Would you support revolutions of a different sect than yours?

[Skyhilist]

So yeah, pretty self explanatory, but to what extent would you guys support or participate in revolutions guided by a different communist/anarchist ideology than the one you follow? Personally I'm an anarcho-communist but I'd participate in any revolution guided by libertarian socialism, or even some types of more centralized socialism (e.g. Trotskyism), provided I could be convinced it wouldn't just be another Russia 2.0 or something.

What about you all?

Edit: Sorry should say 'tendency' in the title, not 'sect'.

[Red Nightmare]

If I am convinced that the revolution is genuinely revolutionary leftist and proletarian in nature regardless of its particular category under this spectrum than I would, but I wouldn't support a revolution that I didn't feel genuinely embodied revolutionary left ideals.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Yes because while a theory might guide a revolution, "sects" never make revolutions, the working class does. Now while a theory can result in praxis that leds up to the point of successful praxis, a revolution exists beyond it's theoretical roots. The reason I am an MLM isn't because I think that I have somehow discovered some "true' version of Marxism while other Marxisms are "false", I simply think that my tendency has a history of theory and praxis that is generally better at creating the point of revolution. Likewise, if the impossiblists ever got around to making a revolution I'd support it, but I'm not an impossiblist because I don't think their methods could ever get to the point of an impossiblist revolution actually existing.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Once the revolution starts sects/party politics/issue groups will become irrelevant. We can sort out our differences in the newly created organs of workers' democracy. The reactionary counter-revolution will line us all up against the wall if they could, regardless of what branch of ideology we ascribe to.

[Nevsky]

Well, the revolution itself doesn't really subscribe to one tendency. Revolution is a violent change of society, carried out by the masses and often not at the most expected moment of history. Obviously, the intellectual leading figures of a revolution differ already in their various ideological standpoints but that won't play a decisive political role until the revolution is over and the organization of new society begins. If I saw a crowd of leftist revolutionaries march on Berlusconi's luxurious villas, I'd join them regardless of wether they carried banners of Bakunin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Che or Rosa Luxemburg. After the revolution, I'd begin to worry if the post-revolutionary politics will go in what I consider to be the right direction.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, I have to agree with the Maoist, the Stalinist and the Trotskyist on this one.

Revolutions are made by the working class, not by either tendencies or sects. If the working class is busy making a revolution of course I'm going to be involved. Trying to get it not to hand itself over to the counter-revolutionaries, even if it thinks it wants to.

[Skyhilist]

Yeah you guys are all totally right and it was a poorly worded question. What I mean by "revolution of a different tendency" is not a revolution carried out of course not with one group, ideology or whatever. What I mean is a revolution for example where the majority working class carrying the revolution subscribes to a particular ideology (Trotskyism, anarcho-communism, etc.) which serves to guide the methods of carrying out revolution. But yes I agree with the sentiment you guys are putting out, and I realize there's not going to be like an "Official Regulation Lenin Revolution 2.0™" or something like that.

[cyu]

Say everyone is currently eating s**t. One day, a group of people decide that we should start eating apples instead. Personally, I would rather eat oranges than apples. Should I support the revolutionaries?

That would depend if I would rather eat s**t or apples.

What if another group suggests that we should start eating twice as much s**t, or that we should start eating broken glass? The question is the same, would I rather keep eating the s**t I'm eating now, or eat twice as much s**t or start eating broken glass?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yeah, I would as long as it is committed to democracy. So Leninism is a no-no. Non-Leninist/libertarian Marxism, that'd be fine with me. :)

[Starship Stormtrooper]

Yes, so long as it seems genuinely emancipatory I would probably support such a revolution. However, I would remain in my own groups etc. (should I ever get around to seriously committing to one lol). Of course, I feel that my position is flawed in that if I should choose badly or based on flawed perceptions, it will not go very well for me personally.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I wouldn't support a revolution with a specific sect in charge.

[helot]

I'd be involved in any revolution where i live even if it's doomed to failure and even if its inherently reactionary. I'd be advocating expropriation, the working class being in direct control and rationing based on need for the inevitability of production being chaotic until its properly reorganised.

