this is exactly how i feel about marxists

[consuming negativity]

https://web.archive.org/web/20091028121656/http://geocities.com/~johngray/milititl.htm

i have never in my life been able to find a more perfect articulation of my problem with marxism and the complete detachment from reality of the modern-day left. i've finally found it and i'm sitting here shocked and awed as all of those thoughts i've been trying to put together have already been put together for me and were written decades ago. needless to say, i feel very much behind the times, but whatever. here is the introductory section:


Since the occupation movement of May '68, we have seen a whole collection of small organisations which claim to follow trotskyism, maoism or anarchism, developing to the left of the Communist Party and the C.G.T [1] (https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/mili001.htm#fnF1). Despite the tiny percentage of workers who join their ranks, they pretend to compete with the traditional organisations for control of the working class, of which they proclaim themselves the vanguard.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif

The ridiculousness of their pretensions might make you laugh, but laughter is not enough. It is necessary to look deeper, to understand why the modern world produces these bureaucratic extremists, and to tear away the mask of their ideologies in order to reveal their true historical role. As far as possible, revolutionaries must distance themselves from leftist organisations, and show that far from threatening the old world order, the action of these groups can at best only lead to its reconditioning. Starting to criticise them prepares the ground for the revolutionary movement, which will be obliged to liquidate them, or else risk being liquidated itself.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif

The first temptation which presents itself is to attack their ideologies, to point out how archaic or exotic these are ( from Lenin to Mao ), and to expose the contempt for the masses which lies concealed behind their demagogy. But when you consider there are enormous numbers of organisations and tendencies, all of them anxious to affirm their tiny ideological originality, this would soon become tiresome. Moreover it would amount to placing yourself on their level. Rather than their ideas, it is more appropriate to take on the activity which they deploy « in the service of their ideas » : MILITANCY.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif

If we take militancy as a whole this is not because we deny the differences which exist between the activities of the various organisations. But we think that despite -- and even because of -- their importance, these differences can only be adequately explained by taking militancy as their origin.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif

The various ways of being militant are only different responses to the same fundamental contradiction, a contradiction which no one has a solution to.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif
In taking the activity of the militant as the starting point of our critique we do not underestimate the importance of the role of ideas within militancy. But from the moment that these ideas are put forward, without any connection to activity, it becomes important to know what they conceal. We will show the discrepancy between them, we will connect the ideas to the activity and reveal the impact of the activity on the ideas : seeking behind the lie the reality of the liar, in order to understand the reality of the lie.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif

While the criticism and condemnation of militancy is an essential task for revolutionary theory, it can only be done from the « point of view » of the revolution. Bourgeois ideologues can treat militants as dangerous hooligans or as manipulated idealists, and advise them to occupy their time with work, or in getting away to Club Méditerranée; but they cannot attack militancy in depth, for that would expose the misery of the activities permitted in modern society. We don't intend to hide our bias, our criticisms will not be « objective and valid from all the points of view ».
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif

This critique of militancy cannot be separated from the construction of revolutionary organisations, not just because the organisations of militants will need to be fought without relaxation, but also because the struggle against the tendency towards militancy must be taken to the heart of even revolutionary organisations. Clearly this is because, at least initially, these organisations are likely to be made up from a significant proportion of « repented » former militants, but it is also because militancy is rooted in the alienation of each one of us. Alienation is not eliminated by waving a magic wand and militancy is the special trap which the old world sets for revolutionaries.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif

What we say about militants is firm and without appeal. We are not prepared to compromise with them, these are not revolutionaries who have made a mistake, nor are they semi-revolutionaries, they are people who remain on this side of the revolution. However this doesn't mean ( 1 ) that we exempt ourselves from this critique, for if we make a point of being clear and sharp we do so firstly with regard to ourselves; or ( 2 ) that we condemn militants as individuals and make this condemnation a matter of morality. It is not a question of falling back on a separation of the good from the bad. We don't underestimate the temptation to say « the more I mouth off about militants, the more I prove that I'm not one, and the more I shelter myself from criticism ! »

[Armchair Partisan]

I've read the whole thing, and wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it attacks vanguardism and sectarianism than 'militancy' in general? I mean, unless we have different definitions of what 'militancy' is, it should very well be practised by the working class as a whole.

Also, about the part you quoted:


they are people who remain on this side of the revolution.

Which side? This part of the sentence is confusing to me and the meaning of the sentence is very different depending on what is meant exactly.

[consuming negativity]

I've read the whole thing, and wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it attacks vanguardism and sectarianism than 'militancy' in general? I mean, unless we have different definitions of what 'militancy' is, it should very well be practised by the working class as a whole.

Also, about the part you quoted:



Which side? This part of the sentence is confusing to me and the meaning of the sentence is very different depending on what is meant exactly.

i'm not sure there is a good term for what is being attacked but i know i dislike it

i interpreted that sentence as them being on our side. could be a translation error or something, i was also pretty confused. could go either way but i think it makes more sense that way.

