STORM -- the Life and Death

[redstar2000]

As a public service, I thought people might be interested in reading this rather lengthy "self-analysis" of a now extinct revolutionary group in the San Francisco Bay Area.

http://chicago.indymedia.org/usermedia/app...RMSummation.pdf (http://chicago.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/7/STORMSummation.pdf)

It is a document rich in lessons -- positive and negative.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[bunk]

I read it all my eyes hurt now.
It's a good guide to future movements perhaps the CGLM should look at it.
What do you think is the best system for a revolutionary organization like they used democratic centralism which i don't think is really a cause of their failure.

[bunk]

people should actually read this i hope some other people have.

[Louis Pio]

The group my mom and dad belonged to back in the days made a similar document when they disbanded.
The only danish communist group to do so. It's quite remarkable that some groups do, especially since people must be disillusioned when their group disbands.
Thumbs up

[redstar2000]

I read it all; my eyes hurt now.

Ain't it the truth! I HATE .pdf formats and avoid them whenever I can.

Perhaps someone someday who really appreciates this document will painfully re-type it and post it as .html.

Meanwhile... :blink:


What do you think is the best system for a revolutionary organization; like they used democratic centralism which I don't think is really a cause of their failure.

I think the causes of their failures and their successes are "all mixed up" with each other.

They were trying to be "good communists" and, since in their eyes you "had" to have "democratic centralism" in order to "be" good communists, they set up a formal two-tier system of "core" and "activists".

But it was a very "odd" version of "democratic" centralism; the activists did not have to be communists and they made their own decisions regarding practical work...while the inner "core" was responsible for theoretical work yet was self-selecting and never really responsible to the activists.

The STORM folks built into their structure a formal division between theory and practice...and the results of that were not encouraging.

As to what I favor with regard to a revolutionary organization...

A New Type of Communist Organization (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083205534&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083345239&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I may not be right...but I'm easier to read. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[bunk]

I don't really understand dialectical materialism but they seemed to think that understanding it was the key to maintaining their group.

[bunk]

The organization must first of all be communist. Every member must have an understanding of basic Marxist concepts

At the start it would be most likely to have a mixture of leftists. I agree that they shouldn't be allowed if they don't understand any marxism but I think most leftists would be happy with a democratic system.

New members are admitted on the recommendation of some small number of existing members

i agree

Freedom of dissent is an absolute requirement for a vital and effective communist organization.

The problem with this is that it's quite often that groups split into two groups and this would make it more likely. Sometimes you can get a group of people who won't accept the democratic vote. Though i think that freedom of dissent is needed but however tight nit the group is people will still disagree with each other quite strongly on some issues

I keep changing my mind on what i think so if this is a rubbish post sorry.

[redstar2000]

Freedom of dissent is an absolute requirement for a vital and effective communist organization.

The problem with this is that it's quite often that groups split into two groups and this would make it more likely.

Actually, I think the reverse of that is true.

The reason "democratic centralist" groups are so prone to splits is that the minority has no legitimate way of becoming the majority. There's no realistic mechanism of changing "the party line" except from the top.

And the existing leadership is not going to permit the rank-and-file to remove them from office.

So when a serious political controversy erupts in a Leninist party, it begins as a dispute among the leaders and then filters down to the membership. The leaders of the minority have no choice but to split...as they will never be permitted to become the majority (even if a majority of the membership supported them).

A radically democratic communist movement would preserve the "hopes" of the minority eventually becoming the majority...and thus reduce the frequency of splits.

Or so it seems to me.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas