So what exactly is going on here?

[ComradeOm]

There were six active threads yesterday. The History forum was last active six days ago, Theory five days ago. There have been three active threads in Learning in the past week; five in Politics.

Seriously, what did you guys do to get the forums to this state in a matter of months? Was there another purge? Or is this the (foreseeable) result of cumulative decisions over years? Is there a whole load of stuff hidden from me? Because otherwise it looks like someone has managed to turn this place into a ghost town. Home of the Revolutionary Left? That's just embarrassing now.

So what did I miss? And what's the plan for fixing it?

[Hermes]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/194980-daesh-and-sparticists

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/194996-policy-endorsement-daesh

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/194968-Admin-Actions-VI?p=2864295#post2864295

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/194968-Admin-Actions-VI?p=2864297#post2864297

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c1XLvEHQB9IJ:http://www.revleft.com/vb/critical-support-t195492/index4.html%3Fp%3D2870977+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Lots of those who were banned still haven't been listed in the Admin Actions thread, though.

[ComradeAllende]

Funny thing is that I wasn't banned, even though I switched my signature (or whatever the thing below the username is) to "Spartacist". I think I wasn't banned because I didn't have any official ties or affiliation with any Spartacist group, but I was temporarily restricted from posting comments on just about every forum on RevLeft, so I think they "pardoned" me.

Just for the record, I'm not a Spartacist. Not even a Leninist, really. But seriously; we've had Maoists and tankies on this forum before. I think we can deal with a few misguided Trotskyites.

[ComradeOm]

Well. Talk about history as farce. The BA couldn't have claimed that ISIS support was unacceptable for legal/security reasons or simply presented a fiat or had a debate. Instead it just had to be fascism. People had to be banned for an ideologically acceptable reason, as if this was Moscow 1937. And done so clumsily* so as to make Ismail's report on fascist infiltration (remember that?) seem well thought-out.

I guess it's true that the BA has gotten pretty good at 'handling massive purges'. They're just not very good at rebuilding the site afterwards (and would probably even deny the need for this).

This time though it looks like they're starting to reach rock bottom. A cursory comparison shows that this place is as active as some of the boards that have split in the past. I don't suppose there's been any signs of self-awareness from the BA since the purge? Any acceptance that things are not okay outside of their cosy subforum?

* If CyM's defence of 'ISIS = fascism' seems poor and badly thought out, it's is probably because the position is grossly reductionist and betrays a deep ignorance of both movements. It ain't clever.

[Counterculturalist]

It also bears mentioning that almost everybody in that cached "critical support" thread - as well as some others who weren't involved at all- was banned, allegedly for "bullying".

For pretty much everybody else - myself included - that was the last straw.

[Atsumari]

I do not think the BA realizes how ridiculous they look and it really shows that even those who have the best of intentions with cracking down on rather horrid ideologies such as tankies defending the fascist state of Novorossiya and Trots defending ISIS, they went so fucking overboard with banning other members who we don't exactly agree with, but are nonetheless respectable. If this is how a political forum degenerates in ten years, I just wonder what would happen if real political power was achieved by those in charge of this forum.

But yeah, I used to respect most of the BA, but all of them deserve a huge fuck you at this point.

[Cliff Paul]

I'm still bitter they banned Bixx. Why you have to ban Bixx?

[Hit The North]

Don't you guys wonder whether you're just talking to yourselves? When was the last time anyone saw a member of the BA around these parts? Maybe they've gone deep-cover in preparation for the coming conflagration?

But, seriously, I've been a member of this forum since 2006 and I don 't ever remember it being remotely this quiet. I can't believe its the result of another purge. Unless the BA has accidentally purged itself :rolleyes:.



https://youtu.be/RZ2oXzrnti4

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I'm only here for the Rafiq big post.

[Atsumari]

His posts really show isolation and a lack of human understanding+interaction, but maybe we should take his advice and actually go out more?

[Rafiq]

I'm only here for the Rafiq big post.

Not to discourage active participation on the forum, but for the record I'll only be able to link it. I've discussed it with the admins and if I were to post it on Revleft, it would be at least 16 full length, maxed out posts.

The entire thing is going to be on my blog, and I've organized it and formatted it so it is far more easily readable.

My goal is to finish it by Sunday, at least. I do not have that much left, but you never know. Tonight and tomorrow I am going to try and put aside the entire day(s) to finish it. I just have been very busy.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I'll definitely be spending my Sunday afternoon checking out your blog.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Not looking good. I come around once in a while but there's just no activity to contribute to. I'm not sure what the BA is thinking but this place is really getting boring. I don't know how you could destroy a place so swiftly. I don't think it's just the ISIL thing, though, things were pretty slow even before that.

[motion denied]

this shit is dead. admins killed it.

its over, face it

[L.A.P.]

The Syrian conflict, the subsequent refugee crisis, and the Sanders/Trump campaigns have seriously imploded the radical Left, and the the status of this forum reflects it.

[ckaihatsu]

The Syrian conflict, the subsequent refugee crisis, and the Sanders/Trump campaigns have seriously imploded the radical Left, and the the status of this forum reflects it.


This is an astute assessment, and goes to show that the radical camp is always going to be defined in relation to the (U.S.) nation-state / nationalism, and primarily to *domestic* issues. It's incapable of providing a sensible, definitive policy position in the international geopolitical arena -- as regarding Syria, and ISIS -- due to its inescapable orientation towards domestic national interests.

(Specifically, the radical left couldn't stand to tolerate Assad, though the implication of an anti-Assad stance is to side with national / imperialist interventionism against Syria. Regarding ISIS the radical position has been a generic 'anti-war' stance, even though the Syrian-Russian military alliance has been effective at combating the nascent fundamentalist Islamic State.)


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism



http://s6.postimg.org/3si9so4xd/110211_Ideologies_Operations_Left_Centrifug.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zc8b2rb3h/full/)


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals



http://s6.postimg.org/6omx9zh81/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cpkm723u5/full/)

[Cliff Paul]

I'd be curious if someone had the stats for other political forums of note over time (democratic underground, stormy, etc.), because I don't think the forum purges alone explains the lack of new users. On most forum boards, I've found that people seem to prefer shitty one-liners and non-substantive discussion - both of which are a better fit for a place like reddit than a traditional forum setup.

What if we're seeing a decline in forums as a medium? What if the future of internet discussion is in comment threads? Is anyone else terrified at that thought?

[Rafiq]

The Syrian conflict, the subsequent refugee crisis, and the Sanders/Trump campaigns have seriously imploded the radical Left, and the the status of this forum reflects it.

That radical Left was just waiting to die. And we are better off with its death.

[Antiochus]

I think I can provide a bit of insight into Cliff's question. I am part of a forum devoted to a relatively obscure (as in, a few hundred players) online strategy game. The forum itself lists a total of 250 members, not all of which are active of course. This forum has existed since 2009 and it has always been more active than this forum is at the moment, despite the fact that this is an extremely narrow niche compared to 'Revolutionary politics' (at least, I hope). Some reasons for that (just an opinion):

1) Obviously the ban hammer is in the hands of trigger happy people. But people have been banned in that forum as well, often times on whims.
2) The people in that forum usually have a say in how the forum is run (i.e the vote on most rules and so forth)

Most importantly I think its because this board, and most boards, are deeply impersonal. After all, what makes someone return to a forum? Believe me, the problem with this forum isn't "hostility", because the things said here by people like Rafiq who are strongly criticized for it absolutely pale in comparison to the things said there, with people openly telling the other that they should have been aborted with a coat hanger. The point is if the forum wants more activity there needs to be an honest introspection on the rules that govern the board and how it is run. Obviously that is up to the admins to decide, just some advice.

[Shinyos]

What if we're seeing a decline in forums as a medium? What if the future of internet discussion is in comment threads? Is anyone else terrified at that thought?

Internet forums have always been putrid cesspits, most people simply don't really care about the content of the forum as long as they feel as though as they're getting something out of it. It's not as though as Reddit or any other website has a 'better' way of communicating something that is substantial, and if it does, it's because they want to encourage an actual productive atmosphere. Most people who actually are on active websites have some sort of seniority and/or favored by the staff, and any newcomers that aren't apart of that circle are either heavily mocked or banned.

[RedAnarchist]

You should also remember that we've temporarily suspended new user registration, which will have a detrimental effect on activity

[Alan OldStudent]

You should also remember that we've temporarily suspended new user registration, which will have a detrimental effect on activity
I hadn't realized that. What's the reason?

[RedAnarchist]

I hadn't realized that. What's the reason?

Mainly whilst we sorted out bugs caused by the forum upgrade.

[Luís Henrique]

This is an astute assessment, and goes to show that the radical camp is always going to be defined in relation to the (U.S.) nation-state / nationalism, and primarily to *domestic* issues. It's incapable of providing a sensible, definitive policy position in the international geopolitical arena -- as regarding Syria, and ISIS -- due to its inescapable orientation towards domestic national interests.

