pogfan1996 posted:

Where does the weakness of the US Left originate? What is to be done?

Read settlers.

stegosaurus posted:

i dont understand what their theory of revolution even is if it doesnt include laying this type of groundwork and proceeds on vague ideas about what People are worried about or what People are struggling for etc.

That's because actual, applicable theory work is... work. After organizing face to face with people on the left for about a decade (more if we reach way back into even dumber circles) it is really clear to me that most people are in it to have a good time hanging out with folks who share a similar ethics and aesthetics, make themselves look clever, and occasionally soothe their conscience with a cathartic demonstration. They don't want to work, they want to play. The stakes they have in an organization are about social prestige, not about whether anything materially significant is accomplished.

(I'm predrinking to go out dancing so there's a 50/50 chance the following will all be tedious, insane garbage)

Outside interference aside, I think this is also the main factor behind fractiousness and organizational collapse over interpersonal issues. If there was actual group/party discipline, oriented towards achieving concrete material goals, the preservation of a functioning political body would override bickering over who gets to be king shit of turd mountain and whose friends are or aren't welcome at the socialist bake sale. I'm not going to say that interpersonal dynamics aren't important, they are, but the material consequences of how interpersonal conflicts are being resolved make it clear what's a priority and what isn't.

To swing this back around to building a new synthesis instead of just bitching about our shitty comrades, I think we have to acknowledge and accept that if you are organizing in the West, especially among the middle class (basically everyone,) the bulk of your membership are going to be these people who have very little at stake and are just there to have a good time. If we accept the material we have to work with instead of wishing for better, we can begin theorizing how to leverage it.

So: the people we organize with are motivated by personal relationships, and pride in how much of a Good Leftist they are. This motivation affects the composition of their organizations. What does the contemporary idea of a Good Leftist look like? There are standards of personal behavior (most of them perfectly reasonable and good,) being able to at least handwave the occasional bit of Theory, etc. Groups motivated to be Good Leftists will organize and rupture based on this goal of looking like Good Leftists: over individual behavior and ability to parrot theory. Not everyone has these problems, but these kinds of people gravitate to places of prestige and influence in any given circle, and thus their organizations begin to select for this kind of vain behavior.

In this environment, problems arise: genuine work on challenging, building, and applying theory threatens the ability of people who aren't theoreticians to look like Good Leftists, threatening the cohesion of the group and attracting hostility. Maoist bingo word salad dumps are meaningless, and thus perfectly safe. Organizational goals become about keeping up appearances: maintaining theoretical purity, keeping theory safe in its shrine where it can't be tested (and the ability of people to interact with it can't be challenged.) Ironically this obsession with how pure and good your theory looks is a fast track to revisionism: theory is perverted into heraldry for social clubs that needs to be maximally appealing, instead of serving as the critical foundation of an action plan for achieving attainable goals.

As Stego mentioned, in these circumstances people are unable to be honest about their capabilities, and people who are honest or who can't play the game get pushed to the margins. When was the last time you saw someone admit they don't actually know very much, haven't read much, they just know the cause is just? People like that are vital, but they get shit on. Others are pressured to over commit, wear too many hats, and burn out. Everyone doesn't need to be a theory wizard. Everyone doesn't need to have a good grasp of the "mass line." Everyone doesn't have to be capable of giving a perfect discourse on the fine details of the group's position on every possible situation. Everyone doesn't need to be capable of speaking publicly or passionately rallying a group. Someone needs to do each of these things, but most importantly everyone needs to be able to contribute to achieving the group's goals, and for that the group's goals need to be concrete and specific. Without goals that involve going out into the world and doing things, all there is to do is have counterproductive pissing contests.

An organization needs to know what it wants to achieve and have a plan of attack for how it will arrive at that goal. This plan needs to be concrete at every step of the way, with an objective and what actions are going to be performed to achieve that objective. Failure is ok! If it doesn't work out, analyze the material conditions around you, figure out what went wrong, and form a new plan with new actions, that's how theory gets done. No nebulous "following the desires of The People," what actions do you perform when you are following the desires of The People? If your organization claims to be anti-imperialist, are you doing anti-imperialist actions? So your organization is a queer ally, a trans ally, in solidarity with indigenous sovereignty, stands against police brutality, etc etc: what actions are you performing on a regular basis to back these up? Do you have the resources to do all this at once? If not: don't lay claim to something you're not doing, because then your organization becomes Being About X, Y, Z, instead of Doing. You might still do things, but they'll continue to get second shrift to your precious aesthetic when the pressure's on. Have a statement of values where you tick all those boxes, this is a useful document for summarizing what your group is about, but it's not the same as an operating policy.

