Which Way Forward For Left Libertarians?

[SonofRage]

It seems that there are many socialist revolutionaries who, like myself, see Leninism as being an authoritarian failure. Many of us sort of have a synthesis of Anarchist and Marxist ideas. Unfortunately, there is a lot of sectarianism on both sides.

My question is, how do we work towards such a libertarian communist movement? How do we take the best parts of both Anarchism and Marxism and build a strong Libertarian Communist organization?

I'm not really satisfied with any currently-existing organization, but it seems like so much work (and perhaps foolish) to try and build a new one from scratch. I admit that I even flirted with Leninism, by being in the International Socialist Organization for eight months.

I know I'm not the only one in this dilllema, what have others decided to do? Is the answer Platformist groups like the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (http://makhno.nefac.net/html/drupal/) or perhaps more multi-tendency, anti-authoritarian models like the Red and Anarchist Action Network (http://www.redanarchist.org/pn/html/)?

My work has been mostly in trying to rebuild the Socialist Party USA (http://www.sp-usa.org), the Direct Action Tendency of the SP-USA (http://www.actiontendency.net), and the Industrial Workers of the World (http://www.iww.org).

Thoughts?

[SonofRage]

It seems that there are many socialist revolutionaries who, like myself, see Leninism as being an authoritarian failure. Many of us sort of have a synthesis of Anarchist and Marxist ideas. Unfortunately, there is a lot of sectarianism on both sides.

My question is, how do we work towards such a libertarian communist movement? How do we take the best parts of both Anarchism and Marxism and build a strong Libertarian Communist organization?

I'm not really satisfied with any currently-existing organization, but it seems like so much work (and perhaps foolish) to try and build a new one from scratch. I admit that I even flirted with Leninism, by being in the International Socialist Organization for eight months.

I know I'm not the only one in this dilllema, what have others decided to do? Is the answer Platformist groups like the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (http://makhno.nefac.net/html/drupal/) or perhaps more multi-tendency, anti-authoritarian models like the Red and Anarchist Action Network (http://www.redanarchist.org/pn/html/)?

My work has been mostly in trying to rebuild the Socialist Party USA (http://www.sp-usa.org), the Direct Action Tendency of the SP-USA (http://www.actiontendency.net), and the Industrial Workers of the World (http://www.iww.org).

Thoughts?

[SonofRage]

It seems that there are many socialist revolutionaries who, like myself, see Leninism as being an authoritarian failure. Many of us sort of have a synthesis of Anarchist and Marxist ideas. Unfortunately, there is a lot of sectarianism on both sides.

My question is, how do we work towards such a libertarian communist movement? How do we take the best parts of both Anarchism and Marxism and build a strong Libertarian Communist organization?

I'm not really satisfied with any currently-existing organization, but it seems like so much work (and perhaps foolish) to try and build a new one from scratch. I admit that I even flirted with Leninism, by being in the International Socialist Organization for eight months.

I know I'm not the only one in this dilllema, what have others decided to do? Is the answer Platformist groups like the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (http://makhno.nefac.net/html/drupal/) or perhaps more multi-tendency, anti-authoritarian models like the Red and Anarchist Action Network (http://www.redanarchist.org/pn/html/)?

My work has been mostly in trying to rebuild the Socialist Party USA (http://www.sp-usa.org), the Direct Action Tendency of the SP-USA (http://www.actiontendency.net), and the Industrial Workers of the World (http://www.iww.org).

Thoughts?

[PRC-UTE]

My question is, how do we work towards such a libertarian communist movement? How do we take the best parts of both Anarchism and Marxism and build a strong Libertarian Communist organization?

I believe that multi-tendencied movements that are run democatically are the best option. That way marxists and anarchists can decide policy together in a framework that doesn't ignore either (assuming that both play by the rules).


I know I'm not the only one in this dilllema, what have others decided to do? Is the answer Platformist groups like the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists or perhaps more multi-tendency, anti-authoritarian models like the Red and Anarchist Action Network?

