Results 1 to 20 of 161
In one of his paper's, redstar2000 talked of a "new type of communist organization." However, on this forum, at least as long as I've been here, there has been little serious discussion on how to go about creating such an organization.
A New Type of Communist Organization
Now, perhaps some of you disagree with a few points (Leninists probably disagree with the whole thing), but I think redstar has a good idea here. So what does everyone think about it? And if you like it, how can we go about making it?
Next year in college, I plan on joining a student group called the "Marxist-Humanist Network." Now, as to the specific details of this group, I am completely ignorant. All I know is that it exists, and hopefully it will actually be a Marxist group. But in any case, I assume many such little groups of Marxists exist all over the world. My idea would be for these little groups to be a part of a larger whole, an organized commununist group or movement or league or what have you.
Also, I am most interested the proposed league being red/black, that is, Marxist and anarchist. Now, from talking with an anarchist, I relaize there are deep tensions between the groups, tensions dating back to the old Internationale and Marx and Bakunin. But that was then, this is now. Would any anarchists align themselves with Marxists in such an organization?
Finally, I think we have to look closely at what role the internet can play in all of this. Perhaps this very forum could be a type of 'meet-up' place, where all local groups (and individuals within those groups) can talk with comrades all over the world.
So, what do you think?
"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"--Buenaventura Durruti
i have my doubts about number 7.
because of my ideas of defense (keeping nuclear weapons and very agressive actions against internal capitalists/facists) i and others like me would be kicked out in an instant.
also my dislike for never ending discussion is also something that wont be liked.
i fear many communists are too pacifistic (spelling?) or idealistic (no nukes or violence) to be able to tolerate my type.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
The essay referred to is simply one of how a new type of communist movement might be structured to maximize membership control...and doesn't really "demand" a particular stand on a particular issue.
Pacificism has a strong appeal to a lot of "leftists"...but that doesn't mean a communist movement would necessarily be pacifist as a matter of principle.
I think the prudent option would be to simply avoid having any "official position" on violence or non-violence at all.
Pacifist rhetoric is seen by both the class enemy and the class to which we appeal as a sign of weakness.
Violent rhetoric, on the other hand, may provoke violent confrontations which we are, in fact, too weak to win.
It's best to just keep our mouths shut on the subject...and to do whatever we think is most appropriate.
In the long period leading up to revolution, 99.99% of the violence is going to come from the police anyway.
As to "never-ending discussion", I'm afraid that's simply unavoidable.
Unless one is prepared to cede decision-making authority to a small elite who can terminate discussion and issue orders...which everyone else will carry out.
During the "May Days" of 1968 in France, the student assembly in the Sorbonne was in continuous plenary session...it never adjourned.
It made decisions...that were implemented by the people who thought those decisions were especially important to implement. But it could not issue orders to anyone.
And the discussion was truly "never-ending".
Had the working class in Paris organized such an assembly, then we'd have really seen something interesting.
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
I have never joined any revolutionary organization, primarily because of their authoritarian shape and lack of good plans of what to do if they ever actually aqcuire the power for which they hunger.
This idea of organization seems pretty solid in my opinion, though. I would definitively considered joining it, had it existed.
Unity is the foundation of all things because of the Mathematical element throughout the Universe;
All numbers are evolved from the One and will always resolve themselves back into it.
well with never ending discussion i meant it more among the lines of the age old tradition to debate 1 single idea to death 3 times over to the point its no longer relevant.
perhaps thats really unfair and coloured by current day politics.
but somehow i am unable to expect more in this area after the revolution and with the complete lack of any ideas of "governing by the masses" i dont think its fair to judge me for doing so.
and Keiza there is no point of joining any "revolutionary" organization unless you want an exercise in futility.
when the revolution comes such groups will probably tear themselves appart because of disagreement and some proletarians will form their own groups during or after the revolution.
the drawbacks are also very big because you risk turning yourself into a drone of the party leadership or becoming so bitterly dissapointed that you will reject communism out of spite.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
The basic principles are already laid down in the Communist Manifeto. However, I took a bit of my time to read Redstar's crap and see what it says.
