What would it take? [Archive]

Sewer Socialist

11th November 2016, 02:38

The number of people who would commit to some sort of conspiracy would be so low, and the number who would actually follow through would be even smaller. Effective rebellions rely on mass numbers so large, it tends to snowball spontaeneously.

That said, mass parties, even working class-specific mass parties, tend to act in a conciliatory manner, supporting the class' role as a class within class society, not against that society.

Revolutions, while they might have elements of radical unions and parties acting within them, are mostly enacted by a huge majority of people with no such affiliation.

I'm not saying the answer is to sit on your hands, but you certainly can't plan out a massive rebellion, and of course a conspiracy is doomed to failure.

You might find Luxemburg's The Mass Strike useful, not as a prescription, but as a description of spontaneity.

I think a Trump presidency will disrupt people's lives quite a bit and will provide plenty to work with. Of course, it also seems likely that there will be increased political repression, with technological (including surveillance) capabilities beyond what any previous president has had available.

In that light, security culture is important, even if what you're doing should be protected by the first amendment. The police have raided activists in the past just to sieze materials and props to be used in protests, and have used cell phone data to prove that people were at certain protests for prosecution. Leave as little a trail as possible - minimize electronic communication, minimize the details, and leave the phone at home.

edit - the Mutual Aid & DIY forum has a lot of detailed useful info in stickied threads.

(A)

11th November 2016, 03:03

So no one is able to postulate steps that would be beneficial or assist in the creation of a revolution.
I mean Leninist's can believe that the Russian revolution was spontaneous.

Can anyone name any completely spontaneous revolutions where not a single person had an idea of what to do. It just happened without any forethought.
Every revolution has people who push forward and plan/act while others sit on their hands.

Also I would like to point out that I did no once say conspire or conspiracy. I said Revolution.

Antiochus

11th November 2016, 03:14

Even though Chomsky is wrong on most things, he was right on something I remember seeing a while ago: Bourgeois rule is nowhere near as iron-cast, stable or strong as it appears from the outside. It is quite a house of cards built on a lake of fire. It is certainly not as deep-seated in its ideology or mechanisms of repression as say, Feudalism, which inhabited even the immaterial 'soul' of the person. Honestly, if a proletariat revolution could succeed in a shithole as backwards as Russia in 1917, it can succeed anywhere. While a generalization: Communists/Socialists and even weak-willed social democrats still are overwhelmingly located in major cities, nerve centers of international Capital. It would simply not take very much to "take over" in terms of numbers. In a country like the US I can't imagine it taking more than 500,000 people total participating in it, naturally with millions of sympathizers and so on.

Sewer Socialist

11th November 2016, 03:18

I think a Trump presidency will disrupt people's lives quite a bit and will provide plenty to work with.

Protests, disruptions, agitations, if that wasn't clear before. Party and radical union membership will never be very high, especially in 2016, but like-minded people can hope to influence large numbers of people.

And if it wasn't clear, things sort of need to snowball in an unpredictable way. The Russian Revolutions (all three) involved quite a lot of spontaneity. What happened in 1917 could not have been planned out in 1913, obviously. Revolt against the war eventually turned into a revolution against much more than war.

You can look at the more eventful moments for the left in the recent past, and you will see that small actions and movements snowballed and gained support in ways that could not have been planned for. The path that things take can be influenced along the way, but no one can give you a list of things that need to happen, beyond needing massive support of disillusioned people (though not necessarily the actions of more people than Antiochus describes - I would describe half a million committed people as pretty huge, but perfectly possible)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about Leninists (typo?), but I am not a Leninist, if that's what you mean.

People post a thread with this theme pretty often. See the recent multiple posts titled "What is to be done?" for more questions and responses like this. If there was one simple clear answer, it would have already been done.

Go protest Trump in your city, talk to people you meet there. If there are no protests, start one, even if it's you by yourself on a busy street corner. Talk to sympathetic radicals, don't waste your time with unsympathetic people. How's that for a more specific answer?

xxx6 returns 2

11th November 2016, 04:05

Propaganda, it is not always reality that moves the masses but what the mass thinks hence Psychological Warfare and appearance is more important sometimes than reality itself.

Like during the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, and how the upper class convinced that they "earned" their wealth.

To convince people sometimes you just need a lot of flash and the appearance of lots of people on your side.

John Nada

11th November 2016, 06:25

The number of people who would commit to some sort of conspiracy would be so low, and the number who would actually follow through would be even smaller. Effective rebellions rely on mass numbers so large, it tends to snowball spontaeneously.Hypothetically, I don't think it would be just one rebellion that's just going to spin out of control in one big decisive ad hoc batte. The State has shown it can easily put those down or comfortable sit back and let it run its course. I think it's very likely that it would be a series of interconnected battles and skirmishes over a prolonged period.
That said, mass parties, even working class-specific mass parties, tend to act in a conciliatory manner, supporting the class' role as a class within class society, not against that society.I don't see how a democratically-ran mass workers' party is by default going to go reformists. It can and often has(for a variety of reasons besides existing in the first place), but not set in stone. There's going to have to be some form of organization, no matter what.
Revolutions, while they might have elements of radical unions and parties acting within them, are mostly enacted by a huge majority of people with no such affiliation.Yes, but they're often supporters of an organization. Simply because they don't join a party or union doesn't mean they're passive, blissfully unaware and nonpartisan until the Moment.
I'm not saying the answer is to sit on your hands, but you certainly can't plan out a massive rebellion, and of course a conspiracy is doomed to failure.I disagree. I think its very possible to plan ahead for a more or less prolonged struggle, possibly over years or even decades(just not by individuals on a public forum).
You might find Luxemburg's The Mass Strike useful, not as a prescription, but as a description of spontaneityHer definition of "spontaneous" isn't what most would consider spontaneous. Nearly all the actions she describes were planned and led by the Social Democrat. Considering how hard it is to get coworkers to just unionize where it's legal, let alone go on a mass strike with hundreds of thousands of workers( larger than all the strikes put together in the US for a few years), I think there was a lot of planning and preparation beforehand.
So no one is able to postulate steps that would be beneficial or assist in the creation of a revolution.
I mean Leninist's can believe that the Russian revolution was spontaneous.The Russian Revolutions(remember there was three, 1905, February and October) were not "spontaneous". As in the workers and peasants didn't just wake up one day and start smashing shit.The Russian socialists were not just sitting around read Capital for over two decades(more if you go back to the Narodniks), but so happened to be at pretty much every strike and riot. It was the product of years of education, agitation and organization, victories and defeats, on part of the socialist movement. They were reaching out, educating, propagating socialism and recruiting more workers. All at the risk of imprisonment or death.
Can anyone name any completely spontaneous revolutions where not a single person had an idea of what to do. It just happened without any forethought.
Every revolution has people who push forward and plan/act while others sit on their hands.Taking a closer inspection, nobody should be able to name one. Not the French Revolutions or Russian Revolutions, which are the likely responses. There's always random and unpredictable aspects, but not truly shit out of the blue. Best is flash in the pan rebellions that led nowhere or worse.

If you want something that goes over the different strategies: http://www.signalfire.org/2013/01/08/categories-of-revolutionary-military-policy-2006/ Most answers you'll probably get is some variants of the insurrectionary general strike or the Leninist-Comintern insurrectionary strategy, which ironically nether are restricted to just anarchists/non-Leninists or Leninist respectively.

IbelieveInanarchy

11th November 2016, 12:38

John Nada

11th November 2016, 17:48

In order to get a revolution the first step would be to make the working class as a whole class conscious by educating and showing the alternative. This is the only step necessary to get revolution. After this you just need some catalyst like Lenin and his buddies in imperial russia.I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not.:lol: It's not educate, educate, educate, but educate, agitate, organize. Lenin was one person in a party of tens of thousands, along with a much larger workers' movement(that compared to other countries was heavily influenced and allied with Socialism early on), along still with a larger democratic movement.

No matter what, there will be an "advance"(in terms of class awareness and knowledge) section, an intermediate section(sympathetic but not as knowledgeable or involved, or on the fence) and a backward section(reactionaries). Ideally it'd be best for as many workers as possible to be educated in socialism and class conscious, win over the intermediate workers and either convince or isolate the backward section.

Also there are other classes. The petit-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy waver between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. The petit-bourgeoisie might exploit a few workers, or work alone. The labor aristocracy is a stratum of workers "bought off" and is comparatively privileged and pursues sectional interests. On one hand they dream of move up into the bourgeoisie or maintaining their privileges. On the other they find capitalism crushing and proletarianizing them, driving the petit-bourgeoisie out of business, and the labor aristocracy losing jobs either from advance in technology and productive forces or outsourcing. So they might either side with revolution or reaction.

IbelieveInanarchy

11th November 2016, 18:13

I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not.:lol: It's not educate, educate, educate, but educate, agitate, organize. Lenin was one person in a party of tens of thousands, along with a much larger workers' movement(that compared to other countries was heavily influenced and allied with Socialism early on), along still with a larger democratic movement.

No matter what, there will be an "advance"(in terms of class awareness and knowledge) section, an intermediate section(sympathetic but not as knowledgeable or involved, or on the fence) and a backward section(reactionaries). Ideally it'd be best for as many workers as possible to be educated in socialism and class conscious, win over the intermediate workers and either convince or isolate the backward section.