[RedWorker]

Since the occupation movement of May '68, we have seen a whole collection of small organisations which claim to follow trotskyism, maoism or anarchism, developing to the left of the Communist Party and the C.G.T [1] (https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/mili001.htm#fnF1). Despite the tiny percentage of workers who join their ranks, they pretend to compete with the traditional organisations for control of the working class, of which they proclaim themselves the vanguard.Many historical Marxist and anarchist groups have had a mass working class base. And nowadays usually Trotskyists do not pretend their party is the vanguard party. They claim they are for the building of a vanguard party or international.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif


As far as possible, revolutionaries must distance themselves from leftist organisations, and show that far from threatening the old world order, the action of these groups can at best only lead to its reconditioning.This is correct, as long as 'revolutionaries' is replaced by 'pseudointellectuals'.


Starting to criticise them prepares the ground for the revolutionary movement, which will be obliged to liquidate them, or else risk being liquidated itself.Liquidate how, and in what conditions?
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif


The first temptation which presents itself is to attack their ideologies, to point out how archaic or exotic these are ( from Lenin to Mao ), and to expose the contempt for the masses which lies concealed behind their demagogy.Archaic? All political tendencies, including liberalism, Marxism, anarchism, and others, are old. There are no serious 'new' tendencies. Contempt for the massses? An unfounded accusation in this emotionalistic critique.


But when you consider there are enormous numbers of organisations and tendencies, all of them anxious to affirm their tiny ideological originality, this would soon become tiresomeThere is nothing new in the statement that there is a seemingly infinite amount of tiny parties which are all not so different from each other. This is true across the whole political spectrum, not only the left. Yes, there have been leftist sects, but there have also been massive leftist groups.


Moreover it would amount to placing yourself on their level.So debate about actual ideas, rather than sweeping everyone with a worldview which claims to "have it all figured out", would mean "placing yourself on their level", because whoever wrote this clearly sees the one true overview.

... And that's about the whole of it. The other half has no debatable content.

[mushroompizza]

Modern Anarchism at its finest in this post!

[John Nada]

i have never in my life been able to find a more perfect articulation of my problem with marxism and the complete detachment from reality of the modern-day left. i've finally found it and i'm sitting here shocked and awed as all of those thoughts i've been trying to put together have already been put together for me and were written decades ago. needless to say, i feel very much behind the times, but whatever. here is the introductory section:Who are these "Marxists" and this modern-day "left"? If you mean in the US and other imperialist nations, yeah it's a spectacle. Hence, ImperialismMilitancy:The Highest Stage of CapitalismAlienation. It's as much a self-criticism of the French left post-68 as the authors themselves.
What we say about militants is firm and without appeal. We are not prepared to compromise with them, these are not revolutionaries who have made a mistake, nor are they semi-revolutionaries, they are people who remain on this side of the revolution. However this doesn't mean ( 1 ) that we exempt ourselves from this critique, for if we make a point of being clear and sharp we do so firstly with regard to ourselves; or ( 2 ) that we condemn militants as individuals and make this condemnation a matter of morality. It is not a question of falling back on a separation of the good from the bad. We don't underestimate the temptation to say « the more I mouth off about militants, the more I prove that I'm not one, and the more I shelter myself from criticism ! »

[consuming negativity]

Many historical Marxist and anarchist groups have had a mass working class base. And nowadays usually Trotskyists do not pretend their party is the vanguard party. They claim they are for the building of a vanguard party or international.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif

This is correct, as long as 'revolutionaries' is replaced by 'pseudointellectuals'.

Liquidate how, and in what conditions?
https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143713/http://geocities.com/%7Ejohngray/pixel.gif

Archaic? All political tendencies, including liberalism, Marxism, anarchism, and others, are old. There are no serious 'new' tendencies. Contempt for the massses? An unfounded accusation in this emotionalistic critique.

There is nothing new in the statement that there is a seemingly infinite amount of tiny parties which are all not so different from each other. This is true across the whole political spectrum, not only the left. Yes, there have been leftist sects, but there have also been massive leftist groups.

So debate about actual ideas, rather than sweeping everyone with a worldview which claims to "have it all figured out", would mean "placing yourself on their level", because whoever wrote this clearly sees the one true overview.

... And that's about the whole of it. The other half has no debatable content.

this is kind of like writing a review of a movie after seeing the first five minutes and maybe the teaser trailer. like your response style, which takes each sentence out of context and ignores what it doesn't feel like addressing, your post has taken the introduction out of context of the material itself and ignored the substance it then claims is lacking. not only does this describe your posting style but it actually describes perfectly what is being criticized - that which ignores the context of reality and which seeks to control and subsume the workers movement to a hierarchical organization rather than foster it from within as equals. you act not in the interests of the workers, but your own, while claiming to be acting in the interests of the workers. you will always be detached from any real movement of the working class to seize power for itself, because you don't want to be workers, and therefore you will always be in opposition to us. the control of the government over the councils set up by the workers themselves is exactly what killed the revolution in russia - the worshippers of power and control like yourself are the counter-revolution dressed up in the suits of revolutionaries; just like the modern-day russian "communists" who most of us here will at least admit are actually reactionaries wearing the hammer and sickle and claiming to represent freedom from the very bureaucracy they can't envision a world without.

