Praxis in the 21st Century

What is to be done? The Soviet Union has fallen and most remaining ML states have gone full revisionist and capitalist with the exception of a few holdouts, and even those are gradually edging towards revisionism. Labor unions have been or are in the process of being gutted and destroyed by neoliberalism and the radical left has lost much of its support among the working class without radical unions. The anarchist movement is fading into a pathetic LARP fest (certainly compared to what it used to be) with the possible exception of the Greek anarchist movement. At this point, first world ML parties are nothing more than irrelevant, dying social clubs for Trots and cultists (e.g. bob avakian). In the West, succdem movements led by politicians like Bernie, Mélenchon, and Corbyn might as well be the last serious remaining element of the "radical" left in terms of realistically gaining power.

The dreams of a successful third world rebellion are almost as bleak, and the "anti-imperialists" here, in the absence of a strong third world movement, have resorted to throwing support at completely non-leftist powers like Hezbollah and Assad simply because they oppose the United States. The leftist groups that are still active in the third world aren't exactly in any position to overthrow world capitalism, and many remaining guerrilla movements (such as the Maoists in the Philippines) are gradually fading under the pressure of imperialism.

On the other hand, modern material conditions are getting worse, especially for young people, and the left is seeing points of resurgence in some areas. There are tons of unemployed, alienated NEETs out there ripe for radicalization. There are lots of angry youth everywhere who can't find decent work, homes, and careers even despite craptons of education in the first world, and the third world has its own unemployment issues. And as a result, especially with the end of the Cold War fear of leftism, social democrats are soaring in popularity and labor struggles and strikes (even in Burgerstan) are becoming more prevalent in the West. But idpol from both liberals and the alt-right is drawing people away from the radical left and towards pointless squabbles over shit like online video game culture, and the online presence of the truly radical left is limited to a few small spots like the leftist boards on this site. New tech allows for new possibilities like cybernetic socialism in the future but also gives increased power and surveillance to reactionary states and corporations in the present.

When it comes to unstable third world areas like the Middle East, where shitty conditions could fuel leftist movements, angry, unemployed youth are just as likely to become refugees or join Hezbollah or obscure Islamist FSA factions than to form Maoist groups.

With all of this in mind, what should the left do now to work towards achieving socialism? Should we embrace the succdems out of sober realpolitik and pray that they will eventually guide a slow transition to socialism under the pressure of modern material conditions (economy, automation, unemployed and alienated NEETs)? Should we wait for a great economic collapse that will hopefully make 1917 viable again? Should we set trash cans on fire and organize tiny communized hipster enclaves away from capitalist authority like Exarchia or whatever because the rest of capitalist society is irredeemable? Do we volunteer in obscure, dying Maoist groups in the Third World in the hopes that our chaotic, warming world will soon provide an opportunity for those groups to rise again? Do we go full armchair (or edgy accelerationist) and assume that the material conditions will work themselves out without pointless, futile LARPing? Or do we create a whole new movement from scratch?

So, in your opinion, how should the radical left realistically work towards making socialism a reality, given the modern conditions of the 21st century?

Attached: 404 communism not found.jpg (577x845, 52.07K)

Other urls found in this thread:

To start we need to appeal to people's current needs and wants, develop symbolism relevant to our situation instead of larping as past revolutionaries, and effective organization. Sadly only socdems regularly do the former and it's reformist shit they suggest anyways, no one does the middle, and the latter is ineffective for reasons ranging from lack of numbers to quality of training to being too sectarian to rally more than a hundred people.

What is going on with the Communist groups in India?

Kerala is still Dem-Soc / Soc-Dem gang
Naxalites still Naxaliting
Soc-Dems elected in Nepal

This is the only sensible Marxist praxis.

Otherwise yes, the world economy is heading into huge collapse and political turmoil too.

At that point you might as well just go neoliberal accelerationist or socdem.

we do what we always did: be communist. Represent the political interest of labour contra capital in whatever way the contradiction manifests. You shouldn't discredit reformism as a revolutionary idea - the revolution does not simply pop out of thin air but is a result of a prolonged political struggle.
As a reformist idea, a reduction in working hours is very appealing for multiple reasons: it has historical precedent, it is understandable in a liberal politico-economic framework and is quite literally communism (as-the-real-movement since it is a step towards abolishing wage labour). It also allows us to reclaim concepts like championing freedom and worker's rights instead of 'equality' or some lukewarm feelgood humanism.

developmental capitalism is a legitimate strategy, though that's what I'd call early Soviet Union and China. In the first world the conditions are different.

Attached: a.jpg (863x318, 44.21K)

No, I might as well be an ML. Being a socdem (which is also the only sensible Marxist praxis in material conditions of Western Europe), I totally would push for socialist reformism/labour rights.


Leftists often forget that people have been brainwashed to associate communism, socialism, etc. with something bad. Communists have been vilified in the media and discourse for the past 70 years, that's two generations worth of programming. The majority of people will not join a communist party, or ever describe themselves as communists because their ideology won't let them.

