Where Is The Revolution?

[Resist]

where are the groups that plan the destruction? where are the people fighting in the streets... how many people are really willing to fight... we need to stop talking about this "revolution" and start doing stuff... move out peoples....

[EusebioScrib]

where are the groups that plan the destruction?

here (http://www.redanarchist.org)


where are the people fighting in the streets

here (http://www.redanarchist.org/history/index.html)


how many people are really willing to fight

here (http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop) minus oh I dunno...3-5%?

[Resist]

thanks for that website... but groups like this have always been around... and the most criminal thing they have done toward actually starting something is rob some corporate place....

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Resist+--> (Resist)where are the groups that plan the destruction?[/b]

There's tens of thousands all over the world...


Originally posted by [email protected]

where are the people fighting in the streets...

Well there is serious rioting in probably every continent on earth, every year (probably even somewhere every month or so), but unfortunately that does not equal class consciousness - which is not exactly at a peak in a lot of places. It's our job to organise and agitate, help raise consciousness as much as we can in our communities etc. so that open confrontation becomes something logical for people.



how many people are really willing to fight...

A lot? I dont understand the point of your question...


Resist

we need to stop talking about this "revolution" and start doing stuff... move out peoples....

Speak for yourself i suppose, not everybody 'talks' about getting involved, a lot of us actually... do 'stuff'...

[EusebioScrib]

thanks for that website... but groups like this have always been around... and the most criminal thing they have done toward actually starting something is rob some corporate place....

Not entirely. I'd say RAAN is probably a "first" of it's kind in the US. Read into it more. Check out the Principles and Direction and other things in the "Defining RAAN" section of the website. Very interesting stuff that you won't find in many other groups.

The criminality of an action doesn't necessarily define how "revolutionary" an organization is. We're not at a point where we can run into the streets with AK's and start shooting up corporate centers and banks. We got a bit yet. We have no base, and that's what we need to build first (this is something most groups neglect and I see RAAN as the one which emphesizes it the most). Once we have this and there is a dual-power then we can think of literally "overthrowing" the system.

[An archist]

There's no point in starting a revolution now, you need big support of the masses wich there is not at the time. Starting to fight the government right now would make you a terrorist in the eyes of most people and would get you arrested in no time.
Seriously, you don't make a revolution, you prepare for it so that you're ready when it comes.

[bcbm]

eriously, you don't make a revolution, you prepare for it so that you're ready when it comes.

And if it doesn't? I'm not content to sit on my ass and wait for liberation.

[Si Pinto]

There seems to be a lot of 'coiled springs' on this forum, just waiting for the right moment, and that's good.

Waiting is never easy, patience is definately a virtue for leftists and at this moment it is essential, to move now just means we die.

When the masses finally see the damage capitalism is doing to the world, and that it has no answers to put it right, then we move.

They'll get the picture sooner rather than later, I'm beginning to really believe that!

[The Resistor]

Gain strenght we must.

And, is it ok if i chicken this one out? :P

sorry, I am willing but do we have enough hommies? :rolleyes:

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 3 2006, 01:27 PM
And, is it ok if i chicken this one out? :P

Do you have a sick note???

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

where are the groups that plan the destruction? where are the people fighting in the streets

Sorry comrade, if your in the U.S. and your mind is on that track than you fail and you wont go anywhere.

Thats why the RAAN fails, especially RAAN because they don't take the fight to the bourgeoisie, instead they take it on themselves, people of the left. How do you fight a revolution when you are fighting yourself. Thats why they fail and they loose the support of the left.

"RAAN affiliation had vandalized the window of a Maoist bookstore in New York City"

In order for a revolution to happen you need the support of the people. But as long as you have people doing their own things, and going against those violently who don't belive in their form of socialism or w.e. then you fail. Thats why a revolution needs revolutionarys, it needs the support of the people, majority support, not a group of 30 anarchists spread around the country proclaiming to revolutionarys from RAAN.

Or even 100, or 1000 anarchists, because thats nothing. A real revolutionary movement is based on one goal, liberation of oppressed people, freedom equity and justice. A move towards socialism in it's basic form. Not pushing for anarchism when theirs no socialist base to work out from.


--Paz

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

I'd say RAAN is probably a "first" of it's kind in the US. Read into it more.

Are you an idiot? You'r group will never be as live as the Black Panthers. Oh wait, there is a group first of its kind and the greatest leftist group that ever formed in this country. You will never get to that point.


--Paz

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 3 2006, 08:05 AM
Seriously, you don't make a revolution, you prepare for it so that you're ready when it comes.
Then your not an anarchist, Anarchists believe the revolution is happening right now. And that we must view society in this way.

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jul 3 2006, 12:05 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jul 3 2006, 12:05 PM)
An [email protected] 3 2006, 08:05 AM
Seriously, you don't make a revolution, you prepare for it so that you're ready when it comes.
Then your not an anarchist, Anarchists believe the revolution is happening right now. And that we must view society in this way. [/b]
Then in that case, those anarchist who belive in a violant revolution at this moment will not win the suuport of the left or the working class people and they will be looked at as a problem, a force preventing revolutionary change. The revolution happens with the peope, not with the small population of anarchists that live in this country.


--Paz

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:42 PM
Then in that case, those anarchist who belive in a violant revolution at this moment will not win the suuport of the left or the working class people
Why not? Because when I say we believe the revolution is now, I don't mean we go around attacking police and digging trenches. It's simply our interpretation. When workers take over a factory or go on strike, when a local community refuses to let a big company build on their local field...ect ect these are actions of revolution.


The revolution happens with the peope

Aren't you a vanguardist? Aren't the people are just pawns to you?

[EusebioScrib]

Thats why the RAAN fails, especially RAAN because they don't take the fight to the bourgeoisie, instead they take it on themselves, people of the left. How do you fight a revolution when you are fighting yourself. Thats why they fail and they loose the support of the left.

Oh rly? Well, buddy. You and your friends aren't apart of the working class movement. RAAN isn't on the "left." We're not on the spectrum. Leninists are our enemies, and are destroying and blackening the working class movement. First we need to clean up the movement.



"RAAN affiliation had vandalized the window of a Maoist bookstore in New York City"

Damn, I wish I met the affiliate who did that. I'ma pay Revolution Books a visit one day...



In order for a revolution to happen you need the support of the people. But as long as you have people doing their own things, and going against those violently who don't belive in their form of socialism or w.e. then you fail. Thats why a revolution needs revolutionarys, it needs the support of the people, majority support, not a group of 30 anarchists spread around the country proclaiming to revolutionarys from RAAN.

30? You come up with this number where? Support of the majority of people? Do you have that with your "Free People's Movement?" Nobody gives a fuck about Cuba or Venezuela. It's all the same bullshit. You have no experience with RAAN so you really have no room to talk about what the network is or does.


Are you an idiot? You'r group will never be as live as the Black Panthers. Oh wait, there is a group first of its kind and the greatest leftist group that ever formed in this country. You will never get to that point.

WTF are you even talking about? Nobody claimed the BP and RAAN were equivalent (although we will probably surpass them one day) 1. You don't understand RAAN 2. Your a fucking Leninist, so your arguements are invalid.

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

Why not? Because when I say we believe the revolution is now, I don't mean we go around attacking police and digging trenches. It's simply our interpretation. When workers take over a factory or go on strike, when a local community refuses to let a big company build on their local field...ect ect these are actions of revolution.

"Call for the Formation of a New Armed Revolutionary Movement". Proposing the establishment of an underground "armed wing" to the network, the essay was eventually included in the first issue of Praxis Journal with a disclaimer regarding the network's conception of autonomous activity and diversity of tactics. By July, network activity had increased to the point where a person or persons claiming RAAN affiliation had vandalized the window of a Maoist bookstore in New York City, and a similar claim was laid to the vandalism of a corporate development site in LA."

Revolution or useless acts of violance/vandalism?


Aren't you a vanguardist? Aren't the people are just pawns to you?

