Montreal- Cop kills teenager and sparks riots

[OI OI OI]

So in case you haven't already heard a cop shot a teenage student in Montreal north for no actual reason. It was just because "she felt threatened".
She felt so threatened that she fired 10 bullets!!!

After the death of the young student , a riot broke up .
People from the community "took up arms" against the riot police. Shops were looted , cars were burned and a cop was shot in the leg!
This spontaneous reaction by the community shows the intensity of the class struggle as a result of the economic and political oppression of the community.
We should not that it is one of the poorest communities in Montreal , with high unemployment and poverty rates .

That is why it was not just an anti-police brutality riot, but a riot against the rotten system itself.
Yesterday another protest was organized by Montreal activists without the participation of the community in a big level though.

This spontaenity shows exactly how acute but at the same time confused the struggle is and the need to find an organized expression for the fight so it can be more effective.

That is my brief report.

For more info read this (http://www.marxist.com/police-murder-provokes-riots-montreal.htm) article.

[bcbm]

But the working classes are alienated by acts of violence against stores and the police!

:glare:

[OI OI OI]

But the working classes are alienated by acts of violence against stores and the police!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/glare.gif

Nice mock.
This is true for other situations.
When "professional activists" go around and break shit while the population does not support them.
When the whole community supports the action then it is correct to engage with it. That was the case with this riot.

The same with the 1905 Revolution. All the years preceding the revolution the Marxists did not support violence , riots etc because they did not have the support of the population.
The narodniks on the other hand when against the conditions and that's why their actions were futile.
In 1905 there was a revolutionary situation and armed fighting , rioting etc had the support of the population thus the Marxists agitating for violent insurection!

Now in no way I imply that this riot means that there s a revolutionary situation in Montreal!
I am just trying to make you understand that we have a different analysis for similar events/tactics under different material conditions!


Although we understand that this rioting was futile because it did not have an organized expression and aim(lack of revolutionary leadership) we support it as it had the support of the community and we don't condemn it as we do with the individual terrorism and violence by some "activists"

[Saorsa]

Fucking hell. Fuck the police! Props to whoever it was that shot the pig in the leg.

Are there many/any socialist groups working in that area?

[bcbm]

When "professional activists" go around and break shit while the population does not support them.
When the whole community supports the action then it is correct to engage with it. That was the case with this riot.

I've never seen it very conclusively proven that the population gets real unhappy when a random cop car or two gets lit. Got some data?

And no "whole community" ever supports anything.


Are there many/any socialist groups working in that area?

If there are they will no doubt be working their hardest to co-opt any genuine struggle occurring here and destroy it.

[OI OI OI]

Are there many/any socialist groups working in that area?They have started their own group called Republik Nord but it will probably be short lived.
The IMT , NEFAC and the RCP are starting work there(the three main groups in Montreal )


I've never seen it very conclusively proven that the population gets real unhappy when a random cop car or two gets lit. Got some data?

The average citizen/taxpayer does not want to see cop-cars blown up when there is no revolutionary situation.
They see cops as protection from crime for now...


And no "whole community" ever supports anything.

Dude when someone says the "whole community" they mean the vast majority.
There are always some reactionaries.


If there are they will no doubt be working their hardest to co-opt any genuine struggle occurring here and destroy it.

Dude these people are unorganized.
If no group works there to give them an organized expression they will remain unorganized which means that they will be inneffective and with no concrete goal and probably short lived as usually .

now keep on mumbling about how we are killing movements.

[bcbm]

The average citizen/taxpayer does not want to see cop-cars blown up when there is no revolutionary situation.

There is no revolutionary situation now. And people are happily torching the fuckers. This happens frequently in poor areas. Maybe poor people don't like the police very much, or at the very least don't give a fuck about them? And, you know, you still didn't back any of that up.


They see cops as protection from crime for now...

Now there's a generalization!


Dude these people are unorganized.
If no group works there to give them an organized expression they will remain unorganized which means that they will be inneffective and with no concrete goal and probably short lived as usually .

Dude, dude, dude, DUDE!

Don't call me dude.

You just said that these people had started their own group. But they can't organize themselves, they need you brave socialists to step in and do it for them, right? What a bunch of patronizing, paternalist bullshit. The working class and other oppressed groups have often show the ability to self-organize (in ways we recognize even, ie soviets), even coming out of riots, and historically its always been the socialist parties, et al who bumble in after the fact to try and "organize" them and end up fucking the whole thing up. Of course, they often get kicked out on their asses- a lot of working-class people are on to that game and probably notice your sudden presence now that you believe there is something to gain in their community.


now keep on mumbling about how we are killing movements.

Wouldn't you have to have one, first?

[OI OI OI]

There is no revolutionary situation now. And people are happily torching the fuckers. This happens frequently in poor areas. Maybe poor people don't like the police very much, or at the very least don't give a fuck about them? And, you know, you still didn't back any of that up.

We are saying the same thing basically. I hope you get it....I am just saying that violence should be the way under certain conditions and with the supportof the community,
Not random ultra-lefts throwing molotov coctails and acting as provocateurs.


Dude, dude, dude, DUDE!

Don't call me dude.
Fine


You just said that these people had started their own group. But they can't organize themselves, they need you brave socialists to step in and do it for them, right? What a bunch of patronizing, paternalist bullshit. The working class and other oppressed groups have often show the ability to self-organize (in ways we recognize even, ie soviets), even coming out of riots, and historically its always been the socialist parties, et al who bumble in after the fact to try and "organize" them and end up fucking the whole thing up. Of course, they often get kicked out on their asses- a lot of working-class people are on to that game and probably notice your sudden presence now that you believe there is something to gain in their community.

What is wrong with socialists giving answers to people that seek them because of their living conditions?
As I said this organization will be short-lived .
We need to have some people drawn to revolutionary conclusions after this event and prepare them to be the cadres for future events so the fight can be fought more concretely and with definite goals.
We are not patronizing shit.



Wouldn't you have to have one, first?

This one?


I have to sleep now . Good night and talk later

[bcbm]

We are saying the same thing basically. I hope you get it....I am just saying that violence should be the way under certain conditions and with the supportof the community,
Not random ultra-lefts throwing molotov coctails and acting as provocateurs.

I'd wager a lot of working-class communities, particularly hyper-exploited ones, have absolutely no love for the police and don't give a fuck when violence happened. The working-class is not, and never has been, afraid of violence. Even if they shrug it off as stupid kids, they aren't going to be afraid of "terrorism-" they understand why kids would torch a cop car, because they have probably been those kids.


What is wrong with socialists giving answers to people that seek them because of their living conditions?

Did they ask you to swing by and give your opinion?


As I said this organization will be short-lived .

You can predict the future now, too?!


We need to have some people drawn to revolutionary conclusions after this event and prepare them to be the cadres for future events so the fight can be fought more concretely and with definite goals.
We are not patronizing shit.

You're not patronizing shit, you just need to tell them what conclusions to draw, what party to join and how to fight their fight. And you would know, because you have an astounding success rate at this sort of thing. Yeah, that sounds not patronizing.


This one?

Its not your movement, and I doubt you will make much headway here anyway, or so one can hope.

[Psy]

The average citizen/taxpayer does not want to see cop-cars blown up when there is no revolutionary situation.
They see cops as protection from crime for now...

I doubt any ghetto sees police in any positive light.

[#FF0000]

I doubt any ghetto sees police in any positive light.

From my experience, I don't think "city folk" in general, whether from a ghetto or not, don't see police in a positive light.

[AGITprop]

If there are they will no doubt be working their hardest to co-opt any genuine struggle occurring here and destroy it. The last time I was accused of trying to co-opt a movement, it was, coincidently, by an anarchist as well. Because I secretly am pushing a Trotskyist agenda, oh no!