The way to go is to organise locally, meet with people and talk to them. Present communism without heavy words like 'dialectical metarialism', or without 'commie' words at all. The concept of owning everything together, sharing the products and working together for the betterment of all is something that everyone could relate to. Those who are greedy and want to enrich themselves, well, probably no hope for those.

I for one think there is hope in democratic socialism, at least in developed liberal democracies (In places like China or Africa, the insurrectionist strategy is still viable). But it has to be a truly radical and communist socialism, not just left wing social democracy. If the democratic road to socialism is supposed work, it has to have radical long term (and even short term) goals, i.e. Full Communism. Socialist parties have to push reforms that are popular and good for the working class to gain momentum and popularity. Don't underestimate reforms as a propaganda tool. Pushing for reforms was how communist and radical socialists got so popular in the early 20th century. Winning power and actually putting in pro-worker reforms is also a great education for the workers, it teaches them that they can win and they can change things. Once more radical reforms are on the agenda, reforms that could be a start to a real transition into early socialism, like the Meidner plan for instance (google it), they will face resistance from capital. This resistance can be a way to radicalize people. And more radical people will be more likely to put pressure on the state to adopt reforms.
Read this:

Also Syriza and the pink tide governments also provide us with a lot of lessons and experience of how we can fail and what we can do better. We really should be examining them more than debating the Russian revolution for the trillionth time.

You build new organs of working class power and new, resilient and smaller-scale social relations of production as the old system falls apart.

Economic crises will come and go, but it is important to keep in the back of your minds that we are experiencing an ecological "slow collapse" on this planet. Over the next century we will continue to run out of easily extractable oil, and the negative consequences of climate change will continue to occur, causing droughts, crop failures, and increasingly violent natural disasters that threaten homes and property. There is going to be a lot of migration and a lot of refugees as people move away from unsafe or unliveable areas.

Any leftist program that hitches itself to the old state socialist ideas of productivism, expansion, growth, etc. are doomed to fail; they will either be killed off by a vengeful capitalist establishment, collapse under their own unsustainable weight, or be assimilated into the emerging division between areas of the world where complex, technological capitalism are still viable, and areas/populations which are not profitable or sustainable and are thus simply 'not needed'.

Some mix of communization/communalism/syndicalism focused on building new relations of production in soon-to-be-marginal areas, using decentralized planning and smaller, regional supply chains seems like the best option to me. I'd like to think this would be accompanied by social and religious movements emphasizing local independence, community, solidarity, etc. It would provide people with an alternative to what is likely to happen, with "haves" fighting to preserve what still works from the growing ranks of the "have nots". That is something that the Left should 100% not be a part of.

1. Embrace (left wing) nationalism, eschew globalization.
2. Take the right wing's anti immigrant rhetoric and turn it against them. (show how empty it is, and that socialism is the answer to mass immigration, not petty restrictions,.)
3. put idpol on the backburner/on the bottom of our platform (ultimately, workers dont give a shit about this stuff, save a few special interest groups)

Embracing these three tenets will put us on the fast track to building a labor movement that can challenge liberals and reactionaries. We can ride this populist wave to a revolution if we're able to break away from the red liberals that infest the left.

Kill yourself

which point do you disagree with? Telling me to kill myself is not an argument.

dead end

yeah it's almost like we've been saying that for around a century

most people vote for idpol parties

name a successful socialist or liberal revolution for that matter that wasn't nationalistic, i'll wait.
It's not immediately obvious, especially with the red liberal rhetoric about multiculturalism being more virtuous than a homogeneous society.
Because there hasn't been a real socialist party in any country in the west since the end of the cold war.

but nationalism is idpol, friendo
and the idea of turning the right's anti-immigrant rethoric is sort of upside-down, if the people accept that capitalism (as we define it, not as some superficial cultural consumerism) is what rules and defines our societies and its policies, they are already on our side.

civic nationalism is not. Again, im waiting for someone to name a successful revolution that wasn't nationalistic.

but it quite literally is: you are doing politics based on an identity - a national identity. this isn't necessarily bad, nationalism in the 18th and 19th centuries turned subjects into citizens.
depends on the definition of nationalism you use here, but the Russian revolution wasn't nationalistic in itself even if it acknowledged 'the right of nations to self-determination'.
You really have to explain what you mean by embracing nationalism in practical terms, and how that is better than some supranationalism or internationalism.

all "socialist" revolutions have so far failed to create socialism

apples and oranges

striving for homogeneity is as boring as it is reactionary

more like the start of the first world war, and even then they were largely based on an archetypal "working man" as opposed to a more neutral conception of the proletariat

confirmed brainlet

If you have some inner desire to do stuff on the field of politics regardless of them being revolutionary or reformist or just want to live from taxpayers' money as a career politician, then sure.
Neither is capable of changing shit, but if somebody feels like it, then sure.
Pretty much, it's not that we can't do anything right now as far as worker's self-activity goes, but from the practical perspective we cannot expect mass revolutionary action when people exalt run-of-the-mill social democrats of the cold-war period talking about more free shit as "radical" and "far left".

