Ultra-Left Revolutionaries

[Comrade-Z]

This is my dream revolutionary organization. I wish it existed. I am eager for criticisms (especially unique ones that I wouldn't normally anticipate, although the ordinary ones--"A vanguard is essential, etc."--are welcome as well).


The Platform and Organization of Ultra-Left Revolutionaries (ULR)

Platform of Intent:

Members of ULR support the following endeavors:
*Stateless communism.
---the abolition of wage-slavery.
---the overthrow, dispossession, and suppression of the capitalist class.
---the self-emancipation of the proletariat.
---the creation of workers' control of the means of production.
---the creation of stateless, classless society.
*Revolution
---non-reformist: ULR does not intend to devote significant effort towards projects that only advance superficial reforms without advancing radical systemic change.
*Youth liberation
---the abolition of compulsory schooling.
---the abolition of compulsory habitation with tyrannical parents, as judged by the child.-->Edit: this sub-point will be removed from later versions (see below).
*Sexual liberation
---anti-sexism.
---the abolition of restrictions on sexuality except for mutual consent (which is a non-negotiable necessity in all circumstances), and except for those restrictions for which there is a rational basis and social need, as judged by ULR members.-->Edit: this sub-point is a little awkward too. I might remove it from later versions and just leave it broadly at "sexual liberation".
*Self-emancipation
---anti-leadership: ULR members oppose the entire leadership model of social organization and/or revolution. Instead, ULR encourages others to evaluate things using one's own rationality and work through a process of self-emancipation.
---anti-electoralism: ULR recognizes the uselessness of representation in capitalist government and affirms the need for direct action and self-emancipation. ULR and its members do not endorse individuals aspiring to leadership positions in society.
---anti-vanguardist: radical change will be directed by the entirety of the revolutionary, non-reactionary proletariat.
---insistence on organization (internally and in society in general) that is participatory, directly democratic (including the option of recall in situations of representation), and involving cooperation between like-minded equals.
*Internationalism
---anti-racism
---anti-imperialist war (No war but the class war!)
*Marxism
---materialism (including historical materialism)
---scientific, rational, non-supersitious thinking (anti-nationalism, anti-racism, anti-religion)
---atheism and militant opposition to religion in society


Statement on Internal Organization:

ULR must be internally ultra-democratic. At least a plurality of all affected members must approve internal activities, except in cases of simple functions handled by administrators (see below). All actions accomplished under the name of ULR must be approved by at least a plurality of the members and must be subject to full internal transparent scrutiny and criticism. (Actions of ULR members done on an affinity-group basis without reference to ULR do not meet these requirements).

If administrative positions are desired, the individuals serving in these positions must be selected by one of the following ways:
*Direct election by all affected members
*Frequent rotation in and out of the position
*Random selection ("demarchy")
---In all cases there is to be the continual possibility of immediate recall of individuals serving in administrative positions if a majority of the affected members desire it. There is also to be full internal transparency of the actions of the administrators.

ULR will be organized into four distinct branches based on social function:
---Ultra-Left Proletarians (ULP): membership open to wage-slaves only
---Ultra-Left Unemployed (ULU): membership open to unemployed only
---Ultra-Left Students (ULS): membership open to students only
---Ultra-Left Intellectuals (ULI): membership open to professional academia only (teachers, writers, theorists, etc.)
These three branches will, however, have a high degree of cooperation and cross-compatibility (meaning, if workers suddenly become unemployed, getting transferred from ULP to ULU will be hassle-free and well-nigh instantaneous). If individuals fall into more than one category, they may argue their case, and those individuals will have their choice of branch, pending ordinary organizational approval.

Note: membership is automatically denied to cops, military personnel, capitalists, statespersons, and employees serving in positions of authority (managers, foremans, etc. Although teachers serve in positions of authority, an exception is made for them--they can join the ULI branch.)

[Comrade-Z]

I guess the impetus for thinking this up came from the notion that it is better to do nothing at all than to be active in doing the wrong thing. Likewise, with organizations, it might be better to not invest time and effort in any organization at all if there isn't one that you really feel is worthwhile than to invest time and effort in a sort of okay organization. Furthermore, one is likely to feel more motivated about working in an organization that really clicks with one's vision than working in a mediocre organization. Less burn-out, I would imagine.

Sure, it might stink of sectarianism, but you might as well shoot for exactly what you want. But I think there's enough flexibility within the theoretical framework that is set in the Platform of intent to allow for sufficient theoretical debate.

[Fistful of Steel]

I agree with nearly all of it, although I'm not too sure about the emancipation of children one. Abolition of compulsory schooling definitely, but I'm not sure how you'd work getting children free of oppressive parents? (I like the idea I'm just not sure how it'd work)

[Comrade-Z]

I agree with nearly all of it, although I'm not too sure about the emancipation of children one. Abolition of compulsory schooling definitely, but I'm not sure how you'd work getting children free of oppressive parents? (I like the idea I'm just not sure how it'd work)

Ah, glad to hear it. :)

Yeah, that part about children's liberation might be getting a bit too specific for a broad theoretical platform. I should probably take that sub-point out and leave it at "Youth-liberation." Otherwise, it would really be necessary to go into more detail to spell out exactly how that children's liberation thing would work, and that just doesn't fit with this type of document. That's something for internal debate within this organization--how youth liberation will work and to what extent it will be taken.

But the compulsory schooling thing is rather concise and concrete, so I will leave that in there.

Thanks!

[Leo]

Those are pretty cool ideas, but I have a few points I'd like to make. First, lets start from the specifics, then we will come to more general points.


If administrative positions are desired, the individuals serving in these positions must be selected by one of the following ways:
*Direct election by all affected members
*Frequent rotation in and out of the position
*Random selection ("demarchy")

Here I would say combining frequent rotation and random selection would be ideal.


ULR will be organized into four distinct branches based on social function:
---Ultra-Left Proletarians (ULP): membership open to wage-slaves only
---Ultra-Left Unemployed (ULU): membership open to unemployed only
---Ultra-Left Students (ULS): membership open to students only
---Ultra-Left Intellectuals (ULI): membership open to professional academia only (teachers, writers, theorists, etc.)
These three branches will, however, have a high degree of cooperation and cross-compatibility (meaning, if workers suddenly become unemployed, getting transferred from ULP to ULU will be hassle-free and well-nigh instantaneous). If individuals fall into more than one category, they may argue their case, and those individuals will have their choice of branch, pending ordinary organizational approval.


I would argue that such categorization is unnecassary. In order to make a succesful revolution, the organization must eventually become the masses themselves, therefore everyone joining the organization would become a worker. Intellectuals would be intellectual workers, no one can say students don't work hard, and the organization would also try to be the workplace of the unemployed.


membership is automatically denied to cops, military personnel, capitalists, statespersons, and employees serving in positions of authority (managers, foremans, etc. Although teachers serve in positions of authority, an exception is made for them--they can join the ULI branch.)

Well, I would also say that this is not a good idea. In many countries we saw examples of left-wing army or even police officers. Even some (a very very small amount of) cappies are actually symphatetic to communism. So if they want to join, why should we not let them in? If we think they will spy or sabotage or whatever, well, any ordinary government agent can also easily do that. Such personnel will become workers when they join the organization.

And I've got some more general problems with this specific kind of organization: it is too exclusive. There are many other groups trying to have an effect on the proletariat. If this workers organization is not a unitary organization, masses won't be united. Therefore, the organization should not be limited Ultra-Leftists. Don't misunderstand me, I would enjoy being in it much more if it was limited to Ultra-Leftists, but the revolutionary organization of the future, which will eventually become the social organism of the communist society, should be open to everyone who wants to be a workers and accept the leadership of the masses.

I do not expect vanguardists to join the organization at the beginning. Unevitably, the organization will start as a unitary revolutionary workers organization with ultra-leftist members and it will have to succeed by itself, but after it succeeds, it will draw members from all groups within the left like flies.

You also did not mention anything about international organization. I think it is crutial for this organization to be organized in the international level, again, at its very beginnings, it will be more in the west, but after a while it should expand to the rest of the world.

Those being said, I think you did a good job. I do share your vision for the future. Thanks for posting it.

[Comrade-Z]

Here I would say combining frequent rotation and random selection would be ideal.

I think it depends on the type of position or task needed to be done. Sometimes election works just fine (such as here at revleft, even). That's why I have presented several acceptable options.


I would argue that such categorization is unnecassary. In order to make a succesful revolution, the organization mush eventually become the masses themselves, therefore everyone joining the organization would become a worker. Intellectuals would be intellectual workers, no one can say students don't work hard, and the organization would also try to be the workplace of the unemployed.

But I don't think just joining an organization that claims to be "working class" automatically makes one's self a worker. One's consciousness depends on one's social function. A worker is likely to think very different things from an intellectual. That's why I have given a degree of autonomy to these different groups--so that workers, for instance, can pursue their own activities without too much bother from bourgeois intellectuals who might not truly have proletarian consciousness or the same class interests.

But those intellectuals can still cooperate with the proletarians and collaborate--the intellectuals just can't hijack the proletarian wing of the organization.


Well, I would also say that this is not a good idea. In many countries we saw examples of left-wing army or even police officers. Even some (a very very small amount of) cappies are actually symphatetic to communism. So if they want to join, why should we not let them in? If we think they will spy or sabotage or whatever, well, any ordinary government agent can also easily do that. Such personnel will become workers when they join the organization.

The way I see it, if such people emerge, they can form their own groups that claim to support the ultra-left movement and this ultra-left organization. Nobody is preventing them from doing that. But I think sympathetic cappies or left-wing soldiers will be so rare as to be well-nigh negligable in the grand scheme of things.

And once again, just becoming a member of an organization doesn't suddenly change one's class interests or make one's self a "worker."


And I've got some more general problems with this specific kind of organization: it is too exclusive. There are many other groups trying to have an effect on the proletariat.

This organization is meant to be exclusive, to a certain extent. It is not meant to be a monolithic organization like the CPSU or a catch-all organization.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I think that, by the time communist revolution is a definite possibility in the advanced capitalist countries, most workers will agree with something close to this statement of intent. Therefore, I don't feel the need or even the desire to "court" those workers who won't agree with this theoretical framework.

Those other groups can "try to have an effect on the proletariat" by working from their own independent groups--and it will be up to the proletariat to decide whether these other groups are having a good effect or not, and whether or not to appropriate ideas from and cooperate with these other groups.

I would have no problem with ULR being federated loosely with other leftist organizations, thus giving you your semi-"cohesive" communist movement that will work as the seed of the new society.

Indeed, I expect ULR itself will have to be federated somewhat internally, perhaps by chapters similar to how SDS or NEFAC functioned/function, especially considering that it would most definitely be an international organization (that goes without saying).

Thanks for the excellent responses!

[Leo]

But I don't think just joining an organization that claims to be "working class" automatically makes one's self a worker. One's consciousness depends on one's social function. A worker is likely to think very different things from an intellectual. That's why I have given a degree of autonomy to these different groups--so that workers, for instance, can pursue their own activities without too much bother from bourgeois intellectuals who might not truly have proletarian consciousness or the same class interests.

But those intellectuals can still cooperate with the proletarians and collaborate--the intellectuals just can't hijack the proletarian wing of the organization.


I see your point... Well, I think the organization should give every individual member and every group forming inside a natural autonomy. In other words it should be based on the principle of self-governce. We both agree here, I think. All I say is that we don't need to make official divisions.


The way I see it, if such people emerge, they can form their own groups that claim to support the ultra-left movement and this ultra-left organization. Nobody is preventing them from doing that. But I think sympathetic cappies or left-wing soldiers will be so rare as to be well-nigh negligable in the grand scheme of things.


In US, you are probably right about this. But in the rest of the world, I would say that you would be suprised, and I am speaking from solid knowledge. In interesting times, usually either the army or the police forces tend to have strong left-wing currents. I can give you lots of examples of either cases.


This organization is meant to be exclusive, to a certain extent. It is not meant to be a monolithic organization like the CPSU or a catch-all organization.

Those other groups can "try to have an effect on the proletariat" by working from their own independent groups--and it will be up to the proletariat to decide whether these other groups are having a good effect or not, and whether or not to appropriate ideas from and cooperate with these other groups.

I would have no problem with ULR being federated loosely with other leftist organizations, thus giving you your semi-"cohesive" communist movement that will work as the seed of the new society.


It will be up to the proletariat to decide, yes, but if the movement is divided, they won't decide, they will be divided. Then the organizations will start figting with each other for the support of the masses, eventually the result will be tragic.

The organization in the larger scale would be, as I said before, a rather loose federation of individuals. ULR would probably be grouped around the main publishings of the organization while other groups would vary from anti-Marxist anarcho-socialists (chomskyists) to thrid world maoists, also a solid center defending only the principle of union and remaining neatural on other inner conflicts.

Now, here's the reason why this organization should be formed by Ultra-Leftists as a unitary revolutionary organization for the entire left intelligensia and eventually the working class: because left-communists are not just the only group that is capable of forming such organization but they are also the only group that will give the actual leadership position to the collective will of the proletariat.

[Comrade-Z]

I see your point... Well, I think the organization should give every individual member and every group forming inside a natural autonomy. In other words it should be based on the principle of self-governce. We both agree here, I think. All I say is that we don't need to make official divisions.

One major reason that I like the division is that, in times like these, the Intellectuals of the organization would (unfortunately) outnumber the proletarians, whereas it really should be the other way around (as the proletariat is the more important revolutionary group). One way to compensate for this is to give the proletarians more of a voice of their own by giving them a seperate section.

It's basically taking the Communist League, which I believe only admits workers, as an example. I like the idea of proletarians getting used to running things themselves without direction from bourgeois intellectuals.


It will be up to the proletariat to decide, yes, but if the movement is divided, they won't decide, they will be divided. Then the organizations will start figting with each other for the support of the masses, eventually the result will be tragic.

I think infighting within the left will have more to do with theoretical disunity within the left than with the organization of the left. If you try to cram maoists, anarchists, and socialists into one single organization, you are just papering over the fundamental rifts. There will still be infighting, except now it will just take place within that organization.

It's an unfortunate fact of the revolutionary left as long as we can't agree on theory. :(


Now, here's the reason why this organization should be formed by Ultra-Leftists as a unitary revolutionary organization for the entire left intelligensia and eventually the working class: because left-communists are not just the only group that is capable of forming such organization but they are also the only group that will give the actual leadership position to the collective will of the proletariat.

I'm kind of confused about this. Especially with regards to the "actual leadership position to the collective will of the proletariat." Are you suggesting that ultra-leftist intellectuals get this organization going, plant themselves in the leadership(?) positions, and then attract non-ultra-leftist workers and try to "win them over" or "convert them" or even "tutor them" over to ultra-leftism? I don't think that's how it works.

I don't want to trick people. I want to attract workers who are already committed to this organization's statement of intent, and give them an organization in which they can pool their efforts and determine their own policy and actions.

The problem is, right now those ultra-left workers don't exist. That's a huge problem.

The big question is: when and how will this change? And is there anything we can do to help? I don't think seizing leadership positions and "tutoring" can do much good (if that was even possible without becoming corrupted). Workers just aren't receptive to these ideas yet. Material conditions, I guess. Capitalism is still hobbling along...but not for long, it seems.

[Leo]

One major reason that I like the division is that, in times like these, the Intellectuals of the organization would (unfortunately) outnumber the proletarians, whereas it really should be the other way around (as the proletariat is the more important revolutionary group). One way to compensate for this is to give the proletarians more of a voice of their own by giving them a seperate section.

I see your point but as I said, they will already have autonomy over their own actions and eventually they will greatly outnumber the intellectuals. If we officially create a division, we might also cause an antagonism between the intellectuals and the workers.


I think infighting within the left will have more to do with theoretical disunity within the left than with the organization of the left. If you try to cram maoists, anarchists, and socialists into one single organization, you are just papering over the fundamental rifts. There will still be infighting, except now it will just take place within that organization.

It's an unfortunate fact of the revolutionary left as long as we can't agree on theory.

Yes, they will be fighting, they will be yelling at each other, throwing things at each other etc. but in such organization the greatest sin will be being a seperatist. They won't venture to be left outside and condemned by the entire left. This will keep the movement together against the only thing all those people agree on: the common enemy, capitalism.


I'm kind of confused about this. Especially with regards to the "actual leadership position to the collective will of the proletariat." Are you suggesting that ultra-leftist intellectuals get this organization going, plant themselves in the leadership(?) positions, and then attract non-ultra-leftist workers and try to "win them over" or "convert them" or even "tutor them" over to ultra-leftism? I don't think that's how it works.

I don't want to trick people. I want to attract workers who are already committed to this organization's statement of intent, and give them an organization in which they can pool their efforts and determine their own policy and actions.

Of course not!!! I am not talking about 'leading' or anything like that, I am talking about 'forming' the organization. If a chomskyists form a workers organization, they will try very carefully to exclude all leftists and will be very cautious about council communists. If Leninists form a workers organization, they will try to lead the people under them, create a hierarchy. Now, they will enable what they plan to do with the organization by forming it on the basis they want it to be. We want workers to govern, we want a unitary movement and we want workers to decide, this would be the basic principles we form the organization. There is no winning or lying involved here, and then, masses will decide where they will go, with their collective will, united. We can't say where this direction will be, only they can. We will most definetly tell them what we think, fight against leadership positions etc. and Leninists will try to get themselves in leadership positions. Masses will decide, but for being able to decide, they must be united. There is no tricking people here.


The big question is: when and how will this change? And is there anything we can do to help? I don't think seizing leadership positions and "tutoring" can do much good (if that was even possible without becoming corrupted). Workers just aren't receptive to these ideas yet. Material conditions, I guess. Capitalism is still hobbling along...but not for long, it seems.

As I said, there is no leadership or tutoring involved here. Our goal is to unite the workers so that they can be decisive. I would expect ultra-left ideas to be really popular within this unitary self governing revolutionary movement, simply because I think they are true, but the masses will decide.

[Comrade-Z]

I see your point but as I said, they will already have autonomy over their own actions and eventually they will greatly outnumber the intellectuals. If we officially create a division, we might also cause an antagonism between the intellectuals and the workers.

Honestly, a little antagonism wouldn't be a bad thing, in my opinion. Intellectuals have, historically, been some of the greatest disrupters of revolutionary movements (Lech Walesa comes to mind especially).

Part of me even wants to go so far as to not admit professional academia at all, and force them to form their own organizations. I very well may just get rid of the ULI branch altogether in future drafts.


This will keep the movement together against the only thing all those people agree on: the common enemy, capitalism.

I don't know, historically that has shown to be a pretty shaky alliance post-revolution and even pre-revolution.

In thinking of the ULR, I had a very specific goal in mind of grouping together (what I deem to be) the most revolutionary individuals into a fairly cohesive organization that can get things done.


We want workers to govern, we want a unitary movement and we want workers to decide, this would be the basic principles we form the organization.

But the catch is that we don't want just any workers to govern. We certainly don't want racist workers to govern. I don't even really want Leninist workers to govern or anarchist workers who don't have a grasp of historical materialism to govern (at least, I wouldn't prefer it). In a way, I regard the statement of intent of ULR as a sort of "minimum threshold" for "revolutionary competency," if you get my meaning.


Our goal is to unite the workers so that they can be decisive.

I think a solely Ultra-Left organization would be more decisive in both action and in getting Ultra-Left ideas out there and dominant in the leftist milieu. But that's just my perception, I guess. And part of me feels even that the workers won't be able to be decisive in the "right way" until they have met this minimum threshold of revolutionary consciousness. I don't know....

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 22 2006, 12:42 PM
In a way, I regard the statement of intent of ULR as a sort of "minimum threshold" for "revolutionary competency," if you get my meaning
Theoretical purity doesn't work

[Leo]

Honestly, a little antagonism wouldn't be a bad thing, in my opinion. Intellectuals have, historically, been some of the greatest disrupters of revolutionary movements (Lech Walesa comes to mind especially).

Part of me even wants to go so far as to not admit professional academia at all, and force them to form their own organizations. I very well may just get rid of the ULI branch altogether in future drafts.

They have their moments (good and bad.) Another thing I'd like to see in this organization is not only turning intellectuals into workers but also turning workers into intellectuals. Intellectuals are not a class by themselves, workers can very well be intellectuals. But I don't think workers will allow this organization to turn into a 'academia club'. Academic members will be the ones who will have to adjust themselves.


I don't know, historically that has shown to be a pretty shaky alliance post-revolution and even pre-revolution.

In thinking of the ULR, I had a very specific goal in mind of grouping together (what I deem to be) the most revolutionary individuals into a fairly cohesive organization that can get things done.

It most certainly would be a fun, harmonious organization that can achieve spectacular (I don't use this word in the positive sense) success. It most certainly will start as an ultra-left organization, but if that spectacle of success we will create is not used to unite the workers, we won't go any further then being an ultra-leftists club. In the beginning we both agree that it will be ultra-leftists, and it needs to achieve that spectacular success by itself, but even in the very beginnings it must aim to be a unitary organization for the left. Like what Gandhi said, first they will ignore us, then they will laugh at us, then they will fight us, then we will win.


But the catch is that we don't want just any workers to govern. We certainly don't want racist workers to govern. I don't even really want Leninist workers to govern or anarchist workers who don't have a grasp of historical materialism to govern (at least, I wouldn't prefer it). In a way, I regard the statement of intent of ULR as a sort of "minimum threshold" for "revolutionary competency," if you get my meaning.

First of all racists (if they were stupid enough to join us) and people like them will be kicked out (naturally and probably literally). In the end, it is only the masses, collectively, who will decide. If we try to prevent people who think differently from us from making decisions, then we will not be different from those groups, and the workers will never be decisive. I have confidence in ultra-left ideas, they are true, and with truth in our side, we will make people who doesn't understand historical materialism or people who jump around trying to lead look like total fools.


I think a solely Ultra-Left organization would be more decisive in both action and in getting Ultra-Left ideas out there and dominant in the leftist milieu. But that's just my perception, I guess. And part of me feels even that the workers won't be able to be decisive in the "right way" until they have met this minimum threshold of revolutionary consciousness. I don't know....

As I said, I have total confidence in ultra-left ideas. When someone joins a revolutionary organization, they already have this minimum threshold of revolutionary consciousness. In history we saw ultra-leftist ideas become dominant among the workers three times. First one was the Paris Commune, second one was the German Revolution of 1918-1919 and finally last one was the uprising in Paris, May 1968. Communards, Spartacists and Situationists were all defeated, but they wrote history. Their defeats were far more valuable then any victory so far. (Also, other notable defeats were the fall of Anarcho-Sydicalists movement in Catalonia and fall of proto-agricultural communalist anarchist Makhno movement -see this page for that:http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49996) I say in the twenty first century, we have a huge shot to make ultra-left the most dominant idea in the left because it is true and just. It is what it is. We will see...

[Morpheus]

I agree with most of this, except the Marxism part. It might also be a good idea to add branches for women & for people of color.

[RevMARKSman]

I agree with absolutely ALL of it. Really cool IMO. Recently I created a map of a hypothetical city called El Che in the future revolutionary Cuba. Autonomous, no one is the boss of anyone else, etc. There is a church because I would get my grade dropped if I didn't put one (I think it was a requirement), but there's only one and it's Unitarian Universalist. A network of people that sounds completely like those ideals. Love your idea man.

[JC1]

Good on you for trying to jack the CL's "worker's only" policy.

The problem with using that policy in a Ultra-leftist orginization, is that Ultra-Leftism is a anti-worker ideaology.

I mean seriously, when was the last time you met a working class anarchist eh ? I mean, sure a large portion of the Leninist movement is non-prolatarian (As far as I know, In my location all the Leninists are workers), but maybe 10 per cent at most of the Anarchist movement is working class.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 10:21 PM
Good on you for trying to jack the CL's "worker's only" policy.

The problem with using that policy in a Ultra-leftist orginization, is that Ultra-Leftism is a anti-worker ideaology.

I mean seriously, when was the last time you met a working class anarchist eh ? I mean, sure a large portion of the Leninist movement is non-prolatarian (As far as I know, In my location all the Leninists are workers), but maybe 10 per cent at most of the Anarchist movement is working class.
This is the worst arguement to discredit anarchism as it is completely false. I haven't met a non working class anarchist, unless you think students are all petty-bourgeois? :lol:

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:21 PM
Good on you for trying to jack the CL's "worker's only" policy.

The problem with using that policy in a Ultra-leftist orginization, is that Ultra-Leftism is a anti-worker ideaology.

I mean seriously, when was the last time you met a working class anarchist eh ? I mean, sure a large portion of the Leninist movement is non-prolatarian (As far as I know, In my location all the Leninists are workers), but maybe 10 per cent at most of the Anarchist movement is working class.
Does the CL happen to have a sort of "copyright" on that particular policy?

Furthermore, how can an ultra-left organization, consisting soley of working class individuals be anti-working class? Oh, and you're just pulling numbers out of your ass with the "10 percent of anarchists are workers" crap.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Comrade-Z
ULR will be organized into four distinct branches based on social function:
---Ultra-Left Proletarians (ULP): membership open to wage-slaves only
---Ultra-Left Unemployed (ULU): membership open to unemployed only
---Ultra-Left Students (ULS): membership open to students only
---Ultra-Left Intellectuals (ULI): membership open to professional academia only (teachers, writers, theorists, etc.)
These three branches will, however, have a high degree of cooperation and cross-compatibility (meaning, if workers suddenly become unemployed, getting transferred from ULP to ULU will be hassle-free and well-nigh instantaneous). If individuals fall into more than one category, they may argue their case, and those individuals will have their choice of branch, pending ordinary organizational approval
I'm not a big fan of this one. My hope would be that in any organization, no additional organizations are needed to accomodate the varying 'classes'.

Perhaps just a student wing and then the other 3 into one other wing would be better, for the sole reason that students usually prefer to work with students.

If you want to talk platformist anarchist organizations, NEFAC sounds fantastic from what I've heard of it. Too bad I don't live in Montreal. :(

[KC]

Good on you for trying to jack the CL's "worker's only" policy.


Our proletarian only policy should be adopted by all organizations; you shouldn't get mad at people for trying to give the working class movement back to the working class. Even if you regard the ultra left movement as anti-worker, you should welcome them incorporating this proletarian-only idea as that would mean the destruction of their movement.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by JC1
The problem with using that policy in an Ultra-leftist orginization, is that Ultra-Leftism is a anti-worker ideology.

We "know" this because Lenin said so. :lol:

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

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:21 AM
I mean seriously, when was the last time you met a working class anarchist eh ?
I met one on Saturday actually. In fact I met three.


but maybe 10 per cent at most of the Anarchist movement is working class.

Where did you find this statistic?

[JC1]

This is the worst arguement to discredit anarchism as it is completely false. I haven't met a non working class anarchist, unless you think students are all petty-bourgeois?

Most are. Just like most Anarchist's.


Our proletarian only policy should be adopted by all organizations; you shouldn't get mad at people for trying to give the working class movement back to the working class. Even if you regard the ultra left movement as anti-worker, you should welcome them incorporating this proletarian-only idea as that would mean the destruction of their movement.

Well, I'm not saying its a bad thing. I'm just saying like you said, if they implented it, there mov't would be over.


Where did you find this statistic?

I just made it up, it was just a guess. I'd wager that worker's are a minority of the anarchist movement.

[The Grey Blur]

I haven't met a non working class anarchist, unless you think students are all petty-bourgeois? :lol:
I think it is probably correct to say that the majority of Anarchists are non-workers

This of course doen't mean Anarchism is an "anti-worker" ideology but simply that it finds most of it's modern-day followers in radical students


Well, I'm not saying its a bad thing. I'm just saying like you said, if they implented it, there mov't would be over.
Isn't the CL supposed to be non-sectarian? Most of it's propagators on this site start stupid fights with Anarchists instead of just debating or cooperating

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:49 PM

Where did you find this statistic?
I just made it up, it was just a guess.
When it comes to politics I suspect this is something you do often.


I'd wager that worker's are a minority of the anarchist movement.

What is the relevance of this line of argument? What are you actually trying to prove?

Regardless, it may very well be the case, although I think it more likely that the socio-economic demographics are pretty much the same in all revolutionary left organisations.

It's unfortunate that middle class people have more time to think about the world around them. A luxury that often evades working class people: They are after all, too busy working.

[rebelworker]

My thoughts exactly...

and for the record, every leninists group I know of is based almost exclusively on collage campuses, with the exception of the communist party that is Stalinist and has no hope of recovering in any serrious way. When the 50-60 year olds who make up the vast majority of the party die, so dose the party.

On the other hand that anarchist communist movement in north america is in many ways a response by working class people to the middle class dominated "revolutionary" scene that most of us were fed up with. I became an anarchist after being fed up with petty burgeoise trotskyists.



Back to topic, I think much of this platform is interesting. On an organisational level it is very similar to the way NEFAC is set up. A little confused as to how the multiple memberships groupings would mean in practice?

The no capies and cops thing should be standard for any serrious group and has been a nefac requirement for a while(this is nt something new to the left).

I think excluding rank and file members of the military is a big mistake.

Ialso think not working n anything "reformist" at this stage of the gameat least is a death warrant for your org.

Revolutionaries must be working to better peoples lives and build mass movements or be condemed to middle class student land for ever. Just dont give up your long term vision, this is what propaganda is for.

oh and anomaly, we exists outside of montreal, from quebec city in the north, Baltimore in the south, toronto n the west and boston in the east...

...We also have supporter members and collectives outside our region, Atlanta GA is one of our biggest locals.

[JC1]

and for the record, every leninists group I know of is based almost exclusively on collage campuses, with the exception of the communist party that is Stalinist and has no hope of recovering in any serrious way. When the 50-60 year olds who make up the vast majority of the party die, so dose the party.

I find that I dont know any Leninist org not based in the working class, except maybe the WPRM and the NSG. This is true Canada wide, anyways. Hell, there is NO pressence of the CPC on the U of W or M's campuse's.



On the other hand that anarchist communist movement in north america is in many ways a response by working class people to the middle class dominated "revolutionary" scene that most of us were fed up with. I became an anarchist after being fed up with petty burgeoise trotskyists.


ROFLMAO x. Infinity !

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:32 PM
ROFLMAO x. Infinity !
That's not a valid response for the theory forum. You're already on five warning points so please be careful with spam.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 22 2006, 04:53 AM
This is my dream revolutionary organization. I wish it existed. I am eager for criticisms (especially unique ones that I wouldn't normally anticipate, although the ordinary ones--"A vanguard is essential, etc."--are welcome as well).


The Platform and Organization of Ultra-Left Revolutionaries (ULR)

Platform of Intent:

Members of ULR support the following endeavors:
*Stateless communism.
---the abolition of wage-slavery.
---the overthrow, dispossession, and suppression of the capitalist class.
---the self-emancipation of the proletariat.
---the creation of workers' control of the means of production.
---the creation of stateless, classless society.

So what's new?

[KC]

Most of it's propagators on this site start stupid fights with Anarchists instead of just debating or cooperating

You're going to be hard-pressed to find where we started fights.

[Leo]

The problem with using that policy in an Ultra-leftist orginization, is that Ultra-Leftism is a anti-worker ideology.


but maybe 10 per cent at most of the Anarchist movement is working class.

Here's the thing comrade, I've got nothing against you or your Leninist vanguard but the only reason why Leninists dared to say that Anarchists or Ultra-leftists did not represent workers, and that they were anti-worker ideologies was because of the fact that they could how Leninists states to prove that they are worker ideologies. We've seen how that turned out.

Both ultra-leftists and anarchists had 'workers' movements. Communards from the Paris Commune, Spartacists from the German Revolution of 1918, Situationists from May 68 Paris were all ultra-leftists. Anarcho-syndicalists made the spanish revolution. All those were workers movements, and all ended with tragic defeats.

But our defeats are much more valuabe than your victories.

[Comrade-Z]

Lots to reply to (which is good).


But our defeats are much more valuabe than your victories.

That's something I'll second.


So what's new?

It doesn't mention the word anarchist, which is good because it (hopefully) keeps sectarianism to a minimum. And more and more I'm coming to the conclusion that the term "anarchist" doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a marxist standpoint, although I agree with the vast majority of their programme. A more scientific term for the programme would be "ultra-progressive"--or, hence, "ultra-left."

The autonomy given to the different sections of revolutionaries based on social function is something somewhat new, although the CL really must be credited with the original idea.

It (in my mind) combines the best aspects of marxism and anarchism (and yes, I am intent on maintain the marxism. That is essential).

It is non-reformist. And I want to keep it that way. The sole purpose of this organization will be "easing the birth-pangs of revolution." In the meantime, that can mean a lot of things, such as an aggressive attacks on pre-capitalist mindsets and institutions (religion, racism, nationalism), anti-imperialism demonstrations (and they must be explicitly anti-imperialist and connect back to criticism of the capitalist framework, not just vaguely anti-war, or else they really are reformist), and education/propaganda.

In fact, one of the main campaigns I'd like to see this organization do right from the beginning would be "Progress into the capitalist era! Smash pre-capitalism!" I'm talking about a combination of:
*antifa
*militantly interfering with all public displays of nationalism in schools, at sports games, at presidential events, etc.
*militant confrontation of religious leaders, furious debate with ordinary religious people, assaults on religious institutions
*The production and proliferation of propaganda which corrodes pre-capitalist mentalities and encourages hedonism, far-sighted selfishness, cynicism concerning the current order and its mythical justifications, and especially materialist thought.
And all of this would be publicized in a way that related to the larger framework of the group's programme.

In all, it just puts together a radical mix that hasn't really been implemented before, it seems to me.


I think excluding rank and file members of the military is a big mistake.

They can form their own parallel groups, if they wish. I am loathe to trust even rank-and-file soldiers. After all, what kind of consciousness does being a soldier produce?


Revolutionaries must be working to better peoples lives and build mass movements or be condemed to middle class student land for ever. Just dont give up your long term vision, this is what propaganda is for.

Because this group won't bother with reformist projects, the workload on the members will be rather small. Similarly, I doubt if this organization would need any dues. Of course, in the case of any revolutionary situation developing, this organization's role would be greatly enlarged.

If this ultra-left platform doesn't resonate with many workers in the meantime, so be it. At least this organization will be noted for its consistency come revolution. And, of course, members of ULR can hold dual membership with other organizations as well.

If I have to choose between a mass-movement for reformism and a small movement focused on revolution, I opt for the latter. There are already so many instances of the former, why add another?


I agree with most of this, except the Marxism part. It might also be a good idea to add branches for women & for people of color.

Like I said, Marxism is in.

And your suggestion for the different branches for women and people of color completely misses the point of creating autonomy along lines of social function. Women do not constitute an economic class with its own type of consciousness. Nor do people of color.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:32 PM

and for the record, every leninists group I know of is based almost exclusively on collage campuses, with the exception of the communist party that is Stalinist and has no hope of recovering in any serrious way. When the 50-60 year olds who make up the vast majority of the party die, so dose the party.

I find that I dont know any Leninist org not based in the working class, except maybe the WPRM and the NSG. This is true Canada wide, anyways. Hell, there is NO pressence of the CPC on the U of W or M's campuse's.



On the other hand that anarchist communist movement in north america is in many ways a response by working class people to the middle class dominated "revolutionary" scene that most of us were fed up with. I became an anarchist after being fed up with petty burgeoise trotskyists.


ROFLMAO x. Infinity !
Heres my list for Canada

Autonomy & Solidarity - Grad Students
Fightback - Mostly University Students
International Socialists - Almost Exclusivly Based on Campuses
International Workers Group - 2 people
New Socialist Group - IS split, same situation
Party Communist Revoluitionaire - very young and/or out of touch
Gauche Socialist - Based at universities

So who dose this leave out?

And the biggies in the US

RCP - crazy
ISO - campus based
SWP - shrinking membership, most workers were socially inserted not proles.

The communist Party I have already spoken about and have heard no criticism of the anarchist communists...

[Cult of Reason]

I thought the middle class did not exist in any meaningful form?

[bl!ng]

I have to say that you have some very interesting ideas.