Is there another option? There's no point sitting on your hands waiting to see what happens. You'd have to get involved, itd be on your doorstep ffs. As to whether i'd support events etc would depend entirely on what they are

[ind_com]

So yeah, pretty self explanatory, but to what extent would you guys support or participate in revolutions guided by a different communist/anarchist ideology than the one you follow? Personally I'm an anarcho-communist but I'd participate in any revolution guided by libertarian socialism, or even some types of more centralized socialism (e.g. Trotskyism), provided I could be convinced it wouldn't just be another Russia 2.0 or something.

What about you all?

Edit: Sorry should say 'tendency' in the title, not 'sect'.

I will support a revolution by any communist tendency. That includes anarchists, Trots, left-communists, Hoxhaists and every other tendency that you can name. I will support their revolution as soon as they start one.

[Art Vandelay]

I will support a revolution by any communist tendency. That includes anarchists, Trots, left-communists, Hoxhaists and every other tendency that you can name. I will support their revolution as soon as they start one.

Heh says so much about your politics. Revolutions aren't started by 'tendencies' or 'pro-revolutionaries.' The emancipation of the working class, must be the act of the working class themselves.

[RedSonRising]

I very much doubt that a working class active enough to emancipate itself is going to start looking towards the politics of early-mid 20th century world leaders for their politics.

[DasFapital]

I would support any revolution as long as it is not led by Harpal Brar, Bob Avakian, and the Maoist Rebel News guy.

[Brutus]

Yeah, I would as long as it is committed to democracy. So Leninism is a no-no. Non-Leninist/libertarian Marxism, that'd be fine with me. :)

Leninism is democratic- ask any leninist

[Sea]

Leninism is democratic- ask any leninistShhh, he's on to us!

[LeonJWilliams]

Say everyone is currently eating s**t. One day, a group of people decide that we should start eating apples instead. Personally, I would rather eat oranges than apples. Should I support the revolutionaries?

That would depend if I would rather eat s**t or apples.

What if another group suggests that we should start eating twice as much s**t, or that we should start eating broken glass? The question is the same, would I rather keep eating the s**t I'm eating now, or eat twice as much s**t or start eating broken glass?

Assuming we don't want to eat apples, maybe eating apples is better than eating s*** so we could go along with that for now as that is going on and when the quest for oranges is at hand we could go for that.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Leninism is democratic- ask any leninist

So the measure of democracy is whether a Leninist claims a state is democratic? Not very materialist of you.

[Fionnagáin]

Yeah you guys are all totally right and it was a poorly worded question. What I mean by "revolution of a different tendency" is not a revolution carried out of course not with one group, ideology or whatever. What I mean is a revolution for example where the majority working class carrying the revolution subscribes to a particular ideology (Trotskyism, anarcho-communism, etc.) which serves to guide the methods of carrying out revolution. But yes I agree with the sentiment you guys are putting out, and I realize there's not going to be like an "Official Regulation Lenin Revolution 2.0™" or something like that.
If we follow Marx, revolutions are driven by historical necessity, not by theories. A revolutionary work class determines its own course, it doesn't simply enact the schema of this-or-that dead theorist.

[Skyhilist]

If we follow Marx, revolutions are driven by historical necessity, not by theories. A revolutionary work class determines its own course, it doesn't simply enact the schema of this-or-that dead theorist.

The ideas that they choose to implement in their own course, however, will inevitably by guided by some type(s) of ideologies though, so they'd still be guided by a mixture of ideas from the past, just with new innovations most likely.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Leninism is democratic- ask any leninist

History has shown otherwise :rolleyes:

[Tim Cornelis]

The ideas that they choose to implement in their own course, however, will inevitably by guided by some type(s) of ideologies though

Only vaguely. The working class can be divided into three subsets, the political engaged section, the semi-political section, and the apolitical section. The majority of workers is semi-political, and only cares for politics insofar it affects his or her life or society. They don't care about in depth theoretical explorations as we on this forum do. Hence, they will hold "Trotskyist" views -- only a minority will. Ideology and theory may matter insofar the working class chooses to follow a political party that best responds to its wishes and integrates their demand best into the revolutionary struggle -- and conversely, the communist party ought to participate in soviets and other organs of workers' power to keep them on the revolutionary path. Ultimately, however, the workers' councils will direct the course of the revolution irrespective of ready-made political theories.