I am sympathetic to both Platformist groups and to multi-tendencied organisations. I think both have their place.


Thoughts?

Keep up the good work. I think the IWW is a great organisation to work through because I don't believe it can be corrupted by parasites.

[PRC-UTE]

My question is, how do we work towards such a libertarian communist movement? How do we take the best parts of both Anarchism and Marxism and build a strong Libertarian Communist organization?

I believe that multi-tendencied movements that are run democatically are the best option. That way marxists and anarchists can decide policy together in a framework that doesn't ignore either (assuming that both play by the rules).


I know I'm not the only one in this dilllema, what have others decided to do? Is the answer Platformist groups like the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists or perhaps more multi-tendency, anti-authoritarian models like the Red and Anarchist Action Network?

I am sympathetic to both Platformist groups and to multi-tendencied organisations. I think both have their place.


Thoughts?

Keep up the good work. I think the IWW is a great organisation to work through because I don't believe it can be corrupted by parasites.

[PRC-UTE]

My question is, how do we work towards such a libertarian communist movement? How do we take the best parts of both Anarchism and Marxism and build a strong Libertarian Communist organization?

I believe that multi-tendencied movements that are run democatically are the best option. That way marxists and anarchists can decide policy together in a framework that doesn't ignore either (assuming that both play by the rules).


I know I'm not the only one in this dilllema, what have others decided to do? Is the answer Platformist groups like the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists or perhaps more multi-tendency, anti-authoritarian models like the Red and Anarchist Action Network?

I am sympathetic to both Platformist groups and to multi-tendencied organisations. I think both have their place.


Thoughts?

Keep up the good work. I think the IWW is a great organisation to work through because I don't believe it can be corrupted by parasites.

[redstar2000]

I'm not really satisfied with any currently-existing organization, but it seems like so much work (and perhaps foolish) to try and build a new one from scratch.

Yes, that's definitely "the hard road".

But existing organizations, even ones that are "pretty decent" have a certain amount of built-in inertia...it's more difficult to get them to move in a direction that you think is better, you sometimes have to put a lot of energy into "internal struggle", etc.

I'm not a "dogmatist" on this question; I tell people to have a look at the existing groups in their particular area, see what they're like "up close", and if it "feels right", go ahead and sign up.

But I also say that if none of them "feel right", then it's better to wait...or look around for individuals who might become the nucleus of a new group (study groups are great for this purpose).

Over the years, what I've noticed that really fucks people up is a strong emotional identification with a particular group...if that group goes sour for any reason, people just get crushed.

Like a "busted romance"...only worse!

Organizations (projects, whatever) exist to serve our purposes...we don't exist in order to serve some organization's purposes. The organization is our tool, not our "master".

Some thoughts on revolutionary organization...

SDS: A Revolutionary Model? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082819073&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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=&)

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

I'm not really satisfied with any currently-existing organization, but it seems like so much work (and perhaps foolish) to try and build a new one from scratch.

Yes, that's definitely "the hard road".

But existing organizations, even ones that are "pretty decent" have a certain amount of built-in inertia...it's more difficult to get them to move in a direction that you think is better, you sometimes have to put a lot of energy into "internal struggle", etc.

I'm not a "dogmatist" on this question; I tell people to have a look at the existing groups in their particular area, see what they're like "up close", and if it "feels right", go ahead and sign up.

But I also say that if none of them "feel right", then it's better to wait...or look around for individuals who might become the nucleus of a new group (study groups are great for this purpose).

Over the years, what I've noticed that really fucks people up is a strong emotional identification with a particular group...if that group goes sour for any reason, people just get crushed.

Like a "busted romance"...only worse!

Organizations (projects, whatever) exist to serve our purposes...we don't exist in order to serve some organization's purposes. The organization is our tool, not our "master".

Some thoughts on revolutionary organization...