It was 6 months ago during the Student Strike here in Montreal, with over 60 000 students on strike across a dozen campuses or more. The fight was for free education and while the anarchists and petit-bourgeois liberals were busy whining over whether they’re little grouplet’s constitution was ‘authoritarian’ or not, we organized a three day strike on a campus of 7000, on a structured platform with steady work and only 2-3 people on the ground. We had to fight against the right-wing union bureaucrats who tried to sabotage us at every move and we managed to take bring out 1000 students to a general assembly that is usually attended by no more than 150. If this means ‘co-opting’ the movement, than so be it. Usually accusations like this are a result of frustration because not every worker and student is converting to that particular groups politics when things pick up.

The struggle in this oppressed neighbourhood is one of spontaneous action, and does involve some advanced layers of the working class. If they remain isolated with demands that are pointing in the wrong direction, their movement will dissolve into nothing.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with proposing our ideas to those who are on the front lines of the struggle. There is no such thing as ‘co-opting’ a movement. They either agree or do not.

It is a MYTH to believe workers can organize themselves into a structured movement that can fight against the bourgeoisie unless they’re aim is to overthrow capitalism. This won’t happen on its own. If that were the case, we’d be living in a socialist society by now. There needs to be a strong ideologically based leadership.

[Pawn Power]

It is a MYTH to believe workers can organize themselves into a structured movement that can fight against the bourgeoisie unless they’re aim is to overthrow capitalism. This won’t happen on its own. If that were the case, we’d be living in a socialist society by now. There needs to be a strong ideologically based leadership.




I don't quite understand this last statement? Perhaps it is a matter of semantics of labeling?

Who will organize workers if not themselves? An outside force? Even if one believes a party, and hence party members, are necessary to organize workers aren't those party members workers themselves? If not then what are they? What kind of movement do you want to build with out working class leadership?

[OI OI OI]

I'd wager a lot of working-class communities, particularly hyper-exploited ones, have absolutely no love for the police and don't give a fuck when violence happened. The working-class is not, and never has been, afraid of violence. Even if they shrug it off as stupid kids, they aren't going to be afraid of "terrorism-" they understand why kids would torch a cop car, because they have probably been those kids.

Where I live workers don't want to see their tax money be burned.
Burning a cop car is just an idiotic act when it comes from ultra-left teenagers.
Now if it comes from an opressed community such as the suburbs of paris or montreal north then we ought to support them as their community supports it but give them an organized expression of advancing their demands....

Workers will endorse violence in the right material conditions.
Most of the times workers won't endorse violence against the police , looting stores or wtv. But this case is different . We have to look at it case by case.



Did they ask you to swing by and give your opinion?

Are you an economist? Do you think that workers are such idiots that cannot chose who are they going to listen to?
If you are then you are not worthy of the title "revolutionary".
Those people can chose if they will listen to us or not we are not forcing our ideas to them by no means.



You can predict the future now, too?!



Smart people can"predict" the future by understanding the past and studying the past.
Idiots just keep on doing the same mistakes.



You're not patronizing shit, you just need to tell them what conclusions to draw, what party to join and how to fight their fight. And you would know, because you have an astounding success rate at this sort of thing. Yeah, that sounds not patronizing.

We just express our ideas and if people like them then they join our tendency , talk with us or help us in some way.
Again what makes you think that people are such idiots that we can just drag them to our organization or make them do what we want....
It is obvious that they like our ideas and are willing to fight for them.
It is the objective conditions that make them have a huge qualitative leap into their conciousness and now they are willing to fight to change the system. They are willing to fight for revolutionary Marxism.



Its not your movement, and I doubt you will make much headway here anyway, or so one can hope.

Did I say that it was my movement? On the contrary I ve expressed my position a lot of times in this board that revolutionaries don't create revolution. We are just there as concious socialists to show the way out to the just-awaken masses. . Nothing more and nothing less.

Now we have the option of working inside the community or hold our ideas in our heads, never do anything about our ideas and in the end toss them out as worthless because socialism didn't come! I don't want to be that person.
I chose to act for my cause. You certainly don't(from what you posted)

[black magick hustla]

This is a very interesting discussion.

I think the real answer with the question of a vanguard party and spontaneity is somewhere in the middle. I think a party does have to form in the future, but it doesn't consists of a trot party trying to ride and co-opt a wave. I think the party will form from different class struggle militants on the basis of certain principles - like class struggle and internationalism. This could apply to anyone - from anarchist to communist. However, a current doesn't proclaims itself the "vanguard party" and opens its doors, waiting for people just to come in. The party is something that organically springs from revolutionary situations, gathering different communist kernels, rather than a little organization establishing itself as a vanguard and recruiting everyone under their leadership.

[bcbm]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with proposing our ideas to those who are on the front lines of the struggle. There is no such thing as ‘co-opting’ a movement. They either agree or do not.

I think rolling in and trying to recruit for a particular group is a bit different than just offering some ideas to them in a middle-ground sort of way. They already have an organization. Why not try to work alongside them instead of lead them?


It is a MYTH to believe workers can organize themselves into a structured movement that can fight against the bourgeoisie unless they’re aim is to overthrow capitalism. This won’t happen on its own. If that were the case, we’d be living in a socialist society by now. There needs to be a strong ideologically based leadership.


Actually there have been plenty of examples of more or less spontaneous organization against capitalism on behalf of workers. Learn some history. And your "if that were possible, we'd have socialism" logic is flawed as well. We have had plenty of "strong, ideologically based leadership" throughout history and very little socialist society.

------


Where I live workers don't want to see their tax money be burned.
Burning a cop car is just an idiotic act when it comes from ultra-left teenagers.
Now if it comes from an opressed community such as the suburbs of paris or montreal north then we ought to support them as their community supports it but give them an organized expression of advancing their demands....

And most workers I've met don't give a fuck. So let's go case-by-case, but that means not assuming workers are always put off by violence, even if it is isolated.


Are you an economist? Do you think that workers are such idiots that cannot chose who are they going to listen to?
If you are then you are not worthy of the title "revolutionary".
Those people can chose if they will listen to us or not we are not forcing our ideas to them by no means.

You're rolling in uninvited to a situation (where there has no doubt been trouble for decades) and now telling them you have the answers and they should join your party, etc, etc. Of course they can choose to listen to you or not, and I suspect they probably won't. Most people don't like when outsiders come in and tell them they have answers for them. That's why I think it's better to recognize that they are already organizing and to meet them half-way. You can still bring a revolutionary perspective to the situation without having a recruitment drive.


Idiots just keep on doing the same mistakes.

Like continually trying to ride the bandwagon of people who are pissed off and lure them into worthless Marxist party politics, instead of figuring out more pragmatic solutions?


Now we have the option of working inside the community or hold our ideas in our heads, never do anything about our ideas and in the end toss them out as worthless because socialism didn't come! I don't want to be that person.
I chose to act for my cause. You certainly don't(from what you posted)

Actually you don't know shit about me. Just because I don't agree with your method of "acting" doesn't mean I don't act. That's a stupid assumption.

[turquino]

Actually there have been plenty of examples of more or less spontaneous organization against capitalism on behalf of workers. Learn some history. And your "if that were possible, we'd have socialism" logic is flawed as well. We have had plenty of "strong, ideologically based leadership" throughout history and very little socialist society.
I posted a topic asking about this awhile ago and received 0 responses. I want examples of spontaneous, anti-authoritarian workers resistance from outside the first world.

[bcbm]

I posted a topic asking about this awhile ago and received 0 responses. I want examples of spontaneous, anti-authoritarian workers resistance from outside the first world.

Didn't see it, sorry!

http://www.ainfos.ca/02/dec/ainfos00281.html
http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/albania.html
http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr8/argentina.html

There has also been some self-organization going on in Bangledesh in recent years (as documented in A Murder of Crows 2) and some degree of it existed in the banlieue insurrection a few years back.

The book "Orgasms of History" contains a number of examples as well.

[turquino]

Didn't see it, sorry!

http://www.ainfos.ca/02/dec/ainfos00281.html
http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/albania.html
http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr8/argentina.html

There has also been some self-organization going on in Bangledesh in recent years (as documented in A Murder of Crows 2) and some degree of it existed in the banlieue insurrection a few years back.

