Libertarian Communist Initiative

[The Feral Underclass]

An initiative I have been part of building has announced its formation as minority political cadre organisation. I wanted to post the groups 15 point Statement of Intent in order that it might create some debate.

Views/disagreements/agreements?


Statement of Intent

1. The established Left has failed and continues to fail to gather a response to the politics of austerity, and the global capitalist crisis broadly conceived. It has stagnated in the face of unprecedented changes to class composition and ruling class hegemony. It no longer offers the space or opportunity to build a revolutionary counter-power.

2. Despite attacks on wages and conditions, as well as a decrease in the standard of living, the bureaucratised labour movements remain wedded to the ideology of class peace and the politics of social democracy. They pose no threat to capitalism or the austerity offensive, and seek to reconcile their differences with our class enemies.

3. The 2011 August riots demonstrated clearly the existence of communities in which there exists a potential for the growth of politicised and militant sections of the class, formed of heavily exploited and racially abused proletarians.

4. The Left’s failure to seize the potential of this extraordinary moment was a fundamental mistake, and only demonstrated the Left’s real detachment from the people whose interests it claims to hold closest. We feel that when social unrest of this kind happens again, there must be a clear and determined engagement by libertarian communists. This engagement should build upon a strategy of social insertion which needs to be underway in the present.

5. Those sections of the class that inhabit the riot subjectivity are antagonistic towards capitalism and the state. They are conscious of those antagonisms and are willing to struggle against them. These sections will naturally include disparate groups of people across all sections of the class and have varying levels of political efficacy and determination.

6. These sections of the class often have internally contradictory ideas and we must recognise there is a difference between a consciousness of antagonistic class relations and a consciousness of political direction. We must also recognise the dangers of co-option by the state, the far-right and Left opportunists.

7. United alongside certain existing militant projects, we recognise those communities as being an arena in which protagonists in future struggle can emerge. Our role in these communities is not to sell ideology, but to present opportunities for advancing demands which can deliver socially-equitable gains.

8. We believe this strategy of social insertion needs to be occurring across both the class in its broadest sense and multiple terrains of struggle in order to bring lasting social change, but recognise the present need to focus our energies instead of diffusing them. As the riots of 2011 represented in some ways the impetus for our project, it is from the circumstances which brought them about, that we wish to begin.

9. At this stage, we believe it is essential to create a pole of attraction to regroup existing pro-revolutionary militants and tendencies, sincere in the belief of the magnitude of the tasks at hand. Many are and continue to be disillusioned in the existing projects of the anti-capitalist, socialist and anarchist milieus.

10. We have come to reject the anarchist moniker. We continue to take inspiration from the ideas, methods and heritage of the historic anarchist movement, but feel that the contemporary anarchist milieu has lost sight of this heritage in all but name. The contemporary anarchist milieu is not capable of learning lessons from the failures of the past, or creating new thought and praxis from the ashes of previous movements. Instead, and to our sadness, it increasingly manifests its political activity through the reproduction of certain forms of lifestyle, fashion or esoteric behavioural affectations. We therefore seek to inhabit a space that neither relies upon the ‘liberalised’ methodologies of contemporary anarchism nor the failed strategies of Left populists.

11. The Libertarian Communist Initiative is a medium term, pre-party formation which means to establish a pole of attraction for political regroupment which is capable of moving beyond both anarchism and Leninism. The Initiative intends to grow into a Libertarian Communist Party that can build on existing struggles and campaigns in order to pursue a clear programme for advanced struggle across all sections of the class and across an assemblage of terrains.

12. We use ‘Party’ here in the broad sense deployed by Malatesta, and do not feel this form compromises our libertarian content. We have never sought to build a mass organisation or union, and continue to reject substitutionist modes of organisation which prioritise the interests of the organisation or member over the interests of the class at large. The proletariat is the motor of social change and does not require being anything but itself, acting in solidarity against all forces which harass and undermine its interests.

13. Subsequently, we seek to establish a minority political organisation, the success of which does not rely in sheer growth and party-building. The Initiative will therefore take the form of a cadre of dedicated, energetic and disciplined communist militants who strive always to be allies to the class. Our affiliation to this cadre does not stem from our individual desire to belong, but always to a commitment to making plans towards building counter-hegemony and carrying them out.

14. Initially, the role of the Initiative will be to elucidate the positions of libertarian communism (both as issues of clarification and analysis between revolutionaries and to the wider public), to initiate, intervene and participate in the organisations of the class through social work, and to act as an example of influence to the anti-capitalist milieu as a whole. The Initiative will operate on the principles of theoretical clarity, practical unity and collective responsibility.

15. Ultimately, we seek a strategy of dual power that can escalate class struggle and build institutions of counter-hegemony. Over time we hope these institutions will seek overt and covert antagonistic relationships with capital and the state, and work to build unity and solidarity throughout the class, consolidating a confident counter-power that can seize and reduce the means of production and begin a process of social re-organisation.

Page (http://libcomint.wordpress.com/collectiveactionmail-com/)

[Thirsty Crow]

Much of the points are spot on in my opinion (especially the point about August 2011, though I'm not that familiar with the situation in GB so this isn't a categorical statement), though I'd just like to criticize the specific wording of point 13:


Subsequently, we seek to establish a minority political organisation, the success of which does not rely in sheer growth and party-building. The Initiative will therefore take the form of a cadre of dedicated, energetic and disciplined communist militants who strive always to be allies to the class.Sorry, if this seems like a minor point (and it is actually), I've read the thing only once, but isn't it a bit confusing to state that communists strive to be allies to the class? In my mind, this connotes that we aren't really part of the class at all, and a kind of a foreign element.

Will return to it when I have more time.

[Tolstoy]

Marxist-Leninist butthurt coming in 3, 2, 1....

[The Idler]

On point 3, racial abuse of the bourgeoisie is just as bad as racial abuse of proletarians.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Marxist-Leninist butthurt coming in 3, 2, 1....

I'm not Marxist Leninist but I think I can speak for all of my anti-revisionist peeps when I say I genuinely don't think I could possibly be offended by what other people call us. We aren't children

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not Marxist Leninist but I think I can speak for all of my anti-revisionist peeps when I say I genuinely don't think I could possibly be offended by what other people call us. We aren't children

There is probably some stuff in the statement what Maoists would feel happy about.

[The Feral Underclass]

Much of the points are spot on in my opinion (especially the point about August 2011, though I'm not that familiar with the situation in GB so this isn't a categorical statement), though I'd just like to criticize the specific wording of point 13:

Sorry, if this seems like a minor point (and it is actually), I've read the thing only once, but isn't it a bit confusing to state that communists strive to be allies to the class? In my mind, this connotes that we aren't really part of the class at all, and a kind of a foreign element.

Will return to it when I have more time.

Yeah, a good point. The idea of 'allies' is taken directly from Bakunin and is meant to reflect the idea everything we do must be to support the class. I agree it could strike as a little confusing in that regard.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

this really interests me actually, I think more and more my own views line up with whats expressed in this statement. I look forward to seeing where this project goes.

[The Feral Underclass]

this really interests me actually, I think more and more my own views line up with whats expressed in this statement. I look forward to seeing where this project goes.

Why not get involved?

[Sea]

I'm a typical lazy, burned, pessimistic leftist hipster from the Internet. What does this movement have to offer to people like me? What sets it apart? There are plenty of small, new or splinter leftist movements out there and I imagine some have similar programmes. What makes this one different?

Questions like these should be priority #1 when posting the good news to a place like revleft. When someone comes up with something worth caring about, there are almost always hundreds of other things that look and act and smell and sound the same. Care never fares well when spread thin. When it's TAT that comes in to toot the bugle (as opposed to, for instance, one of Bolshevik Sickle's socks) that will pique most people's interests a little more, but that doesn't really work outside of revleft.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm a typical lazy, burned, pessimistic leftist hipster from the Internet. What does this movement have to offer to people like me?

Well, revolutionary politics isn't something you consume. It's not something you shop around for to find the best return. It's not how many things you can get. I think people need to be careful with that kind of mentality. It's a very consumerist way to view politics.

You participate in organisations and movements because you believe in the ideas and wish to put plans into action. Movements aren't there to offer you anything other than an opportunity to organise class struggle. The onus is on you to provide something worth while.


What sets it apart? There are plenty of small, new or splinter leftist movements out there and I imagine some have similar programmes. What makes this one different?

Actually, they're aren't that many, especially in the UK. There certainly isn't a Bakuninist cadre organisation. If you read the statement, I think it defines clearly what is different when compared to other groups.

Mainly, we're a minority organisation that is focusing on the riot subjectivity and aligning ourselves with autonomists to run enquiries on subjects that aren't being investigated by the broad left.

We are a 'third' way if you like, and a regroupment tendency that is moving beyond both Leninism and anarchism and providing a clear model for organising and a focus on communities of the class that are susceptible to radical ideas. If there are other groups in the UK that are doing this (other than Plan C), I would be interested to know who they are.

Edit: Your tendency is awesome. I am onboard with this.

[Thirsty Crow]

Mainly, we're a minority organisation that is focusing on the riot subjectivity and aligning ourselves with autonomists to run enquiries on subjects that aren't being investigated by the broad left.

Does this mean that you're planning on doing something like the workers' enquiry within the communities in question?

[Sea]

Well, revolutionary politics isn't something you consume. It's not something you shop around for to find the best return. It's not how many things you can get. I think people need to be careful with that kind of mentality. It's a very consumerist way to view politics.

You participate in organisations and movements because you believe in the ideas and wish to put plans into action. Movements aren't there to offer you anything other than an opportunity to organise class struggle. The onus is on you to provide something worth while.It is a silly mentality indeed, but it's the one often carried by sympathetic passerby. Disgruntled workers, people burnt out by the crappy state of the left, or people who are maybe already in an organization.
Actually, they're aren't that many, especially in the UK. There certainly isn't a Bakuninist cadre organisation. If you read the statement, I think it defines clearly what is different when compared to other groups.

Mainly, we're a minority organisation that is focusing on the riot subjectivity and aligning ourselves with autonomists to run enquiries on subjects that aren't being investigated by the broad left.Points 7-12 outline the general character of the problem, and point 13 is a general description of a set of tactics that does not suffer from those problems. But there is another problem - the success of any political formation (in this case 'success' means that the political situation has developed such that the long-term goals in point 15 have become the order of the day) is only tied to its merits insofar as it is viable in the environment of its action. I'm not implying that you're trying to make politics out to be a "may the best group win" scenario; that would be dumb. I'm only point out that, even if the goal isn't to be a mass party, if a group is to be able to engage the masses, being correct simply isn't enough, in large part due to the consumerist attitude that the masses hold towards politics. The Bolsheviks realized this; Lenin the economist locked himself up in his study to elucidate on the fine points of capitalism, but Lenin the organizer spent his time on street corners, rarely finding the need to go deeper than the most rough and brutal points of the same. Why? Marketing, that's why.
We are a 'third' way if you like, and a regroupment tendency that is moving beyond both Leninism and anarchism and providing a clear model for organising and a focus on communities of the class that are susceptible to radical ideas.There are a thousand third ways, and what I'm afraid to see happen is that the LCI will just become the 1001st.

[The Idler]

What's your position on anti-fascism?

[The Feral Underclass]

What's your position on anti-fascism?

We are for it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Does this mean that you're planning on doing something like the workers' enquiry within the communities in question?

Potentially, yes.

[The Feral Underclass]

It is a silly mentality indeed, but it's the one often carried by sympathetic passerby. Disgruntled workers, people burnt out by the crappy state of the left, or people who are maybe already in an organization.

What you're describing is a personal issue. I can't make you agree with our ideas and want to be part of organising and carrying out our work. That is a choice you have to make yourself.


Points 7-12 outline the general character of the problem, and point 13 is a general description of a set of tactics that does not suffer from those problems. But there is another problem - the success of any political formation (in this case 'success' means that the political situation has developed such that the long-term goals in point 15 have become the order of the day) is only tied to its merits insofar as it is viable in the environment of its action. I'm not implying that you're trying to make politics out to be a "may the best group win" scenario; that would be dumb. I'm only point out that, even if the goal isn't to be a mass party, if a group is to be able to engage the masses, being correct simply isn't enough, in large part due to the consumerist attitude that the masses hold towards politics.

Okay...?


The Bolsheviks realized this; Lenin the economist locked himself up in his study to elucidate on the fine points of capitalism, but Lenin the organizer spent his time on street corners, rarely finding the need to go deeper than the most rough and brutal points of the same. Why? Marketing, that's why.

I have read this paragraph several times and I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. I will say this though: there is a fundamental difference between trying to convince existing revolutionaries to organise with us or like us, and the work required to engage communities within the class. Our objective isn't to sell ideology to working class people.


There are a thousand third ways, and what I'm afraid to see happen is that the LCI will just become the 1001st.

But what are these third ways? Can you articulate to me what they are?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I can't really comment on most of this - as a Bolshevik-Leninist obviously I approach the question of strategy from a completely different perspective and so on. But it seems to me that a focus on what you call riot subjectivity is not exactly new, and that it has led to serious mistakes on part of left groups in the last couple of years, from support to Euromaidan to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. How will you be able to distinguish between riots and similar activities dominated by the right, and those dominated by the left, and how will you stop yourself from becoming a left tail of right forces, like the AWG in the Ukraine?

[The Idler]

We are for it.
Who isn't? Apart from fascists.

[The Feral Underclass]

The SPGB?

[The Feral Underclass]

How will you be able to distinguish between riots and similar activities dominated by the right, and those dominated by the left, and how will you stop yourself from becoming a left tail of right forces, like the AWG in the Ukraine?

What similar activities dominated by the right and left?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What similar activities dominated by the right and left?

Extensive protests, including confrontations with the police, occupations etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

Extensive protests, including confrontations with the police, occupations etc.

Our focus is on building institutions of dual power, not on trad leftist spectacles. If police confrontations and occupations develop as a result of those institutions then they will have a fundamentally different character to those you are talking about.

[The Idler]

The SPGB?
The SPGB are hostile to all other political parties not just 'anti-fascist'.

[Thirsty Crow]

Potentially, yes.
Interesting. I always thought of workers' inquiry as a viable tool for communist militants, in more than one way (getting to know the situation and establishink links with particular communities within the class). Good luck with that, and hope you'll publish some materials on how that went concretely, if you choose to do it anyway.

[Sea]

What you're describing is a personal issue. I can't make you agree with our ideas and want to be part of organising and carrying out our work. That is a choice you have to make yourself.

Okay...?

I have read this paragraph several times and I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. I will say this though: there is a fundamental difference between trying to convince existing revolutionaries to organise with us or like us, and the work required to engage communities within the class. Our objective isn't to sell ideology to working class people.
I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm not the one with the consumerist attitude to politics, but you'll find that so many workers are. I can already tell from the statement of intent that this group gets a lot of things right that others have gotten wrong time and time again, but the problem remains that the proletariat is downtrodden and oppressed, and as nice as it would be, it does not and cannot make reliable political decisions on its own. A quick glance at the polls, and at the tendency of workers to make saviors out of their oppressors confirms this. The "take it or leave it" mentality that you have adopted may suffice for those who are already class-conscious, or maybe about 3% of revleft, but it will be ineffective on the broad strata of the working class. The fact that a decision was made before hand to be a "minority organization" just seems like a lazy sophistic way to transform the problem into an integral part of your programme. What other options are there? Lead the proletariat to victory using the principle of monkey see, monkey do? Of course not. This is really the only major thing I disagree with so far. Not that statements of intent are a sure-fire way to reveal all flaws, but still. The only other thing is the phraseology of "moving beyond both anarchism and Leninism" which has been used to justify all kinds of reformist crap in the past, but I'm not certain that applies here.
But what are these third ways? Can you articulate to me what they are?Almost every group that seemed promising but fizzled out and died.

edit: The Idler, stop liking my posts. I don't want your likes.

[The Feral Underclass]

II'm not the one with the consumerist attitude to politics, but you'll find that so many workers are.

Right, but the point I'm trying to make is that they don't need to consume my politics. They don't even have to understand or agree with it. My politics isn't for "workers" to accept wholesale or consume, it's for me and my comrades.


I can already tell from the statement of intent that this group gets a lot of things right that others have gotten wrong time and time again, but the problem remains that the proletariat is downtrodden and oppressed, and as nice as it would be, it does not and cannot make reliable political decisions on its own.

What political decisions are these specifically?


A quick glance at the polls, and at the tendency of workers to make saviors out of their oppressors confirms this. The "take it or leave it" mentality that you have adopted may suffice for those who are already class-conscious, or maybe about 3% of revleft, but it will be ineffective on the broad strata of the working class.

I'm not entirely sure what this 'take it or leave it mentality' is you're talking about?


The fact that a decision was made before hand to be a "minority organization" just seems like a lazy sophistic way to transform the problem into an integral part of your programme.

But actually the concept of the minority organisation has a specific strategic and political purpose. Minority political organisation isn't a new invention, it's a Bakuninist idea that basically asserts that the class only has to act as a class, rather than as some politically homogeneous entity.

The existence of political organisations is transitory and they are required only for revolutionaries and militants to organise themselves effectively.


Almost every group that seemed promising but fizzled out and died.

Such as whom?

[synthesis]

Ask not what the communist-Bakuninist working class cadre organization can do for you, but what you can do for the communist-Bakuninist working class cadre organization.

At the same time:


Why not get involved?

I think that every time you ask this question, you should phrase it in the form of, "Why not get involved? We could use any help we can get with our [program in person's area] or establishing [an undeveloped program in person's area] or our [internet-based needs for writers, analysts and such]."

I worry that without that sort of engagement with interested parties, you'll risk winding up with a core group of people who already have a lot of experience and don't need any direction in their activity - in which case the formal organization itself may become somewhat redundant - and a much larger group of other people who'll call themselves "LCI sympathizers" because they don't know how to contribute their effort.

I mean, the statement of intent is great, and of course you don't need to have some predetermined "plan of action" or blueprint for revolution, but if you can direct the activity of relatively inexperienced volunteers without establishing a hierarchy or developing overly dominant personalities, I think you'll wind up with an organization that's much easier for people to engage with. (Not saying rousing chorus is "inexperienced" - I have no idea whatsoever - that's just a general observation.)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This is a very positive statement.

TAT, may I ask where the origins of this statement/pre-party formation lie?

I would agree with LinksRadical that the idea of 'allies of the class' needs fleshing out. If a libertarian organisation is to move beyond the anarchism vs marxism leninism axis, and beyond the 'vanguard' paradigm, then I think it's going to need to really be very clear on what the alternative to a vanguard party looks like, if it's going to be in the form of a minority political organisation.

