Last weekend I got totally socially destroyed by people in my orgs with a whole load of lies, emotional appeals, etc. They had secret meetings to talk to a lot of key people to convince them of these lies in advance. They then sprung all of this on a national meeting, throwing me under the bus among borderline rape allegations against friends of mine who arent even members and they never interacted with to any capacity, all in an effort to put their candidate in a light on a platform of "fighting sexism" and take down the opposing candidate in the process.
The party I spend 3+ years of my life in a near full time manner building up, of which i build up the entire chapter from zero to dozens of members, including the people who fucked me over, all of it is taken away from me.
The people in the org were easily swayed by a very obvious plot. Nobody opposed a showtrial without any evidence in which people were attacked by name, despite them not having mentioned any of these issues before to the confidants or the board. People, including those who said they would have my back, didnt dare to intervene.
A moscow trial was conducted in an org of only a little over a hundred people.
If communists are unable to defend and see such snakes and opportunists even at this level, and are so easily swayed, and if even this small a scale is enough to invite full on throwing comrades under the bus for your own gain, then all is lost. The opportunist powerplays that happened in the soviet union are inevitable. Democracy and workers power is an impossibility. The left can never win because it is unable to even have a functioning democracy beyond 150 people without falling to unopposed opportunism.
I am done with politics, i'm going back to my life with people I actually can trust, and im just gonna grill. The Marxist ideal is an illusion, even the smallest level politics gets easily corrupted by opportunists.
>>5477Bro's just venting I guess.
I hope for once posters don't just shit on him in another moment of left dis-unity.
>>5476If I were you OP I would do this.
>>5482Glad you stopped LARPing as an anarchist, freak
>>5473Welcome to the boring dystopia of ML party politics
>>5473>>5497you're viewing the problem the wrong way: you've gotta think institutionally, rather than interpersonally. (hard as this is if you've just been fucked over)
opportunism and factionalism are functions of the party structure rather than being inherent to human nature - just as water flows downhill when placed on an incline, but pools on a flat surface, so to do people behave differently in different institutional contexts. people who'll gladly attest to your good character in most contexts will remain grimy silent during a show trial because that is what you do during a show trial - to do otherwise just invites being asked to join the defendants. the solution is not
better people but a better trial structure. imagine, for example, if the org included a devil's advocate who was somehow rewarded for winning internal debates - now imagine he had to argue in your defense. not only would it be harder to present one-sided evidence, but it would be easier for others to speak up, or to build on the advocate's case. (even if they don't come out in overt support, they can always ask questions that lead the advocate to voice what they themselves cannot…)
parties, in general, are a bad idea: they
invite people who want to recreate the Moscow trials, LARPing as a soviet prosecutor or plotter. they're very poorly oriented towards actually getting a practical task done because the nominal purview of a party is so wide - take a stance on everything! grow the party! educate! organize!: fewer trade unions have these kinds of shenanigans than parties because unions have a smaller practical outcomes they can deliver here and now, and i've never known a lemonade stand to hold a show trial - no time for that, there's lemonade to sell.
>>5509True, just look at the people here who still complain about "trotskyists".
Hilarious most commies are just delusional larpers who think they're still living in the 1920's.
>>5510non party structures oriented towards a specific goal where success and failure can be objectively judged. generally i would say such structures should be of the dual-power, class consciousness building type (unions of various sorts, for example), but frankly even charity is preferable to the party form. (so long as one doesn't wind up NGOpilled. i suggest charity purely because direct-action charity ought to serve as an education in logistics.)
a lemonade stand which sells no lemonade goes bankrupt. a trade union which utterly fails in every struggle or sells out its membership at every turn loses members to more useful unions. a tenants union that leads its members up the garden path invariably disbands. a soup kitchen that never has any food isn't going to bring anybody in. but a party which does not take power, does not contribute anything of value to struggles, does not effectively educate members, does not do anything to improve (and often does much to weaken) how positively the public sees the left, which does not, in short,
achieve anything except its own existence, inevitable infighting with other orgs, and almost inevitably some manner of cult like behavior and/or sex scandal goes goes: "ah, but look at our program! we have
the right line!"
it's a farcical situation, and the primary reason parties are not to be trusted: they can always ask to be judged by their "successes" (usually a collection of press releases, mere empty rhetoric from the irrelevant) and not by their failures (every other aspect of their existence), and because they do not
do anything there are no practical risks to fucking everything up: mount a coup in the soup kitchen and piss off the guy who brings the soup in? great, idiot,
you've destroyed the organization. mount a coup in the party which alienates 75% of the party membership, including the guy who handles the oh-so-precious newspaper and who handles the wordpress?
