What is the Greater Threat to the Revolution?

[Inviction]

The moderate leftists of most mainstream politics in the West, or the blatantly reactionary and conservative forces of politics?

I argue that the former is, because it (1) domesticates and tames would-be revolutionaries, (2) splits the leftist movement, (3) instills in workers the same goals as the capitalists, and (4) makes compromises with the capitalists about workers' conditions.

The reactionaries, on the other hand, can openly be seen as enemies of revolutionary progress in favor of the proletariat.

[Demogorgon]

I think the most dangerous element is lunatics that keep us on the fringe actually.

I want the far left to be the mainstream. That's when things start hapening. Constant squabbling and "lefter than thou" attitudes get us nowhere.

[Inviction]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 09:18 pm
I think the most dangerous element is lunatics that keep us on the fringe actually.

I want the far left to be the mainstream. That's when things start hapening. Constant squabbling and "lefter than thou" attitudes get us nowhere.
You've a good point, but how to cure this--whenever the far left becomes the mainstream, it begins to decay and become corrupt. Stalin in 1917 was a revolutionary dissident, but in 1937 basically a reactionary who executed dissidents, no? China in 1949 was revolutionary, but in 1989 cracked down on protests.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Inviction+December 02, 2006 09:24 pm--> (Inviction @ December 02, 2006 09:24 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 09:18 pm
I think the most dangerous element is lunatics that keep us on the fringe actually.

I want the far left to be the mainstream. That's when things start hapening. Constant squabbling and "lefter than thou" attitudes get us nowhere.
You've a good point, but how to cure this--whenever the far left becomes the mainstream, it begins to decay and become corrupt. Stalin in 1917 was a revolutionary dissident, but in 1937 basically a reactionary who executed dissidents, no? China in 1949 was revolutionary, but in 1989 cracked down on protests. [/b]
True, true. But we have to become mainstream if we are to have any effect. I don't think the corruption involving Stalin or the Chinese Communist Party was because they were moving to the mainstream but because they were letting power become a corrupting influence.

[Wanted Man]

None of the above. It's obviously the Leninists. They're bad d00ds, mang.

[Inviction]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 02, 2006 09:34 pm--> (Demogorgon @ December 02, 2006 09:34 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 09:24 pm

[email protected] 02, 2006 09:18 pm
I think the most dangerous element is lunatics that keep us on the fringe actually.

I want the far left to be the mainstream. That's when things start hapening. Constant squabbling and "lefter than thou" attitudes get us nowhere.
You've a good point, but how to cure this--whenever the far left becomes the mainstream, it begins to decay and become corrupt. Stalin in 1917 was a revolutionary dissident, but in 1937 basically a reactionary who executed dissidents, no? China in 1949 was revolutionary, but in 1989 cracked down on protests.
True, true. But we have to become mainstream if we are to have any effect. I don't think the corruption involving Stalin or the Chinese Communist Party was because they were moving to the mainstream but because they were letting power become a corrupting influence. [/b]
Perhaps, but I'm sure coming to power had something, however little, to do with it. After all, power corrupts and makes men want to hold onto power more, which is what the revolutionary was originally fighting against.

The great tragedy is that capable and honest leaders, like Lenin, Che, or Trotsky, never made it for too long.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

While reactionary and conservatives are more of an obvious threat, they only any real power in the U.S. The moderate leftists hold power in most European countries so on numbers alone the Leftists are the greater threat.

However the Infighting and bickering that goes on within the moderate left stops them from acctually doing anything (and if Tony Blair has done anything it's to show that it is a small step from moderate Leftist to Right-wing nutter).

The Conservatives are more likely to do something rash and lash out against a revolution (Venezuela?) so probably are a larger threat to Revolution.

[( R )evolution]

I think along with reactionary and conservatives are bad to the revolution. One that isnt mentionted in your first post is that, the majoirty of the workers are mis-informed about communism, so they do not know they are getting exploit. Also the workers voting for the lesser evil (actualy voting at all) is bad.

[Inviction]

Originally posted by Modern Life is [email protected] 02, 2006 10:42 pm
While reactionary and conservatives are more of an obvious threat, they only any real power in the U.S. The moderate leftists hold power in most European countries so on numbers alone the Leftists are the greater threat.

However the Infighting and bickering that goes on within the moderate left stops them from acctually doing anything (and if Tony Blair has done anything it's to show that it is a small step from moderate Leftist to Right-wing nutter).