Pawns to me, how are people pawns to me, I'm working class, I come from the second poorest city, i'm out every week feeding homeless people, my home is the hood. People arn't pawns to me, people are comrades to me and we're in this stuggle together. My comrades are poor latino and black people, i'm latino comrade, the FPM is mostly latino, the FPM reflects those poor working class hoods that your RAAN fails to get hold of.


Oh rly? Well, buddy. You and your friends aren't apart of the working class movement. RAAN isn't on the "left." We're not on the spectrum. Leninists are our enemies, and are destroying and blackening the working class movement. First we need to clean up the movement.

Me not working class? RAAN not on the left? dude, you are lost. I'm not no Lenist Maoist or non of that bull shit and neither is FPM. Its strait up 21 centry Marxism get your facts strait. If we're you enemy then you have no place on this forum. Your groups is made up of a bunch of people who cant work to gether and will force your views on other people. "clean up the movement" wtf is that.


You have no experience with RAAN so you really have no room to talk about what the network is or does.

Your right, maybe I can't but your website can here i'll post is all up for you to see.


The Red & Anarchist Action Network is a loose organization of autonomous individuals and collectives who subscribe to revolutionary anarchist and libertarian (that is, anti-state, anti- Leninist) communist ideals. The network was born out of a desire to bridge the artificial gaps between segments of what might be described as the "anti-political left" and dismantle the elitist "sceneism" that has governed portions of the revolutionary movement for far too long. It is our hope that a strong association based on shared revolutionary beliefs and a variety of tactics, driven by a serious practice of mutual aid, will be able to make a serious and lasting contribution both to our world and the people who are working to better it.

CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. Principles and Direction

- Red & Anarchist Unity

- Collective Organization

- Communism
a. Marxism
b. Leninism

- Smash the State!
a. Democracy

- Anti-Racism

- Anti-Sexism

- Queer Liberation

- Environmentalism
a. Animal Liberation & Veganism
b. Protection of the Earth

- Children's Liberation
a. Education Vs. Schooling

- Internationalism and the Fight Against Imperialism

- On Labor Unions

- Personal Liberation

- Action

III. Conclusion


RAAN Members in Washington, DC (April 2003)

INTRODUCTION

This pamphlet was written over the course of several weeks by numerous members of the RAAN online forum. After deciding on basic structure and content, the founders of the project opened up a draft to everyone involved in the network. Members then decided what issues were most relevant to the subject, and set about giving form to the document. Some contributed sentences while others contributed whole paragraphs. Some helped more quietly by catching odd typos and spelling errors. All donated their time to make sure that this document was as clear as possible, and represented the group as best as it could.

Hence, this pamphlet serves as both a basic introduction to the principles of the Red & Anarchist Action Network, and also as a living example of those ideals put into action.

When the project was proposed, RAAN was a loose association of people with views ranging from Stalinist to anarchist. Because of this, there was a question as to if we really should formalize the project with a statement of "shared principles". We anti-authoritarians in the network felt that while it was acceptable to engage in informal discussion with authoritarian- Leftists, (generally speaking, Leninists) any transformation of the network into a "physical organization" would be quite distasteful if these elements were allowed to remain. We have done our best to reflect this.

We started work on this pamphlet with a very loose idea of where we wanted to take it, and in the end wound up with something even more general. This document was meant to be an introduction to RAAN for those who were already involved in the radical anti-capitalist movement. Nevertheless, along the way we felt it necessary to establish our most basic positions on a variety of important (and interrelated) issues. Unfortunately some important topics, such as the abolition of prisons, were not touched upon at all. We hope to cover these and other subjects in coming works, as well as in the day-to-day discussion that makes up the network. The subjects we did touch upon were only handled briefly due to concerns about length. As a result, these quick summaries should in no way be taken as the definitive and final positions of RAAN. Rather, see them as a series of introductions which, taken together, may form a more complete view of our constantly evolving organization.

Looking back on the process of writing these Principles & Direction, it could be argued that formulating a "party programme" such as this will prove to be the fatal mistake of the Network. This could be, but there was a need for a written declaration of our existence that persuaded even the anti-platformists amongst us to help in this project. We felt that without this document, it would be impossible to turn our aspirations into action; our associations into a real network.

If we have at any time failed to articulate our visions for this project, it is only because we cannot find words for our joy in, and the totality of, these revolutionary changes that we believe must occur. These principles are a reminder of where the network comes from, but they do not represent the entirety of the network itself. If all this accomplishes is to help prevent us from falling apart over ideological infighting, it will have been worth it. But we do not seek to make this our "Little Red Book". The immediate relevance of RAAN to your actual, everyday life is only that which you give it.

- Nachie
Co-founder of RAAN

PRINCIPLES AND DIRECTION

RED & ANARCHIST UNITY

The purpose of the Red & Anarchist Action Network, if it must be summarized, is to concretely unite the far-left (including those radicals who consider themselves to be outside of the bourgeois-political spectrum) in the hopes of forming something powerful enough to positively change every aspect of our lives.

RAAN was born over the Internet as a group of libertarian websites (and their readers) who wished to form a collaborative alliance through which we could build new paths and attain new success in our struggle for a better world.

The (anti-state) communist and anarchist movements, often as a result of ignorance, confusion, or historical conditions, have for too long remained separate. Often allied, but not united; and at times even distrustful of each other. And yet history has shown us that when they are united, they form the most penetrating and complete analysis of the world we live in, as well as the most promising and realistic vision for changing it.

As is often the case, the solution to a problem one is faced with may be revealed during the process of simply confronting it. Confident in this, we sought first to unite anarchists and communists in discussion, using the Internet as a facilitating tool. This was done prior to any statement of purpose, and the description of our group was never clarified beyond "anarchist and communist unity". As a result of this strategy, comradely discussion, solidarity, and often, debate had been going on amongst those involved with RAAN for almost three months before the idea of a written statement of principles was even brought up.

We are certain that this base of discourse will now serve to make our founding document much stronger than it would have otherwise been.

COLLECTIVE ORGANIZATION

Being an alliance comprised of communists and anarchists, it is essential that RAAN both condemn all forms of hierarchy and organize itself in a collective manner that embodies our hopes for autonomous organization.



BLAH BLAH BLAH, you get the point


or wait, let me get you here:


WTF are you even talking about? Nobody claimed the BP and RAAN were equivalent (although we will probably surpass them one day) 1. You don't understand RAAN 2. Your a fucking Leninist, so your arguements are invalid.

I'll let you answer that:


thanks for that website... but groups like this have always been around... and the most criminal thing they have done toward actually starting something is rob some corporate place....

"Not entirely. I'd say RAAN is probably a "first" of it's kind in the US. Read into it more. Check out the Principles and Direction and other things in the "Defining RAAN" section of the website. Very interesting stuff that you won't find in many other groups."











You lose




--Paz

[EusebioScrib]

Revolution or useless acts of violance/vandalism?

Useless? No. They are very useful.


Pawns to me, how are people pawns to me, I'm working class, I come from the second poorest city, i'm out every week feeding homeless people, my home is the hood. People arn't pawns to me, people are comrades to me and we're in this stuggle together. My comrades are poor latino and black people, i'm latino comrade, the FPM is mostly latino, the FPM reflects those poor working class hoods that your RAAN fails to get hold of.

Your telling us why? You being latino, being from the hood, living in a poor city, don't mean shit. Latino people from the hood still can be dicks and use people as pawns. Race and location don't make you this or that.


Me not working class?

I dunno. Maybe you are. I said apart of the movement. You don't fight for us.


RAAN not on the left?

Nope. The idea of a political spectrum implies that everything is for the same society, some just want to advance a bit more, some want to move slower, some want no change, etc. We seek to build a new society. We say "fuck that jawn, we're outta here." Self-valorization, yo.


dude, you are lost.

From?


I'm not no Lenist Maoist or non of that bull shit and neither is FPM. Its strait up 21 centry Marxism get your facts strait.