"well, as comrade stalin said: better fewer, but better", the iron law of institutions holds: you're ruling in hell rather than serving in heaven. you get to determine that all important
line.
I hate to break it to you but it's not an "accident" that this happens. It really is what Marx's communism entailed. They shit up any other organization, and then once their purpose was servced, they were fed bait. It was designed to do exactly this.
I really question someone who believes the all-powerful party organ was really sound in all situations. The Bolsheviks were a suppressed, illegal party that operated in this way with the support of foreign interests - not that there is anything wrong with that, but the formation of a party of that type was not a "default" or "natural" condition. It was particular to Lenin's personality, Russian history, and what worked in that time, for that purpose. The idea that you're supposed to do that as the goal is highly counter-productive, and you can see the results with what the Soviet Union turned into. There was an acknowledgement from the start that this didn't work, and probably couldn't work. Many never believed in socialism of any sort, and the committed theorists were among the first to abandon any revolution which included most of the people. That was all a way for them to establish themselves and piss on everyone else. That's what their theory of politics tells them to do every single time.
Perhaps that really is how it has to be. I'm not some anticommunist retard who thinks socialism is unnatural because "human nature" or "basic economics". Anything that really answered what the masses saw as the problem was always scuttled before it went anywhere, or made into a strange unicorn. It was necessity more than "the theory" that made the Soviet Union live up to anything at all, because Stalin needs tanks and you don't have tanks and industry if your country is run on a plunder economy. That's all capitalism is - a pure plunder economy. If you see it like that instead of making excuses for it as Marx did, you'd have a much more sensical theory, but you'd also give up the institutions and this plan he had to advance the interests of him and people like him.
The world where it could have been different may have been impossible. The core of this was not an economic idea or a legalistic doctrine for organizing the party, but one of basic moral standing. If you are aggressively amoral and disgusting as Marx and Engels were, your society won't be worth keeping for long. But, there is no moral calculus you can solve or make true by spouting dogmas. That's not how it works. Ultimately, there was far less of a force in humanity for it to be different, and as I said, anyone who tries to make it different out of necessity only makes it as far as they're allowed before the trap is sprung on them.
It is this which is replicated in the ratfuckery of political parties, which is one reason why they're a lost cause. The other is that political power moved away from mass politics or pretensions of such a long, long time ago. The left chose the institutions and abandoned the masses openly from Gramsci on, and he says explicitly to do this because the people are no good for what they want and what they stand for. That was always a fault of socialism - it's technocratic aims, which once attained, had no place for most of humanity. It didn't occur to them that you can't actually automate the world in that way without consequences, since the thing you're automating are people who very much do not want to be stamped out of existence by a machine. If you wanted to regulate a society of human beings, you'd have to account for their actual wants instead of asserting or insinuating what they're "supposed" to want. The aims of the working and lowest class are not difficult, usually involving higher wages or lower taxes, which amount to the same thing.
It's actually amazing to me how much Marx was designed specifically to short-circuit all of the things Saint-Simon diagnosed as the cure to liberal capitalism in its formative stages, based on the disaster of trying capitalism during the French Revolution.
>>5646The theory wasn't what the Russian Revolution was about. People did not want to be sent to die for the bullshit that was the Great European War, and so Lenin offered for perfectly understandable reasons that aligned with what he wanted to get out of a bullshit war. There was something about land and bread too, which sort of happened after more civil war.
There are some sad people who think wartime requisition was normal or, worse, desirable, and that you can actually run a country like that on a permanent basis. That's what the Nazis offered the world - endless Kraut siege of the people. One of Lenin's greatest defects is being a Germanophile - of course, he's basically a German agent at that point, but the influence of Germanism really shit up the upper rungs of Soviet society and contributed beyond the vices of Marxism or Marxism-Leninism to the decay of its ruling class. And of course, the system failed with the intellectuals more than the workers. The workers were demoralized and cynical and trashy, but they usually showed up to their work, and it's not like humans were ever efficient. The only "efficiency" humanity ever knew or relied upon was torturing the lowest of the workers and making sure everyone passed it down the line, because they really are filthy apes. We could easily do things more efficiently with the technology of that time, but no interest in humanity valued that for any good reason. They're only somewhat efficient at torturing people, and even that they only manage as far as they feel is fun for them. Unfortunately for us, there are many humans who live for making others suffer, so this makes the normally lazy and disgusting human race very dangerous once they attain any apparatus capable of feeding more blood to the blood god. If humanity actually thought about efficiency in those terms instead of units of human misery or managerial power tripping, we would live in paradise with remarkably little effort. So much of this only happens because there is a large interest in humanity which loves to see most of us suffer, and if that suffering ever stopped, they would shriek like maniacs until they get their way, "as God intended". It works the same in any country, sadly.
