Who are the RAAN?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Now I know this sounds like a ridiculous question, but I'm a ridiculous person and have had quite the historical illiteracy going for a large period of my life.

All I know is that they are known as the Red and Anarchist Action Network, they are restricted on this website and that they supposedly came up with that snazzy Hammer-and-Sickle A.

Why are they not allowed here? Are they not revolutionary (Reactionary, Hypocritical, other)? What are your opinions on them?

[Mr. Natural]

Interesting question, Yoseph, and I have no answer, although other comrades will know RAAN well. I just know that when I began to check RAAN out, I got no further than its opening "pictoral" in which some bearded anarchist was putting a bullet in Lenin's head.

I have very mixed feelings about Lenin, but I want to discuss them, not flame out. I'm after anarchist/communist revolution and social transformation, not bloody sectarianism and mindless violence, and I suspect the latter qualities are representative of RAAN. Perhaps not.

My red-green best.

[The Douche]

They're not restricted on here.

They're dead, at least for now (again).

I was a RAANista for a number of years, I could tell you pretty much anything you want to know about RAAN (most of it won't be pretty), but none of it is particularly relevant.

I would sum up my feelings on RAAN thusly:

It was (is?) a reasonably good idea, with involvement from some disappointing people, who pushed it in weird (bad) directions, and now it is useless. I would not be opposed to participating in a similar project, though I think its politics would have to be a little more refined. RAAN still influences my politics and if I were to ever participate in/form a more permanent project again, it would be similar to RAAN.

[Prometeo liberado]

What tickles me most about RAAN is the insatiable blood lust for ML, Leninist and almost all things associated with the old CP. I used to see posts on there advocating violence at demonstrations against these "other" reds. Now wouldn't that be a pleasant site, a group of lefties all going after each other in public instead of the participating in the scheduled demonstration? PLease.:rolleyes:

[The Douche]

What tickles me most about RAAN is the insatiable blood lust for ML, Leninist and almost all things associated with the old CP. I used to see posts on there advocating violence at demonstrations against these "other" reds. Now wouldn't that be a pleasant site, a group of lefties all going after each other in public instead of the participating in the scheduled demonstration? PLease.:rolleyes:

RAAN is not "the left" and they do not consider leninists to be communists. So the position makes sense.

That said, the degree to which this opposition to leninism was emphasized was a mistake, and the mistake was seized on by leninists who harper on it to the point that it became self-replicating, it was all the leninists would talk about, and so it was all the immature raanistas would talk about. A cycle which stifled any sort of meaningful dialogue.

[theblackmask]

I got no further than its opening "pictoral" in which some bearded anarchist was putting a bullet in Lenin's head.

That bearded anarchist is supposed to be Marx...maybe you should have looked a bit further.

Chris is absolutely correct in saying that the anti-Leninism was seized on by Leninists. If you look at RAAN's history, the last time any action was taken against Leninists was back in 2005. I think initially people wanted to make it known that they were strongly anti-Leninist, but that position kinda backfired and just got them pigeon-holed into being looked at as nothing but anti-Leninists.

Overall, I think RAAN's organizational structure, or lack thereof, is both the best and worst thing about it. I think we will probably see similar groups popping up in the future, but I think RAAN itself was probably too far ahead of its time and too far off in its ideas to do anything significant.

[Caj]

That bearded anarchist is supposed to be Marx...maybe you should have looked a bit further.

Actually, I think it's Bakunin, not Marx.

[Rusty Shackleford]

hell, i would have been fine with working with RAAN in light capacity at actions if they even existed out here.

but nerp. would never join though if i were an anarchist. seeing some of the weird shit nachie would post was enough to keep me clear of it.

[The Douche]

hell, i would have been fine with working with RAAN in light capacity at actions if they even existed out here.

but nerp. would never join though if i were an anarchist. seeing some of the weird shit nachie would post was enough to keep me clear of it.

Nachie is the most authoritarian, anti-authoritarian I have ever known, he is responsible for RAAN's decline, and if Nachie happens to get wind of this, I would gladly discuss it with him, so he shouldn't feel slighted or that I'm just talking shit behind his back.

[Prometeo liberado]

RAAN is not "the left" and they do not consider Leninist to be communists. So the position makes sense.

That said, the degree to which this opposition to leninism was emphasized was a mistake, and the mistake was seized on by leninists who harper on it to the point that it became self-replicating, it was all the leninists would talk about, and so it was all the immature raanistas would talk about. A cycle which stifled any sort of meaningful dialog.

I can definitely see your point there as I could not stomach to even try and give it a chance. When I refer to "lefties" though it's just a general term. I won't get bogged down with all the petty sectarian terms.