Also there are other classes. The petit-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy waver between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. The petit-bourgeoisie might exploit a few workers, or work alone. The labor aristocracy is a stratum of workers "bought off" and is comparatively privileged and pursues sectional interests. On one hand they dream of move up into the bourgeoisie or maintaining their privileges. On the other they find capitalism crushing and proletarianizing them, driving the petit-bourgeoisie out of business, and the labor aristocracy losing jobs either from advance in technology and productive forces or outsourcing. So they might either side with revolution or reaction. Sorry if i wasnt clear, of course i also meant agitate and organize. I thought educate covered all those things :P

Antiochus

12th November 2016, 00:38

I think Vanguardism is inevitable and shouldn't be seen as some scary event that will lead to any actual class division. Even in the country with the most advanced, knowledgeable and militant (at one point) proletariat, Germany, Revolutionary politics only really reached a small fraction of the working-class, i.e maybe 10% of the workers. Still millions of them but you get the idea.

(A)

12th November 2016, 01:23

If your a Vanguardist and see what is happening now in America and around the world how can you not see this as an ample opportunity to push for Revolution.
To take to the streets and commit acts against Capital and the State.
To organize and plan attacks with others who take to the street night after night.

The Majority of Americans stand against the system and if america; the heart of capitalism has a revolution; more vanguards around the world will follow.

The rise of fascism MUST be met by an equal or greater rise in Anti-fascism.
Even if the Masses are not of one particular unified brand of leftist their are great numbers of Anti-Capitalists and Anti-fascists who want to fight.

1% of the American population outnumbers the US armed forced by 2MILLION bodies.
America has more guns per person then Citizens.

IF anywhere was the perfect place for the revolution to start; it would be the USA!

Sewer Socialist

12th November 2016, 04:20

Hypothetically, I don't think it would be just one rebellion that's just going to spin out of control in one big decisive ad hoc batte. The State has shown it can easily put those down or comfortable sit back and let it run its course. I think it's very likely that it would be a series of interconnected battles and skirmishes over a prolonged period. I don't see how a democratically-ran mass workers' party is by default going to go reformists. It can and often has(for a variety of reasons besides existing in the first place), but not set in stone. There's going to have to be some form of organization, no matter what.Yes, but they're often supporters of an organization. Simply because they don't join a party or union doesn't mean they're passive, blissfully unaware and nonpartisan until the Moment.I disagree. I think its very possible to plan ahead for a more or less prolonged struggle, possibly over years or even decades(just not by individuals on a public forum).

Her definition of "spontaneous" isn't what most would consider spontaneous. Nearly all the actions she describes were planned and led by the Social Democrat. Considering how hard it is to get coworkers to just unionize where it's legal, let alone go on a mass strike with hundreds of thousands of workers( larger than all the strikes put together in the US for a few years), I think there was a lot of planning and preparation beforehand.

The Russian Revolutions(remember there was three, 1905, February and October) were not "spontaneous". As in the workers and peasants didn't just wake up one day and start smashing shit.

The Russian socialists were not just sitting around read Capital for over two decades(more if you go back to the Narodniks), but so happened to be at pretty much every strike and riot. It was the product of years of education, agitation and organization, victories and defeats, on part of the socialist movement. They were reaching out, educating, propagating socialism and recruiting more workers. All at the risk of imprisonment or death.

Taking a closer inspection, nobody should be able to name one. Not the French Revolutions or Russian Revolutions, which are the likely responses. There's always random and unpredictable aspects, but not truly shit out of the blue. Best is flash in the pan rebellions that led nowhere or worse.

If you want something that goes over the different strategies: http://www.signalfire.org/2013/01/08/categories-of-revolutionary-military-policy-2006/ Most answers you'll probably get is some variants of the insurrectionary general strike or the Leninist-Comintern insurrectionary strategy, which ironically nether are restricted to just anarchists/non-Leninists or Leninist respectively.

I am clearly not using "spontaneous" to mean waking up and suddenly everyone is smashing shit, out of the blue, and you even acknowledge that Luxemburg doesn't mean it that way, then try to imply that I do? I never said not to plan anything, I never said that there needs to be no organization of any sort. I never said there will be one huge battle all at once and then total victory. Did you actually read those words somewhere? Do you think I am struggling to find the words to say that, but can only manage to say something completely different? Fucking hell, JN.

I'd bother to address your claims about mass parties and the extent to which someone could plan something like this decades in advance - the only things you have written which addresses what I actually said, but that response will probably be given the treatment you gave the rest of what I wrote.

Using this site is very frustrating. I really don't get anything out of it any more other than people pretending I've said things I clearly haven't. I think it will be best if I leave. It's been real.

John Nada

12th November 2016, 04:55

I am clearly not using "spontaneous" to mean waking up and suddenly everyone is smashing shit, out of the blue, and you even acknowledge that Luxemburg doesn't mean it that way, then try to imply that I do? I never said not to plan anything, I never said that there needs to be no organization of any sort. I never said there will be one huge battle all at once and then total victory. Did you actually read those words somewhere? Do you think I am struggling to find the words to say that, but can only manage to say something completely different? Fucking hell, JN.Jesus, chill out.:) I'm just trying to have a discussion, not a polemic debate. My comment are not merely directed at you and Democracy, but also anyone reading. Not to tear down, but to build up. The Russian word Stikhiinyi, which is usually translated as spontaneous, has different connotations that are lost in translation. A lot of not just laypeople, but even major theorists, mistakenly think theorist from the Russian Empire meant something closer to the literal English translation. In Lenin Rediscovered I swear there's whole chapters devoted to just that word.:lol:

Part of my point was that Luxemburg's theories were closer to the "October Road". And that in general there's misconceptions of what this entailed, even from Leninists. That there was more strategic depth. If it came across like I was trying to misrepresent what you type, that was not my intent.
I'd bother to address your claims about mass parties and the extent to which someone could plan something like this decades in advance - the only things you have written which addresses what I actually said, but that response will probably be given the treatment you gave the rest of what I wrote.I would be interested to read your or others response.
Using this site is very frustrating. I really don't get anything out of it any more other than people pretending I've said things I clearly haven't. I think it will be best if I leave. It's been real.That's too bad.

Statesponsoredterror

12th November 2016, 09:06

Lets say we had 4 years to begin a revolution.

You would have to start to stockpile guns, ammo and explosives plus have numbers of dedicated/trained people to use them. Providing the location hasn't been compromised and your clique infiltrated.

I think you know what honey traps are.

contracycle

15th November 2016, 12:10

This obsession with weapons is totally wrong-headed, IMO. Armies can be split in the face of revolution, and a few smallarms aren't going to make much of a difference anyway, and what difference they do make will probably only be to discredit you and your movement. Going around creating new Horst Wessel's is not going to be helpful.

(A)

15th November 2016, 13:32

One percent of the American population outnumbers the Armed forced by two million Body's.
There are more guns in the U.S. then their are people including military grade weapons in certain states.

contracycle

15th November 2016, 14:06

So what? Do you have tanks, artillery and fighter-bombers? No. And even if you had them, you wouldn't have the training to use them. So you'll have to split the army anyway, rendering your smallarms redundant.

This is a fetishistic distraction.

Blake's Baby

15th November 2016, 18:58

(A)

19th November 2016, 03:51

A comrade of mine several times told me the story of meeting Jan Appel (AKA Max Hempel, Jan Arndt, Jan Voß) and asking him 'but comrade, where will we get the guns?'

Jan explained that it was necessary to destabilise the armed forces rather than taking them on directly, as the working class can never hope to win a shooting war with a bourgeois army. Our strength is in organisation and ability to paralyse the economy; we must use our strength to wrest control of society from the capitalists but beware that when we're directly confronting the state militarily, we're on their terrain not ours. Troops are often unwilling to fire on 'their own' - that's what the Police are for - and we have to make sure that soldiers know which side they should be on: when most members of the armed forces are from the working class, their own families will be on our side.

This is of course why governments are often a bit reluctant to send conscripts against the populace. Professional armies will be more difficult to subvert.

So you seize the economic means and... their is the army and cops to stop you.
You will end up down the barrel of a gun no matter what you do.

Also How has ANY revolution EVER happened if we have no hope winning a shooting war.

Fuck I thought their was this thing called the USSR, Cuba, U>S>A>, so on and so on.
ALL of these involved armed revolt against the state.

How about Guerrilla warfare?

As we speak millions of Kurds are proving you wrong fighting a war on several fronts against Radical Fascists and Fascist states.

But your right we cant possibly use violence to have a revolution.

John Nada

19th November 2016, 09:43

So you seize the economic means and... their is the army and cops to stop you. You will end up down the barrel of a gun no matter what you do.

Also How has ANY revolution EVER happened if we have no hope winning a shooting war.Don't fight the bourgeoisie on their own terms. Employ unconventional warfare, such as insurrections. Strikes, mutinies and sabotage can really bring them to their knees. Hell, even if it were crushed, if a powerful capitalist country was damaged, it could help revolutions in other countries.
Fuck I thought their was this thing called the USSR, Cuba, U>S>A>, so on and so on. ALL of these involved armed revolt against the state.

Ever heard about Guerrilla warfare?Jan Appel participated in armed revolts, such as the Spartacist Uprising. I think he may have know a thing or two about insurrectionary strategy and tactics.
What the fuck are you even doing on this site if you are not a revolutionary. You know their are sites for social democrats and other pacifists who dont have the stomach for revolution. As we speak millions of Kurds are proving you wrong fighting a war on several fronts against Radical Fascists and Fascist states.

But your right we cant possibly use violence to have a revolution.I don't see anywhere Blake's Baby advocating pacifism. Insurrection certainly does not fall under that category.
This Thread is is not meant to create an argument or break down into sectarian violence. So please try and keep it Civil and productive.So much for that.:rolleyes:

(A)

19th November 2016, 09:51

Don't fight the bourgeoisie on their own terms. Employ unconventional warfare, such as insurrections. Strikes, mutinies and sabotage can really bring them to their knees. Hell, even if it were crushed, if a powerful capitalist country was damaged, it could help revolutions in other countries.

mutinies
insurrections
sabotage and possibly
even strikes would require the use of violence including the use of weapons.

I never said that the revolution would be a pitched battle; simply that it will not be peaceful.

I don't see anywhere Blake's Baby advocating pacifism. Insurrection certainly does not fall under that category.

I'm sorry your right that was not directed at @Blake's Baby (http://www.revleft.com/vb/members/25083-Blake-s-Baby) That outburst was meant for a different debate. I will strike it..

Blake's Baby

21st November 2016, 20:04

* Ignores the experiences of someone who actually fought in the German revolution

* Decides no-one is enough of a macho badass

* Fetishises some bourgeois revolutions

* Invents strawmen because is incapable of engaging with people's actual positions

Oh dear.

Well, as John Nada has already Said, Jan Appel actually fought in the German revolution. He knew more about this than you do.

Revolution is not a game of Risk.

The America Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, not a proletarian revolution. There is a massive difference. Because the bourgeoisie is an exploiting class, it can employ other people to do its fighting. It could do that even before it had won political power. The working class can't - we don't have another class we can use as cannon fodder. Really, given your shrill resistance to any conception of the working class actually imposing itself ion the rest of society, you should be able to grasp this. The working class does not have any footsoldiers, and it certainly doesn't have vast armaments. The revolution that led to the creation of the USSR failed. How can you possibly claim to be an Anarchist and not realise this?

Find a pacifist on these boards and I'll be very surprised. Even the SPGB and their co-thinkers generally have the position 'peacefully if we can, violently if we must'. So, go find another tree to bark up while you chase imaginary things.

(A)

21st November 2016, 22:15

The revolution that led to the creation of the USSR failed.

No it succeeded in creating a Socialist Republic. The idea that a socialist republic can lead to Communism is what was flawed. The revolution clearly had the effect of forming the USSR.

Again can someone provide a list of Non-violent revolutions?

The America Revolution was a bourgeois revolution

Yes but it was a revolution none the less. It proves that armed revolution against the state is possible. The fact that their was a ruling class does not change how many bullets where fired.

"we don't have another class we can use as cannon fodder."

No your right we would have to do the fighting ourselves; Just as we always do. The working class is also the fighting class; we do the dying for their wars... your suggesting we cant do the same for our class war?

The working class does not have any footsoldiers, and it certainly doesn't have vast armaments.

Again; we are the foot soldiers and we have all the weapons we need. We build the ships that are sent to war. The planes; the bombs; the fortifications and buildings.

I really dont know what you are arguing against. Armed resistance against the working class? Revolution?

Please explain in simple terms what specifically you are trying to argue.

Blake's Baby

23rd November 2016, 22:05

OK, let's start at the beginning...

No it succeeded in creating a Socialist Republic...

When you use those words, what do you imagine they mean?

(A)

24th November 2016, 06:33

The Bolsheviks created a Republic with a supposedly worker run economy.

Means they have every thing a liberal republic normally has such as the rule of law and prisons and voting and such.
But instead of private capital ownership the "Workers" state had ownership over capital; At least intentionally.

Blake's Baby

26th November 2016, 09:29

And what in your view is 'socialist' about that?

(A)

30th November 2016, 05:31

About the state owning and managing capital; nothing.

Not unless you view the nation state as the same thing as the working class. I am not a nationalist so I don't hold the view that the nation state is anything more then a gang. Their administration of the means of production is tantamount to barbarism.

State socialism is as oxymoronic as Anarcho-capitalism.

Blake's Baby

30th November 2016, 20:58

So, when you say the revolution succeeded because the Bolsheviks created a 'socialist state', what do you think you mean? You've said that a 'socialist state' is an oxymoron; and the Bolsheviks certainly didn't create 'a state' because the Russian Empire already was a state.

Earlier, you said that it was the revolutionary working class that staged the revolution... then you said that it was the Bolsheviks, but you then say that the Bolsheviks didn't do anything.

I think, if you can resolve some of your own confusions about a) what a revolution is and b) who it is that is revolting, we may be able to move forward.

(A)

30th November 2016, 23:03

They succeeded in creating a republic that they called socialist; when they replaced/co-opted the existing government.
I disagree that ANY state can be socialist as Nation states are not society. Giving the state ownership over the means of production is not Socialism as the state is not the society.
Thinking that a nation state and its democratic government is representative of the society is liberalist. Liberally the ideology of the modern Liberal Republic.

Earlier, you said that it was the revolutionary working class that staged the revolution... then you said that it was the Bolsheviks, but you then say that the Bolsheviks didn't do anything.

The Bolsheviks where revolutionary; just not revolutionary that could have succeeded in creating socialism.
We dont have a patent on the word Revolutionary. Liberals where at one time the revolutionary's.
The Bolsheviks revolution was to create a socialist republic; that I argue could never end the relation between owner and worker that is class warfare.
Simply replacing Corporate bosses with Government bosses is not a socialist revolution; its a Liberal one.

a) "An overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed."

Not all Revolutions are only against capitalism. They can be Theological or based in gender such as women's liberation.
The Anarchist revolution is against all forms of political, material, gender, species, sex & race oppression. The fight of the ruled against their rulers.

b) "a person who advocates or engages in revolution"

A revolutionary is someone who supports and or works towards the replacement of the current system with a new one.

The argument I am being forced to make for some reason; is that without people wanting revolution and acting upon that desire; there cant be a revolution.
You say that we need class conscience; AKA lots of revolutionary's acting collectively. I dont disagree.
What I am asking is what would it take to reach the point of revolution and what steps might we take to help create it.
An example might be; "We need class conscience".
Well now how do we help foster that...
Leftist news sources?
Propaganda of deed?
A great work of contemporary socialist ligature?

What steps could we take to recognize what is required for revolution and then work towards that goal.

Blake's Baby

1st December 2016, 17:10

Of course the bourgeoisie was once revolutionary, it overthrew feudalism. That was a revolution - the replacement of one class by another. Feudalism -> Capitalism means Aristocrats -> Bourgeoisie.

Tell me where the 'revolution' was if all that happened was the Bolsheviks replaced the aristocratic-bourgeois alliance that ruled the Tsarist Empire? If it's Capitalism -> Capitalism, then it's Bourgeoisie -> Bourgeoisie and that's not a revolution, that's a change of management team.

If you think 'the Bolshevik Revolution' was to create a 'socialist republic' then you know little of what happened in 1917 (and beyond) in Russia (and beyond...)
The 'Bolshevik Revolution', if it's a thing, happened in 1918 against the Soviets and it's a counter-revolution. It's the Soviets, the actual organs of class power, that I'm interested in. It was they who took power in October 1917.

On the other hand, you utterly ignore the role of the working class in this process (not to mention the Anarchists, Socialist Revolutionaries, Internationalists... in fact everyone who isn't a Bolshevik).

And I assume you mean 'class consciousness' not 'class conscience'.

(A)

1st December 2016, 20:04

The U.S.S.R. replaced the provisional government that had replaced the rule of the Tzar.
These where replacements of established governments. I.E. revolutions... not very glorious tho.

The revolution against the tsar was a large scale effort on the part of many different groups.

The February Revolution (known as such because of Russia’s use of the Julian calendar until February 1918) began on March 8, 1917 (or February 23 on the Julian calendar), when demonstrators clamoring for bread took to the streets in the Russian capital of Petrograd (now called St. Petersburg). Supported by huge crowds of striking industrial workers, the protesters clashed with police but refused to leave the streets. On March 10, the strike spread among all of Petrograd’s workers, and irate mobs destroyed police stations. Several factories elected deputies to the Petrograd Soviet, or council, of workers’ committees, following the model devised during the 1905 revolution.
On March 11, the troops of the Petrograd army garrison were called out to quell the uprising. In some encounters, regiments opened fire, killing demonstrators, but the protesters kept to the streets and the troops began to waver. That day, Nicholas again dissolved the Duma. On March 12, the revolution triumphed when regiment after regiment of the Petrograd garrison defected to the cause of the demonstrators. The soldiers subsequently formed committees that elected deputies to the Petrograd Soviet.
The imperial government was forced to resign, and the Duma formed a provisional government that peacefully vied with the Petrograd Soviet for control of the revolution. On March 14, the Petrograd Soviet issued Order No. 1, which instructed Russian soldiers and sailors to obey only those orders that did not conflict with the directives of the Soviet. The next day, March 15, Czar Nicholas II abdicated the throne in favor of his brother Michael (1878-1918), whose refusal of the crown brought an end to the czarist autocracy.

