RAAN ...again

[VermontLeft]

Sounds good to me! :)

but whats the Red & Anarchist Action Network's anyway? :huh: ive never heard of that one and ive been doing some research lately on lefty groups and whatever...

is this one of those lenininism things cause i dont really think those are for me. i mean i get that the USR was "deformed" or whatever, but all of these lenininism places keep seeming to fuck up and i mean eventually weve got to try out something else ...right? :unsure:

[Nachie]

hehehe actually right now there is a vote in the commie club (this forum's "governing body") as to whether RAANistas should be banned from revleft for "advocating violence against Leninists". We are definitely the only group in this country that actively opposes Leninism, and probably the most successful at uniting anti-state Marxists and anarchists.

RAAN is fairly new, we're just coming up on our 4th anniversary next month. We're active in 7 US states and Venezuela, and the way we're organized and the culture of humor + action that we've tried to cultivate are both, I believe, totally unique.

A good place to start is the Defining RAAN (http://www.redanarchist.org/definition/index.html) text from the website :)

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:11 PM
whether RAANistas should be banned from revleft for "advocating violence against Leninists"
Does RAAN advocate violence against Leninists? Because if it does, that to me is just another example of the stupid, blinkered, exclusionist view of politics that seems to plague the left, where anyone on the left who disagrees slightly with your own leftist views is the enemy, is worse than right-wingers.

BRIAN: Stop, stop! We must unite against our common enemy!

PEOPLE'S FRONT FOR JUDEA AND POPULAR FRONT FOR JUDEA: The Judean People's Front?!

[Nachie]

I prefer this question: Is an active, militant, non-electoral revolutionary alliance possible between communists, libertarian Marxists, and anarchists of all self-definitions without the exclusion of Leninism? It is my experience that it is not. There's no such thing as this mythical "leftist unity" that some people wish for... we have totally opposite ideas, approaches, and even versions of historical events from the Leninists. They in all their historical formations have never hesitated to use violence against anarchists or other "ultra-leftists" (non-Leninists). The first thing to do is stop confusing them for our friends.

Principled engagement and debate with individual Leninists. Postures of exclusion and offense to all organized Leninism.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:11 PM
hehehe actually right now there is a vote in the commie club (this forum's "governing body") as to whether RAANistas should be banned from revleft for "advocating violence against Leninists". We are definitely the only group in this country that actively opposes Leninism
Even shoulder-to-shoulder with the police and the fascists? You need to get your priorities straight.


I prefer this question: Is an active, militant, non-electoral revolutionary alliance possible between communists, libertarian Marxists, and anarchists of all self-definitions without the exclusion of Leninism? It is my experience that it is not. There's no such thing as this mythical "leftist unity" that some people wish for... we have totally opposite ideas, approaches, and even versions of historical events from the Leninists. They in all their historical formations have never hesitated to use violence against anarchists or other "ultra-leftists" (non-Leninists). The first thing to do is stop confusing them for our friends.
Then what's the point of the CC voting to allow/kick you guys? Surely, you should stay away from Revleft on principle, because Leninists are tolerated here?


Principled engagement and debate with individual Leninists. Postures of exclusion and offense to all organized Leninism.
And "hunting [us] at [our] conferences".

[Nachie]

I apologize for the role I have just played in knocking this thread horrifically off-topic. I doubt it will ever return.

Oh well. I'm always open to PMs if anybody still wants to talk.

[Wanted Man]

No problemo, we can always wait for someone to split it. About the 4th RAAN-related topic split lately, but hey. :P

[Enragé]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Apr 23 2006, 04:19 PM--> (patrickbeverley @ Apr 23 2006, 04:19 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 05:11 PM
whether RAANistas should be banned from revleft for "advocating violence against Leninists"
Does RAAN advocate violence against Leninists? Because if it does, that to me is just another example of the stupid, blinkered, exclusionist view of politics that seems to plague the left, where anyone on the left who disagrees slightly with your own leftist views is the enemy, is worse than right-wingers.

BRIAN: Stop, stop! We must unite against our common enemy!

PEOPLE'S FRONT FOR JUDEA AND POPULAR FRONT FOR JUDEA: The Judean People's Front?! [/b]
well i'd answer with yes

check this crap out

http://redanarchist.org/propaganda/fucklenin.pdf

would make me wonder whether its just a group of morons or FBI infiltrators :lol:

[barista.marxista]

As I know it, that banner up there includes anarchism as half of this forum's purpose. Every anarchist is as opposed to Leninism as we RAANistas are, but as soon as we call ourselves communists, the Lennies get all uppity.

C'mon, man. How many centuries must we waste on Leninism? Historical materialism, yo.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:18 PM
check this crap out

http://redanarchist.org/propaganda/fucklenin.pdf

would make me wonder whether its just a group of morons or FBI infiltrators :lol:
Heh, very telling. I bet they'd've fired the guns on the heads of "evil Stalinists" in Vietnam, siding with the yankees and the army of South Vietnam. But that never happened, for some reason, Vietnam never had a RAAN. I wonder why. :lol:

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Matthijs+Apr 23 2006, 03:42 PM--> (Matthijs @ Apr 23 2006, 03:42 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 08:18 PM
check this crap out

http://redanarchist.org/propaganda/fucklenin.pdf

would make me wonder whether its just a group of morons or FBI infiltrators :lol:
Heh, very telling. I bet they'd've fired the guns on the heads of "evil Stalinists" in Vietnam, siding with the yankees and the army of South Vietnam. But that never happened, for some reason, Vietnam never had a RAAN. I wonder why. :lol: [/b]
Yeah, and the Lennies did fire upon the Krondstat rebels, and the Makhnovischina in the Ukraine, and the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, and the Communards in Shanghai in 67, and in France in 68, etc. You can't play speculation with history.

[Nachie]

Ward Churchill's comparison of pacifism to alchemy is equally applicable to Leninism.

If we keep repeating the same failed experiment over and over again, eventually that lead will turn to gold!

...I swear!

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:37 PM
As I know it, that banner up there includes anarchism as half of this forum's purpose. Every anarchist is as opposed to Leninism as we RAANistas are, but as soon as we call ourselves communists, the Lennies get all uppity.

C'mon, man. How many centuries must we waste on Leninism? Historical materialism, yo.
i dont get all "uppity" when you say that

i do get all "uppity" when people want to attack what are their comrades in essence


Yeah, and the Lennies did fire upon the Krondstat rebels, and the Makhnovischina in the Ukraine, and the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, and the Communards in Shanghai in 67, and in France in 68, etc. You can't play speculation with history.

They probably shouldnt have, they probably shouldnt have, the rest were not leninists, but stalinists. POUM never shot anarchists i believe.

[Nachie]

[people who] are their comrades in essence
We have a right to not believe you when say that. We have a historical obligation to have nothing to do with Leninism.


POUM never shot anarchists i believe.
Orwell served with the POUM and wrote plenty about the "May Days" in Barcelona and his armed encounters Vs. the anarchists. The Spanish CP was the big culprit, though.

For anyone going with the "but those were Stalinists, not Leninists" line, I recommend reading Stalin did not fall from the moon - http://struggle.ws/wsm/pamphlets/pdf_russia.html

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 09:03 PM

[people who] are their comrades in essence
We have a right to not believe you when say that. We have a historical obligation to have nothing to do with Leninism.

you have that right

and I have the right to put forward my opinions without being hunted by those i at least consider my comrades
who's the authoritarian now?


Orwell served with the POUM and wrote plenty about the "May Days" in Barcelona and his armed encounters Vs. the anarchists. The Spanish CP was the big culprit, though

i'll look into it


For anyone going with the "but those were Stalinists, not Leninists" line

sure he didnt fall from the moon

look at the state of russia after the civil war and the interventions

[Nachie]

who's the authoritarian now?
Still you.

Or maybe both of us? Or just me? I really don't care and it really doesn't matter.

"Ustedes, podrán condenarme, pero la historia me absolverá" - Fidel Castro

If he can say it, so can we :lol:


look at the state of russia after the civil war and the interventions
The whole point is to look at the fundamental character of the Bolshevik Party and why that allowed Stalinism to happen. Blaming it on the civil war is the biggest oversimplification in history, especially considering countless acts of mass counterrevolutionary terror and power-consolidation by Lenin and Trotsky.

Seriously, check out that pamphlet. Or I can recommend some other ones with less-humorous titles if you want?

[IronColumn]

Instead of attacking them (leninists), shouldn't you simply utilize them to forward the goals of the Revolution? It seems that if you discount working with Leninists you'd also have to discount working with social democrats and other reformists as well (I'm assuming that RAAN is banning the Leninists for non revolutionary purity). To me the problem isn't working with those people it's knowing who is putting on who. In Ukraine and Spain anarchists didn't know what the deal was, but now I think they know the score. In any event, I think it would be more worthwhile to simply ignore the Leninists as they have arguably zero credibility with any informed member of the Left and even less with the capitalist propagandized public.

I think it would certainly be a better use of time to fight the Leninists by ignoring them and furthering the revolution instead of negating one of many faces of counter revolution.

[Nachie]

Iron Column you are absolutely correct and yes, RAAN does "discount working with social democrats and other reformists as well". We have always been about building this thing on our OWN terms, consolidating our successes and knowing ourselves before worrying about others.


I think it would certainly be a better use of time to fight the Leninists by ignoring them and furthering the revolution instead of negating one of many faces of counter revolution.
I agree but to reach that point it is necessary to build a strong culture of anti-Leninism, set precedents that will make it impossible for Leninist "entryism" in the future. But this does not mean that we are obsessed with Leninists and confronting them as the only tactic. To quote RedLibertad's "7 Theses on the Orientation of RAAN":


V. The Network's principles are against Leninism and vanguard/Statist ideology. The vanguard has never accurately aligned itself with class struggle. We open ourselves to unity with those who "may hold sympathy for some of Lenin's ideas" (Bordgists, Italian-tradition Autonomists, etc.) under the pretense of mutual aid. We accept class struggle with no compromises. This should also always be a conscious fact. Under no circumstances does RAAN intend to subsume self-described Leninists (vanguardists, Bolsheviks, "party-builders"), and therefore they should expect our standards to be held against them.

...

VII. Leninist sympathizers who recognize the priority of true class struggle, as we have come to understand them, stand in opposition to (anti-state) communism and anarchism mostly for reasons of unfamiliarity. Acquaintance with anti-authoritarian class struggle is the ultimate discourse with Leninist sympathizers, as is experience with the inherent counter-revolutionary conduct of vanguards. RAAN's actions will provide the former, the study and recurrence of history shall provide the latter.

See you [Leninists] in the streets... or maybe not.
Historically (that is, in the 4 years of our existence) RAAN activity has been focused much more n other things than anti-Leninism. But there is definitely a conscious undercurrent as to why we have chosen to "ignore" them and build our own projects outside of their influence.

The people who are making the most noise about this are of course the Leninists themselves, who are offended that they're not invited to the party and simply can't stand to see the anti-state Marxists getting organized to the point where they might actually be heard.

At the same time we have to realize that the future growth of these anti-authoritarian projects puts them on a historical collision course with Leninism just as we have seen anywhere else in the world. It's incredibly dangerous to ignore this reality; we must be prepared.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:18 PM
would make me wonder whether its just a group of morons or FBI infiltrators :lol:
Yeah, the FBI really gives two fucks about what a bunch of insignificant followers of Lenin are up to, and wastes its agents trying to disrupt them. :rolleyes: Get over yourself.

[bayano]

i used to know some raan folks, tho i think one of their chapters eventually broke-up, and they were never as violently sectarian as this. what a crying shame.

[Nachie]

Columbus, Ohio?

[bayano]

probably. still know some other antifas from there, but i know antifas from all over ohio, so i might be getting them mixed up.