The book "Orgasms of History" contains a number of examples as well.
Thank you, i will study these.

[OI OI OI]

And most workers I've met don't give a fuck. So let's go case-by-case, but that means not assuming workers are always put off by violence, even if it is isolated.

Case by case means depending on the material conditions of each case and not on individual workers.






You're rolling in uninvited to a situation (where there has no doubt been trouble for decades) and now telling them you have the answers and they should join your party, etc, etc. Of course they can choose to listen to you or not, and I suspect they probably won't. Most people don't like when outsiders come in and tell them they have answers for them. That's why I think it's better to recognize that they are already organizing and to meet them half-way. You can still bring a revolutionary perspective to the situation without having a recruitment drive.

What is a recruitment drive?
To think that we should stay outside of this is ridiculus.
To go and start difusing our ideas means that we will make recruits either we want it or not.
So basically you are making a non-argument.



Like continually trying to ride the bandwagon of people who are pissed off and lure them into worthless Marxist party politics, instead of figuring out more pragmatic solutions?

Easy there. That is your opinion.
I think that anarchist tactics and politics are a waste of time and worthless. But by bringing it up I don't contribute to the discussion in a positive way.
What's a pragmatic solution for you? Petty bourgeois demands?
Yes we push for transitional demands but not petty bourgeois stupidities which are not pragmatic solutions.
Of course through those transitional demands we bring people over to "wothless marxist politics" and build the vanguard which will show the way out in a revolutionary situation. Of course anarchists want to stand above society and have no role in a revolutionary situationa nd when they do(rarely) they always fuck it up, of course because of their worthless tactics and theory.



Actually you don't know shit about me. Just because I don't agree with your method of "acting" doesn't mean I don't act. That's a stupid assumption.


Fair enough.

[AGITprop]

I think rolling in and trying to recruit for a particular group is a bit different than just offering some ideas to them in a middle-ground sort of way. They already have an organization. Why not try to work alongside them instead of lead them?

Just to make it clear, we haven't actually intervened in this movement.

On the other hand, offering our ideas is always our main goal, but we recognize that correct ideas will attract advanced layers of the working class and members of the community.

I don't think its fair to accuse other revolutionaries of trying to 'co-opt' a movement and destroy it.

To be honest, the only other activists intervening in the last protest organized by this group, were other local anarchists and Maoists with a handful of the community members, as opposed to the original 500 in the days following the murder of Freddy Villanueva. Already we have seen a diminishing in the momentum of this spontaneous movement.

[AGITprop]

I don't quite understand this last statement? Perhaps it is a matter of semantics of labeling?

Who will organize workers if not themselves? An outside force? Even if one believes a party, and hence party members, are necessary to organize workers aren't those party members workers themselves? If not then what are they? What kind of movement do you want to build with out working class leadership?

I'm sorry, when I made the post I was in the middle of a shift at work, and was rushed.

I in no way meant that workers wouldn't be the ones organizing themselves, what I meant was that a working class without a clear leadership based on ideological ideas is going to be subject to influence from alien classes and eventually degenerate into reformism or worse.



Actually there have been plenty of examples of more or less spontaneous organization against capitalism on behalf of workers. Learn some history. And your "if that were possible, we'd have socialism" logic is flawed as well. We have had plenty of "strong, ideologically based leadership" throughout history and very little socialist society. Actually, I may not be as knowledgeable in history as you may be, but I have a perfect example of a movement completely moved to anti-capitalist conclusions, but defeated because of the failures of the reformist leadership. The Quebec Front-Commun of 1972 was a perfect example of this. The three largest trade unions in the province aligned themselves and produced 3 respective manifestos which clearly stated the anti-capitalist nature of the movement. Unfortunately for the militant workers, who still looked up to their union leadership for answers, were sold out when they were told to go back to work to 'negotiate' with the government.

This is a great example of the need for revolutionary leadership, that can only be possible with a strong ideologically based organization. I see the need to recruit the most advanced layers of the struggles in oppressed communities.

[bcbm]

Case by case means depending on the material conditions of each case and not on individual workers.

Sure, but the material conditions uh, kind of depend on individual workers?


What is a recruitment drive?
To think that we should stay outside of this is ridiculus.
To go and start difusing our ideas means that we will make recruits either we want it or not.
So basically you are making a non-argument.

I suppose from your approach that makes sense. I don't go into a situation as a member of an organization trying to build said organization. I am simply a militant trying to push the situation forward and encourage self-organization.


Easy there. That is your opinion.
I think that anarchist tactics and politics are a waste of time and worthless.

Most of them are.


What's a pragmatic solution for you? Petty bourgeois demands?
Yes we push for transitional demands but not petty bourgeois stupidities which are not pragmatic solutions.

And you just agreed about making stupid assumptions. What are petit-bourgeois (its a French term for fuck's sakes) demands in this scenario? A pragmatic solution for me is working with the people already on the ground, bringing my perspective and figuring out where we should all go from there. I don't want them to come to "my side" necessarily, as I don't see revolutionary politics as a black-and-white issue.


Of course anarchists want to stand above society and have no role in a revolutionary situationa nd when they do(rarely) they always fuck it up, of course because of their worthless tactics and theory.


Yeah, your track record is astounding too. :rolleyes: I find most leftist politicos theory and practice completely worthless to most working-class people. Don't feel like by reverting to sectarian slags you're going to rile me up. I could give a fuck if its NEFAC or the IMT when they're both doing the same thing.


To be honest, the only other activists intervening in the last protest organized by this group, were other local anarchists and Maoists with a handful of the community members, as opposed to the original 500 in the days following the murder of Freddy Villanueva. Already we have seen a diminishing in the momentum of this spontaneous movement.

Which isn't especially surprising. This sort of thing is all too common in those sorts of areas so it is hard to build anything substantial out of an individual incident. That it was mentioned that only now, after the fact, are the leftist groups swooping in like vultures offers a possible suggestion as to why, I think, they won't bother with your groups or ideas- because you're the leftist equivalent of ambulance chasers. If we want people from areas like this to take us seriously, we need to be consistently involved in their communities and engaged with them.


The Quebec Front-Commun of 1972 was a perfect example of this. The three largest trade unions in the province aligned themselves and produced 3 respective manifestos which clearly stated the anti-capitalist nature of the movement. Unfortunately for the militant workers, who still looked up to their union leadership for answers, were sold out when they were told to go back to work to 'negotiate' with the government.

Either of us could draw from this event for our own ends, so it isn't really here or there.

[OI OI OI]

Sure, but the material conditions uh, kind of depend on individual workers?

Oh yes sure. I am an individual workers and I decided to make a revolution therefore I change the material conditions.
No it doesn't work like that. They depend on capitalism.


I suppose from your approach that makes sense. I don't go into a situation as a member of an organization trying to build said organization. I am simply a militant trying to push the situation forward and encourage self-organization.


Don't sanctify self organization too much.
If we take it semantically the IMT was organized in Montreal by workers and students.
So it is self-organization. It was not imposed by Alan Woods or British imperialism:lol:. The branch decided to affiliate because it agreed on the analysis of the IMT.
So it is an example of workers self-organization with alliances of other self-organized organizations all over the world.

In the sense that you mean it I don't agree with this "self -organizing" thing.
Simply because those organizations are isolated so they are easier to crush ,spontaneous and with no solid ideology therefore they are short lived and confused so they are not a threat to capitalism.


And you just agreed about making stupid assumptions. What are petit-bourgeois (its a French term for fuck's sakes) demands in this scenario? A pragmatic solution for me is working with the people already on the ground, bringing my perspective and figuring out where we should all go from there. I don't want them to come to "my side" necessarily, as I don't see revolutionary politics as a black-and-white issue.


First of all removing the mayor is petit bourgeois.
Because he will replaced with another incopetent pro-capitalist mayor.
they shouldn't have illusions on capitalist democracy and we need to point that out.

Also some other demands which you can read on the linked article on the OP.

