Is it a 'New Type of Communist Organization'?

[The Feral Underclass]

Redstar2000 has been a mysterious internet personality since I became a young and naïve dweller of cyber space three years ago. His idea’s and attitude and his relative secrecy have awarded him a position of guru or dogmatist.

Although I don’t think he generally minds being referred to as a dogmatist it is clear that those who regard him as a guru do in a very grand way, either through out right adulation or through attempting to replicate his style.

On the other side there are those who attempt to undermine his arguments; posing apparent flaws which they hammer home, often to little effect or people who simply ignore him.

Either way it is obvious that these two camps have something in common. His consistent ability to make clear and concise arguments, or evasions, depending on who you are, are clearly irritating or awe inspiring.

Redstar2000 has written many posts and papers on the internet which he has collected together and created a website out of. The Redstar2000 Papers are, as he calls it “The ultimate in contemporary egotism.” It is an interesting starting point for those interested in revolutionary politics.

Not only does he have papers entitled, ‘Marxism without the Crap’ where he seems to clarify aspects of Marxism which he thinks are relevant to modern society but also, ‘What is Communism?’ and ‘An attempt at a brief definition of Socialism.’ I’m sure he also revels in the fact that he has a platform to offer polemics against dialectics and Leninism, which are interesting to read and almost always right.

This website seems to be the last chapter in a life that is never discussed. Sometimes you get a glimpse into his past in some posts, his age and his politics are really the only thing that people are clear about.

One of the things I admire about Redstar’s politics is the idea of trying things never been tried before. Even if they fail, then it has been tested, as if we had an historical check list, we can then move on to something new or improved; learning lessons from our mistakes and carrying on.

Redstar has always seemed to be about theoretics. Correct the mistakes of Leninism and rethinking Marxism in his old age. He often rejects calls for personal meetings and does not belong to a political organisation.

All this and the fact his website and his posts seem random in topic and helpful only to beginners or theoretically minded people, paints a picture of someone who would rather discuss than act, at least now in his last “years” as he morbidly insists on putting it.

But if you scratch below the service of this self-proclaimed old man and his internet crusade of spreading the word of Marxism you begin to see that there is a purpose to it. A purpose which is not at all clear; at least not from him, and almost ambiguous in the small snippets you do get to see.

In the paper entitled ‘A New Type of Communist Organization’ Redstar attempts to look at what is necessary in practice to make an organisation which is both theoretically sound, in terms of how it was meant, and which is new and untested (with our historical check list and clipboard ready).

Having never read this before, and as an anarchist it was interesting to see this theoretical pundit apply his idea’s into some kind of political programme. What I found interesting though is, with all the theoretical, dare I say might, this small paper seems nervous, almost lacking conviction.

In his own words he says “This piece is nearly a year old and I somehow overlooked it when I was going back through my "old rubbish." One would think it bizarre that a theoretical basis for a New type of communist organisation would be overlooked.

After admitting, rather humbly, that he is not Lenin and that he doesn’t “have a fully-developed theory of revolutionary communist organization to put forward. Nevertheless, I think there are minimum standards that must be met if we are to have reasonable hopes for future success.” he moves on to discuss 8 points.

He starts his point by point idea with: “The organization must first of all be communist. Every member must have an understanding of basic Marxist concepts--especially the primary goal of abolishing the capitalist ruling class and building a communist, classless society.”

Fine, I like it. Only thing is, this isn’t new. The anarchist communist movement has been maintaining this since the beginning of it’s existence. The only difference here is that the state, being one of the main obstacles to this “primary goal” has been completely ignored by Redstar.

Whether or not it should be maintained or destroyed outright, or even an attempt at discussing the issue hasn’t been raised. This I feel is more than an oversight, and it leads to the possibility he doesn’t have an answer. Until that answer exists, there is little focus that can be made.

The state is the main contention between anarchists and Marxists in terms of theory and more importantly tactics. To ignore such a fundamental question in a paper proclaiming to be an idea for a “New Communist Organisation” is quite careless.