[Il Medico]

I honestly don't remember much from the whole big spat a while back except that they're militant ultra-lefts who were trying to unite libertarian socialist and Anarchist, that they caused a big to-do among the Stalinist crowd here, and something about make total destroy.




I was a RAANista for a number of years, I could tell you pretty much anything you want to know about RAAN
Hey Douche, (I applaud your name choice btw) what was the main thing with RAAN anyways? What were they trying to do before thing went all sideways and shit?

[The Douche]

I honestly don't remember much from the whole big spat a while back except that they're militant ultra-lefts who were trying to unite libertarian socialist and Anarchist, that they caused a big to-do among the Stalinist crowd here, and something about make total destroy.



Hey Douche, (I applaud your name choice btw) what was the main thing with RAAN anyways? What were they trying to do before thing went awry?

I'd say they were sort of proto-tiqqunist, even though that's not really a thing. I have something I wrote a while ago that could serve as a basis for a critique of RAAN but I'm on my phone at work, so I can't access it. As long as this thread doesn't descend into the shitstorm of the old RAAN threads I'll post it.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Man I thought the first response here would be "hella sick communist street gang".

[The Douche]

Man I thought the first response here would be "hella sick communist street gang".

If RAAN had ever achieved this I'd still be down with them.

[o well this is ok I guess]

If RAAN had ever achieved this I'd still be down with them. Man, that's a shame to hear. The little I've heard of RAAN on here made them seem awesome.
So what did you guys do, anyways?

[bcbm]

Actually, I think it's Bakunin, not Marx.

no its marx

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Does it really matter who is the bearded man on the picture shooting Lenin? The point is that the picture itself is childish.

[Caj]

no its marx

How do you know?

[justmenomorenoless]

Could someone please post a link of where to find this picture? I'm at a big loss on this subject...

[theblackmask]

Does it really matter who is the bearded man on the picture shooting Lenin? The point is that the picture itself is childish.

It matters because instead of actually reading anything on the website, the poster who called the picture into question simply looked at a single image and made their judgement off just that.


How do you know?

It's definitely Marx...not only does Bakunin not really make as much sense, there have been a couple discussions on Revelft about it as well...here's one: http://www.revleft.com/vb/raan-t57059/index2.html

[o well this is ok I guess]

yo where's this picture in question

[The Douche]

Google "vanguard my ass", I can't be fucked to post pictures on my phone.

It's definitely Marx, BTW.

[Luc]

why is this taking over the thread??
here this is the picture where Marx's head in the RAAN pic is from source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/photo/marx/pages/67km1.htm)http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/photo/marx/images/67km1.jpg
the RAAN pic for comprison:http://www.redanarchist.org/images/graphics/marxpopslenin.jpg
the pictures represents some RAANista's acceptance of Marx but rejection of Lenin with a flare of violence

now back to the thread, i hope The Douche posts his piece on RAAN :) (when he can and if he wants to of course)

[Caj]

Oh, I guess it is Marx. I thought it was Bakunin because of the dark hair. My bad.

[theblackmask]

http://lefthost.info/www.redanarchist.org/images/graphics/marxpopslenin.jpg

[Ocean Seal]

Yo they're some guys who like to throw bricks at the windows of Maoists organizations to free the world from the authoritarian grips of Chairman Bob.

[The Douche]

Yo they're some guys who like to throw bricks at the windows of Maoists organizations to free the world from the authoritarian grips of Chairman Bob.

And this is the kind of misrepresentation that makes it hard to talk about RAAN on revleft.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

It matters because instead of actually reading anything on the website, the poster who called the picture into question simply looked at a single image and made their judgement off just that.



That would be more of a reason why it isn't important, and we should rather focus on their actions and texts on their website. Instead of on a childish picture.

[theblackmask]

I think its pretty exemplary of how most people dealt with RAAN, therefore it is important. I think the only people who have come up with worthwhile criticisms of RAAN are RAANistas themselves...I have yet to see anyone outside of RAAN move beyond childishness.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yeah, if you want to keep discussing about a picture (You said it was important), there isn't going to get much good criticism out of it.

[Caj]

I think its pretty exemplary of how most people dealt with RAAN, therefore it is important. I think the only people who have come up with worthwhile criticisms of RAAN are RAANistas themselves...I have yet to see anyone outside of RAAN move beyond childishness.

I wasn't attempting to make any criticism of RAAN; I was simply remarking that the man in the picture looked more like Bakunin than Marx to me. And it really isn't important in the slightest.