SDS: A Revolutionary Model? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082819073&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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=&)

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

I'm not really satisfied with any currently-existing organization, but it seems like so much work (and perhaps foolish) to try and build a new one from scratch.

Yes, that's definitely "the hard road".

But existing organizations, even ones that are "pretty decent" have a certain amount of built-in inertia...it's more difficult to get them to move in a direction that you think is better, you sometimes have to put a lot of energy into "internal struggle", etc.

I'm not a "dogmatist" on this question; I tell people to have a look at the existing groups in their particular area, see what they're like "up close", and if it "feels right", go ahead and sign up.

But I also say that if none of them "feel right", then it's better to wait...or look around for individuals who might become the nucleus of a new group (study groups are great for this purpose).

Over the years, what I've noticed that really fucks people up is a strong emotional identification with a particular group...if that group goes sour for any reason, people just get crushed.

Like a "busted romance"...only worse!

Organizations (projects, whatever) exist to serve our purposes...we don't exist in order to serve some organization's purposes. The organization is our tool, not our "master".

Some thoughts on revolutionary organization...

SDS: A Revolutionary Model? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082819073&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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=&)

:redstar2000:

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

[PRC-UTE]

No member of the organization shall ever be compelled to articulate or defend a policy or position with which that member disagrees; nor shall any member ever be required to implement a policy or project with which that member disagrees.

are you sure you're not a libertarian? :lol: just kidding, anyway, very good piece, one that everyone should read.

Demarchy. . . didn't the greeks practice something like that? Not exactly the same obviously, but I believe they used a lottery.

It's damn difficult to have a truly democratic party. I belong to a party that is non-sectarian and democratic, the IRSP. There are great rows all the time over policy, especially between leninists and anti-authoritarians. It tends to work out eventually but thank god we don't adhere to a leninist model!

[PRC-UTE]

No member of the organization shall ever be compelled to articulate or defend a policy or position with which that member disagrees; nor shall any member ever be required to implement a policy or project with which that member disagrees.

are you sure you're not a libertarian? :lol: just kidding, anyway, very good piece, one that everyone should read.

Demarchy. . . didn't the greeks practice something like that? Not exactly the same obviously, but I believe they used a lottery.

It's damn difficult to have a truly democratic party. I belong to a party that is non-sectarian and democratic, the IRSP. There are great rows all the time over policy, especially between leninists and anti-authoritarians. It tends to work out eventually but thank god we don't adhere to a leninist model!

[PRC-UTE]

No member of the organization shall ever be compelled to articulate or defend a policy or position with which that member disagrees; nor shall any member ever be required to implement a policy or project with which that member disagrees.

are you sure you're not a libertarian? :lol: just kidding, anyway, very good piece, one that everyone should read.

Demarchy. . . didn't the greeks practice something like that? Not exactly the same obviously, but I believe they used a lottery.

It's damn difficult to have a truly democratic party. I belong to a party that is non-sectarian and democratic, the IRSP. There are great rows all the time over policy, especially between leninists and anti-authoritarians. It tends to work out eventually but thank god we don't adhere to a leninist model!

[redstar2000]

Demarchy. . . didn't the Greeks practice something like that? Not exactly the same obviously, but I believe they used a lottery.

Well, the Athenians did...and it's certainly possible that some of the other Greek city-states did.

The Greek democrats had this "funny idea" that all citizens should not simply vote on policy issues but should serve at least one term of public office in some capacity.

(That didn't apply, of course, to women, slaves, and resident non-citizens.)

All public offices were filled by lottery and you could not stay in office for more than one term. Occasional exceptions were made; Athens' military commanders were elected by the assembly and subject to recall if they lost a battle or exile if they lost a war.

It "worked" well enough until they ran up against Alexander the Great and, afterwards, the Roman Empire.

Of course, the body of knowledge that one needed to serve competently in public office was much smaller then than it is now. Thus we would have to do it more carefully and in stages to "make it work" for a high-tech communist society.