Have an operating policy. Have concrete, specific things your organization is doing now, and things it will be doing after if those fail, and things it will be doing if they succeed, every step of the way up the chain to hanging the last banker if you need to. This is the cornerstone of your org. Everyone in the organization is in the organization because they have agreed to work together putting those actions into practice. If someone isn't ready, can't/won't make the commitment to working within whatever their capabilities are then that's fine, but the organization is there to do work. If you're not doing work then you can still show up at public events, be friends, hang out, it's all cool, but don't expect to be part of the decision process. Make social prestige in your organization be about doing things. Make people's pride and identity and validation become attached to accomplishing immediate goals, and they'll realize that failure is a natural part of being active, that it can be a collective problem to solve instead of a shameful blemish on their personal leftist purity.


TOPICAL CYCLONOPEDIA ILLUSTRATION?

Your core principles are there to set your strategy so that when you fail you'll know what you want to do next, your operating policy is there so that you'll know tactically how to do it. They need to be checked against each other by the logistical power of theory. Without theory to make these work in tandem, your organization can easily become attached to superficial successes and prestige that accomplish nothing, and averse to the failures that occur when you risk a difficult and hostile situation. That's the easy path that leads to collaboration with the imperialists, Progressives for Obama etc.

Speaking of which, the insidious success and failure of Occupy was due to its ability to make people busy working towards nothing. An organization that wants to be successful needs to be busy, when everyone is busy there is space for someone to work on theory because they're good at it, and it doesn't matter anymore if someone else isn't. Theory work is held accountable to being useful, because everyone in the organization is working and if the theory is masturbatory and unhelpful people will notice. There's space to support theory work because everyone doesn't need to be their own personal theory diva, space to do the work necessary for research or direct action, space for outreach, space for learning and space for teaching. When people are busy they can feel socially fulfilled even if they're not an academic ace, they can bond over genuine struggle instead of who does or doesn't fit the "working class hipster" queer-but-indistinguishable-from-straight university dropout uniform.


Of course, when you go out and actually do things, that's when the opposition takes notice. I think one of the most important tasks of theory work right now should be centered around confronting the problems faced by the more-or-less successful western groups of the past century: How exactly did cointelpro defeat the Panthers? What worked, what didn't? How exactly did their structures erode under that opposition? What could be done instead? The past century gives us ample evidence that people can be motivated and organized when you are active in their communities, so I feel like "how do we make Marxism appeal to the masses" is a red herring. The real question is "how do we survive, once we've done what we already know will make Marxism appeal to the masses." And until we begin to work on that, people will continue to cling to bickering wank contests and impotent, directionless action because they know it's safe and why would they risk the ire of imperialism with no survival plan?

tpaine posted:

i make racecars with my poop

that's incredible, the chemistry to get enough power for motorsports from poop has to be fascinating.

all I've ever managed to make with mine was posts

shriekingviolet posted:

*Really good post about organizing the left*

I think this should be in a sticky somewhere, it's very informative.

The only thing I would add is that I think in order for the far left to actually grow, the splinter groups would need to unify under a more generalized banner. The hashing out of which socialist ideology is "correct" could be discussed when the movement is large enough to be an actual threat to capitalism. For now the focus should be on explaining why capitalism is a bad economic system and why workers should control production.

shriekingviolet posted:

stegosaurus posted:

i dont understand what their theory of revolution even is if it doesnt include laying this type of groundwork and proceeds on vague ideas about what People are worried about or what People are struggling for etc.

That's because actual, applicable theory work is... work. After organizing face to face with people on the left for about a decade (more if we reach way back into even dumber circles) it is really clear to me that most people are in it to have a good time hanging out with folks who share a similar ethics and aesthetics, make themselves look clever, and occasionally soothe their conscience with a cathartic demonstration. They don't want to work, they want to play. The stakes they have in an organization are about social prestige, not about whether anything materially significant is accomplished.

(I'm predrinking to go out dancing so there's a 50/50 chance the following will all be tedious, insane garbage)

Outside interference aside, I think this is also the main factor behind fractiousness and organizational collapse over interpersonal issues. If there was actual group/party discipline, oriented towards achieving concrete material goals, the preservation of a functioning political body would override bickering over who gets to be king shit of turd mountain and whose friends are or aren't welcome at the socialist bake sale. I'm not going to say that interpersonal dynamics aren't important, they are, but the material consequences of how interpersonal conflicts are being resolved make it clear what's a priority and what isn't.

To swing this back around to building a new synthesis instead of just bitching about our shitty comrades, I think we have to acknowledge and accept that if you are organizing in the West, especially among the middle class (basically everyone,) the bulk of your membership are going to be these people who have very little at stake and are just there to have a good time. If we accept the material we have to work with instead of wishing for better, we can begin theorizing how to leverage it.

So: the people we organize with are motivated by personal relationships, and pride in how much of a Good Leftist they are. This motivation affects the composition of their organizations. What does the contemporary idea of a Good Leftist look like? There are standards of personal behavior (most of them perfectly reasonable and good,) being able to at least handwave the occasional bit of Theory, etc. Groups motivated to be Good Leftists will organize and rupture based on this goal of looking like Good Leftists: over individual behavior and ability to parrot theory. Not everyone has these problems, but these kinds of people gravitate to places of prestige and influence in any given circle, and thus their organizations begin to select for this kind of vain behavior.

In this environment, problems arise: genuine work on challenging, building, and applying theory threatens the ability of people who aren't theoreticians to look like Good Leftists, threatening the cohesion of the group and attracting hostility. Maoist bingo word salad dumps are meaningless, and thus perfectly safe. Organizational goals become about keeping up appearances: maintaining theoretical purity, keeping theory safe in its shrine where it can't be tested (and the ability of people to interact with it can't be challenged.) Ironically this obsession with how pure and good your theory looks is a fast track to revisionism: theory is perverted into heraldry for social clubs that needs to be maximally appealing, instead of serving as the critical foundation of an action plan for achieving attainable goals.

As Stego mentioned, in these circumstances people are unable to be honest about their capabilities, and people who are honest or who can't play the game get pushed to the margins. When was the last time you saw someone admit they don't actually know very much, haven't read much, they just know the cause is just? People like that are vital, but they get shit on. Others are pressured to over commit, wear too many hats, and burn out. Everyone doesn't need to be a theory wizard. Everyone doesn't need to have a good grasp of the "mass line." Everyone doesn't have to be capable of giving a perfect discourse on the fine details of the group's position on every possible situation. Everyone doesn't need to be capable of speaking publicly or passionately rallying a group. Someone needs to do each of these things, but most importantly everyone needs to be able to contribute to achieving the group's goals, and for that the group's goals need to be concrete and specific. Without goals that involve going out into the world and doing things, all there is to do is have counterproductive pissing contests.

An organization needs to know what it wants to achieve and have a plan of attack for how it will arrive at that goal. This plan needs to be concrete at every step of the way, with an objective and what actions are going to be performed to achieve that objective. Failure is ok! If it doesn't work out, analyze the material conditions around you, figure out what went wrong, and form a new plan with new actions, that's how theory gets done. No nebulous "following the desires of The People," what actions do you perform when you are following the desires of The People? If your organization claims to be anti-imperialist, are you doing anti-imperialist actions? So your organization is a queer ally, a trans ally, in solidarity with indigenous sovereignty, stands against police brutality, etc etc: what actions are you performing on a regular basis to back these up? Do you have the resources to do all this at once? If not: don't lay claim to something you're not doing, because then your organization becomes Being About X, Y, Z, instead of Doing. You might still do things, but they'll continue to get second shrift to your precious aesthetic when the pressure's on. Have a statement of values where you tick all those boxes, this is a useful document for summarizing what your group is about, but it's not the same as an operating policy.

Have an operating policy. Have concrete, specific things your organization is doing now, and things it will be doing after if those fail, and things it will be doing if they succeed, every step of the way up the chain to hanging the last banker if you need to. This is the cornerstone of your org. Everyone in the organization is in the organization because they have agreed to work together putting those actions into practice. If someone isn't ready, can't/won't make the commitment to working within whatever their capabilities are then that's fine, but the organization is there to do work. If you're not doing work then you can still show up at public events, be friends, hang out, it's all cool, but don't expect to be part of the decision process. Make social prestige in your organization be about doing things. Make people's pride and identity and validation become attached to accomplishing immediate goals, and they'll realize that failure is a natural part of being active, that it can be a collective problem to solve instead of a shameful blemish on their personal leftist purity.


TOPICAL CYCLONOPEDIA ILLUSTRATION?

Your core principles are there to set your strategy so that when you fail you'll know what you want to do next, your operating policy is there so that you'll know tactically how to do it. They need to be checked against each other by the logistical power of theory. Without theory to make these work in tandem, your organization can easily become attached to superficial successes and prestige that accomplish nothing, and averse to the failures that occur when you risk a difficult and hostile situation. That's the easy path that leads to collaboration with the imperialists, Progressives for Obama etc.