Then the Bolsheviks revolted against this new provisional government...

In the aftermath of the February Revolution, power was shared between the weak provisional government and the Petrograd Soviet. Then, on November 6 and 7, 1917 (or October 24 and 25 on the Julian calendar, which is why this event is also referred to as the October Revolution), leftist revolutionaries led by Bolshevik Party leader Vladimir Lenin (http://www.history.com/topics/vladimir-lenin) launched a nearly bloodless coup d’état against the provisional government. The Bolsheviks and their allies occupied government buildings and other strategic locations in Petrograd, and soon formed a new government with Lenin as its head.
Lenin became the virtual dictator of the first Marxist state in the world. His government made peace with Germany, nationalized industry and distributed land, but beginning in 1918 had to fight a devastating civil war against anti-Bolshevik White Army forces. In 1920, the anti-Bolsheviks were defeated, and in 1922 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was established.

Then Lenin centralized all of the power from the soviets into totalitarian party control. by forming a higher level of government such as the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. The congress of soviets then became a rubber stamp factory and propaganda machine. Lenin put up five story flags of his face along the streets and the rest is history.

Oh and yes I meant conscience... but you still did not answer any of my questions.

How does the working class get to where they are now to open revolution against the system of bourgeoisie government.
Not what supposedly comes after but what is needed now and how do we fulfill that need.

Blake's Baby

2nd December 2016, 16:13

According to you it doesn't bother, as every coup is a 'revolution' in your book all the working class has to do is wait for some conspiratorial group or other to liberate it.

But as a Marxist I don't think it's the job of self-appointed groups of liberators to free the working class, I think that is the working class's own task.

I've never said we need 'class conscience', I don't even know what that phrase is supposed to mean and I have never used it (unless it was a false spell-check correct for 'consciousness').

I'm not at the moment going to answer any of your questions, probably. I'm still trying to tease the confusions inherent in the first sentence of post #27. When we're done with the first sentence, I intend to continue trying to deconstruct post #27 and get you to understand where your conceptions of revolution, history, class society and the development of class consciousness (not 'conscience') are flawed.

almost

3rd December 2016, 00:25

self-appointed conspiratorial liberators sounds not bad

(A)

3rd December 2016, 02:58

If you are not going to discuss the subject matter then you dont really need to be posting here.

I am asking what steps would the working class have to take to lead to a revolution.
Your trying to start a fight over the definition of revolution.
I am not interested in your fight. I am interested in the steps that would be necessary in your opinion.

This has fuck all to do with me. You claim to know what revolution is... well explain how it would work then like I asked you to and stop
trying to discredit something that we are not talking about; my definition of revolution.

How hard is it for you to explain the process that you think will be necessary for a revolution. Like; one a scale from one to ten.
Or is your idea of revolution that one day everyone will magically be ready for a revolution with no rhyme or reason.
Just... POOF; revolution.

Blake's Baby

3rd December 2016, 11:35

If I say 'in my conception, which I think is in line with Marx's theorisations, the revolution works like this' and you throw in a load of irrelevance because you don't understand what revolutions are, how they happened and succeeded and failed in history, what classes are etc, then I've just wasted my time. Better, I think to get the groundwork of terms of reference established first, it makes it easier to find out if we're speaking the same language, as opposed to just using the same words.

To put it another way:

I 'liked' this post:

"We are convinced not only of the uselessness but even of the harmfulness of all conspiracies. We are also aware that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily but that everywhere and at all times they are the necessary consequence of circumstances which are not in any way whatever dependent either on the will or on the leadership of individual parties or of whole classes." - communist manifesto

I 'liked' this post:

Protests, disruptions, agitations, if that wasn't clear before. Party and radical union membership will never be very high, especially in 2016, but like-minded people can hope to influence large numbers of people.

And if it wasn't clear, things sort of need to snowball in an unpredictable way. The Russian Revolutions (all three) involved quite a lot of spontaneity. What happened in 1917 could not have been planned out in 1913, obviously. Revolt against the war eventually turned into a revolution against much more than war.

You can look at the more eventful moments for the left in the recent past, and you will see that small actions and movements snowballed and gained support in ways that could not have been planned for. The path that things take can be influenced along the way, but no one can give you a list of things that need to happen, beyond needing massive support of disillusioned people (though not necessarily the actions of more people than Antiochus describes - I would describe half a million committed people as pretty huge, but perfectly possible)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about Leninists (typo?), but I am not a Leninist, if that's what you mean.

People post a thread with this theme pretty often. See the recent multiple posts titled "What is to be done?" for more questions and responses like this. If there was one simple clear answer, it would have already been done.

Go protest Trump in your city, talk to people you meet there. If there are no protests, start one, even if it's you by yourself on a busy street corner. Talk to sympathetic radicals, don't waste your time with unsympathetic people. How's that for a more specific answer?

I posted to say we needed to

... destabilise the armed forces rather than taking them on directly, as the working class can never hope to win a shooting war with a bourgeois army. Our strength is in organisation and ability to paralyse the economy; we must use our strength to wrest control of society from the capitalists but beware that when we're directly confronting the state militarily, we're on their terrain not ours. Troops are often unwilling to fire on 'their own' - that's what the Police are for - and we have to make sure that soldiers know which side they should be on: when most members of the armed forces are from the working class, their own families will be on our side.

You then launched into a bizarre rant where you decided I was a pacifist.

So, seeing as you seem to have a problem with comprehension, instead of answering your questions as if we are using the same words for the same things, I'm proceeding on the assumption that any term I use is liable to be misunderstood.

To put it another way, I tried answering your question, but you didn't understand the answer. I think that's because you don't understand your question.

To put it another way, if you want people to communicate with you, you have to a) assume good faith on their part, b) not strawman the entire conversation, and c) make an effort to try to understand what they're saying. I don't see any sign you're doing that so I'm going to continue to treat you as if you're an ignorant and edgy 15-year-old playing prolier than thou. Because you haven't given me any indication that you're not.

(A)

3rd December 2016, 18:12

ckaihatsu

3rd December 2016, 19:04

"prolier than thou"

Love the play on words.

As for the post you reference what I was wondering how you can think that

"Our strength is in organization and ability to paralyze the economy" (spelling corrected)

Yet we wont face the force of the state in response to economic warfare and illegal acts?
Standing rock is a great example of how the state responds to almost meaningless economic challenges. With Military force.
What would happen if you start to "to paralyze the economy"... your going to be down a barrel of a gun because that's what the state
does. Its protects its national capitalist economy from all threats using force.

What actions can we take where we can attack the economy without ending down the barrel of a gun?
I think you are underestimating how many people the state is willing to kill for its economy.
*See Jews.

Who was it who said that Fascism is capitalism in decline or something like that?

When the economy is threatened even the most democratic state will fall back on fascism & violence to protect itself.
That is what my "rant" is about. The idea that we can stop capitalism without organized violence against the state.

Without disputing anything here, I'll note that the 'contest' is basically one of competing *organizational capabilities* -- I think you're playing-up the *dramatic* aspects of the class struggle, almost to the point of fatalism for future working class political endeavors.

We have to understand that the proletariat's 'horizon' consists of *broader* link-ups in labor organizing -- Standing Rock, as legitimate as it is, isn't a *labor* struggle, really. Perhaps the oil workers who *source* the petroleum for the pipeline should also be striking and protesting in solidarity, to say that no oil will flow, regardless, if the government doesn't back down, and that a strike could expand to *other*, already existing pipelines as well, based on some kind of timetable of compliance from the government.

The state's violence is dependent on divide-and-conquer strategies, so any *isolated* struggle is at-risk, while *labor-coordinated* actions would be broad-based and strong-enough to *out-flank* threats of violence and would then be in a position to dictate terms for the resumption of 'civilization', such as it is.

Blake's Baby

3rd December 2016, 19:51

...
As for the post you reference what I was wondering how you can think that

"Our strength is in organization and ability to paralyze the economy" (spelling corrected)...

Completely as an aside, I don't care whether you use British spellings or US spellings, but it isn't 'correcting' them to change one to the other. You use US spellings, I generally don't.

The reason I think that 'our strength is in organisation and ability to paralyse the economy' is because it's true. What makes the working class a revolutionary class is its role in production. The primary contradiction in capitalism is that wealth creation is social but wealth consumption is individual. And this is what I think you fail to understand. The proletariat is the first class in history that is both exploited and revolutionary. Previously, revolutionary classes were all about new ways to organise exploitation. The working class isn't. That means that mapping the US or French revolutions onto the proletarian revolution doesn't work. You may as well say 'all we need is for the Goths to come from the North and the Ottomans from the East, and we're set, it worked against the Roman Empire'. It's a truism that 'the next war is not like the last one' but even more in the case of the proletarian revolution. You don't seem to understand this.

...
Yet we wont face the force of the state in response to economic warfare and illegal acts? ...

Who said that? Go on, find where I or anyone else on this thread said that.