I like the phrase 'pole of attraction' btw. Makes everything sound a bit sexy.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I find that I broadly agree with the statement of intent.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I mean, the statement of intent is great, and of course you don't need to have some predetermined "plan of action" or blueprint for revolution, but if you can direct the activity of relatively inexperienced volunteers without establishing a hierarchy or developing overly dominant personalities, I think you'll wind up with an organization that's much easier for people to engage with. (Not saying rousing chorus is "inexperienced" - I have no idea whatsoever - that's just a general observation.)

don't worry, the word 'inexperienced' was prophetically coined especially for me many hundreds of years ago. I think I would genuinely like to be involved in LCI but if i'm being honest I have absolutely no idea how I could be of use or indeed what I could be useful for. My participation in politics so far has been equal parts snarking on message boards and talking crap in bars and at university and I think it would be safe to say my overall engagement with working class movements amounts to approximately nil.

all that said i'm extremely interested in this as I said before and i'll certainly consider getting involved come the end of May when i'll be shot of all the work I've spent the last 6 months not doing :)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

don't worry, the word 'inexperienced' was prophetically coined especially for me many hundreds of years ago. I think I would genuinely like to be involved in LCI but if i'm being honest I have absolutely no idea how I could be of use or indeed what I could be useful for. My participation in politics so far has been equal parts snarking on message boards and talking crap in bars and at university and I think it would be safe to say my overall engagement with working class movements amounts to approximately nil.

all that said i'm extremely interested in this as I said before and i'll certainly consider getting involved come the end of May when i'll be shot of all the work I've spent the last 6 months not doing :)

if you're a worker then you're already engaged through your political consciousness. You don't have to be a paper seller or a party hack to be 'part of the movement'. You just have to stick to your principles and make sure you make the right choices when it does come to defending and improving your own lot as a worker.

Don't feel as though you've got nothing to offer because you don't have the baggage of the already existing left - there's a reason they're failing and you're enthusiastic! ;)

[Sea]

Right, but the point I'm trying to make is that they don't need to consume my politics. They don't even have to understand or agree with it. My politics isn't for "workers" to accept wholesale or consume, it's for me and my comrades.So spreading class-consciousness via propaganda is not a goal?
What political decisions are these specifically?I'm going to let you use your
imagination on this one but here are some hints. Of course, to gallup, progressive means liberal or maybe SD at best, so take this with a grain of salt:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9391/americans-approve-public-displays-religious-symbols.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/16462/americans-weigh-evolution-vs-creationism-schools.aspx

I'm not entirely sure what this 'take it or leave it mentality' is you're talking about?
"What you're describing is a personal issue. I can't make you agree with our ideas and want to be part of organising and carrying out our work. That is a choice you have to make yourself."

"I will say this though: there is a fundamental difference between trying to convince existing revolutionaries to organise with us or like us, and the work required to engage communities within the class. Our objective isn't to sell ideology to working class people."

"You participate in organisations and movements because you believe in the ideas and wish to put plans into action. Movements aren't there to offer you anything other than an opportunity to organise class struggle. The onus is on you to provide something worth while."

In other words, the outright refusal to engage in marketing BS.


But actually the concept of the minority organisation has a specific strategic and political purpose. Minority political organisation isn't a new invention, it's a Bakuninist idea that basically asserts that the class only has to act as a class, rather than as some politically homogeneous entity.What does the "minority" in "minority organization" mean?


The existence of political organisations is transitory and they are required only for revolutionaries and militants to organise themselves effectively.Yeah I totally get that.
Such as whom?
You said:
"We are a 'third' way if you like, and a regroupment tendency that is moving beyond both Leninism and anarchism"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_left-wing_internationals
http://www.broadleft.org/inter.htm

Between those two lists, I'm sure you can find the other thousand that fill those requirements.

[The Feral Underclass]

I will get back to everyone when I have internet on my computer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Feral Underclass]

So spreading class-consciousness via propaganda is not a goal?

You can't "spread class-consciousness" via propaganda. I mean, you can try, but people's acceptance of their historic position is only going to be realised through struggle.

There are of course specific issues you can organise around which propaganda is often useful in highlighting. Propaganda can have a productive use in that sense.


I'm going to let you use your
imagination on this one but here are some hints. Of course, to gallup, progressive means liberal or maybe SD at best, so take this with a grain of salt:

Are these examples of 'political decisions'? Is it a political decision when a 'worker' is a homophobe? I'm not sure that's accurate.

People's attitudes and beliefs change when solidarity and unity is built. You don't enter the class saying that they have to change their opinions on social issues, you engage in struggle to build solidarity and unity amongst the class as a practicable and real force. You don't change people's views by debating them or leading them, people change their own minds through practical engagement with the world in which they live.


"What you're describing is a personal issue. I can't make you agree with our ideas and want to be part of organising and carrying out our work. That is a choice you have to make yourself."

"I will say this though: there is a fundamental difference between trying to convince existing revolutionaries to organise with us or like us, and the work required to engage communities within the class. Our objective isn't to sell ideology to working class people."

"You participate in organisations and movements because you believe in the ideas and wish to put plans into action. Movements aren't there to offer you anything other than an opportunity to organise class struggle. The onus is on you to provide something worth while."

In other words, the outright refusal to engage in marketing BS.

I don't accept that this is a 'take it or leave it attitude', I'm simply stating a series of facts. And again, it's not a question of refusing anything. It's simply a case of what your proposing not really being relevant.

For you as a revolutionary, if you cannot see the merits of what we are proposing, then I'm not sure what I can do -- literally, not as a point of principle. As far as the class is concerned, they don't need to see the merits of what we are proposing, they simply need to work in solidarity and unity with each other.


What does the "minority" in "minority organization" mean?

It's a literal definition.


You said:
"We are a 'third' way if you like, and a regroupment tendency that is moving beyond both Leninism and anarchism"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_left-wing_internationals
http://www.broadleft.org/inter.htm

Between those two lists, I'm sure you can find the other thousand that fill those requirements.

I don't really understand. You have provided a list of all existing communist organisations in the world...

I find that the point you're trying to make reduces this argument down to some petty competition about who is original and who isn't; what is a third way and what isn't. It completely detracts from the core ideas and model that LCI is presenting and I'm just not interested in that aspect of the debate.

Ultimately, I have no remedy for your cynicism or jaded attitude towards the left, nor am I responsible for providing one.

[The Feral Underclass]

TAT, may I ask where the origins of this statement/pre-party formation lie?

Collective Action was formed from a split in the Anarchist Federation (due in part because of their pitiful and in my view cowardly response to the 2011 riots) under the belief that the revolutionary left required a period of regroupment. LCI has grown out of two years of discussions and engagement with other regroupment tendencies, through which we developed our own ideas and response to the issues facing the left broadly speaking.


I would agree with LinksRadical that the idea of 'allies of the class' needs fleshing out. If a libertarian organisation is to move beyond the anarchism vs marxism leninism axis, and beyond the 'vanguard' paradigm, then I think it's going to need to really be very clear on what the alternative to a vanguard party looks like, if it's going to be in the form of a minority political organisation.

Communists need to build solidarity and unity amongst the class, so they can respond to attacks upon them in a collective way, specifically in our view by building dual power. The cadre/minority political organisation is simply a way for communists to organise amongst themselves to achieve the best possible levels of organisation.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

having more or less made up my mind over whether i'd like to be involved (I would) i'd still like to ask first what that would actually entail and how I could make myself useful within LCI. Like I said, I have little to no experience with being in an organisation, let alone a serious political one.

[The Feral Underclass]

having more or less made up my mind over whether i'd like to be involved (I would) i'd still like to ask first what that would actually entail and how I could make myself useful within LCI. Like I said, I have little to no experience with being in an organisation, let alone a serious political one.


That's great to hear. The best thing to do would be to email [email protected]

The person at the other end expects your email (I've alerted them) and will be able to answer any and all your questions :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Futility Personified]

I'm also interested in helping anyway possible. I've sent an email to that address asking what I can offer.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's great news :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wonton Carter]

Is this UK only?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm afraid so.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm afraid so.
A pity. Good statement of intent, though.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Putting aside the critiques of anarchy (which aren't off base, I agree in part just not with the complete rejection), I quite like the points presented. I myself was disappointed with the American Left in regards to militancy and resolve during the Occupy period.


I'm afraid so.

That's no fun.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's no fun.

We would certainly love to see some American groups popping up that shared our views.

[Wonton Carter]

If I had the time to organize an org, you bet your buttocks I would.

Actually, the more I think of it, why not? Hmm....

[The Feral Underclass]

You should contact LCI if you need any advice or help. You should also check out Anarkismo.net, as you might find groups in the US that share similar politics already.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

We would certainly love to see some American groups popping up that shared our views.

This seems to be similar to the direction in which Common Cause (http://www.linchpin.ca) is heading recently (having originally been quasi-platformist). Unfortunately, the newest issue of their theoretical journal isn't online yet.

[SonofRage]

I noticed LCI tweeted an article by a comrade of mine from my former organization: Bring the Ruckus. I'm curious how we influenced LCI, if at all. We also never used the label "anarchist" although many of our members would have described themselves that way.

[The Feral Underclass]

Your analysis of a cadre organisation is spot on and something we embrace fully. This is why we have pointed detractors to it as an explanation to their bellyaching.

[SonofRage]

I'm glad LCI found it useful. NEFAC attacked us for it back in the day, but others in recent years seem to be rethinking our mode. Some examples:

http://blackwavecollective.tumblr.com/post/17998293461/practical-platformism-revolutionary-cadre-organisation

http://recompositionblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/we-are-not-platformists-we-strive-to-be/

[bropasaran]

So basically, a "cadre organization" is just something that any normal anarchist organization should be.

Bakunin talked about a "secret society" in the framework of an authoritarian system which violently persecuted libertarians, and talked about it's activism as being an "invisible dictatorship" when writting to a nutcase obsessed by dictatorship.

As I already pointed out by quoting from those two letters, what Bakunin describes is what we today would call an especifist organization dedicated to social insertion in community and labor organizations.