Now for praxis: there isn't much we can generally do on a mass scale when it comes to workers directly confronting the capitalist class, but if you work in the field that has people with shit pays(eg. teachers), then you should try to fight. On the other hand, if you're a student or in a job with people having a pay good enough not to complain, then you are stuck in an armchair unless you can do things like blocking evictions, food not bombs etc, which won't overthrow capitalism, but are still nice initiatives.

By nationalism I mean "we live here, we should own the fruits of our labor, not the native bourgeoisie, foreign bourgeoisie, or foreign proletariat. It's not based on ethnicity or race, just locality, so it really wouldn't be nationalism, since nationalism implies some sort of spooky blood or cultural connection, my version of nationalism is based on being part of a particular existing polity.

This shouldn't be controversial but it is, especially among the red liberal crowd on r*ddit, who have a black and white view of immigration and the nation. The platitude "borders aint real mannnn" serves as their stance on immigration. Nothing pisses off a native worker more than telling him he's worth less than or the same as a foreign worker. You're not going get people on your side saying stuff like that. We should want the proletariat of each respective country overthrowing their own bourgeoisie, not a clusterfuck that allows for fascists to take power.

leftcom detected
My point is that we should be striving for socialism, not multiculturalism or homogeneity
>confirmed brainlet
yep definitely a leftcom.

Imagine not understanding the general course of history under the commodity production so badly you buy into nationalism in the period where all feudal and communal bonds have been destroyed. I guess nationalism could still possibly make sense if you lived in some fucking Congo, Zambia or other Bazinga, since national market is still underdeveloped, much of population still takes part in a small scale production rather than a properly capitalist big scale production with wage cuckoldry etc., but that doesn't apply in most of this planet anymore.
Aside from those cases it's pointless to entertain nationalism, because on default it's on the losing position. Nationalist bitching about globalism reacts against inherent tendencies of capitalist economy(markets tearing down barriers blocking the capital flow), but is incapable of destroying them, since markets are a worldwide phenomenon and therefore must be extinguished on a worldwide scale if it's supposed to be a successful operation.

Attached: 1522153733317.png (543x435, 127.82K)

It has been predicted by economists that capitalism will collapse by 2050, due to the lack of need for human labor. At first this may seem like a good thing, but you have to remember what will come after this: a return to feudalism. The most concerning part of this is, that due to propaganda, most of the west is terrified of anything that isn't exclusively capitalist. The only hope we have at this point is that the Bernie supporting SocDems will go full pinko and lead the next revolution.

but thats more like localism or just a pragmatic bottom-up approach to politics, not nationalism.
whoever does this does not understand what communism is. it is supporting the concrete needs of labour against capital in the political struggle. you side with the actual labouring people, and fight for their position against the interests of capital. telling them to shut up and take it for some lofty, higher goal is what nationalists do when they refer to 'national interest'. there is an interesting parallel here to 'anti-imperialist' tankies who support anti-american capitalist states like China or Iran when they suppress their workers' movements - the workers are supposed to just accept their lot because their 'nation' acts as some counterbalance to american power.
personally I'm fully in favour of 'proletarian imperialism', where the red army goes and crushes the national bourgeoisie and its state of whatever country they can.

"Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement."
-Lenin, 1901

Here is a list of questions rather than answers since giving full answers would be a significant task for any of us. But, answering these questions is fundamental to constructing an updated theory and party program for the 21st century.

1. What was the USSR? Socialist, state capitalist, deformed workers state?

2. Is the People's Republic of China still socialist? Was it ever socialist?

3. What is the best way to deal with non-economic ideologies, i.e. idpol?

4. What is the best way to organize, knowing that modern bourgeois states have tremendous powers of surveillance & police repression?

5. Is political organizing still viable? Can we pursue another form of organization?

6. Is there any point in promote reforms? Should we instead promote accelerationism?

7. What are the main trends of modern global capitalism?

8. Is it possible that another "third way" ideology like Fascism will succeed in one or more countries?

Saw this article today:
"Trotskyism is the Marxism of the 21st century."

come on guys… we need new leaders and new theories…

new theory? bitch I got newspapers to sell

No. Yes.
stop talking about it until it becomes irrelevant
Over the internet. The Trump movement proved how powerful the internet is for politics.
The internet. Start posting propaganda everywhere. Saturate the internet to the point where we start getting banned for being obnoxious like Zig Forumstards, that's how we'll know were winning.
accelerationism is dumb
mass migration, neocolonialism, and attempting to federalize the world
Unless we get our act together right wing populism will win. The material conditions are perfect for it right now.

Socialism with some elements of capitalism, for the most part undemocratic in nature.

The PRC was fairly similar to the USSR until the Sino-Soviet split, and changed significantly after Deng Xiaoping's reforms.

By ignoring it or mocking it whenever possible and instead focusing on policy substance, and on hierarchy over identity, for example class.

By modeling a clear vision of a functioning society, fully conceived but presented in simple language so that the average person can communicate it effectively to their peers, and then eventually adapting that vision to a community level (grassroots organizing).

Yes, to an extent. Multiple forms of organization should be pursued towards the same goal, including political organization. International and community-level organizing are both essential. Similar to what says, the internet is a very useful platform in this regard.

Ideally revolution and reform should walk hand in hand to be fully effective. I guess if you're an opportunist, then accelerationism alone is viable, but that also opens the door to reactionary populism.

Deregulation, free trade, military interventionism and economic expansion in unstable countries, and the opening of borders. This is done for the purposes of easy economic/population growth and cheap access to mineral resources and labor.


A good start would be to make simple eyecatching infographics produced with a specific purpose in mind, fully sourced using unobtrusive Wikipedia-style citations. Avoid using language or imagery that would alienate normies, ie. "neo-colonialism" or a giant hammer and sickle. Keep in mind your target audience and make sure the points are clear and concise. P.S. sorry for the redditspacing, I'm kind of new to imageboards.

this. People don't know how effective Zig Forums infographics are.

Wtf. How would you do that given they're contrary.

That's why nobody likes you and you'll propably get shot some day.

We need to spread through the internet like the alt-right does. Through the dankest memes we can possibly produce.


Attached: smugsky.jpg (334x376, 51.47K)


t. literally no actual socialist ever

The USSR was socialist, not because of centralized planning but because the means of production were not privately owned or operated purely for corporate profit. I concede that it wasn't an orthodox conception of socialism, which would indeed be democratic, alongside many other key features (ie. the abolishment of money).

don't you get tired of being wrong?

The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine “only” by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this “only” signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type. This is exactly a case of "quantity being transformed into quality": democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is at all conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois into proletarian democracy; from the state (= a special force for the suppression of a particular class) into something which is no longer the state proper.

"All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self­ evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism."
-V.I. Lenin, State and Revolution.

No but collective ownership of the means of production is. The USSR was largely undemocratic, but economically speaking it was socialist.

shitpost flag etc

Not so new that you don't know about the reddit spacing meme

Oh okay, I guess issuing stock to workers in top-down corporations is socialist too.

I'm not saying markets shouldn't be eradicated, or that market socialism is actually what marx had in mind. But the one essential element to calling a country socialist is collective control of the means of production.

ehh… Embracing some mild form of nationalism could be okay from an opportunist viewpoint, but it shouldn't be spooky, or make people turn to right-wing "national pride" and the like. Eschewing globalization or pointing out its downsides is fine.
Agreed on the other two points. Now if only the leaderships of existing leftist parties and orgs were prepared to do this.

i don't know where you are from but from my experience socialist parties tend to put more emphasis on a vague utopian "refugees welcome" narrative than on the fact that socialism can effectively end mass immigration

read marx

the rejection of spooks such as muh traditional culture is vital to the creation of actual socialism

you absolutely missed my point but ok

what the fuck was your point then, smart guy

I once had an extra candy bar fall of the coil, in a vending machine and gave the extra bar to the person standing behind me.

Thus planting the seed of sharing in their minds. Sharing is communism and sharing is caring.

Socialist parties often give the impression that the solution is simply opening borders to all immigrants/refugees and nothing else. They don't spend enough time explaining how the implementation of socialism will put a halt to mass immigration. You claimed that "we've been saying that for around a century" but from my experience it could be made a whole lot more explicit than it is.

This is true, but mass immigration would still happen so long as there are differences in the levels of national development and open availability of public good (like clean water) in socialist coutnries.

The underlying reasons for mass immigration won't end for a long, long time.

Not quite. Socialism would not provide for the potential immigrants, nor grant them citizenship, and rarely a permanent residency.

I hate this wikipedo meme, it's so vague I'm actually starting to think it's deliberately obscurantist.

True. But the main point, which the left imo fails to make clear, is that we're not advocating a continuing/furthering of the existing neoliberal free borders policy, and that ending mass immigration in a non-fascist way will at least be one of our final goals.

Any new ideas?

It's really sad to me that everything good bout the internet is slowly being chipped away at in order to control it for just monetary gain.

I try to stay positive, because it does give people a better opportunity to create and share , but it's getting depressing the ways that is being undermined.

speak for yourself mate, the global proletariat will have no need for borders under socialism

Let me summarize some of the thoughts that have been posted in this thread:

1. Embrace left-wing populism (appeal to the public as a principle).
2. Reject some old leftist symbols and rhetoric, and adopt new ideas.
3. Focus on organizing effectively in a popular, non-sectarian manner.
4. Reject nationalism, identity politics, tradition, and sectarianism.
5. Emphasize alter-globalization, labor versus capital, community over nation, and the relationship between immigration and capitalism.

1. The material conditions in most of the west favors social democracy, but social democratic parties are not radical or even sensible enough in their vision for society and require major internal reforms to be useful.
2. Extreme emphasis on incremental reformism in left-wing parties dampens radical change, though reforms are not entirely antithetical to revolution and can be beneficial to morale and worker's movements.
3. The impending ecological crisis will create substantial long-term problems that traditional leftist thought can't provide answers for.