...
Standing rock is a great example of how the state responds to almost meaningless economic challenges. With Military force.
What would happen if you start to "to paralyze the economy"... your going to be down a barrel of a gun because that's what the state
does. Its protects its national capitalist economy from all threats using force.

What actions can we take where we can attack the economy without ending down the barrel of a gun?...

Not sure we can, because ultimately the state will use force against us, and the capitalists will also use violent extra-state measures. I don't know why you think that anyone is saying that wouldn't happen. Again, perhaps you could show where people said this.

...
I think you are underestimating how many people the state is willing to kill for its economy.
*See Jews...

I really think you are underestimating how little you've understood what people are saying on this thread.

...

Who was it who said that Fascism is capitalism in decline or something like that?

When the economy is threatened even the most democratic state will fall back on fascism & violence to protect itself.
That is what my "rant" is about. The idea that we can stop capitalism without organized violence against the state.

And who has said that this is the case? Of course the working class will have to organise itself to oppose the violence of the capitalists. On the other thread, however, you say that the working class shouldn't do this. I was the one arguing that the working class needs to organise itself to oppress the bourgeoisie and its supporters. You disagreed. Now you're saying I don't think the working class needs to organise itself to put down the bourgeoisie. Honestly, reading and comprehension are important.

(A)

3rd December 2016, 20:10

willowtooth

3rd December 2016, 21:24

I never said that the working class should not use violence; I have said that state violence is NOT working class violence because the working man has no nation. There can be no workers state.

If the state is going to use force against us what should we do to prepare for it? For instance their are organizations that distribute firearms specifically to socialists.
Perhaps if we know that the state will use violence against us; arming the working class and building militant unionism would a be a good thing for the left.
Or perhaps creating new community base reporting to ensure that the state is held liable when it uses violence. This is already happening thanks to social media but that system is not invaulnerable to attack by the administration.

Any ideas of your own?

This is in practice and propaganda because that is what this is about. What would it take for their to be a revolution and what should we do to work towards our cause.

If I wanted to discuss the theory of revolution I would have out this in theory.

You have already answered your own question, you have already come to a pre-made conclusion and your twisting facts, words, and history too suit your own personal theory. You're now saying that there can be no such thing as a workers state, I think Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and quite a few more would strongly disagree. You are purposefully changing the definitions of these words too suit your own theory.

So by your own circular logic there cannot be any form of revolution without a state army, and a state army cannot be socialist, therefore there can be no socialist revolution.

which is your overall point that there can be no socialist revolution.

(A)

3rd December 2016, 23:02

No I don't think that the authoritarian systems; created to ensure an incredibly hierarchal class based society can be considered socialist.

But that's not the point of this thread.

The point is to ask what will/should preceed a world wide socialist revolution. Any ideas whilly?

IbelieveInanarchy

3rd December 2016, 23:07

A general rise of class consciousness. And then these workers organizing in communes and building a new society. What else do you want to hear? :D

willowtooth

3rd December 2016, 23:11

No I don't think that the authoritarian systems; created to ensure an incredibly hierarchal class based society can be considered socialist.
in other words any army imaginable

But that's not the point of this thread. stop telling people what the point of your thread is

The point is to ask what will/should preceed a world wide socialist revolution. Any ideas whilly? What makes you think you would personally benefit from a socialist revolution anyway? What if step one is too kill everyone in Canada?

almost

4th December 2016, 02:31

The point is to ask what will/should preceed a world wide socialist revolution. probably a full ecological collapse

(A)

4th December 2016, 17:35

A general rise of class consciousness. And then these workers organizing in communes and building a new society. What else do you want to hear? :D

OK so now any ideas on actions we the vanguard of this movement can help raise the class consciousness of the workers? Or ways that we can facilitate the formation of organizations?

What makes you think you would personally benefit from a socialist revolution anyway? What if step one is too kill everyone in Canada?

An acquaintance brought this up recently, he said; "The system is pretty good as it is; why would you want to be on the losing side when you are already on the winning side."

Firstly he thinks as Canadian citizens we are the winning because of our nation is in the first world (I am not a nationalist so I dont agree); I have no love for my country; only the people in it who i share a struggle with. I will be the first one on the line to; more accurately; kill canada. Kill the idea of a nation built on colonialism and capitalism.
Not to kill everyone in it because that makes no sense from a working class standpoint; only a nationalistic one.

probably a full ecological collapse

Well we dont have far to go then.

Blake's Baby

4th December 2016, 18:00

...
This is in practice and propaganda because that is what this is about. What would it take for their to be a revolution and what should we do to work towards our cause.

If I wanted to discuss the theory of revolution I would have out this in theory.

And yet, you don't understand the practical answers you are given because your understanding of theory is weak.

What you should do, practically, is try to understand. That is the most important task you have as a militant. More important than having wild flights of fancy about headbutting F14 jets to death or wrestling Cruise missiles with your mighty proletarian arms. Arm yourself with some fucking theory that isn't based on a re-heated crush on the bourgeois revolutions. Understand what the working class is and isn't, what revolutions are and and, what can be accomplished and what can't, and what you can do about it.

This is not a 'practical' discussion. It is quintessentially pie-in-the-sky, speculative fiction, you defining an unreal situation and asking us to provide the linking steps in your fantasy.

(A)

4th December 2016, 19:06

What practical answers have you given?
Simply bullet point your revolutionary theory or some of your practical answers and stop trying to discredit something that I have not even explained.
I have not explained my theory because I want to learn yours... but instead of educating me as to your idea you attack some imaginary thesis I have written on the subject.

You know generally what I am against based on what I have written over the past few months but have no concrete thesis to attack because I have not provided one.
You think I support a secret cabal of militants leading the revolution or replacing the government but have no reason to think so as its simply untrue.
You have no idea my theory or understanding of revolution at all. So stop trying to attack it.

Fuck I agree with you on several of the hints you have given as to your theory. But you refuse to actually discuss it and instead want to fight me on every post about the stupidest shit.
Most of which I use as an example and not as a part of my theory.

SO lets try again

In a few years the revolution begins. What do you think would have lead to this. What precipitated this revolution and what steps did we take as the vanguard push it along or aid in its happening.
This is theorizing so I am sure you can do this.

Blake's Baby

4th December 2016, 21:51

It's hardly 'Practice and Propaganda' though as you just claimed. It is, instead, 'Theory'.

But - as (re-)stated, I don't think they're bad questions, for the Theory forum.

I'd suggest that the course of the development of the revolution over the last four years would have been:

increasing resistance to neo-liberalism from increasingly-marginalised sectors of the working class;
a recognition among some people committed to environmental protection that capitalism does not in any way protect the environment;
a radicalisation of sections of the youth in the main countries of capitalism (particularly Europe and the US), sickened by structural racism;
sporadic strikes and desperate (though limited) revolts as the ruling class is unable to provide any coherent 'fix' for the crises of capitalism;
increasingly despotic and arbitrary exercise of power by national governments;
increasing numbers of local wars and civil wars leading to widespread destabilisation (through extending refugee crises and just devastation of certain areas).

All of these start to flow together and then the sporadic strikes and desperate revolts start to happen simultaneously, and let's say Croatia and Nicaragua end up in a state of civil war, and when Germany and the US send troops to 'normalise' the situation, strikes and revolts break out there against the hated government.

In other words, the worse capitalism gets, the more forcefully the working class needs to take action against it.

But will it? That's the question I suppose. How does the working class get from here - atomisation and an historically-low level of class struggle - to class consciousness and taking on capitalism and the state in the world revolution?

Trotsky talked about the 'objective factors' - the development of capitalism including the proletariat - and the 'subjective factor' - the development of the proletariat's recognition of itself as a revolutionary subject. That's what's missing. The working class doesn't even recognise itself, let alone know that it holds in its hands the controls of the motors of history. And out task as revolutionaries is to work the generalisation of that realisation in the working class.

I don't think we 'push' the class or the revolution. I think all we can do (at the moment) is help the class learn lessons of its own history.

(A)

4th December 2016, 22:16

I'd suggest that the course of the development of the revolution over the last four years would have been:

increasing resistance to neo-liberalism from increasingly-marginalised sectors of the working class;
a recognition among some people committed to environmental protection that capitalism does not in any way protect the environment;
a radicalisation of sections of the youth in the main countries of capitalism (particularly Europe and the US), sickened by structural racism;
sporadic strikes and desperate (though limited) revolts as the ruling class is unable to provide any coherent 'fix' for the crises of capitalism;
increasingly despotic and arbitrary exercise of power by national governments;
increasing numbers of local wars and civil wars leading to widespread destabilisation (through extending refugee crises and just devastation of certain areas).