[Nachie]

Yeah that was a "RAAN Fraction" of the Arawak City Brain Trust, it split from the Federation of Revolutionary Anarchist Collectives (FRAC) in 2003 but broke up around 2004 I think. It was primarily based out of ARA militants (again, I think). I only ever met two of them during some of the planning meetings for one of the York antifa protests.

I know they made a bunch of RAAN t-shirts and raised $60 selling them but other than that we're not really aware of what happened with that group or if they even did anything. We know that at least one of the most active people became an ultra-nihilist quasi-primitivist and dropped out of RAAN because we were "too organizationalist".

My guess is that the group inherited the big problems of FRAC itself, which is that they had no ideological unity and would argue about everything. I remember one story where the Federation split over whether to include a picture of Castro in a poster about political leaders all being the same. No wonder that Fed isn't around anymore...

Also 2003-2004 was a crazy time for RAAN where we were juuuuust figuring out what the hell this thing was supposed to be. They were definitely not the only network chapter to form and disband around this time; several of the projects I was involved with also suffered the same fate.

There is still an active crew in Cincinnati, though. And I'm pretty sure one person from Columbus is still down with the network, but he's out travelling and squatting somewhere.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:11 PM
We are definitely the only group in this country that actively opposes Leninism, and probably the most successful at uniting anti-state Marxists and anarchists.

I woud have to serriously disagree with this statment.

there are many groups, some of them much larger than RAAN that are very much oposed to leninism and all other strains of authoritarianism within the left.

[anomaly]

I'd have to agree with rebelworker. It seems to me that anarchist groups generally oppose Leninism and other authoritarian ideologies.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:53 PM
there are many groups, some of them much larger than RAAN that are very much oposed to leninism and all other strains of authoritarianism within the left.
But how many of them are openly anti-Leninist communists? It's not because we're anti-Leninists, but because we're actually communists that they are so upset.

[Nachie]

Rebelworker my bad you're right, especially since anarchist groups like NEFAC or CrimethInc. would be considered anti-Leninist by default.

What I should have said is I don't think any of those groups have created as much of a "stir" or an issue out of anti-Leninism, probably because RAAN is the only one actively trying to recruit Marxists, and within anarchism being anti-Lenin is so "DUH!" that you hardly even need to mention it.

Also RAAN is to my knowledge the only group that has attacked Leninists physically (though obviously there is some contention as to if this is a positive or not). In some places such as Greece those tactics are much more widespread within the anarchist movement.

An interesting point for this discussion:

In the recent green scare arrests, the Feds have alleged that they uncovered ELF plans for firebombing CPUSA offices...

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:03 PM

POUM never shot anarchists i believe.
Orwell served with the POUM and wrote plenty about the "May Days" in Barcelona and his armed encounters Vs. the anarchists. The Spanish CP was the big culprit, though.
I've read that book, and Orwell writes about the POUM participating in Barcelona barricade fighting - on the same side as the anarchist workers! The Spanish Trotskyist group, which was called the Bolshevik-Leninists, did the same. So as usual, Nachie is completely, exactly wrong here.

On the larger question: I guess this is some kind of attempt to justify thug attacks on a "they did it first" basis.

If everyone was that stupid, it would reduce relations within the working-class movement* to the level of the Hatfield-McCoy feud. I've gotta shoot you 'cause your granddad shot my granddad, basically. Not much chance for class unity there.

Heck, retaliation even for more recent stuff is deeply counterproductive. Say, if the RCP hunted down and attacked RAAN members in retaliation for RAAN attacks.

Among other things, gives the cops a lovely excuse to crack down on both. Violence within the working-class movement only benefits the ruling class.

Self-defense - and defense for others who are attacked - is the best strategy. As decades of experience show.

Also, the "they did it first" argument demonstrates neatly that RAAN, or the thugs within it, are just as authoritarian as the Stalinists! Like the Stalinists, they attempt to physically silence an opposing view within the working-class movement.

____

*I'm being charitable by speaking as if RAAN is part of the working-class movement, at least a middle-class tendency operating within it. That may be too generous; in which case this is simply an attack on the working-class movement from outside.

[Nachie]

I don't have a copy of that book here but this Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_May_Days) says the POUM and anarchists fought on the same side, so I will concede that point. As I recall in the book Orwell was mostly just chilling on the roof of a POUM building and in the confusion had little idea of who was shooting who.

My mistake comes from the film "Land and Freedom" which was loosely based on Orwell's account and did feature scenes of POUM and CNT militias trading bullets. I do apologize.

Anyway, thanks for speaking charitably of us.

[barista.marxista]

But there's no doubt Trotsky ordered the violent suppression of the Makhnovists in the Ukraine, so what are we arguing?

Leninists have always suppressed anarchists and non-Leninist Marxists, more often than not by guns. But, of course, when we say we won't work with you, let alone when we actively oppose you, we're called sectarian. :lol:

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 02:54 AM
Leninists have always suppressed anarchists and non-Leninist Marxists, more often than not by guns. But, of course, when we say we won't work with you, let alone when we actively oppose you, we're called sectarian. :lol:

Wouldn't you know it, I'm a non-Leninist Marxist and this grandpa grandpas shit is too old. I find it counter-productive aswell, the objective conditions are different now, and I find sticking to any historical trend of Anarchism or Communism (be it Leninism, Luxemburgism, Bookchinism, ect) too rigid to take into todays circumstances.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Defining the Red & Anarchist Action Network
There are no national conferences to attend...

A serious weakness, in my opinion.

A wheel "without a hub" doesn't work very well.

Not that one would want to make the "national conference" into a "central committee" or "impose discipline" on people from sheer perversity.

But "face time" between revolutionaries is important...you can't do everything over the internet.

Over time, people who attend "national conferences" develop a "feel" for activities that "mesh" with RAAN's purposes...something much more difficult to accomplish over the internet.

National conferences develop coherence...something extremely valuable unless one wishes to make a "virtue" of "randomness".

As things stand now, "RAAN" doesn't do anything. Cincinnati RAAN does something or Philadelphia RAAN does something or New York RAAN does something.

