The Feral Underclass
1st April 2005, 10:16
Redstar2000 has been a mysterious internet personality since I became a young and naïve dweller of cyber space three years ago. His idea’s and attitude and his relative secrecy have awarded him a position of guru or dogmatist.
Although I don’t think he generally minds being referred to as a dogmatist it is clear that those who regard him as a guru do in a very grand way, either through out right adulation or through attempting to replicate his style.
On the other side there are those who attempt to undermine his arguments; posing apparent flaws which they hammer home, often to little effect or people who simply ignore him.
Either way it is obvious that these two camps have something in common. His consistent ability to make clear and concise arguments, or evasions, depending on who you are, are clearly irritating or awe inspiring.
Redstar2000 has written many posts and papers on the internet which he has collected together and created a website out of. The Redstar2000 Papers are, as he calls it “The ultimate in contemporary egotism.” It is an interesting starting point for those interested in revolutionary politics.
Not only does he have papers entitled, ‘Marxism without the Crap’ where he seems to clarify aspects of Marxism which he thinks are relevant to modern society but also, ‘What is Communism?’ and ‘An attempt at a brief definition of Socialism.’ I’m sure he also revels in the fact that he has a platform to offer polemics against dialectics and Leninism, which are interesting to read and almost always right.
This website seems to be the last chapter in a life that is never discussed. Sometimes you get a glimpse into his past in some posts, his age and his politics are really the only thing that people are clear about.
One of the things I admire about Redstar’s politics is the idea of trying things never been tried before. Even if they fail, then it has been tested, as if we had an historical check list, we can then move on to something new or improved; learning lessons from our mistakes and carrying on.
Redstar has always seemed to be about theoretics. Correct the mistakes of Leninism and rethinking Marxism in his old age. He often rejects calls for personal meetings and does not belong to a political organisation.
All this and the fact his website and his posts seem random in topic and helpful only to beginners or theoretically minded people, paints a picture of someone who would rather discuss than act, at least now in his last “years” as he morbidly insists on putting it.
But if you scratch below the service of this self-proclaimed old man and his internet crusade of spreading the word of Marxism you begin to see that there is a purpose to it. A purpose which is not at all clear; at least not from him, and almost ambiguous in the small snippets you do get to see.
In the paper entitled ‘A New Type of Communist Organization’ Redstar attempts to look at what is necessary in practice to make an organisation which is both theoretically sound, in terms of how it was meant, and which is new and untested (with our historical check list and clipboard ready).
Having never read this before, and as an anarchist it was interesting to see this theoretical pundit apply his idea’s into some kind of political programme. What I found interesting though is, with all the theoretical, dare I say might, this small paper seems nervous, almost lacking conviction.
In his own words he says “This piece is nearly a year old and I somehow overlooked it when I was going back through my "old rubbish." One would think it bizarre that a theoretical basis for a New type of communist organisation would be overlooked.
After admitting, rather humbly, that he is not Lenin and that he doesn’t “have a fully-developed theory of revolutionary communist organization to put forward. Nevertheless, I think there are minimum standards that must be met if we are to have reasonable hopes for future success.” he moves on to discuss 8 points.
He starts his point by point idea with: “The organization must first of all be communist. Every member must have an understanding of basic Marxist concepts--especially the primary goal of abolishing the capitalist ruling class and building a communist, classless society.”
Fine, I like it. Only thing is, this isn’t new. The anarchist communist movement has been maintaining this since the beginning of it’s existence. The only difference here is that the state, being one of the main obstacles to this “primary goal” has been completely ignored by Redstar.
Whether or not it should be maintained or destroyed outright, or even an attempt at discussing the issue hasn’t been raised. This I feel is more than an oversight, and it leads to the possibility he doesn’t have an answer. Until that answer exists, there is little focus that can be made.
The state is the main contention between anarchists and Marxists in terms of theory and more importantly tactics. To ignore such a fundamental question in a paper proclaiming to be an idea for a “New Communist Organisation” is quite careless.
The second point again raises the question: What is so new about this? “All substantive decision-making power must be in the hands of the membership at large. Should the organization establish representative organs, these organs serve at the pleasure of the membership and may be modified or abolished at any time for any reason by a simple majority vote of the membership.” Again the anarchist movement organises itself like this and nothing here is new.