(quotes: http://www.revleft.com/vb/bakunin-and-minority-t186399/index.html?p=2741143#post2741143 )

[The Feral Underclass]

So basically, a "cadre organization" is just something that any normal anarchist organization should be.

Bakunin talked about a "secret society" in the framework of an authoritarian system which violently persecuted libertarians, and talked about it's activism as being an "invisible dictatorship" when writting to a nutcase obsessed by dictatorship.

As I already pointed out by quoting from those two letters, what Bakunin describes is what we today would call an especifist organization dedicated to social insertion in community and labor organizations.

(quotes: http://www.revleft.com/vb/bakunin-and-minority-t186399/index.html?p=2741143#post2741143 )

I have no idea what this post is about.

[bropasaran]

You don't know what are especifism and social insertion?

[The Feral Underclass]

You don't know what are especifism and social insertion?

My comprehension of especifism and social insertion is not the issue. The issue is that I don't see how what you're saying relates to anything in this thread.

[bropasaran]

LCI is a "cadre organization" and there was discussion of what that is.

[Mather]

@ The Feral Underclass:

I applied to join the LCI via their website on Friday, hopefully I will hear from them soon. I live in London and I was wondering if the LCI have a presence there? If not I am more than willing to help out in establishing one.

Having read the LCI statement of intent, I agree with all of its points and a few of them (1, 3, 4 and 10) were spot on in summing up were the Left have got it wrong. As an anarchist communist, I have to admit that the LCI is correct in saying that anarchism is to all intents and purposes dead. It is a shadow of it's former self as the anarchist movement (with a few noble exceptions) has degenerated into lifestylism, liberalism and a sub-culture of hyper-activism centred around single issue campaigns.

Although I am an anarchist communist I am also a Marxist in the sense that I am a materialist. Is the LCI materialist in it's analysis of class relations and the class struggle?

If the LCI accepts my membership request, what would my membership entail in a day to day kind of way? When I was younger I was a member of the SWP and then the SP, after that I became an anarchist communist and attended a few Anarchist Federation meetings and marched with them a few times though I never became a member. In all three cases membership of these organisations entailed attending meetings, marching in protests and paper selling/leafleting. Would my membership of the LCI and my activity within it be different in this respect?

Thanks in advance.

[The Feral Underclass]

Someone should contact you soon.

We're not really ones for protest and paper selling tbh.

[The Idler]

More social insertion and specifism.

[Mather]

More social insertion and specifism.

Is there a point to your post?

[The Feral Underclass]

Is there a point to your post?

There's no point to anything The Idler does. He's just a troll. I would ignore him.

[The Idler]

Is there a point to your post?
Yep you asked 'membership of these organisations entailed attending meetings, marching in protests and paper selling/leafleting. Would my membership of the LCI and my activity within it be different in this respect?'
I'm saying there would be more social insertion and specifism in the LCI.

[Comrade Strong]

What's your position on anarcho-syndicalism and autonomism?

[The Feral Underclass]

What's your position on anarcho-syndicalism and autonomism?

There are no formal positions on it, but LCI members are encouraged to join Plan C, which is essentially an autonomist Marxist organisation. Autonomism in particular is something that is reflected in the LCI statement of intent. In terms of anarcho-syndicalism, LCI's predecessor Collective Action were pointedly opposed (due to its mass union orientation) and gave a fairly in depth critique of SolFed's Fighting for Ourselves. (http://libcom.org/files/Fighting%20For%20Ourselves.pdf) The critique can be found here: A review (https://libcom.org/blog/%E2%80%98fighting-ourselves-anarcho-syndicalism-class-struggle%E2%80%99-review-21012013)

[Mather]

Yep you asked 'membership of these organisations entailed attending meetings, marching in protests and paper selling/leafleting. Would my membership of the LCI and my activity within it be different in this respect?'
I'm saying there would be more social insertion and specifism in the LCI.

Well I already knew that, having read the statement of intent. My question asked what that would entail in terms of day to day membership and activity.

It seems you did not read my first post properly.

[The Idler]

It probably depends which concentric circle in LCI you are in.

[Luís Henrique]

Diagnostic:

The left is a failure.

Proposed treatment:

Let's start yet another leftist organisation!

Luís Henrique

[BIXX]

Diagnostic:



The left is a failure.



Proposed treatment:



Let's start yet another leftist organisation!



Luís Henrique


I don't think they are a leftist grouping as far as I can tell. I'd have to ask TFU though.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think they are a leftist grouping as far as I can tell. I'd have to ask TFU though.

As per usual, Luis, is wrong on both counts. We're not leftists and we didn't start a new organisation, we started a faction in the AF that was essentially expelled. Also, LCI's form is fundamentally different to anything that exists on the left. I could understand and agree with the criticism if we were some mass union or party, but we're not, so it doesn't really hold in my view.

[Luís Henrique]

As per usual, Luis, is wrong on both counts. We're not leftists and we didn't start a new organisation, we started a faction in the AF that was essentially expelled. Also, LCI's form is fundamentally different to anything that exists on the left. I could understand and agree with the criticism if we were some mass union or party, but we're not, so it doesn't really hold in my view.

Indeed, it may not be a mass union or party, but it is yet another substitutionist organisation. Which is something more common than dust. And much more common than mass unions or parties, though quite probably much less populous.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Indeed, it may not be a mass union or party, but it is yet another substitutionist organisation. Which is something more common than dust. And much more common than mass unions or parties, though quite probably much less populous.

Luís Henrique

How can a minority organisation that advocates class autonomism be substitutionist? I suggest you read the OP.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Indeed, it may not be a mass union or party, but it is yet another substitutionist organisation. Which is something more common than dust. And much more common than mass unions or parties, though quite probably much less populous.

Luís Henrique

What is the alternative to forming new organisations whose content AND form is different to the existing top-down vanguardist model? Criticising a new organisation for being a new organisation is a cop-out.

[The Idler]

How can a minority organisation that advocates class autonomism be substitutionist? I suggest you read the OP.Because the working-class can't be autonomous of the ruling-class, the working-class have to engage the ruling-class in hostilities and defeat the ruling-class in class struggle. Anything less is just self-aggrandising (especially from a minority organisation) abstract propagandism, and to be told this by an SPGBer is something a lot of users here might find ironic.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because the working-class can't be autonomous of the ruling-class, the working-class have to engage the ruling-class in hostilities and defeat the ruling-class in class struggle. Anything less is just self-aggrandising (especially from a minority organisation) abstract propagandism, and to be told this by an SPGBer is something a lot of users here might find ironic.

None of what you're saying has anything to do with autonomism. If you're going to participate in a discussion it might be wise to have some basic understanding of what's being spoken about.

Substitionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionism) is the idea that an organisation's political activity substitutes the classes. Autonomism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism)is the idea that the working class doesn't require participation in political organisational forms to engage in class struggle in an organised way -- that the class is the organisation and acts independently and autonomously of political formulations (i.e. the opposite of substitutionism -- see signature). That's why the statement of intent says, "The proletariat is the motor of social change and does not require being anything but itself, acting in solidarity against all forces which harass and undermine its interests."

Once again I am having to hand-hold you through terms and ideas because you're too ignorant to learn about them yourself. Instead of harking into discussions with your half-witted opinions as if you're imparting some wisdom, you might want to actually educate yourself a little bit.

[vijaya]

I'm interested. Is there any presence in Newcastle that you know of TFU? I've emailed the LCI via the website but thought I'd express an interest on here too :)

[Luís Henrique]

What is the alternative to forming new organisations whose content AND form is different to the existing top-down vanguardist model? Criticising a new organisation for being a new organisation is a cop-out.

Well, the content OR the form would have to be different in that case.

But here we only have declarations of intention: we will be different, because we want to be different; and we will be different by making the exact same things that have lead the left to a state of failure.


4. The Left’s failure to seize the potential of this extraordinary moment was a fundamental mistake, and only demonstrated the Left’s real detachment from the people whose interests it claims to hold closest.

In other words, the problem is not that our class hasn't been up to the tasks of the moment, but that it lacked a proper direction - ie, it lacked us.


6. These sections of the class often have internally contradictory ideas and we must recognise there is a difference between a consciousness of antagonistic class relations and a consciousness of political direction.

In other words, there is a difference between the masses (who merely have a consciousness of antagonistic class relations), and its proposed direction (us, who have a consciousness of political direction).


9. At this stage, we believe it is essential to create a pole of attraction to regroup existing pro-revolutionary militants and tendencies, sincere in the belief of the magnitude of the tasks at hand.

And of course, we are going to be that pole of attraction. Just like every other anarchist, Trotskyist, Maoist, left-communist, whateverist organisation think they are.


11. The Libertarian Communist Initiative is a medium term, pre-party formation which means to establish a pole of attraction for political regroupment which is capable of moving beyond both anarchism and Leninism. The Initiative intends to grow into a Libertarian Communist Party that can build on existing struggles and campaigns in order to pursue a clear programme for advanced struggle across all sections of the class and across an assemblage of terrains.

In other words, the "new" organisation is the oldest, most stale kind of old, stale pseudo-Leninist response to any crisis: a proto-party, which will become, by accretion, a revolutionary party.


We have never sought to build a mass organisation or union, and continue to reject substitutionist modes of organisation which prioritise the interests of the organisation or member over the interests of the class at large.

Which is nice and fine and pretty, but is also merely a declaration of intentions. Organisations will always have the nasty tendency to autonomise themselves from class struggle - particularly under conditions where class struggle is already weak and faltering. How does any organisation manages to avoid such fate, that is the problem, which cannot be solved by mere voluntarism.


