Apathy,Conflicting views and the Revolution

[Rational Radical]

Greetings fellow revlefters, I've become increasingly doubtful of the possibility of revolution coming any time soon unless a harsher economic crisis happens so I'm sort of developing a nihilist (anarcho)communist perspective. However at the same time I must admit that I'm quite impatient and feel if we don't agitate and organize the masses then the status quo will be accepted,plus I think all the sectarianism and dogmatism of the Left is hurting progress. So I was wondering what's the best strategy for radicalizing the proletarian?

[Ostrinski]

Harsher economic conditions will not necessarily bring about a revolutionary situation, only political organization can do that.

Give one historical example where deteriorating conditions, ontheir own, brought about a quality revolutionary movement. Quality revolutionary theory is necessary to steer the revlutionary situation in the right direction.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Of the two positions you espouse I would say the nihilist one is closer to being correct. Organizations have become something like prisons for subjects who might otherwise prove dangerous. Rather than mingling with the rest of society and damaging the polite apathy its wears, you’ll be safely locked behind closed doors with your vanguard, collectively kept in check by the dogma of party building and raising working class consciousness. After a period of time engaging in this dead-end exercise, you will come to the conclusion that opposition to the way things are is useless and at such a moment it will be safe to allow you to reintegrate into society as a depoliticized entity.If you are trying to avoid apathy, step one would be to avoid organizations.

[Rational Radical]

Yeah I believe tht as well but what are some better organizational tactics and how can we promote socialism/communism better? I honestly think that most anarchists,communists and socialists either don't strive that hard to promote their ideology,debate about history amongst eachother or the ones with terrible politics usually seem safer to more radical currents thus people prefer them since the lack of understanding. We need to start spreading ideology and holding more debates with common working class people if we want a revolution.

[Rational Radical]

Of the two positions you espouse I would say the nihilist one is closer to being correct. Organizations have become something like prisons for subjects who might otherwise prove dangerous. Rather than mingling with the rest of society and damaging the polite apathy its wears, you’ll be safely locked behind closed doors with your vanguard, collectively kept in check by the dogma of party building and raising working class consciousness. After a period of time engaging in this dead-end exercise, you will come to the conclusion that opposition to the way things are is useless and at such a moment it will be safe to allow you to reintegrate into society as a depoliticized entity.If you are trying to avoid apathy, step one would be to avoid organizations.
Ehhh I think if Americans can get over the Great Depression without a mass uprising by an organization then it's pretty fair to speculate that they'll believe in elitist opinions about what went wrong in the market and still have faith in the capitalist system.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

People have been going out and spreading the ideology and trying to interact with workers and it's only had a negative effect. The workers know more than the revolutionaries at this point, not to attack lizard king but look at this post; "Quality revolutionary theory is necessary to steer the revlutionary situation in the right direction", it's still outdated vanguard nonsense. Who the hell wants to be steered? The average person has access to cheap beer and more internet porn than they could watch in a lifetime, you're not going to beat what capitalism is selling with century old tactics and theory, certainly not with everyone's knowledge of how the Soviet Union worked out. I don't know what the solution is but going out in proselytizing is a useless act and is actually counter productive in my opinion.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If Americans have a mass uprising it'll be the final nail in Leninism's coffin. In that situation I would agree with monsieur dupont, that committed pro-revolutionaries should be prepared to confront Leninist organizations that attempt to co-opt the revolution and lead it back to the Capitalist mode of production, not try to steer that revolution themselves.

[Rational Radical]

Wow I was thinking that Marxists and anarchists needed to confront Leninists in order to create the revolution but I didn't want to start a tenedency war lol so would you agree with organizations promoting their ideology, getting more active in their communities and disucssion/debates with the working class or do you think we should just wait(which I think don't have the patience for lol)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think you should do what you want, if you want to get active in your community I can't see a problem with it, just don't make the mistake of thinking it's a revolutionary act or even a political one as so many other people do. Revolution isn't something you can create with or without an organization.

[Art Vandelay]

Organizations have become something like prisons for subjects who might otherwise prove dangerous. Rather than mingling with the rest of society and damaging the polite apathy its wears, you’ll be safely locked behind closed doors with your vanguard, collectively kept in check by the dogma of party building and raising working class consciousness. After a period of time engaging in this dead-end exercise, you will come to the conclusion that opposition to the way things are is useless and at such a moment it will be safe to allow you to reintegrate into society as a depoliticized entity.If you are trying to avoid apathy, step one would be to avoid organizations.

Blah blah blah....anti-party nonsense. Fucking anti-organizations are stupid, a great way to remain irrelevant. You talk about wanting to overthrow capitalism and want to do it without organizing.


People have been going out and spreading the ideology and trying to interact with workers and it's only had a negative effect.

Falling into some hipster communism I see.


The workers know more than the revolutionaries at this point, not to attack lizard king but look at this post; "Quality revolutionary theory is necessary to steer the revlutionary situation in the right direction", it's still outdated vanguard nonsense.


Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.

Lenin; What Is To Be Done.



Who the hell wants to be steered? The average person has access to cheap beer and more internet porn than they could watch in a lifetime, you're not going to beat what capitalism is selling with century old tactics and theory, certainly not with everyone's knowledge of how the Soviet Union worked out. I don't know what the solution is but going out in proselytizing is a useless act and is actually counter productive in my opinion.

So in other words you have no solutions but are attacking the comrades who have dedicated their lives to the movement as "counter productive."


If Americans have a mass uprising it'll be the final nail in Leninism's coffin. In that situation I would agree with monsieur dupont, that committed pro-revolutionaries should be prepared to confront Leninist organizations that attempt to co-opt the revolution and lead it back to the Capitalist mode of production, not try to steer that revolution themselves.

I always find it funny that given the slur generally hurled at Leninism for being elitist, I find these positions held by anti-Leninist to stink of elitism. Believing that it was Lenin and the boys who duped those silly uneducated masses. The October revolution, like any socialist revolution, was the result of the self organization of the Russian proletariat.

Go join RAAN with this combat Leninists in the streets ideas. I used to be an affiliate; its great for people who are fine with staying isolated and dispersed.


I think you should do what you want, if you want to get active in your community I can't see a problem with it, just don't make the mistake of thinking it's a revolutionary act or even a political one as so many other people do. Revolution isn't something you can create with or without an organization.

More, more, more of the same old economism that has steered the left into the shit hole it is today.

[Os Cangaceiros]

More, more, more of the same old economism that has steered the left into the shit hole it is today.

I don't think that economism has been the primary theory adopted by the left for most of it's history. In fact I think it's taken a decidedly backseat to the more traditional party politics of the 20th century, and as such I think it's a little disingenous to blame the failure of the left on it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Blah blah blah....anti-party nonsense. Fucking anti-organizations are stupid, a great way to remain irrelevant. You talk about wanting to overthrow capitalism and want to do it without organizing.



Falling into some hipster communism I see.





Lenin; What Is To Be Done.




So in other words you have no solutions but are attacking the comrades who have dedicated their lives to the movement as "counter productive."



I always find it funny that given the slur generally hurled at Leninism for being elitist, I find these positions held by anti-Leninist to stink of elitism. Believing that it was Lenin and the boys who duped those silly uneducated masses. The October revolution, like any socialist revolution, was the result of the self organization of the Russian proletariat.

Go join RAAN with this combat Leninists in the streets ideas. I used to be an affiliate; its great for people who are fine with staying isolated and dispersed.



More, more, more of the same old economism that has steered the left into the shit hole it is today.

This reads like you typed out your internal monologue. did you want to post something for me to actually respond to? Or are you just venting?

[Os Cangaceiros]

So I was wondering what's the best strategy for radicalizing the proletarian?

I think part of the problem is the view that the proletariat is just some inert mass that only needs the right impetus from us, the theoretically correct saviors of the working class. If that were true then it would simply be a matter of adding members to your party, in ones and twos, until your party became significant, and then work up from there until you achieve power. We've seen how well that has worked post-Cold War.

So there are obviously conditions that effect this-or-that revolutionary situation that the left simply can't control. But, on the other hand, there is no guarantee that a bad economic outlook will tilt things towards the left's favor. For example: right now, in Greece, "Golden Dawn" has 18 seats in the parliament, while the Greek Communist Party has 12. (Some may mention SYRIZA, but personally I think they're only slightly to the left of any ordinary social-dem party.) Of course that's just one example. The point is that worsening economic conditions do not automatically translate into radical progressive thought; they could translate just as easily into simple reformism or nationalism of some form.

So I suppose my main point is that organization, while important, is not the end-all-and-be-all of whether the left is successful or not, and the obsessive nature of leftist theory regarding organizational form and content is not only incredibly boring, but also kind of ridiculous in many cases.

I think one of the things the left should be more worried about, MUCH more worried about, is how they talk to their supposed "constituents".

[Rational Radical]

I'm not trying to come off as condescending it's just I'm concerned about my future and the betterment of humanity so this is why I push for organization. I agree that it's elitist to consider us the saviours of the working class and talking down to people would hurt the cause but we need some way of connecting with the rest of the proletarian which is why I think we should hold discussions,work in communities and try to volunteer in political debates. We need to stop having esoteric,irrelevant debates about the Russian revolution and Soviet Union,recognize ordinary peoples struggles and provide our opinions/solution.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't think that economism has been the primary theory adopted by the left for most of it's history. In fact I think it's taken a decidedly backseat to the more traditional party politics of the 20th century, and as such I think it's a little disingenous to blame the failure of the left on it.

While I would say that, ultimately, the failure of the left has been due to material conditions (obviously), I do also think economism has played a huge role in isolating us from the working class. I would also add that many of the "20th century party politics" that you mention were economist in nature.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I do also think economism has played a huge role in isolating us from the working class. I would also add that many of the "20th century party politics" that you mention were economist in nature.

How so?

[Art Vandelay]

How so?

Generally I find that alot of the left is content dealing with strictly economic agitation and organization and neglect the need for political organizing. There seems to be this idea that if we wait around long enough then the workers will come to us when the material conditions bring it about; it doesn't work like that and we will remain irrelevant (the workers movement being divorced from the Marxist movement).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I believe he is asking for concrete examples of economism, not it's definition.

The obvious issue is that there are and have been dozens of groups dedicated to political organization and their efforts have been met with increasing apathy from working people if not outright hostility. Why is it a taboo to point this out? As if “comrades dedicating their lives to the movement” is worth something in itself. Big deal, innumerable individuals dedicate their lives to all manner of pointless endeavors, that doesn’t make those endeavors any less pointless. If either of us had the political solution we wouldn’t be wasting time on an internet forum, however lacking a solution doesn’t make it impossible to identify what isn’t working. Leninism isn’t working, this has nothing to do with Lenin or the Russian revolution, this has everything to do with an extreme minority of people who see themselves as some elite fit to lead the working class. But why should they be put in charge of anything when they can’t even determine what works and what doesn’t work on a scale as small as what they’ve been forced to work with since the collapse of the new left?

You can return to the holy figure of Lenin and his sacred writing as much as you’d like, but you will not find a solution there.

[Art Vandelay]

The obvious issue is that there are and have been dozens of groups dedicated to political organization and their efforts have been met with increasing apathy from working people if not outright hostility. Why is it a taboo to point this out?

Its not, its just that you find the root cause of the failure of the Marxist movement in having the wrong ideas about organizing; myself, being a Marxist and a materialist, find the cause of capitalism's resurgence as being found in material conditions (the development of productive forces and all that jazz).


As if “comrades dedicating their lives to the movement” is worth something in itself. Big deal, innumerable individuals dedicate their lives to all manner of pointless endeavors, that doesn’t make those endeavors any less pointless.

As evidenced by your politics.


If either of us had the political solution we wouldn’t be wasting time on an internet forum, however lacking a solution doesn’t make it impossible to identify what isn’t working. Leninism isn’t working, this has nothing to do with Lenin or the Russian revolution, this has everything to do with an extreme minority of people who see themselves as some elite fit to lead the working class. But why should they be put in charge of anything when they can’t even determine what works and what doesn’t work on a scale as small as what they’ve been forced to work with since the collapse of the new left?

Thanks for slashing away any facade you had at intellectual honesty; you've now joined the likes of Manic. I'm fine with people critiquing Leninism and having different political convictions than my own; but what you have just demonstrated is that you couldn't even be bothered to understand what you were critiquing. You strike me as the kind of person who has never read anything about Leninism, and if you have, then all it proves is your incapability at understanding it.


You can return to the holy figure of Lenin and his sacred writing as much as you’d like, but you will not find a solution there.

It's like arguing with myself 2 years ago; fuck I was uneducated.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I spent a very long time inside the Lenin cult, I'm aware of what you think you're doing. The problem is that you lack the ability to interact with anyone outside your ghetto so it works out to you being a tiny would-be elite in spite of what you might like to be.

I like that questioning the dogma of Lenin makes me uneducated, I also like how you simply hint at your superior materialist explanation rather than detailing it. Please explain why your political organizing has failed to accomplish anything for decades and how that same strategy is still valid as a way out of this situation.

[Art Vandelay]

I spent a very long time inside the Lenin cult,

Your a fucking joke; get out of here with this bullshit. Your the type of anarchist that makes the rest look bad.


I'm aware of what you think you're doing. The problem is that you lack the ability to interact with anyone outside your ghetto so it works out to you being a tiny would-be elite in spite of what you might like to be.

No, if you think this is how I would communicate outside the internet then your wrong; what it comes down to is that I'm too drunk to really care to end your ignorance.


I like that questioning the dogma of Lenin makes me uneducated,

Once again you show your inability to comprehend:


Thanks for slashing away any facade you had at intellectual honesty; you've now joined the likes of Manic. I'm fine with people critiquing Leninism and having different political convictions than my own; but what you have just demonstrated is that you couldn't even be bothered to understand what you were critiquing.

Once again, I'm fine with critiques of Leninism; in fact Tim Cornellis (for example and even though I don't agree with him) is someone who can put forth a solid intellectual critique of Leninism. All you can do is regurgitate the same old anti-leninist rhetoric and caricatures.


I also like how you simply hint at your superior materialist explanation rather than detailing it. Please explain why your political organizing has failed to accomplish anything for decades and how that same strategy is still valid as a way out of this situation.

Yeah cause we totally advocate the exact same techniques that were used in 1917 in Russia :rolleyes:

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Personal attacks are cute and everything but please, cut the foreplay and let me hear your brilliant 'materialist' revolutionary strategy.

[Art Vandelay]

Personal attacks are cute and everything but please, cut the foreplay and let me hear your brilliant 'materialist' revolutionary strategy.

Why the fuck would I bother after seeing you spew this nonsense?


Lenin cult


an extreme minority of people who see themselves as some elite fit to lead the working class.



committed pro-revolutionaries should be prepared to confront Leninist organizations that attempt to co-opt the revolution and lead it back to the Capitalist mode of production,


outdated vanguard nonsense. Who the hell wants to be steered? The average person has access to cheap beer and more internet porn than they could watch in a lifetime



Organizations have become something like prisons for subjects who might otherwise prove dangerous. Rather than mingling with the rest of society and damaging the polite apathy its wears, you’ll be safely locked behind closed doors with your vanguard, collectively kept in check by the dogma of party building and raising working class consciousness. After a period of time engaging in this dead-end exercise, you will come to the conclusion that opposition to the way things are is useless and at such a moment it will be safe to allow you to reintegrate into society as a depoliticized entity.If you are trying to avoid apathy, step one would be to avoid organizations.

Nah...you've proven yourself inept and not worth the time.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

So you don't have any? Great I'm glad you hinted at it for half a thread. Which org are you a member of? I'm desperate to join up :rolleyes:

[Robocommie]

So you don't have any? Great I'm glad you hinted at it for half a thread. Which org are you a member of? I'm desperate to join up :rolleyes:

Fuck's sake, you are one of the least helpful members on this board. If you were trying to join up with an organization that I myself was attached to, I would go to lengths to try and keep you out. You don't ever seem to contribute anything except nihilistic backbiting and tired, sarcastic bullshit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The basic flaw in this debate in general seems to be a misconception that revolutionaries can make a revolution - as if the thousands of people among billions being "chained" into specific organizations is the major problem of the class struggle, not the very lack of struggle from our side.