And what if those things are at "cross-purposes" with one another?

True, it's not necessary that RAAN "speak with one voice"...but does it help if RAAN speaks with "conflicting voices"?

Don't think that "won't happen"...in the present period it's almost inevitable that it will happen.

And how will such conflicts be resolved...in a way that's perceived as "fair and rational" by all concerned?

Please understand that I'm not suggesting that RAAN "needs" a "central bureaucracy" of some kind.

But, if it is to be taken seriously, then it does need more organizational coherence than it presently has now.

Groups like ALF and ELF, because they (or some of them) engage in illegal activities, cannot (for obvious security reasons) have any significant "center" at all.

Unless RAANistas envision a similar future for themselves, I see no reason why RAAN should not have annual or even semi-annual national conferences.

They are especially important for new people...giving them a real feeling for what they've become "part of" beyond whatever local collective they've joined.

But I think the biggest appeal would be to anti-Leninist Marxists and serious anarchists...who are obviously dissatisfied with the organizational "options" that presently exist.

To be sure, national conferences are "resource intensive"...especially if RAAN were to "catch on" and become "big".

But I think it's a price "worth paying". The energizing effects of national SDS meetings (4 times a year) had, in my opinion, a lot to do with its local dynamism. When people feel as if they are "part of something big", it does wonders for their morale. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[вор в законе]

In some places such as Greece those tactics are much more widespread within the anarchist movement.

Which tactics are spread in Greece ?



Also RAAN is to my knowledge the only group that has attacked Leninists physically (though obviously there is some contention as to if this is a positive or not).

That's due to RAAN's fault. Your dogma has been unfortunately based soley on anti-Leninism. Serious organizations must have a thesis, not just an anti-thesis.

Although this trend exists generally within the left. In the sense that we know what we do not want but we don't know how to exactly realize what we do want, for if we knew, we wouldn't have been in this situation right now.

Regards

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Apr 23 2006, 10:06 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Apr 23 2006, 10:06 PM)Wouldn't you know it, I'm a non-Leninist Marxist and this grandpa grandpas shit is too old. I find it counter-productive aswell, the objective conditions are different now, and I find sticking to any historical trend of Anarchism or Communism (be it Leninism, Luxemburgism, Bookchinism, ect) too rigid to take into todays circumstances.[/b]
It's only "grandpa grandpas shit" if you think those persecutions were isolated, individual instances, instead of a systematic necessity within the Leninist paradigm. Libertarian leftism is inherently opposed to Leninism because the Lennies argue that the only "revolutionary force" that can exist after the revolution is their party. And unless you're not one for history (in which case, you're not a Marxist), you cannot ignore this. We cannot align ourselves with such reactionary forces simply because they've had a monopoly on Leftism in the past -- look at what their monopoly did! We need to say fuck that, and militantly reject their authoritarianism. It's only counter-productive if all we do was complain on forums. But you must distinguish building a culture of anti-Leninism as a means of uniting anarchists and communists, and reducing that to the focus of RAAN.


"Red Brigade"
That's due to RAAN's fault. Your dogma has been unfortunately based soley on anti-Leninism. Serious organizations must have a thesis, not just an anti-thesis.

No, all you have seen is our anti-Leninism, so that's what you equate us with. You dismiss your lethargy as our dogma; our "thesis" is about five paragraphs up from our "antithesis" -- so READ IT! Furthermore, you've had no interaction whatsoever with any members of RAAN in a real-life setting, contextualized by the actual organization they are working on. Your analysis of our "dogma" is about as materially based as, again, alchemy.

[Nachie]

Eh I'm with you redstar, face-to-face dialogue is the backbone of the network, anybody from the new Philly group can tell you that better than I.


Unless RAANistas envision a similar future for themselves
It's not entirely out of the question. Repression is stepping up, big time.


I see no reason why RAAN should not have annual or even semi-annual national conferences.
Neither do I, but until somebody gets off their ass and makes it happen, or enough people demand it, or we even HAVE enough people in one area to make it worthwhile, there's no use in forcing it just for the sake of saying we had it :)

The idea of RAAN conferences was discussed more thoroughly in one of the very first threads during the whole "Animal Liberation" discussion, I think. I believe it was anomaly who was showing the most interest in the idea.

I definitely feel what you're saying about the psychological effects of face time and group unity and stuff. They are definitely among the most important things we are studying in trying to build solid crews. It definitely helps that a couple people have RAAN tattoos, too ;)

[LoneRed]

must the RAAN be brought up once more, couldnt we let history envelope it?

[Nachie]

depends... does the lick-n-stick glue on history's envelope taste magically delicious?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:22 AM
It's only "grandpa grandpas shit" if you think those persecutions were isolated, individual instances, instead of a systematic necessity within the Leninist paradigm.
I'm saying that Leninism doesn't exist anymore, the objective circumstances today just wont allow it.


Libertarian leftism is inherently opposed to Leninism because the Lennies argue that the only "revolutionary force" that can exist after the revolution is their party.

Theres no proof suggesting that so-called Leninists will do the same thng in the 21 century.


And unless you're not one for history (in which case, you're not a Marxist), you cannot ignore this.

Marxism takes into account that things change. Though it will snow in the future, that snow storm wont exactly be the same, different temperatures, currents, different shapes of snowflakes ect. Though history influences todays world, its not rigid and on a fixed path.


We cannot align ourselves with such reactionary forces simply because they've had a monopoly on Leftism in the past -- look at what their monopoly did!

Well according to RSTK funny thing now is that Leninists believe there are more Anarchists than themselves. Also, I think your rage is getting the better of you and is deciding your historical simplism. Its like saying Trotsky is responsible for the purges, detente', and Thorez's barring of the workers movement in France.


But you must distinguish building a culture of anti-Leninism as a means of uniting anarchists and communists, and reducing that to the focus of RAAN.

Uniting Anarchists and Communists? Maybe we could be allies, but they have beef with us because we are "statists", and they don't like the conception of the DoP.
Who knows :rolleyes: .

[barista.marxista]

I agree that Leninism won't take hold again, except probably continuing in the third world (as we can see in Nepal). But the point is that people perceive the Left and communism today to be the same as Leninism, and we're trying to explain how Leninism is not communism. Again, our efforts are not focused on this board, so we're not defined solely by our objection to anti-Leninism. And how is it "simplism" to argue that violent suppression of non-Leninist leftism, when Lenin argued that the Party must have complete control, and every Leninist revolution in the history of the world has preformed such repression? That's not "simplism" -- that's historical materialism. To argue otherwise is equitable to saying fascism isn't inherently oppressive either. It's simply not true.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:19 AM
I agree that Leninism won't take hold again, except probably continuing in the third world (as we can see in Nepal).
And thats just going to resort to a bourgeois democracy, but I doubt the Maoists will be the leading act in the circus, seeing how Maoism isn't as strong as it was internationally in the last century. They'll probably end up as a minority party acting as an opposition party when the show gets on the road.


And how is it "simplism" to argue that violent suppression of non-Leninist leftism, when Lenin argued that the Party must have complete control, and every Leninist revolution in the history of the world has preformed such repression?

Well that wasn't Lenin's orginal intention, so we can't say some Leninist Party wants to create a parasitical bureaucratic caste system.

Also, there are alot more workers than peasents. And education is easier to get these days through the internet and other inventions.

It's a long story to tell you the reason why every Leninist revolution preformed such repression. The easiest way to explain is that basically every Communist or 3rd world revolution were a pawn to the degenerated USSR. And there are still relics from that era today, Cuba, FARC, ect. What do you think the Tri-Continental was about?
It was about the third world revolutions opposing the USSRs policy of pissing on them.


To argue otherwise is equitable to saying fascism isn't inherently oppressive either. It's simply not true.

Fascism has a crystal clear blue-print, but is only applicable when capitalism is experiencing a depression. So you can easily say it will end up oppressive.
Leninism isn't at all clear, because it had its orginal policy (all power to the soviets), and then its other policy (the party will take care of it).

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:54 PM
But there's no doubt Trotsky ordered the violent suppression of the Makhnovists in the Ukraine, so what are we arguing?
More Hatfield-McCoy. And as always, it's endlessly debatable whose granddad shot whose...first.

Makhno had Bolshevik agitators shot, y'know. And everyone puts down armed uprisings!

Or if we're really going back to the beginning, how about Bakunin's protege Nechayev murdering one of his followers for questioning his leadership? Framed him up with false charges of being an informant, just like the CPN(Maoist) nowadays.

Meanwhile, in the 21st century, you have a choice. You can follow LaRouche's path of thug attacks, and lead yourself out of the working-class movement. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49117) Or at best, make yourself pariahs within it.

Or you can act as part of the working-class movement, fight alongside anyone else for whatever particular goals you agree on.....and trust that your political strategy, if you really think it's the best one, will be favored by most working people and will come out on top.

I've stood alongside RCP members to do clinic defense on that basis, the same basis I stood alongside anyone else pro-choice to do that. It wasn't because I trusted the mercy of Bob Avakian. It's because I'm confident I'll never need it.

The RCP will never take power, and everyone sane knows it. It's not even on a path of seeking power - it's on a path of pro-Democratic Party "oust Bush" rhetoric.

So what's the real reason the RCP's the target here? Competition on the left today. It's because of the similarities between RAAN and the RCP, not the differences.

They're both competing for influence and potential recruits among some of the same people. The RCP and anarchists often do - both favoring ultraleft rhetoric and tactics. RAAN is in competition with the RCP even more than most anarchists are - since RAAN is stated to be a Marxist-anarchist alliance, and some other anarchists even accuse it of being "authoritarian" advocates of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
FOr example-scroll down to the comment by Morpheus (http://www.ainfos.ca/03/sep/ainfos00093.html)

Nachie even partway stated this earlier in this thread: "What I should have said is I don't think any of those groups have created as much of a "stir" or an issue out of anti-Leninism, probably because RAAN is the only one actively trying to recruit Marxists, and within anarchism being anti-Lenin is so "DUH!" that you hardly even need to mention it."

Plus, even more: the competition within anarchism. Since RAAN is accused of authoritarianism - gotta prove themselves more anti-Leninist than anybody! In a crude and stupid way, since we're dealing with Nachie et al.

That's all this is: the pettiest kind of small-group politics. It may be justified by the ancient ideological equivalent of the Hatfield-McCoy feud, but as so often that ideology is just an excuse.

It's driven by an almost ecological competition between left groups occupying a similar niche. Whether the participants are conscious of it or not.

That kind of competition is normal, unfortunately. But when it's carried out by this kind of means, only the ruling class benefits.

For that reason, there's a great temptation to suspect some kind of ruling class plot, or start accusing people of being "objectively" cops or agents, or something. But....

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". A proverb that's especially appropriate for Nachie.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:22 AM
Makhno had Bolshevik agitators shot, y'know. And everyone puts down armed uprisings!
So why all the cuteness when we know we're just going to be shooting at each other later?

I mean jeez, let's just cut to the chase :lol:

[Severian]

But of course other anarchists supported the October Revolution - the "soviet anarchists" like Shatov. Similarly in Spain there were the Friends of Durruti who supported proletarian power vs the CNT leadership who supported the bourgeois government. In Cuba there were anarchists who supported the revolution and anarchists who supported the CIA-supported counterrevolution. That pretty much covers the major revolutions where anarchists were a factor.

Every great event brings new political divisions; the old ones are often made meaningless.

But even if you were right: to everything there is a season. People who have two brain cells to rub together....know that you can't just "cut to the chase". It's necessary to know what time it is.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:25 AM
But of course other anarchists supported the October Revolution - the "soviet anarchists" like Shatov. Similarly in Spain there were the Friends of Durruti who supported proletarian power vs the CNT leadership who supported the bourgeois government. In Cuba there were anarchists who supported the revolution and anarchists who supported the CIA-supported counterrevolution. That pretty much covers the major revolutions where anarchists were a factor.
I know that, and it's wonderful. Just means those granpas probably wouldn't be part of RAAN. Though, if you read the P&D, you'd see it says:


Although some members of RAAN may hold sympathy for some of Lenin's ideas, the network will always remain free of both hierarchy and elitist vanguardism. We believe this to be the best defense against Leninism.

And I know what time it is&#33; <_< 7.02 AM&#33;

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Apr 23 2006, 11:47 PM--> (EL KABLAMO &#064; Apr 23 2006, 11:47 PM)Well that wasn&#39;t Lenin&#39;s orginal intention, so we can&#39;t say some Leninist Party wants to create a parasitical bureaucratic caste system. [/b]
Boo fucking hoo. Who cares what the fuck his intentions were? Every single Leninist revolution found the violent suppression of non-Leninist leftism, and it was allowed because Leninism is inherently oppression. Unless you believe in massive fuckin&#39; coincidences.


EL KABLAMO
Fascism has a crystal clear blue-print, but is only applicable when capitalism is experiencing a depression. So you can easily say it will end up oppressive.

Lemme quote you from earlier:


I&#39;m saying that Leninism doesn&#39;t exist anymore, the objective circumstances today just wont allow it.

Paradoxical? Maybe. :rolleyes:

We&#39;re going in circles with this, so there&#39;s no point. You keep saying there&#39;s nothing to prove Leninism is inherently oppressive, and I keep saying you should look at the last hundred fuckin&#39; years, not to mention Lenin&#39;s philosophy. So whatever. I&#39;m out, yo.

[Hit The North]

Wow, this is one depressing thread.

I&#39;d describe myself as a non-Leninist Marxist but I would never join an organisation which advocated violent assaults against other leftists. Neither would I join an organisation which lacks the sufficient discipline or united purpose to allow some of its members to perpetrate such ludicrously counter-revolutionary attacks.

The comrades representing RAAN on this thread are coming over like bitter nut-jobs who&#39;s only interest in history is to give it a selective reading in order to stoke up their paranoia.

The left is split enough without you jokers congratulating yourselves on splitting it further. :rolleyes:

[chebol]

Now, I&#39;m as sick as the next person of this bullshit. MY principal enemy remains the bourgeoisie and the global system of imperialist capitalism. I&#39;m willing to fight along anyone else who is willing to fight with me. Our programmatic differences (yes, I&#39;m a Leninist, whatever that means given the fact that people can manage to keep down their stomach in referring to maoists and stalinists, and quite a few trotskyists, as such) are probably enormous. In fact, they&#39;ll increase the longer we sit around investigating the ins and outs of each others&#39; intestines.

As a scientific socialist, a marxist and a leninist, I&#39;m willing to live and learn, and many leninists have learned from the failures of the soviet union (not all have learned all the same lessons, it would seem, however). Nevertheless, we do not live in pre-1917 russia, so the EXACT methods of leninist organisation would be stupid. But many of the key principles still stand, particularly that of organising the most conscious and politically advanced members of the proletariat in a democratic manner in order to best fight against our class enemy.

You disagree? No need for a party? Fine. You keep thinking that, and I&#39;ll disagree. But we keep fighting the bourgeoisie, and coordinate the battles as much as possible, to make our victories (yours and ours) more complete.

If it becomes clear that by the height of the battle my tactics and strategy are flawed, and yours are successful, well, hell, I&#39;ll have to be convinced (and so should other &#39;leninists&#39;, who ought to be honest enough to admit their failure). And I&#39;d expect the same of you. But there&#39;s the point- convince me. What I see in the history of leninism is a history of successes and failures both, but significant successes nevertheless.

Ah, but there&#39;s the rub, I also understand (or think I do) why there have been failures. And so I organise differently, to avoid that.

What else do I see?

Idiots.

People who can&#39;t outgrow their misunderstanding of history. Maybe Kronstadt was a horrible mistake. Maybe it was justified. Maybe it was a misunderstanding. Maybe it was something else. The question is what do you learn from history, not if. And what do you do next?

Sure. Let&#39;s argue. I love a good argument. So did Marx. In fact he and Bakunin used to have hours-long drunken arguments, and then went out to throw stones at lamp-posts. And argue some more.

But the moment Bakunin starts throwing rocks at Marx, or vice versa, the bourgeoisie (while they still exist) start to win.

I don&#39;t have the perfect program, comrades (and those of you who can&#39;t deal with the fact that a &#39;comrade&#39; could be a leninist), and neither do you. But the moment you elevate someone who is trying to build the proletarian revolution in the face of massive reaction (even if you disagree with the method) to the position of "class enemy #1", then comrade, you cross over the barricade.

I am a marxist and a leninist. I think the maoists are a problem. I think the stalinists are a problem. I think the trotskyists are a problem. I think the anarchists are a problem. I think the Hoxhaites are a problem. I even think the L-L-L-Leninists are a problem. But they are less of a problem than imperialism. More, they are less of a problem than a part of the solution. The biggest problem we have is capitalism. Marxists. No. Not only marxists. Anyone with a brain will realise that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Tactics must adapt to meet reality, so we will convince each other of ideas if they prove effective and correct. And that way, comrades, we can win.

But....

What will not help is infighting. Not "in-arguing". Hell, I&#39;ll argue myself black and blue with the RCP if I have to. But sometimes they can&#39;t help but get it right, so I won&#39;t argue. For example, they want to build communism. I agree. We will then disagree with what that is and how to get there. We will then be involved in a particular struggle and either they or I will convince the people (or be in our turn convinced) of a particular line of march.

No, when I talk about infighting I mean those who think being violent against others on the left (even if we believe that their strategy is counterproductive) is a suitable solution. One day, it may be. But have you tried convincing people? Have you talked to, organised, worked with, masses of workers? Have your ideas proven themselves to the proletariat over those of your rivals?
Or are you merely inept, and frustrated, and so turn to violence to express your frustration at failing to lead an instantaneous revolution?

How to join the counter-revolution in a few easy steps...


RAAN AS A TENDENCY

"...if actions taken are not done in the name of the network, then the network does not exist. Similarly, if no one is out acting in the name of RAAN, then RAAN at that moment has no membership. Alongside adherence to our principles, action (keeping in mind our broad definition) precludes all membership in RAAN because the network is an amorphous tendency that exists only when one or more individuals act or create something in its name. Our essays, publications, and collectives are the footprints of this process, and serve only as indicators - not proof - to the existence of our organization." - Nachie; The "No Bullshit" Policy

from http://www.redanarchist.org/definition/index.html

OK. Fine, only the "fucklenin" leaflet was in RAAN&#39;s name, thereby &#39;indicating&#39; not only RAAN&#39;s existence, but it&#39;s priorities (priorities that have been supported by leading members of this board). I am yet to see a self-declared "RAANista" distance themselves from this piece of propaganda, despite all the talk of "non-organisation organisation" and other clap-trap. In fact, I see people supporting supporting not only the RAAN in saying this, but the content as well. I can therefore only assume that they agree.

Well, if Leninists are the #1 class enemy, (instead of, say, the bourgeoisie) say so. That way, I&#39;ll know you&#39;ve joined the counter-revolution, and can feel entirely justified in one day feeling I might need to shoot you (in the back, or the face, if you&#39;ve the guts to stand up for what you believe). Otherwise, I&#39;d suggest a rethinking of your position vis-a-vis left collaboration (which is different from unity), and I would urge that next time you have to deal with the RCP, either ignore them, out-argue them, or tell them to piss off. Chances are in a couple of years they&#39;ll have left the outfit anyway, and can be convinced of healthy politics.

(In fact, Leninists are the ones who ought to be most pissed off about the RCP, as they are misrepresenting us, and turning many people off leninism for life. Chances are, after a year or two in the RCP, most people would prefer anarchism).

Workers of the world, unite&#33;

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:28 PM
Well, if Leninists are the #1 class enemy, (instead of, say, the bourgeoisie) say so. That way, I&#39;ll know you&#39;ve joined the counter-revolution, and can feel entirely justified in one day feeling I might need to shoot you (in the back, or the face, if you&#39;ve the guts to stand up for what you believe). Otherwise, I&#39;d suggest a rethinking of your position vis-a-vis left collaboration (which is different from unity), and I would urge that next time you have to deal with the RCP, either ignore them, out-argue them, or tell them to piss off. Chances are in a couple of years they&#39;ll have left the outfit anyway, and can be convinced of healthy politics.
Excellent post. It does indeed appear that the RAANistas don&#39;t feel this way, and consider fighting Leninism a priority, or at least equally important as fighting capitalism and fascism. So, RAANistas, I ask you, where would you place the Leninists? Are they maybe more progressive than you&#39;d like to admit? No, apparently you find us "reactionary". What about the fascists? Or are we, in your eyes, the face of 21st century fascism? Are Leninists fascists? :huh:


(In fact, Leninists are the ones who ought to be most pissed off about the RCP, as they are misrepresenting us, and turning many people off leninism for life. Chances are, after a year or two in the RCP, most people would prefer anarchism).
Ah, but we all feel that way about each other. The RCP worship Avakian all the time, the CPUSA kiss Democrat ass, the trots are sectarian splitters, the WWP are evil apologists for Slobodan and Saddam...

But the difference is, we don&#39;t advocate whacking each other over it. We debate about it, or we ignore it. The arguments can get heated, insults and icepick jokes may fly over the table, but in the end we&#39;re still communists, and we&#39;re not going to be beating the shit out of each other. Like chebol said, if the RAANistas don&#39;t consider us communists, or even in any way progressive, then say so, tell us what we are, and how we fit in among the capitalists and the fascists.

[Nachie]

:o Is that all we had to do?


Originally posted by "RAAN Principles & Direction"
3. In most of the world, however, we face a serious problem in using the word &#39;communist.&#39; Due in part to the propaganda of the ruling-class, based on Leninist deviations, this word has become synonymous with state-controlled capitalism, and the totalitarian tendencies and structures therein. Thus, people have thought of several adjectives to use to modify the term, so that it takes on its true character: "anti-state", "libertarian", "anarchist", "free", "autonomist", etc. This hyphenation is good for shorthand when there isn&#39;t the time to explain that one is "not that kind of communist", or that "what people normally call communism isn&#39;t really communism in any way, shape or form."

4. There is no such thing as &#39;authoritarian communism&#39;, nor an &#39;authoritarian communist.&#39; As the root of the word communism suggests, communism must have at its heart communal activity. In other words activity, free from the constraints of authoritarianism, in which each person is involved directly and equally. Thus, &#39;authoritarian communists&#39; (Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, Bolsheviks, etc.) are not communists at all. Their ideas, based as they are in the capitalist social relation of hierarchies, which culminate in the state, have only reproduced in the former Soviet Union, China, etc., capitalism in a state-controlled form.

5. Communism, due to its anti-authoritarian nature, means the destruction of the state. Even Marx, from whom Leninists and others claim to take their cue, knew this fact. Thus it is unnecessary to modify the word communism with such adjectives as anarchist, libertarian, anti- state, free, autonomist, etc. Communism includes all of these when understood in its true meaning. Unfortunately, we face a situation in which the deliberate obscuring of the term by the ruling-classes and their various states, based in the deviations perpetuated by Leninists and others, forces us to use these redundant words to emphasize what we stand for. Thus it is really important as part of theoretical and propaganda work to undermine the ruling-class/Leninist misuse of the word and re-appropriate &#39;communism&#39; for its proper use. However, among us are people who identify as anarchist, libertarian Marxist, council communist, just communist, or none of these terms. But we are, and must be, united by (as far as we understand it at this point) truly communist (anti-)politics.

...

RAAN finds itself in full agreement with the above principles and definitions, and regards our continued use of the term "communism" in its true sense as being an attack on both the general capitalist order and the authoritarian elements of the "Left".

That said, we must reiterate that RAAN does not consider itself a "communist organization" anymore than it considers itself an "anarchist organization". RAAN supporters and "members" are feminists, (anti-state) Marxists, autonomists, councilists, anti-fascists, liberationists, situationists, and anarchists of all colors and (self-)classifications.

...

As spelled out above, RAAN does not recognize Leninists as being communists, or even Marxists; but the worst perverters of these tendencies. In attempting to create true red and black (that is, communist and anarchist) unity, it is necessary to clearly exclude sundry authoritarians who may otherwise pose a threat to the original direction of the organization. RAAN is also committed towards upholding what we see as the true and original tradition of communism.

Over the course of writing this platform, several Leninists and Trotskyists (who had mistakenly joined the project thinking that RAAN would be accepting to their ideologies) attempted to hijack the process by injecting their particular bourgeois dogmas and historical falsifications into it. As a result of the ensuing debate, it became clear to us that, in dealing with red and anarchist unity, we would at all times have to be very specific as to what we defined as "red"; and even more so as to what we did not define as red. Therefore, this section has been expanded on in order to reflect this and make clear our positions towards those in the authoritarian Left.

[PRC-UTE]

On the first page of this, Nachie favourably references the anticommunist and proud vietnam war veteran Ward Churchill. Another asks, &#39;how many centuries will we waste on leninism?&#39; :huh:

Then several of the RAAN supporters claim that the POUM attacked the Anarchists in Spain... only to be corrected by El Kablamo and Severian.

Why anyone would take them seriously I can&#39;t imagine. It seems they mostly recruit from, in their own words squatters and crusties.

I think Severian&#39;s theory makes a lot of sense - that this group is fighting for a limited niche within the left. That would explain why they don&#39;t actually determine whether potential rivals are actually Leninist or not (such as the clearly Communist League) when they decide to target them as it&#39;s not really the underlying motive.

[Nachie]

On the first page of this, Nachie favourably references the anticommunist and proud vietnam war veteran Ward Churchill.
And I&#39;ll do it again if you give me the chance&#33; One thing I&#39;ll say about Ward is, he is a shitty public speaker/debater.


Another asks, &#39;how many centuries will we waste on leninism?&#39; :huh:
What&#39;s so confusing about that? We already wasted one, isn&#39;t that enough?


Then several of the RAAN supporters claim that the POUM attacked the Anarchists in Spain... only to be corrected by El Kablamo and Severian.
No, that was just me. What barista never said anything about the POUM, and what he did say is actually still true.


Why anyone would take them seriously I can&#39;t imagine. It seems they mostly recruit from, in their own words squatters and crusties.
Actually those are just your own words. If anything I think I&#39;d like to see more anarcho-squatters and crusties in RAAN, as our ranks have recently been swelled with a disproportionate amount of Marxists.


I think Severian&#39;s theory makes a lot of sense - that this group is fighting for a limited niche within the left. That would explain why they don&#39;t actually determine whether potential rivals are actually Leninist or not (such as the clearly Communist League) when they decide to target them as it&#39;s not really the underlying motive.
I haven&#39;t personally seen a "Communist League" to target. There are some individuals on these forums though who are avid Lenin fans, and we oppose them as individuals. Other non-Leninist members of the League such as Disgustapated, we have been more than willing to engage in constructive dialogue with.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:04 AM
Boo fucking hoo. Who cares what the fuck his intentions were? Every single Leninist revolution found the violent suppression of non-Leninist leftism, and it was allowed because Leninism is inherently oppression. Unless you believe in massive fuckin&#39; coincidences.
You didn&#39;t pay attention to anything I wrote, its blind stinking obvious. I said the reason why every revolution went that path is because it became pawns to the USSRs sphere of influence. Its not that hard to understand. And now that the USSRs gone, there isn&#39;t a sphere of influence of revolutions to come.
You&#39;re also equating everything that happened with the USSR and PRC with Lenin, what about Krushev, Brezhnev, Stalin, Trotsky, Malinkov, Deng, ect.


Paradoxical? Maybe.

Uh no, its obviously too deep for your comprehention, seeing how you quoted me about my opinion on fascism to prove something about so-called Leninism.

Leninism to you is where the party substitutes for the proletariat and its organs, although I don&#39;t agree with what Lenin did (and its easy to look back at history to say someone did something wrong) it had a plan A then a plan B. So to say so-called Trotskyists, and Anti-Revisionists will do the same thing and follow plan B is totally null. The objective circumstances are different because not every country today is as backward as it was, so the original lines aren&#39;t there. If they&#39;re not original they don&#39;t exist. Even if the SWP decided to go with Lenins plan A, it wouldn&#39;t even be the same plan A, you couldn&#39;t really even say it had anything to do with Lenin sinces hes been dead for almost a hundred years.

I think it&#39;s totally erroneous to hang on to a historical trend within Marxism because its (Marxism) is a theory that realizes changes, Marx left it headway for change. I don&#39;t understand how the SWP can be Trotskyist, the RCP Maoist, or the WWP Anti-Revisionist.


We&#39;re going in circles with this, so there&#39;s no point. You keep saying there&#39;s nothing to prove Leninism is inherently oppressive, and I keep saying you should look at the last hundred fuckin&#39; years, not to mention Lenin&#39;s philosophy.

Yes, that was the last century, now its this century: The age of the internet, and at a higher point of capitalism which Lenin couldn&#39;t have imagined.
And you&#39;re only talking about one part of Lenins philosophy, his thoughts changed from time to time, and if he were alive today who knows what he&#39;d be thinking.


So whatever. I&#39;m out, yo.

Very foolish words, you&#39;re handing it over to me, and saying you won&#39;t reply back to what I&#39;ve wrote.

[Jesus Christ!]

What form of anarchy does RAAN subscribe to?

[Nachie]

mutual aid between anti-authoritarian anti-capitalists regardless of self-definition.