The proletariat is the motor of social change and does not require being anything but itself, acting in solidarity against all forces which harass and undermine its interests.

If so, it doesn't require any organisations at all, in which case we shouldn't be creating new organisations. But of course the proletariat isn't anything except its own organisation, which precisely is the problem now, and can't be solved by the multiplication of petty bourgeois cliques who pretend to have, or to be, the solution of this organisational crisis.


The Initiative will therefore take the form of a cadre of dedicated, energetic and disciplined communist militants who strive always to be allies to the class.

Lenin would be proud! but I don't think it will work now any better than it has worked in the past.

*********************

So, unless we can see where this "new" model is anyhow effectively new, and not a mere rehashing of flawed, defeated (top-down, vanguardist) models, the predictable future of this "new" initiative is very similar to the present of any given "anarchist" or "Marxist" organisation in the UK...

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

My question is what the position of this group is on the national question because I didn't notice anything on that.

[The Feral Underclass]

My question is what the position of this group is on the national question because I didn't notice anything on that.


There isn't an official position. But you know me somewhat personally and I wouldn't be part of a group that supported national liberation struggles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zukunftsmusik]

In other words, there is a difference between the masses (who merely have a consciousness of antagonistic class relations), and its proposed direction (us, who have a consciousness of political direction).

Doesn't this point towards an activity by communists as communists vis-a-vis the rest of the class? Is any such activity substitutionist?

And what, to you, is the proletariat's own organisation? If this is the main problem, what do you view as a viable strategy towards building it - and what are communists' role in this?

[The Feral Underclass]

Once again form fetishism takes centre stage...


In other words, the problem is not that our class hasn't been up to the tasks of the moment, but that it lacked a proper direction - ie, it lacked us.

The class lacks political direction, that is correct. If communists are not providing that political direction within struggle then we are failing in our task.


In other words, there is a difference between the masses (who merely have a consciousness of antagonistic class relations), and its proposed direction (us, who have a consciousness of political direction).

The proposed direction is communism. To forward revolutionary struggle, communists must be involved in those struggles building solidarity, unity and autonomy through escalatable conflict, and giving specific communist content. That is the task of communists.


And of course, we are going to be that pole of attraction. Just like every other anarchist, Trotskyist, Maoist, left-communist, whateverist organisation think they are.

Your critique is very obviously based on a false premise when you say these things. The passage you quoted very clearly says: "... to create a pole of attraction to regroup existing pro-revolutionary militants and tendencies." We are not talking about the class!


In other words, the "new" organisation is the oldest, most stale kind of old, stale pseudo-Leninist response to any crisis: a proto-party, which will become, by accretion, a revolutionary party.

I never had you down for an anti-organisationist. I'm afraid to say that communists require organisation and infrastructure in order to operate effectively. Organisation is necessary unfortunately.


Which is nice and fine and pretty, but is also merely a declaration of intentions. Organisations will always have the nasty tendency to autonomise themselves from class struggle - particularly under conditions where class struggle is already weak and faltering. How does any organisation manages to avoid such fate, that is the problem, which cannot be solved by mere voluntarism.

That tendency exists because organisations that exist don't understand the purpose of their task, or operate without confidence, unity and direction. If it is the case that there is the tendency to "autonomise" from class struggle, it is because the organisation is badly organised.


If so, it doesn't require any organisations at all, in which case we shouldn't be creating new organisations.

No, the class doesn't require organisation, but communists do.


But of course the proletariat isn't anything except its own organisation, which precisely is the problem now

And the response of the left in the UK to this problem has been to distance itself, criticise the class, attempt to build mass organisations and attempt parliamentarianism, rather than organising where the class is.


and can't be solved by the multiplication of petty bourgeois cliques who pretend to have, or to be, the solution of this organisational crisis.

Building class solidarity, autonomy and unity is the fundamental task of communists. That should be the basis of discussion. Attempting to turn any discussion about this initiative down to how this group of people choose to organise themselves is just petty and reductive.

LCI isn't the solution to organisational crisis. To attempt to imply that is to misunderstands the entire basis for its existence, since it doesn't actually consider its organisational form of any particular importance, except to themselves. For LCI to think it is "the solution" would imply it believed organisational form was its essential goal.

LCI isn't an organisational solution to any one other than communists who agree with this form. We're not interested in endless discussions about how we choose to organise or what terms we use, we are interested in how communists engage in struggle.


but I don't think it will work now any better than it has worked in the past.

Luckily the future of communist organisation in the UK is not predicated on what you think.


So, unless we can see where this "new" model is anyhow effectively new, and not a mere rehashing of flawed, defeated (top-down, vanguardist) models, the predictable future of this "new" initiative is very similar to the present of any given "anarchist" or "Marxist" organisation in the UK.

I noticed you have only criticised our organisational form, rather than the political content of LCI's intentions. The organisational structure of LCI is absolutely irrelevant to any real discussion about how we move forward in the UK...

[The Feral Underclass]

Doesn't this point towards an activity by communists as communists vis-a-vis the rest of the class? Is any such activity substitutionist?

I think Luis is obtusely attempting to imply that LCI sees its organisational form as the "political direction", rather than understanding that it is the content of struggle that is the political direction we are talking about. One thing Luis isn't is stupid, and since the statement is pretty clear about the intention, I imagine this is simply an exercise in trolling.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think Luis is obtusely attempting to imply that LCI sees its organisational form as the "political direction", rather than understanding that it is the content of struggle that is the political direction we are talking about. One thing Luis isn't is stupid, and since the statement is pretty clear about the intention, I imagine this is simply an exercise in trolling.

I don't think it's being obtuse at all.

I'm pretty confused as to the criticism of the LCI because it is another organisation. Anti-organisationism is a weird approach, because without any organisation we are just a set of individuals running around not really doing much. It is qualitatively different from anti-partyism in that a political party is just one vehicle for organising varied strands and diverse groups. If you have no organisation, you have nothing.

So to me Luis' posts suggest that he thinks (or is saying) that instead of organising anything we should just do nothing, which is a very odd position for any class conscious communist to take, which makes me think, like you, that he is trolling heavily.

[Leo]

There isn't an official position. But you know me somewhat personally and I wouldn't be part of a group that supported national liberation struggles.

Well yes, I didn't think you would be part of a group that supported national liberation struggles. Then again people can change, positions can change so it doesn't hurt to ask.

This is why it is a good idea to have a clear, official position in an organization about these things so people know where its members stand not just based on the impressions given by individuals.

[Zukunftsmusik]

So to me Luis' posts suggest that he thinks (or is saying) that instead of organising anything we should just do nothing, which is a very odd position for any class conscious communist to take, which makes me think, like you, that he is trolling heavily.

I don't think that's what he's saying. He seems to be saying that communists shouldn't organise themselves, but the class. I think to level this as a critique against LCI is a bit weird though, since their statement of intent is pretty clear on that they aim to intervene in order to promote autonomy - that is (as I take it to mean) self-organisation. That's distinctly different from merely spouting propaganda and recruiting members to a sect.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think that's what he's saying. He seems to be saying that communists shouldn't organise themselves, but the class. I think to level this as a critique against LCI is a bit weird though, since their statement of intent is pretty clear on that they aim to intervene in order to promote autonomy - that is (as I take it to mean) self-organisation. That's distinctly different from merely spouting propaganda and recruiting members to a sect.

I agree, it's a weird thing to say. It assumes that communists are in some way separated from the working class, which is certainly true for some left organisations (look at the SWP in the UK for example, their leading theorist has been secure in his ivory tower for over 30 years) but certainly not for all.

[Luís Henrique]

Well.

Certainly, communists should organise themselves as communists, and they should participate in the working class organisations as well.

But the organisation of communists should be merely an instrument for the organisation of the class, not a replacement for it.

Therefore, the diagnosis ("the left is a failure") is at the very best incomplete: if the left is a failure, it is a failure of the working class. Consequently, no measures to change the left without changing the working class first place can aspire to any success.

The working class is not an inanimated object, an "arena" on which diverse political agents act, but an organical subject, who either seeks political power, within the struggle to abolish itself, or trips on its own feet over the contradictions created by struggle itself.

If so, any proper diagnosis about the situation of "the left" in the United Kingdom (or elsewhere, of course) must start with a diagnosis of British working class. And only from the standpoint of that diagnosis it is possible to understand the British "left". Why does the reformist left "remain wedded to the ideology of class peace"? Because, of course, a majority of the working class remains in such wedlock. Why? It is said that the reformist left "pose(s) no threat to capitalism or the austerity offensive", and while that is evidently true, the class enemy thinks differently, and its austerity offensive is directed at the destruction of the reformist left. To understand this, it is necessary to understand why the bourgeoisie believes they no longer need the reformist left as an ally, and this means understanding how class struggle develops - not yet in the streets, but within workplaces first: how are the bourgeoisie yanking rights, and wealth, and power, from workers, by imposing changes in the workplace, that we, as a class, have not yet understood, and that imply the systematic defeat of reformism, and how these successes are changing the way we see ourselves as a class.

Only from that point we can denounce the "wedding" of the reformist left to the ideology of class peace as a clearly unequal "marriage", in which only the reformist left is faithful, while the other side engages in all forms and classes of cheating and betrayal.

The substitutionist left, on the other hand, goes uncriticised, but its role in the working class defeats during the late quarte century is hardly smaller. Because for the substitutionist left the defeat of reformism comes as a boon, even though it is simultaneously a smashing defeat of our class itself, and that, in turn, because to the substitutionist left the issue is not class struggle, but "political" struggle between parties, tendencies, cliques, fractions, etc: to them, the "class" is a mere platonic idea, that remains untouched by events in the corruptible world, but can always, regardless of any analysis or understanding of the real world, be used as an empty slogan, a rally point, an ideological umbrella, for politiking.