[The Douche]

Ok so I managed to find the thing I wrote, it was written on here at a time when all RAANistas were being banned, and all RAAN threads were being auto-locked, I was recieving infractions and was on the chopping block. (yeah, think about that, those of you who see me as an authoritarian bully BA member)

So, there is probably some stuff in here that reflects that mental state, and the things I wrote probably aren't 100% what I would say today, and I could probably do a better job of explaining my ideas and criticisms, but whatever. If there is further interest or some sort of discussion emerges then maybe this will become an actual critique of RAAN or whatever. But yeah, here it is:


I think RAAN kind of lost the revolutionary lottery. A lot of what they were saying (and you'll never hear about this on here because people want to pick out only the outrageous and hard to understand or very specific parts of RAAN, but more on that later), especially back in the 2nd generation (which is when I got involved) was what can now be found in texts like The Coming Insurrection, and advocated by groups like Tiqqun and the The Invisible Committee.

When I got involved in RAAN the purpose of it, and what I hoped to do in it, was build a "culture of resistance". We sought, not to build any specific organization or party, but to build a broad culture of resistance within the working class, the purpose of the network was to provide a method of communication, a clear stated set of goals for use in propaganda/organizing, and as a tool for discussion of tactics. Unfortunately, as RAAN enters this third generation it is no longer about that.

RAAN now seeks to build itself, there is, at times even a (unintentional perhaps) creepy implication that revolution cannot happen without RAAN. When RAAN first started, anti-leninism was just another point in its list of positions, but many on the anarchist left accused RAAN of being some sort of Leninist authoritarian secret society trying to sap the energy from the anarchist movement, and that led to the creation of some goofy propaganda which some people feign offense at, and a couple of propagandistic actions, which people now won't shut the fuck up about, even though they happend years ago, and its not even the target audience that cares. RAAN encouraged a culture of "go do something" because it needed to "establish itself", it needed to "get its name out there", so that more people would involve themselves and RAAN would keep expanding. This is pretty divorced from the line when I got involved which was "do something, build connections, build resistance", when I first got involved we would say "RAAN doesn't matter", we saw it as just a tool. Now it is promoted as something far beyond that.

This focus on action I think was understandable in the begining, and in general, because it was important to establish the network, and actions do go towards building that culture of resistance (which was what we used to use the term RAANismo for). But this constant focus on action (which ironically, was one of my concerns with RAAN, coming from the DAT, where there was a strong focus on actions, the DAT wanted us to report back once a week on what we were doing for the struggle, which of course led us to do all sort of actions which were a waste of time and energy) has created 1) the false image that RAAN has no theory and 2) a degree of specialization and isolation from the working class at large. The actions now are geared towards being grandioise so that people find out about them. My critique of this strategy is the same that is levelled at any urban guerrilla organization/tactic, it isolates the militants from the working class. And in this case they're not even doing real "cool shit" like robbing banks or anything, they're just doing graffitti and vandalism (which I supported for a long time, because I thought we were doing this in a broader movement of building general resistance, but in reality that wasn't happening).

There is a lot of talk about "the left" within RAAN, and how much that needs to be avoided, how much of a dead end the left is etc (just like there is in the post-anarchist community, the french communist community, the nihilist communist community, and the left communist community), and yet there has started to be a massive tendency within RAAN to try and recruit from other organizations, or at the very least to encourage certain friendly members of those organizations to "do RAAN actions" and contribute to RAAN. This has become a major goal of RAAN as it seeks to build its organization, because the goal has shifted, as I said, from building resistance within the working class, to building the organization itself.

The "No Bullshit Policy" was also one of the worst things to make its way into the RAAN lexicon. On its face it is a really awesome idea and I liked it a lot. In a nutshell, it says that if you disagree with an action or an idea or the direction of RAAN, then you have the power to lead it in a different direction, you can do so by planning and pulling off your own action, and since yours will be the more correct option, more people will be attracted to it, and it will pull the organization that way. Like I said, on the surface it seems to be a decent idea, but in reality the NBP was used as a tool to politely say "shut the fuck up I'll do what I want and I don't need to answer questions". If you tried to critique an action or a position by someone, somebody who agreed with them would inevitably raise the "NBP" flag, and the arguement was effectively ended "sorry bro, No Bullshit, if you don't like it, do something better".

Unfortunately it got to the point where to "do something better" I felt I had to walk away from RAAN. But who knows, maybe RAAN is the exact same group I got involved with a few years ago, and its me who changed.