As for the initial question, I would support any social revolution which involves the formation of sovereign workers' councils and organs, irrespective of what tendency has become the leading one, Marxism-Leninism or otherwise. A Marxist-Leninist revolution would enjoy my critical support and I would, by agitating within the workers' councils, to push it further to the left, beyond workers' management of capital. I anticipate, however, that the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party may chose to disallow the participation of ultra-left elements once or if they become too influential, at which point they have become counter-revolutionary and I would, needless to say, no longer support them. In other words, once the workers' councils lose their sovereignty I cease my support.

[Geiseric]

Marxism encompasses all correct revolutionary theory; its a fact that class conscious working class people need to organize and agitate the working class once it's in a revolutionary period. But Marxists also have to commit to advancing transitional demands during the process when class conscious is rising.

[La Guaneña]

I'm not in a "sect" and I wouldn't support a "sect" for anything.

[Crixus]

Yes then I'd support a revolution to throw out the tendency in charge in favor of workers democracy if for whatever reason a revolution was facilitated by a minority 'revolutionary' sect without a broad working class effort. Lets say Lenin headed a revolution not in Russia but Germany. Once power, the state, was in the hands of workers all "revolutionaries" be damned. The DOTP needs no dictators. This couldn't happen in Russia because they had to play capitalist in order to develop the nation. They needed state power in the control of a minority party class in order to guide progress which is why I don't support revolutions in undeveloped regions. No more China's. No more North Korea's. No more Vietnam's. No more Russia. Workers ourselves need to make it happen in regions where worker democracy can hit the ground running. Forget Trotsky. Forget Lenin. Forget Mao. Forget Stalin. It's 2013.

[Bardo]

I would support any revolution as long as it is not led by Harpal Brar, Bob Avakian, and the Maoist Rebel News guy.



Hey now. I'm a proud Marxist-Leninist-MaoistRebelNewsist. We're a small yet very ambitious tendency.

[TheEmancipator]

Hey now. I'm a proud Marxist-Leninist-MaoistRebelNewsist. We're a small yet very ambitious tendency.

You're a MTW and haven't been restricted yet? And they say the moderators are paranoid Hoxhaist Stalinists...

I would not support a revolution that sees dictatorship of the proletariat as an end rather than a means. But that's my bourgeois self talking again I suppose.

[Ocean Seal]

Once the revolution starts sects/party politics/issue groups will become irrelevant. We can sort out our differences in the newly created organs of workers' democracy. The reactionary counter-revolution will line us all up against the wall if they could, regardless of what branch of ideology we ascribe to.
But the problem arises when you believe that the revolution has become counter-revolutionary.

[RedHal]

this thread is revleft:laugh:

[Fionnagáin]

Marxism encompasses all correct revolutionary theory; its a fact that class conscious working class people need to organize and agitate the working class once it's in a revolutionary period.
How can an individual be "class conscious"? Class consciousness is by definition a collective self-consciousness.


The ideas that they choose to implement in their own course, however, will inevitably by guided by some type(s) of ideologies though, so they'd still be guided by a mixture of ideas from the past, just with new innovations most likely.
What makes you think the "ideas from the past" will be those derived from formal theory, and not from more practical experience? From what I can tell, the sort of "past ideas" that tend to surface in revolutionary periods derived from past experiences of self-activity and struggle, not from books of theory.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

this thread is revleft:laugh:

Stay on topic please.

[Geiseric]

How can an individual be "class conscious"? Class consciousness is by definition a collective self-consciousness.


What makes you think the "ideas from the past" will be those derived from formal theory, and not from more practical experience? From what I can tell, the sort of "past ideas" that tend to surface in revolutionary periods derived from past experiences of self-activity and struggle, not from books of theory.

You and i are class conscious. Working class members of hate Groups however do not.

[Fionnagáin]

No, again, class consciousness is by definition the collective self-consciousness of the organised working class in struggle. It's not some Zen enlightenment that you reach after reading your hundredth radical pamphlet. It's a matter of practical consciousness, not just holding this-or-that set of political opinions.