[#FF0000]

I always thought this paper made a lot of good criticisms that apply to the vast majority of "revolutionary" organizations -- Marxist and Anarchist alike.

This is especially on-point.


Militant organisations make themselves autonomous from the masses which they claim to represent. They are naturally led to consider that it is not the working class which makes the revolution, but « the organisations of the working class ». Thus it suits them to reinforce the latter. In extreme cases the proletariat becomes mere raw material, the manure from which will bloom the red rose of the Revolutionary Party
^
There are orgs that basically state as much.

[RedWorker]

that which ignores the context of reality and which seeks to control and subsume the workers movement to a hierarchical organization rather than foster it from within as equals.

Revolutionary organizations are a subset of the working class.


you act not in the interests of the workers, but your own, while claiming to be acting in the interests of the workers.

But what are the interests of the workers? Merely the current politics of the working class? If so, this is petty workerism. Or are we referring to objective class interests? In which case we have to define the objective interests of the working class from our own political understanding, and naturally not everyone is going to agree on what these interests are. So instead of this petty overview, the debate must take place over what these interests are, or how certain groups fail to follow them.


you will always be detached from any real movement of the working class to seize power for itself, because you don't want to be workers, and therefore you will always be in opposition to us."Don't want to be workers"? Many Marxists are workers. Founding any revolutionary organization means creating a subset within the working class, or a separated group from the working class. Naturally they are not going to match exactly. But any organized revolutionary activity of the working class requires a revolutionary organization.


the control of the government over the councils set up by the workers themselves is exactly what killed the revolution in russiaThat certainly was a symptom of how the revolution got messed up. But the analysis must be deeper than this.


the worshippers of power and control like yourselfHow do I worship control and power?


are the counter-revolution dressed up in the suits of revolutionariesHow am I a counter-revolutionary?

[motion denied]

Does anyone really want to be a worker (a wage earner) though?

[consuming negativity]

Does anyone really want to be a worker (a wage earner) though?

Being a wage earner is not synonymous with doing work. No, I don't really want anyone to wipe my ass for me or tend my crops or live my life for me. Work is everything we do. I want to do things for myself and experience life and actually be alive, rather than spending my life centered around activities that I hate that seem pointless and produce things I'd rather do without than actually work for in that capacity.

By wanting to take on the role of revolutionaries as something separate from the working class, you're creating a division by definition between yourselves and the working class. WE ARE NOT THE DICTATORS IF WE ARE BEING LED OR IF OTHER ORGANIZED GROUPS HAVE POWER OVER US.

That should also be an adequate response to much of what Redworker said.

[RedWorker]

Being a wage earner is not synonymous with doing work. No, I don't really want anyone to wipe my ass for me or tend my crops or live my life for me. Work is everything we do. I want to do things for myself and experience life and actually be alive, rather than spending my life centered around activities that I hate that seem pointless and produce things I'd rather do without than actually work for in that capacity.

We are talking about class interests here... so by worker, 'proletarian' is meant.


By wanting to take on the role of revolutionaries as something separate from the working class, you're creating a division by definition between yourselves and the working class. WE ARE NOT THE DICTATORS IF WE ARE BEING LED OR IF OTHER ORGANIZED GROUPS HAVE POWER OVER US.

By definition, all proletarians will vote in the dictatorship of the proletariat, and all of their votes will be equal. The existance of revolutionary organizations does not conflict with this.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I would describe this document as unintentionally prophetic. Its critique points to the now-hegemonic left-liberalism that defines anti-capitalism on every North American university campus. Congrats OJTR - look at the wonderful praxis that has emerged from your theorizing!

Anyway, please enjoy my pisstake:

1. Self-righteous Hipster Posturing - Highest Stage Of Capitalist Subjectivity
2. Sadism
3. The Desire For Demotion
4. Cultural Work
5. The Obsession With Holding Orgies
6. Disorganization
7. Objectivity And Subjectivity
8. Hipsters And Workers' Councils

1. Self-righteous Hipster Posturing - Highest Stage Of Capitalist Subjectivity

For the hipster, that no ethical project has yet to achieve "revolution" is sufficient basis for denying the possibility of a communist ethic (or, better yet, plurality of disparate communist ethics).

2. Sadism

While the hipster might deploy any number of discourses denouncing the futility of any ethical project, we ought to look at how they live in the world: The hipster is essentially sadistic. They take pleasure in their lashing out at any who see in their activity a greater purpose. And, as per Freud, every sadist is eventually a masochist: the cigarettes, the bombastic critiques in which every word is agonized over, the awkward posturing in the fauxhomian cafes and queer dance parties - they love the pain they put themselves through.