What is 21 Century Marxism? FPM is gung-ho Cuba, and Cuba is based on Leninism. Logically we can conclude your movement, although may not be "Leninist" openly, is clearly sympathetic towards Leninists.


If we're you enemy then you have no place on this forum. Your groups is made up of a bunch of people who cant work to gether and will force your views on other people. "clean up the movement" wtf is that.

No, we work together just fine in RAAN. I've never encountered any serious issues.

What are we forcing on other people?

Yea, we're trying to clean up the movement. Fuck Leninists, they've too long fucked up the working class movement. It's time we openly declare war on them.


Your right, maybe I can't but your website can here i'll post is all up for you to see.

And what exactly was your goal in posting our P&D?


You lose

Right. :mellow:





I said RAAN was a "first" in the US. How the fuck do you get me saying "We're just like the BP!"

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Aren't you a vanguardist? Aren't the people are just pawns to you?

I wish people would stop trying to slander the FPM. How about reading something about it.. at least a little bit.. before coming out of the side of your face with lies.


Oh rly? Well, buddy. You and your friends aren't apart of the working class movement.

The FPM is one of the only communist organizations in the world that is made up solely of workers and their allies (farmers, "house wives", prison inmates, etc.). Does anyone in RAAN even have a job? How about Nachie? Where does this guy get money to "back pack for a few months through Venezuela" after "spending some time in Brazil"?


RAAN isn't on the "left." We're not on the spectrum. Leninists are our enemies, and are destroying and blackening the working class movement. First we need to clean up the movement.

You sound like a fascist with that rhetoric. I guess it's all as well though, since RAANites act like fascists in practice.

"Leninists" are enemies of who, petty bourgeois kids who play at politics? Are Leninists oppressing you or the working class in your country? Is this why you put out fliers announcing your intentional to physically attack leftists you don't agree with ("Leninists", "Trotskyists", "Maoists")? I guess it's also why you advocate burning books on your website.

You should rename your group the RANAN.. the extra N is for Nazis, since I'm sure they'd love to join in with you in your violent attacks on leftists and leftist bookstores and burning books by people like Lenin.


Damn, I wish I met the affiliate who did that. I'ma pay Revolution Books a visit one day...

Way to do the capitalist class' work!


Support of the majority of people? Do you have that with your "Free People's Movement?"

We're working on it. We've grown 600-700% in three years & we have members on every continent on earth, in several countries (as well as having close ties with revolutionary organizations in other countries around the world, including with the affiliate groups of the IWPA (http://www.iwpa-aigt.org)).

We fight to win our oppressed brothers and sisters the world over to communism, so that we can actively fight for it together, on our own terms.


Nobody gives a fuck about Cuba or Venezuela. It's all the same bullshit.

:lol: But they do care about a bunch of petty bourgeois kids in tight black jeans with mohawks that vandalize Maoist bookstores. You're a fucking joke.

Cuba has more support in the world among the oppressed that anything your group of quasi-fascists could hope for.


You have no experience with RAAN so you really have no room to talk about what the network is or does.

That would be great, except that there's a website that lays out RAAN's views and actions (including the vandalism of the Revolution Books previously mentioned).


WTF are you even talking about? Nobody claimed the BP and RAAN were equivalent (although we will probably surpass them one day)

But the BPP was MAOIST!!! Everything they've done is rendered invalid because of that right??


1. You don't understand RAAN

See above... though I'm not sure you even understand the mess you're a part of.


2. Your a fucking Leninist, so your arguements are invalid.

Great line of argument. How's this:

1. Someone's political ideology doesn't determine the validity of their arguments.

2. The FPM isn't Leninist.. of course you could have found this out in seconds if you bothered to do any research or ask a member about our organization.

"We, the Free People's Movement, unite as an international revolutionary movement of the working class and its allies in our common struggle for freedom, justice, and equality. We demand and fight for freedom from the exploitative and oppressive capitalist system; justice, in inalienable human rights for all human beings, and both political and economic equality for all.

"We are not yet another political party formed around a particular doctrinaire, dogma, or “ism”, but rather a movement which bases its actions on current material conditions, the failures and achievements of the past (and the lessons they have taught us), and on the living – and constantly developing – revolutionary scientific theory of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. "

From the Manifesto of the Free People's Movement (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/manifesto.html).

So, as my comrade said.. you lose.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What is 21 Century Marxism?

See the Manifesto.


FPM is gung-ho Cuba, and Cuba is based on Leninism. Logically we can conclude your movement, although may not be "Leninist" openly, is clearly sympathetic towards Leninists.

Look up sectarianism.

We don't judge things (parties, individuals, countries, etc.) by their labels (whether self-appointed or otherwise). Evo Morales' party is called the Movement Towards Socialism when it should be called the Movement Towards Reformed Capitalism.

We look at material conditions to find whether or not the working class and its allies have or can make gains and go from there. If they have made gains that are worth defending, we do exactly that.

[EusebioScrib]

Look up sectarianism.

It would be sectarianism, if Leninists were actually Marxists.


We don't judge things (parties, individuals, countries, etc.) by their labels (whether self-appointed or otherwise). Evo Morales' party is called the Movement Towards Socialism when it should be called the Movement Towards Reformed Capitalism.

Labels actually "mean" something. I'll finish this below.


We look at material conditions to find whether or not the working class and its allies have or can make gains and go from there. If they have made gains that are worth defending, we do exactly that.

Exactly what we base our anti-Leninism on! And obviously you don't. Our class cannot make any gains from Leninism and never had made any "worth defending." You are Leninist apologists, whom are more sneaky than Leninists.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It would be sectarianism, if Leninists were actually Marxists.

That's actually irrelevant. For communists, sectarianism means putting the ideological quarks of your "sect" above the interests of the working class as a whole. By definition, you and your group are secterian.


Labels actually "mean" something. I'll finish this below.

So the CPUSA is communist then right?


Exactly what we base our anti-Leninism on! And obviously you don't. Our class cannot make any gains from Leninism and never had made any "worth defending." You are Leninist apologists, whom are more sneaky than Leninists.

Doubling life expectancy isn't worth defending? Making free, quality health care and education available to all isn't worth defending? Ending the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to poverty and curable disease isn't worth defending? Ending the domination of imperialism over milions of people isn't worth defending? None of these things are in the interest of the working class??

Instead of focusing so much on "anti-Leninism" (and even using it to justify attacks against non-Leninists), how 'bout focusing on anti-capitalism? :rolleyes:

[EusebioScrib]

The FPM is one of the only communist organizations in the world that is made up solely of workers and their allies (farmers, "house wives", prison inmates, etc.). Does anyone in RAAN even have a job? How about Nachie? Where does this guy get money to "back pack for a few months through Venezuela" after "spending some time in Brazil"?

Lmao! I love how Leninists always pull the "WE HAVE MORE WORKERS THEN YOU, SO HA!"

For those to whom it matters. The sentence above which says "does anyone in RAAN even have a job" just goes to show you how much they aren't for our class. Conforming to the system isn't good for our class. We must seperate ourselves from it. Self-valorization. That's the only way we have a chance. Remaining within the system and trying to overthrow it internally, has always failed. We need to build our new society now and build a base to end the tyranny of capital.

Yes, so much money to buy a plane ticket! That's right. Worker's never fly in planes, they're too oppressed to do that! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


You sound like a fascist with that rhetoric. I guess it's all as well though, since RAANites act like fascists in practice.

*yawn*


"Leninists" are enemies of who, petty bourgeois kids who play at politics? Are Leninists oppressing you or the working class in your country? Is this why you put out fliers announcing your intentional to physically attack leftists you don't agree with ("Leninists", "Trotskyists", "Maoists")? I guess it's also why you advocate burning books on your website.

Are fascists oppressing you in your country? Historically Leninists and Fascists have both destroyed working class movements, and Leninists attempt to latch onto our movement still. They are no allies of the working class.

Burning books is rather fun. We burnt a stack of MIM notes here in Philly a week or so ago. Fun fun!


You should rename your group the RANAN.. the extra N is for Nazis, since I'm sure they'd love to join in with you in your violent attacks on leftists and leftist bookstores and burning books by people like Lenin.

If by leftists you mean "left-wing of capitalism" surely! We hate those blasted leftists! Trying to latch onto our movement and "lead" our class. Fuck them!


Way to do the capitalist class' work!

Yay for ignorance! (the key feature of a Leninist)


We're working on it. We've grown 600-700% in three years & we have members on every continent on earth, in several countries (as well as having close ties with revolutionary organizations in other countries around the world, including with the affiliate groups of the IWPA).

*yawn* 600-700% in three years? How many people did you start with 0.005? I've never ever met anyone from the FPM.


We fight to win our oppressed brothers and sisters the world over to communism, so that we can actively fight for it together, on our own terms.

*yawn* sounds like typical Leninist rhetoric.


But they do care about a bunch of petty bourgeois kids in tight black jeans with mohawks that vandalize Maoist bookstores. You're a fucking joke.

*yawn*


Cuba has more support in the world among the oppressed that anything your group of quasi-fascists could hope for.

Unfortunatly, you may be right. However it's starting to fall apart.


That would be great, except that there's a website that lays out RAAN's views and actions (including the vandalism of the Revolution Books previously mentioned).

Well then you don't "get" RAAN. RAAN isn't a website, or a set of views. It is an action tendency. Our actions speak for us and we're not limited by a platform or manifesto or anything. Our P&D is more of a "work in progress." It's what we came up with as a basic "syopsis" for RAAN at the time it was written.


But the BPP was MAOIST!!! Everything they've done is rendered invalid because of that right??

Just imagine if they were Autonomists! Damn...things'd be a lot different now.



2. The FPM isn't Leninist.. of course you could have found this out in seconds if you bothered to do any research or ask a member about our organization.

I know a lot about the FPM. I've visited your site many times. I don't care if you say you are or aren't Leninist. But like you pointed out above. You support "allies" who have made gains for the working class or some crap. You are just a Leninist apologist.


So, as my comrade said.. you lose.

No, your a Leninist, your arguement is invalid. So I win. :P

[EusebioScrib]

That's actually irrelevant. For communists, sectarianism means putting the ideological quarks of your "sect" above the interests of the working class as a whole. By definition, you and your group are secterian.

I like how you speak of the "interests of the working class" as if you have some mandate...


Doubling life expectancy isn't worth defending? Making free, quality health care and education available to all isn't worth defending? Ending the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to poverty and curable disease isn't worth defending? Ending the domination of imperialism over milions of people isn't worth defending? None of these things are in the interest of the working class??

Of course they are worth defending. However they are advancements of capitalism, not socialism.


Instead of focusing so much on "anti-Leninism" (and even using it to justify attacks against non-Leninists), how 'bout focusing on anti-capitalism? rolleyes.gif

Anti-Leninism is anti-capitalism. Leninism is the "left-wing of capitalism." As they say.

[FinnMacCool]

I think people need to stop thinking about the political spectrum in terms of left and right. Sure leninism is technically a leftist posistion but because its authoritarian, it is really pretty reactionary. So I don't consider leninists comrades in a revolution at all. Sure we might ally with them on protests and stuff but leninists and anarchists are always going to be oppossed. Supporting their revolution is like goading someone to put a gun to your head.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Lmao! I love how Leninists always pull the "WE HAVE MORE WORKERS THEN YOU, SO HA!"

That's strange.. I know of no "Leninist" party that only allows workers to join.. can you point me in their direction?


For those to whom it matters. The sentence above which says "does anyone in RAAN even have a job" just goes to show you how much they aren't for our class. Conforming to the system isn't good for our class. We must seperate ourselves from it. Self-valorization. That's the only way we have a chance. Remaining within the system and trying to overthrow it internally, has always failed. We need to build our new society now and build a base to end the tyranny of capital.

Right, except that's not an option for workers. We don't work because we want to, we work because we have to! We're wage slaves. If we stop working, we and/or our families will die. Our relation to the means of production in capitalism are what makes us the revolutionary class. That is why we have "nothing to lose but our chains"!


Yes, so much money to buy a plane ticket! That's right. Worker's never fly in planes, they're too oppressed to do that!

Most workers are too poor to buy a plane ticket.. but that's obviously not what I was saying.. if you're a wage slave, you can't just "take a year off" and do some globe trotting.. see above.


*yawn*

Way to respond in a principled manner! You can't address the fact that many of your actions are indistinguishable from those of fascists in practice.


Are fascists oppressing you in your country? Historically Leninists and Fascists have both destroyed working class movements, and Leninists attempt to latch onto our movement still. They are no allies of the working class.

Facists are pro-capitalist, and are oppressive and seek to oppress me. If I come across a group of fascists who know I'm a communist, there's a good chance they'll try to kill me.


Burning books is rather fun. We burnt a stack of MIM notes here in Philly a week or so ago. Fun fun!

Hitler would be proud. <_<


If by leftists you mean "left-wing of capitalism" surely&#33; We hate those blasted leftists&#33; Trying to latch onto our movement and "lead" our class. Fuck them&#33;

Yeah, you better go burn down the SWP&#39;s printing press. We all know "Leninists" are the biggest threat to the working class in the U.S. today&#33;


Yay for ignorance&#33; (the key feature of a Leninist)

You&#39;re doing something the bourgeoisie approves of.. respond to that in a principled manner, if you can.


*yawn* 600-700% in three years? How many people did you start with 0.005? I&#39;ve never ever met anyone from the FPM.

You just "met" 2. In my own political work I&#39;ve met thousands of people.. you weren&#39;t one of them though, but since I don&#39;t attend vegan infosquats I probably have little chance of running into you.


*yawn* sounds like typical Leninist rhetoric.

Sounds like we actively support, and unite with, workers when they make gains, and fight to do so, anywhere in the world. Sounds like you spend time harrassing Maoists.


*yawn*

Great response again. Truly powerful.


Unfortunatly, you may be right. However it&#39;s starting to fall apart.

Except for not at all.


Well then you don&#39;t "get" RAAN. RAAN isn&#39;t a website, or a set of views. It is an action tendency. Our actions speak for us and we&#39;re not limited by a platform or manifesto or anything. Our P&D is more of a "work in progress." It&#39;s what we came up with as a basic "syopsis" for RAAN at the time it was written.

Flush that post-modernists shit down the toilet, where it belongs. I judge you by what you do, and how and why you do it.


Just imagine if they were Autonomists&#33; Damn...things&#39;d be a lot different now.

Yeah, we wouldn&#39;t be talking about the BPP, cause no one would have heard of them. The BPP didn&#39;t run into problems because it called itself, or was called "Maoist", it was because of crucial problems in their strategies, tactics, etc.


I know a lot about the FPM. I&#39;ve visited your site many times. I don&#39;t care if you say you are or aren&#39;t Leninist. But like you pointed out above. You support "allies" who have made gains for the working class or some crap. You are just a Leninist apologist.

I never said that at all. I said we support gains made by the working class (not for them, there&#39;s a big difference) when they are supportable.


No, your a Leninist, your arguement is invalid. So I win.

That&#39;s great.. I&#39;m a Leninist.... because you so say. You fail kid.


I like how you speak of the "interests of the working class" as if you have some mandate...

The advance towards world communism is objectively in the interest of the working class.


Of course they are worth defending. However they are advancements of capitalism, not socialism.

Right. That&#39;s why the capitalists opposed the measures and the popular worker and farmer struggles that brought them about (in Cuba in this example) tooth and nail.

That&#39;s why these gains have been made in other former colonies.. oh wait that&#39;s never happened...

That&#39;s why the imperialists oppose Cuba so much (though not China).. because it&#39;s capitalist&#33; :rolleyes:


Anti-Leninism is anti-capitalism. Leninism is the "left-wing of capitalism." As they say.

Who&#39;s they? Your weirdo fringe group?

[EusebioScrib]

That&#39;s strange.. I know of no "Leninist" party that only allows workers to join.. can you point me in their direction?

Where did this come from...seems rather...out of place



Right, except that&#39;s not an option for workers. We don&#39;t work because we want to, we work because we have to&#33; We&#39;re wage slaves. If we stop working, we and/or our families will die. Our relation to the means of production in capitalism are what makes us the revolutionary class. That is why we have "nothing to lose but our chains"&#33;

Yes, death is the threat held over our heads when we refuse to work for capital. However, if we seperate in numbers, we can sustain ourselves. The idea is to create an alternative now. That&#39;s what people want, and alternatives always lead to dual-power which leads to revolution.


Most workers are too poor to buy a plane ticket.. but that&#39;s obviously not what I was saying.. if you&#39;re a wage slave, you can&#39;t just "take a year off" and do some globe trotting.. see above.


Again, see above.


Way to respond in a principled manner&#33; You can&#39;t address the fact that many of your actions are indistinguishable from those of fascists in practice.

*yawns again*


Facists are pro-capitalist, and are oppressive and seek to oppress me. If I come across a group of fascists who know I&#39;m a communist, there&#39;s a good chance they&#39;ll try to kill me.

Well, when Leninists take and have power, they most certainly kill us when we rebel against them. I mean look at the recent actions of the administration of this board.



You&#39;re doing something the bourgeoisie approves of.. respond to that in a principled manner, if you can.

No, principle is a bourgeois approval, actually.



You just "met" 2. In my own political work I&#39;ve met thousands of people.. you weren&#39;t one of them though, but since I don&#39;t attend vegan infosquats I probably have little chance of running into you.


Woah, 2 people? Damn...we&#39;ve all met thousands of people in our political work. Were they FPM or RAANistas...probably not.

1. I&#39;m not a vegan
2. We have some chance of running into each other...I bet I&#39;ll meet you one day...


Sounds like we actively support, and unite with, workers when they make gains, and fight to do so, anywhere in the world. Sounds like you spend time harrassing Maoists.

Yup, we just glorify the fact that we did that. We never ever did or do anything else. Just hate Maoists for no reason...

Although I must say, alteast we can provide concrete examples of what we did not "we help unite the working class"...how? By passing out newspapers?


Great response again. Truly powerful.

Twas, wasn&#39;t it?


Flush that post-modernists shit down the toilet, where it belongs. I judge you by what you do, and how and why you do it.

I said exactly what you did in your second sentence here. :huh:


Yeah, we wouldn&#39;t be talking about the BPP, cause no one would have heard of them. The BPP didn&#39;t run into problems because it called itself, or was called "Maoist", it was because of crucial problems in their strategies, tactics, etc.

Yes, a name is what causes failure.

The BPP failed because it was Leninist. It&#39;s structure and tactics were all based on Leninists ones, hence indicating their failure.


That&#39;s great.. I&#39;m a Leninist.... because you so say. You fail kid.

Yup. I pass.


I never said that at all. I said we support gains made by the working class (not for them, there&#39;s a big difference) when they are supportable.


Well, what is the FPM&#39;s stance on Leninism?


The advance towards world communism is objectively in the interest of the working class.

And does RAAN not support that?


Right. That&#39;s why the capitalists opposed the measures and the popular worker and farmer struggles that brought them about (in Cuba in this example) tooth and nail.

They opposed it because it was a colonial nation seeking independence.


That&#39;s why the imperialists oppose Cuba so much (though not China).. because it&#39;s capitalist&#33; rolleyes.gif

China is a super-power whom they want to get in cahoots with (they produce everything&#33;) Cuna is a small colonial nation whom they are pissed at for rebellion.

[Hampton]

The BPP failed because it was Leninist. It&#39;s structure and tactics were all based on Leninists ones, hence indicating their failure.

The BPP failed because they were destroyed by the FBI and the police, not because of their ideology, read a book.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I wouldn&#39;t agree with that entirely comrade. Although the campaign against the BPP was ridiculously harsh, even surviving members don&#39;t blame their failure on that (or not entirely). Certain changes could have prevented the U.S. Gov from being able to attack them so successfuly, and/or for the attack to have such a detrimental impact on the BPP.

[Hampton]

I would venture to say that it was more personalities of the people who were in than the structure. Towards the end, Huey was into drugs which clouded everything and pissed people off, like Bobby. Also the infamous split occured because of FBI shenanigans but also because Cleaver and Huey clashed before then, several times. But, more than structure it was also lack of experience and how to handle certain situations. They could have never guessed that what was done to them woudl have been done or even that they would have grew to the size that they were.

The structure of the group was that when one was put in prison or murdered there was someone else who would take their place, as seen when Huey, Bobby, David Hilliard, went to jail. But, it was a top-down paramilitary organization.

But when a organization gets as big as they did, have several thousand members across the country and some in exile in other countries, I would imagine that it becomes impossible to control and be sure of who gets in. Some may have not liked the top-down idea, but, for the way the Party was set up, they had gotten a lot done.

[Avtomatov]

Saying: You are a leninist therefore your argument is invalid. This is a logical fallacy.

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

I&#39;m blown away by EusebioScrib point he made a while ago.


*yawns again*

I can see now why the RAAN is such a powerful revolutionary group, the masses of the RAAN sure know how to make a point.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

How do you expect people to take ya&#39; seriously?


--Paz

[lawnmowergoWHUMMM]

I think one disagreement present here is what is needed - action or preparation? There is a view that, sometimes revolutionary conditions pop up and the conditioning that leftist groups performed on the population prior to the situation determine how the situation turns out. If leftist parties were out shouting, leafleting, and building up support, then the crisis should turn out revolutionarily. This is a pretty classic Marxist dialectal materialist point of view.

On the other side is the more anarchist, insurrectionalist, situationist view that waiting teaches waiting and the best thing to do is act now. This view says that at any point in history the proles/any angry accomplices could overthrow the overstructures and make society anew. This view often stresses leading by example, and the failure of words and propaganda to convince.

I fall somewhere in the middle. The fact is, there are times that are more tense than others, but it&#39;s also possible to create a situation. However, the important thing to realize is that BOTH strategies require building a base. If you&#39;re going to say screw history, we&#39;re revolting, you still need backup. And of course, if you&#39;re going to wait for a potentially revolutionary crisis, then ALL you&#39;ll be doing is building up. However, will people really even want to join you if all you want to do for now is wait, or pursue spectacular, non-revolutionary reforms?

Finally, here we have the anarchist vs. marxist conflict. You two seem to be hammering it out, but there are just a few points I&#39;d like to make here.

Some anarchists of the insurrectionalist and situationist variety, (many of them, even if they don&#39;t realize it these ideologies have influenced "mainstream" anarchism very much these days) say that marxists tend to simply be "recuperators" - that is, a group or person which takes outbreaks of the people&#39;s anger and reorganizes it behind some new political push, which really just fits into the big jigsaw puzzle of power again. It simply replaces conservative masters with progressive masters.

Some anarchists claim that this is what is drying up what could really be a serious movement right now - the anti-war movement. All the anger is recuperated by Democrats who don&#39;t actually have really anti-war stances, and those who are dissentful enough to bail on the Democrats simply find rallies rigged as fronts for socialist and communist parties. They understand that these rallies are pointless and are basically building a cult which will focus, like all other authorities, on building itself up instead of pursuing its idealistic stated objectives. This will occur instead of building a direct action situation which will jam the cogs of the war machine.

The only people left at these rallies are people looking for something to identify with and something to do with their time, often richer folk, or just confused and misled poor folk. THIS is why anarchists often have a legitimate claim that these "leftist" groups, like unions, actually serve the greater order by recuperating potentially radical anger back into the tamed, submissive political matrix.

Putting this in your address bar will take you to a site which talks about recuperation within the anti-war movement and other relevant topics: http://www.geocities.com/seainsur/pages/wr.../autonomous.htm (http://www.geocities.com/seainsur/pages/writings/autonomous.htm)

And visit prole.info to read about why a political solution (voting, working on a party, other spectacles) is not a proletarian solution, and the place unions and leftist parties have in politics. The proper pamplhet I&#39;m thinking of is their manifesto, WORK COMMUNITY POLITICS WAR. However they have many other great writings.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think it&#39;s kinda funny and sad at the same time how "Leninist" became a bad thing to call a person.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Massoud, it&#39;s the Monty Python syndrome, if you know of it (I am sure you do), where the &#39;People&#39;s Front of Judea&#39; regard the &#39;Judean People&#39;s Front&#39; as the real enemy, and the Romans laugh all the way back to the Colosseum.

Our anarchist friends regard us Leninists as just as big a danger as the ruling class, and our forces are thus split, and we have to endure more years of oppression as a result. Brilliant&#33;

No wonder most workers hold us all in contempt, and regard us as a load of w*nkers.

Whenever they have arisen we have either let them down, mislead them, screwed up, turned on them, allied with ruling-class forces.....

The ruling-class could not have prayed for a &#39;better&#39; revolutionary current than we have provided over the last 150 years. 90 years after 1917 and capitalism is more secure and we are further away from a worker&#39;s state than ever.

Pathetic.

We need a systematic re-think of all we do.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 5 2006, 09:15 AM
Massoud, it&#39;s the Monty Python syndrome, if you know of it (I am sure you do), where the &#39;People&#39;s Front of Judea&#39; regard the &#39;Judean People&#39;s Front&#39; as the real enemy, and the Romans laugh all the way back to the Colosseum.

Our anarchist friends regard us Leninists as just as big a danger as the ruling class, and our forces are thus split, and we have to endure more years of oppression as a result. Brilliant&#33;

No wonder most workers hold us all in contempt, and regard us as a load of w*nkers.

Whenever they have arisen we have either let them down, mislead them, screwed up, turned on them, allied with ruling-class forces.....

The ruling-class could not have prayed for a &#39;better&#39; revolutionary current than we have provided over the last 150 years. 90 years after 1917 and capitalism is more secure and we are further away from a worker&#39;s state than ever.

Pathetic.

We need a systematic re-think of all we do.
I think capitalism will have to have to have a global catastrophic collapse before the revolution will begin. I believe the moment may not be chosen by us but forced upon us by a rapidly decaying global capitalism that will have to be replaced quickly for survival reasons. Capitalism is a system, like any other, that has its time in human evolution and eventually is replaced. I think that when its extinction draws near then we shall see a rise in the willingness of workers ready to challenge for the means of production. I think this could be very rapid when the time comes.

With global communism the state should naturally wither away as Marx predicted. The USSR as a state could never wither away in a sea of capitalism, nor can any island or block. Global communism can herald the end of the state. The state is another idiosyncrasy of the epoch we live in.

Globalisation is surely the last phase of capitalism. The key for me is always been technology. The more mankind technologizes the more capitalism can use less and less labour for production. This poses a great problem as consumers need wages. Thus I think the prospect of communism grows stronger with technology advencement. 90 years for me is a tiny amount of time. Set against human history it certainly is. The industrial revolution breathed life in to capitalism and also socialism, only one shall prevail.

[Marion]

Like the desire for self-criticism you show Rosa – often too easy to blame “objective” circumstances, the media etc to the exclusion of looking at ourselves and our own practices. I do sense, though, that you seem to be putting the blame on anarchists for not joining in with Leninists rather than vice-versa (or spreading blame equally). Anyway, I’m not sure why you think such a move would make sense in the first place.

Firstly, I think there are very good examples of what happened to anarchists in the USSR after joining forces with Lenin. Many anarchists were sent to the gulags or killed, while Lenin and Trotsky’s physical attacks on Makhno’s forces in the Ukraine were hardly exemplary.

Secondly, even ignoring the historical record, there are (or have been) serious theoretical differences between the two groups that should not be minimised over issues such as vanguard parties, factory management, the role of militias, transition periods, role of unions, hierarchical organisation, relative importance of material conditions etc etc. Given these differences, I wouldn’t expect either anarchists or Leninists to want to join forces in any strategic sense at all.

Thirdly, as Marcuse said “The Left is split&#33; The left has always been split&#33; Only the right, which has no ideas to fight for, is united&#33;”.

[Delta]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 5 2006, 04:36 AM

I think capitalism will have to have to have a global catastrophic collapse before the revolution will begin.
In some sense I think you are correct. Whether it be a nuclear war, or some other catastrophe, I think the revolution will be thrown upon us, not induced by us.

However, I think it&#39;s very important than we educate others now, so that death and destruction during the transition is minimized and so that the revolution proceeds properly and we don&#39;t end up with another sort of capitalism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marion, thanks for those comments:


Like the desire for self-criticism you show Rosa – often too easy to blame “objective” circumstances, the media etc to the exclusion of looking at ourselves and our own practices. I do sense, though, that you seem to be putting the blame on anarchists for not joining in with Leninists rather than vice-versa (or spreading blame equally). Anyway, I’m not sure why you think such a move would make sense in the first place.

Well I am a Leninist, so I do see things one way (but if Leninism teaches you one thing -- and it is something the vast majority of us Leninists forget -- truth is never final, so I hope I can see things from other perspectives), but I trust we can learn not to occupy a given corner and close our ears -- so I am sorry if I sounded like I was blaming any one wing of our movement; I did not intend to.

Having said that, you only have to read a handful of posts at this site to see the hatred some here feel towards us Bolsheviks (in some cases justified -- and as you know, given the things you cited, there are two sides to every story), but this is not the place to start if we want to save this planet and get rid of those bas*ards.

Hating one another is playing right into their hands.

I agree, there are serious theoretical differences between us Leninists and you anarchists (I am assuming you are&#33;), and it may be that we cannot bridge the gap.

If so, Marx&#39;s words, that the class war might lead to the mutual destruction of the contending classes, could indeed come about.

Prospects for our side are grim, and they will only get grimmer if we do not learn to stop treating each other as a greater threat than the monsters who run the system.

[lawnmowergoWHUMMM]

I&#39;m really sorry, Rosa. I know your intentions are great. However, when Lenin does things like have anarchist newspapers raided and shut down, I can&#39;t regard his system as anything but a tinkering-with of previous conditions.

I recommend looking at things in the double-axis system which politicalcompass.org recommends. They rate social views according to economic leftism and rightism, and also to an "up and down" axis of government involvement. (I mean no insult to your intelligence if you&#39;ve heard of this already.)

This helps demonstrate that things are not as simple as "right" and "left," and that indeed elements on the left side, from Leninists to autonomists, may have as much to differ over as the disparate elements of the right, from free-market libertarians to racist fascists.

I was in a school debate club called Junior States of America. My school&#39;s chapter consisted mostly of liberals or further left, so we had to find odd things to debate about, agreeing that "the right sucked," that "people should get what they need," that "drug laws are whack," etc, all the popular young leftist people stuff. One of the real dividing lines was gun control. I think the situation this forum and the "left" finds itself in is similar to that situation.

Main point being, that from the anarchist (and especially Situationist/insurrectionist) perspective, in which any bureaucracy is viewed as ultimately treasonous to its "constituents," the problem is not seen so much that we are two different kinds of leftists with a common goal but conflicting ways of getting there. The problem is that a highly critical viewpoint which ties together economic and political realities understands that the bureaucracy-over-people situation called "politics" is a situation of class division/domination, just like capitalism, and anarchists view a "proletarian state" as simply trading one set of bosses for another. The Situationist theorists have stopped calling the USSR setup "communism" and have begun calling it "state capitalism" or "a consolidated spectacle." Republicans, Democrats (USA parties) and fascists have all preached populism but in the end they all share the exclusionary bureacratic structure which places either government officials or private owners in charge of everything.

I could go on bla-ing but I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve heard all the anarchist arguments before, which is a huge part of our problem...often people will differ in opinion and there is no way to change it. Some insurrectionalist anarchists have suggested abandoning ideology and propaganda altogether, which could fix this contradiction, and instead manipulating ongoing struggles into an anti-authority direction. However, often when they cite examples of this working successfully, there was already some kind of class consciousness/identity in the people involved.

I suppose I meandered about to reach your same conclusion. It appears as though we&#39;ve reached a contradiction with no apparent solution at this time. The left is split, for good reason, but the right is winning. I know there are anarchist groups that welcome aboard anti-state Marxists but I don&#39;t think that&#39;s quite the same problem we&#39;re talking about here.

Generally anyone who identifies with something outside the protected status quo looks for allies among the similarly estranged, but the fact is that a common enemy does not make a friend in this case. In fact there are some groups the empire is at war with, such as nazi prison gangs and islamic terrorists, that I would also fight.

[Angelo-Von-Drez]

Let&#39;s settle this and become Maoists.

[An archist]

Originally posted by Angelo&#045;Von&#045;[email protected] 9 2006, 12:25 PM
Let&#39;s settle this and become Maoists.
*shoots Angelo-Von-Drez

Yes, he was a maoist, but he had bourgeouis tendencies and as a red gardist, I can&#39;t accept that.

EDIT: I like Kurt Weil too

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:01 AM
However, when Lenin does things like have anarchist newspapers raided and shut down, I can&#39;t regard his system as anything but a tinkering-with of previous conditions.
When anarchists call for the destruction of the proletarian state, I can&#39;t regard them as anything but enemies of the proletariat.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 5 2006, 09:14 PM
Prospects for our side are grim, and they will only get grimmer if we do not learn to stop treating each other as a greater threat than the monsters who run the system.
I can perhaps see some truth in that, but unfortunately there is nothing to assume that anything will be any different the next time round and I&#39;m not entirely sure on what basis anarchists should not prepare themselves for it.

If, by some unfortunate grace there was a Leninist revolution what do you think will happen to the anarchists. Or are we to assume, by your placations, that we should all try and "work things out" before that time comes?

If so, how do you suspect we do that?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 9 2006, 03:02 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jul 9 2006, 03:02 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 07:01 AM
However, when Lenin does things like have anarchist newspapers raided and shut down, I can&#39;t regard his system as anything but a tinkering-with of previous conditions.
When anarchists call for the destruction of the proletarian state, I can&#39;t regard them as anything but enemies of the proletariat. [/b]
There&#39;s no such thing as a "proletarian state".

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:02 PM
When anarchists call for the destruction of the proletarian state, I can&#39;t regard them as anything but enemies of the proletariat.
Anarchists will never be enemies of the people, only enemies of the state, why not, when the revolution is complete, leave the anarchists alone? They will never grab power and opress people.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jul 9 2006, 03:21 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jul 9 2006, 03:21 PM) There&#39;s no such thing as a "proletarian state". [/b]
Karl Marx would disagree with you on that one. So would all scientific socialists.


An archist
Anarchists will never be enemies of the people, only enemies of the state, why not, when the revolution is complete, leave the anarchists alone? They will never grab power and opress people.
Because anarchists are fundamentally opposed to the existence of state structure. They fail to distinguish between the bourgeois state and the proletarian state. Indeed TAT refuses to acknowledge the possibility of the latter. When, following revolution, a worker state is created, the anarchists will either have to compromise their principles or continue their struggle against the proletariat.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

here minus oh I dunno...3-5%?

That&#39;s interesting.

Are 95-97 percent of the people willing to fight for a revolution?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 9 2006, 10:25 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jul 9 2006, 10:25 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2006, 03:21 PM
There&#39;s no such thing as a "proletarian state".
Karl Marx would disagree with you on that one. So would all scientific socialists. [/b]
Oh no :o


They fail to distinguish between the bourgeois state and the proletarian state. Indeed TAT refuses to acknowledge the possibility of the latter.

A state is a centralised, hierarchical structure and only exists by the control of a minority. The state cannot operate in any other way.

The Leninist state is "proletarian" in name only as that minority, indeed the central committee cease to be working class once they become the head of a state.

This minority not only controls the means of production through its equal control of the military and security forces but organises and administrates it in every concievable way.

If we are to assume that by state you simply mean "one class organised to oppress another class" then I would assert that this is not the defintion of a state but merely the economic nature of one.


When, following revolution, a worker state is created, the anarchists will either have to compromise their principles or continue their struggle against the proletariat.

The proletariat as a whole will have little control over this [Leninist] state so any struggle against the state will be against the minority who controls the state on "behalf" of the workers.

Just because you say "We are the proletarian state, to fight us fights the proletariat" does not, as history clearly demonstrates, make it so.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by TAT
A state is a centralised, hierarchical structure and only exists by the control of a minority. The state cannot operate in any other way.
Why?

All previous states have been dominated by a minority because all previous ruling classes have consisted of a minority. But then here I am bringing class into it :rolleyes:


The Leninist state is "proletarian" in name only as that minority, indeed the central committee cease to be working class once they become the head of a state.
How is that? How has their relation to the means of production changed? You think the current set of politicians we have are somehow a distinct class from the bourgeoisie?


This minority not only controls the means of production through its equal control of the military and security forces but organises and administrates it in every concievable way.
The state does not control the means but production. It merely… manages them. That’s its whole raison d’etre. The state is simply an extension of the ruling class, not some separate body to rule over it.


If we are to assume that by state you simply mean "one class organised to oppress another class" then I would assert that this is not the defintion of a state but merely the economic nature of one.
Well considering that it’s economic relations that govern class relationships/definitions I’d settle for that.


The proletariat as a whole will have little control over this [Leninist] state so any struggle against the state will be against the minority who controls the state on "behalf" of the workers.
Let me make it clear that I am not insisting that the proletarian state will take the form of Russia 1917. I’m well aware of the controversy over that. If we accept that the state is an extension of the ruling class then what is there to struggle against?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 10 2006, 01:02 PM--> (ComradeOm &#064; Jul 10 2006, 01:02 PM)
TAT
A state is a centralised, hierarchical structure and only exists by the control of a minority. The state cannot operate in any other way.
Why?

All previous states have been dominated by a minority because all previous ruling classes have consisted of a minority. But then here I am bringing class into it :rolleyes: [/b]
Well, then it ceases to be a state. The state Marx describes pertains specifically to the economic nature of a state. A state is also a structured politically system of mechanisms and you cannot take one away from the other, as you point out in your response.



This minority not only controls the means of production through its equal control of the military and security forces but organises and administrates it in every concievable way.
The state does not control the means but production. It merely… manages them. That’s its whole raison d’etre.

Perhaps in a capitalist society that can be said, but in a society controlled by the "workers" the whole purpose of a Socialist State is for the state to control the means of production.



If we are to assume that by state you simply mean "one class organised to oppress another class" then I would assert that this is not the defintion of a state but merely the economic nature of one.
Well considering that it’s economic relations that govern class relationships/definitions I’d settle for that.

Good. Now you must understand that the state also takes on a specific political nature or mechinism designed to protect the economic structures in society.



The proletariat as a whole will have little control over this [Leninist] state so any struggle against the state will be against the minority who controls the state on "behalf" of the workers.
Let me make it clear that I am not insisting that the proletarian state will take the form of Russia 1917.

Then what are you insisting?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by TAT
Well, then it ceases to be a state. The state Marx describes pertains specifically to the economic nature of a state. A state is also a structured politically system of mechanisms and you cannot take one away from the other, as you point out in your response.
I’m not seeing you here. We know the political superstructure of the state is built on the economic base (to use the jargon). How does that void the idea that a state will cease to exist post revolution? Its most likely going to be very different structurally from the one that you and I know and love but that’s because the relations of production will have changed so radically.


Perhaps in a capitalist society that can be said, but in a society controlled by the "workers" the whole purpose of a Socialist State is for the state to control the means of production.
In socialism it is the workers that will control the means of production. That’s one lesson we learnt from Russia.


Now you must understand that the state also takes on a specific political nature or mechinism designed to protect the economic structures in society.
Of course - laws and whatnot; all designed to protect the ruling class’s control over the means of production. Again the political makeup/structure of the state is dependant on economic relations. As long as there is the need to protect the proletariat’s interests, ie as long as there are conflicting classes, the state will exist.


Then what are you insisting?
Merely that the state will exist post revolution. I have no idea what form it will take.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 10 2006, 06:24 PM--> (ComradeOm &#064; Jul 10 2006, 06:24 PM)
TAT
Well, then it ceases to be a state. The state Marx describes pertains specifically to the economic nature of a state. A state is also a structured politically system of mechanisms and you cannot take one away from the other, as you point out in your response.
I’m not seeing you here. We know the political superstructure of the state is built on the economic base (to use the jargon). How does that void the idea that a state will cease to exist post revolution? [/b]
That&#39;s not what I meant. A state is a hierarchical centralised mechnism of political control. If it does not have that characteristic it ceases to be a state.


Again the political makeup/structure of the state is dependant on economic relations.

How is it? If a state is one class organised to oppress another class then the state is invariable in terms of its "economic relations."


As long as there is the need to protect the proletariat’s interests, ie as long as there are conflicting classes, the state will exist.

The state perpetuates class conflict so as long as the state exists so will class conflict.



Then what are you insisting?
Merely that the state will exist post revolution. I have no idea what form it will take.

And the assertion I am making is that the state&#39;s form is invariable.

[rouchambeau]

In my pants.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by TAT
That&#39;s not what I meant. A state is a hierarchical centralised mechnism of political control. If it does not have that characteristic it ceases to be a state.
I think you are using the bourgeois state as your template of just what a state is. Its understandable but misleading. The actual political structure of the state has changed many times throughout history – witness the difference between the feudal and bourgeois or even today’s and early bourgeois – dependant on the relations of production. Now I don’t care if this involves hierarchy or centralisation or dancing clowns… all that’s important is that it is the apparatus of the ruling class in maintaining control over society.


How is it? If a state is one class organised to oppress another class then the state is invariable in terms of its "economic relations."
Because these economic relations themselves change over time. It’s a little thing I like to call a materialist conception of history. For example the relationship between capitalist and worker is very different from that of feudal lord and peasant.


The state perpetuates class conflict so as long as the state exists so will class conflict.
Wrong way around. The state is the result of class divisions.


And the assertion I am making is that the state&#39;s form is invariable.
The state’s nature is constant only in that it is remains a tool of class rule.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 09:04 PM
In my pants.
DAMN&#33; You beat me to it&#33;&#33;&#33;

Seriously was gonna write the same.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:19 PM
The actual political structure of the state has changed many times throughout history – witness the difference between the feudal and bourgeois or even today’s and early bourgeois – dependant on the relations of production
No it hasn&#39;t. It has always been a centralised, hierarchical structure of control by a minority over a majority.


witness the difference between the feudal and bourgeois or even today’s and early bourgeois – dependant on the relations of production.

The modes of production have altered but the political nature of a state has altered little if at all.

The state has always been centralised, always been hierarchical and always had the same structures to it i.e. judiciary. The only difference in the political nature of the state is in the structural nuances in which the minority have specifically governed and how they have achieved their mandate.



How is it? If a state is one class organised to oppress another class then the state is invariable in terms of its "economic relations."
Because these economic relations themselves change over time. It’s a little thing I like to call a materialist conception of history.

Which I accept, but the state is a political entity rather than simply an economic "concept."


For example the relationship between capitalist and worker is very different from that of feudal lord and peasant.

But that&#39;s beside the point. The political structure in which the feudal lord controlled the peasant was fundamentally the same as how the capitalist controls the worker. Through a centralised, hierarchical structure of law enforcement, judiciary, military and political dominance.



The state perpetuates class conflict so as long as the state exists so will class conflict.
Wrong way around. The state is the result of class divisions.

The need for political dominance derived from economic dominance I accept, but therefore the state is created to perpetuate that domination.



And the assertion I am making is that the state&#39;s form is invariable.
The state’s nature is constant only in that it is remains a tool of class rule.

Marxists need to discover a new word because the "state" is a specifically defined tool of class rule. The state&#39;s form has always been the same.

[The People]

I&#39;d like to start off by asking why are we all trying so hard to put each other down. We all have different ideas and beliefs. We aren&#39;t perfect. But if we want to see change we must come together and put our differences aside. How can we fight the injustice in the world when we are fighting ourselves. Have we forgotten who we are.

At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality.

[KC]

It has always been a centralised, hierarchical structure of control by a minority over a majority.


This kind of state is what Marx/Engels would refer to as a state "in the proper sense of the word".



The need for political dominance derived from economic dominance I accept, but therefore the state is created to perpetuate that domination.

Of course it is. It is used by the ruling class to maintain the conditions of its rule.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 27 2006, 04:55 PM

It has always been a centralised, hierarchical structure of control by a minority over a majority.


This kind of state is what Marx/Engels would refer to as a state "in the proper sense of the word".
There is no other sense than the proper sense.




The need for political dominance derived from economic dominance I accept, but therefore the state is created to perpetuate that domination.
It is used by the ruling class to maintain the conditions of its rule.

And therefore perpetuates class...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And therefore perpetuates class...

Except for not at all.. The one does not lead to the other..

The state in and of itself doesn&#39;t perpetuate class division.. the bourgeoisie&#39;s control of it does.

[KC]

And therefore perpetuates class...

Yes and no. If we take the example of a proletarian state, then it is the proletariat using the state to maintain the conditions of its rule. Of course, since the proletariat don&#39;t need the bourgeoisie to maintain the conditions of its rule, the bourgeoisie becomes an expendable class. And since the bourgeoisie organized as a class no longer has the social status it once did, nor the conditions for its rule, it no longer has the conditions to maintain itself as a class.

The bourgeoisie needs to maintain the conditions of its rule to maintain itself as a class. Without this, the bourgeoisie scatters. Many become proletarianized under proletarian rule.

The conditions of proletarian rule is that everyone becomes a worker. When the bourgeoisie are forced to become workers, they start becoming proletarianized. With this, the size of the bourgeoisie shrinks as the size of the proletariat grows. And with this shrinking of the bourgeoisie comes the shrinking (or disappearing) of functions used by the proletariat to maintain the condition of its rule, as they are no longer needed. The state is essentially withering away with the withering of the bourgeoisie.

Eventually everyone becomes proletarian. But since everyone is proletarian, the proletarian as a class ceases to have any meaning, as it includes everyone. Class disappears.

[The Feral Underclass]

All of your assertion works under the premise that a) the state is something other than it&#39;s defintion and b) has the ability to "wither away."

Neither of those things are true.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Lennie [email protected] 27 2006, 05:32 PM

And therefore perpetuates class...

The one does not lead to the other..

Having a system in which a minority centralises it&#39;s control, especially in the Socialist sense, a class is created. As in all "transitional" countries a bureaucratic class emerges in which they control everything.


The state in and of itself doesn&#39;t perpetuate class division..
A centralised hierarchical structure of political control [a state] "has" no other alternative.

[KC]

We should really stop having this discussion, as you agree with me in terms of my definitions, and I agree with you in terms of your definitions. All we&#39;re really debating here is semantics, i.e. the definition of state.

EDIT: How is a state hierarchical? Class society is, but how is a state? And what do you mean when you say "centralized"?

Should this be split off into a topic in theory?

[Red Sky Revolution]

I&#39;ve started a group in my area. Right now our numbers are very very small. And most of us are still in High School. So were younger. But were trying to get more people. Here in Central Illinois not much goes on politically. So it&#39;s pretty dull. We need some riots and stuff. Anyone else in Central Illinois start getting together.

We were black bandana&#39;s in our back left pocket. So if you see someone with one. Talk to them. Or something. By the way....just cause we have bandana&#39;s doesnt mean were a gang. Haha. Yeah.