[Old Bolshie]

While it is true that the revolution itself is not a product of an ideology it is also true that ideology takes the revolution at some point of it through a party/syndicate/directory/parliament and I think that was what the OP meant with his question. Supporting or not the revolution depends on how you see it. What may be revolutionary for me may be reactionary for you.


History has shown otherwise :rolleyes:

Only if your concept of democracy is equal to bourgeois democracy.


Forget Trotsky. Forget Lenin. Forget Mao. Forget Stalin. It's 2013

Lets also forget Marx, Engels or Bakunin. After all we are in 2013 and not in the XIX Century.

[Crixus]

Lets also forget Marx, Engels or Bakunin. After all we are in 2013 and not in the XIX Century.
Na. I'd say use the pre 1917 theorists and other, not so sectarian, post 1917 theorists as a foundation to interpret modern material conditions.

[Lucretia]

So yeah, pretty self explanatory, but to what extent would you guys support or participate in revolutions guided by a different communist/anarchist ideology than the one you follow? Personally I'm an anarcho-communist but I'd participate in any revolution guided by libertarian socialism, or even some types of more centralized socialism (e.g. Trotskyism), provided I could be convinced it wouldn't just be another Russia 2.0 or something.

What about you all?

Edit: Sorry should say 'tendency' in the title, not 'sect'.

This question is sort of a silly thought experiment, isn't it? Any future socialist revolutions might be guided by principles closer to one tendency or group than those of another, but revolutions are made by classes, not sects or tendencies. Having said that, I have full confidence that if a tendency's ideas have proven so effective that they have guided the working class to the brink of victory, you had better damn believe that, if those ideas differed from mine, I would re-evaluate them. I happen to think that certain principles have historically proven time and again not to advance the working-class struggle for socialist revolution, so I don't subscribe to those principles or ideas (and why I think that when revolutions do occur, they'll be based on the ideas and principles I do currently hold). But again, all principles are provisional and must be borne out by practice.

[TheEmancipator]

Lets also forget Marx, Engels or Bakunin. After all we are in 2013 and not in the XIX Century.

Agreed. Worshiping figures of the past should be strictly reserved for reactionaries.


Stay on topic please.

Was this a joke or are you reinforcing both his point and mine?

[Geiseric]

While it is true that the revolution itself is not a product of an ideology it is also true that ideology takes the revolution at some point of it through a party/syndicate/directory/parliament and I think that was what the OP meant with his question. Supporting or not the revolution depends on how you see it. What may be revolutionary for me may be reactionary for you.



Only if your concept of democracy is equal to bourgeois democracy.



Lets also forget Marx, Engels or Bakunin. After all we are in 2013 and not in the XIX Century.
Let's forget Herodotus and Hippocrates while we're at it. Marx and engels were the closest things to geniuses that we've experienced in this millennium and nobody i repeat nobody has contributed a fraction as much to communist theory as they.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Only if your concept of democracy is equal to bourgeois democracy.

It was only democratic if you consider the USSR a proletarian dictatorship run threough direct democracy. There is only one true democracy and it is stateless.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Only if your concept of democracy is equal to bourgeois democracy.

My concept of democracy includes democracy for all proletarians, not just for the supporters of a party dictatorship.

[Old Bolshie]

Na. I'd say use the pre 1917 theorists and other, not so sectarian, post 1917 theorists as a foundation to interpret modern material conditions.

If you are going to forget all the sectarians than you will have nothing left to remember pre or post 1917...


Agreed. Worshiping figures of the past should be strictly reserved for reactionaries.


There is a huge difference between regarding someone's work as important today and worshiping.


Let's forget Herodotus and Hippocrates while we're at it. Marx and engels were the closest things to geniuses that we've experienced in this millennium and nobody i repeat nobody has contributed a fraction as much to communist theory as they.

Now that's worship.


It was only democratic if you consider the USSR a proletarian dictatorship run threough direct democracy. There is only one true democracy and it is stateless.

That is a deep contradiction in your argument. You say that "it was only democratic if you consider the USSR a proletarian dictatorship". Then you say "There is only one true democracy and it is stateless". If a proletarian dictatorship presupposes the existence of a state controlled by the proletariat how can it be stateless?