3. The Desire for Demotion

Woe is the hipster! Every dive bar they "discover" quickly becomes a hipster bar.

4. Cultural Work

Seeking desperately to escape the routinization and discipline of the factory and the Leninist party, the hipster finds themselves blazing a new and lonely trail - little precarious capitalists; little lumpen bourgeois. Paying off their university educations with service sector jobs while waiting for someone to notice what special snowflakes they are.

5. The Obsession With Holding Orgies

Do you love kinky sex? If not, you'd better learn to fake it. Beer? Same story. Welcome to the new regime of compulsory fun.

6. Disorganization

Confronted with with the difficulty of ethics, the hipster says with a knowing smile, "Hey, it would only fail. Let's go do something fun instead." Probably this means that they want to fuck you, and then never speak to you again (lest your tryst bureaucratize into a relationship).

7. Objectivity And Subjectivity

The subjectivity of the hipster becomes objective in the gentrified neighbourhood from which they are then obliged to flee.

8. Hipsters And Workers' Councils

"Your 'workers' council' is having a meeting? Fuck that, having a meeting will just separate you from the workers."

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Being a wage earner is not synonymous with doing work. No, I don't really want anyone to wipe my ass for me or tend my crops or live my life for me.And I would rather not tend to crops or my garden but I would still like to eat food. How do we accomplish that? This is not just theoretical, I live on an orchard and have a garden, both of which I hate tending to when I have to, I'd much rather go down to the store and buy food. I hate this stupid bullshit love people have for their gardens, I can not understand it, I feel like I'm missing something. Look at these strawberries I grow and how inferior they are to these big, juicy, probably genetically modified ones I find at the store. I can spend less than an hour at work on a carton of strawberries compared to hours in my garden working on my produce which might not yield as much or strawberries that are as good as the one from the local fruit stand or the big retail stores. But it's work I did myself so I'm supposed to feel better for it or something, right? In reality it's just a waste of my time as I see and feel it.

Work is everything we do. I want to do things for myself and experience life and actually be alive, rather than spending my life centered around activities that I hate that seem pointless and produce things I'd rather do without than actually work for in that capacity.Okay but how do you mean to do things for yourself in the context of labor which is social(indivual producers being almost obsolete at this point)? Gather with people that want to do the same work? You soak in such vague terms, how does somebody work for themselves tending their own crops, wiping their own ass, building their own house, making their own shirts while at the same time "experiencing life"(as if the slave does not experience life!) Where does one find the time to experience life if work is everything we do? Hiking the waterfalls of Yosemite is experiencing life on an almost spiritual level but it's not work.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I think it's a very important critique to make of current far leftist organizations. However, actions do speak louder than words. . . The sect like relations apparent within the majority of communist organizations is very worrying, and perhaps even damaging to the fruition of genuine Marxist ideas in the mass of workers by reinforcing reactionary authoritarian mindsets.

What's clear is that the bureaucratic nature of leftist sects displays a life sucking cynicism, underserving of the sacred idea of Socialism. Here I fully subscribe to Juan Moreno's comment that this phenomena of sectarianism is indicative of the psychological state of the individuals who make up and especially lead those organizations. The many cases of odd behavior and even abuse within the leftist sects recently points towards a loss of a moral compass of these individuals. Succumbing to being downtrodden or decadent is not something revolutionary leaders can afford. Selfless service and psychological strength is not an option under the position of political leadership.

Organizations of the political working class have historically strived throughout the world and must continue striving for real democracy. Without a struggle for proper democratic relations within/among worker organizations there's no chance for a legitimate societal democracy obviously. The bands of radical workers grouped together under the auspices of the bourgeois state must unite under a common lively platform that will serve as a vehicle for liberation and which instills a sense of hope and inspiration to the mass of oppressed and downtrodden.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I sympathise with the intentions of the article - to critique the organisation of modern day Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, and Maoist leftist organisations (it seems to focus on their organisational form rather than their politics, which is welcome since most critiques of the left from within the left tend to focus on political philosophy and end up being dead-ends in terms of solutions).

However, the article seems a little confused. I don't think that all 'left organisations' or indeed 'militancy' are really a legitimate target for the type of critique the article is purporting to make. A plurality of left organisations abound and a critique of one (albeit dominant) subset of left organisation shouldn't, logically, lead to the conclusion that all left organisations should be smashed. The beauty of the plurality of left organisations that abound is that in genuinely revolutionary situations, the most relevant, strongest organisations will win out and the likes of the SWP will die a long overdue death. That is no problem.