Mmwell, the anglo-centrism of revleft has always been a problem. It is nothing new. But I don't see how it would cause a massive abstention from posting in a board that is majoritarily anglo. On other news, things aren't messy just in the US and their prospective Trumpocracy, or in the UK and its possible (probable?) withdrawal from the EU. I for instance have to deal with the iminent impeachment of a president, which takes some of my time and - to quote Marx - nerve and muscle.

But just like the Brazilian political situation, this is a journée des dupes if there is one. Like the second biggest "democracy" of the Americas is impeaching probably the only honest people in the mess, and is doing so by the vote of well documented gangsters, we are here suffering for the bans of idiotic trolls like BIXX, massive misogynistic arseholes like TAT/TFU, and cultists like the "sparts". It is funny, or it would be funny if it wasn't such a pity, that people get so riled over procedure, while content is ignored. Yes, there were massive miscarriages of procedure in this episode, or these episodes. The way that it was somehow decided that expressing critical support for Daesh is akin to expressing support to fascism, the retroactive or quasi-retroactive way policy on that was implemented, the conflation of that issue with the quite different subject of pedophilia, the sudden elevation of Crux into an non-criticiseable subject, as if people had an obligation to be tracking his personal issues (which do evidently should be of concern), the lack of sence of timing (banning those people at a time when the software was being upgraded and it was known that posts would be lost, including those posts in the Admin Actions thread that explained the bans - that deserves a Nobel or an Oscar for Absolute Mis-timing of an Internet Ban), all this sums up as an outstandig mistake - and I mean it in the Wildean sence of something worse than a crime.

But let's keep some perspective. Those banned were, a. a bunch of supporters of an organisation that behaves against the remainder of the left in a quasi-fascist way, reminiscent of other left-to-right U-turns (LaRouchites, anyone?); b. a few non-leftists who claim to oppose capital but only because capital for some strange reason singles them "and their friends", and are unable to put up any coherent arguments, instead only repeating like a mantra, "this is not fun" and "this is not effective"; and c. a narcissist bully who has been alternately the most heavy-handed admin and the most disruptive non-admin in revleft's history. And then we see good posters leaving revleft in solidarity with them and going to revforum only to be abused and slandered by the people they were being solidary with first place (http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?3764-Ethics-and-social-practices&p=33153&viewfull=1#post33153).

Now, the question would be, is the reflux in revleft's activity caused by these recent events, or are they a result of cumulative administrative blunders? Or rather it is that the several problems of revleft (of Anglo-centrism, yes, but also of sexism, of widespread bullying - even organised bullying, etc.)? Is revleft an attractive environment for leftist newbies? Are we creating a place where people who are indignant about social and economic inequality, but don't understand the Labour Theory of Value, can get more informed? When someone comes first to revleft, what he or she sees, and is it something that makes them think, "cool, I want to be part of this", or "what a bunch of morons"?

I do not claim to have the answers, but I do know that more than once I seriously thought about not coming back anymore. And I have been a committed left for four decades, someone who has been able to remain committed through difficult times, through the neoliberal epidmics of madness, through Brazilian dictatorship, through the recent upheaval of sexists, racists, homophobes claiming they are the true oppressed, etc.

[Jacob Cliff]

And we are better off with its death.

Why are we "better off"?

[Rafiq]

Why are we "better off"?

Because 'that' radical left in question existed in a perpetual state of defeatism and hysterical infantilism in response to both the collapse of 'real existing socialism' as well as the international defeat of the working class at the outset of neoliberalism.

'That' radical left was the pre-2008, pre-Arab spring radical left (not to say these developments inevitably create a better one, but provide a new context for us, that the 'old left' can't live up to), which simply struggled to maintain the identity of being a radical left without a fundamental ability to own up to the recent political, social developments of our time - such as for example globalization, which many leftists to this day dismiss as not being a distinct epoch of capitalism.

We face the greatest threat to what can be generally called the enlightenment project today, more than at any point in history, and that includes the 1930's. And only a revitalized Left can stop this hell from unfolding. It doesn't help when the grand majority of Leftists deny it, and that all of this is just 'more of the same'. My god.

[Luís Henrique]

Now, the question would be, is the reflux in revleft's activity caused by these recent events, or are they a result of cumulative administrative blunders? Or rather it is that the several problems of revleft (of Anglo-centrism, yes, but also of sexism, of widespread bullying - even organised bullying, etc.)?

Or, perhaps, and this is a quite indicting question, revleft was so populous and busy because it provided good, high quality, old fashioned internet drama at a low price?

Luís Henrique

[Konikow]

After eight years of Democrat Obama, the Obama Socialists (they call themselves Revolutionary Leftists) have reached their Mission Accomplished moment. They have fully reconciled themselves with U.S. imperialist war.

Feel the Bern!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

After eight years of Democrat Obama, the Obama Socialists (they call themselves Revolutionary Leftists) have reached their Mission Accomplished moment. They have fully reconciled themselves with U.S. imperialist war.

Feel the Bern!
What are you even on about?

[TheIrrationalist]

What are you even on about?

just the usual daesh loving trot trying to communicate with other people.

[Sea]

regarding Om's OP:

We need an ombudsforum.

I should set up a group on here for people to ask questions and come up with stuff they want the BA to answer in an orderly fashion, so there won't be so many spammy threads in Tech Support copping an attitude.

I'll do that now actually. To anyone who wants to use it: Keep the verbiage equally polite as that used in pages posted by the administrators!

edit: done and done!


Guidelines:

Don't make statements directed to an individual. Don't make descriptions of the character or ethics of individual users or the groups of users. Yes, that includes the people you don't like.

Instead, describe actions. If you can't cite some posts as evidence, or if the "evidence" relies on non-literal interpretation, state explicitly that your speculation is open-ended. I expect that most posts you (yes, you) make would have this disclaimer.

If you want to "stick it to the man" go do it somewhere stupid you can get the infraction you deserve. Revleft has been under troll attack before, so keep the mentality that stems from this in mind. Be empathetic.

This groups moderated. Committed users (blue people), apparatchiks (purple people), and Joseph Juniors (red people) are allowed. I'll change this later maybe, but I don't want a huge influx of freshly-wrist-slapped n00bs causing drama.

For the same reason you must be a member to view contents. Since collectivization the trolls are running out of food so we must not let them graze upon the innards of this group.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1349

as indicated, the powers that be are welcome, so don't be a cranky asshole :grin:


Because 'that' radical left in question existed in a perpetual state of defeatism and hysterical infantilism in response to both the collapse of 'real existing socialism' as well as the international defeat of the working class at the outset of neoliberalism.

'That' radical left was the pre-2008, pre-Arab spring radical left (not to say these developments inevitably create a better one, but provide a new context for us, that the 'old left' can't live up to), which simply struggled to maintain the identity of being a radical left without a fundamental ability to own up to the recent political, social developments of our time - such as for example globalization, which many leftists to this day dismiss as not being a distinct epoch of capitalism.

We face the greatest threat to what can be generally called the enlightenment project today, more than at any point in history, and that includes the 1930's. And only a revitalized Left can stop this hell from unfolding. It doesn't help when the grand majority of Leftists deny it, and that all of this is just 'more of the same'. My god.

Can you recommend a book that gives a broad overview of the neoliberal situation and its development? I know of David Havey's "brief history" and I've been thinking of ordering a copy. Pirated books suck without a proper e-reader!

I'm aware that Harvey's logic is often hand-wavey in some topics but I expect his overview of neoliberalism should be pretty good still. I mostly just want a more coherent historical narrative inside my head to put the bits and pieces I've learned and observed into context.

[Thirsty Crow]

Most importantly I think its because this board, and most boards, are deeply impersonal. After all, what makes someone return to a forum? Believe me, the problem with this forum isn't "hostility", because the things said here by people like Rafiq who are strongly criticized for it absolutely pale in comparison to the things said there, with people openly telling the other that they should have been aborted with a coat hanger. The point is if the forum wants more activity there needs to be an honest introspection on the rules that govern the board and how it is run. Obviously that is up to the admins to decide, just some advice.I can offer my own perspective.

The problem was intensely personal, and that was an admin team composed of a recently returned admin acting like jerks all the while invoking the ground rule number one - admin rules are one thing, but there is one person who owns this site.

They got a national sub-forum with no one to mod it now - not that anyone would want to log into this forum for that specific purpose, but still.

There was a time when this forum was an alright place for some discussion which was lively and reasonably populated with users. It's long gone, and probably never to return, save for those poor souls handing out money for fuck knows what purpose. Maybe that'll go towards advertising the boards or something.

[Sea]

I can offer my own perspective.

The problem was intensely personal, and that was an admin team composed of a recently returned admin acting like jerks all the while invoking the ground rule number one - admin rules are one thing, but there is one person who owns this site.

They got a national sub-forum with no one to mod it now - not that anyone would want to log into this forum for that specific purpose, but still.