Of the two positions you espouse I would say the nihilist one is closer to being correct. Organizations have become something like prisons for subjects who might otherwise prove dangerous. Rather than mingling with the rest of society and damaging the polite apathy its wears, you’ll be safely locked behind closed doors with your vanguard, collectively kept in check by the dogma of party building and raising working class consciousness. After a period of time engaging in this dead-end exercise, you will come to the conclusion that opposition to the way things are is useless and at such a moment it will be safe to allow you to reintegrate into society as a depoliticized entity.If you are trying to avoid apathy, step one would be to avoid organizations.If you think the .01% of the population in radical organizations (and I'm being generous in guessing that number) can "make" a revolution themselves you are mistaken. If you think that organizations don't "mingle" or agitate, then that's just a gross generalization and also mistaken from my personal experiences.

Then you go on to talk in crude stereotypes of workers "only caring about beer" and not theory. As a revolutionary I think this is incorrect as a laborer making $13 and hour without benefits, I think that's insulting and elitist.

And in addition there have been many massive uprisings in the US and all over the world. Most don't end with worker's power and many times workers form neighborhood and workplace Soviets and STILL don't even attempt to take power themselves. Just in US history, if you think we just need a "mass uprising" then I think you should read about the explosive history of the labor wars in the US around the time of the first (1800s) great depression or about all the black urban uprisings of the 1960s. Did these massive events result in any worker's power? No, ironically for your argument, it lead to the workers who came to the conclusion that reforms were not enough to.... form organizations!

As far as the type of organization that works best... well that's more debatable, but I think "anti-organization" positions are just not historically viable if that's what you are arguing - it's not clear because sometimes you mean just Leninist organizations, but other times it sounds like you mean any sort of organization and people just need to individually and moralistically take on the system and "disrupt the status quo". If you mean specific organizations as you describe Leninist organizations, then as a Leninist who supports the idea of organizing the vanguard, I agree. Top-down elites who want to make a revolution from above or dictate orders are not helpful to the cause of working class self-emancipation. While some groups do aspire to something like that, really I think they only were able to play a role in the past because of the cold war and the USSR or with the rapid rise of the new left in which college students radicalized before the general population and in this situation began to see their own romantic actions and agitations as the way forward -- many even wrote off the working class or at least the white male working class completely.

These groups still exist in some form but in the US, I think this is just the legacy of the recent political past and lack of a more generalized radicalization or even larger left-wing current in the country. In a new upsurge, there may be other political issues, but personally, I don't think we will see CP-type or 70s Maoist type organizations in the same way.

Some of the tendencies might repeat and just as further argument for why I don't think we can place all blame onto a certain set of politics, in my opinion, I think the kinds of mistakes that were associated with 1970s Maoism, in many ways, are being repeated by people who call themselves a kind of anarchist and consider themselves "anti-authoritarian". The underlying issue IMO, is the idea that revolutionaries make the revolution and that romantic acts will "spark" consciousness and revolt. I think these ideas come out of a disconnect between the already revolutionary and the general working class population and the lack of struggle: it's a desire to leapfrog over the actual work of organizing and building a self-confident and self-conscious worker's movement.

[Камо́ Зэд]

To address the issue brought up in the original post, it isn't the task of Communists to await the coming of a doomsday scenario before initiating revolutionary activity. The workers have nothing to gain by welcoming worse conditions, and consider how suspicious of communism they would become if Communists were hoping for (or perhaps even actively working towards) a harsher national predicament. It is the task of Communists to empower the proletariat, through whatever means necessary, with a revolutionary theoretical framework that reveals to them the historical development of class society and capitalism and their role in the transformation of the world. The omnipresence of bourgeois/conservative and petty-bourgeois/reactionary attitudes and propaganda in the United States of America and other capitalist-imperialist countries has made this task especially difficult, but it is our cross to bear, so to speak. The course of action, then, would be to weaken through various means the apparatuses of perpetuating conservative-reactionary attitudes and working to demonstrate through critical propaganda the unsustainable character of the society those attitudes create. We must also demonstrate our solidarity with the working class by fighting for what concessions we can win for them from the ruling class. A small increase in wage does not resolve the contradictions of capitalism, but it has the potential to relieve some suffering, which is well worth the effort.