Rather, I think that we need to expand on the organisational critique that the article expedites so vaguely. One of the greatest problems to leftist re-organisation (i.e. of existing comrades and already-active leftists) is that many good activists are still suffocated by outdated, Bolshevik-inspired forms of organisation. This is a strange phenomenon, since one should not expect to be able to take the organisational form of a political party of 100 years ago that wielded state power and expect it to work in another part of the world in a political party that wields no state power. Thus, we have to continue to explore new organisational forms; progress has been made in the 2010s, with Occupy and its offshoots, post-anarchism, democratic federalism in Rojava and a spate of political campaigns that have originated outside existing leftist structure (the one that springs to mind for me is the 'E15 Estate' campaign here in London). However, I think it is essential that we endeavour further to engage existing leftists in new organisational forms, if not only to free us all, on the left, from the staleness and bureaucracy of the lecherous 'vanguard' organisational form that clearly only leads us down a dead-end.

[John Nada]

]The edit/delete function(or my soporified mind;)) ate up my comment:(. I was going to re-type it but fuck.
this is kind of like writing a review of a movie after seeing the first five minutes and maybe the teaser trailer. like your response style, which takes each sentence out of context and ignores what it doesn't feel like addressing, your post has taken the introduction out of context of the material itself and ignored the substance it then claims is lacking. not only does this describe your posting style but it actually describes perfectly what is being criticized - that which ignores the context of reality and which seeks to control and subsume the workers movement to a hierarchical organization rather than foster it from within as equals. you act not in the interests of the workers, but your own, while claiming to be acting in the interests of the workers. you will always be detached from any real movement of the working class to seize power for itself, because you don't want to be workers, and therefore you will always be in opposition to us. the control of the government over the councils set up by the workers themselves is exactly what killed the revolution in russia - the worshippers of power and control like yourself are the counter-revolution dressed up in the suits of revolutionaries; just like the modern-day russian "communists" who most of us here will at least admit are actually reactionaries wearing the hammer and sickle and claiming to represent freedom from the very bureaucracy they can't envision a world without.Thought the capital C "Communist" Parties are dominated by Dengist revisionist, I'm sure there's still "true" socialist in Russia.
By wanting to take on the role of revolutionaries as something separate from the working class, you're creating a division by definition between yourselves and the working class. WE ARE NOT THE DICTATORS IF WE ARE BEING LED OR IF OTHER ORGANIZED GROUPS HAVE POWER OVER US.[quote] [quote=Bureaucracy]Organisations of militants are all hierarchical. Some organisations not only don't hide this fact, but pride themselves on it. Others are content to talk about it as little as possible. Finally some small groups try to deny it altogether.

In the same way that they reproduce, or rather ape work, militant organisations have a need for « bosses ». Unable to build their unity starting from their concrete problems, militants are naturally led to believe that the unification of decisions can only result from the existence of a leadership. They don't imagine that a common truth can emerge from particular wills, or as they see it, can come out of the shit, instead it must be weighed and imposed from on high. So by necessity they represent revolution as a clash between two hierarchical state apparatuses, one bourgeois, the other proletarian.
Forced to take account of the increasingly widespread contempt for any form of authority, militancy has produced offshoots of a new kind. Some organisations claim not to be organisations, and in particular conceal their leadership. The bureaucrats hide themselves all the better to pull the strings.

Some traditional organisations try to set up parallel forms of organisation, some permanent, some not. They hope in the name of « proletarian autonomy », to co-opt or at least to influence people who otherwise would have escaped them.

One could mention Secours Rouge, the O.J.T.R. and the Assemblées Ouvriers Paysans du PSU... [7] In the same way, some independent newspapers or satellite organisations claim only to express the point of view of the revolutionary masses, or of the autonomous rank and file groups. For example, « Cahiers de Mai » [8], « Le technique en Lutte », « L'outil des travailleurs »... Wherever people refuse to clearly raise questions of organisation or theory, on the pretext that the hour for the construction of the revolutionary party has not yet arrived, or in the name of a bogus spontaneism ( « we are not an organisation, but a gathering of nice guys, a community » etc. etc. ), one can be certain that there is a bureaucracy and quite often that one is dealing with maoism. The advantage of trotskyism is that its fetishism of the organisation forces it to display its true colours; it co-opts while saying that is what it's doing. The advantage of maoism ( we're not speaking here of pure, archeo-stalinist maoism of the Humanité Rouge variety [9] ) is that it creates the conditions for its own supercession; playing at being acrobats of co-option they will certainly tumble to the ground.It's talking about how millitants reproduce capitalist relations in their own groups. The group is a company. The ideology is a brand. There's a division of labor. The pamphlets and newspapers are commodities. It's all part of a spectacle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectacle_%28critical_theory%29).

Which the bookstore that produced this work, Militancy, was not immune. Later this bookstore's name was recuperated by an ex-member peddling shit that supports Holocaust denial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Vieille_Taupe What a cruel fucking joke!:glare:
I sympathise with the intentions of the article - to critique the organisation of modern day Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, and Maoist leftist organisations (it seems to focus on their organisational form rather than their politics, which is welcome since most critiques of the left from within the left tend to focus on political philosophy and end up being dead-ends in terms of solutions).It is not just a problem with Leninist-type orgs, but even "horizontal" orgs too. The op's link mentions that the "bureaucracy" even permeates the "spontaneous" "leaderless" ones too.
However, the article seems a little confused. I don't think that all 'left organisations' or indeed 'militancy' are really a legitimate target for the type of critique the article is purporting to make. A plurality of left organisations abound and a critique of one (albeit dominant) subset of left organisation shouldn't, logically, lead to the conclusion that all left organisations should be smashed. The beauty of the plurality of left organisations that abound is that in genuinely revolutionary situations, the most relevant, strongest organisations will win out and the likes of the SWP will die a long overdue death. That is no problem.This is part of the criticism! Those leftist orgs competing against each other till the strongest rises to the top, is not unlike capitalist's logic of the "free market" competition leading to the best company capturing the the largest share of customers.:lol: If it were true with revolutionary politics, the SWP would've "gone out of business" a long time ago.
Rather, I think that we need to expand on the organisational critique that the article expedites so vaguely. One of the greatest problems to leftist re-organisation (i.e. of existing comrades and already-active leftists) is that many good activists are still suffocated by outdated, Bolshevik-inspired forms of organisation. This is a strange phenomenon, since one should not expect to be able to take the organisational form of a political party of 100 years ago that wielded state power and expect it to work in another part of the world in a political party that wields no state power. Thus, we have to continue to explore new organisational forms; progress has been made in the 2010s, with Occupy and its offshoots, post-anarchism, democratic federalism in Rojava and a spate of political campaigns that have originated outside existing leftist structure (the one that springs to mind for me is the 'E15 Estate' campaign here in London). However, I think it is essential that we endeavour further to engage existing leftists in new organisational forms, if not only to free us all, on the left, from the staleness and bureaucracy of the lecherous 'vanguard' organisational form that clearly only leads us down a dead-end.Re-organization? How can one re-organize that which was never organized in the first place. I'm sorry, but in the case of the US(and from what I gather, Britain) just organizing is "what is to be done". Most, vanguard or not, seems to have the theory that an asteroid will hit earth and the masses will spontaneously(spontaneity is a myth IMO) rally behind them, and not rightists, for some strange reason.

Age doesn't indicated how good or bad a strategy is. The "party of a new type" was built for guerrilla warfare. And it's has proven to work great for that, just not in the first-world. That it became a vehicle for tailing reformists and selling newspapers is a problem. Though Rojava is an interesting development in another type of organizing.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Juan Moreno;2829814]
It is not just a problem with Leninist-type orgs, but even "horizontal" orgs too. The op's link mentions that the "bureaucracy" even permeates the "spontaneous" "leaderless" ones too.

Bureaucracy is administration through hierarchical authority, right? So either it makes no sense to accuse leaderless organisations of bureaucracy, or we must acknowledge that some level of bureaucracy is inherent in any organisational form. Formal structures simply require bureaucracy in the form of notes, minutes, pay checks, paper and electronic copy, emails etc.

The key is the type of bureaucracy, or administration. Ideally, administration should be visible to as many people in and out of the organisation as possible, should not be the closed task of a select few in the organisation, and should be conducted in as simple and clear a way as possible as to avoid exclusivity (for example, by avoiding pointless jargon, acronyms, and pointlessly long e-mails and letters).

However, I would argue that the problem of bureaucracy is inherent to any organisational form - leftist or not, political or not. I work in a school and we have the same sorts of problems. So i'm not really sure how a critique of bureaucracy is a critique of far left organisations, since they are only as guilty of this as any other organisational form of any kind.



This is part of the criticism! Those leftist orgs competing against each other till the strongest rises to the top, is not unlike capitalist's logic of the "free market" competition leading to the best company capturing the the largest share of customers.:lol: If it were true with revolutionary politics, the SWP would've "gone out of business" a long time ago.

I completely agree. It's a very sad state of affairs and, in the UK at least, my experience has been of a very insular far-left. Having said that...


Re-organization? How can one re-organize that which was never organized in the first place. I'm sorry, but in the case of the US(and from what I gather, Britain) just organizing is "what is to be done". Most, vanguard or not, seems to have the theory that an asteroid will hit earth and the masses will spontaneously(spontaneity is a myth IMO) rally behind them, and not rightists, for some strange reason.

...whilst the far left in the UK for example suffers from a horrible twin case of insularity and insignificance, you cannot simply disappear away an entire movement. Movements are not simply organisational structures but, essentially, people. We may only see the people we consider undesirable (for example the Central Committee of the SWP - by all accounts a discredited bunch), but this masks many activists within far-left organisations who are politically educated members of the working class and committed to socialist politics, or some warped form of it. Even in the UK, where the far left is decimated and dying, the number of communist activists swarming around must be in the tens of thousands I would have thought, perhaps more if you include 'un-involved' workers with communist sympathies. You cannot simply make all of these people disappear and start again. They (we!) require a re-organisation that improves upon the current organisational forms taken, and improves upon the out-dated politics that many far-left parties still cling to.

The idea that you can just start a movement completely afresh is really just a philosophical extension of the Trotskyists' calls for a 'new vanguard party'. Why would this new 'organisation' of the left be any better than what we currently have?

[John Nada]

Bureaucracy is administration through hierarchical authority, right? So either it makes no sense to accuse leaderless organisations of bureaucracy, or we must acknowledge that some level of bureaucracy is inherent in any organisational form. Formal structures simply require bureaucracy in the form of notes, minutes, pay checks, paper and electronic copy, emails etc.I was referring to this: https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143714/http://geocities.com/~johngray/mili006.htm . Often even an officially spontaneous leaderless horizontal movement can have leaders and ruling cliques obscured by an egalitarian ideology that claims to be non-dogmatic but is very much a doctrine. Some are more honest than others about this.

I remember reading somewhere an essay about the problems of "leaderless" movements that have a hidden hierarchy. Does anyone know what I'm referring to?
The key is the type of bureaucracy, or administration. Ideally, administration should be visible to as many people in and out of the organisation as possible, should not be the closed task of a select few in the organisation, and should be conducted in as simple and clear a way as possible as to avoid exclusivity (for example, by avoiding pointless jargon, acronyms, and pointlessly long e-mails and letters).For a legalist public mass movement, these might be good ideas. However, under certain circumstances, this stuff isn't possible.
However, I would argue that the problem of bureaucracy is inherent to any organisational form - leftist or not, political or not. I work in a school and we have the same sorts of problems. So i'm not really sure how a critique of bureaucracy is a critique of far left organisations, since they are only as guilty of this as any other organisational form of any kind.That's pretty much what the op's link says in a situationist kind of way: https://web.archive.org/web/20091028143714/http://geocities.com/~johngray/mili006.htm
I completely agree. It's a very sad state of affairs and, in the UK at least, my experience has been of a very insular far-left. Having said that...
...whilst the far left in the UK for example suffers from a horrible twin case of insularity and insignificance, you cannot simply disappear away an entire movement. Movements are not simply organisational structures but, essentially, people. We may only see the people we consider undesirable (for example the Central Committee of the SWP - by all accounts a discredited bunch), but this masks many activists within far-left organisations who are politically educated members of the working class and committed to socialist politics, or some warped form of it. Even in the UK, where the far left is decimated and dying, the number of communist activists swarming around must be in the tens of thousands I would have thought, perhaps more if you include 'un-involved' workers with communist sympathies. You cannot simply make all of these people disappear and start again. They (we!) require a re-organisation that improves upon the current organisational forms taken, and improves upon the out-dated politics that many far-left parties still cling to.

The idea that you can just start a movement completely afresh is really just a philosophical extension of the Trotskyists' calls for a 'new vanguard party'. Why would this new 'organisation' of the left be any better than what we currently have?Honestly, does anyone think any of the current parties with the current ruling cliques are somehow going to reach a critical mass in the future large enough to challenge the state? Will the RCPUSA, SAlt, FRSO, PSL, CPUSA, ect. become the "vanguard of the proletariat"? Likely no.

Nevertheless, liquidationism is for fools. No to this "kill the left to save it" bullshit! There's people doing good work now. There's many possible comrades or even fellow travelers out there. There is decent would-be cadre out there, even if they're just kids now. What I want is some people to qualitatively supersede the current left. I would love nothing more than the young ones today, perhaps kids, to outgrow and outdo the current left. For them to look down at us in the future like the Russian Narodniks or the Chinese Anarchists. To rise up above and spit after mentioning our names like the Bolsheviks did with the Plekhanovs and Kautskys.

[consuming negativity]

if hierarchy is inevitable in all organizations and you are trying to eliminate hierarchy but refuse to stop organizing people into a "party" or "movement" you missed the point of the op entirely. the working class is not stupid. I am not stupid. help by stop trying to help because it is doing the exact opposite of what you think it will. you are the one who is not conscious precisely because you believe hierarchy is necessary even to eliminate hierarchy

e: now that i'm not on a phone i want to clarify that the last sentence there isn't meant to be a dichotomy between you personally and me personally but rather between the working class and the persons being criticized by the article (which actually, basically, is everybody to some extent)

[John Nada]

if hierarchy is inevitable in all organizations and you are trying to eliminate hierarchy but refuse to stop organizing people into a "party" or "movement" you missed the point of the op entirely. the working class is not stupid. I am not stupid. help by stop trying to help because it is doing the exact opposite of what you think it will. you are the one who is not conscious precisely because you believe hierarchy is necessary even to eliminate hierarchyIs the "you" and "one" me, 2nd person, or any reader of that post? Using reply and quote is annoying with long posts(that often have grammar errors), so sometimes I just type^ to indicate a reply to the above post, but even then the post can get ninja'ed(which can be awkward). I'll just reply as if it's towards me.:)

I think I have a good idea what the text in question, Militancy:The Highest Stage of Alienation, is trying to convey. I'm less certain on what your(communer) personal point is. I think your position is a different one than the text you linked to(though still relevant to your position). Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that doing anything with some semblance of a party, movement, organization ect., results in separation and domination of said members of whatever does this shit, from and over the working class and oppressed people. If so, than even the Zapatistas, the Ukrainian Free territory, Rojava, Anarchist Catalonia, or the Paris Commune can't live up to that standard.