On the basis of that diagnosis, "the left is a failure", we seek a "new left", at most a "new vanguard", a "new direction". But the relation between that "new" instrument and the class remains inorganic. Therefore, the proposed treatment is also problematic. We create a new organisation, which, we believe, or want to believe, will not have the problems of the old organisations. But the actual problems of the old organisations cannot be properly understood, because we remain at the same point of view: that the working class is not an active part of the problem, but merely an imput from "objective" reality. Not a subject, but an "arena". To counter the fact that the overwhelming majority of the working class is deeply reformist at heart, we change the subject of discourse. Now we replace it with the "sections of the class that inhabit the riot subjectivity", "heavily exploited and racially abused proletarians". But those are again an empty slogan, the "arena" for the "new left" experiences in fighting against "the dangers of co-option by the state, the far-right and Left opportunists". Nothing is asked about why would these "sections" even vulnerable to those "dangers", why would their subjectivity be potentially polarised by UKIP or Labour or the SWP. Nothing is even asked about why they inhabit the "riot subjectivity", an in what they differ from their parents, or cousins, who remain "wedded to the ideology of class peace".

But that is apparently enough for breaking with (or being expelled from) a former organisation. We aren't up to the task of revolutionising our former organisation; the very "Leninist" conclusion is that this makes us very apt to revolutionise society at large. Those who can't the least, certainly can the most. Instead, it comes to reason that the actual motives of the break are different, and remain opaque to those making the break; that those motives have little, if any, to do with class struggle, or the eventual marriage between the anarchist orthodoxy, or milieu, to the ideology of class peace, or with an actual, deeply thought, rejection of Leninist, or pseudo-Leninist, substitutionist dogma.

Indeed, there isn't even a hint of understanding that those things, never mind how much opposed to each other they may look, actually share the same common ground. "Moving beyond both anarchism and Leninism", as it is proposed, requires rooting off what anarchism and Leninism have in common, which is difficult to do when we don't realise what that is.

Luís Henrique

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

^^Luis, your above point is premised on the assumption that the existing left is the organisation of the working class, rather than the organisation of already-existing communists.

I would say that, looking at existing left organisations in the UK, that you're probably not correct, insofar as I don't really see workers in any great number having joined any of the SWP, SPEW or other small sects in recent decades.

So no, it is not accurate to shift blame for the failure of the existing left onto the wider working class, and it's not helpful to think about blame anyway. Many factors are beyond the control of the class and of communists in many parts of the world (for example, the fall of the fSU and the Berlin Wall, the advent of the debt-fuelled economy as a world-wide tool for economic growth from the 1980s onwards etc.).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

^^Luis, your above point is premised on the assumption that the existing left is the organisation of the working class, rather than the organisation of already-existing communists.

I would say that, looking at existing left organisations in the UK, that you're probably not correct, insofar as I don't really see workers in any great number having joined any of the SWP, SPEW or other small sects in recent decades.

So no, it is not accurate to shift blame for the failure of the existing left onto the wider working class, and it's not helpful to think about blame anyway. Many factors are beyond the control of the class and of communists in many parts of the world (for example, the fall of the fSU and the Berlin Wall, the advent of the debt-fuelled economy as a world-wide tool for economic growth from the 1980s onwards etc.).

I'd go a step further and say much of the working class is out ahead of the left. The number of workers who don't vote because "all politicians are the same", who engage in acts of individual and collective sabotage, who have built community-based forms of mutual aid, etc. is significant - large numbers of workers are in practice doing what the existing left would denounce as "ultra-leftism".

For this reason, I think the LCI has the right idea: ditch "the left" (over-populated with academics and bureaucrats!) and catch up with the class!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think that tailing the working class is any more effective than trying to be its vanguard, though. By definition, if you are trying to catch up with the working class then, again, you are creating a tangible barrier between the composition of your group and the composition of the class.

I think there is probably too much focus on the relationship of radical/revolutionary groups to the existing working class. As TAT has said, it is the content of one's ideas, and the ways in which these are put into practice and communicated with other workers, that is paramount, not whether this or that sect is aiming to be the next Bolshevik Party or whatever.

[Luís Henrique]

^^Luis, your above point is premised on the assumption that the existing left is the organisation of the working class, rather than the organisation of already-existing communists.

I would say that, looking at existing left organisations in the UK, that you're probably not correct, insofar as I don't really see workers in any great number having joined any of the SWP, SPEW or other small sects in recent decades.

So no, it is not accurate to shift blame for the failure of the existing left onto the wider working class, and it's not helpful to think about blame anyway. Many factors are beyond the control of the class and of communists in many parts of the world (for example, the fall of the fSU and the Berlin Wall, the advent of the debt-fuelled economy as a world-wide tool for economic growth from the 1980s onwards etc.).

The left in the UK is Labour, which is a failure. The rest is the extreme left, and it either is a part of that failure, or is a different failure of itself.

And of course, the issue is not of "blame"; as long as we think it is, we are doomed to be a part of old failure, or the initiators of new failures.

Luís Henrique

[The Idler]

None of what you're saying has anything to do with autonomism. If you're going to participate in a discussion it might be wise to have some basic understanding of what's being spoken about.

Substitionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionism) is the idea that an organisation's political activity substitutes the classes. Autonomism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism)is the idea that the working class doesn't require participation in political organisational forms to engage in class struggle in an organised way -- that the class is the organisation and acts independently and autonomously of political formulations (i.e. the opposite of substitutionism -- see signature). That's why the statement of intent says, "The proletariat is the motor of social change and does not require being anything but itself, acting in solidarity against all forces which harass and undermine its interests."

Once again I am having to hand-hold you through terms and ideas because you're too ignorant to learn about them yourself. Instead of harking into discussions with your half-witted opinions as if you're imparting some wisdom, you might want to actually educate yourself a little bit.
It may not be substitutionism in the traditional sense of the party substituting itself for the working-class which many groups practice, but it is substitutionist in the sense of the you're substituting the working-class for the whole of society.

[The Feral Underclass]

It may not be substitutionism in the traditional sense of the party substituting itself for the working-class which many groups practice, but it is substitutionist in the sense of the you're substituting the working-class for the whole of society.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

He's going all Nikita Krushchev on you.

[The Idler]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Because in order to offer anything useful to the achievement of socialism, LCI are saying the working-class is the organisation while a tiny LCI bash leftists and try to attract leftists at the same time. Well the working-class is organised alright, its organised by the ruling-class to extract maximum profit, hence why they are working-class. In what way is the left a failure that LCI is not, except the left have been around longer?

[The Feral Underclass]

Because in order to offer anything useful to the achievement of socialism, LCI are saying the working-class is the organisation while a tiny LCI bash leftists and try to attract leftists at the same time. Well the working-class is organised alright, its organised by the ruling-class to extract maximum profit, hence why they are working-class. In what way is the left a failure that LCI is not, except the left have been around longer?

This makes even less sense, and also doesn't relate to what you previously said.

Everything is framed in such hysteria it's difficult to unpack what exactly it is you're trying to say. What is the point you're trying to make? That LCI is just like all the other groups? That LCI has nothing new to offer? These points have been gone over and over in this thread and others. If you still haven't understood the basic principles of what LCI is about by now, I don't really know what more I can say to you.

To be pedantic, LCI isn't trying to attract "leftists." If anything LCI is trying to avoid them. What LCI is attempting to attract are militants who are tired of the stagnant and failed tactics and strategies of the left. Why are they stagnant and failed, well because the left has fundamentally failed to capitalise on the current crisis or make any advances towards any objectives. Indeed, does the "left" even have any discernible objectives beyond parliamentarianism and mass protest? In other words it has collapsed in the face of its biggest recent opportunity. Why is LCI different? Well, because unlike the rest of the left, LCI, along with groups such as Plan C and the ISN, have recognised these failures, sought out a process of regroupment in order to learn, re-learn, develop, educate ourselves and reorientate ourselves into a more effective, coherent political force that might actually be able to achieve something...When the rest of you have taken your heads out of the sand, you'll be welcome to join in.

The ruling class also don't organise workers, they simply compel them to work. That's not organisation, it's an ultimatum. The task of communists is to participate in expressions of struggle (that are existing across the country) and give content to expressions of discontent and anger as it arises, working to ensure struggles emerge and that discontent becomes coherent and combative. In other words, we go to where the class is fighting, and instead of trying to recruit them or indoctrinate them, we simply fight alongside them, providing the necessary tools and ideas to transform those struggles into ones for communism, that in turn can escalate and establish institutions of proletarian power.

[Lord Testicles]

In other words, we go to where the class is fighting, and instead of trying to recruit them or indoctrinate them, we simply fight alongside them, providing the necessary tools and ideas to transform those struggles into ones for communism, that in turn can escalate and establish institutions of proletarian power.

No, no, no. This will never work. What you do is this:

1) Turn up to these fights, lets say a picket line and you hang around at the outskirts of this picket line like socially-awkward, creepy fucking loners clinging on to your pieces of literature that no-one wants to buy.

2) Get mo' money. (membership dues)

3)???

4) Viva la revolution!

[The Feral Underclass]

Don't forget to have your recruitment forms just in case.

[Lord Testicles]

Don't forget to have your recruitment forms just in case.

To forget your recruitment forms would be an amateur and grave mistake. How else are you supposed to cultivate that uniquely awkward atmosphere if you're not clearly displaying your ulterior motives for turning up to show "support"?

[Rugged Collectivist]

and instead of trying to recruit them or indoctrinate them, we simply fight alongside them, providing the necessary tools and ideas to transform those struggles into ones for communism, that in turn can escalate and establish institutions of proletarian power.

Sorry, how does going into a struggle and "transforming" it differ from indoctrination?

[The Feral Underclass]

Sorry, how does going into a struggle and "transforming" it differ from indoctrination?

Transform: Verb, make a marked change in the form, nature, or appearance of.

Indoctrinate: Verb, teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

The difference, then, is that transforming the nature of a liberal struggle into one that is communist, for example, doesn't require that everyone become a communist as a goal. The struggle has to be one that is for the empowerment of the class against the proletariat social relationship, not the quest to create communists and party stalwarts.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Transform: Verb, make a marked change in the form, nature, or appearance of.

Indoctrinate: Verb, teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

The difference, then, is that transforming the nature of a liberal struggle into one that is communist, for example, doesn't require that everyone become a communist as a goal. The struggle has to be one that is for the empowerment of the class against the proletariat social relationship, not the quest to create communists and party stalwarts.

Wouldn't anyone struggling against the proletarian social relationship be considered a communist, more or less?

[The Feral Underclass]

Wouldn't anyone struggling against the proletarian social relationship be considered a communist, more or less?

Is it important? That's the point.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Is it important? That's the point.
Yes. I would say that it is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes. I would say that it is.


What is the practical necessity for that? What practical difference does it make if people identify as communists or not? That's not rhetorical, I'm genuinely intrigued by the answers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rugged Collectivist]

What is the practical necessity for that? What practical difference does it make if people identify as communists or not? That's not rhetorical, I'm genuinely intrigued by the answers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just don't think it's possible to uphold a communist program without describing yourself as a communist. If you know enough about communism to support it than I don't see why anyone would reject the label, other than to escape the stigma associated with it.

[The Feral Underclass]

I just don't think it's possible to uphold a communist program without describing yourself as a communist. If you know enough about communism to support it than I don't see why anyone would reject the label, other than to escape the stigma associated with it.

Firstly, what is a communist program? Secondly, what does "knowing enough" about communism mean in practice? What does that that process even look like? Again, they're not rhetorical questions, I would like to know the answers. As well as the answers to my previous questions.

We're talking about struggle here; being involved in actual fights that occur on the ground in communities and workplaces. Working class people fight those struggles irrespective of communists, usually to win a demand or some kind of concession. Are you telling me that in order for those struggles to take on a communist character, everyone involved has to be a communist? What does that even mean? If you're not saying that, then again, what's the importance of that identification?

Communism is a social relationship, it's not an identity. It also acts as an analysis of history and reality that we use to construct methods for transforming the world. Just as chemistry is the building blocks of understanding the nature of matter, communism is the building blocks of understanding the nature of society. Does that mean that everyone who understands how an atom works has to call themselves a chemist? Is it necessary for everyone to become a chemist to know how ionic bonds are formed, or how to apply those understandings in their daily life? Do you not think that trying to make everyone be a chemist actually gets in the way of understanding the chemistry? Because the process of being a chemist and understanding chemistry are two very different things.

That's the point here. Instead of just being in the struggle and using your knowledge as a communist to participate in those fights, allowing those ideas and methods to gestate through a process of engagement; through your commitments, integrity, determination, honesty, solidarity and unity with the class, you establish these pre-conditions by which the class have to be, and what form they should take before you've even met them...

What you're talking about makes no practical sense. It's just leftist nonsense that comes -- consciously or unconsciously -- from a position of insidious party building principles and a strategy of control. If it didn't, then this obsession with form wouldn't be a consideration in your political strategy.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Firstly, what is a communist program?

Seriously?



Program

noun 1. a plan of action to accomplish a specified end:


Secondly, what does "knowing enough" about communism mean in practice?Recognizing the myriad problems caused by capitalism as symptomatic of capitalism and acknowledging that the only solution to said problems is communist revolution.


What does that that process even look like?It's not a process.


Again, they're not rhetorical questions, I would like to know the answers. As well as the answers to my previous questions.
I already answered your previous questions.


We're talking about struggle here; being involved in actual fights that occur on the ground in communities and workplaces. Working class people fight those struggles irrespective of communists, usually to win a demand or some kind of concession. Are you telling me that in order for those struggles to take on a communist character, everyone involved has to be a communist? Yes. Or at least enough people to make a difference.


What does that even mean?
Recognizing the myriad problems caused by capitalism as symptomatic of capitalism and acknowledging that the only solution to said problems is communist revolution.




Communism is a social relationship it's not an identity.What does this even mean?


It is an analysis of history and reality that we use to construct methods for transforming the world.Yes, and unless the working class starts employing this analysis they'll be forever doomed to fight for reformist demands.


Just as chemistry is the building blocks of understanding the nature of matter, communism is the building blocks of understanding the nature of society. Does that mean that everyone who understands how an atom works has to call themselves a chemist? Is it necessary for everyone to become a chemist to know how ionic bonds are formed, or how to apply those understandings in their daily life? Do you not think that trying to make everyone be a chemist actually gets in the way of understanding the chemistry? Because the process of being a chemist and understanding chemistry and two very different things.This is a pretty bad analogy. A chemist is someone who participates in an activity, usually professionally. A communist is someone who advocates something. You say communism is an analysis. An analysis is generally followed by some sort of conclusion. If your conclusion is this:


Recognizing the myriad problems caused by capitalism as symptomatic of capitalism and acknowledging that the only solution to said problems is communist revolution.Then I would assume it is safe to say that you are a communist.


That's the point here. Instead of just being in the struggle and using your knowledge as a communist to participate in those fights, allowing those ideas and methods to gestate through a process of engagement; through your commitments, integrity, determination, honesty, solidarity and unity with the class, you establish these pre-conditions by which the class have to be, and what form they should take before you've even met them...So how does the bolded section differ from what I advocate?

[The Feral Underclass]

Seriously?

I don't know you and I don't know your politics. When I ask you a question I want to know the answer to, it's not because I'm telling you a joke...



Program

noun 1. a plan of action to accomplish a specified end:

So now that we understand what the word program means, perhaps you could answer my question and explain to me what a communist program is -- as far as you're concerned.


Recognizing the myriad problems caused by capitalism as symptomatic of capitalism and acknowledging that the only solution to said problems is communist revolution.

I said in practice, not in theory. That's a theoretical understanding of communism, I am asking you what understanding communism means in practice.


It's not a process.

If understanding communism is not a process, then I can only assume you intend it to happen by magic?


I already answered your previous questions.

I asked you: "What is the practical necessity for that [the importance of being "considered a communist"]? What practical difference does it make if people identify as communists or not?"

Your response was: "I just don't think it's possible to uphold a communist program without describing yourself as a communist. If you know enough about communism to support it than I don't see why anyone would reject the label, other than to escape the stigma associated with it."

I don't see how your response answers my question of what the practical necessity and practical difference the importance of being considered a communist is. All you have done is tell me what you think the definition of identifying as a communist is. You've not explained what the practical necessity of that is.


Yes. Or at least enough people to make a difference.

I am still unclear on what practical necessity makes it important for those people who are in a struggle to identify as a communist? What practical difference does it make?


What does this even mean?

A social relationship is what forms the basis of social structures. When I say it is a social relationship and not an identity, what I mean is, communism is the structure of a society within which humans interact in a specific way, it's not something that you have as an identity.

But I think this comment I made is a little unfair because obviously there requires a communist organisation that identifies as such. I mean, I identify as a communist, but I do so because it is necessary to delineate precisely what that means in terms of building organisations that can intervene in the class. In other words, it's a practical necessity.

It is not, however, a practical necessity for the entire class to identify as such, making any objective to achieve that entirely meaningless and a complete waste of time.


Yes, and unless the working class starts employing this analysis they'll be forever doomed to fight for reformist demands.

But that doesn't mean they have to "identify" as a communist.


This is a pretty bad analogy. A chemist is someone who participates in an activity, usually professionally. A communist is someone who advocates something. You say communism is an analysis. An analysis is generally followed by some sort of conclusion. If your conclusion is this

If a communist is not someone who participates in an activity, then they are fundamentally failing at being a communist.

This is where the problem is: the delineation of a communist militant and the difference between them and a non-communist worker. From what I can gather, your position is that you think it is necessary to conflate the two. Unless I'm incorrect, you appear to argue that a non-communist worker has to identify as a communist militant in order for advancements to be made.

For me, the delineation of a communist militant is a professional, just like a chemist. Both roles require an understanding of something, an ability to articulate that something and a coherent methodology for putting it into action (within certain circumstances). In other words it is a practical formulation

On the other hand, a non-communist worker or workers are, what I describe as being the motor for social change; they are the driving force for social transformation. The difference between them and the communist militant is simply that the communist militant (also a worker) can come to struggles with their understanding and methodology, and through those fights work to build institutions of proletarian power that provide impetus for that force to combat capitalism effectively.

Is, then, the priority in the first instance to turn that non-communist worker into someone who identifies as a communist? Or is it to imbibe the struggle they are fighting with communism, so that the worker can begin the process of social transformation? For me, the former is entirely redundant.


Then I would assume it is safe to say that you are a communist.

Whether you or I think it identifies them as a communist, or whether someone identifies themselves as a communist is not really relevant, providing the struggle is communist. That's the point I'm making.


So how does the bolded section differ from what I advocate?

I have no idea what you advocate. But from what you've said in this thread, the difference is that I do not believe that it is important that everyone involved in a struggle identifies as a communist. Indeed, I don't think it serves any practical purpose and is therefore a waste of time. It is necessary for communist militants to identify as such in order for those struggles to become communist.


The form is irrelevant. What matters is the content.

So then why is it important for everyone to identify as a communist?