But I think it's definitely workable...we would develop "managerial expertise" without ever having the problem of "management" status leading to "management" command.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

Demarchy. . . didn't the Greeks practice something like that? Not exactly the same obviously, but I believe they used a lottery.

Well, the Athenians did...and it's certainly possible that some of the other Greek city-states did.

The Greek democrats had this "funny idea" that all citizens should not simply vote on policy issues but should serve at least one term of public office in some capacity.

(That didn't apply, of course, to women, slaves, and resident non-citizens.)

All public offices were filled by lottery and you could not stay in office for more than one term. Occasional exceptions were made; Athens' military commanders were elected by the assembly and subject to recall if they lost a battle or exile if they lost a war.

It "worked" well enough until they ran up against Alexander the Great and, afterwards, the Roman Empire.

Of course, the body of knowledge that one needed to serve competently in public office was much smaller then than it is now. Thus we would have to do it more carefully and in stages to "make it work" for a high-tech communist society.

But I think it's definitely workable...we would develop "managerial expertise" without ever having the problem of "management" status leading to "management" command.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

Demarchy. . . didn't the Greeks practice something like that? Not exactly the same obviously, but I believe they used a lottery.

Well, the Athenians did...and it's certainly possible that some of the other Greek city-states did.

The Greek democrats had this "funny idea" that all citizens should not simply vote on policy issues but should serve at least one term of public office in some capacity.

(That didn't apply, of course, to women, slaves, and resident non-citizens.)

All public offices were filled by lottery and you could not stay in office for more than one term. Occasional exceptions were made; Athens' military commanders were elected by the assembly and subject to recall if they lost a battle or exile if they lost a war.

It "worked" well enough until they ran up against Alexander the Great and, afterwards, the Roman Empire.

Of course, the body of knowledge that one needed to serve competently in public office was much smaller then than it is now. Thus we would have to do it more carefully and in stages to "make it work" for a high-tech communist society.

But I think it's definitely workable...we would develop "managerial expertise" without ever having the problem of "management" status leading to "management" command.

:redstar2000:

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

[Xvall]

I'm not sure either. Hell, the only reason I haven't really joined any groups is because I don't really think that any of them have a connection with me.

[Xvall]

I'm not sure either. Hell, the only reason I haven't really joined any groups is because I don't really think that any of them have a connection with me.

[Xvall]

I'm not sure either. Hell, the only reason I haven't really joined any groups is because I don't really think that any of them have a connection with me.

[PRC-UTE]

Redstar, have you ever seriously thought about or attempted to start a "neo-communist" league like you have written about?

Let us all know if you do.

[PRC-UTE]

Redstar, have you ever seriously thought about or attempted to start a "neo-communist" league like you have written about?

Let us all know if you do.

[PRC-UTE]

Redstar, have you ever seriously thought about or attempted to start a "neo-communist" league like you have written about?

Let us all know if you do.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 06:29 PM
Redstar, have you ever seriously thought about or attempted to start a "neo-communist" league like you have written about?

Let us all know if you do.
Alas, I am too old. :(

See, I can still go on the internet & run my fat mouth with the best of them. :P

But serious organizing is a "young man's (and young woman's) game". I remember my days back in SDS very well: two or three meetings per week; hours and hours of "shit work" (producing leaflets & underground newspapers); demonstrating and getting arrested; writing articles; going to national conventions (four times a year!) full of wrangling...looking back now, I can't believe I had the sheer energy to do all that stuff and still work a full-time job, have love-affairs, etc. :o

So my hopes must rest at this point on the idea that some young revolutionaries will borrow my ideas -- the ones they find useful -- "and run with them".

My brain is still "young"...though my poor body has one foot in the grave. :(

Old age happens to us all...though I too once thought that it would "never happen to me". :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 06:29 PM
Redstar, have you ever seriously thought about or attempted to start a "neo-communist" league like you have written about?