The second point again raises the question: What is so new about this? “All substantive decision-making power must be in the hands of the membership at large. Should the organization establish representative organs, these organs serve at the pleasure of the membership and may be modified or abolished at any time for any reason by a simple majority vote of the membership.” Again the anarchist movement organises itself like this and nothing here is new.

Bakunin discussed, Malatesta discussed further and Kropotkin clarified this method of organising. This is an anarchist idea employed by anarchists, which works well, and it seems suspicious that we should invent an organisation with the same principles, just with another name? Why?

The remaining points are of little consequence in terms of being New. They mimic anarchist organization or cover some abstract tactical point.

The only point which seemed at all new was the third point where it raises the idea of allowing dissent within the organisation. I have never seen this point established before so as far as I’m aware, it is indeed a new idea and one that should obviously be encouraged, both for democratic and theoretically progressive purposes.

In a conclusion he talks about the words “neo” and movement and that it should have the word communist in it. Funnily enough, that spells Neo-Communist Movement, but he never says that. It would be interesting to know why? Is it fear?

My main contention with this paper, and the reason I have decided to make this small essay is because if this idea is to be offered as an alternative, it is important to give a beginning of reason why it should be countered. This is not an alternative; It already exists.

The anarchist movement has tirelessly attempted to propagate it’s ideas. It brings out clear analysis of imperialism, capitalism, the state, and the idea’s to form an organisation.

Maybe people disagree with those analysis’ but there is a clear theoretical basis and understanding of society. The anarchist movement is admittedly small and desperately needs new members to bring fresh idea’s and enthusiasm but it is no way defeated, which this paper indirectly suggests.

The ‘New Communist Organisation’ in terms of what Redstar has suggested is in practice already and it really seems like a slap in the face. What is it about anarchism or the anarchist movement which Redstar dislikes? Is he afraid of the stigma surrounding the name or the dogmatic approach taken to the state?

In a time when movements are growing and tension is mounting between classes or between organisations and the authority of the ruling class it is important to remain focused. Advertising ‘New Communist Organisations’ to young people disillusioned or unknowledgeable is confusing and counter-productive.

Theoretical disagreements should be debated, not ignored. Passion should be re-ignited not given an altogether different direction, especially a direction which is un-clarified in fundamental theoretical area’s.

We need unity, not division and we need people to get fighting. The anarchist movement exists, it functions and has been the Neo-Communist Movement for a long time.

[NovelGentry]

You would have done good to include quotes from some of these people who clarified such organization. I will admit with certainty I have read to no great extent the writing's of any anarchist theoreticians which you have presented, however, what remains undoubtedly clear through the anarchist members of this board, is that about the only thing you are sure about is the following statement, "We would have delegates."

What too remains undoubtedly clear from what I have read, is that the anarchists on this board, have leaned far more towards the communists, than the communists towards the anarchists. To even propose this organizational role, as if it were the anarchist platform... is in itself "government." Note, a small selection from Proudhon:

"The government of man by man is servitude." ~ Proudhon

To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated, regimented, closed in, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled...

What have the anarchists of this board and possibly all modern anarchists look to do if not to direct and indoctrinate their very own crowds with this organization?

In fact, Redstar makes this quite clear himself on another thread:

Only a minority of anarchists -- the platformists, primarily -- actually seem to want anarchism to mean something specific.

What's been the outcome of this approach? It seems to me that it's meant that anyone can say or do anything and still call themselves an "anarchist".

And mostly be accepted by other anarchists as an "anarchist comrade".

So when the neophyte asks, "what's anarchism?", the most accurate possible reply is "whatever works for you".

What I have come to find is that Redstar's ideas are not new, nor are the anarchists ideas any form of "alternative." All seem quite solidified or at the very least implied and justified by the principles of Marx's work.

Of course, one would not see it this way, at least not from the anarchist perspective. But from the anarchist perspective, at least if you hold Bakunin in any serious light, the attack against communism seeks mainly to distort it's intentions... it brings all the authority pressed by Marx (which in fact, is quite little), to the likes of Lenin and Stalin. Yet there is not even an inkling of these ideas attributed to the theory, that are placed indefinitely within the theory.