My concept of democracy includes democracy for all proletarians, not just for the supporters of a party dictatorship.

And how exactly Leninism deny democracy for all proletarians?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

That is a deep contradiction in your argument. You say that "it was only democratic if you consider the USSR a proletarian dictatorship". Then you say "There is only one true democracy and it is stateless". If a proletarian dictatorship presupposes the existence of a state controlled by the proletariat how can it be stateless?

There is actualy no contradiction there. The contradiction you think you see comes from the anarchist definition of state conflicting with the marxist definition of state.

A proletarian dictatorship run through direct democracy is not a state in the anarchist definition. When direct democracy stops existing is when there is a state.

[Geiseric]

There is actualy no contradiction there. The contradiction you think you see comes from the anarchist definition of state conflicting with the marxist definition of state.

A proletarian dictatorship run through direct democracy is not a state in the anarchist definition. When direct democracy stops existing is when there is a state.

Why didn't cnt fai get rid of the bourgeois parties than? What was their reason?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Why didn't cnt fai get rid of the bourgeois parties than? What was their reason?

If you know your history you also know the CNT-FAI was not in control of the spanish republic. They simply could not do it. As far as shooting fascists I am sure they did their job well.

[Old Bolshie]

There is actualy no contradiction there. The contradiction you think you see comes from the anarchist definition of state conflicting with the marxist definition of state.

A proletarian dictatorship run through direct democracy is not a state in the anarchist definition. When direct democracy stops existing is when there is a state.

Proletarian dictatorship is a Marxist concept and it involves a proletarian state.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Proletarian dictatorship is a Marxist concept and it involves a proletarian state.

I know.
Anarchism has a similar thing, but we would not dare to call it a dictatorship.

[Skyhilist]

I know.
Anarchism has a similar thing, but we would not dare to call it a dictatorship.

Actually Bakunin referred to anarchism as "invisible dictatorship", although he wasn't referencing anything remotely authoritarian in reality or anything similar to the DOTP proposed by Marxists.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Actually Bakunin referred to anarchism as "invisible dictatorship", although he wasn't referencing anything remotely authoritarian in reality or anything similar to the DOTP proposed by Marxists.

Bakunin is not relevant in modern anarchism. His statement might have been right though.

[Skyhilist]

Bakunin is not relevant in modern anarchism. His statement might have been right though.

Seeing as most modern anarchism still has it's roots in Bakunin, I'd say he's still pretty relevant. Without him, anarchist theory would be a lot different than it is today.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Seeing as most modern anarchism still has it's roots in Bakunin, I'd say he's still pretty relevant. Without him, anarchist theory would be a lot different than it is today.

He was important, but not anymore.

[Geiseric]

If you know your history you also know the CNT-FAI was not in control of the spanish republic. They simply could not do it. As far as shooting fascists I am sure they did their job well.

Obviously but you didn't answer my question, what was their reason for not overthrowing the bourgeois republic and joining the provisional govt? I thought they wanted to destroy the state?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Obviously but you didn't answer my question, what was their reason for not overthrowing the bourgeois republic and joining the provisional govt?

You wanted the CNT-FAI to do a coup? That would go against anarchist ideals of social revolution.
I don't know why they joined the government, probably because in the end they were still a syndicate.


I thought they wanted to destroy the state?

The state can only be destroyed through social revolution, never a coup.

[Os Cangaceiros]

He was important, but not anymore.

I disagree. The basic concepts that Bakunin popularized during his "anarchist years" are still concepts that anarchists today believe in (ie revolutionary syndicalism, anti-theism, anti-state politics combined with anti-capitalism, opposition to Marxism etc)

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I disagree. The basic concepts that Bakunin popularized during his "anarchist years" are still concepts that anarchists today believe in (ie revolutionary syndicalism, anti-theism, anti-state politics combined with anti-capitalism, opposition to Marxism etc)

After Bakunin came a guy called Kropotkin, who is way more relevant to modern anarchism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

After Bakunin came a guy called Kropotkin, who is way more relevant to modern anarchism.