Perfect!
Now we can turn revolutionary theory into practical theory by discussing what we can do to help this process.

increasing resistance to neo-liberalism from increasingly-marginalised sectors of the working class

What would help increase this resistance? New media to talk specifically to workers about worker problems from a revolutinary standpoint?
The right has a large Media but the left seems to be lacking in comparison. Perhaps the rise of reaction is due to this so combating it has become more important then ever.

a recognition among some people committed to environmental protection that capitalism does not in any way protect the environment

That's a really good point. Anti-capitalists should be getting more and more involved in the green movement. I have seen a few attempts to do this online.
Getting involved with movements like standing rock and for me the Kinder Morgan trans-mountain. I heard that their is some breaking news in standing rocks favor out today.

a radicalisation of sections of the youth in the main countries of capitalism (particularly Europe and the US), sickened by structural racism

We can see that happening now but for both sides. The right is using their platforms to target children. Thoughts on how that can be stopped?
If you are Anti-fascist getting involved with organizations like Anti-fa and others to target online and real life platforms for fascists.

sporadic strikes and desperate (though limited) revolts as the ruling class is unable to provide any coherent 'fix' for the crises of capitalism

Direct action works and I think that engaging in direct action early is the propaganda of deed. That if we can show that violence is the answer that more people will see revolution as a possibility.

increasingly despotic and arbitrary exercise of power by national governments

And showing these despotic acts and openly opposing them could lead others to do so as well.

increasing numbers of local wars and civil wars leading to widespread destabilization (through extending refugee crises and just devastation of certain areas).

We need to prepare because as this becomes more and more a reality the need for community defense will be our only shield against fascism. If we are not armed and organized then those who are will win.

I don't think we 'push' the class or the revolution. I think all we can do (at the moment) is help the class learn lessons of its own history.

In my opinion a revolutionary is someone who pushes (physically or vocally) for revolution. Teaching must not be a neutral act. If we are revolutionary it means we must in my opinion be ready ourselves to act in the name of revolution and to be open about our position. If not then we are truly just keyboard warriors flinging shit at each other pointlessly.

Blake's Baby

4th December 2016, 23:17

I'm not talking about 'teaching' on the internet. I'm talking about real workers in real life that we actually talk to.

The internet is almost insignificant. It can help people find information but information isn't knowledge. It can help very isolated people stay connected but if the revolution is happening over the next four years people aren't 'isolated' because the working class is massively moving. We need to talk (and listen!) to workers - and other revolutionaries - face to face and we need to keep talking and listening even when there seem to be communication breakdowns.

But we don't make the revolution, any more than 'the Bolsheviks' made the revolution in Russia. The working class made the revolution. The working class will make the next revolution. We're just workers who - because of particular experiences we've had - have come to certain conclusions a little ahead of most other people. We expect that the rest of the working class will also come to these conclusions. But we can't lead them there. There isn't a short-cut to revolution. It's made by the class not some hyper-activist revolutionary fanboys.

Abraxas

4th December 2016, 23:49

Lets say we had 4 years to begin a revolution. That we all set a date (Please suspend your disbelief). That by 2020 we were going to be kicking down the doors of the government buildings and sizing the means of production. What would it take to do this. What steps in your opinion would have to taken and in what order. Examples might include

Forming new Armed socialist Unions.
The networking of different organizations, groups and movements.
Publicize and spread the word.
ETC...

This Thread is is not meant to create an argument or break down into sectarian violence. So please try and keep it Civil and productive.

I have often thought the same thing. I would say creating civilian led organizations that seek to fight problem issues in small communities. But also creating a network of these communities so that theories and working plans of actions can be spread and help can be given to all sides of the global revolution. Encouraging organized efforts of mass education alone can have us knocking down government doors in no time. It's not that people don't know something's up they just don't always understand what they can do, but instead of having 5 or 6 major organizations starting macro organizations and then uniting would be of great use. We have the tools today to do so we only need ti think in terms of power instead of victimization.

Wessex Way Monster

5th December 2016, 05:01

This obsession with weapons is totally wrong-headed, IMO. I only semi-disagree with you. While I do think that weapons in general are very important, there also needs to be am emphasis on the infrastructure that can make those weapons useful.

ckaihatsu

5th December 2016, 13:15

For whatever it's worth, on a strictly f.y.i. basis, here's a model I developed that could be relevant for on-the-ground local-group kinds of organizing:

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/)

ISSUER

AUTOMATIC TIMESTAMP UPON RECEIPT (YYYYMMDDHHMM)

ACTIVE DATE (YYYYMMDD)

FORMAL-ITEM REFERENCED (OR AUTOMATICALLY CREATED), IF ANY

FORMAL-ITEM NUMERICAL INCREMENT, 001-999, PER DAY, PER UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC UNIT

GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL INTENDED-FOR ('HSH', 'ENT', 'LCL', RGN', 'CTN', 'GBL')

GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE UNIQUE NAME, ABBREVIATED

FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME_BIRTHYEAR(YY)

INDIVIDUAL'S ITEM RANKING, 0001-9999 (PER DAY)

RANK-ITEM TYPE ('INI', 'DMN', 'PRP', 'PRJ', PDR', 'FND', 'DTI', 'LLI', 'PLP', 'ORD', 'REQ', 'SLD')

TITLE-DESCRIPTION

WORK ROLE NUMBER AND TITLE

TENTATIVE OR ACTUAL HAZARD / DIFFICULTY MULTIPLIER

ESTIMATE-OF OR ACTUAL LABOR HOURS PER SCHEDULED WORK SHIFT

TOTAL LABOR CREDITS (MULTIPLIER TIMES HOURS)

ACTUAL FUNDING OF LABOR CREDITS PER WORK SHIFT (FUNDING ITEM REFERENCE REQUIRED)

SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, BEGINNING DATE & TIME

SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, ENDING DATE & TIME

AVAILABLE-AND-SELECTED LIBERATED LABORER IDENTIFIER

DENOMINATION

QUANTITY, PER DENOMINATION

TOTAL LABOR CREDITS PER DENOMINATION

SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, BEGINNING

SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, ENDING

The potentially relevant part is the text superimposed in the background -- any group can easily create an index of formal political 'entries', like that of a financial balance sheet, for the purposes of group communication and cohesion. The database fields across the top of the graphic are listed here in the spoiler section. All item listings would be automatically date- and timestamped, and could reference a pre-existing, past item by number (in the format of YYYYMMDD.NNN).

The RevLeft discussion-board software already does this kind of thing, but the idea here is that in a local-group setting there would be a role (taken in turns by everyone, presumably) of boiling-down open-ended discussion and rhetoric into one-line summations, particularly for anything action- / to-do-oriented.

Each discrete political item entry would, in this format, facilitate a process of discussion and *progression* through qualitative 'stages', towards enactment, implementation, and post-action group analysis, as seen in this field:

RANK-ITEM TYPE ('INI', 'DMN', 'PRP', 'PRJ', PDR', 'FND', 'DTI', 'LLI', 'PLP', 'ORD', 'REQ', 'SLD')

The types are 'initiative', 'demand', 'proposal', 'project', 'production run', 'funding', 'debt issuance', 'liberated labor internal', policy proposal', 'order [of goods]', 'request [of goods]', and 'slot donation'. (Not all types listed here may be applicable.)

Also see:

[16] Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://s6.postimg.org/pxt6rhg4x/16_Affinity_Group_Workflow_Tracker.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/6spxhq1gt/full/)

(A)

5th December 2016, 17:33

The internet is almost insignificant.

This is an interesting question. I mean the inter-connectivity it creates has some real boons; as well as drawbacks.
I mean clearly the right has used it in a way that has caused a noticeable change in the real world. Perhaps ignoring its wider implications is a bad idea.

Blake's Baby

6th December 2016, 17:11

(A)

6th December 2016, 17:35

Conspirators can use the net. But we're not conspirators. We don't want to plan in secret for 10 million people or 100 million people or a billion people going on strike, we have to advocate it and discuss it openly.

The right uses the net for information distribution. That's what I said we can do to. It also uses it for organisation. But its organisations are hierarchical; ours aren't and shouldn't be. we can't use it as easily as they can because it isn't primarily about what the strength of the working class is. How does the internet help organise a mass meeting? How does it help a mass meeting send delegates to other workplaces?

Yes it allows scattered militants to keep in touch with other; our discussions can be international but also much faster than before. But we're not actually reaching massively larger numbers of people than before, just the same people faster. Maybe we could be better at using the internet but in the end we're replacing correspondence bureaux and newspapers with the electronic versions thereof. We can't yet replace a mass meeting or assembly. Nor I think should we try to. If we come up with novel ways of organising electronically great, the working class will no doubt discover and take them up. But I don't think we should set ourselves the task of 'Invent 6 (or even 1) new ways to organise on the internet'.

HUGE assumption on your part that I am referring to the use of the internet as a means of secretly planning attacks.

That is NOT AT ALL what I am talking about. You are again attacking ideas no one here has expressed.

The internet is a new medium for information and interconectivity that the right uses to target youth for indoctrination.

Ignoring the internet is not only going to give fascism a free un-challenged platform but also give up a platform for the left.

Also as a means to connect to each others struggles and provide support and the ability to quickly communicate with others in the movement. Yes you can live streme meetings and news from the front lines. Connecting the left in new ways.

Organizing meetings online.
Finding other Revolutionaries.
Providing platforms and media.
Disseminating information.

All of these things are an important part to growing any kind of movement past a small local one.

This has nothing at all to do with cabals and everything to do with using the medium to it's fullest while denying it to fascists.

Blake's Baby

8th December 2016, 17:03

...

The internet is almost insignificant. It can help people find information but information isn't knowledge...

This is an interesting question. I mean the inter-connectivity it creates has some real boons; as well as drawbacks.
I mean clearly the right has used it in a way that has caused a noticeable change in the real world. Perhaps ignoring its wider implications is a bad idea.