There was a time when this forum was an alright place for some discussion which was lively and reasonably populated with users. It's long gone, and probably never to return, save for those poor souls handing out money for fuck knows what purpose. Maybe that'll go towards advertising the boards or something.I don't think the stuff Rafiq was going on about is irrational. The other user in question continuously spams Ongoing Struggles with threads that seldom get replies from anyone other than himself, and which have view counts that pale in comparison to those posted by other users. I've talked to him about this before, suggesting he keep all that stuff in one thread because it makes more popular threads slide off the first page. He indicated that he'd stop, but nothing has changed.

The allowance of this is strange in light of this post:


One last thing, we will spam trash any more threads on this in the tech support forum. We havent any more answers yet until we discuss it.

FYI, Spamming is also infraction worthy I might add.
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195515-Explainations-for-your-terrible-attempts-at-administration-Take-2)

Note the classic "We havent any more answers yet until we discuss it." cop-out. Isn't that what Richard J Daley said when the pigs started going hog wild? :grin: This is from the forum rules:


This Community is open to all leftists. Right-wingers are not welcome, but tolerated within the 'Opposing Ideologies' forum. Right-wing messages will be ignored or deleted in all other forums and the author will be banned. If you are a right-winger or convinced capitalist and can accept this rule, good. If not, fuck off and never come back!


(bolding mine)

Unless the author of this was so immature as to met out rudeness on the basis of someone's politics combined with their ability to follow a rule, then such language is clearly not a problem on this board. Furthermore it's not as if the level of intellectual discussion on this board is very high under the exclusion of righties from the main part of the forum. Heck, I'm still uneasy about Rooster being banned. For a long time they even censored out his name (replaced with asterisks) because people kept takling about it. Huh, I wonder why? I think a poll should be put up (if anyone still remembers it) as to whether the alleged (it was a video) rape joke was good justification. I have no problems with jokes about the holocaust or WWII in general (including nanking) and I ask that the reader doesn't make assumptions about whether or not I was contacted sexually without consent.

I don't think Luis Henrique did anything wrong saying that The Feral Underclass has a complex, yet simultaneously I was appalled that The Feral Underclass was banned right when I logged in just recently for the first time ina long fucking time. They put in a friend request to me and as far as I'm concerned I just lost a friend I never had the chance to have.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't think the stuff Rafiq was going on about is irrational. The other user in question continuously spams Ongoing Struggles with threads that seldom get replies from anyone other than himself, and which have view counts that pale in comparison to those posted by other users. I've talked to him about this before, suggesting he keep all that stuff in one thread because it makes more popular threads slide off the first page. He indicated that he'd stop, but nothing has changed.

I read Raf's post here just now. Neither of em is irrational, but I didn't say any of them were. I've no idea what does this mentioning of "the other user in question" mean, but maybe you were referring to Rafiq's mentioning of posting links to his blog? That's cool I suppose.

I think a good deal of the problems of this board is twofold. The first aspect has to do with the general moving-away from the message board format. The second is administration.

[Sea]

I read Raf's post here just now. Neither of em is irrational, but I didn't say any of them were. I've no idea what does this mentioning of "the other user in question" mean, but maybe you were referring to Rafiq's mentioning of posting links to his blog? That's cool I suppose.Nvm, I'm being a pansy with my words because I'm afraid cyber-harassment will be an excuse to get my name all up in the admin board for bringing up something that has been going on for a a while now. My posts in Rafiq's thread recently put this into context. Also hasn't Rafiq been a bulwark of anti-blogdom?


I'd love to see what goes on in the admin forum but they keep it souper secret! I think it's fair to ask that committed users be able to read the content. Don't you agree?

I think a good deal of the problems of this board is twofold. The first aspect has to do with the general moving-away from the message board format. The second is administration.I think it's mostly the second. Lots of luminaries have been banned for shitty reasons, and the administration doesn't get the message that banning people for non-issues does nothing to improve the quality of the forum and if that's not irony I don't know what is. Bans should be metted out as needed to keep the forum peaceful, not because of a set of rules on harassment or rape jokes or whatever. I'm not supporting making people uncomfortable and it would be better to have an environment without those things, but using these as rules is absurd and cannot be productive with a hypocritical administration.


#1 (http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/just-got-banned-revleft-19052012) Top (http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/just-got-banned-revleft-19052012#forum-topic-top)

http://libcom.org/files/pictures/picture-419278.png
Railyon





May 19 2012 20:38


Just got banned on RevLeft
...over questioning the attitude and behavior of one of their god complex Great Leaders.
Fucking kindergarten. Ah well, glad the trip into the deep end of the internet is over though it was kinda refreshing and I learned a thing or two, but the whole place is infested with tankies and piss-taking admins, it's like a fucking minefield.
I don't even know the exact reason I was banned, last post I made was calling out an admin over her stupid BS. OH GOD THE ANARCHISTS ARE ON THE LOOSE SOMEONE REVIVE STALIN



This thread on libcom has some context and it's far from the only one. Revleft's trigger-happy administration is a subject even on other forums:
http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/just-got-banned-revleft-19052012

#4 (http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/just-got-banned-revleft-19052012#comment-482115) Top (http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/just-got-banned-revleft-19052012#forum-topic-top)

http://libcom.org/files/pictures/picture-901633.gif
Vox Populi





May 19 2012 23:52


From what I understand, RedAnarchist gave some bullshit reason of "oh, he was leaving anyway, so I made it easier on him, hardy fucking har," which is simply ridiculous. I believe Haust had to actually PM him/her and was like wtf? To even get your so long blog back.
Anyways, just another way to kill the fun.




Yeah it's from 2012 but with the news this week we hardly need any more reminders that pigs will be pigs. Same stupid mentality. Luckily pigging out over a forum just makes it laughable instead of deadly.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'd love to see what goes on in the admin forum but they keep it souper secret! I think it's fair to ask that committed users be able to read the content. Don't you agree?

To be honest, I don't give a rat's ass. They could ban anyone except for themselves for all I care. It's not like I'm here regularly, and all for the better.

[Sea]

To be honest, I don't give a rat's ass. They could ban anyone except for themselves for all I care. It's not like I'm here regularly, and all for the better.No need to be aggro, comrade. I'm not one of the admins!

[The Intransigent Faction]

What I'd like to know is, where are all these former/inactive members, or "RevLeftugees", going? Soviet-Empire? Libcom? Reddit? Distributing leaflets for irrelevant parties? Abandoned factories? Purgatory?

[ckaihatsu]

What I'd like to know is, where are all these former/inactive members, or "RevLeftugees", going? Soviet-Empire? Libcom? Reddit? Distributing leaflets for irrelevant parties? Abandoned factories? Purgatory?


Yeah, let's just move RevLeft to an abandoned factory -- finally revolutionary politics and lifestyle politics become one.


= )

[Wessex Way Monster]

I'm still bitter they banned Bixx. Why you have to ban Bixx?

BIXX watches over us all.

[The Intransigent Faction]

BIXX watches over us all.

So...he's working for the NSA? D:

[John Nada]

What I'd like to know is, where are all these former/inactive members, or "RevLeftugees", going? Soviet-Empire? Libcom? Reddit? Distributing leaflets for irrelevant parties? Abandoned factories? Purgatory?Isn't the purgatory part redundant?:)

BIXX watches over us all.So...he's working for the NSA? D: Rather odd career choice, considering their anti-civilization ideology.:) Guess there's no point in lifestylism until the end of civilization, which is closely approaching.:unsure:

[Yazman]

WTF happened to this place? I decided to come check it out since I wanted to see what people here were saying about Syria, only to be greeted with, well... basically nothing at all. I haven't been a regular here since ~2013-2014 or so, and in that time have maybe come once or twice a year. This is my first time visiting the site in 2016 and I'm quite frankly shocked at how dead it is. Even in Politics it's hard to find active discussion and that was one of like, the top 3 active boards on the site for as long as I can remember. WTF?

Revleft has been through a lot over the years but I've never seen it like this. I mean, Chit Chat has no active threads in the last month. What the fuck? Chit Chat used to be HUGE.

[Blake's Baby]

Hey Yazzman, good to see you.

First, the 'old site' seems to have been erased from history. Stickies and group posts older than the beginning of this year are still around but 'normal' threads only seem to date back to about June or something.

Then there was a purge of some Spart-supporters, which if it wasn't actually engineered by the BA as entrapment may as well have been. After the purge, a lot of people just decided that enough was enough and stopped coming.

That leaves you with what you see - a rump site about 1/50 as big as it was and with only a trickle of traffic.

Unfortunately, the ratio of shit to gold is about what it was, as many of the best posters have either been banned or left in disgust. 'Better smaller but better' doesn't work in this regard I'm afraid.

[Yazman]

Thanks for the explanation. The most insane part is when I saw a spam thread in Politics that had just been there for a week or so. WTF?

Where did everyone go? Reddit? Revforum? Libcom?

[willowtooth]

Hey Yazzman, good to see you.