The Conservatives are more likely to do something rash and lash out against a revolution (Venezuela?) so probably are a larger threat to Revolution.
Yes, and what I'm getting at is that the reactionaries, in doing something "rash," would unite the workers' movement behind the one banner of revolution, while moderates would continually try to mollify the workers and thus split up and slow down the revolution.

[Red October]

the moderate leftists and liberals are an internal threat that could slow down or weaken the revolution, but the reactionary conservatives are an external threat, one that has guns and the government on their side to kill revolutionaries with.

[Inviction]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 03, 2006 04:47 am
the moderate leftists and liberals are an internal threat that could slow down or weaken the revolution, but the reactionary conservatives are an external threat, one that has guns and the government on their side to kill revolutionaries with.
Yes, I suppose that's true. After all, the Marxian aim is not to bicker internally about the fine points of doctrine but rather liberate the worker from the exploits of the capitalists.

[SPK]

The fundamental problem is, as Inviction noted, the reformist elements of the left. First, you have those who are consistently sucked into the electoral arena, in order to support the so-called “lesser of two evils”. The Democrats in the usa are currently way further to the right than the social democratic, electoral parties in western europe. That doesn’t stop many self-identified progressives from, every four years like clockwork, diving into the whole con game of supporting bourgeois political candidates and organizing people to vote. This inevitably leads to a suppression or reduction of more militant strategies: the 2004 presidential elections here, where many on the left supported the Democratic nominee, Kerry, saw an almost total collapse of antiwar demonstrations and actions -- there were only a few exceptions, primarily around the ANSWER coalition. For mass movements, this has been the case over and over again throughout much of the twentieth century, at least.

But this problem could be circumvented – or challenged directly – if the independent left which rejects voting and an electoral orientation was able to organize effectively enough. People can, I believe – I’ve seen this happen, although it isn’t too common – remain committed to a more radical, militant politics, but they have to first see that there are effective, dynamic, and creative organizations committed to that goal. That is not the case right now on the radical left. There are many reasons for this, but one of the key problems is the pernicious influence of the non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), like non-profits, political lobbying groups, social service providers, and so on.

NGO’s are the absolute antithesis of what revolutionaries should want to see in a movement. They are not grassroots-based and do not for the most part have local chapters – which runs against the need to have strong, local movements. They have larger budgets, and the attendant fundraising ability, than any real grassroots organization could ever muster – some, primarily social service providers, even get government funding for certain projects. They have paid staff and organizers – who tend to act as movement bigwigs and media darlings. They have a tendency to sucker in more committed young activists who want to dedicate their life to political work and think – erroneously – that this is the way to do it – that siphons people out of local movements. They are closed and not structurally answerable to anyone in the grassroots except their bosses and major donors, which as I noted above can include the government – that does nothing to strengthen the kind of democratic accountability movements require. They have a tendency to become central points of organizing and communication for disparate groups around the country – which would preferably be creating their own independent, autonomous coalitions. Most importantly, they have a deeply conservatizing influence on the movements: Did any of the more notable NGO’s, like Global Exchange, organize militant actions during the 2004 presidential campaign? Hell no, and they didn’t encourage any either – they were providing cover for the Democrats.

I raise NGO’s as a key problem, because their centrality in the movements today is much greater than that in even the recent past. Since their position is a relatively new phenomenon, getting rid of it should be easier. I believe that strong organizations and structure are necessary in the radical movement, but this must be done in a way that builds mass groupings which are open, accessible, grassroots, and democratic. NGO’s are quintessentially reformist and do not do that.

My two cents…

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by Inviction+December 03, 2006 04:30 am--> (Inviction @ December 03, 2006 04:30 am)Yes, and what I'm getting at is that the reactionaries, in doing something "rash," would unite the workers' movement behind the one banner of revolution, while moderates would continually try to mollify the workers and thus split up and slow down the revolution.[/b]
Reactionaries are a more 'direct' threat more likely to attempt to prevent a revoultion, The Moderates are probably a bigger threat in the long run.


[email protected] 03, 2006 07:21 am
I raise NGO’s as a key problem, because their centrality in the movements today is much greater than that in even the recent past. Since their position is a relatively new phenomenon, getting rid of it should be easier. I believe that strong organizations and structure are necessary in the radical movement, but this must be done in a way that builds mass groupings which are open, accessible, grassroots, and democratic. NGO’s are quintessentially reformist and do not do that.

You raise an interesting point, and I agree that a open grassroots and democratic orgaizations the real way to oppose NGOs

[Herman]

The most dangerous thing to any revolution is doubt.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

The most dangerous thing to the revolution is the US Propaganda.