Well, a Communist Party is really composed of communists. To know what a communist means, I referred to the Communist Manifesto and this is what is says:
I guess, this already explains pretty well what a communist organization should be.
What if the organization is composed of several thousands? Or several hundred thousands? Or several millions? Do you need to assemble all of them first before making any decision?
On the contrary, I think communist organizations must be disciplined, organized, and strong.
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties do this already, and quite regularly.
The Party leadership is ideological, political and organizational. But, looking at it deeper, Party building is ideological building. The Party leads the revolution more on its ideological leadership, than organizational command.
Well, in our Party, even our Party Chairman receive less than the median-wage level.
Then, it cannot be an organization at all if one member, when he disagrees with an organizational policy, can be free not to implement it. If that is the case, one can join an organization but will not implement its policies simply because he disagrees with it. Not a communist organization at all.
In our Party, once the evidences are overwhelming, anybody can be expelled right away. But, even so, the member is still given all the chances for him to defend his case.
Our Party is always resolute in distributing all our publications to all the members and is campaigning to all the members to submit articles for publication. Maoist Parties are in fact encouraging its members to write for the Party's official publication.
Rosa, explain how Marx was wrong here: </div><table border=\'0\' align=\'center\' width=\'95%\' cellpadding=\'3\' cellspacing=\'1\'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id=\'QUOTE\'>in big industry the <u>contradiction</u> between the instrument of production and private property appears from the first time and is the product of big industry; moreover, big industry must be highly developed to produce this contradiction.</td></tr></table><div class=\'signature\'>
There is no other way for a society to achieve its highest level of existence but through a revolutionary change.
There is no other way for a human to achieve its highest level of existence but to become a revolutionary. Serve the People!
red_che*
ICMLPO
well the discussion of how to "govern a communist nation" is the perfect example why i lack the patience with never ending discussions.
such technicality's will probably be entirely pointless with advancements in technology anyway.
so here i will put my vision of communist society after the revolution for as far as politics go.
- farms factory's etc. will all be led by unions that work out the most effective way to produce as much as possible.
everyone will be a part of such a union.
- the elected union representatives are the poeple that can decide on the actions of the self supporting city states these representatives when deciding on matters can be contacted through a chat program to put forth qestions ideas that the union representative must bring forward to the city state counsil.
- every citystate will have a set number of representatives in a provincial counsil.
these representatives will have to put forth the qestions of the union representatives.
- the provincial counsil will send representatives to a national counsil.
with the same obligation of putting forth qestions suggestions etc from the provincial counsil.
- and the national counsils will send their representatives to the international counsil.
the national counsils also have the responsibility to handle the resources that are in excess and transport them to the national sectors that need them.
the reason for so many councils is to prevent that a certain council gets flooded with qestions and sugestions.
overtime i would expect that many things are running smoothly and then certain councils can be removed.
but the city state council and international councils are permanent to keep the most local political organ and the international political organ functioning.
whenever something needs to be adjusted these 2 will get the job done.
also if someone doesnt function like the lower council needs him/her to then that person will be demoted to a lower council or removed entirely from the political aspect.
the thing i demand to be avoided entirely is the permanent leader issue.
because in the end the city state will be the one that makes the decisions and if someone refuses to do his/her task as a representative then he/she will be thrown out by the lower councils.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
Like I said, Leninists like red che will absolutely hate this idea. But I don't really care about them. My questions are to the anarchists and Marxists of this board. Leninists can join one of their many parties.
I think any organization should be extremely decentralized. Perhaps there can be public assemblies, but we need to remember that not everyone can go. That's why I suggested localizing the group. That is, create 'divisions' of it everywhere. Then we can use the internet as a 'meet-up' place for everyone involved.