First, the 'old site' seems to have been erased from history. Stickies and group posts older than the beginning of this year are still around but 'normal' threads only seem to date back to about June or something.

Then there was a purge of some Spart-supporters, which if it wasn't actually engineered by the BA as entrapment may as well have been. After the purge, a lot of people just decided that enough was enough and stopped coming.

That leaves you with what you see - a rump site about 1/50 as big as it was and with only a trickle of traffic.

Unfortunately, the ratio of shit to gold is about what it was, as many of the best posters have either been banned or left in disgust. 'Better smaller but better' doesn't work in this regard I'm afraid.

The old threads are still there you just have to search for them. I guess they get deleted from the main forum and get sent to the archives after awhile if nobody responds to them. Unless of course somebody makes it a sticky. i'm not sure why though

[Blake's Baby]

I've searched for an awful lot of things that I've posted here that don't show up in 'search' any more. If they still exist I'd like to see where.

But now I think of it, a little while ago I did find a post from before this year so maybe it is still possible. It's certainly not easily-accessible though.

[willowtooth]

I've searched for an awful lot of things that I've posted here that don't show up in 'search' any more. If they still exist I'd like to see where.

But now I think of it, a little while ago I did find a post from before this year so maybe it is still possible. It's certainly not easily-accessible though.
well was this your oldest thread? Its was made about a year after you joined. But that's what shows up if you click on latest started threads, on the main site http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/134901-Why-does-Revleft-keep-logging-me-out

The rest is probably in here
http://www.revleft.com/vb/archive/index.php

I'm guessing this was done to save money, I dont think the people who were banned donated that much per month, but the guys who all sort of left in formal protest took their monthly donations with them. Now that its just the 10 of us the owners must be paying for like 90% everything. Who are these admins and owners anyway?

[Blake's Baby]

Thanks willowtooth. It looks like that is indeed the 'full' RevLeft.

Not sure if that is my first post but it's pretty early.

[almost]

Where did everyone go? Reddit? Revforum? Libcom? nobody made it out

[ckaihatsu]

nobody made it out


= D


---





If you die on RevLeft you also die in real life.


= D


x D


The role of leadership

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/194762-The-role-of-leadership

[willowtooth]

= D


---





The role of leadership

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/194762-The-role-of-leadership

buddy what the hell happened like 90% of revleft is gone and your like the only real guy left, so wtf happened? Can you just sum it up for us?

[ckaihatsu]

buddy what the hell happened like 90% of revleft is gone and your like the only real guy left, so wtf happened? Can you just sum it up for us?


It had something to do with a meteorite crashing to earth or something....


= )


No, really, I just happen to be able to allocate a fair amount of time to being here -- and I tightened-up my understanding and wording-ability over this stuff, thanks to RevLeft. I can't speak for the rest of it.

[willowtooth]

It had something to do with a meteorite crashing to earth or something....


= )


No, really, I just happen to be able to allocate a fair amount of time to being here -- and I tightened-up my understanding and wording-ability over this stuff, thanks to RevLeft. I can't speak for the rest of it.
how about we ban an administrator as a sign to all the revleftugees that we've changed? lol its just feels so unnecessary

[ckaihatsu]

how about we ban an administrator as a sign to all the revleftugees that we've changed?


It always comes down to human sacrifice, eh -- ?


The Wicker Man (1973)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070917/


The Wicker Man (2006)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450345/


---





lol its just feels so unnecessary


What does?

[willowtooth]

It always comes down to human sacrifice, eh -- ?


The Wicker Man (1973)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070917/


The Wicker Man (2006)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450345/


---


I'm not saying we take whoever is responsible for the evacuation of revleft and roast them over open fire while we all sing the songs our olde ancestry... I'm just sayin' marshmallows taste different when you cook them different





What does?
the evacuation

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not saying we take whoever is responsible for the evacuation of revleft and roast them over open fire while we all sing the songs our olde ancestry... I'm just sayin' marshmallows taste different when you cook them different


Yeah, I know there's a lot of bitterness over the 'purge' -- I don't quite know what to say about it since I've been here mostly for personal-political (self-motivated) reasons.

Such a necessary act of banning *could* be set up to be far more orderly and criteria- and process-based, but on the other hand we're still in a society of private property, and the top-level administration of RevLeft has to exist so that the domain and web server for it continue to exist, so I don't think there's really a chance for an 'ideal' here, unfortunately.

[willowtooth]

Yeah, I know there's a lot of bitterness over the 'purge' -- I don't quite know what to say about it since I've been here mostly for personal-political (self-motivated) reasons.

Such a necessary act of banning *could* be set up to be far more orderly and criteria- and process-based, but on the other hand we're still in a society of private property, and the top-level administration of RevLeft has to exist so that the domain and web server for it continue to exist, so I don't think there's really a chance for an 'ideal' here, unfortunately.
so fuck it let me be a moderator since nobody else is here....

I'm starting to believe that stickied post about this whole site being run by 10 guys from the CIA anyway :laugh:

[ckaihatsu]

so fuck it let me be a moderator since nobody else is here....


Sorry for the bureaucratic run-around, but it ain't up to me.... Maybe contact an admin....





I'm starting to believe that stickied post about this whole site being run by 10 guys from the CIA anyway :laugh:


Hmmmm, missed that one -- kinda harsh....

[willowtooth]

Sorry for the bureaucratic run-around, but it ain't up to me.... Maybe contact an admin....those are the people im trying to get banned I feel like your not getting my concept of social revolution at all lol






Hmmmm, missed that one -- kinda harsh....
http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/163286-Revleft-EXPOSED

[ckaihatsu]

those are the people im trying to get banned I feel like your not getting my concept of social revolution at all lol


Social revolution against *our own* -- ? Who gets banned, then -- ? Does the site have an 'autopilot' setting -- ?


= )





http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/163286-Revleft-EXPOSED


Pretty funny thread -- my inclination towards pointedly serious posts means that my participation has only made RevLeft that much more *boring*.


= (


= D

[almost]

It's amazing that money is still being put into a website that has invasive redirects on every navigation item on every page, after a major upgrade that also managed to make grey even worse, following the bad decision making skills of unforgiving and mostly absentee admin(s) that crippled the existing userbase. Not to excuse those from the userbase who are also idiots and assholes. Clearly something didn't work out so here are some emergency suggestions: Fix the ads, they aren't supposed to be that pervasive. Unban everyone from every admin conflict from the beginning of time. New admin and mod team. New forum skin or something because yuck. It'll be a fun experiment.

[Roach]

Unban everyone!

[criticalrealist]

I am new here. However, as an observation, I think that the problem may be a seemingly rapid global shift to the neofascist, reactionary right. There has been a rise in hopelessness.

For example, all the members of the U.S. sociology department - in which I am one of the senior members (and senior citizens :lol:) - are Marxists (of one sort or another). If you know anything about sociology departments, that is not so unusual.

Everyone at the place feels discouraged. One of my colleagues, in particular, seems to be literally frightened. He is the most junior member of our department.

Many people are asking, Where do we go from here?

[ckaihatsu]

I am new here. However, as an observation, I think that the problem may be a seemingly rapid global shift to the neofascist, reactionary right. There has been a rise in hopelessness.

For example, all the members of the U.S. sociology department - in which I am one of the senior members (and senior citizens :lol:) - are Marxists (of one sort or another). If you know anything about sociology departments, that is not so unusual.

Everyone at the place feels discouraged. One of my colleagues, in particular, seems to be literally frightened. He is the most junior member of our department.

Many people are asking, Where do we go from here?


This is what I advocate:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'



http://s6.postimg.org/jjc7b5nch/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors



http://s6.postimg.org/7liqtmar5/2526684770046342459_Rh_JMHF_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/nwiupxn8t/full/)


A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits



To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

[I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)

We can do better than the market system, obviously, since it is zombie-like and continuously, automatically, calls for endless profit-making -- even past the point of primitive accumulation, through to overproduction and world wars, not to mention its intrinsic exploitation and oppression.

Labor vouchers imply a political economy that *consciously* determines valuations, but there's nothing to guarantee that such oversight -- regardless of its composition -- would properly take material realities into account. Such a system would be open to the systemic problems of groupthink and elitism.

What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.

I'll contend that I have developed a model that addresses all of these concerns in an even-handed way, and uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

This method would both *empower* and *limit* the position of liberated labor since a snapshot of labor performed -- more-or-less the same quantity of labor-power available continuously, going forward -- would be certain, known, and *finite*, and not subject to any kinds of abstraction- (financial-) based extrapolations or stretching. Since all resources would be in the public domain no one would be at a loss for the basics of life, or at least for free access to providing for the basics of life for themselves. And, no political power or status, other than that represented by possession of actual labor credits, could be enjoyed by liberated labor. It would be free to represent itself on an individual basis or could associate and organize on its own political terms, within the confines of its empowerment by the sum of pooled labor credits in possession.