Kropotkin was arguably a better writer than Bakunin was, but Bakunin was the first person to really give anarchism a political character (much moreso than Proudhon before him), was important in the eventual fusion of anarchist politics into the worker's movement, and was a central figure in the split in the labor movement between Marxism and anarchism/revolutionary syndicalism. He's important in a way that no one else in the anarchist canon is, IMO

[Geiseric]

You wanted the CNT-FAI to do a coup? That would go against anarchist ideals of social revolution.
I don't know why they joined the government, probably because in the end they were still a syndicate.



The state can only be destroyed through social revolution, never a coup.

Lol the idea of a revolution is kind of like a coup done by the working class over the bourgeois state. So yes I Kinda did expect cnt fai to lead the working class to conquer the bourgeois and fascists or at least try to instead of joining a counter revolutionary government.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Kropotkin was arguably a better writer than Bakunin was

Arguably? He was definetely a really bad writer.


but Bakunin was the first person to really give anarchism a political character (much moreso than Proudhon before him)was important in the eventual fusion of anarchist politics into the worker's movement, and was a central figure in the split in the labor movement between Marxism and anarchism/revolutionary syndicalism. He's important in a way that no one else in the anarchist canon is, IMO

That is very true. However reading Kropotkin today is more important than reading Bakunin.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Lol the idea of a revolution is kind of like a coup done by the working class over the bourgeois state. So yes I Kinda did expect cnt fai to lead the working class to conquer the bourgeois and fascists or at least try to instead of joining a counter revolutionary government.

Oh well, shit happens.

I should go to bed now, I am not saying anything useful anymore.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Bakunin wrote some good shit. I think he was a pretty good writer, actually...I still find some of his writings to be interesting, even though I stopped identifying w/ anarchism

[Fionnagáin]

Marx is great and all, but he wasn't a prophet. He'd be the least person to claim he was. Use a bit of sense, is all, and don't expect a guy who died in 1880 to answer all your questions.

[Brutus]

To user name, do you think any Marxist wants a party dictatorship? Even the evil Leninists want soviets and democratic centralism.

[Brutus]

Marx is great and all, but he wasn't a prophet. He'd be the least person to claim he was. Use a bit of sense, is all, and don't expect a guy who died in 1883 to answer all your questions.

Corrected.
Oh, and broody, im pretty sure that's how cults of the individual start

[evermilion]

Even the evil Leninists want soviets and democratic centralism.

Thank you.

[Geiseric]

Corrected.
Oh, and broody, im pretty sure that's how cults of the individual start

Cults are when you believe something with no proof but denying Marx and engels substantial proof and evidence to support their claims would be intellectually dishonest. They were social scientists, more than hacks like Mike mcnair or 90% of other leftist "theorists." Who altogether have contributed in reality nil to lasting theory as compared with the likes of Marx engels, gramsci, Lenin, trotsky, Luxembourg, malcolm x and many other people whose reputations are unstained by opportunism. People will be inspired by what they represent, which is insulting to call hero worship.

[cyu]

Cults are when you believe something with no proof

That's true - there's a difference between agreeing with Marx after considering and evaluating something he said, and merely agreeing with something "because Marx said so".

Whether Marx was right or not, it's probably safe to say he was genuinely interested in society and investigating solutions for society's ills. This is not true of modern political hacks - depending on whose playroll they're on, their primary concern is probably getting that by-line, showing off their book sales at dinner parties, and dreaming of a comfortable retirement (not that there's anything wrong with a comfortable retirement).

[Fionnagáin]

Cults are when you believe something with no proof but denying Marx and engels substantial proof and evidence to support their claims would be intellectually dishonest. They were social scientists, more than hacks like Mike mcnair or 90% of other leftist "theorists." Who altogether have contributed in reality nil to lasting theory as compared with the likes of Marx engels, gramsci, Lenin, trotsky, Luxembourg, malcolm x and many other people whose reputations are unstained by opportunism. People will be inspired by what they represent, which is insulting to call hero worship.
(Malcolm X? Seriously? :confused:)

[Geiseric]

(Malcolm X? Seriously? :confused:)

Yeah malcolm x wasn't ever an opportunist, and his work was instrumental for the black power movement as a whole.

[evermilion]

(Malcolm X? Seriously? :confused:)

I like how he ended up in a list featuring both Trotsky and Luxemburg.