Like I said, since you're a Leninist, join one of your fine parties.
We don't want any official party leadership. We want any 'leaders' to be morel ike advisers. If they have good ideas, we'll listen. But they should never have the power of command. But the power of comman is exactly what Leninist parties give the 'leaders'.
See, we don't want a party chairman.
Non-communists will not be allowed in. And why should every member be forced to submit to a policy with which he/she disagrees? You're criticism sounds suspiciously like Leninist dogma. Well, maybe it's not so suspicious!
I think he will be allowed to defend his case. But, if 2/3 want him out, he's out.
In any case, red che, if you are a Leninist, join a Leninist party. What I'm talking about is a communist non-Leninist league of sorts. So, to any non-Leninists, do you like the idea?
"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"--Buenaventura Durruti
This is to be an organisation for anarchists and Marxists?
March at the head of the ideas of your century and those ideas will follow and sustain you. March behind them and they will drag you along. March against them and they will overthrow you.
Napoleon III
I would definately join such a group. The idea is basicaly an unparty-like party. Which appeals to me very much. What a large party like this must do, is collect with it the smaller parties around which agree with its principles... to make a more massive and complete census of modern communist and anarchist idealogy.
The most appealing thing is not running into ML or MLM supporters.
He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent on business; the other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and now has nothing else to expect but - a good tanning. - Karl Marx, Capital Volume I
This organization seems to be the type of organization that you are talking about.
Red & Anarchist Action Network
Defining the Red & Anarchist Action Network
Compiled 12.09.05
The following words are an exercise in futility. Since its inception the Red & Anarchist Action Network (RAAN) has suffered from the larger anarcho-cultural need to define and categorize its own existence into various fractions of an unappreciated whole: to condense the experiences of countless participants into a hastily-written summary. In short, to define and self-define according to the pre-existing formula of ostensibly revolutionary activity (in both "organizational" and "anti-organizational" forms). This page seeks to counter these distortions by presenting different viewpoints as to the essential nature of RAAN, perhaps at the risk of being confusing in the sense of not offering a single pre-defined box in which to fit the network.
At the same time, we have to recognize RAAN as an alliance between libertarian or autonomist, anti-Leninist communists and anarchists of various self definitions - which also includes the various participants who reject personal labels but nevertheless feel a degree of affinity to these currents. So while there is no overall structure to the organization or disorganization of the network, its theoretical body and purpose does fall into the historically-recognizable traditions of anti-capitalist anti-authoritarianism. It is in order to describe this context that RAAN has used its founding document, the Principles & Direction, (or P&D) as a point of reference.
Before delving deeper into an attempted definiton of RAAN's totality, it is worth noting that in order to fully appreciate the network it is necessary to also explore the various texts that have been authored in its name. The page regarding RAAN's understanding of affiliation (as opposed to "membership") may also be helpful, and the compiled history on RA.org is particularly useful since the network has tended to describe itself only as an interconnected string of moments - affiliated actions - in time.
To be fair, RAAN has gone through several different phases and iterations, each adding uniquely to its overall experience and current state, but all taking place under the greater "organization of autonomies".1 The network began in 2002 as a loosely-moderated discussion community for anarchists and communists, and began to assume a more defined nature as these discussions turned towards the implementation of effective revolutionary strategy. The ideologically and geographically dispersed affiliations to this project allowed for a variety of different tactics to be proposed and tested, leading to both the acceptance of more formalized collective organization at the local level2 as well as the network's overall "total decentralization" as described by the Principles of Action.
In the final analysis, RAAN considers autonomy to be its most important principle, explaining its potentialities in any given situation as directly related to the unique desires of its individual participants. In some cases this position has led to confusion or inactivity since it could be seen as a failure to define longterm prospects or identify with any single tradition in struggle (see above). However, as a tendency there are specific tactics that the network has seemed to prefer (homeless organizing, prison solidarity, dual power issues, and confrontation with Left/Leninist groups). This appears to have been due to the prevailing interests of its most active members rather than a concerted policy, and is therefore likely to develop in different directions in the future. The focus on dual power in particular seems to have risen from communist influences and an interest in autonomist currents, particularly those in Marxism.3 It is important to note that since its first "declaration" of existence, RAAN has been anti-Leninist on a level unmatched even by most (North American) anarchist tendencies. This also is likely as a result both of communist participation and the need to make an anarcho-communist alliance practically workable in the long term. RAAN has further distinguished itself by criticizing the traditionally subcultural status of the anarchist movement, pointing out that such a composition tends to reproduce systems of domination within itself.4
Although (as predicted by the P&D) there seem to have been no examples of fundamental disagreement between the anarchists and communists who work together within RAAN's principles, the network has been frequently criticized by portions of the anarchist movement for its inclusion of (non-Leninist) Marxists. The majority of these debates have taken place over RAAN's useage of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", and in 2003 led directly to a clarification of purpose on the part of the network.5 Individual members of certain "Platformist" organizations such as the North Eastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists supported the tendency in its early days, though cooperation between the groups seems to have died out as RAAN developed towards more nebulous positions on the question of formal organization vs. autonomy.
Ironically, the network has often worked on solidarity campaigns and supportive actions for political prisoners and projects that are more in the tradition of the "anti-organizationalist" line represented by publications such as Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed and Green Anarchy, despite the latter having printed a condemnation of RAAN's purpose in at least one issue. For its part, the network has shown no hostility to any of the recognized anarchist tendencies, though a lighthearted critique of what is sometimes called "lifestylism" has definitely been made by certain affiliates. At the same time however, it is known that multiple RAANistas have participated in and contributed to various projects of the CrimethInc. Ex-Worker's Collective, often considered among the chief exponents of "lifestylism" or "dropout culture".
RAAN AS A TENDENCY
"...if actions taken are not done in the name of the network, then the network does not exist. Similarly, if no one is out acting in the name of RAAN, then RAAN at that moment has no membership. Alongside adherence to our principles, action (keeping in mind our broad definition) precludes all membership in RAAN because the network is an amorphous tendency that exists only when one or more individuals act or create something in its name. Our essays, publications, and collectives are the footprints of this process, and serve only as indicators - not proof - to the existence of our organization." - Nachie; The "No Bullshit" Policy
It is extremely difficult to categorize RAAN or even to introduce newcomers to it in a single, clean motion. There are no national conferences to attend, and even if one were to assemble every journal, essay, and all the zines that have been independently produced under the network's name, you'd still only be holding a few pieces of the puzzle. Again, we would recommend looking at the history page on this website, as it is an invaluable exploration of the movement. RAAN is a reality created daily by all those who wish to contribute their energy to it, and the lack of effective language in describing this complex process has been called its biggest weakness. For our purposes here, we may assist an analysis of the network's totality by referencing Hakim Bey's work Temporary Autonomous Zone, (TAZ) which is a dialogue on diffuse moments or "zones" of and in resistance, which coalesce as autonomous cities, islands, campsites, rituals, information, and even states of mind. Shrugging some of his original framework, it may be useful to conceive of RAAN as a TAZ. Writes Bey,
"The TAZ is an encampment of guerilla ontologists: strike and run away. Keep moving the entire tribe, even if it's only data in the Web. The TAZ must be capable of defense; but both the "strike" and the "defense" should, if possible, evade the violence of the State, which is no longer a meaningful violence. The strike is made at structures of control, essentially at ideas; the defense is "invisibility," a martial art, and "invulnerability" - an "occult" art within the martial arts. The "nomadic war machine" conquers without being noticed and moves on before the map can be adjusted. As to the future - Only the autonomous can plan autonomy, organize for it, create it. It's a bootstrap operation. The first step is somewhat akin to satori - the realization that the TAZ begins with a simple act of realization."
There are various other possible ways of definining TAZ, and many of the "class-struggle" affiliates of RAAN might disagree with using it as a comparison to the network due to what could be called the "defeatist" elements in the TAZ's temporary nature and emphasis on personal liberation (although the network has also stressed this point). The communists might prefer to identify RAAN with the Marxist concept of the (organic, non-"vanguard") party, which Antonio Negri describes in Domination and Sabotage as "A contradiction which we must live and control within the overall development of the process of proletarian self-valorization [which aims to] destroy the reality of power as the obverse of the capitalist state-form ... power is to be dissolved into a network of powers, and the independence of the class is to be constructed via the autonomy of individual revolutionary movements [that reduce] the party to a revolutionary army, to an unwavering executor of the proletarian will."
Both of these explanations can be considered valid because they examine how RAAN presents itself from two different angles, from two different narratives with different vocabularies. When necessary, the network has defined itself as an "organized contradiction", a term that functions as a justification for RAAN's existence by framing it as an organic process developing according to the needs and challenges presented within the given historical moment. This means that the various actions and initiatives undertaken by affiliates under the network's banner interlock to form a gestalt: practically, this means the sharing of resources and aid, experience, and credibility as well as the presentation of a unified force capable of acting within or outside of any given sphere.
link http://www.redanarchist.org/definition/index.html
http://www.redanarchist.org/
Here is the page regarding affiliation.
Affiliation and the Red & Anarchist Action Network
RAAN has tended to describe its active participants in terms of affiliation rather than "membership". This is derived from the network's conception of itself as a permanent contradiction, (relationship; dialectic) unorganized in the sense of refusing the exigency to authorize participation in the process it embodies. Communism - loosely defined as the ongoing and global evolution of liberatory humanization against all forms of exploitation - progresses as a result of the pre-existing and undeniable (material) facts of existence. As a result, the process(es) of resistance recognized by an anarchist-communist body such as RAAN cannot assign to itself an overarching, static formation (regardless of how specialized or self-defining its character) in opposition to the fluid conditions and necessities perpetually dictated by reality. Instead, autonomous individuals can choose to associate one or more of their revolutionary activities with the concept of RAAN, in the process creating both a powerful symbol and diverse collection of dialogues. In situations where multiple affiliates come together to accomplish certain tasks, various forms of "fixed" or temporary/transitional organization in the network's name may become appropriate or even preferential.
Therefore, one does not "join" RAAN in the same way that you might be able to buy a membership in a political organization through dues or the selling of a newspaper. The Red & Anarchist Action Network is an international tendency of independent, sometimes-anonymous individuals and groups that act under the network's revolutionary principles. In this sense, "membership" in RAAN exists only through action, (including principled criticism) and all that is necessary in order to get involved with the network is to agree with and familiarize yourself with its fundamental ideology, and to then act off of that affiliation. The network views itself not as a Party (or Federation, etc.) but as a tendency in the strict definition of the term: a prevailing movement in a given direction.
http://www.redanarchist.org/affiliation/index.html
A brief post about RAAN...
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291851855
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
Good luck on that. Though I must warn you that if they are a school affiliated group then that means that they can't get involved in any political action.
Now as for redstar's vision for a new communist organization, I think that he's got it right. After all, most of us have seen the failures of the vanguardist movements in history and recognize that we need to move away from that.
WTF I actually have not seen that ANIMAL LIBERATION & VEGANISM
crap,but I still like the way they are organize.
Like you, I don' t care whether you agree or not. This is a message board and everyone is free to post any message.
But, you know you make some sort of confusion here: "My questions are to the anarchists and Marxists of this board."
I think anarchists are not Marxists, and therefore not communists. Of course you and other anarchists disagree with this view, but that is a fact.
Actually, there's nothing new in your suggestion here. In fact, many of the existing organizations now that are large, even non-communists, do this decentralization of their organization. And Marxist-Leninist parties are very good at this kind of organization. Like in the Party where I belong, our organization is decentralized into different committees and sub-committees. Every committee has autonomy within their own spheres, while the central committee exercises national/general leadership over all the committees. In fact, the central committee itself is a big group composed of members of the regional party committees and other national staff organs.
As I said, there's nothing new in your suggestion. The only thing that makes your suggestion different was that it reduces the communist organization into a loosely organized and less effective organization, more like being a liberal organization of bourgeois liberals.
Well, genuine Leninist parties (or communist organizations) are parties that are based on collective leadership, not dictatorship by one person. Like in our party, every decision, at any level or committee, is to be made by the party collectives. This "leadership being like adviser" thing you're saying is not a new one. It has been practiced by our party since its establishment.
Of course!
If an organization is a communist organization, then it is expected that every member agrees on the general/basic principles of communism. And if a majority of that organization agreed to a policy that is to be effected after discussions and debate where everyone had been given opportunities to give their views, then why does one be allowed not to submit ot it? Specially if that policy being agreed upon is for the cause of advancing the communist movement and that policy does not "violate" the basic/general principles of communism?
That person who disagrees would simply mean he is not a communist.
Well, I am a member of one Leninist party for a considerable period of time now.
And what you're suggesting here actually is not a communist organization but some sort of a bourgeois liberal organization.
Rosa, explain how Marx was wrong here: </div><table border=\'0\' align=\'center\' width=\'95%\' cellpadding=\'3\' cellspacing=\'1\'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id=\'QUOTE\'>in big industry the <u>contradiction</u> between the instrument of production and private property appears from the first time and is the product of big industry; moreover, big industry must be highly developed to produce this contradiction.</td></tr></table><div class=\'signature\'>
There is no other way for a society to achieve its highest level of existence but through a revolutionary change.
There is no other way for a human to achieve its highest level of existence but to become a revolutionary. Serve the People!
red_che*
ICMLPO
They are not Marxists, but they are communists. I have spoken at length with an anarchist who is about as 'non-Marxist' as an anarchist can get, but he still is an advocate of communism. Now, I consider myself a Marxist, but I do not agree with everything Marx says. I do not much care for his suggestion of a 'proletarian state', for reasons you've probably heard before. You Leninists absolutely hate people like me. But, you Leninists already have your group(s).
I don't want a central committee. Any new organization will not be Leninist, so you have to stop thinking like a Leninist (oops, that's impossible!
Unfortunately, the Leninist believes that any non-Leninist is 'bourgeois'. Apparently, he thinks anarchists are 'bourgeois' as well
Leninism is just another tool for bringing the third world from feudalism to capitalism. Leninist parties are not 'communist organizations'.
But Leninist leadership has the power of command. In the organization of which I am speaking, people's ideas would be adapted by the whole because they are good ideas, not because the person saying them is 'chairman'.
Most issues discussed would not be defining ones in determining whether one is a communist. Now, if there is a vote asking 'should our organization be communist' and people say 'no', those people would be banned from the organization. But smaller squabbles over much smaller issues can certainly be disagreed upon by members, and those members who still disagree after discussion should not be expected to 'toe the line'.
Whatever you want to believe. But I am not here (or atleast I wasn't) to argue with Leninists. I am here to see how well anarchists and non-Leninist Marxists like the idea, and if many do like the idea, how can we go about creating such a league.
You know, I was just about to say we should all join the RAAN, and then redstar pointed out that the group supports 'animal liberation'. I say we start our own...without any 'animal liberation' crap.
"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"--Buenaventura Durruti
Yes. Frightened?
"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"--Buenaventura Durruti
The Communist League, anyone?
My only problem with The Communist League is that an anarchist view is not represented. A prime goal of any proposed organization would be to make it a red/black organization. Now, if The Communist League could somehow join with the stated RAAN, then maybe we'd have something...and if we could get the RAAN to drop the silly animal liberation stuff.
"The only church that illuminates is a burning church"--Buenaventura Durruti
