Role of political organizations during low-points of sturggle . . .

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, this question was raised during the Solidarity Halifax discussion on electoral politics (http://solidarityhalifax.ca/2013/08/video-from-the-ballot-box-to-the-street/): What is the role of political parties (as the "political" expression of mass struggles) when the struggles that gave rise to them are in retreat?

Even this frame has problematic points, in my opinion, but I figured I'd kick off discussion without necessarily making my own opinions the starting point.

[blake 3:17]

OMG -- 2 hours of video? No wonder we're fucked.

[The Idler]

Haven't watched the video but revolutionaries should be switching from the street to the ballot box. Street politics are the politics of fascists and highly exclusionary.

[Art Vandelay]

Haven't watched the video but revolutionaries should be switching from the street to the ballot box. Street politics are the politics of fascists and highly exclusionary.

Dear god. You're a nice guy, which is why I hate saying shit like this to you, but convictions and statements like this, deserve to be no where near a revolutionary leftist forum. Street politics are the politics of the fash? Okay I'll be sure to send out an email to my comrades in Egypt right now, so they can get that pesky working class to stop acting like fash. :rolleyes: God damn the left sucks.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The low point of the struggle should be a time for leftists to group together (I don't mean united front tactics, but just stop the pointless bickering about trying to blueprint a future society that doesn't exist..) and attempt to do as little damage as possible to the existing movement - i.e. unite not divide, build not weaken ties in the workplace, in unions, between organisations and in the community.

It would also be a logical place to analyse previous crises and get some good academic study of recent capitalism going, and get some convincing propaganda out there.

That's what we should do next time, anyway, because we seem to have wildly failed the past couple of decades.

[blake 3:17]

I actually have a fair bit of sympathy for the Idler's position -- I think it's a major cop out for the radical Left to avoid electoral politics. It's more a question of what we do with them.

I love street politics, but I love the streets and crazy street stuff, so when they come together I'm over the moon. But that's not for everybody.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Blake, the problem is that Idler said "switch." His view of politics is limited to the ballot box only.

Boss, "ties in the workplace and in unions" isn't political. There needs to be political unity. "Between organizations and in the community" sounds better.

[Hit The North]

Boss, "ties in the workplace and in unions" isn't political. There needs to be political unity. "Between organizations and in the community" sounds better.

The political organisation needs roots in the class in all areas and the workplace and the unions (as workplace organisation) is just as important as the "community".

[Os Cangaceiros]

Dear god. You're a nice guy, which is why I hate saying shit like this to you, but convictions and statements like this, deserve to be no where near a revolutionary leftist forum. Street politics are the politics of the fash? Okay I'll be sure to send out an email to my comrades in Egypt right now, so they can get that pesky working class to stop acting like fash. :rolleyes: God damn the left sucks.

It's a pretty startling statement when you consider some of the movements that began as "street politics" which included people who may have felt excluded from "normal politics" (ie the Black Panthers, the Young Lords/LK&QN, Abahlali baseMjondolo, etc)

As far as "street politics" being intrinsically fascist simply because fascists have placed an emphasis on them, that's just ridiculous. You might as well say that electoral politics are intrinsically liberal for the same reason.

[SonofRage]

I think the role of a revolutionary organization in a non-revolutionary period is to study and organize in areas that they view as having the most radical potential. In Bring the Ruckus, we used the following "Six Criteria (http://bringtheruckus.org/?q=6_crit)" as a guide in choosing our political work:

1. It must address systems that attack working class people of color.
2. It must attack white supremacy.
3. It must have the potential to further the development of revolutionary consciousness among the working class.
4. It must have the potential to build a dual power.
5. It must actively push the development of a feminist praxis.
6. It should stretch the boundaries of political organizing.

Joel Olson, a BtR comrade of mine who passed away last year, put it well in his piece called "What is a cadre organization? (http://bringtheruckus.org/?q=node/31)":



A cadre group should not try to “lead the revolution.” Its task is to bring out the revolutionary tendencies that already exist in society. A cadre group will not to start a revolution. It will rarely lead one, either. But even if its members never live to see revolutionary times (e.g. Love and Rage) and even if its members labor in relative obscurity (e.g. Sojourner Truth Organization), it can still play an indispensable role in preparing people for protracted struggle against the state.

To steal a metaphor, the role of a group like Ruckus in non-revolutionary times (which I believe we live in today) is to be a crouching tiger, laying in wait for a social crisis (such as a depression or a new civil rights movement) to break out that challenges the legitimacy and stability of the state. If and when an event occurs, the cadre pounces, seeking to exploit this instability for revolutionary ends.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think the role of a revolutionary organization in a non-revolutionary period is to study and organize in areas that they view as having the most radical potential. In Bring the Ruckus, we used the following "Six Criteria (http://bringtheruckus.org/?q=6_crit)" as a guide in choosing our political work:

1. It must address systems that attack working class people of color.
2. It must attack white supremacy.
3. It must have the potential to further the development of revolutionary consciousness among the working class.
4. It must have the potential to build a dual power.
5. It must actively push the development of a feminist praxis.
6. It should stretch the boundaries of political organizing.

Joel Olson, a BtR comrade of mine who passed away last year, put it well in his piece called "What is a cadre organization? (http://bringtheruckus.org/?q=node/31)":

I find those points too vague to be useless.

Take for instance " the potential to build a dual power." How does one assess that? Exactly how should such "dual power" institutions be organized? Hierarchically in a top down manner or bottom up through collective decision making? Moreover, how does one distinguish between something which has "potential" and something which is likely to succeed?

One might as well make it a requirement that the political work "advance human liberation" and leave it at that, smug in their belief that by advocating such political work they have done the rest of us a great service. Being dogmatic isn't the answer, but I am sure I am not alone in conjuring several useless dead-ends that could fulfill all six criteria and which would be an incredible waste of our time.

Honestly, why do people continue making such equivocal and banal lists?

[SonofRage]

I find those points too vague to be useless.

I'll assume you meant"useful" here.



Take for instance " the potential to build a dual power." How does one assess that?

How does one make any decision about anything? Our organizations are small and have limited resources. Prioritization is necessary. An example we used was that we thought animal rights were important but that such struggles posed no threat to the state and capitalism so we couldn't justify focusing in that area.


Exactly how should such "dual power" institutions be organized? Hierarchically in a top down manner or bottom up through collective decision making?


In the most directly democratic manner possible. We addressed this in other documents.


Moreover, how does one distinguish between something which has "potential" and something which is likely to succeed?

A campaign for a new stop sign has a better chance to succeed than fighting against police and prisons. Likelihood of success isn't everything.


One might as well make it a requirement that the political work "advance human liberation" and leave it at that, smug in their belief that by advocating such political work they have done the rest of us a great service. Being dogmatic isn't the answer, but I am sure I am not alone in conjuring several useless dead-ends that could fulfill all six criteria and which would be an incredible waste of our time.

Who is being dogmatic? As I said, this was a guide, not a checklist. These things would be discussed and debated, not written down like filling our paperwork for approval.

How likely are you to choose dead end work if you funny put any thought into it at silk and simply tail what the new hotness is?


Honestly, why do people continue making such equivocal and banal lists?

It's about trying to be strategic. How do you choose political work? Many have mental lists, we just wrote ours down and debated it endlessly.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

[blake 3:17]

Honestly, why do people continue making such equivocal and banal lists?

They sound good?

There was a piece written on a local organization, that had one of these kinds of lists. It sounded great & for a radical or revolutionary very little to diagree with. But -- it was full of nonsense. Nothing concrete. Just a back handed ad hominem attack because OBVIOUSLY if the group wasn't these wonderful things, it was guilty of all kinds of oppressive and anti-democratic practices and people.

A while back, a sister & I were talking about the somewhat nasty behaviour of a few men. I started turning it into a feminist issue, and she stopped me there -- no, it was that they'd been thoughtless & selfish & acted like jerks.

[Brotto Rühle]

The role of the organization's are not to lead or raise the consciousness of the workers, that much is certain.

[Hit The North]

The role of the organization's are not to lead or raise the consciousness of the workers, that much is certain.

Then what?