1. The global economy is destined to crash at some point, and the unsupported collapse of global capitalism can be very dangerous.
2. In economically undeveloped and highly exploited regions, some forms of nationalism and capitalism are not completely detrimental.
3. Both contemporary and past failures and successes in left-wing politics should be critically examined in detail.
4. Leftism and socialism in contemporary parlance is heavily skewed.
5. The internet is a potent platform to spread ideas and create change.

If there are any points to be made about the accuracy or content of this list then please do so. At any rate, with this list in mind, I have a few comments to make, mainly to point 2; new developments in leftism such as Communalism and socialist cybernetics should not be discounted, rather they should be seriously considered as major components of a syncretic left-wing platform. Also, it is worth mentioning not only how destructive sectarianism is, but just how difficult of a hurdle it will be to overcome (assuming it is even possible). Finally, the threat of a fascist resurgence may be greater than we expect, but what scares me the most is not the Nazi-era fascism of old becoming popular, which I think is unlikely, but a 'reformed' fascism that rejects militarism and ethnic cleansing and even embraces ecology. I think it is likely that, if a major collapse in the global order arrives and the left-wing answer is insufficient, then the hierarchies that exist today will ultimately become more strengthened than ever for years to come.

Strategy: All leftist organizations must be based in the working class.

What does this mean? We need to reorient all leftist organizations to the working masses. Any program that does not focus on building mass support among workers and fighting for the cause of workers is a waste of time. Groups like the Internot socialist Organization are college-based. They do a very good job of attracting college students but that's about all they do.

Focusing on workers and their issues would eliminate a lot of the drama leftist organizations have to deal with. No more bourgeois kiddies trying to LARP as revolutionaries and engaging in factionalism within organizations. No more race/religion/gender idpol. A female CEO is still a class enemy whose job is to exploit us.

By the end of the year I should have some spare money to invest in some kind of Marxist/leftwing project.

So I'll ask all of you: What do you think is lacking in leftist organizations today? What is a project that could actually advance the cause of socialism in some way, even in a small way?

This makes no sense. Something that exists on a worldwide scale can only be killed by a thousand cuts. Because no single thing can destroy it. This is how Rome fell, this is how the USSR fell. Empires don’t die of a single big hit, but many smaller hits. And global capitalism is in effect a global empire. Nationalism should be supported because it breaks up this global empire, kills it by a thousand cuts. Each nationalist movement in each country is a threat to global capital because it balkanizes capitalism, and than this makes modern capitalism imposable. And only after global capital has fallen can socialism arise.

My cost-of-living is dirt cheap because rural life is ugly as sin.
Gonna start a construction/real estate co-op & raise some AGRARIAN JUSTICE.

no it isn't, empire implies a coherent entity not an economic phenomenon

the bourgeois nation-state is integral to the capitalist superstructure, regardless of their professed ideology

reactionary idealism

you use technical terms in very odd ways, makes it seem like you don't really understand their meanings. good day.

Planning on starting an organization or party of your own, comrade? I have that as a goal of my own in the long-term. I'm still not confident enough in my grasp of theory to go out there into the world yet, personally-speaking.
Helping the community in whatever way it can with your comrades, distributing literature and (serious) leftist bookclubs. There's no point reading stuff if you're not going to apply that knowledge, at least imo. If you're planning a political party as opposed to an organization I don't think elections should be completely avoided. Even though the state is a bourgeois entity under capitalism it would be a bad idea not to engage in elections. Good luck, comrade

From my perspective the largest problems with the modern left are the following:

1) Continuing to focus upon radicalising workers.
While I do understand the historical and theory driven reasons why Socialists of all flavours are unwilling to let go of their focus upon the workers of the world and the romantic notion of some mass revolt of labour against the porkies of the world ala 1917; It is just a fantasy at this point.
Cultural capitalism has so completely infiltrated the minds of your average prole that any notion of an alternative to capitalism is going to provoke hostility, fear and at the very best, scepticism.
The simple fact of the matter is that the workers of the world are not longer a revolutionary class and are incapable of liberating themselves at this point.

The only group that is capable of being radicalised, replacing the current order and then defending that change against counter revolutionaries and foreign governments is the body that extends the authority for a nation to govern in the first place - The military.
That is why the focus of my ideology is the military and I think that socialism would enjoy quite the resurgence in relevancy if it made such a pivot towards military personnel/veterans and away from the proles.
If you keep trying to radicalise workers, you are going to be the equivalent of spergs in the 19th and 20th centuries attempting to get people to return feudalism; Time has moved on and left you all in the past - Adapt or die.

2) Lack of organisational discipline.
One simply has to look at any modern left wing group to see poorly managed chaos, factionalism and generally ineffectual organisation.
In any given group there are no officer or NCOs equivalents that since time immemorial have been so fundamental to effective group organisation.
There is no real attempt at maintaining any sort of professionalism and certainly the only times I have ever seen anyone expelled or punished by a left wing group they were a member of is for not towing the idpol party line.

I get that this is not going to be a popular opinion, especially due to the number of anarchists that plague this board.
However I think that moving forwards the only sort of 'party' model that is going to be effective is a stratocratic, paramilitary one.
A formal rank structure, defined corps, uniforms, officers, NCOs, warrant officers, an internal affairs organisational police group and in general a much more structured and professional sort of organisation.
Porky is professional, organised and militarised; Their opposition should be also.

