connecting.
Connections are key in the struggle.

[praxis1966]

ES, it wouldn't be a bad idea just to sit in and get involved with groups. I would hold off on joining anything (the group may not like that), but it's always a good experience just to test the waters, see how things are, and make connections. 100% agreement on political ideology isn't major if you're just meeting people and connecting.
Connections are key in the struggle.

Yeah, to get this thing back on frame, I have to agree with the above. Further, I'd say perhaps you might consider thinking outside the box a little bit in terms of what kinds of organization you want to join. There are plenty of organizations where you can do revolutionary work without actually joining a party or a union. There are two organizations here in the SF Bay which I can think of off the top of my head that fit this description: One Struggle, One Fight, a radical LGBTQ+ organization, and Homes Not Jails, a radical homelessness advocacy* group.

*Note: I use the term advocacy loosely since HNJ doesn't set themselves above the homeless in the same way the mainstream liberal groups who focus on the same issue do and occupying vacant buildings seems a touch beyond simple advocacy as well.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Sometimes I feel like I should join an org, just so I could connect with some like-minded people (I don't really have any ambitions of being part of the vanguard or anything). But does anyone else have the problem of, when looking at a list of positions of some group, just not agreeing with some point? And it seems like a lot of groups say "in order to join you MUST AGREE WITH ALL THESE POSITIONS!" I understand the need for theoretical unity/rigour or whatever, but...

Another thing is defending every single statement and action of your group to the death on these boards. I am too lazy to do that, so I think I'd just let critiques of whatever shitty statement my group wrote slide, and that wouldn't make me a good member either. Like, for example, if my group was trying to distance themselves from the troublemaking rioters in the UK, I think I'd probably join in with the critics and say "yeah....fuck those guys." (those guys being my organization) :o

The Insurgent Notes group of S. Artesian, Loren Goldner and others may be close to what I think your politics are (anarcho-communist/left com?) and seems to be fairly open ended.The members do seem to have sharp disagreements but can agree on basic principles. I think they're based in New York but have people in Turkey and France, I guess.

Other than that, do you find anarchist groups stifling?I'm not criticizing, this is something I don't know a lot about.

I'd pretty much agree with Praxis, Jimmie Higgins and NOII.

[La Comédie Noire]

You're better off just affiliating till you find a group you like.

[Klaatu]

I don't think a group exists anywhere where the members agree 100% on each and every sundry topic. To do so would be undesirable anyway (how would new ideas be generated?)

I have been blasted by a few people on this board for one reason or another... sometimes I soften my stance (if I learn something I did not know) or keep solidly to my position (where weak or no evidence can be presented contrary to my own opinion.)

Just remember that debate is a good, useful thing. And when all debate is over, we all might become the property of those that hold power, because they want everyone to think alike. Never let that happen!

[Os Cangaceiros]

Other than that, do you find anarchist groups stifling?I'm not criticizing, this is something I don't know a lot about.

I find that the few political orgs that I've actually have had face-to-face contact with...well, they've kind of been alienating experiences for me. One reason is that most groups seem consist of people who've known each other FOREVER. Or at least for a significant amount of time. You feel like the new kid in school just encountering your first clique or something. A lot of these people have been doing "activism" for quite a few years...I've only been politically "active" for about two years.

Another thing I've noticed is that often the whole idea of a group where everyone has an equal voice...well, it's a fraud. Often times the most dominant personalities will take over the group. I mean, I'm not a mute or anything, I don't have a problem talking with people, but I'm not the kind of person who'll just start bellowing into a megaphone or chanting or whatever. Another thing is that the politics of many anarchist "groups" are really dumb. The list goes on.

Often times, like bcbm said, I enjoy talking with non-leftists more. There are a lot of sympathizers out there, a lot more than we may realize, although they might not couch the language in our terms. For example, how many people dislike their boss and hate the police? Pretty much everyone I know.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Another thing I've noticed is that often the whole idea of a group where everyone has an equal voice...well, it's a fraud. Often times the most dominant personalities will take over the group. I mean, I'm not a mute or anything, I don't have a problem talking with people, but I'm not the kind of person who'll just start bellowing into a megaphone or chanting or whatever. Another thing is that the politics of many anarchist "groups" are really dumb. The list goes on.
This is bound to happen, it's human nature. It happens in class rooms, and it'll happen in political meetings as well. Some people at my GMB simply sit around and are silent, compared to some of the more outgoing people. However, one thing I do like, is on certain topics we still go around the room and have each person discuss their opinion or vote on an important topic. It's a good way of opening up and letting everyone say something in a fair manner.

[black magick hustla]

Often times, like bcbm said, I enjoy talking with non-leftists more. There are a lot of sympathizers out there, a lot more than we may realize, although they might not couch the language in our terms. For example, how many people dislike their boss and hate the police? Pretty much everyone I know.

this is a point but i think their is a worth in talking with people that have similar ideas to you and already a sophisticated backbone to them. at the very least it helps you develop and discuss your own views further. part of the reason why i didn't send the icc to the curb as i did with other orgs is that it showed very little interest in "recruiting" which i thought was interesting

[PC LOAD LETTER]

[snip]

2) If you are a worker, or ally of workers I guess, who thinks that capitalism should be replaced by working class rule... then you are most likely a member of the vanguard already. It's like one of those "You might be a redneck" jokes :lol:

[snip]
Oh, jeez. Cue mental images of "Rufus the Communist" in place of "Larry the Cable Guy" with Yakov Smirnoff as an opening act ... "The Red Flag Comedy Tour" ... "You might be a communist if ...!!!"

Million dollar contracts ensue.

Haha.

[Delenda Carthago]

Being organized and a revolutionary is fundamentaly combined. Revolution will occur when the working classe's tools, our political and economical(unions) organizations, will take over. If we dont organize our struggle, and dont empower our tools, there is no revolution. so you best find one that suits you best, and get involved.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Sir yes sir!

[Wanted Man]

Ain't nothing wrong with being an active sympathiser instead of a member if that's how you feel.

[Martin Blank]

I don't even think it's necessary for you to become a supporter or sympathizer of an organization just for the sake of more friendly conversation. Any organization that would require some kind of formal relationship just to talk politics is too insular to be worth it.

I actually like to hang out with some ex-members of a group we all used to belong to 16 years ago; we can talk politics without any pressure of recruitment behind it.