And this is a blog I made to mirror some RAAN documents so that nobody has to hunt for them if they want to look over them, I can also quote from them at length if necessary:


The "principles & direction" it contains a brief summary of RAAN's position on most talking points revolutionary groups have nowadays. (http://communismisahammer.blogspot.c...direction.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://communismisahammer.blogspot.com/2011/01/principles-direction.html))

The "no bullshit policy" I post it mainly because I refer to it in my critique of RAAN, and because it is a core element in almost any RAANistas vocabulary. It is a "policy" meant to encourage action and a diverstiy of tactics (http://communismisahammer.blogspot.c...it-policy.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://communismisahammer.blogspot.com/2011/01/no-bullshit-policy.html))

"The dictatorship of the proletariant" this is one of the most political (in the traditional sense) pieces RAAN has, and it is still an influence on me. It defines the dictatorship of the proletariat, or at least interprets it in a way which RAAN supports. (http://communismisahammer.blogspot.c...oletariat.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://communismisahammer.blogspot.com/2011/01/dictatorship-of-proletariat.html))

The "7 theses on RAAN" a brief document that sort of touches on the organization/make up of RAAN. (http://communismisahammer.blogspot.c.../7-theses.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://communismisahammer.blogspot.com/2011/01/7-theses.html))




And like I said, I will close this thread with a quickness if it degenerates the way the old RAAN threads did. I would love to formulate a good critique of RAAN, and this discussion would help me with that, but I will not allow my desire for a critique to create a (more) hostile environment on the board.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Good critique. I think the No Bullshit Policy is one that won't work easily. Of course, I am in favour of a vanguard build on criticism and self-criticism, and not, if you disagree go your own way. But even if that is what you think, it can only work if you can give criticism as well. Or it will just turn out as you said, good little article.

[Leftsolidarity]

The NBP sounds like the same logic cappies use but ignore the fact that there is more at play such as loyalty, influence, resources, etc.

[Hermes]

This is a relatively stupid question, but in the Personal Liberation section of the Principles & Directions, what is meant by:


The goal of personal liberation should not be to become a "little" bourgeois, or even "more" proletarian, but to transcend all societal roles imposed on us by capitalism and class societies.
We strive to strike a middle path, which takes us beyond the working class in some respects, and keeps us rooted to it in others
?

I'm not entirely sure I understand how one 'transcends' the working class (without becoming a part of the bourgeoisie). Are they simply reiterating going beyond the roles that are prescribed by the bourgeoisie to the proletariat?

[Prometeo liberado]

And this is the kind of misrepresentation that makes it hard to talk about RAAN on revleft.

Remember when we almost had a decent, grown up, discussion about RAAN? Yah, me neither. Now I know what you mean.

[Art Vandelay]

RAANismo o Muerte!

[Rusty Shackleford]

Your criticism of NBP sounds like the criticism of Criticism and Self-Criticism within leninism. The principle is good, and in fact, the principle is something to strive for in the organization or non-organization. Though i'm not an anarchist, NBP seems to fit very well with anarchist action.

Criticism & Self-Criticism has been criticized as being a way to shut down dissent by forcing one to 'criticize themselves' Though i have not experienced this (and no, im not trying to save face for the PSL, I legitimately have not had this issue) it is a valid point and a good way to watch out for such a principle being misused or misapplied.

Could i ask this: Is being 'involved' in RAAN to build a culture of resistance, but not an organization, a bit of a contradiction?

Maybe im criticizing you or pointing out a contradiction in the RAAN 'line' (i dont know how to put it or where im getting at/coming from) but does it seem like this?

Can the idea of building a culture of resistance without organization exist alongside an entity (which one could call an organization) which speaks to such a goal and against organization? Is is more of an individual action or is it something in which a center of discussion and theory is necessary?

[The Douche]

Hermes:


I'm not entirely sure I understand how one 'transcends' the working class (without becoming a part of the bourgeoisie). Are they simply reiterating going beyond the roles that are prescribed by the bourgeoisie to the proletariat? What that is suggesting is like what Camatte suggests here:


"One can only speak of the victory of the proletarians to the extent that one simultaneously affirms that they will not realize it as proletarians, but in negating themselves, in posing man."Its about not fetishizing the worker identity, because the ultimate task of communism is the negation of the worker, not its valorization. So its not about being a class other than proletarian, but placing oneself in the mental position of abolishing class as opposed to fighting for an identity (which is a tool of empire).

Rusty:


Is being 'involved' in RAAN to build a culture of resistance, but not an organization, a bit of a contradiction?

Maybe im criticizing you or pointing out a contradiction in the RAAN 'line' (i dont know how to put it or where im getting at/coming from) but does it seem like this?