As for establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, I cannot speak to exactly when the opportunity will present itself, but we must seize it the very instant it does. We cannot await for things to fall into place according to some abstract, preconceived arrangement. I suspect this opportunity will arise in the United States when the country is experiencing severe internal political turmoil and is being worn down externally by struggles within its colonial interests, but, again, the opportunity to establish proletarian dictatorship, through which the proletariat can be more easily armed with theory against capitalist restoration or fascistic degeneration, may not assume this character and indeed present itself in an unexpected way. Before we can hope to establish this dictatorship, however, we must build a significant proletarian base through the work of internally strong Parties of the Marxist-Leninist Type. The opportunity may come at any moment, so it is paramount that we set about this work immediately and with great dedication.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Fuck's sake, you are one of the least helpful members on this board. If you were trying to join up with an organization that I myself was attached to, I would go to lengths to try and keep you out. You don't ever seem to contribute anything except nihilistic backbiting and tired, sarcastic bullshit.

I’m not sure how exactly I’m to actually engage with anything he’s saying. He spent the majority of the thread typing out his internal monologue, projecting his own self loathing onto me or name dropping other members of the board who, I guess he would rather be having this conversation with? The primary problem is an assumption on his part that I am an anarchist or anything other kind of ist within what he considers to be the revolutionary ‘left’, I’m not.

Leninism in practice looks to be in the theory stage for him. I’ve been a member of Leninist organizations and so when I’m attacking Leninism I’m attacking how it’s actually presented itself in the world, not some idealized form it takes in the minds of those who simply post about it on the internet. My points are valid from my experience, however since he’s suggesting that Leninism is still in fact valid when employing updated ‘correct’ ideas, I asked if he could be so kind as to share what those are. He couldn’t, because he has no fucking clue what he’s talking about and likely is relying on what he’s read in Lenin and Trotsky, in spite of his claim that he’s not relying solely on tactics from 1917. I’m sorry that my contributions are not satisfactory, feel free to make use of the ignore list feature if its that upsetting.




The basic flaw in this debate in general seems to be a misconception that revolutionaries can make a revolution - as if the thousands of people among billions being "chained" into specific organizations is the major problem of the class struggle, not the very lack of struggle from our side.

If you think the .01% of the population in radical organizations (and I'm being generous in guessing that number) can "make" a revolution themselves you are mistaken. If you think that organizations don't "mingle" or agitate, then that's just a gross generalization and also mistaken from my personal experiences.

Then you go on to talk in crude stereotypes of workers "only caring about beer" and not theory. As a revolutionary I think this is incorrect as a laborer making $13 and hour without benefits, I think that's insulting and elitist.

And in addition there have been many massive uprisings in the US and all over the world. Most don't end with worker's power and many times workers form neighborhood and workplace Soviets and STILL don't even attempt to take power themselves. Just in US history, if you think we just need a "mass uprising" then I think you should read about the explosive history of the labor wars in the US around the time of the first (1800s) great depression or about all the black urban uprisings of the 1960s. Did these massive events result in any worker's power? No, ironically for your argument, it lead to the workers who came to the conclusion that reforms were not enough to.... form organizations!

As far as the type of organization that works best... well that's more debatable, but I think "anti-organization" positions are just not historically viable if that's what you are arguing - it's not clear because sometimes you mean just Leninist organizations, but other times it sounds like you mean any sort of organization and people just need to individually and moralistically take on the system and "disrupt the status quo". If you mean specific organizations as you describe Leninist organizations, then as a Leninist who supports the idea of organizing the vanguard, I agree. Top-down elites who want to make a revolution from above or dictate orders are not helpful to the cause of working class self-emancipation. While some groups do aspire to something like that, really I think they only were able to play a role in the past because of the cold war and the USSR or with the rapid rise of the new left in which college students radicalized before the general population and in this situation began to see their own romantic actions and agitations as the way forward -- many even wrote off the working class or at least the white male working class completely.