I still don't fully understand your position. I should re-read the LCI statement of intent. Hopefully it's written in language less vague than your own.

If you want to highlight something that you are having difficulty understanding, I am happy to be more specific for you.

[Rugged Collectivist]

So now that we understand what the word program means, perhaps you could answer my question and explain to me what a communist program is -- as far as you're concerned.

Same as the definition


a plan of action to accomplish a specified end: The end being communism. Communism being the end of class, currency, and wage labor, social ownership and control of the means of production, etc. I can't give you specifics details, as they are situational.


I said in practice, not in theory. That's a theoretical understanding of communism, I am asking you what understanding communism means in practice.How can you understand something in practice? Understanding isn't an action. Action only flows from understanding.


If understanding communism is not a process, then I can only assume you intend it to happen by magic?Understanding is a quality. There is a process that leads up to it's acquisition. A process that usually involves interaction with communists, through speech or text. Struggle doesn't instill communist ideas. It merely makes workers more receptive to them.


I asked you: "What is the practical necessity for that [the importance of being "considered a communist"]? What practical difference does it make if people identify as communists or not?"How can you advocate communism while not being a communist?


Your response was: "I just don't think it's possible to uphold a communist program without describing yourself as a communist. If you know enough about communism to support it than I don't see why anyone would reject the label, other than to escape the stigma associated with it."

I don't see how your response answers my question of what the practical necessity and practical difference the importance to being considered a communist is. All you have done is tell me what you think the definition of identifying as a communist is. You've not explained what the practical necessity of that is.The working class can only emancipate itself through the destruction of capitalist society, and class society more broadly. In order to do this, the vast majority of workers have to understand that this is the case, that their emancipation will only come through the destruction of class society and the establishment of communism. When they reach this understanding they become communists.

Communism can only be achieved through the conscious effort of the working class.

Therefore,

The majority of workers will have to want communism. They will have to become communists.


I am still unclear on what practical necessity makes it important for those people who are in a struggle to identify as a communist? What practical difference does it make?Workers who haven't realized the necessity of communist revolution are only capable of rudimentary struggle, wage increases, better conditions, etc.


A social relationship is what forms the basis of social structures. When I say it is a social relationship and not an identity, what I mean is, communism is the structure of a society within which humans interact in a specific way, it's not something that you have as an identity.Is a communist not someone who advocates the establishment of a specific social structure?


But I think this comment I made is a little unfair because obviously there requires a communist organisation that identifies as such. I mean, I identify as a communist, but I do so because it is necessary to delineate precisely what that means in terms of building organisations that can intervene in the class. In other words, it's a practical necessity. I don't think the goal of communist organizations is to "intervene in the class". I think the goal is to organize the class. Or rather, to provide an organization through which the class can organize itself. The interaction between communists and the working class isn't an interaction between two separate entities. Communists are merely the section of the class that understands the absolute need for revolution.


It is not, however, a practical necessity for the entire class to identify as such, making any objective to achieve that entirely meaningless and a complete waste of time.I disagree.


If a communist is not someone who participates in an activity, then they are fundamentally failing at being a communist.
I agree.


This is where the problem is: the delineation of a communist militant and the difference between them and a non-communist worker. From what I can gather, your position is that you think it is necessary to conflate the two. Unless I'm incorrect, you appear to argue that a non-communist worker has to identify as a communist militant in order for advancements to be made. Yes.


For me, the delineation of a communist militant is a professional, just like a chemist. Both roles require an understanding of something, an ability to articulate that something and a coherent methodology for putting it into action (within certain circumstances).I don't see a conflict between this statement and my position.


A non-communist worker or workers are the motor for social change; they are the driving force for social transformation. The difference between them and the communist militant is simply that the communist militant (also a worker) can come to struggles with their understanding and methodology, and through those fights work to build institutions of proletarian power, providing impetus for that force to combat capitalism effectively.Institutions of proletarian power obviously require the backing of the proletariat. Without communist consciousness, why would they bother with these institutions?

The proletariat has the potential to abolish class society once and for all, but before this can happen the proletariat, as a class, has to acknowledge the need to do so.


Is the priority in the first instance then to turn that non-communist worker into someone who identifies as a communist, or is it to imbibe the struggle they are fighting with communism, so that the worker can begin the process of social transformation? For me, the former is entirely redundant.

Whether you or I think it identifies them as a communist, or whether someone identifies themselves as a communist is not really relevant, providing the struggle is communist. That's the point I'm making.But communist struggle can only be waged by communists.


I have no idea what you advocate. But from what you've said in this thread, the difference is that I do not believe that it is important that everyone involved in a struggle identifies as a communist. Indeed, I don't think it serves any practical purpose and is therefore a waste of time.Well, now you know what I advocate.


If you want to highlight something that you are having difficulty understanding, I am happy to be more specific for you.I think I understand your position now, what I can't comprehend is why anyone would hold it. That's not a jab, it just doesn't make sense to me.

P.S. I removed the last paragraph of my last post because as I reread it I found myself disagreeing with it. I'm not pretending it didn't exist.

P.P.S It now occurs to me that this whole argument may be a huge misunderstanding. I don't think workers have to label themselves communists, I think they have to be communists. They can call themselves whatever they want, as long as they acknowledge the need for the destruction of class society.

Sorry for all the edits.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think there's actually a really interesting (practical) question here - though on the surface it's something of a semantic dispute: Does one have to call oneself a "communist" to be a communist?

What this asks, I think, on a deeper level, is whether or not one has to have some fidelity to the left, and the existing communist tradition to be a communist. I would argue no, and I would point - with some sense of irony - to Engels's reading of Müntzer to support this. Communism isn't simply a particular (Western) tradition of praxis dating to the International Workingmen's Association, but an historic possibility to be realized. There is of course, an argument to the contrary - that communism only becomes possible at the specific historic moment of the emergence of the explicitly communist movement, that there is no communist possibility absent the particular history of the left, absent Marx, etc. I disagree strongly with this, but it's an argument to be made.

So, the question in practical terms is this: Should organization and/or intervention take as its task creating a continuity between existing workers' struggles and the left (ie - Get workers to call themselves communists, to read Marx, etc.)? Or should we take as our task the proliferation of certain forms of organization, certain goals, certain lines of demarcation, etc.? To what degree are these complimentary or opposed?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To what degree are these complimentary or opposed?

The short answer to this, to me, would be that when leftist theory (and organisation) has practical benefits to the political consciousness of the wider working class then it is complementary to the objective aim of communism, and when it is used by leftist organisations as a tool to berate and pacify the rest of the current communist left in order to cement their own position within this milieu, then it is largely opposed to developing praxis.

What role, though, does the existing left play as a pole that attracts "non-communist" communists (people who hold 'communist' views but do not label themselves as such) to its orthodoxy anyway, including "non-communist" communists ending up subscribing to leftist norms and traditions, including paying homage to Marx, Engels, Lenin et al., and calling themselves 'Communists'/

[Rugged Collectivist]

TGDU, I liked your post because I think you've done a great job of framing this discussion, but I cannot say that I agree with it.

I'm not convinced that communism, at this point, can be separated from the historical communist movement. Furthermore, I don't see why that would be necessary, or even desirable. Abandoning Marxism would be a recipe for failure.

[Blake's Baby]

TFU does not 'identify' as a communist. Therefore, according to RC, TFU is not a communist. But, RC identifies TFU as a communist.

So, obviously, RC is being inconsistent here, and must be wrong about something. Either TFU is not a communist, or self-identification as a communist is a red herring.

[The Feral Underclass]

I call myself a communist for practical purposes in order to delineate myself as a political militant, but I reject that being a communist is an 'identity' or pre-requisite for struggle that "the class" have to adopt, which is what RC's argument is.

[Rugged Collectivist]

TFU does not 'identify' as a communist.





I call myself a communist

.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, y'all have fun, there I was trying to help, but no, not even close.

I'm now backing away with my hands in front of me, any moment now I'm going to turn round, put my hands in my pockets, start whistling and walk swiftly away.

[freecommunist]

Seems like a split already http://www.libertariancommunist.org/ :laugh:

[The Idler]

Seems like a split already http://www.libertariancommunist.org/ :laugh:
I don't get it. Why is that a split?

[freecommunist]

Because it is identical to the old Collective Action (even the text is the same) site which was the group that became LCI.

Also http://libertariancommunist.org/ was the website of LCI but is now the site for the LCG
The LCI site is also here http://libcomint.wordpress.com/weblog/ but the link to pro-nationalist anarkismo has now gone even though on the 'about us' page LCI is still listed as a affiliate. click on the link to see where it takes you.

Also interesting to note LCI facebook page has been wiped clean and the Twitter hasn't been used in a couple of months. The last post I saw on there Facebook group was a PKK propaganda video :ohmy:

leftist watching has always been a sad habit of mine :laugh:

[The Idler]

Perhaps TFU would care to comment?

[The Feral Underclass]

As far as I know the individual who started that website is still a member of LCI. If you want further comment on LCI then you should probably email them. Their email is listed in this thread I think.

[The Idler]

As far as I know the individual who started that website is still a member of LCI. If you want further comment on LCI then you should probably email them. Their email is listed in this thread I think.Are you still a member, if not why not?

[BIXX]

Are you still a member, if not why not?
I think TFU already answered that question, saying that they weren't doing anything or whatever.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

LCI have stated on facebook that LCG/GGL are a 'New sororal organisation in Wales/Cymru/Gales/Pays de Galles' rather than a splinter group. I doubt they'd be inviting people to follow them on fb/wordpress if that was the case.

[The Idler]

I think TFU already answered that question, saying that they weren't doing anything or whatever.
Where? When?