Mass demand, then as now, would be a matter of public discourse, but in a societal context of open access to all means of mass communication for all, with collectivized implements of mass production at its disposal. It would have no special claim over any liberated labor and would have no means by which to coerce it.

The administration of all of this would be dependent on the conscious political mass struggle, on a continuous, ongoing basis, to keep it running smoothly and accountably.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

[criticalrealist]

This is what I advocate:

That sounds like a reasonable option. However, how do we get there?

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I think he asked a more practical question for our present condition and expected a more practical answer than your futuristic graphs.

[ComradeAllende]

I think he asked a more practical question for our present condition and expected a more practical answer than your futuristic graphs.

Join the NRA, form a Marxist revolutionary cell, and then seize control of the organization xD.

[almost]

can we put as much effort into talking about the thread topic as was put into those graphs and other conversation

[willowtooth]

can we put as much effort into talking about the thread topic as was put into those graphs and other conversation
the thread topic is about the bannings of several popular people on the forum a few months ago that lead to a lot of people leaving voluntarily. It had something too do with ISIS being called anti-imperialist by groups such as the sparticist league and that being seen as fascist apologia, also something about age of consent laws I'm not 100% sure. There was also some personal insults flung in the committed user forum (which isn't public so we dont know what happened).

That's about it.

[ckaihatsu]

That sounds like a reasonable option. However, how do we get there?


Well, that's a little more difficult to put into graphic form.... (grin)

However, here's an approach:


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram



http://s6.postimg.org/z6qrnuzn5/7_Syndicalism_Socialism_Communism_Transiti.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jy0ua35yl/full/)

[Thirsty Crow]

Hi guise and gals, how's it goin'?

[Sewer Socialist]

the thread topic is about the bannings of several popular people on the forum a few months ago that lead to a lot of people leaving voluntarily. It had something too do with ISIS being called anti-imperialist by groups such as the sparticist league and that being seen as fascist apologia, also something about age of consent laws I'm not 100% sure. There was also some personal insults flung in the committed user forum (which isn't public so we dont know what happened).

That's about it.

they also banned about ten people who were critical of these actions, including the most active users.

[almost]

^ i think more than 10 is possible, hardly anything was logged and the threads are in the invisible trashcan. many of those other users banned weren't even trots

[criticalrealist]

[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram
]

There have been many tactics and strategies to achieving communism. So far, none of them have stood the test of time. What I think many people want to see is a good, contemporary success story. Unfortunately, there are none. IMO, radicals need to cooperatively and democratically go back to the drawing board.

- - - Updated - - -


Join the NRA, form a Marxist revolutionary cell, and then seize control of the organization xD.

About a year ago, someone suggested that I infiltrate a Trump campaign rally. My thought, at the time, was that the odds were that I would get killed before I could undermine anything. I would not make a good spy.

[ckaihatsu]

Hi guise and gals, how's it goin'?


'Sup.





There have been many tactics and strategies to achieving communism. So far, none of them have stood the test of time. What I think many people want to see is a good, contemporary success story. Unfortunately, there are none. IMO, radicals need to cooperatively and democratically go back to the drawing board.


Radicals need to make a clean break with any lingering nationalism they may have and become full-fledged internationalist revolutionaries if they aren't already.





About a year ago, someone suggested that I infiltrate a Trump campaign rally. My thought, at the time, was that the odds were that I would get killed before I could undermine anything. I would not make a good spy.


Good choice. What we do isn't anything cloak-and-dagger, though plenty of people seem to think so. Our strength is in numbers with real class consciousness, for rank-and-file militancy, and popular support of the same.

It's pointless to get caught-up in the intrigues and personnel of *empire*, anyway....

...But you're going to have to get the RevLeft logo tattooed real big across your back -- !


x D

[willowtooth]

they also banned about ten people who were critical of these actions, including the most active users.
Way more people left in protest or due to boredom though, look at the bottom of the homepage the most ever users online is 2,709 now revleft is lucky to get 10% of that.

[almost]

What we do isn't anything cloak-and-dagger, though plenty of people seem to think so. Like anybody who wants to get away with organizing at their work place, or any other activity. Especially relevant to those people who actually used cloaks and daggers

[criticalrealist]

Radicals need to make a clean break with any lingering nationalism they may have and become full-fledged internationalist revolutionaries if they aren't already.

Yes. Unfortunately, the world seems to be going in the other direction. Well, maybe the contradictions will catch up with us.






Good choice. What we do isn't anything cloak-and-dagger, though plenty of people seem to think so. Our strength is in numbers with real class consciousness, for rank-and-file militancy, and popular support of the same.

Yes, class consciousness, or conscientization as Freire called it, is important. The best I seem to be able to do at the moment is inspire a small percentage of my students.

[ckaihatsu]

Like anybody who wants to get away with organizing at their work place, or any other activity.


I'll proffer the following, which I developed for just such occasions:


Affinity Group Image-Based Communications Protocol



http://s6.postimg.org/h4shamar5/121219_Affinity_Group_Image_Based_blend_xcf.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/5sfvsu225/full/)


Text as noise, hidden in image using GIMP



http://s6.postimg.org/6mc0awdwx/120914_Text_as_noise_LAYOUT_xcf.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/6z3eh2w6l/full/)

[almost]

@ckaihatsu Perhaps you missed my point, or I have missed one of yours. I don't think it's a particularly bold statement to suggest the ideas given in your above post qualify as cloak and dagger. @criticalrealist What do you hope they become conscious off specifically, in regards to class consciousness

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu Perhaps you missed my point, or I have missed one of yours. I don't think it's a particularly bold statement to suggest the ideas given in your above post qualify as cloak and dagger.


Okay, I'm not trying to be 'bold' here, nor cloak-and-dagger -- if the technique I provided would be at all appropriate to you or any revolutionaries, then that's what it's there for.

Incidentally it may be possible to make the process easier by using imagemagick (www.imagemagick.org), but I haven't gone in that direction so far.

[criticalrealist]

@criticalrealist What do you hope they become conscious off specifically, in regards to class consciousness

The fact that so many (mostly white) working-class people voted for Donald Trump - a capitalist - is an indication of their false consciousness. When the proletariat move to the communist left, and reject capitalism, that will be indication of their class consciousness.

The upper classes are already class conscious. They act in their own interests. By and large, the same cannot be said for the proletariat.

[willowtooth]

The fact that so many (mostly white) working-class people voted for Donald Trump - a capitalist - is an indication of theirfalse consciousness. When the proletariat move to the communist left, and reject capitalism, that will be indication of their class consciousness.

The upper classes are already class conscious. They act in their own interests. By and large, the same cannot be said for the proletariat.Are you implying that Hillary Clinton isn't a capitalist? Are you saying because they didn't vote for the most left wing option they are at fault? Would you be chastising them for not voting for Donald Trump if David Duke were running against him?

Fact is about 50% of Americans dont or can't vote so who knows who the working class really supports. But in this case Hillary Clinton won the below $50k income vote. She also won the popular vote. If you divide it up by race gender and religion, than you can say white christian males voted for trump. You can go even further and divide it up by age, education, location, hell I think i saw it divided up by zodiac signs once but that doesn't mean the working class voted for trump far from it. If they voted for anybody it was for nobody

[RosaAntonio]

Trump's base was definitely strongest among white christian males.

[almost]

Okay, I'm not trying to be 'bold' here, nor cloak-and-dagger -- if the technique I provided would be at all appropriate to you or any revolutionaries, then that's what it's there for. I didn't say you were being bold, I said it wouldn't be bold to state that what you have just posted about is cloak and dagger, immediately after stating that 'what we do isn't cloak and dagger'. The statement 'what we do isn't cloak and dagger' is imo a very weird thing to say in relation to revolution.

[ComradeAllende]

Fact is about 50% of Americans dont or can't vote so who knows who the working class really supports. But in this case Hillary Clinton won the below $50k income vote.

I always get annoyed whenever people use income as a measure of "class status". According to this logic, an auto-mechanic making $100,000 is in a higher class than a small businessman making $60,000. Income on its own is a useless barometer of class status: one has to take into account type of employment, geography, level of education, and a whole other list of traits in order to gain a complete picture of class (or you could go with the Marxist model, which tends to incorporate many of these traits). Given that Clinton's support was concentrated in urban areas (New York City, Los Angeles, etc), her coalition seemed to be primarily composed of the labor aristocracy (white-collar professionals, managerial officials, etc), multinational (as opposed to national) capitalists, and the urban poor (or "slum proletariat"). Trump's coalition, on the other hand, was rooted in rural areas in the middle of the country, which tends to be home to the so-called "real economy" (industrial production, agriculture, etc.). His voting electorate consists of national capitalists, the petty-bourgeois, and elements of both the organized and unorganized working class (primarily whites, although he did surprise everyone with his share of the Hispanic vote).


She also won the popular vote.

Everyone who remembers the 2000 election should have known that the popular vote means shit in the American political system.