Bakunin discussed, Malatesta discussed further and Kropotkin clarified this method of organising. This is an anarchist idea employed by anarchists, which works well, and it seems suspicious that we should invent an organisation with the same principles, just with another name? Why?
The remaining points are of little consequence in terms of being New. They mimic anarchist organization or cover some abstract tactical point.
The only point which seemed at all new was the third point where it raises the idea of allowing dissent within the organisation. I have never seen this point established before so as far as I’m aware, it is indeed a new idea and one that should obviously be encouraged, both for democratic and theoretically progressive purposes.
In a conclusion he talks about the words “neo” and movement and that it should have the word communist in it. Funnily enough, that spells Neo-Communist Movement, but he never says that. It would be interesting to know why? Is it fear?
My main contention with this paper, and the reason I have decided to make this small essay is because if this idea is to be offered as an alternative, it is important to give a beginning of reason why it should be countered. This is not an alternative; It already exists.
The anarchist movement has tirelessly attempted to propagate it’s ideas. It brings out clear analysis of imperialism, capitalism, the state, and the idea’s to form an organisation.
Maybe people disagree with those analysis’ but there is a clear theoretical basis and understanding of society. The anarchist movement is admittedly small and desperately needs new members to bring fresh idea’s and enthusiasm but it is no way defeated, which this paper indirectly suggests.
The ‘New Communist Organisation’ in terms of what Redstar has suggested is in practice already and it really seems like a slap in the face. What is it about anarchism or the anarchist movement which Redstar dislikes? Is he afraid of the stigma surrounding the name or the dogmatic approach taken to the state?
In a time when movements are growing and tension is mounting between classes or between organisations and the authority of the ruling class it is important to remain focused. Advertising ‘New Communist Organisations’ to young people disillusioned or unknowledgeable is confusing and counter-productive.
Theoretical disagreements should be debated, not ignored. Passion should be re-ignited not given an altogether different direction, especially a direction which is un-clarified in fundamental theoretical area’s.
We need unity, not division and we need people to get fighting. The anarchist movement exists, it functions and has been the Neo-Communist Movement for a long time.
Although I don’t think he generally minds being referred to as a dogmatist it is clear that those who regard him as a guru do in a very grand way, either through out right adulation or through attempting to replicate his style.
On the other side there are those who attempt to undermine his arguments; posing apparent flaws which they hammer home, often to little effect or people who simply ignore him.
Either way it is obvious that these two camps have something in common. His consistent ability to make clear and concise arguments, or evasions, depending on who you are, are clearly irritating or awe inspiring.
Redstar2000 has written many posts and papers on the internet which he has collected together and created a website out of. The Redstar2000 Papers are, as he calls it “The ultimate in contemporary egotism.” It is an interesting starting point for those interested in revolutionary politics.
Not only does he have papers entitled, ‘Marxism without the Crap’ where he seems to clarify aspects of Marxism which he thinks are relevant to modern society but also, ‘What is Communism?’ and ‘An attempt at a brief definition of Socialism.’ I’m sure he also revels in the fact that he has a platform to offer polemics against dialectics and Leninism, which are interesting to read and almost always right.
This website seems to be the last chapter in a life that is never discussed. Sometimes you get a glimpse into his past in some posts, his age and his politics are really the only thing that people are clear about.
One of the things I admire about Redstar’s politics is the idea of trying things never been tried before. Even if they fail, then it has been tested, as if we had an historical check list, we can then move on to something new or improved; learning lessons from our mistakes and carrying on.
Redstar has always seemed to be about theoretics. Correct the mistakes of Leninism and rethinking Marxism in his old age. He often rejects calls for personal meetings and does not belong to a political organisation.
All this and the fact his website and his posts seem random in topic and helpful only to beginners or theoretically minded people, paints a picture of someone who would rather discuss than act, at least now in his last “years” as he morbidly insists on putting it.
But if you scratch below the service of this self-proclaimed old man and his internet crusade of spreading the word of Marxism you begin to see that there is a purpose to it. A purpose which is not at all clear; at least not from him, and almost ambiguous in the small snippets you do get to see.
In the paper entitled ‘A New Type of Communist Organization’ Redstar attempts to look at what is necessary in practice to make an organisation which is both theoretically sound, in terms of how it was meant, and which is new and untested (with our historical check list and clipboard ready).
Having never read this before, and as an anarchist it was interesting to see this theoretical pundit apply his idea’s into some kind of political programme. What I found interesting though is, with all the theoretical, dare I say might, this small paper seems nervous, almost lacking conviction.
In his own words he says “This piece is nearly a year old and I somehow overlooked it when I was going back through my "old rubbish." One would think it bizarre that a theoretical basis for a New type of communist organisation would be overlooked.
After admitting, rather humbly, that he is not Lenin and that he doesn’t “have a fully-developed theory of revolutionary communist organization to put forward. Nevertheless, I think there are minimum standards that must be met if we are to have reasonable hopes for future success.” he moves on to discuss 8 points.
He starts his point by point idea with: “The organization must first of all be communist. Every member must have an understanding of basic Marxist concepts--especially the primary goal of abolishing the capitalist ruling class and building a communist, classless society.”
Fine, I like it. Only thing is, this isn’t new. The anarchist communist movement has been maintaining this since the beginning of it’s existence. The only difference here is that the state, being one of the main obstacles to this “primary goal” has been completely ignored by Redstar.
Whether or not it should be maintained or destroyed outright, or even an attempt at discussing the issue hasn’t been raised. This I feel is more than an oversight, and it leads to the possibility he doesn’t have an answer. Until that answer exists, there is little focus that can be made.
The state is the main contention between anarchists and Marxists in terms of theory and more importantly tactics. To ignore such a fundamental question in a paper proclaiming to be an idea for a “New Communist Organisation” is quite careless.
The second point again raises the question: What is so new about this? “All substantive decision-making power must be in the hands of the membership at large. Should the organization establish representative organs, these organs serve at the pleasure of the membership and may be modified or abolished at any time for any reason by a simple majority vote of the membership.” Again the anarchist movement organises itself like this and nothing here is new.
Bakunin discussed, Malatesta discussed further and Kropotkin clarified this method of organising. This is an anarchist idea employed by anarchists, which works well, and it seems suspicious that we should invent an organisation with the same principles, just with another name? Why?
The remaining points are of little consequence in terms of being New. They mimic anarchist organization or cover some abstract tactical point.
The only point which seemed at all new was the third point where it raises the idea of allowing dissent within the organisation. I have never seen this point established before so as far as I’m aware, it is indeed a new idea and one that should obviously be encouraged, both for democratic and theoretically progressive purposes.
In a conclusion he talks about the words “neo” and movement and that it should have the word communist in it. Funnily enough, that spells Neo-Communist Movement, but he never says that. It would be interesting to know why? Is it fear?
My main contention with this paper, and the reason I have decided to make this small essay is because if this idea is to be offered as an alternative, it is important to give a beginning of reason why it should be countered. This is not an alternative; It already exists.
The anarchist movement has tirelessly attempted to propagate it’s ideas. It brings out clear analysis of imperialism, capitalism, the state, and the idea’s to form an organisation.
Maybe people disagree with those analysis’ but there is a clear theoretical basis and understanding of society. The anarchist movement is admittedly small and desperately needs new members to bring fresh idea’s and enthusiasm but it is no way defeated, which this paper indirectly suggests.
The ‘New Communist Organisation’ in terms of what Redstar has suggested is in practice already and it really seems like a slap in the face. What is it about anarchism or the anarchist movement which Redstar dislikes? Is he afraid of the stigma surrounding the name or the dogmatic approach taken to the state?
In a time when movements are growing and tension is mounting between classes or between organisations and the authority of the ruling class it is important to remain focused. Advertising ‘New Communist Organisations’ to young people disillusioned or unknowledgeable is confusing and counter-productive.
Theoretical disagreements should be debated, not ignored. Passion should be re-ignited not given an altogether different direction, especially a direction which is un-clarified in fundamental theoretical area’s.
We need unity, not division and we need people to get fighting. The anarchist movement exists, it functions and has been the Neo-Communist Movement for a long time.