The idea that the working class is inherently good, smart, revolutionary, or always does what's best for ourselves(I'm proletarian too, or precarian if that's somehow a separate class, lumpenproletarian if that's defined as the very bottom of/below the proletariat) is essentialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism). That I'm proletarian, non-revolutionary(let's be honest, there's no serious effort at replacing capitalism in the US at the moment) and stupid, fortunately does not make the global working class the same.:lol: This proletarian essentialism turns a possible revolutionary subject into a niche market. The notion that the working class, by virtue of it's revolutionary essence, necessitates a "hands off" approach to fulfill their(our) mission, is similar in essence to the bourgeoisie's notion that a laizzez-farie market leaves them to best fulfill their "progressive" mission for the "consumer"(a term that lumps the exploiter with the exploited, so long as they both buy shit). Yet a laizzez-farie approach is what's killing the planet.

The thought that leaving these consumers(aka the proletariat market) to decide for herself/himself what commodity(called "revolutionary ideologies") to buy, is the equivalent of a laissez-faire marketplace of the Idea. Capitalist individualism is the default that is upset by militants(as well as frustrates the militants themselves). The socialist is a threat to this "natural" equilibrium. The "marketplace" adapts to this emerging "market" of radicalism. We, in turn, still internalizing the spectacle of capitalism, which permeates all.

The proletariat and oppressed masses merely becomes a target market (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_market), with the organization of militants cogs in the division of labor within the oppressed masses and under capitalism. Rather than lead(not rule), they make and sell the subjective commodities of escaping the cycle of commodities. Proselytizing a bag of opiates not yet for the masses.

To get back to the relevant text:
These questions of action and organisation, already separated from the real movement, are then mechanically separated from one another. The various tendencies of leftism concretise this separation. On one side we find the Maoists and the former Gauche Proletarienne [5], the pole of action, and on the other we find the trotskyists and the Ligue Communiste [6], the pole of organisation. In order to leave the dead end, which militancy is plunged into by separating from the masses, they either fetishise action or else fetishise organisation. Each protects its particular idiocy while mocking the orientation of rival groups.There's a similar concept to this in Maoism(or more accurately Mao Zedong thought), which was influential on the left during the 60's and 70's. Here the labels "Maoism" and "Trotskyism" aren't literally about those proper tendencies per se. Often the reverse is true(it's not about Maoism or Trotskyism). What "Maoism" represents is what's called "left" opportunism; all about action and the struggle, no attention to uniting and organizing. "Trotskyism" represents "right" opportunism; focusing just on uniting and organizing, but not doing anything. What is it called when there's neither uniting and organizing, nor struggle and action? Centrist opportunism?:lol:


Rulers are not inevitable. Leaders will arise. Rulers are there by decree; it is a static role. Leaders earn their position. People who know what the fuck they're talking about will arise no matter what. I have no problem with someone leading over me when it comes to something like, say, medicine or engineering(though this division is likely a construct of current capitalist society). Helping fellow workers and oppressed people learn about socialism, and helping people fight it is not separating oneself from the people.

[consuming negativity]

Is the "you" and "one" me, 2nd person, or any reader of that post?

i'll address this really quick before i head off to bed, but check out the edit i made. i was going to make it before you replied but i was at work at the time on my phone. i didn't like the way i worded it at the time but i wasn't able to go back and fix it. if that changes your reply at all, let me know. sorry for the confusion

[John Nada]

e: now that i'm not on a phone i want to clarify that the last sentence there isn't meant to be a dichotomy between you personally and me personally but rather between the working class and the persons being criticized by the article (which actually, basically, is everybody to some extent)
i'll address this really quick before i head off to bed, but check out the edit i made. i was going to make it before you replied but i was at work at the time on my phone. i didn't like the way i worded it at the time but i wasn't able to go back and fix it. if that changes your reply at all, let me know. sorry for the confusionIt's all good. I fuck up how I word shit all the time, online and IRL.:) I didn't take it personally, though there's some self-criticisms that could be beneficial for many. My reply was both a response to that post, and to discuss this thread's topic in general. For you and anyone else who's reading, possibly to learn. Not so much a debate(I suck at that, lose my temper too easily:o), but a dialogue, for anyone interested.

[thebishop]

It doesn't seem right to apply this to "Marxists". There are marxists on all sides of the issue.