Let us all know if you do.
Alas, I am too old. :(

See, I can still go on the internet & run my fat mouth with the best of them. :P

But serious organizing is a "young man's (and young woman's) game". I remember my days back in SDS very well: two or three meetings per week; hours and hours of "shit work" (producing leaflets & underground newspapers); demonstrating and getting arrested; writing articles; going to national conventions (four times a year!) full of wrangling...looking back now, I can't believe I had the sheer energy to do all that stuff and still work a full-time job, have love-affairs, etc. :o

So my hopes must rest at this point on the idea that some young revolutionaries will borrow my ideas -- the ones they find useful -- "and run with them".

My brain is still "young"...though my poor body has one foot in the grave. :(

Old age happens to us all...though I too once thought that it would "never happen to me". :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 06:29 PM
Redstar, have you ever seriously thought about or attempted to start a "neo-communist" league like you have written about?

Let us all know if you do.
Alas, I am too old. :(

See, I can still go on the internet & run my fat mouth with the best of them. :P

But serious organizing is a "young man's (and young woman's) game". I remember my days back in SDS very well: two or three meetings per week; hours and hours of "shit work" (producing leaflets & underground newspapers); demonstrating and getting arrested; writing articles; going to national conventions (four times a year!) full of wrangling...looking back now, I can't believe I had the sheer energy to do all that stuff and still work a full-time job, have love-affairs, etc. :o

So my hopes must rest at this point on the idea that some young revolutionaries will borrow my ideas -- the ones they find useful -- "and run with them".

My brain is still "young"...though my poor body has one foot in the grave. :(

Old age happens to us all...though I too once thought that it would "never happen to me". :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[Osman Ghazi]

It "worked" well enough until they ran up against Alexander the Great and, afterwards, the Roman Empire.


I had always thought that Sparta put an end to that after whooping their ass in the Pelopponesian War. But anyways, thats for the history forum.

[redstar2000]

I had always thought that Sparta put an end to that after whooping their ass in the Pelopponesian War.

After Sparta defeated Athens, the Spartans installed a puppet regime of aristocrats ("the thirty tyrants") to govern the city and stationed a garrison on top of the Acropolis (sort of a "green zone" :lol:).

Within a few years, however, the tyrants were overthrown and the Spartans, under siege, agreed to withdraw. Athenian democracy was restored.

This, by the way, was the background of the trial and execution of Socrates. Though much is routinely made of the "injustice" of it all and the obviously trumped-up charges of "impiety" and "corrupting the youth", what Socrates was really being tried for was collaboration with the Spartan occupation. He was not only a close associate of some of the tyrants but actually held public office himself under their rule.

A "general amnesty" prevented anyone from actually being charged with collaboration, but Athenian democrats wanted a "symbolic trial" to show the determination of the revived democracy...and Socrates was a convenient and deserving target.

Athenian democracy continued to flourish and the city even enjoyed a modest revival...until, as I said, it ran into Alexander the Great.


But anyways, that's for the history forum.

True...but a small diversion never hurts all that much. :D

:redstar2000:

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

[STI]

This, by the way, was the background of the trial and execution of Socrates. Though much is routinely made of the "injustice" of it all and the obviously trumped-up charges of "impiety" and "corrupting the youth", what Socrates was really being tried for was collaboration with the Spartan occupation. He was not only a close associate of some of the tyrants but actually held public office himself under their rule.

A "general amnesty" prevented anyone from actually being charged with collaboration, but Athenian democrats wanted a "symbolic trial" to show the determination of the revived democracy...and Socrates was a convenient and deserving target.


Where did you find that interesting little tidbit? Socrates is somewhat of a "celebraty" among some people at my school, and it's always fun to throw mud in the faces of peoples' heroes (a tad sadistic, yes).

Seriously. You should have seen all the shit I was talking about Superman.

[redstar2000]

Here's a balanced account...

The Trial of Socrates (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html)

:redstar2000:

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