If you divide it up by race gender and religion, than you can say white christian males voted for trump. You can go even further and divide it up by age, education, location, hell I think i saw it divided up by zodiac signs once but that doesn't mean the working class voted for trump far from it. If they voted for anybody it was for nobody

I would argue that white Christians overall voted for Trump, since Trump won the white female vote by a sizable margin. And "Christian" is a bit ambiguous, since blue-collar whites in Wisconsin and Michigan tend to be a lot secular compared to their evangelical cousins in the Bible Belt (Iowa, Mississippi, Kentucky, etc).

[ckaihatsu]

I didn't say you were being bold, I said it wouldn't be bold to state that what you have just posted about is cloak and dagger, immediately after stating that 'what we do isn't cloak and dagger'. The statement 'what we do isn't cloak and dagger' is imo a very weird thing to say in relation to revolution.


Well, what we do as revolutionaries *isn't* cloak-and-dagger, meaning anything about intrigue within the context of existing circles of power. Our strength is with working-class class consciousness, as is being discussed here on this thread.

This direction of our exchanges started with post #78:





What we do isn't anything cloak-and-dagger, though plenty of people seem to think so.





Like anybody who wants to get away with organizing at their work place, or any other activity. [...]


And I posted a couple of diagrams that describe a certain methodology and technique of secretive communications -- which *still* isn't cloak-and-dagger because as revolutionaries we're not contenders-to-the-throne, we're for the *abolition* of class relations altogether.

[almost]

Well, what we do as revolutionaries *isn't* cloak-and-dagger, meaning anything about intrigue within the context of existing circles of power. Our strength is with working-class class consciousness, as is being discussed here on this thread. This direction of our exchanges started with post #78: And I posted a couple of diagrams that describe a certain methodology and technique of secretive communications -- which *still* isn't cloak-and-dagger because as revolutionaries we're not contenders-to-the-throne, we're for the *abolition* of class relations altogether. Secretive communication to carry out secretive acts is cloak and dagger. It doesn't matter the degree of severity from organizing a work place to whatever else. There isn't a 'more than meaningful' aesthetic attachment to the phrase cloak and dagger here. Revolutionaries seeking to destroy the existing order utilize cloak and dagger behavior at varying times because it is in the interest of the existing order to catch those desiring to destroy it, and throw them into prisons, and kill them.

[TomLeftist]

Critical: And I am very optimist and try to be super-positive. But I was listening to a scientific psychologic conversation this morning by Thom Hartmann about the beliefs of people. And he was right, he claimed that there are millions of people in America who do not behave and think according to a system of evidence-based arguments. They sort of have these ingrained ideas in their brains that are almost impossible for them to get them out of their heads. For instance if you talk with a poor person, specially the white poor population, that in the present neoliberal privatized stage of capitalism, they will never be able to have white teeths and great health. And that only celebrites and the upper economic layer of America are safe from dying young and/or from living a very painful life as a result of living a life without any health. Living with bodies full of weight-gain, glaucoma, diabetes etc

And if you tell them that a socialist system can provide them with free medical care, and that's why socialism is a lot better than capitalism (among many other things that socialism can provide them like lower electricity bills, lower priced food, lower prices of apartments, houses and condos. 100% free university degrees, etc.

If you explain them all the goodies of socialism, even if socialism turns USA into a Disney World paradise. They would still reject socialism in USA, because of their deep ingrained truths and a dogmatic-pragmatic way of thinking. Most people in USA believe in dogmas in hard established ideas. Like for example the US constitution and Bill of Rights. They see that as a communist manifesto. But in reality the US constitution and the Bill of Rights are oligarchic constitutions and set of laws.

But like I said millions of poor americans voted for Donald Trump and others for Hillary Clinton, because the 100 million voters of USA are not like the people of this revleft forum. They don't care if Hillary Clinton was going to nuke the whole world, or if Donald Trump will destroy all medicare programs, all medicaid programs all food-stamps programs and all public schools. They don't care, they are like the followers and members of cults. That's the way they think, (Like a religion) just go to Youtube and watch how many people view Donald Trump as a revolutionary Che Guevara (That's the way people who voted for Donald Trump still see Donald Trump. And if you provide them with hard-evidence about how Donald Trump will destroy all public schools and the whole medicare and social security programs. You won't be able to convince them, they are victims of a sort of magical spell coming from FOX news and many other networks who talked positive about Trump

So we are doomed with millions of americans who do not have a clear-cut awareness of what political parties and politicians are good (leftist parties), and which politicians are evil (Republican Party, and the Democratic Party). I've noticed that trait of people of relying on magic, on occultism, on metaphysical (Americans love hoping), and many many other kinds of thinking that is responsable for the hegemony of the evil capitalist mass-murdering system



I am new here. However, as an observation, I think that the problem may be a seemingly rapid global shift to the neofascist, reactionary right. There has been a rise in hopelessness.

For example, all the members of the U.S. sociology department - in which I am one of the senior members (and senior citizens :lol:) - are Marxists (of one sort or another). If you know anything about sociology departments, that is not so unusual.

Everyone at the place feels discouraged. One of my colleagues, in particular, seems to be literally frightened. He is the most junior member of our department.

Many people are asking, Where do we go from here?

[willowtooth]

I always get annoyed whenever people use income as a measure of "class status". According to this logic, an auto-mechanic making $100,000 is in a higher class than a small businessman making $60,000. Income on its own is a useless barometer of class status: one has to take into account type of employment, geography, level of education, and a whole other list of traits in order to gain a complete picture of class (or you could go with the Marxist model, which tends to incorporate many of these traits). Given that Clinton's support was concentrated in urban areas (New York City, Los Angeles, etc), her coalition seemed to be primarily composed of the labor aristocracy (white-collar professionals, managerial officials, etc), multinational (as opposed to national) capitalists, and the urban poor (or "slum proletariat"). Trump's coalition, on the other hand, was rooted in rural areas in the middle of the country, which tends to be home to the so-called "real economy" (industrial production, agriculture, etc.). His voting electorate consists of national capitalists, the petty-bourgeois, and elements of both the organized and unorganized working class (primarily whites, although he did surprise everyone with his share of the Hispanic vote).

lol unfortunately CNN and FOX don't measure the vote by proletariat vs bourgeois they do measure income so that's really the only terms we should consider. (when measuring this trivial demographics split, in a bourgeois election where half the population isn't even represented.) As far as race goes yes more white voters voted for trump. but they diidn't overwhelmingly vote that way, the only clear favorite amongst any racial category was the black vote which as expected went around 95% for the democrats. But clinton won 1/3rd of whites and 1/3rd of the rural vote. So even if you take out income, rural white voters did not overwhelmingly vote for Trump, as black people did for hillary clinton.

Trump also won the white vote by almost the exact same margins as Mitt romney. In fact Obama got more white votes in 2008 against Mccain than Hillary Clinton did. Seems to me that if racism was such a major factor, they wouldve voted for the white woman before the black man but they didn't (maybe sexism is more of a factor?) Therefore this rumor about the rural white working class voting trump into office is inherently false


Everyone who remembers the 2000 election should have known that the popular vote means shit in the American political system.

This has only happened twice since 1880, the electoral college almost always goes to whoever wins the popular vote, and the 2000 election was a much smaller margin of about 500k votes Trump lost by over 3 million votes. So if we are talking about who was voted into office and what that says about Americans right now then they voted for hillary clinton. The archaic 18th century election system that we have put trump into power, but that's more because of parliamentary procedure not related to who americans actually voted for


I would argue that white Christians overall voted for Trump, since Trump won the white female vote by a sizable margin. And "Christian" is a bit ambiguous, since blue-collar whites in Wisconsin and Michigan tend to be a lot secular compared to their evangelical cousins in the Bible Belt (Iowa, Mississippi, Kentucky, etc).I would say 50% of Americans didn't vote and that should say more than any of these demographic statistics

[ckaihatsu]

Secretive communication to carry out secretive acts is cloak and dagger. It doesn't matter the degree of severity from organizing a work place to whatever else.


Communication itself isn't on-par with political assassinations.

You mentioned organizing a workplace, so that's the active context here. Organizing a workplace in the interests of the workers there isn't even about office politics, much less about intrigue and/or killings.





There isn't a 'more than meaningful' aesthetic attachment to the phrase cloak and dagger here. Revolutionaries seeking to destroy the existing order utilize cloak and dagger behavior at varying times because


Yes, revolutionaries may need to be discreet about operational particulars -- hence the diagrams at post #80 -- but simple secrecy isn't synonymous with intrigue and workplace-based violence, or political assassinations. You're really trying to make a stretch from the regular definition of 'cloak-and-dagger'.





it is in the interest of the existing order to catch those desiring to destroy it, and throw them into prisons, and kill them.


Well, *this* kind of politics requires the development of a tipping-point in overall prevailing societal political sentiment, to where these more-drastic actions would enjoy a general social approval so that they can be accomplished, if necessary, without reprisals. It would be equivalent to a mostly- or entirely-successful revolt, like the French Revolution, for example.