Also politics are black and white. Either you have the correct perspective, tactics and ideas either you dont and you dont accomplish anything. I don't claim that the IMT has all that objectively but so far I think they are on the right path.
Also by bringing your perspectives means that you aim for people to actualy support them. So your are aiming to have influence and gain peopleover to your side which is something inevitable.


Yeah, your track record is astounding too. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif I find most leftist politicos theory and practice completely worthless to most working-class people. Don't feel like by reverting to sectarian slags you're going to rile me up. I could give a fuck if its NEFAC or the IMT when they're both doing the same thing.

You have to understand that the revolution in the USSR was successfull although it degenerated because of the material conditions.
On the contrary the anarchist record is just miserable. No successfull revolutions precisely because they have the wrong methods, ideas , tactics and perspectives.

We don't claim responsibility for anything that happened after the degeneration of the USSR. They were not Leninists but something very distorted , they were Stalinists!


PS: I was being an asshole in the first posts because I got pissed off with the worthless Marxist politics thing which I found very irritating due to the fact I have dedicated my life to them. Now that I m thinking in a clear mind I recognize that you have the right to slander marxism and I shouldn't care about it so much because you can't back it up:lol:. Apologies

[bcbm]

Oh yes sure. I am an individual workers and I decided to make a revolution therefore I change the material conditions.
No it doesn't work like that. They depend on capitalism.

We're talking about torching cop cars, not making revolution, remember? In that instance, the attitudes of the individual worker are part of the material conditions in determining if the action was worthwhile or not.


In the sense that you mean it I don't agree with this "self -organizing" thing.
Simply because those organizations are isolated so they are easier to crush ,spontaneous and with no solid ideology therefore they are short lived and confused so they are not a threat to capitalism.

You don't agree with workers taking control of their own lives and spaces and working things out collectively? That's what self-organization means. Its traditional form has been councils of some sort. And many of these self-organized efforts have been able to sustain themselves for a time and mount a serious challenge to their respective governments. That's why they get crushed so brutally. This happened throughout the Eastern Bloc multiple times, as well as in places like Italy, Argentina and Algeria.


First of all removing the mayor is petit bourgeois.
Because he will replaced with another incopetent pro-capitalist mayor.
they shouldn't have illusions on capitalist democracy and we need to point that out.

So point it out. I didn't discourage talking to people.


Also politics are black and white. Either you have the correct perspective, tactics and ideas either you dont and you dont accomplish anything. I don't claim that the IMT has all that objectively but so far I think they are on the right path.

Nonsense. I don't think there is one correct path to a free, egalitarian society, there is no reason why there can't be multiple approaches. Its this sort of hair splitting over ideological lines and the "correct perspective and tactics and blah blah" that has reduced the left to a trillion factions and basically a big fucking joke. Workers could give you a fuck if you're a Trot, anarchist, Marxist, Stalinist or whatever if nothing you are doing has any relevance to their actual existence.


Also by bringing your perspectives means that you aim for people to actualy support them. So your are aiming to have influence and gain peopleover to your side which is something inevitable.

I suppose I loosely want people to come to my side in terms of becoming combative towards the bosses, but I don't give a shit if they adopt my ideology.


You have to understand that the revolution in the USSR was successfull although it degenerated because of the material conditions.

We'll obviously disagree here. I don't think it was successful.


On the contrary the anarchist record is just miserable. No successfull revolutions precisely because they have the wrong methods, ideas , tactics and perspectives.

The anarchist revolution in Spain was going dandy until Stalin and co. killed it. Hell, even some of the Trots supported it. This is just going to launch the discussion into a completely irrelevant direction though. You're still playing sectarian when I already acknowledged that the whole lot of you are fuck-ups.


We don't claim responsibility for anything that happened after the degeneration of the USSR. They were not Leninists but something very distorted , they were Stalinists!

Convenient.


PS: I was being an asshole in the first posts because I got pissed off with the worthless Marxist politics thing which I found very irritating due to the fact I have dedicated my life to them. Now that I m thinking in a clear mind I recognize that you have the right to slander marxism and I shouldn't care about it so much because you can't back it up:lol:. Apologies

Yawn.