These groups still exist in some form but in the US, I think this is just the legacy of the recent political past and lack of a more generalized radicalization or even larger left-wing current in the country. In a new upsurge, there may be other political issues, but personally, I don't think we will see CP-type or 70s Maoist type organizations in the same way.

Some of the tendencies might repeat and just as further argument for why I don't think we can place all blame onto a certain set of politics, in my opinion, I think the kinds of mistakes that were associated with 1970s Maoism, in many ways, are being repeated by people who call themselves a kind of anarchist and consider themselves "anti-authoritarian". The underlying issue IMO, is the idea that revolutionaries make the revolution and that romantic acts will "spark" consciousness and revolt. I think these ideas come out of a disconnect between the already revolutionary and the general working class population and the lack of struggle: it's a desire to leapfrog over the actual work of organizing and building a self-confident and self-conscious worker's movement.


I think you’ve misunderstood my posts. I’m attacking Leninist organizations and proto-Leninist organizations, that includes many anarchist groups who unintentionally end up in an insular vanguard type configuration due to a poverty of tactics. I’m aware that it is impossible to create a revolution and I said as much in an earlier post. As for the beer comment, the point is not literally that people love beer and so have no time to talk to you about revolution. The point is that revolutionary politics when presented in some awful newspaper or from the mouth of a would-be revolutionary will be forced to compete with everything else the worker encounters throughout the day, that includes beer and internet pornography. As a result of that, trying to engage them with patronizing slogans from a century ago, or detailing your plans to sheppard the revolution when it comes is going to fall on deaf ears in the majority of cases. If they do listen to you, they’re likely to think you’re a lunatic out to recreate the USSR. Which based on my experience isn’t so far from the truth.

[Rational Radical]

Wow ethicsgradient I guess we disagree,this thread was actually created to come up with new suggestions on how we can impact the working class more instead of being isolated amongsts ourselves,debating abouthistory, just waiting on a spontaneous revolution with no revolutionary backing. I don't know how a pro-revolutionary anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist organization could be classified as "leninist. Also I think if non-leninist parties took the time out to explain that the Soviet Union was state capitalist and how it wasn't communist it would inspire many to look up information,it happened to me.

[Art Vandelay]

Wow ethicsgradient I guess we disagree,this thread was actually created to come up with new suggestions on how we can impact the working class more instead of being isolated amongsts ourselves,debating abouthistory, just waiting on a spontaneous revolution with no revolutionary backing. I don't know how a pro-revolutionary anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist organization could be classified as "leninist. Also I think if non-leninist parties took the time out to explain that the Soviet Union was state capitalist and how it wasn't communist it would inspire many to look up information,it happened to me.

Leninist parties (minus M-L parties; although that was a bit unnecessary to point out, since any self respecting Marxist realizes that ML is a bourgeois ideology; boom tendency jab) do acknowledge that the USSR was never socialist. While they may disagree on what exactly it was (ie: state capitalist, non mode of production, degenerated workers state) they don't hold it up to be the fantasy paradise socialist society that M-L's do.

[Le Socialiste]

The point isn't to agitate for the sake of revolution; if history is to be any indicator, not all revolutions are built off the self-emancipatory organization of the proletariat against private capital. There are no predetermining factors (such as worsening material conditions) that will force a conscious revaluation of the workers' role in society, and why she or he must bear the burden of a system that is wholly unsustainable and prone to crisis - only the organizational capacity of the most theoretically advanced and experienced members of the working-class can strive to make inroads in such a direction.

While it is certainly possible for the average working person to gain a sense of anger and frustration surrounding his or her lot in society, including awareness of the deep-seatedness concerning all levels of injustice, prejudice, and the inability of capitalism to place need over profit, it will remain directionless, unfocused - a vague opposition that is as natural as it is malleable. That is, anti-capitalist attitudes, or even opposition to its worst manifestations, won't necessarily lead to socialism. A combination of experiences, coupled with supposed interactions with revolutionary politics/theory, must lead the way. The role of the left isn't to await any potential outbreaks of workers' militancy, with nothing to do but twiddle its thumbs; it must take an active participatory role during any given moment in time, taking the time and proper action(s) to build up the proletariat into an organized, advanced force capable of action (and in a general sense, unity).

