Unity

[Prometeo liberado]

Very simple questions COMRADES will the PSL, WWP, SP, ANARCHST and RCP gather to at least deal with situation of pig violence in as a form of self defense or just prattle on a bout the correct time of Praxis and go about talking of the weather(meaning nothing is done about it).

[Blake's Baby]

I think you already know the answer to that.

Though the proliferation of socialist cults is part of the problem, it is also a manifestation of a deeper problem. The working class is disunited and indeed barely aware of its own existence. Bottom-up local organisation is the only way forward I think. Start where you are. Beware of the local cults parachuting their people into anything that looks like it might have some positive dynamic, it's rarely a good result when they do. But all you can do is keep trying.

[Alexios]

Very simple questions COMRADES will the PSL, WWP, SP, ANARCHST and RCP gather to at least deal with situation of pig violence in as a form of self defense or just prattle on a bout the correct time of Praxis and go about talking of the weather(meaning nothing is done about it).
Are you drunk?

[The Jay]

I think that the answer is a resounding no. I'm not sure why you would think that this would be the case.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Are you drunk?

Has jbeard/prometeo whatever ever written anything that wasn't complete rambling?

[Alexios]

Has jbeard/prometeo whatever ever written anything that wasn't complete rambling?
All of his posts used to be nonsensical one-liners, then he randomly started posting these melodramatic sermons.

[Rafiq]

Even with the complete unity of all left organizations throughout the entire world, this would only make their utter political, and ideological insignificance more blatant, and obvious for all to see.

Unity is not achieved through collaborations and concessions. Unity is a single beating heart, a single flame and a single struggle. Only when the Communists abandon the gods of old and take up the cause of a new Communism can there be unity. Only when the cause of the working people is the sole prerogative of Communists, or anarchists worldwide can there be any talk of unity.

In the midst of this new Communism, those dedicated to the cause of the revolution, and those petty bourgeois ideologues who take refuge in the safety of their insignificance will be known for us all. Cults like the RCP have no place in the future of Communism - some of these degenerate organizations are simply too far gone in the abyss of Communism's failure that there can be no reconciliation or redemption. So let them burn with the old world, I say.

[Prometeo liberado]

Has jbeard/prometeo whatever ever written anything that wasn't complete rambling?

Can I just go straight to calling you an uneducated dolt? The question is a philosophical attempt to elicit various degrees of response none of which can or ever could become reality. Ulrike Meinhof and other German writers/philosophers of the time often gaged certain personality types using this method.
READ BOOKS. moron.:)

[Prometeo liberado]

Has jbeard/prometeo whatever ever written anything that wasn't complete rambling?

That's what I thought your vapid response would be. Nill.

[Thirsty Crow]

Apart from and in opposition to vague quasi-millennialist calls for blleding hearts united for communism, I think the bases of any kind of unity need to be discussed.

Naturally, the first question arising is "Unity of what/who?". This can serve as good basis for distinguishing two kinds of unity:

1) class unity - much has been written on the subject and many facets are clarified; we're talking about the working class acting as the political subject, the group of people transforming society in the way that's complementary to our own needs. The part wrought with tensions is the recognition of intra-class divides and ultimately resolving these, moving beyond them, making them a mere afterthought without effect (for instance: racial conflict, private sector v. public sector worker on worker antagonism)

2) political unity of radical minorities

This second aspect is what this thread seems to me to be about; yet the basic idea that only unity among American radical organizations/networks is able to produce effect on police brutality seems to be either a) naive in that it disregards the mass working class base from whom such action in self-defense anything can be done or b) presupposes the former yet fails to draw out the implications and clings on to them radicals (so that distinct impression is made that it is the current state of divide that is the major cause of inefficiency in fighting against police brutality).

The way the debate on unity has been conducted for most part on the left was and is by focusing on 2), on the issue of political-ideological unity; the unvoiced assumption here is inherently substitutionist in that the basis for working class activity as a class is the activity of political minorities.

[Rafiq]

Apart from and in opposition to vague quasi-millennialist calls for blleding hearts united for communism, I think the bases of any kind of unity need to be discussed.


Apart from quasi-millenialist calls for beating hearts united from Communism (sorry, but ideologically, what can Communism but "millenialist"? Communism has always been "millenial", all periods of intensified class struggle and all revolutionary periods were "crypto-millenialist" in nature. You can either a) Retract your nonsensical, baseless statement or b) Recognize that if what I say is "quasi-millenialist", then Communism itself is millenialist in essence.) it would seem all you have to offer is regurgitating what every child knows.

But go ahead, simply rehash what I said in utter and total banality: Only when the cause of the working people is the sole prerogative of Communists, or anarchists worldwide can there be any talk of unity and then proceed to mock me for being "too vague".

[Thirsty Crow]

Apart from quasi-millenialist calls for beating hearts united from Communism (sorry, but ideologically, what can Communism but "millenialist"? Communism has always been "millenial", all periods of intensified class struggle and all revolutionary periods were "crypto-millenialist" in nature. You can either a) Retract your nonsensical, baseless statement or b) Recognize that if what I say is "quasi-millenialist", then Communism itself is millenialist in essence.) it would seem all you have to offer is regurgitating what every child knows.

:lol:

And the prophet recognizes his name uttered in whispers.

Communism isn't millenialist; the former is a concept denoting a particular kind of theodicy, in the case of Christianity, the second coming of Christ. Figuratively it is used to denote a kind of a heaven on earth.


But go ahead, simply rehash what I said in utter and total banality: Only when the cause of the working people is the sole prerogative of Communists, or anarchists worldwide can there be any talk of unity and then proceed to mock me for being "too vague".Of course it is too vague; it's a mere starting point, nothing else of substance here.

It's a good starting point, but which needs to be determined further which isn't at all what you did or seem to be interested in doing. Rather, it seems that "abandoning the gods of old" and a "single bleating heart" composed of a single class struggle is what you're after.

Now where does that land us in a specific debate on class/communist unity? Nowhere specific that's for sure.

Which reminds me; is it a prerogative of American non-laborers and students to approach this problem in such a way?

[Rafiq]

Communism isn't millenialist; the former is a concept denoting a particular kind of theodicy, in the case of Christianity, the second coming of Christ. Figuratively it is used to denote a kind of a heaven on earth.

That's so cute Links. You're adorable. You're actually trying to lecture me on what millenialism is, and how Communism is not actually millenialist. Wow, thanks, I didn't know that. I always thought Communism denoted the second coming of Lenin. I honestly did not put quotes around the word millenialist, anyone who can read as Linksradikal does, knows this.

My post totally indicated the coming of a paradise. I totally referred to the aftermath of a proletarian dictatorship. Thank you Links, for your profound and completely non-ignorant, non-dismissive insight.


Rather, it seems that "abandoning the gods of old" and a "single bleating heart" composed of a single class struggle is what you're after.

Now where does that land us in a specific debate on class/communist unity? Nowhere specific that's for sure.


Link's thought process: "What? How can Communists have gods? We're materialists! Furthermore, it is impossible to have a single beating heart, because only individual humans can have beating hearts. Rafiq, your logic just doesn't add up".

Here's link's claim: Now where does that land us in a specific debate on class/communist unity? Nowhere specific that's for sure.

On "communist" unity (as in the unity of insignificant parties), I said this:

Even with the complete unity of all left organizations throughout the entire world, this would only make their utter political, and ideological insignificance more blatant, and obvious for all to see.


As for class unity: Only when the cause of the working people is the sole prerogative of Communists, or anarchists worldwide can there be any talk of unity

Though Links already acknowledges that any expression of proletarian interests, in other words "class unity" can only ever be political in character:
class unity - much has been written on the subject and many facets are clarified; we're talking about the working class acting as the political subject,

Okay, so why then does Links take qualm with my alleged disregard for differentiating the political unity of Communism (which, as I already claimed, has nothing to do with the unity of these insignificant, worthless parties that constitute the Left)? I will tell you why, and it's for the same reason he mocked my post, and claimed it was "millenialist" - Link's personal qualms with me compels him to arrogantly and pompously engage me only ever in a dismissive, disrespectful and mocking tone. The only problem of Links being on his high horse, is that he is not high on his "horse" at all - rather, he is plumped foolishly on an ass. In his mind, my post couldn't stand simply by merit of its author and origin. Instead, Links must add his banal, rehashed two cents in order to make "clarifications" that the clown, the madman Rafiq didn't make. In that sense, he only insults the reading comprehension of everyone here. Link's post not only is worthless because it is groundlessly dismissive of mine, but because he is shamelessly re-hashing my post. You didn't add any insight Links, you only divulged into that which everyone knows.


Tell me this isn't just glorified, pretentious banality:

Naturally, the first question arising is "Unity of what/who?". This can serve as good basis for distinguishing two kinds of unity:

1) class unity - much has been written on the subject and many facets are clarified; we're talking about the working class acting as the political subject, the group of people transforming society in the way that's complementary to our own needs. The part wrought with tensions is the recognition of intra-class divides and ultimately resolving these, moving beyond them, making them a mere afterthought without effect (for instance: racial conflict, private sector v. public sector worker on worker antagonism)

2) political unity of radical minorities

This second aspect is what this thread seems to me to be about; yet the basic idea that only unity among American radical organizations/networks is able to produce effect on police brutality seems to be either a) naive in that it disregards the mass working class base from whom such action in self-defense anything can be done or b) presupposes the former yet fails to draw out the implications and clings on to them radicals (so that distinct impression is made that it is the current state of divide that is the major cause of inefficiency in fighting against police brutality).

The way the debate on unity has been conducted for most part on the left was and is by focusing on 2), on the issue of political-ideological unity; the unvoiced assumption here is inherently substitutionist in that the basis for working class activity as a class is the activity of political minorities.


Too many words for absolutely nothing of substance. I can summarize the post for you: In false consciousness, workers are divided along ethnic, cultural and systemic lines. But with class unity, this is overcome (:lol: at the idea that saying "we're talking about people who are changing society, which fits our needs". Wow Links, so insightful). Also, thinking that American organizations uniting to stop police brutality is futile because they dont have a mass base in the working class. Look at me everyone, I am so insightful, thank me for my clarification!


But of course, Link's blatant disrespect, trollish behavior and constant mockery warrants no quarrel with the administration. Of course, only when big bad Rafiq engages in boisterous, honest and blatant flaming is there a problem. Passive aggressiveness, mockery and trolling, so long as they are done in a quiet and cowardly manner are completely tolerated. Such tolerance very much encourages respectful, engaging and well-mannered discussions, one would think, what a blessing swear words and name calling are prohibited :rolleyes:

[Rafiq]

Links desperately calls for forum moderation in a previous thread, because Rafiq is acting too harshly and discourages respectful discussion. But Links, a forum moderator, shamelessly engages in the most utterly disrespectful behavior one can engage in: Dishonest personal attacks, and mockery where there can be none.

Links, prince of well-mannered discussion in good will, is so concerned with the well being of discussions that he himself is found to be a greater culprit in avoiding meaningful discussion. Link's tattle-tailing was done not simply to fuck me over, in a hostile attack - but because he genuinely cared for the faint hearts of those reading the thread. Obviously.

Though, Links might claim that this compromised a small portion of his post, and that he actually had something of substance to say in regards to mine. Though every single time I am called out for flaming, this is exactly the case: I never flamed just for the fuck of it, there was always an underlying point with regard to the actual discussion I was trying to make.

In that way, Link's post is all the more threatening to "meaningful discussion" then my honest, straight verbal attacks. Links gives us his 'Lols' and his ':lol:', so it's okay when he trolls, and passive aggressively flames.

Oh, and this isn't the first time. Every mother fucking thread Links has to come, mock my post, and give his worthless two cents which are always meaningless and obnoxiously banal. I'm so fucking sick of it, and honestly, with this kind of behavior - how can my "flaming" be of surprise to anyone? I hope people can at least see where I'm coming from here.

[Thirsty Crow]

Oops I did it again :lol:
Infraction deserved on my part no doubt (trust me, in all honesty it's so).

Anyway, what can perhaps be saved from all of this is the idea that the united American left would pose significant challenges to police brutality; which is implied by OP.

As I said, I don't think it is so but other folks could chime in with some other way of looking at this problem. And this relates to Ferguson in all likelihood; meaning calls for united hearts and a single cause actually are a bit under-specified for the problem at hand.

[Rafiq]

Oops I did it again :lol:
Infraction deserved on my part no doubt (trust me, in all honesty it's so).


Good, maybe you can go shower the administration with your tears again about how big bad Rafiq made an ass out of you yet again. Evidently, Links, your tattle-tailing hasn't been very effective in stopping you from losing discussions.

[Thirsty Crow]

Oh noes I've been uncovered as a discussion-loser and am so small in all possible ways compared to you :lol: :laugh: :laugh:

That's it folks shitposting season opened y'all have a good time.

[Rafiq]

meaning calls for united hearts and a single cause actually are a bit under-specified for the problem at hand.

The point is that a single, cohesive movement and ideology which could pose a threat to police brutality is impossible without this movement to derive from a present circumstance of class struggle. Simply unifying all of the dead carcasses of the Left, forming compromises and alliances will not do it: Communism does have to be a single, beating heart, and it must be a single cause, not a caravan of many different ones.


Oh noes I've been uncovered as a discussion-loser and am so small in all possible ways compared to you

To say that your posts are smaller than mine, is assuming that they coincide on the same field by which we can measurably compare them. No, no Links - my posts might be of average insight, they may be of average value, but magnitude of value itself doesn't even register as far as your posts go: They are simply empty regurgitations of that which everyone knows - they are not necessarily wrong, they are simply devoid of a unique insight. So it's not that I am personally better than you, it's that you have yet to coherently and successfully challenge my posts, which you have so tirelessly tried to do in the past.

But who knows, maybe if you continue to troll and mock me, you will be successful in such an endeavor.

[Lily Briscoe]

Whoa, good stuff.

[renalenin]

'Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists and opponents and distorters of Marxism.'
(Lenin, 1914, ‘Unity’, Pravda No 59, Lenin Collected Works, 1972, Progress Publications, Volume 2, page 230).

It is clear that when Lenin speaks of unity he is not speaking about unity with differing groups with differing ideologies and objectives but of unity amongst Marxists, of unity within the working class movement. How much clearer could he be?

We need to keep working within the working class (and its allies within reason) surely, but without a simple and straight up and down Marxist vanguard party it is never going to go anywhere is it? Revisionists and reformists especially have sabotaged or side-tracked many a party in many a country, but this is a good time to combat revisionists. The task is ours.

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[Hrafn]

'Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists and opponents and distorters of Marxism.'
(Lenin, 1914, ‘Unity’, Pravda No 59, Lenin Collected Works, 1972, Progress Publications, Volume 2, page 230).

It is clear that when Lenin speaks of unity he is not speaking about unity with differing groups with differing ideologies and objectives but of unity amongst Marxists, of unity within the working class movement. How much clearer could he be?

We need to keep working within the working class (and its allies within reason) surely, but without a simple and straight up and down Marxist vanguard party it is never going to go anywhere is it? Revisionists and reformists especially have sabotaged or side-tracked many a party in many a country, but this is a good time to combat revisionists. The task is ours.

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

That's rich coming from a pro-fascist collaborator.

[consuming negativity]

Even with the complete unity of all left organizations throughout the entire world, this would only make their utter political, and ideological insignificance more blatant, and obvious for all to see.

Unity is not achieved through collaborations and concessions. Unity is a single beating heart, a single flame and a single struggle. Only when the Communists abandon the gods of old and take up the cause of a new Communism can there be unity. Only when the cause of the working people is the sole prerogative of Communists, or anarchists worldwide can there be any talk of unity.

In the midst of this new Communism, those dedicated to the cause of the revolution, and those petty bourgeois ideologues who take refuge in the safety of their insignificance will be known for us all. Cults like the RCP have no place in the future of Communism - some of these degenerate organizations are simply too far gone in the abyss of Communism's failure that there can be no reconciliation or redemption. So let them burn with the old world, I say.

I'm working class through and through, but I readily take refuge in my relative insignificance. The fact that there is little I could be doing to actually make a difference makes me feel a lot better that most of my time is spent doing other things, like trying to keep the bills paid. What's the problem with that? Sure, it's not the best thing for the revolution, but the revolution is unproven economic theorizing that ended with Vladimir Putin, and I will get hungry within 24 hours of not having eaten anything. Holding people's humanity and perceived foibles against them only breeds resentment.

[renalenin]

That's rich coming from a pro-fascist collaborator.

So sorry you feel that way comrade. But please do tell us how you interpret Lenin's position on unity of Marxists. Do you have a view on this?

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[Prometeo liberado]

Are you drunk?

No but you must be if you don't engage in the serious need to defend the ever increasing war on the poor.
Internet lefties kill me.