...
Yes it allows scattered militants to keep in touch with other; our discussions can be international but also much faster than before. But we're not actually reaching massively larger numbers of people than before, just the same people faster. Maybe we could be better at using the internet but in the end we're replacing correspondence bureaux and newspapers with the electronic versions thereof. We can't yet replace a mass meeting or assembly. Nor I think should we try to. If we come up with novel ways of organising electronically great, the working class will no doubt discover and take them up. But I don't think we should set ourselves the task of 'Invent 6 (or even 1) new ways to organise on the internet'.

...

The internet is a new medium for information and interconectivity that the right uses to target youth for indoctrination.

Ignoring the internet is not only going to give fascism a free un-challenged platform but also give up a platform for the left...

Literally, you are incapable of reading what other people write. Seriously, before you bother replying to this, re-read at least 3 times these exchanges. Then think about them. Only then, post a reply.

(A)

8th December 2016, 18:12

I read what you said; disagreed with the content; then stated what I believe to be true.

You said

But we're not actually reaching massively larger numbers of people than before, just the same people faster.

Which is not true. every day youth are joining the ranks of the internet populous. People who we have had no influence on and who the right is targeting.
People across the world with limited or no access are getting it and every other day their is a new viewer who stops by here and asks a question.

The internet is growing as a medium; not shrinking.
We ARE going to reach new people over the internet. The right is and they are doing it better.

IbelieveInanarchy

8th December 2016, 20:18

Including a revleft chat so we can directly communicate would be a great idea. Chats are way less "intimidating" than a forum. They are also more engaging.

Diego

8th December 2016, 21:20

this idea that revolutions are spontaneous is ridiculous. For them to work you'd need the support of the people, obviously. The first steps would be to teach and show the people the truth and to create a group and movement that calls for arms, but is instead calling for change, and peaceful change. This is important because saying you want violence alienates your cause and people will not listen. The change, thus, would need to be so great that the government would never do it and when the people want this change they'll be committed and keep fighting for it. The government would need to be seen as very hostile and violent and they would need to make the first shot, which wont be hard, propaganda would be needed as all successful revoltuons have used it. From there escalation of violence steps up and the people grower more passionate and focused on the cause now that the line has been crossed and they see the government as their enemy and the only way to change the system is to destroy it. There does need to be a leader or leaders who are strong and understand this process and the goal, therefore will keep pushing and not settle for reform. This can be started easily with a group of about 15ish to begin and from there educate, speak, protest and defy, then the people will follow and believe in the cause.

almost

20th December 2016, 23:38

Including a revleft chat so we can directly communicate would be a great idea. Chats are way less "intimidating" than a forum. They are also more engaging. fwih there was a revleft IRC that was much less active than the forum, but it had its own set of users who only used the chat and not the forum and they'd just sit in the sometimes active chat which is kind of creepy

TomLeftist

21st December 2016, 05:34

TomLeftist

21st December 2016, 05:48

Anarchy: If all leftists were like you open-minded with a one track mind (the destruction of capitalism with weapons), the whole world would already be like Sweeden or like Disney World, with free medical care, zero money, zero borders and a communist paradise. But many leftists are not so obsessed about a radical change toward a communist world.

Many leftists of the marxist parties are like the progressive social-democrats. Progressives hate capitalism, but at the same time, they hate the only way to destroy capitalism (with weapons). You see there is a problem of logical thinking in many people. I've even heard Thom Hartmann the progressive self-proclaimed socialist supporting many of the policies of King George (The King of the Imperialist Britain in the 1770)

They hate capitalism, but at the same time, they hate hating, they hate fighting, they hate any kind of violence, by hating any kind of violence against the capitalist exploiters they are really hating the billions of poor people who need socialism with free medical care and socialism with free houses and with free electricity for the very poor. Hating reality is hating the poor people of Africa, the poor people of USA and the people of the whole world. We have to love reality and if reality forces us to become warriors, like Marx said to the workers, we should obey that commandment and become fighters with weapons, soldiers (of course we will be labeled as a new Islamic State Terrorist Group). But we don't have to behave waiting for the aprorval of others. We marxists, communists should aim to take over the whole world, to govern the world, to own the world, so that the working class and poor people are the owners and controllers of the world

reality dictates that the only way to overthrow the dictatorship of the capitalist class is with weapons. But many leftists sort of idealize a sort of electoral utopianism, a sort of Ghandi, Mandela pacifist even religious moralist mentality, in which weapons today are things for monsters and that there is no need of weapons anymore, because humans including right wingers are good and not barbarian anymore.

You know people create in their heads the world and the reality that they love the most, the world that is suited for them. So I think what happens is that many radical leftists, many marxists think that it will be possible to see socialism thru elections. And we have scientific proof that it is impossible to see socialism with elections (examples: Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, haven't been able to install socialism, not even in Cuba). That's why many people voted for Donald Trump, in their heads the saw a progressive populist. And people are like that for what suits them better and in order to have an easier life without pain and without risks. We should welcome pains, risks, dangers. The greater the pain and danger the greater we will be

Lets say we had 4 years to begin a revolution. That we all set a date (Please suspend your disbelief). That by 2020 we were going to be kicking down the doors of the government buildings and sizing the means of production. What would it take to do this. What steps in your opinion would have to taken and in what order. Examples might include

Forming new Armed socialist Unions.
The networking of different organizations, groups and movements.
Publicize and spread the word.
ETC...

This Thread is is not meant to create an argument or break down into sectarian violence. So please try and keep it Civil and productive.

TomLeftist

21st December 2016, 06:02

Diego: you are right. We need to apply a little bit of psychology, sociology because most people like you said are educated, trained, mind-manipulated by the educational institutions, morality, religion, family to be anti-violence. You are right most people hate violence and are scared of violence. But like saying says "No pain, no gain". If people want radical change toward a better world, they will have to welcome pains, dangers, violence, blood. I think people have 2 options: Either more capitalism for many decades in which only celebrities, rich people and upper middle class people live a life of parties, fun, vacation cruises, dancing etc. and the majority lives a shitty depressive life not even being able to celebrate christmas. Or revolutionary violence, planning a revolutionary war (the only way to destroy capitalism) if they want a world of beauty, wealth, parties and fun.

There are no middle grounds

this idea that revolutions are spontaneous is ridiculous. For them to work you'd need the support of the people, obviously. The first steps would be to teach and show the people the truth and to create a group and movement that calls for arms, but is instead calling for change, and peaceful change. This is important because saying you want violence alienates your cause and people will not listen. The change, thus, would need to be so great that the government would never do it and when the people want this change they'll be committed and keep fighting for it. The government would need to be seen as very hostile and violent and they would need to make the first shot, which wont be hard, propaganda would be needed as all successful revoltuons have used it. From there escalation of violence steps up and the people grower more passionate and focused on the cause now that the line has been crossed and they see the government as their enemy and the only way to change the system is to destroy it. There does need to be a leader or leaders who are strong and understand this process and the goal, therefore will keep pushing and not settle for reform. This can be started easily with a group of about 15ish to begin and from there educate, speak, protest and defy, then the people will follow and believe in the cause.

ckaihatsu

21st December 2016, 13:46

You know what I've noticed in many radical parties, an excess of pacifism, an excess of legalism, moralism, and a sort of blackmail mentality by many members of parties that are supposed to be radical. I know that there has been for 2000 years or more the impact of religion and traditional morality. But I didn't know that many people that are not professional religious people are so moralists. I think that even many revolutions have been betrayed by the pacifist sector and moralists. People who think that fighting is evil, and that the word "war" is an evil word. When leftists are supposed to wage a "class war". I don't know why many leftists behave like non-leftists, even if they are members of ultra-leftist radical parties

Just for the record, those aren't *my* words -- here's the original post:

The Revolution often needs the whip of the counter-Revolution to spur it along. Backbone, strong wills, and Marxist theory are needed at times of apparent setback. As Trotsky observed at the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th, when reaction appeared to be all-powerful everywhere in Europe, that state of affairs was only "the present." The future is Socialist.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/10/pers-n10.html

---

Yes, I tend to agree with your sentiment.

Keep in mind that radicals are neighbors to nationalists, meaning that radicals are often dealing with real-world situations which are certainly not of the *left*'s making / intention / choosing.

I think there's an inherent trade-off as one goes right-ward on the political spectrum -- one is dealing with more here-and-now issues and projects, which is good, but we know that it's nationalists who carry-on the status quo political reality from day to day, which isn't 'left' in any sense of the term.

And the inherent trade-off left-wards is that one can be more 'pure' and principled, as with matters of theory, but at the expense of the here-and-now, since pressing issues of the real-world may not necessarily be dealt-with.

TomLeftist

21st December 2016, 19:05

I would like to add something i heard from the thinkers Eric Fromm or Adorno (I forgot who of them said it). They said that humans always choose the political ideology, the political system that requires less fighting, less radicalism, less hatred and an easier life (its not a piece of cake to be hated. People prefer to be loved than to be hated). So if a person is a communist but at the same time that person is surrounded by right-wing Republican Party supporters. If that person is not strong, that person would quit his personal communist ideology in order to be loved and accepted.

In Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_silence_(expression) There is something related to that called "Conspiracy of Silence" Here is the definition of conspiracy of silence, I think lots of people in America exercise a conspiracy of silence, in order to be part of the crowds, to be loved, accpeted, supported:

A conspiracy of silence, or culture of silence, describes the behavior of a group of people of some size, as large as an entire national group or profession or as small as a group of colleagues, that by unspoken consensus does not mention, discuss, or acknowledge a given subject. The practice may be motivated by positive interest in group solidarity or by such negative impulses as fear of political repercussion or social ostracism. It differs from avoiding a taboo subject in that the term is applied to more limited social and political contexts rather than to an entire culture. As a descriptor, conspiracy of silence implies dishonesty, sometimes cowardice, sometimes privileging loyalty to one social group over another. As a social practice, it is rather more extensive than the use of euphemisms to avoid addressing a topic directly.

Some instances of such a practice are sufficiently well-known or enduring to become known by their own specific terms, including Code of silence for the refusal of law enforcement officers to speak out against crimes committed by fellow officers and omertà, cultural code of organized crime in Sicily.

.

Just for the record, those aren't *my* words -- here's the original post:

---

Yes, I tend to agree with your sentiment.

Keep in mind that radicals are neighbors to nationalists, meaning that radicals are often dealing with real-world situations which are certainly not of the *left*'s making / intention / choosing.

I think there's an inherent trade-off as one goes right-ward on the political spectrum -- one is dealing with more here-and-now issues and projects, which is good, but we know that it's nationalists who carry-on the status quo political reality from day to day, which isn't 'left' in any sense of the term.

And the inherent trade-off left-wards is that one can be more 'pure' and principled, as with matters of theory, but at the expense of the here-and-now, since pressing issues of the real-world may not necessarily be dealt-with.

ckaihatsu

22nd December 2016, 12:27

I would like to add something i heard from the thinkers Eric Fromm or Adorno (I forgot who of them said it). They said that humans always choose the political ideology, the political system that requires less fighting, less radicalism, less hatred and an easier life (its not a piece of cake to be hated. People prefer to be loved than to be hated). So if a person is a communist but at the same time that person is surrounded by right-wing Republican Party supporters. If that person is not strong, that person would quit his personal communist ideology in order to be loved and accepted.

In Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_silence_(expression) There is something related to that called "Conspiracy of Silence" Here is the definition of conspiracy of silence, I think lots of people in America exercise a conspiracy of silence, in order to be part of the crowds, to be loved, accpeted, supported:

A conspiracy of silence, or culture of silence, describes the behavior of a group of people of some size, as large as an entire national group or profession or as small as a group of colleagues, that by unspoken consensus does not mention, discuss, or acknowledge a given subject. The practice may be motivated by positive interest in group solidarity or by such negative impulses as fear of political repercussion or social ostracism. It differs from avoiding a taboo subject in that the term is applied to more limited social and political contexts rather than to an entire culture. As a descriptor, conspiracy of silence implies dishonesty, sometimes cowardice, sometimes privileging loyalty to one social group over another. As a social practice, it is rather more extensive than the use of euphemisms to avoid addressing a topic directly.

Some instances of such a practice are sufficiently well-known or enduring to become known by their own specific terms, including Code of silence for the refusal of law enforcement officers to speak out against crimes committed by fellow officers and omertà, cultural code of organized crime in Sicily.

Yeah, I tend to call this phenomenon 'groupthink', or 'subjective social reality':

Worldview Diagram

http://s6.postimg.org/qjdaikuwh/120824_Worldview_Diagram.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/axvyymiy5/full/)

ckaihatsu

11th May 2017, 19:58

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/10/upri-m10.html

More than half of young people in Europe would join a “large-scale uprising”

By Andre Damon

10 May 2017

It is not every day that young people are asked by a major international agency whether they want to participate in a “large-scale uprising.” But this is exactly what the Union of European Broadcasters, the world’s largest alliance of public TV stations, did in a survey of nearly one million people between the ages of 18 and 35.

Asked, “Would you actively participate in a large scale uprising against the generation in power if it happened in the next days or months?”, more than half, 53 percent, said yes. In Greece and France, the figure was over 60 percent.

https://www.facebook.com/wsws.org/videos/10155473133064684/
More than half of young people would join a mass "uprising"

The phrasing of the question seemed calculated to take the edge off the result, intentionally muddying the issue with the hint of an inter-generational conflict. But the responses to the other questions make clear the feelings that animated young people in saying they would join an “uprising.” The survey found that young people are overwhelmingly concerned about social inequality, oppose war and sympathize with refugees.

Asked whether “Banks and money rule the world,” nearly 9 out of 10 young people said they agreed, out of more than 500,000 people who answered the question.

http://www.wsws.org/asset/260039e7-9d50-4712-a037-da6d26d1d0bJ/image.png?rendition=image480

Along the same lines, when respondents were asked whether the “gap between the rich and the poor” is widening, 89 percent agreed.

http://www.wsws.org/asset/92f40ace-9399-4e47-b409-7ba7901c82fM/image.png?rendition=image480

Asked whether “politicians are corrupt,” respondents were even more categorical, with only 8 percent replying “No, very few of them are.” The overwhelming majority responded with some form of “yes,” answering either “some are” or “virtually all of them are.”

http://www.wsws.org/asset/e8b33ad1-0677-418e-9f17-6a6a4fb1220F/image.png?rendition=image480

Thomas Grond, Head of Young Audiences at the Union of European Broadcasters, told the WSWS that the figures showed a “catastrophic” collapse in trust in social institutions. “Trust in the media, in politicians, in religious institutions, these have all failed.

“A big part of the young population is not feeling that politics are taking them into consideration,” Grond said. “It’s about preserving the system, and there isn’t a lot of change. And where there is change, it’s backwards.”

Asked if he was surprised by the fact that so many young people said they would be willing to participate in a “large-scale uprising,” Grond answered bluntly: “Not really.” He said the poll showed that, despite their skeptical attitude toward social institutions, young people are broadly optimistic about the future, and “willing to participate” in political life. “Society is simply not giving them a chance to show what they are capable of,” he said.

Grond said he was surprised by the broadly felt opposition to nationalism pervasive among survey participants. “78 percent of young people in Germany said that nationalism is growing and that this is a bad thing,” Grond noted. This compared to just 11 percent who said the growth of nationalism was a positive development.

http://www.wsws.org/asset/d6863b95-c794-4981-9028-d90dc65510aM/image.png?rendition=image480

Significantly, in Germany, where the ruling class is engaged in a campaign to rehabilitate nationalism and militarism—including by academics like Jörg Baberowski (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/19/humb-a19.html), who has said that “Hitler was not cruel” and was “no psychopath”—more than two thirds of young people said they would not be willing to fight in a war.

Throughout Europe, despite the relentless promotion of militarism and pro-war sentiments by the media, more than half of young people said they would refuse to “fight for [their] country.”

http://www.wsws.org/asset/5c90f2ad-9135-4245-afc6-95eb60a84c6J/image.png?rendition=image480

Beginning with Britain's June 23, 2016 referendum to leave the European Union, followed by the election of the fascistic billionaire Donald Trump as US president in November, the international media has been full of claims that the populations of the world’s advanced countries are engulfed in an upsurge of nationalism, militarism and right-wing sentiment.

The survey shows something quite different. Asked whether they believe “immigration makes for richer countries,” nearly three quarters said they agree.

http://www.wsws.org/asset/3dd12845-b5b1-4753-8403-61576cd6ca6B/image.png?rendition=image480

These figures beg the obvious question: Given a nearly total discrediting of official politics, a general recognition that banks “rule the world,” widespread antiwar sentiment, and broad opposition to nationalism and xenophobia, why are right-wing, pro-austerity politicians advancing all over the world?

The answer is to be found in the record of what passes for “left” politics. Here are just a few examples:

• In the 2016 US presidential primary, Senator Bernie Sanders won 13.3 million votes by declaring himself to be a “democratic socialist” opposed to the “billionaire class.” The purpose of his campaign, however, was to maintain the political authority of the Democratic Party. Sanders endorsed Clinton, the candidate of Wall Street, after he was defeated in the primaries, ensuring that rhetorical opposition to the status quo would be monopolized by Trump. He has since campaigned throughout the country calling on young people and workers to back the Democratic Party.

• After Syriza (the “Coalition of the Radical Left”) was elected in Greece in January 2015 on a wave of anti-austerity sentiment, the government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras dutifully imposed the austerity demands of the European Union. Syriza and its international co-thinkers do not represent the interests of workers and working-class youth, but privileged sections of the upper middle class.

• In the most recent elections in France, Jean-Luc Mélenchon (Unsubmissive France) received 7 million votes on the basis of his rhetorical opposition to inequality and war. However, he worked to channel this sentiment behind the political establishment. He refused to call for a boycott in the second round of the election between Marine Le Pen of the fascistic National Front and the ex-banker Emmanuel Macron, implicitly backing Macron, who supports the expansion of war and a massive intensification of the assault on the working class.

It is necessary to build a genuine socialist leadership in the working class, based on opposition to capitalism and all forms of nationalism. The International Committee of the Fourth International and its youth organization, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE), are fighting to build such a leadership all over the world.

Find out how you can get involved in the IYSSE today! (http://iysse.org/)

Copyright © 1998-2017 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved