revolutionary from Colorado seeking others

[subversive_emissary]

I've been desperately searching for other dedicated revolutionaries for the establishment of a clandestine circle in Colorado. If you're in the area or know someone who is and may be interested in contributing to this endeavor, please contact me.

My main task as of now is to reconcile various leftist organizations in the US and abroad -to help in the reconstruction and reorganization of the far-left into a more powerful, efficient force. I'm aware of the difficulty of this task. As of now our circumstances are pitiful and I can't help but be especially cynical in view of the lack of revolutionary discipline and dedication apparent in almost every so-called leftist I come across, but especially in the older ones.

I'm 21 and for the last month I've spent 12-15 hours a day reading Lenin and writing an exposition of Leninism, which I'll finish soon. I aspire to be a professional revolutionary, like Rakhmetov.

If you haven't afforded yourself the luxury of being free of the modern constraints then I may be able to help you. It's not difficult, as Einstein once said imagination is more important than knowledge...there are obvious ways of exploiting this system, of sustaining yourself so you can focus on the greater, immediate tasks presented to us. I'm sure some of you are taking advantage of this but I'm also sure that most of you are not, and that you would rather be working toward the cause than at Wendy's or in some other pathetic and distracting servility.
If you're interested in anything I've mentioned above, message me using a public computer or through an array of proxies and I'll get back to you.

Move fast, time is always against us.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

A clandestine circle? That sounds a little shady ;)

Given your spent time reading Lenin, I suppose you're a Leninist? If so, you want to base your unification of the left on a Leninist basis? If that is true, I ask directly: Are you basing yourself on the Second International real life Lenin that helped build the RSDLP as a mass party under Tsarist circumstances... Or are you building on the basis of the "what is to be done?" mythology, as if Bolshevism was some unique invention by the Russians, a mythology that started to rise after the 1921 tightening down on factions?

If it is the former, I welcome you to a reviving trend of mass partyism that seeks to unite the far left on a democratic, internationalist and class independent basis. If it is the latter, then I'm afraid you're just going to waste time building yet another 'Leninist' sect.

[subversive_emissary]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist and am basing these organizational prospects on an understanding of Marx's political economy, Lenin's vanguardism, Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, and the other great theories espoused by earlier revolutionary leaders with application to the current situation.

The division of the left is a result of the compartmentalizing nature that appears to have shaped your response. To organize on the basis of singular aspects of historical trends will only further divide our already greatly divided ranks; our approach must be more overarching in the reformation of a revolutionary struggle, without putting too much weight on any single historical movement or party. Combining tactics from all past parties and movements of the far-left with consideration of the possibility of their successful application to present circumstances is the best way to reorganize and reestablish ourselves.

Like I said I seek reconciliation of existing movements, not the establishment of yet another. By clandestine circle I mean a tightly knit group of radical intellectuals willing and able to help in this pursuit of reuniting the left; all with the abilities needed to carry out the more specialized, and important actions essential for the success of this objective.

Your description of "the reunification of the far left on a democratic, internationalist and class independent basis" is what I propose, but not based particularly on any restrictive associations.

I appreciate the informative aspects of your response that clarify certain divisions inherent in the class struggle, especially among the intelligentsia.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Welcome to the boards.

One aspect of your post concerns me deeply. It seems to me the suggestion that wage labour is "pathetic and distracting servility" implies that wage labourers are pathetic, distracted, and servile. I would submit that this is untrue, and that it is in the adverse conditions that aspire to reduce workers to such a state that we have a real laboratory of class struggle. By contrast, the endlessly proliferating circles of self-styled "radical intellectuals" seem less apt to the task of confronting conditions than those who lack pretensions about their relations.
After all, is welfare, student life, crime, or any other activity outside of formal wage labour any more distant from the capitalist totality? Are the "professional revolutionaries" really cultivating an objective distance from which to "sum up" conditions, or simply viewing them from another angle that is, none the less, subject to the same capitalist subjectification? What, after all, is "the intelligentsia"? What is its class character? Is it "above" the muck of history in which fries are cooked, sneakers are sewn, ditches are dug, and so on?

[synthesis]

If you're not a cop or a fascist, you sure come across as one.

[subversive_emissary]

@Garbage

Firstly, no. their existing circumstances can be attributed with all of these qualities, but those forced into these conditions are not necessarily of these exact qualities. Unfortunately a great percentage of workers, historically and present day, mainly due to their their lack of class consciousness, do inherit these qualities, crushing their spirit and thus ideas of changing society are rendered unimportant or often non-existent for them. (I was unaware that conditions could aspire.) A 'laboratory' of class struggle implies dynamism and intellect -two more qualities that are repressed in a capitalist system of wage labor, so nice analogy. Professional revolutionaries will "cultivate an objective distance from which to" analyze "conditions", and won't limit themselves to a single, capitalist perception. Their world view will be as dynamic as the world itself, unobscured by monotonous servilities and distractions -which they can easily differentiate. Only those who are capable, who can focus entirely, are professional revolutionaries. The often self-supposed title and thus disreputable association is irrelevant to the definition of this phrase.
You didn't make it clear if you mean the relations of classes or of conditions; even if you clarify which one, either would be too vague for an unassuming response.
The Intelligentsia are those whose world view is more encompassing than the average worker's. It's class character floats between the bourgeoise and the proletariat. And no.

@synthesis would you care to explain? do you think I'm suggesting some extremist hierarchy? or some dictatorial regime? or maybe you fail to see the necessity of these suggestions? or perhaps you just dislike the way I write? or should I just keep guessing?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

@Garbage

Firstly, no. their existing circumstances can be attributed with all of these qualities, but those forced into these conditions are not necessarily of these exact qualities. Unfortunately a great percentage of workers, historically and present day, mainly due to their their lack of class consciousness, do inherit these qualities, crushing their spirit and thus ideas of changing society are rendered unimportant or often non-existent for them. (I was unaware that conditions could aspire.) A 'laboratory' of class struggle implies dynamism and intellect -two more qualities that are repressed in a capitalist system of wage labor, so nice analogy. Professional revolutionaries will "cultivate an objective distance from which to" analyze "conditions", and won't limit themselves to a single, capitalist perception. Their world view will be as dynamic as the world itself, unobscured by monotonous servilities and distractions -which they can easily differentiate. Only those who are capable, who can focus entirely, are professional revolutionaries. The often self-supposed title and thus disreputable association is irrelevant to the definition of this phrase.
You didn't make it clear if you mean the relations of classes or of conditions; even if you clarify which one, either would be too vague for an unassuming response.
The Intelligentsia are those whose world view is more encompassing than the average worker's. It's class character floats between the bourgeoise and the proletariat. And no.

@synthesis would you care to explain? do you think I'm suggesting some extremist hierarchy? or some dictatorial regime? or maybe you fail to see the necessity of these suggestions? or perhaps you just dislike the way I write? or should I just keep guessing?

LOL. I hope your organizing materials don't read like this post. Us wage-working suckers are likely to think you're a real condescending prick.

False consciousness, right?

[tachosomoza]

One does not organize a "clandestine circle" on an open forum.

[La Guaneña]

Someone seems to have read WITBD and got it all wrong.

[subversive_emissary]

I'm not being condescending toward workers, I'm stating their conditions.

I never said I'm going to organize this clandestine circle on a forum. I said I need to make contact with those who are interested. This site is an excellent median for garnering contacts.

Guanena would you care to explain, can you? or would you just like me to guess?

All of these responses seem to be filled with needless aggression and ego. You're all either attacking points I never made or claimed to have supported and throwing out your two cents without any sort of explanation. I would genuinely like to hear why you think I got What Is to Be Done? "all wrong" though, Guanena.

[synthesis]

@synthesis would you care to explain? do you think I'm suggesting some extremist hierarchy? or some dictatorial regime? or maybe you fail to see the necessity of these suggestions? or perhaps you just dislike the way I write? or should I just keep guessing?

Well, no; the inclusion of "fascist" in my assessment was an afterthought. I'm pretty sure you're a cop, and a lazy one at that. You don't start a "clandestine group" unless you want to do clandestine things, and the fact that you skipped political discussion and went straight to trying to get leftists from your area to give up their personal information and possibly meet you in private to organize implicitly illegal activities, along with your very mechanical, detached understanding of Marxism as your cover politics, just screams "cop trying to replicate the Mohamed Mohamud entrapment fiasco with leftist activists."

Of course, on the off-chance that you're not a cop, I wouldn't feel particularly bad about so-called "needless aggression and ego" - although all I see here is impersonal political criticism - due to the absurdly substitutionist and adventurist aroma of your politics.

[La Guaneña]

Well, the mere fact that you come to an internet forum claiming to be searching for other people in order to create a clandestine circle is one of them. It clearly shows that it is possible to read too much theory, even Lenin, if this means being this disconnected from reality.

We must not forget that revolutionary theory is the concrete analysis of the concrete situation. And as a comradely suggestion from someone who operates in a fairly large movement by RevLeft and USA standards, I would tell you to stick your head out of the books for a while, take a nice breath and try to establish these relations elsewhere.

You seem like a comrade with a lot of effort, and allthough we must not underestimate our effort, it is also important to remember that force must be used in the most efficient way, following the path of less resistance.

I'm sorry if my comment sounded agressive and arrogant, revleft makes me angry often and I end up spitting on other posts.

[subversive_emissary]

Oh I wasn't aware that I "skipped political discussion" -as if that's some standard formality we're all supposed to abide by. A lot more can be worked out a lot faster when two or more ideologues meet in person. I never tried to get anyone to give up their personal information. Did you know it's actually possible for two strangers to meet without giving each other personal information? isn't that amazing? I don't even need to know their appearance, I'll tell them mine and where I'll be and leave it up to them whether or not they want to meet me there. just so fascinating.
Aside from defending myself from all these straw man attacks, your baseless insult regarding my understanding of Marxism as being detached is just as hilarious (since, you know, I've said so much about Marxism that you're already able to tell I know so much less than you). Maybe the reason you think this is that I'm wanting to help reunify the far-left at a time when the revolutionary potential of the US is low, during a time of political stagnation, the very opposite of what Marx did during the age of reaction and other periods of mass political inactivity. If you have any specific reason though for thinking that I have a detached understanding of Marxism feel free to specify, no matter your response it's going to based -if on anything- assumption, just like the rest of your paranoid response.
Your accusation of substitutionism is again unfounded as I've already thoroughly explained that I'm not suggesting professional revolutionaries substitute the necessary role of the working class in their own emancipation.
I wasn't aware that wanting to meet others to form a tightly knit group of revolutionaries was considered adventurist, I guess a lot of major revolutionary figures were adventurist too then. Are you not one for applying the actions of successful historical figures to modern circumstances? Maybe I should just stay on the internet and make humorous remarks to others.

Again it seems like everyone's just looking for something to attack.
consider looking through the list of cognitive biases on wikipedia

[BIXX]

I've been desperately searching for other dedicated revolutionaries for the establishment of a clandestine circle in Colorado. If you're in the area or know someone who is and may be interested in contributing to this endeavor, please contact me.



My main task as of now is to reconcile various leftist organizations in the US and abroad -to help in the reconstruction and reorganization of the far-left into a more powerful, efficient force. I'm aware of the difficulty of this task. As of now our circumstances are pitiful and I can't help but be especially cynical in view of the lack of revolutionary discipline and dedication apparent in almost every so-called leftist I come across, but especially in the older ones.



I'm 21 and for the last month I've spent 12-15 hours a day reading Lenin and writing an exposition of Leninism, which I'll finish soon. I aspire to be a professional revolutionary, like Rakhmetov.



If you haven't afforded yourself the luxury of being free of the modern constraints then I may be able to help you. It's not difficult, as Einstein once said imagination is more important than knowledge...there are obvious ways of exploiting this system, of sustaining yourself so you can focus on the greater, immediate tasks presented to us. I'm sure some of you are taking advantage of this but I'm also sure that most of you are not, and that you would rather be working toward the cause than at Wendy's or in some other pathetic and distracting servility.

If you're interested in anything I've mentioned above, message me using a public computer or through an array of proxies and I'll get back to you.



Move fast, time is always against us.


Lost my shit as "clandestine circle" lol.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

OK, OK, so I was being kind of a dick. Let me try this again, and maybe we can figure out what we have in common.