[Fionnagáin]

Yeah malcolm x wasn't ever an opportunist, and his work was instrumental for the black power movement as a whole.
He wasn't much of a theorist, is what I'm getting at.

[Geiseric]

He wasn't much of a theorist, is what I'm getting at.

That's not necessarily true I think, who was talking about and organizing for black power before him and his mileau? He gave speeches and inspired people in ways that nobody here is capable of which i think qualifies him as a theorist.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Bakunin wrote some good shit. I think he was a pretty good writer, actually...I still find some of his writings to be interesting, even though I stopped identifying w/ anarchism

This part of Bakunin's "God and the State" always made me smile. :)


Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

[Fionnagáin]

That's not necessarily true I think, who was talking about and organizing for black power before him and his mileau? He gave speeches and inspired people in ways that nobody here is capable of which i think qualifies him as a theorist.
It doesn't, though. That's not what "theory" is.

[L1NKS]

The main problem of a unified left movement is that there is none. This board serves as a terrific example - communists, socialists, anarchists, you name it engage in senseless hostilities over the faintest theoretical distinctions, while the right continues to move on. We have to find a common denominator, and it doesn't have to be the lowest, just one that is suitable to pursue our aims successfully. We have a common goal, and as long as we are not willing to focus on that one goal, which is getting rid of class based oppression, we might just as well stop right here, and go get a job at McDonald's. I'm not saying there shouldn't be discussions about the hows and whys, but not that many, not that lenghty and not hostile. Our friends are the working people, therefore our home is the streets and factories. Those who we claim to fight act in privacy, because they are afraid the people might find out what they are up to, but we already know! They are afraid of us rising.

So what the fuck are we waiting for?

[cyu]

I would consider Henry David Thoreau to be a theorist - and Martin Luther King Jr to be someone who puts theory into practice - ie. an "engineer".

Do theorists or engineers deserve more respect? Well, you actually have to have both to actually affect the world - sometimes it's the same person, and sometimes it's not.

The Autobiography of Malcolm X was actually one of my favorite books in high school - it's interesting how the closing chapters discussing the wider world and the universalization of his views contrasted with how popular media tends to portray him.

Interesting stuff from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html that I didn't discover until long after...

I believe in a religion that believes in freedom. Any time I have to accept a religion that won't let me fight a battle for my people, I say to hell with that religion.

I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man's problem just to avoid violence.

You show me a capitalist, and I'll show you a bloodsucker.

Power never takes a back step only in the face of more power.

Nonviolence is fine as long as it works.

From http://thinkexist.com/quotes/malcolm_x/

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.

We declare our right on this earth to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.

Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American. Being born here in America doesn't make you an American.

Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.

It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it's more like a vulture. It used to be strong enough to go and suck anybody's blood whether they were strong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck the blood of the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely.

I believe in the brotherhood of all men, but I don't believe in wasting brotherhood on anyone who doesn't want to practice it with me. Brotherhood is a two-way street.

If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us, and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country.

The only way we'll get freedom for ourselves is to identify ourselves with every oppressed people in the world. We are blood brothers to the people of Brazil, Venezuela, Haiti and Cuba.

[Fionnagáin]

The main problem of a unified left movement is that there is none. This board serves as a terrific example - communists, socialists, anarchists, you name it engage in senseless hostilities over the faintest theoretical distinctions, while the right continues to move on. We have to find a common denominator, and it doesn't have to be the lowest, just one that is suitable to pursue our aims successfully. We have a common goal, and as long as we are not willing to focus on that one goal, which is getting rid of class based oppression, we might just as well stop right here, and go get a job at McDonald's. I'm not saying there shouldn't be discussions about the hows and whys, but not that many, not that lenghty and not hostile. Our friends are the working people, therefore our home is the streets and factories. Those who we claim to fight act in privacy, because they are afraid the people might find out what they are up to, but we already know! They are afraid of us rising.

So what the fuck are we waiting for?
For "common goals" to structure practical activity, they have to be practical goals, something we can work towards in the here-and-now. "Socialism", in the very general, abstract sense we share here, is not a practical goal. You may as well wonder why communists and liberals can't work together despite a shared desire for "freedom".