[ComradeAllende]

lol unfortunately CNN and FOX don't measure the vote by proletariat vs bourgeois they do measure income so that's really the only terms we should consider. (when measuring this trivial demographics split, in a bourgeois election where half the population isn't even represented.)

I disagree; using an accurate classification of "social class" is imperative to any halfway-decent account of how the election turned out the way it did. Conflating social class with "income" is one of the reasons why the American conception of social class is so distorted. Hell, just a few years ago you couldn't even mention social class without being called a card-carrying Communist. Plus this does nothing but further the narrative that Trump voters are primarily motivated by racial (as opposed to economic) distress, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


As far as race goes yes more white voters voted for trump. but they diidn't overwhelmingly vote that way, the only clear favorite amongst any racial category was the black vote which as expected went around 95% for the democrats. But clinton won 1/3rd of whites and 1/3rd of the rural vote. So even if you take out income, rural white voters did not overwhelmingly vote for Trump, as black people did for hillary clinton.

Technically, I'd consider a two-thirds majority to be a rather large majority for any electoral demographic. Plus the black vote isn't comparable to the rural white vote because the black vote is primarily motivated by the GOP's ineptitude (or downright bigotry) toward African Americans; they simply don't care enough about them (for whatever reason) to appeal to those folks, many of whom are socially conservative. Rural whites, on the other hand, hold disparate attitudes on both economics and social policy; they may trend towards the Republicans on the so-called "culture wars", but generally speaking many of them are the sort of blue-collar workers that were once the bread and butter of the Democratic Party (at least under the New Deal coalition).


Trump also won the white vote by almost the exact same margins as Mitt romney. In fact Obama got more white votes in 2008 against Mccain than Hillary Clinton did. Seems to me that if racism was such a major factor, they wouldve voted for the white woman before the black man but they didn't (maybe sexism is more of a factor?) Therefore this rumor about the rural white working class voting trump into office is inherently false

I'm not arguing that the white working class was motivated (either wholly or primarily) by racism or bigotry; I believe they were primarily driven by economic issues, mainly de-industrialization in the Rust Belt and economic stagnation during this so-called "recovery". You can believe that the white working class voted for Trump and still oppose the neoliberal narrative that they did so because they're a bunch of angry racists. Hell, many of those Trump supporters voted for Obama twice and could have easily voted for a more populist-oriented Democrat like Sanders or even Joe Biden.

[willowtooth]

I disagree; using an accurate classification of "social class" is imperative to any halfway-decent account of how the election turned out the way it did. Conflating social class with "income" is one of the reasons why the American conception of social class is so distorted. Hell, just a few years ago you couldn't even mention social class without being called a card-carrying Communist. Plus this does nothing but further the narrative that Trump voters are primarily motivated by racial (as opposed to economic) distress, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
We dont have a real agreement on what defines the different classes in the USA much less statistics to actually measure their votes. The way they measure race income and age are also fairly inaccurate as it is. Some leftists even claim that theyre is no proletariat in first world countries like the USA. Republicans are motivated by racism practically all of their demands are related to racism in some way. That doesn't mean its increasing or some overwhelming wave of racism took over and propelled trump into (not only the nomination for the republican party but) the office of president. Racism is a huge factor in american politics but that's not why trump and the republicans won neither is economic distress. Religion played a bigger role in this election than any economic policy or any perceived increase in racism.



Technically, I'd consider a two-thirds majority to be a rather large majority for any electoral demographic. Plus the black vote isn't comparable to the rural white vote because the black vote is primarily motivated by the GOP's ineptitude (or downright bigotry) toward African Americans; they simply don't care enough about them (for whatever reason) to appeal to those folks, many of whom are socially conservative. Rural whites, on the other hand, hold disparate attitudes on both economics and social policy; they may trend towards the Republicans on the so-called "culture wars", but generally speaking many of them are the sort of blue-collar workers that were once the bread and butter of the Democratic Party (at least under the New Deal coalition). I completely reject the bolded part, their economic policy is a direct result of their social policy. In fact these new deal people were vehemently against any kind of socialist or liberal social policy.

Between the great depression, world war 1, and 2 they needed a massive state planned economy to win the war it wasn't the result of some mini-enlightenment era amongst the american population. If capitalism ever gives us 25% unemployment like it did in the depression then they will support those same socialist policies, at the drop of a hat. But they will spit on the black guy they're forced to work side by side with. This doesn't make them some kind of left leaning socialist this makes them reactionary opportunists




I'm not arguing that the white working class was motivated (either wholly or primarily) by racism or bigotry; I believe they were primarily driven by economic issues, mainly de-industrialization in the Rust Belt and economic stagnation during this so-called "recovery". You can believe that the white working class voted for Trump and still oppose the neoliberal narrative that they did so because they're a bunch of angry racists. Hell, many of those Trump supporters voted for Obama twice and could have easily voted for a more populist-oriented Democrat like Sanders or even Joe Biden.

Ive heard this analysis before that the rust belt democrats turned around and voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton didn't care about the white working class and then they show some angry old white farmer claiming he voted for Obama but now he isn't voting for clinton because blah blah whatever reason. But the evidence simply isn't there and these demographic statistics of poor rural voters in ohio vs missouri and why upper class suburban east coast white mothers with incomes above $50k but below $250 with atleast 2 cars and 1 kid who gets her haircut atleast twice a month..... is just superficial blather to sell ads on CNN

I saw a normal republican vs democrat election with the lowest voter turnout since (wait for it)... the 2000 election.

[almost]

Communication itself isn't on-par with political assassinations. You mentioned organizing a workplace, so that's the active context here. Organizing a workplace in the interests of the workers there isn't even about office politics, much less about intrigue and/or killings. Yes, revolutionaries may need to be discreet about operational particulars -- hence the diagrams at post #80 -- but simple secrecy isn't synonymous with intrigue and workplace-based violence, or political assassinations. You're really trying to make a stretch from the regular definition of 'cloak-and-dagger'. I think organizing for a strike, or other action, or both, fits close enough to Cloak and Dagger as you can get definition-wise. Because you are concealing the moment of attack.
Well, *this* kind of politics requires the development of a tipping-point in overall prevailing societal political sentiment, to where these more-drastic actions would enjoy a general social approval so that they can be accomplished, if necessary, without reprisals. It would be equivalent to a mostly- or entirely-successful revolt, like the French Revolution, for example. There's physical and economic violence wielded against any incursion whether or not it's stated by the actor as being political or not.

[ckaihatsu]

I think organizing for a strike, or other action, or both, fits close enough to Cloak and Dagger as you can get definition-wise. Because you are concealing the moment of attack.


Well, I'm not going to quibble -- certainly I get your meaning even if I differ with your term-usage.





There's physical and economic violence wielded against any incursion whether or not it's stated by the actor as being political or not.


Yes. True.

[ComradeAllende]

Republicans are motivated by racism practically all of their demands are related to racism in some way. That doesn't mean its increasing or some overwhelming wave of racism took over and propelled trump into (not only the nomination for the republican party but) the office of president. Racism is a huge factor in american politics but that's not why trump and the republicans won neither is economic distress. Religion played a bigger role in this election than any economic policy or any perceived increase in racism.

I don't see how religion could play a big role in the election; Trump's base was somewhat diverse (not as much as Clinton's), as he had support in both the (relatively) secular Rust Belt and the evangelical Bible Belt.



I completely reject the bolded part, their economic policy is a direct result of their social policy. In fact these new deal people were vehemently against any kind of socialist or liberal social policy.

Strange, because I recall the Socialist Party having substantial support in the Midwest, particularly states like Minnesota and Michigan. Hell, the Communist Party spent much of the Depression organizing black and white sharecroppers in Alabama and Mississippi. That doesn't mean they necessarily supported either party's position on Jim Crow and segregation, but neither does it show that those policies were necessarily deal-breakers. The social policy of these folks is rooted in their economic beliefs; these folks believe heavily in the Protestant work ethic (which is part of capitalist ideology), and this emphasis on self-reliance and industry informs their view of "lazy minorities" in urban areas.


Between the great depression, world war 1, and 2 they needed a massive state planned economy to win the war it wasn't the result of some mini-enlightenment era amongst the american population. If capitalism ever gives us 25% unemployment like it did in the depression then they will support those same socialist policies, at the drop of a hat. But they will spit on the black guy they're forced to work side by side with. This doesn't make them some kind of left leaning socialist this makes them reactionary opportunists.

"Reactionary opportunists??" By that logic, there is no working-class in this country and so establishing a socialist movement (let alone revolution) is a complete waste of time. These people could be swayed to support a social democratic politics if somebody connected it to their worldview and their interests. These folks hate neoliberalism and the phony politics of the Democratic Party; hell, many of them support Social Security and Medicare (the main pillars of social democracy in America). If we could abandon all this obscurantist jargon and actually start talking with these people on a grassroots level, we could establish a social-democratic majority in this country. You seem to think that because the working-class is exploited under capitalism, they will just join any anti-capitalist movement that comes up. In reality, you have to actually make the case for socialism with these people in order to get support; nobody on the Left has been doing this and the Sanders campaign (despite all its flaws) at least showed the potential for some kind of political strategy for the Left. Working-class people didn't just follow Luxemburg and Lenin into the trenches out of whim; they did it because those leaders gave them a class consciousness that overcame their familiarity with pro-capitalist ideology.