From the book Anarchism by Daniel Guérin:

Bakunin maliciously attributed to Marx and Engels ideas which these two men never expressed openly, if indeed they harbored them at all:

But, it will be said all the workers . . . cannot become scholars; and is it not enough that with this organization [the International] there is a group of men who have mastered the science, philosophy, and politics of socialism as completely as is possible in our day, so that the majority . . . can be certain of remaining on the right road to the final emancipation of the proletariat . . . simply by faithfully obeying their directions? . . . We have heard this line of reasoning developed by innuendo with all sorts of subtle and skillful qualifications but never openly expressed -- they are not brave enough or frank enough for that.

Or maybe such a thing was NEVER the intention.

The book goes on to bring up these lines from Bakunin:

Beginning from the basic principle . . . that thought takes precedence over life, and abstract theory over social practice, and inferring that sociological science must become the starting point of social upheaval and reconstruction, they were forced to the conclusion that since thought, theory, and science are, for the present at any rate, the exclusive possessions of a very small number of persons, that minority must direct social life.

What I find so intensely flawed in this quote is the first portion.. "that thought takes precedence over life . . . and inferring that sociological science must become the starting point of social upheaval" Indeed it would seem here that Bakunin has completely ignored the very nature of Marx's work, to attribute to him, a belief that such "sociologicla science" is necessary at all -- or should one say, the realization of such science.

Where has Marx ever inferred this? Where has Marx ever assumed this unique role? Where has he ever made it a conclusion that it is the work of these enlightened scholars? Quite the contrary, he has asserted otherwise:

"The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer."

It would seem Bakunin's argument strikes at the very foundation of Marxist thinking, not by destroying Marx's personal principles, but by destroying the very science which he applied to socialism; the materialism and the very nature of class struggle and history which says: I am not the face behind revolution and class struggle, nor am I it's cause, I have only made it's nature clear, and in doing so have made the cause itself, transparent.

With this, the anarchists make clear it's true argument. That where any semblance of this authority or egotism ultimately leads to the worst possible manifestation of it. Whether or not this is true can be left to another thread, but indeed, it has caused their arguments throughout time to carry the meaning which they did. Where the anarchists of this board, or quite possibly all modern anarchists fail, is that they too have taken on this semblance of authority and egotism -- presented through their platform, and maintained in their defense that "We too are organized." The roots would seem to be lost.

[Severian]

Actually I don't think Redstar's politics have much in common with anarchism at all.

He just tries to cozy up to anarchism because it has a pool of impressionable young potential recruits.

There aren't a lot of old, experienced anarchists by comparison, and it's pretty easy for those few older anarchists to acquire a guru-like role in relation to younger anarchists. So hey, why shouldn't Redstar try it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Do the words Ad Hominem mean anything to you Severian?

[redstar2000]

Another thread about ME -- the "Bob Avakian" of RevLeft.

Keep this up and I'll have to buy a larger hat. :P

This is from the home page of my site:

You will note the lack of auto-biographical material...that's intentional. I have no personal political ambitions and therefore no need to make myself look like someone "special". Be grateful for the cosmetic lies you were spared.

This is a site about communist ideas. Make the most of it.

So let's see what I've made of them...

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)The organization must first of all be communist. Every member must have an understanding of basic Marxist concepts--especially the primary goal of abolishing the capitalist ruling class and building a communist, classless society.[/b]

Most (though not all) anarchists simply dismiss Marx as "irrelevant" or even "one of the enemy". They conflate Marx and Lenin as readily as any Leninist and assume that Lenin did "what Marx told him to do" (and Stalin did what Lenin told him to do, etc.).

To put it mildly, this is very foolish. If you don't seek to understand why 20th century Leninism was a spectacular failure, then you risk repeating all the errors they made...even under "the name of anarchism".

As I noted on the NYC IndyMedia site, the word "anarchism" is not an ideological condom that confers protection from "Lenin's Disease".

It's true that my conception of "Marxist principles" differs considerably from the "Marxist-Leninist consensus" that still unfortunately prevails...I'm doing all in my power to challenge that "consensus". I want to get rid of what Marx himself called the "superstitious awe of authority". Likewise, I want to eliminate all the "dialectical" mysticism. I think Marxism, if it is to fulfill its potential, must rest on a solid empirical foundation...like any other science.

This might mean, should it happen at all, that a "neo-communist movement" would begin with only a few people or a few scattered collectives. People who are revolutionaries but who are (1) dissatisfied with the fuzziness and the faddishness of anarchism and (2) flatly unwilling to accept the servility of Leninism.

Not surprisingly, such an approach tends to attract the ire of Leninists and (some) anarchists alike. They don't seem to care much which box they can put me in...but they both yell at me to "get in one of the boxes, dammit".

No.

Originally posted by TheAnarchistTension+--> (TheAnarchistTension)The only difference here is that the state, being one of the main obstacles to this “primary goal” has been completely ignored by Redstar.[/b]

Actually, I've written quite a bit of material about the "state"...though perhaps very little about it as an abstraction.

In brief, my opinion is that we should try for a stateless society on "day one" after the revolution. But if that turns out not to be practical, then a "Paris Commune" kind of "state" would be the only acceptable alternative.

The Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist "hyper-state" is simply out of the question.

You see, I don't know (and neither does anyone else&#33 what the precise conditions will be in the next era of proletarian revolutions. So, I don't know "how much" we can do "right away" and how much will "take longer".

We should do as much as we can as quickly as we can...and then see how things work out.

Originally posted by TheAnarchistTension
The state is the main contention between anarchists and Marxists in terms of theory and more importantly tactics. To ignore such a fundamental question in a paper proclaiming to be an idea for a “New Communist Organisation” is quite careless.

The document in question was about organization...not any sort of outline of the theoretical principles of that organization except as they related to "how it would work".

I have noticed, of course, that some anarchists and some Marxists like to "fuss at each other" about the nature of the "state" in an abstract way -- is it merely a ruling class "tool" or does it have some role to play that's "independent" of classes altogether? Since serious anarchists and serious Marxists both agree that it's a social form which humanity will dispense with at the earliest opportunity, the "controversy" between them has a kind of ceremonial and even ritualistic aura about it.

In tactical terms, Leninist parties (especially as they age) have demonstrated a strong tendency to descend into parliamentary cretinism (and to denounce "a-political" anarchists for refusing to eat that shit). Here, I think the anarchist contempt has been historically justified...but note that some anarchists have nevertheless followed Leninist dietary leadership.

Originally posted by TheAnarchistTension
What is it about anarchism or the anarchist movement which Redstar dislikes? Is he afraid of the stigma surrounding the name or the dogmatic approach taken to the state?

Anarchism, like Communism, does suffer from a "stigma" -- we had a whole thread not long ago discussing the possibilities of a "new name" for a revolutionary movement.

And dogma is always an irritant...unless it's one of your own, of course.

But what really bothers me about anarchism is that anyone can "be one" and say or do "anything they like".

Except eat meat or smoke cigarettes or wear shoes or...well, some other weird-ass crapola that I am too old and cranky to put up with.

In short, anarchism is permeated with "life-style-ism"...and while it's "ok" to vote for a capitalist prick like Kerry, Lucifer Help You if you confess that tofu tastes like wet cardboard!

There is a small anarchist collective in the (medium-sized) city that I presently live in...their main activity, as far as I can tell, is building and repairing bicycles (and presumably riding them). Well, that's nice. I wish them all the best.

But it doesn't really have anything to do with the things that I am interested in.

Originally posted by TheAnarchistTension
Advertising ‘New Communist Organisations’ to young people disillusioned or unknowledgeable is confusing and counter-productive.

I have "advertised" nothing...except my view that "what exists" is not good enough.

