Originally posted by
[email protected] 11 2006, 08:42 PM
well water is a good example. But even things like oil which arent exactly life threatening to go without but would make stuff a lot more difficult. Area X could then demand certain things from the other Areas in exchange, since they are so important (or rather, the stuff they're sitting on is important)
Hopefully an awareness of this potential problem would lead to more decentralized methods of energy creation such as hemp seed oil cultivation or whatever... this should all have been part of the communist revolution in the first place (fingers crossed)
not completely necessary since the whole group (X) could decide out of self interest to do this.
Well, I still think this would depend highly on their ability to create hierarchies capable of enforcing this. Even the Zapatistas, for instance, are militarily organized in a hierarchal fashion for their own self-defense.
Even so, ok let's assume that they did. The autonomous community of X decides to starve Y for whatever reason. Disregarding all other options such as Y moving to a different location with more abundant resources, they would probably go to war.
I think it's important to note however that the war would be over X's creation of a state (or as Perlman would say, a leviathan) rather than a material shortage of resources that could only be resolved through violence. In primitive communism this might have happened, but in developed communism?
Ofcourse the red army wasnt a workers militia nor did any workers council have anything to say in the matter, but still.
But still what? That's the whole point! haha
haha well yea i think thats one of Marx's big flaws. I get the reasoning behind it, but still. Talking about how this system sucks and how we can/will revolt is one thing, but without a suitable alternative we might just end up with the USSR all over again.
The question lays in tactics. The successful tactics will self-replicate and become the foundation for a post-revolution society. Tactics imposed by a hierarchy will produce a hierarchal society. The "suitable alternative" we're looking for is in the physical functioning of horizontalist movements against capitalism. To the extent that they are successful, they set up infrastructure with which to support themselves - the new in the shell of the old, etc.
well one chapter starts killing leninists for real, as in right now. Blows up the headquarters of the CPUSA etc. What then?
Well the first thing that would probably happen (assuming everybody doesn't get arrested right off the bat) is that myself and many others would come out and say that that was an "unscrupulous" (this is the word used to describe such actions in our principles) action. This statement would be made "in adherence to RAAN", not "by RAAN", and would be signed by individuals. This is because it seems that what you describe would amount to terrorism and the killing of totally innocent and dedicated people. Now, if the offices were blown up at night or if only a specifc party member was targeted for whatever reason, that might be different!
(Just as an interesting aside, the defendants in the Auburn case have actually been accused of plotting to firebomb CPUSA offices in the name of the ELF)
Continuing with your example, there are a lot of variables that I cannot even begin to hypothesize about, so I can't give you a 100% ironclad account of what would happen. My guess is that some people would voluntarily disassociate from and criticize the network, others might not but continue to be critical of the actions, some people might even join us at that point, and (assuming that they were the most active group at that time) whatever clandestine cell was responsible for the actions would continue to define the majority of the network's existence through their actions, though only to be considered alongside the statements condemning them. If it was clear that it was a completely murderous terrorist attack of no strategic value, or if there was reason to believe that it was in fact carried out by COINTELPRO, it's not inconceivable that the "real" network, or at least the above-ground network, would just ignore it competely. Remember, RAAN isn't "membership based", it's "action based". We don't "exist" except as affiliated actions in time, so CPUSA bombings might actually inspire a rash of similar attacks against non-Leninist targets by those seeking to "re-center" the network's overall focus. It would be up to the autonomous RAAN affiliates to create new actions to overtake the precedent set by the attacks. These would probably even involve some creative responses such as above-ground collectives engaging in various forms of solidarity work with the CP in their area (assuming they'd accept us, heh).
This specific example ultimately comes down to the question of if it is possible for underground and overground sections to work together? We have some inspiring examples such as the MST in Brazil, and then we also know from what happened with the Black Panthers that comrades involved in above-ground work should NOT be involved in illegal activity, as this is also "unscrupulous" in terms of the wellbeing of the overall project. More recently, we know that the SHAC 7 were convicted simply for reporting on illegal actions taken in solidarity with their campaign, so we really have to learn from and adapt to that. If you see the RAAN website, there are disclaimers and everything is reported on from a detached and objective viewpoint, for informational purposes only. And there's a reason for that.
The reality and complexity of this issue is well-known to RAAN and we do not encourage people to join us unless they have an understanding of the ultimate risks. At the same time, we believe that the joint construction of underground and above ground projects in solidarity with each other is an amazing thing and we will continue to push forward with this model until circumstance forces something to change, simply because like everything else in the network, we're building it from the ground up and we can't imagine any other way to do it.