[TomLeftist]

Allende: you are very right about how money alone, how income does not determine the well-being of a person, family or society. You don't have to be a sociologist, a state of the art psycho-analyst to see with your own eyes and be aware, how people like plumbers, construction workers and people who work in hard dirty jobs might earn 50,000 dollars per year, and even more than than that and they still live a lower-class life of poverty.

Another reason of why income alone does not determine the economic class of a person. Is that the capitalist system has a trick, a psychologic trick of paying people high salaries, high wages, but however those wages, that money that people earn, does not really belong to them, so that they can enjoy their wealth that they've created. That money is trickled-up right away to be exclusively used in paying the super expensive over-valued basic survival needs (Housing, food, electricity etc).

So at the end of the day even people who might earn 90,000 dollars per year and even 100,000 a year might not be indiegent and ultra-poor, but might not really be so well like people think.

There are also many tricks and scams that US economic system uses in order for people who earn a lot of money, to burn and waste that money right away. For example, it is almost impossible for a doctor who earns 200,000 a year to live in a lower-income class neighborhood in order to spend less money, so that he might enjoy more wealth accumulation (Because the basic services of lower income neighborhoods are cheaper)

But the society itself forces high-income people to live in high-income neighborhoods. We have to be aware that in capitalism all people are slaves and not really free. Even Donald Trump is a slave to his own class and does not have 100% liberty to live where he wants and to do what he would like to do


I disagree; using an accurate classification of "social class" is imperative to any halfway-decent account of how the election turned out the way it did. Conflating social class with "income" is one of the reasons why the American conception of social class is so distorted. Hell, just a few years ago you couldn't even mention social class without being called a card-carrying Communist. Plus this does nothing but further the narrative that Trump voters are primarily motivated by racial (as opposed to economic) distress, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.



Technically, I'd consider a two-thirds majority to be a rather large majority for any electoral demographic. Plus the black vote isn't comparable to the rural white vote because the black vote is primarily motivated by the GOP's ineptitude (or downright bigotry) toward African Americans; they simply don't care enough about them (for whatever reason) to appeal to those folks, many of whom are socially conservative. Rural whites, on the other hand, hold disparate attitudes on both economics and social policy; they may trend towards the Republicans on the so-called "culture wars", but generally speaking many of them are the sort of blue-collar workers that were once the bread and butter of the Democratic Party (at least under the New Deal coalition).



I'm not arguing that the white working class was motivated (either wholly or primarily) by racism or bigotry; I believe they were primarily driven by economic issues, mainly de-industrialization in the Rust Belt and economic stagnation during this so-called "recovery". You can believe that the white working class voted for Trump and still oppose the neoliberal narrative that they did so because they're a bunch of angry racists. Hell, many of those Trump supporters voted for Obama twice and could have easily voted for a more populist-oriented Democrat like Sanders or even Joe Biden.

[willowtooth]

I don't see how religion could play a big role in the election; Trump's base was somewhat diverse (not as much as Clinton's), as he had support in both the (relatively) secular Rust Belt and the evangelical Bible Belt.
well you saw the conspiracies about hillary clinton theyre almost all religious in nature, the nazis and the KKK are christian organizations, these antisemetic conspiracies are obviously religious but also the ones about pizzagate devil worshiping pedophiles, the illuminati, the aliens, the sheer amount of conspiracies about the clintons over the past 20 years is enough to write an alternative biography. Also who do you think the 5% of black people who voted for tump were? they were extremely religious which is why the southern bible belt despite having the states with the largest % of black voters all went republican. The same reason why alot of hispanics voted republican. Catholic immigrants from mexico and south America can be just as bad as the worst fire and brimstone Alabama baptist white preacher. The black community is less than 1% atheist. Now you saw the massive campaign against feminists and gay rights I even saw one news commentator say hillary lost because she wouldn't stop talking about transgender bathrooms of course hilllary never brought this up once the entire election, but the attacks coming from the right and the fearmongering about transsexuals influenced the election heavily.




Strange, because I recall the Socialist Party having substantial support in the Midwest, particularly states like Minnesota and Michigan. Hell, the Communist Party spent much of the Depression organizing black and white sharecroppers in Alabama and Mississippi. That doesn't mean they necessarily supported either party's position on Jim Crow and segregation, but neither does it show that those policies were necessarily deal-breakers. The social policy of these folks is rooted in their economic beliefs; these folks believe heavily in the Protestant work ethic (which is part of capitalist ideology), and this emphasis on self-reliance and industry informs their view of "lazy minorities" in urban areas. Racism was a huge problem in American socialist parties back then as well, with some supporting the "racist views of the working class". Labor union leaders like Samuel Gompers founder of the AFL believed blacks were taking "american" jobs. Most unions remained segregated until after WW2. Even still today immigrants and open immigration laws are opposed by labor unions.

The "social policy of these folks" is not "rooted in their economic beliefs" in fact its the exact opposite, their economic beliefs are based on their social policy. Their beliefs in not letting in immigrants, or segregating people by race, is what drives them against socialist economic policies. They want whites only socialism, not socialism. They're belief in schrodinger's immigrant doesn't come solely from philosophies such as the protestant work ethic, there are plenty of racist catholics, neither is it from manifest destiny alone. Racism is certainly encouraged under capitalism, in the sense that the boss will hire immigrants and then tell white workers its the immigrants fault they can't pay more, and "dont talk too me talk to the mayor but certainly dont unionize with them" but its not too blame for racism, anymore than capitalism is to blame for sexism or homophobia




"Reactionary opportunists??" By that logic, there is no working-class in this country and so establishing a socialist movement (let alone revolution) is a complete waste of time. These people could be swayed to support a social democratic politics if somebody connected it to their worldview and their interests. These folks hate neoliberalism and the phony politics of the Democratic Party; hell, many of them support Social Security and Medicare (the main pillars of social democracy in America). If we could abandon all this obscurantist jargon and actually start talking with these people on a grassroots level, we could establish a social-democratic majority in this country. You seem to think that because the working-class is exploited under capitalism, they will just join any anti-capitalist movement that comes up. In reality, you have to actually make the case for socialism with these people in order to get support; nobody on the Left has been doing this and the Sanders campaign (despite all its flaws) at least showed the potential for some kind of political strategy for the Left. Working-class people didn't just follow Luxemburg and Lenin into the trenches out of whim; they did it because those leaders gave them a class consciousness that overcame their familiarity with pro-capitalist ideology.Maoists say there is no working class in america, by roman civil law a proletariat is someone who owns less than 11,000 aes (or about $15,000) so there is no common definition of who is and who is not a proletariat therefore we have no accurate information too determine who they even are, much less who they voted for, and generally the poorer you are the less likely you are to vote, so add the fact that 50% dont vote (not including felons and immigrants who can't vote) determining how many support trump is almost impossible. Thats all im saying im not disagreeing with you that income alone doesn't determine class your right about that, but if these working class voters hated trump (or clinton) they wouldve shown up too vote. instead its almost like people were so convinced trump was going to lose they didnt bother showing up at all. In fact if they just voted for hillary the same percent that they voted for obama then she wouldve won, (besides she won the popular vote anyway). Outside of using the elections as a barometer for the national sentiment we shouldn't care who actually wins the election, it was a close election regardless. Why did clinton and trump get picked too run tells us alot more... I think.

Bernie sanders had his chance and he lost mostly in southern states and working class areas. the areas that voted for Trump didn't vote for sanders outside of a few states, red states overwhelmingly voted for the more conservative hillary clinton. Without red states Sanders wouldve won the democratic primary. proving that working class rural white voters preferred the capitalist neoliberal hillary clinton to the socialist Bernie sanders. (Although to be honest I see no real difference in bernie sanders and hillary clintons actual polices) with that said we should absolutely focus on establishing socialist parties in these deep red states and counties. but not by promoting taxes on the rich and free education, but by promoting atheism and anti racism, nobody will support more funding for public schools if they think public schools should be segregated and/or only teach creationism. nobody will support welfare policies (even the ones who are on welfare) if they genuinely believe black people and immigrants are riding around in free cadillacs getting $50,000 a month in food stamps. They wont support seizing the means of production if they think its just a trick by the jews and satanists to steal their gold

[almost]

What the forum needs is more ckaihatsu email newsletters

[ckaihatsu]

What the forum needs is more ckaihatsu email newsletters


Annnnnd you've just surpassed willowtooth in irony / sarcasm.

Congratulations.

[ckaihatsu]

And willowtooth retakes the lead with a solidly ironic 'Thanks' to my previous post.


= D