You may dispute that if you wish...but I think the weight of the evidence is clearly on my side.

Originally posted by TheAnarchistTension
We need unity, not division and we need people to get fighting.

If I had a dime for every time I've heard that, I'd be in the ruling class and wouldn't have to concern myself with all the political stuff at all.

What it always means is: "stop arguing and do what I want you to do."

Once again, no.

Originally posted by Jiang Qing
I have to ask what is the point of having membership requirements and probationary periods if there is not going to be duties and obligations?

Because I expect a group of people like this to "know what they're about" and not just be "groupies". There's no need to impose artificial "duties" or "obligations" on people who are or who want to become serious revolutionaries...they will do what "needs to be done" because they are serious and dedicated.

Contemporary Leninism assumes that party members are "children" who "need constant supervision" to "make sure" that they're doing what they've been instructed to do and not "getting into mischief".

I propose a revolutionary movement of grown-ups.

Jiang Qing

@
Redstar should pick either anarchism or vanguard party.

And a third time, no.

NovelGentry

What I have come to find is that Redstar's ideas are not new...

Yes. I have frankly borrowed (or stolen) what I perceived to be useful ideas without regard to their source. I think that is something that all of us need to do..."without fear or favor".

I do not think there will ever be "redstar-ists" -- but I hope that there will someday be a whole lot of people who will approach political questions in a way like I have tried to do.

Be skeptical! Be critical! Don't just accept people's chosen labels at face-value! Try to figure out what's really going on!

And "listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth."

[Tupac-Amaru]

Who is Bob Avakian?

[Tupac-Amaru]

Fine....but who is Bob Avakian?

[Anarchist Freedom]

Bob Avakian is a marxist-leninist-maoist. He runs the RCP or soon to be renamed REVOLUTION! Many members on this site scorn him for his follows are kind of like mini avakians as all they do is quote him in debates and talk about chairman avakian.

[redstar2000]

Stuff about Chairman Bob...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/ind...howtopic=34042

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/ind...howtopic=34329

[SonofRage]

First, congrats (I think...)to Redstar2k on his now 8,000 posts! I think it's to his credit that he sticks around despite some of the crap that's on here.

I think I have a sort of similar "vision" to Redstar's...seeing a sort of libertarian communist organization (or organizations) which take the best of Social Anarchism and take what is useful of Marxism.

I think the only thing that keeps me from joing NEFAC is that I feel that it makes the mistake of dismissing Marx completely and not taking what is useful (if anyone from NEFAC is on here and can tell me that I am mistaken, please do so&#33.

One project which I think comes close is the Red & Anarchist Action Network (RAAN). I'd recommend people check out their Principles and Direction section.

A group I'm involved with, within the Socialist Party, which is trying something similar is the Direct Action Tendency (DAT). I don't think we are at the point of development yet where I'm 100% happy, but I think we are off to a good start (there is only about 20 of us at the moment scattered throughout the US, with a good hanful in NYC).

This is a topic which I think is extremely important in these times, and I hope to hear Redstar's thoughts on RAAN and the DAT. I also think this is something all of us on the "Libertarian Left" should be debating and discussing.

[comrade_mufasa]

Redstar I dont mean to dig into your past but how old are you? The impresion I get from some past post is that you are over 60. If this is the case were you a communist during the cold war and such times? How long would you say you have been a communist?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa@Apr 2 2005, 07:46 PM
Redstar I dont mean to dig into your past but how old are you? The impresion I get from some past post is that you are over 60. If this is the case were you a communist during the cold war and such times? How long would you say you have been a communist?

I just crossed the 63 mark not long ago.

I was anti-imperialist from a very young age...say 14 or so. (It's possible that I was the first high school kid in the U.S. to support Nasser in Egypt, independence for Algeria, and to defend the rights of the Palestinians. )

But I thought imperialism was a European phenomenon...I didn't really "connect the dots" with the U.S. until the invasion of Cuba in 1962. Then I began to read Marx seriously and I would say that I was strongly pro-communist in my sympathies (if not necessarily in my thinking) by 1964. (I was 22.)

So, in a sense, I've been a communist for 40 years or so.

It wasn't until the collapse of SDS that I began to separate Marx's ideas from Lenin's -- by 1971 or so, I began to develop the ideas that I've expressed on this board.

It's been a long haul. :P

[redstar2000]

I read the Red And Anarchist Network statement of principles and must admit that much of it is quite good.

My impression is that they are anarchists who are attempting to appropriate the best of Marxism (rather than the other way around).

And then I ran into this...

ANIMAL LIBERATION & VEGANISM

The cause for discrepancies between proletarians and animals is capital's utilization of class infighting to draw attention away from itself.

That's both subjective and nonsensical.

"Class infighting" is, I think, much more a by-product of how capitalism functions than it is a result of conscious capitalist intent. Capitalism begins by dividing workers into employed and unemployed...with the threat of catastrophe hanging over the heads of the latter. Other divisions (racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.) can be used to sharpen this fundamental division between the employed and the unemployed...but they are "add-ons" to what already exists and would exist even if capitalists themselves were completely free of all parochial prejudices or malicious intent.

The difference between proletarians and animals is that animals are born to eat and be eaten -- they are not sentient entities. (Possible exceptions: higher primates, dolphins, whales.) An animal's normal life (completely free of any human intervention) is to eat plants or other animals until it is attacked by a stronger animal, killed and eaten itself. Animals are "oppressed" by nature itself.

The human ability to engage in rational thought does not appear to be replicated among animals of any kind...except on the simplest level.

Careful observation will reveal many "proto-human" characteristics among the higher mammals and even birds. They clearly display "emotions" that humans recognize as similar to their own. They also display social behavior that may be at the roots of some human social behavior -- though this is a very hot controversy among scientists.

But this does not make them "proletarians".

The liberation of animals is necessary in the struggle to overthrow capitalism.

No it isn't. It's completely irrelevant to the overthrow of capitalism. In fact, the "liberation" of animals is a meaningless phrase.

To venture to use animals is to stimulate overproduction, an unstable economy, and disaster with which to further exploit and manipulate the already exploited and manipulated.

Overproduction and instability are normal in a capitalist economy and would exist even on a planet without any animals at all.

RAAN supports and encourages all those who have made efforts towards matching their lifestyles with their revolutionary goals (that is, those who have refused to take part in the horrific system of animal consumption).

Will RAAN then undertake a campaign of extermination against cats, dogs, and other predators who enthusiastically "take part in the horrific system of animal consumption"?

All of this should not be taken to mean that RAAN is made up entirely of vegans, or that only vegans are welcome in it.

Meat-eaters are "Class B" members. That's generally what a statement like that turns out to mean.

Communism is not the application of a universal moral code, or the creation of a uniform society, and there would be no state or similar mechanism to impose, say, veganism, even if many people thought it desirable.

A useful warning. If there were a mechanism for imposing veganism, some of those folks would "think it desirable".

We can say with confidence though that the status quo would be untenable, and that there would be a radical transformation of the relations between humans and other species.

This may be one of those apparently "fuzzy" declarations that groups sometimes make when they don't want to alienate people and yet also want to "clue in" the "folks in the know". It really tells lefties who are also vegans that veganism is going to be the rule -- while not actually saying that in plain words to lefties who think veganism is just silly.

-------------------------------------------

So...I give RAAN a C+ -- they're taken some steps in the right direction but clearly have a lot more thinking to do.

[redstar2000]

The "problem" of the Socialist Party U.S.A. is, of course, its long tradition of reformism. It's been more than 80 years since the SPUSA has played a significant role in revolutionary politics.

The Direct Action Tendency in the party would appear to want to reverse that tradition, at least within limits. It may possibly be a case of reformism "borrowing" some of youthful anarchism's "combative spirit".

Nothing wrong with that, of course. A more "combative spirit" can lead to more radical critiques of the capitalist system...and that's always a good thing.

The difficulty of being a "left tendency" in a liberal organization is that you are constantly faced with contradictory objectives.

1. You are "supposed" to build the party "as a whole" and not just your tendency.

2. But if you do that, the likelihood is that you'll recruit more members that oppose your tendency than who will support it -- there are more reformists in the present period than there are revolutionaries.

Thus an extremely delicate "verbal dance" is required whenever a DAT person talks to a potential recruit for the SPUSA. You have to try and get across the idea that the SPUSA is the "best option" available but not nearly as "good" as it "will be" when the DAT wins control of the party.

I've been through this...and found it to be both exhausting and futile.

Indeed, I suspect a similar dance is required even within the DAT itself.

"How much of our real ideas can we express without getting hassled by the reformist majority of the SPUSA?" I would imagine this would be a real strain...and take up a lot of time and energy that would be better spent elsewhere.

Consider this from the DAT statement...

We are the tendency that seeks to foment democratic revolution from the bottom up by building that revolution in the streets.

Does the phrase "democratic revolution" sound odd to you? It should. Revolution is "an authoritarian act" (as Engels pointed out). It's the violent seizure of power by one class from another. It's not done by a vote or by consensus but by force of arms.

The Spanish anarchists in the areas they controlled did not conduct a referendum -- "Anarchism or Fascism?" -- they killed the fascists whenever they found any.

However, this curious wording may not be a reflection of DAT's real views...but rather a delicate phrasing designed to short-circuit the ire of the SPUSA leadership (and probably most of its membership).

Then there is a larger question; fighting for your distinct outlook within an organization where you are likely to remain a permanent minority is debilitating...unless the organization itself is a very dynamic one.

The "faction fights" in SDS were (at least in the view of many) exhilarating because they were perceived as an extension of the dynamism of the whole organization. They "meant something" (or at least that's what we thought while we were going through them).

Whatever struggles take place between the DAT and the SPUSA's reformist majority (if any) must have a surrealistic character...the party has no significant political presence (to my knowledge) and one can only wonder what it means to the participants to "win".

Frankly, I suspect that the only way for the DAT to develop its potential is to leave the SPUSA. It doesn't really gain anything by remaining within the old party and possibly loses a lot.

What form the DAT would take after it's departure is speculative...I don't think it should try to become a "party" because I think the whole idea of "left parties" is obsolete. (People should remember that political parties are an invention of the bourgeoisie.)

But at least the DAT would have "room to breathe" and develop its ideas without concern for "what the party will say".

It's ironic that the DAT should refer to SDS's Port Huron Statement -- the kids at Port Huron wanted to say more but were constrained by SDS's relationship to the reformist League for Industrial Democracy.

It was when SDS broke away that it really began to move.

[Severian]

Originally posted by NoXion@Apr 1 2005, 08:05 AM
Do the words Ad Hominem mean anything to you Severian?

Yes - it's when you criticize someone personally in a fallacious attempt to disprove their ideas.

But I've discussed Redstar's ideas on their merits in plenty of other threads...and as the man himself says, this is a thread on Redstar, so why shouldn't I comment on him?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'd just like to see you find a quote where Redstar says he adopted some anarchist lines of thought in order to 'snare' the more youthful members of RevLeft.
I don't recall Redstar ever saying something like that.
If you look in the OP you will se that the thread is in fact about Redstar's ideas for a new type of communist organisation, not the man himself.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by redstar2000@Apr 3 2005, 01:24 AM
Frankly, I suspect that the only way for the DAT to develop its potential is to leave the SPUSA. It doesn't really gain anything by remaining within the old party and possibly loses a lot.

What form the DAT would take after it's departure is speculative...I don't think it should try to become a "party" because I think the whole idea of "left parties" is obsolete. (People should remember that political parties are an invention of the bourgeoisie.)

But at least the DAT would have "room to breathe" and develop its ideas without concern for "what the party will say".

Honestly, I agree with you. The subject of splitting from the party seems to occasionally come up, and we sort of laugh uncomfortably about it. Time will tell...