I'm not being condescending toward workers, I'm stating their conditions.

This is all well and good, except that it's very hard to state anything about "their conditions" while placing one entirely outside of them, and forsaking concrete and direct investigation. That's not to say that one necessarily has to be a worker (though it certainly helps), but that one can't approach "the workers" in a schematic way, with formulas developed outside of concrete engagement with class struggle.
This has multiple aspects, not the least of which is a real linguistic issue: without listening to proletarians articulate their real lived conditions, one can never hope to speak about those conditions in a way that is comprehensible or useful. This is where academic, elitist, pseudo-Marxism comes from: the rearticulation of class struggle so that it becomes a site of (knowledge-)capital-production rather than a dialectical praxis (theory->practice->new theory and practice).
This has to take as its starting point breaking down the distinction between I (critical revolutionary subject) and them (object of history).

[subversive_emissary]

OK, OK, so I was being kind of a dick. Let me try this again, and maybe we can figure out what we have in common.



This is all well and good, except that it's very hard to state anything about "their conditions" while placing one entirely outside of them, and forsaking concrete and direct investigation. That's not to say that one necessarily has to be a worker (though it certainly helps), but that one can't approach "the workers" in a schematic way, with formulas developed outside of concrete engagement with class struggle.
This has multiple aspects, not the least of which is a real linguistic issue: without listening to proletarians articulate their real lived conditions, one can never hope to speak about those conditions in a way that is comprehensible or useful. This is where academic, elitist, pseudo-Marxism comes from: the rearticulation of class struggle so that it becomes a site of (knowledge-)capital-production rather than a dialectical praxis (theory->practice->new theory and practice).
This has to take as its starting point breaking down the distinction between I (critical revolutionary subject) and them (object of history).

That was very insightful, thank you for being the first person to give a productive response. I completely agree with what you said and hope that you don't think my derisive comment about wage labor was directed toward the workers (it was directed against the work itself and its unnecessary form), and thus my interaction with has been likely minimal or non at all, that I'm merely studying it all from a distance without ever immersing myself in the general exploitation, quite the contrary. I've spent time as a worker at several fast food restaurants, recently too. As an artist, I realized quickly, and before ever studying Marx or communism, that type of work is indeed servile, and it most certainly is a distraction against human issues, just like debt and all forms of wage slavery. When I spoke briefly of this type of work, like that found in chain stores or restaurants, I meant simply that it's the type of work for a machine, and if humans take up such a position they will become mechanical.
As Humboldt, in The Limits to State Action, so eloquently put it, "To inquire and to create, these are the grand centers around which all human pursuits more or less directly revolve." He goes on to say "all moral cultures spring solely and immediately from the inner life of the soul, and can never be produced be external and artificial contrivances. The cultivation of the understanding as of any of man's other faculties is normally achieved by his own activity, his own ingenuity, or his own methods of using the discoveries of others." Humboldt goes on to develop the rudiments of a theory of exploitation and of alienated labor that suggest, I think in significant ways, the early Marx. Humboldt makes further comments about the cultivation of understanding through spontaneous action in the following way "Man never regards what he possesses as so much his own as what he does, and the laborer who tends a garden is perhaps in a truer sense its owner than the listless voluptuary who enjoys its fruits. And since truly human action is that which flows from inner impulse, it seems as if all peasants and craftsmen might be elevated into artists; that is men who enjoy their labor for its own sake, improve it by their own plastic genius and inventive skill, and thereby cultivate their intellect, ignoble their character, and exalt and refine their pleasures. And so humanity would be ignobled by the very things, which now though beautiful in themselves, so often tend to degrade it. Freedom is undoubtedly the indispensable condition without which even the pursuits most congenial to individual human nature can never succeed in producing such salutary influences. Whatever does not spring from a man's free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very being, but remains alien to his true nature. He does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness. And if a man acts in a mechanical way, reacting to external demands or instructions rather than in ways determined by his own interests, energies, and power, we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is."
I had this all in mind when briefly commenting about the oppressive nature of present working conditions.
This excursion was useful, but I wish some of you would talk more about the organization by radical intellectuals of radical movements, and the necessity (or not?) of this, which was my main point.