Can the idea of building a culture of resistance without organization exist alongside an entity (which one could call an organization) which speaks to such a goal and against organization? Is is more of an individual action or is it something in which a center of discussion and theory is necessary? I don't think there is any contradiction. I don't like that term "culture of resistance" anymore, and I don't necessarily agree with what I meant by saying it at the time. I think that term implies the creation or cultivation of something very specific and rigid, and decided/qualified by those who construct/seek to construct it.

Somewhere along the line RAAN went from being an informal network (so, a tool through which individuals could communicate and lend each other a hand) to being an actual organization (with goals, plans, and an informal leadership).


I think the idea of RAAN, as a tool for militants of a certain persuasion to be able to find each other, communicate, share ideas, and execute projects is a good idea, I think somewhere along the line RAAN ceased to be that (because people started to focus on replicating RAAN and not on replicating RAAN's projects or ideas).

[Mr. Natural]

Bakunin? Marx? I don't much give a shit. The point is that the RAAN site immediately engaged the viewer with promiscuous violence.

I'm a revolutionary, not a pacifist, but I'll be damned if I'll have anything to do with persons or groups who open with ass-kicking. I've been around for awhile, and in the US and the rest of the West, "violent revolution," at least in the initial stages of a revolutionary process, is an oxymoron.

I'm not aware that Marx owned a gun with which he could shoot Lenin, and Marx viewed revolutionary violence as a means, and not as an end as RAAN's opening page suggests. Marx: "Material force can only be overthrown by material force; but theory itself becomes a material force when it has seized the masses." (Introduction: contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)

Other comrades have RAAN experience. Just what is RAAN's "material theoretical force" by which we might begin to organize for anarchism/communism against capitalism? Does RAAN really have more to offer than an ultra-sectarian pistol shot?

Let's see it. I'm always open to new groups and theories in this era of revolutionary sterility and stagnation.

My red-green best.

[The Douche]

Bakunin? Marx? I don't much give a shit. The point is that the RAAN site immediately engaged the viewer with promiscuous violence.

I'm a revolutionary, not a pacifist, but I'll be damned if I'll have anything to do with persons or groups who open with ass-kicking. I've been around for awhile, and in the US and the rest of the West, "violent revolution," at least in the initial stages of a revolutionary process, is an oxymoron.

I'm not aware that Marx owned a gun with which he could shoot Lenin, and Marx viewed revolutionary violence as a means, and not as an end as RAAN's opening page suggests. Marx: "Material force can only be overthrown by material force; but theory itself becomes a material force when it has seized the masses." (Introduction: contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right)

Other comrades have RAAN experience. Just what is RAAN's "material theoretical force" by which we might begin to organize for anarchism/communism against capitalism? Does RAAN really have more to offer than an ultra-sectarian pistol shot?

Let's see it. I'm always open to new groups and theories in this era of revolutionary sterility and stagnation.

My red-green best.

That image is not the first thing on RAAN's website? Nor does RAAN advocate for any sort of immediate armed struggle (at least, never did while I was around).

RAAN did have two armed factions. There was "Falce Proletario", which declared themselves in a communique, but I dunno if they ever did anything afterwards, maybe break some windows. There was also "RAAD" which was the "Radical Anti-Authoritarian Defense", which was a kistchy name given to a group of RAANistas who conducted a couple of workshops on safe and legal firearm use.

I'm not sure of what you're asking in your post about "material theoretical force", do you mean RAAN's ideology? I did link to couple theoretical pieces by RAAN.

As for "ultra-sectarian pistol shot(s)", that would imply that RAAN conceives of itself as a sect in which leninists are also included, which it does not. RAAN opposes Leninism because it is an ideology of the bosses. RAAN's rejection of leninism is not peculiar or original, many organizations reject leninism, RAAN just chose to make that rejection clear through physical actions, and those physical actions came to dominate any discourse around RAAN.

[Mr. Natural]

Oops! I got sloppy and overlooked Douche's excellent information on RAAN.

Besides "Oops!" I want to say that a "culture of resistance" must also have an organization. Otherwise, it's not a culture within which disparate people and elements come together in a common system.

The universe and the life process on Earth have organization. Anarchists often seem to view freedom as a freedom from all organization, and not just from external domination, but there are means of organization such as anarchism/communism that free people to realize their nature. Freedom must be organized.

There is an organization on Earth by which material systems--people are material systems--come to life (freedom). What is that pattern of organization? See Fritjof Capra's Web of Life and that unprecedented, transcendently revolutionary conceptual triangle that models life's universal pattern of organization on Earth. The triangle models the organizational pattern and relations by which "cultures of resistance" might emerge.

My red-green, Oopsy best.

[Os Cangaceiros]

RAAN in theory was a whole lot better than RAAN in practice.

(And by "theory" I mean their theory on organizational structure.)