Nor can we afford to dismiss such attempts outright due to their simplicity or lack of focus. It takes time and effort to build a fighting movement willing and able to take the struggle beyond the confines of wage negotiations, or questions over private property. Our best strategy is to be present as much as is physically and humanly possible, tabling, flyering, organizing events, branch meetings, study groups, etc. We must participate within our respective unions (if applicable), student groups, community organizations, and coalitions. In order to advance a socialist perspective we have to begin exerting what strength we have in these organizational centers, while simultaneously reaching out to those outside their boundaries. We must be willing to talk and interact with people, share our perspectives, and advance an alternative to the current state of things.

People are always searching, more or less, and with the onset of the financial crisis in '07-'08 we've started seeing this kind of questioning on a much larger scale. It's important then that the left notes this, and organizes around this fact. If we don't put ourselves out there, we risk losing the working-class to the same dead-end politics that has weighed down and co-opted its collective voice for their own interests. The left is not a talk shop, its a vehicle utilizing both theory and praxis for the organization and self-emancipative effort of working peoples.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Leninist parties (minus M-L parties; although that was a bit unnecessary to point out, since any self respecting Marxist realizes that ML is a bourgeois ideology; boom tendency jab) do acknowledge that the USSR was never socialist. While they may disagree on what exactly it was (ie: state capitalist, non mode of production, degenerated workers state) they don't hold it up to be the fantasy paradise socialist society that M-L's do.

You know what we need? More of this on RevLeft.

[RebelDog]

Present society is about power. The owners have the power to take a totally disporoportionate slice of the pie, the state has the power to enforce this etc. But the ones who most need to excersize their power and have the greatest power to excersize, the working class, seldom if ever do so. I have never really been able to grasp what needs to change for the working class to realise the power it has and use it for its own ends, like their overlords do every day. I mean if people are so apathetic about their own misery and exploitation and feel powerless to fight back, what about their kids? Why dont they fight back and make the world their kids inherit a world worth living in. It makes me despair.

[Red Economist]

Greetings fellow revlefters, I've become increasingly doubtful of the possibility of revolution coming any time soon unless a harsher economic crisis happens so I'm sort of developing a nihilist (anarcho)communist perspective. However at the same time I must admit that I'm quite impatient and feel if we don't agitate and organize the masses then the status quo will be accepted,plus I think all the sectarianism and dogmatism of the Left is hurting progress. So I was wondering what's the best strategy for radicalizing the proletarian?

personally, I find that the nihilism is quite normal. after the 'honeymoon' phase when the utopianism has started to wear off, communism becomes '''complicated''' by the gulags, killing fields, and all the other unspeakable things that went on to 'improve mankind', as well as the general impotence of the movement as it now stands.

In "The God that failed", I've heard this as refered to as the "Kronstadt" moment when communists have to choose between their early utopianism and the brutual realities of political power.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_god_that_failed)

I haven't quite come out of this period myself so I can't give you any solid anzwers. But personally, I would say communism is closer to a 'religion' where people get a 'revelation' about how bad capitalism is and have 'faith' that human beings won't be a**holes forever (regardless of the system) and that things will get better.

[this also neatly seperates the 'proletarait must suffer' under capitalism from the 'proletariat becomes revolutionary' as it turns into a question of 'experience'/practice under capitalism, not of capitalism's failings. ]

Class consciousness really is a question of whether people can better themselves and is closely linked to the debate over 'human nature'. it is therefore not something which you can mass-produce but takes time, effort, patience and alot of thought. my advice is just to trust your own judgement.

[Art Vandelay]

You know what we need? More of this on RevLeft.

I was drunk and just joking around.

[Rational Radical]

I believe human nature is totally a myth but all marxists and anarchists both need to bring up Kropotkins theory of mutual aid to combat it,just to mess with the whole "man's a social animal and intrinsically evil " bullshit.