3) Identity Politics.
Idpol is thankfully not all of that popular here or on Zig Forums proper (however recently I have seen a number of redditors pushing it).
However one is unable to overstate just what a dangerous cancer it is to any sort of organisation that is attempting to change the status-quo.
If continuous vigilance is not maintained, they will infiltrate your organisation and assimilate it; Rendering it harmless to the forces of capital.
Idpol groups should be held in the same regard as neo-nazis and if you are ever able to form a sizeable group, they should likewise be physically prevented from organising and recruiting.

Attached: RFB.jpg (799x489, 60.18K)

4) Appearance.
I have already talked about professionalism, so I will simply add that an organisation that maintains a uniform is an organisation that is setting itself up for success.
However what I mean more specifically by appearance is the sort of people, ideas and actions that the modern left presents to the general public.
When your average Joe sees a member of the far left in the streets, on TV or online; What they typically see is some soyboy trot attempting to sell them stupid newspapers full of rubbish that only professional armchair trots give a shit about, they see thugs clad in black tipping over bins and attacking the police and they see losers talking about how important it is that white guys not be allowed to speak at events.
Simply put, the modern left seems to be doing everything in its power to alienate the average person from them.
Lifestylists, idpol, anarchist LARPers that just want to feel edgy and 'radical' with no regard to optics and people stuck in the 20th century will be the death of your movement.

5) Democracy.
I can already hear the 'REEEEE's as I type this.
However the simple fact of the matter is that people are not rational actors and will not vote in their best interests; If they did then we would had had world Communism for over a century with no need for a revolution.
Electoral politics are a chumps game (show) that you are never going to benefit from.
Even internal elections and votes only serve as hotbeds of factionalism, splits and focus points for COINTELPRO agents to exploit.
If you insist upon keeping democracy, then make it something like Communism; Where it is something that you accept that you cannot have now but will work towards having at some point in the far future.
Maintaining democracy before you are in a favourable geo-political position and especially before you have even gained state power is setting yourself up for failure.
Ideally I think it is something you should abandon altogether.

Those are my suggestions as a Stratocrat that is somewhat sympathetic to certain forms of socialism.
You can now all proceed to ignore the content of my post and call me a Fascist for attempting to help you all yet again.

Attached: RFB2.jpg (300x522, 41.54K)

I agree with some of what you say but not all of it.

1) Focusing on workers
Most far-left groups have already abandoned workers. I would argue that's why they're so ineffective. I agree that workers aren't inherently always & everywhere susceptible to revolutionary ideas. It's clearly not true. The organizations that repeatedly call for mass protests and so on are unrealistic. The question is in what situations do the broad mass of working people become revolutionary? Topic for another day.

The military - I don't see the military as a useful vehicle of social change, at least not America's volunteer force of international mercenaries. They're basically armed lumpen-proles led by careerist officers. Trying to use them to implement change would be one giant clusterf*ck.

2) Lack of organizational discipline
Agreed. But your idea of copying military discipline doesn't seem like a good idea. The reality would probably end up looking like a neo-nazi rally. Obese lumpens LARPing as Aryan supermen.

3) Identity Politics
Agreed. Idpol functions the same way that religious groups do in political organizations. They always demand concessions for their own group, and keep pushing until you realize their main goal is simply to recruit you and not the other way around.

4) Appearance
Agree that optics is important. Don't agree that uniforms are the solution.

5) Democracy
Any kind of political organization is going to have problems. The benefit of implementing democratic and collective decision-making is that you allow problems to be addressed before they cause fatal damage to a party or group. A benevolent dictatorship might work. But you don't get to be dictator by being benevolent, so rule by consent and compromise is probably as good as we'll get even if that way is generally messy and inefficient.

You are not a socialist. Go somewhere you're welcome.

I never claimed to be anarcho-kiddy.
As there is no rule on this board that requires all posters to be Socialists, I do not intend to leave.
Likewise, your ilk should not ask for input, if such suggestions made in good faith upset you so.

If you have a problem with my posts, I would encourage you to do something that anarchists seldom ever do and that is attempt to actually refute them rather then resorting to silly ad hominem attacks.

are you a cop or a larper

Calm down he is sympathetic to leftism but completely unconnected with the military, so he worships it
Also he thinks (I know cause I am edgy to) that in a military regime he’s worthless ass will have some important position

An autist.

The military is made up of soldiers who are workers you dumb idiot.

Democracy is inherent to the left since the left was created during the French revolution. You can’t separate the left from Democracy. It is impossible.

Pseudo socialist, I guess. They didn't even achieve early stage socialism and at first that was probably not possible. Even though I think the USSR was plagued by bureaucracy and authoritarianism, there were some people within the government that were truly committed to Communism. But the bureaucracy and managerial class were simply too strong and benefited from the status quo so real radical reforms where never really inacted after the Stalin era. It was the first real attempt at socialism so even though it ultimately failed, we still have much to learn from the experience. The Russian revolution is pretty useless to the socialist movement
No. Under Mao it was a similar situation as the USSR.
Igonre it, provide a more radical alternative or absorb it and give it a more radical character.
Parties that don't only engage in electoralism are ideal. Take part in elections and try to take state power, but also build a more radical non electoral movement. Dual power and all that shit. Being active online could also be a good way to spread propaganda and influence among younger people. Use sortion democracy for internal party democracy to prevent degeneration and to keep the rank and file in control.
Organize politically and pursue radical reforms that threaten capitalist stability, but also organize in peoples communities and workplaces and create a mass movement that can put pressure on the state, capitalists and even the socialist movement's leaders.
Fuck if I know. Destruction, of all collective identity and community? Globalization? Service economy in the developed countries and manifacturing in undeveloped countries.
Yes, and thats ofc not a good thing.

I never claimed to be a leftist, indeed I explicitly identified myself as a Stratocrat.
I am however quite sympathetic towards a select few far left ideologies and as such simply gave my own perfective on what I would consider an effective praxis in the modern world to be, as invited by the OP.
I presented this advice in good faith and I think in a more then polite manner; I even went to the trouble of including pictures of the RFB to demonstrate the historical effectiveness of a paramilitary model when adopted by socialists.

While my own position is very much based upon an ideological opposition to the tyranny of the masses.
What I suggested for left wing groups in my post was simply to delay democracy until you have gained statehood and are in such an advantageous position as to be able to shoulder the chaos and inefficiency that it brings.
Pushing democracy when your group has not even assumed statehood yet is simply inviting trouble; Democracy does create factionalism, splits and easy opportunities for intelligence agencies to employ COINTELPRO strategies against your group.
Again, I am only attempting to help; Given how many of you seem to refuse to try and learn from the many failures of the left in the past.

I honestly do not even understand what your objection to this could possibly be beyond some childish protest that it is the RIGHT sort of seizure of power.
Any sort of forceful changing of government is an inherently authoritarian act, be it by a workers revolt or by a military coup.
The only meaningful difference between the two is that one is an antiqued relic of the 19th and 20th centuries that is now quite impossible, while the other is very possible.

I have been a prominent fixture of Zig Forums since its inception.
Given that I doubt a cop would stick around a place for several years, expound a very unpopular ideology there and frequently give helpful advice on how to build a movement capable of freeing us all from the tyranny of capitalism; I'm not a cop, clearly.

Now from my own experience on this topic (including several bans from Zig Forums for stating the exact some thing), I can tell you that is a deeply unpopular opinion among the far left.
Indeed from my own experience it seems that a very significant, vocal amount of the far left (unsurprisingly, mostly anarchists) is deeply triggered by any suggestion that members of the military are anything other then super evil baddies that step upon puppies with with every stride, murder for fun and love porky more then anything else in the world.
All-in-all the sort of childish perspective that one would expect of anarchists.

Regardless, even for the minority of the far left that do consider military personnel to be fellow workers.
At the very best they only consider them to be what amounts to red stoßtruppen during an otherwise conventional workers revolt.
My perspective is of-course that any sort of workers revolt is a non-starter and you should all focus exclusively upon the military.

There is no need for ad hominem attacks, friend.

As much as I think you should devoice yourselves from such a silly thing, that is not my proposal.
As I stated before, my suggestions is that you simply delay democracy.


better than the tyranny of a military elite

cointelpro was designed to go after the cpusa, which wasn't a democratic party

vanguard bullshit failed to create socialism and destroyed the credibility of the left

it's a waste of time, you might reach out to a couple of rank and file soldiers, but they'll just get separated, kicked out of the army

it's almost like democratic socialism is a thing

when was the last military coup in the developed world

Tyranny of the masses>tryanny of the elite

I think that it is rather sad that you would dismiss advice in good faith and politeness as such; Especially when it is offered by a person that is already sympathetic towards your positions.
While I'm sure that attitude will earn you kudos with edgy thugs clad in black, it will never endear you towards the average worker that you claim to represent.

Please do not attempt to create a strawman of my ideology.
I do not and have never advocated for rule by a military elite.
My ideology advocates for the merger of society, government and the military into a single unit; With people gaining positions of leadership by earning advancements in rank via merit.
While my ideology can be classed as a 'tyranny of the few' system, it is ultimately the rule of the most capable and not some elite.

How it was originally conceived is quite immaterial.
What is important is that it has been shown to be very effective against the organised far left for decades and the basic strategies of COINTELPRO are almost certainly still utilised by intelligence agencies today.
If you think that a left wing group you put together is going to be some special snowflake organisation that an intelligence agency will not come after, then you are only setting yourself up for failure.

Whether you consider them to have been democratic or not is irrelevant.
The fact remains that they still had internal elections and vote - This is what made them such easy prey.

That is utterly irrelevant to anything I have posted; Take that rubbish up with an M-L if you feel like wasting your time arguing over such pointless rubbish.
My point was that democracy as been a historical weak point that intelligence agencies now have decades of experience exploiting in order to render a left wing group harmless to capital.

Believe it or not, I do not suggest that the left attempt its desperate open arms policy in regards to recruitment should it start going after military personnel.
A military is not a democracy and attempting to simply persuade the majority of a given military to join you is stupid.
Not a single military coup that I know of has ever asked for the input of the rank and file before hand; They are led by officers and senior NCOs, the rank and file simply follow orders like they should.
As such any attempt at recruiting military personnel should be a highly selective affair that targets officers and NCOs with the more rank and file simply being bonus filler.

Have fun with that idealist nonsense, friend.
One is scarcely able to get proles to vote for neo-liberal parties that at-least in the distant past may have been somewhat socialist in nature.
Getting them to vote for an actual socialist party is utterly stupid would goes beyond attempting to herd cats, to attempting to herd clouds.
That is not even mentioning the silly idea that porky would ever allow himself to be voted out of power, or would even allow a party that actually threatened him to exist.
Just utter rubbish from start to finish; You are literally dooming yourself to permanent irrelevance if you cling to such idealist, ideological idiocy.

When was the last time that any military in the developed world was motivated to stage a coup?
1990 and 1997 are the dates that would spring to my mind; That 1997 date in particular being important as in that case the military was able to govern until 2011, quite frankly doing a far better job the the mess of the democratic government that nation has now.

It is very easy to form a political group that is not itself democratic, yet aims to create a democratic state once it gains power.
I would not advise it given my position on democracy, but it certainly is possible and even easy.

If one had to describe my ideology as advocating for any sort of tyranny, it is the tyranny of the capable.
A tyranny that that I will happy take over the tyranny of mob rule by the masses.

how old are you

all elites are in theory the most capable you fucking idealist

if anything is going to bring down the hammer on yourself it's trying to infiltrate the military, look what happened to the west point guy

political democracy has proven itself to be a far better system than dictatorship, and the people are again coming to realise that the same is true for economic democracy

fuck that, why should i trust them

Say that phrase, get the noose.

Bumping this thread because quality.

Question: How should far-left organizations / groups handle sectarianism and factions? Is it possible to create non-sectarian groups without sacrificing basic principles?

Attached: 15th_Congress_of_the_All-Union_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg (2184x1640, 1.17M)

Sectarianism seems inevitable. Even the discussions here have people disagreeing about the way to go forward. Consider this, if a nee leader thinks of a new radical movement, his first opposition is with other leftist.
If you read the swamp wizard till the end, he claims that a large swath of leftists worked together on this particular thing. Given this and the situation in Rojava that sees Anarchists(or close enough) fighting with MLs, I think it's obvious that sectarianism is particularly fueled by inaction. Assuming this the best way for an organozation to ward off sectarianism is to keep doing stuff relevant to worker's issues instead of pursuing careerist activism like many burger parties. Sectarianism will happen of course and I think the concept of left unity is dogshit, but a coalition organized around class unity stands a better chance if it keeps doing shit leftists will grudgingly work together.

Good idea!

Well, op, I'll tell you.
Mine didn't.
We have told you more than once.
There ya go. Is it a general strike?
Almost solves itself. Not that you'll get any support, they'll just engage in radical unions.
And you said anarchocapitalism doesn't real.
The left advances!
The Green party has pledged the radical socialist overthrow of the United States of america.
Doesn't mean it'll do it, just means it said this. I think Corbyn is green-party level on paper.
I'm not sure if the parties being opposed here are the United States, but right now, they're the ones doing it.
Illegal ad-hoc coops.
That's how you got in this situation LAST TIME.
We're talking North America, right?
fuck no.
Hell no. Plant some vegetables.
Nah. Unless you're MSuccDemL.

We've got many, you just didn't want to listen. Go buy your iPhone off the National Corporatism of Commandante Bob, just like it always was.

Soldiers are not workers. They are not engaging in any productive labor and don't have to sell their labor power for a wage. Where you really need to draw a line is between professional armies and people's armies. Conscripted soldiers are young, often poor lads who are being sent by force to the other side of the world to fight for corporate interests, it's very easy to invoke revolutionary potential amongst these, but never underestimate the power of ideological brainwashing in an institution like the military. IDF conscripts are taught that Palestinians are subhumans since they were kids, and directly profit from the settler state that Israel represents. Many armies do not sent their conscripts to war, to exactly avoid this kind of situation, where the armed forces rebel, with the support of their parents at home who had their kids taken from them. Only in a full-scale war the capitalist state will send conscripts to the battlefield, and we don't have one right now due to modern warfare being very differently conducted than the mass wars we've seen before.

That brings me to my second point, professional armies without conscription, especially the ones of imperialist countries, are a lost cause. Sure, many join because of economic reasons, but they have a direct interest in propping up the military industrial complex, because they are the biggest welfare queens in society. Never in history has a professional or mercenary army taken up the cause of the people, they would only do so if their masters ordered it.

Learn how to make spears, bows, axes and how to build a mud hut and how to hunt, fish, gather edibles.
Because the cattle will choose barbarism over socialism any day, so the better praxis is to be prepared to live innawoods tbqh my dudes.