Speaking of which, the insidious success and failure of Occupy was due to its ability to make people busy working towards nothing. An organization that wants to be successful needs to be busy, when everyone is busy there is space for someone to work on theory because they're good at it, and it doesn't matter anymore if someone else isn't. Theory work is held accountable to being useful, because everyone in the organization is working and if the theory is masturbatory and unhelpful people will notice. There's space to support theory work because everyone doesn't need to be their own personal theory diva, space to do the work necessary for research or direct action, space for outreach, space for learning and space for teaching. When people are busy they can feel socially fulfilled even if they're not an academic ace, they can bond over genuine struggle instead of who does or doesn't fit the "working class hipster" queer-but-indistinguishable-from-straight university dropout uniform.


Of course, when you go out and actually do things, that's when the opposition takes notice. I think one of the most important tasks of theory work right now should be centered around confronting the problems faced by the more-or-less successful western groups of the past century: How exactly did cointelpro defeat the Panthers? What worked, what didn't? How exactly did their structures erode under that opposition? What could be done instead? The past century gives us ample evidence that people can be motivated and organized when you are active in their communities, so I feel like "how do we make Marxism appeal to the masses" is a red herring. The real question is "how do we survive, once we've done what we already know will make Marxism appeal to the masses." And until we begin to work on that, people will continue to cling to bickering wank contests and impotent, directionless action because they know it's safe and why would they risk the ire of imperialism with no survival plan?

this kind of post could only be made on the rhizzone. I mean that as a complement but also a reflection on how serious the petty-bourgeois mentality of the left is that you outline. the kind of communities that form on social media and the kind of people that learn their politics from it are not capable of making this kind of critique or receiving it. not because it's too long and too real but because it would be absorbed into the 'theory' social capital you mentioned. it would be shared, reposted, blogged and tweeted about, and then forgotten without having actually affected anyone's ego bubble. i cant presume to speak for you but for me, i make posts because i want critique and discussion and respect people here to make it without having to be like "read everything the frankfurt school wrote or kill yourself." social media and web 2.0 has destroyed any form of communication between and among people and instead reduced everything to competing brands.

real life is even worse, where the ability to make detailed and nuanced critiques doesn't exist and must be replaced by 'meme' social capital which always involves identity politics and regurgitation of correct thoughts. in theory doing stuff solves these problems but for me it's important to think about the inability to do stuff as a problem of conditioning/structure and not simply lack of opportunity or lack of motivation. again, settlers is a great book but the collapse of the american left into identity politics began with 'self-criticism' against white chauvinism:

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/index.htm#pwoc

without a fundamental understanding of the material conditions and real proletarian leadership (the meaning of which needs to be concretely investigated) the 'maospeak' group of friends hanging out while pretending to change the world will simply turn into a tumblr witchhunt against white chauvanism, petty-bourgeois ideology or bigotry. like I said, the history of the Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center doesn't really teach us anything we don't already know since we live in a time in which its politics are the politics of the first world (both left and right) but studying it is still useful.

pogfan1996 posted:

what a mess

I would gladly take a bullet, if it could be equally distributed among all of these people as well.

shriekingviolet posted:

I mean being a person of color (I'm not!!) in a predominantly white organization, particularly one full of insane idiots, can be absolute agony as everyone swarms around you like a tide of repulsive cockroaches, desperately trying to one up each other about who is the least/most racist.

lmao wtf is wrong with people, this actually happens regularly in orgs that exist in the real world and ive just been blessed by god to never witness it through only being in the one good org?

getfiscal posted:

This year I intend to launch a project on the somewhat strange position around here where massive amounts of wealth are managed by professional investors on behalf of worker's pensions.

a time tunnel to 2007?

c_man posted:

"What do you call it?"
"The labor aristocrats!"

DAMN

tears posted:

They speak so much about self criticism without really understanding what it is. It seems these peoples idea of self criticism is that its primarily about flagellating yourself because youre a secretly racist communist rather than a scientific method for properly assessing how theories work in practice and where things went wrong, especially on the level of the group, party etc because you want to do what is correct and right and best for the proletariat as a whole.

I agree with you, but I think there's also a misunderstanding here... That convoluted mess of a statement is not how things looked to the people in the meetings as the events were happening. The statement also shows these groups need help moderating this fractious behavior. Even like robert's rules of order would be preferable to the wandering, destructive fracas described above. Or they could have some fun with it, appoint a real troika with special powers to handle internal complaints of racism etc.

Something should be there, as part of the process or as some appointed one's personal responsibility, to react to things going off the rails, right at the point when "This later developed into a criticism of A’s racism for the tone of his response" which sounds like an argument over whether an apology was a real apology. So there is kind of a failure of all the people who have allowed their disgust with this kind of infighting drive them away from joining organizations, instead of staying in the orgs and putting a stop to infighting. Sad stuff...