The only way out was through the lowest class. As long as that threat remains, you were always going to have this sword hanging over you if you wanted anything good. There are two problems with this. The first is simple - everyone hates the lowest class. The second is that the lowest class has no inclination whatsoever to think about society's good or the general good, because in their experience, a healthier society only means the torturers have a freer hand and they are told this is the price of civilization, no matter what. They have no motivation to reform to be more amenable to a society that openly wants to cut up their bodies for dubious purposes. Even if we submitted to that, all we would do is make life worse for our kind. They do not want us to have anything and make that clear from a young age. If they did, they would probably have just paid us off - which they eventually do if you're too annoying to kill and don't do things that really disrupt society - and stopped insisting everyone should love the system. The system sucks. But, that would never be enough. The only way it might happen is that the lowest class would eventually be pressed by the conditions of total society to do things that the ruling system can't predict, and they don't like that result. We usually piss off, refuse to conform to humanism or what humans are "supposed" to be, and the near-madness that is typical of the lowest class becomes a profoundly inhuman manner of thinking and living. The very idea that we would reject humanism offends them on some visceral level. Why wouldn't we, when humanity - as a race and as a spiritual concept - has only meant more torture? Humanity is a failed project in all respects. We're only seeing now in this century just how failed it was, since now there is reliable information for the first time. Of course, the rulers poisoned us and insisted on this outcome from the start. They only ever believed in eugenics, and there were so many fools who believed it could actually be a little better… or at least, the rulers weren't interested in cannibalizing every thing that produced useful articles. For a political mind, productive society is only that which feeds their rule, which is always rooted in some form of torture. Anything we would find useful is subordinated to that overriding political imperative, regardless of the "system" they offer. The only thing that prevented this in the past is that social units faced competition that required them to regard reality, and the abilities of human institutions and states were far less than anything they vowed to do in their claims. It's weird to think now but in the past, all you had to do is make a catchy jingle and you could get many of the poors to vote for any dogshit. It was always a joke to them, because policy really had no consequences, and people were more motivated by character judgements - who do they think would make a better king or warlord - than "the issues" which were far removed from them and never going to go their way anyway. So far as anyone was motivated by policy, it was either resistance to some obviously evil transgression that would also screw over many of their social betters, or it was about someone fucking with the money. The effective elimination of money was the first blow to that interest in policy. The second was that the replacement - that people were going to be allowed to have a few nice things to get through this life - was taken away, and then turned into a sick parody, when the market became nothing more than a vehicle for disseminating poison and calling it a "service". This was mitigated for a time because it wasn't until neoliberalism that everyone went full retard with ideological market worship. If you proposed neoliberalism in the 1930s it would have appeared like Satanic madness - so mad that even the Nazis wouldn't do it full bore, since the Nazis still had to raise an army and win something, and build that state of ultimate evil and all of the medical experimentation camps for Mr. Rockefeller. You can even tell because the neoliberals were around then like Karl Popper, and they were the screamingest fags you have ever seen. That's where Ayn Rand came from - pure, demonic faggotry of low minds who were told they were "brights", just the purest eugenic creed rot.
Anyway, if you wanted a way out, you should listen to the people who are suffering, or see what is going on and speak of anything real. The institutions will never let you win - that's not how they work. I'm afraid you all got used for the career of slimy people, and that's all it really was. That's what politics usually means - ratfucking to rise, and fear of usurpation for the winners. There are always usurpers within the high ranks and down the line, and that's what humanity is built on. The moment anyone proposed anything functional instead of that rot and any sort of enforcement to put an end to it, the screamers insisted on more blood for the blood god. That's usually when they invent war as their preferred mechanism to cull the population. Problem was, war war was far too expensive, and even before then, wars were unpredictable. They entailed actual battles rather than the showpiece stories they liked to tell. Their next scheme was "Plan War" and making militaries into very large eugenics programs and nothing else. Lowest rungs would be put through the same medical experiments done in the concentration camps. It's amazing anyone thinks such a disgusting military is fit to win any wars, especially after some Vietnamese rice farmers endured for decades because they had an actual cause to fight for.
Only out of necessity - usually when they fear being raped and enslaved and have to fight - do armies fight with anything like efficiency, beyond a low to moderate level of technique sufficient for the game they play and the foe they fight. They have to be just effective enough against people who might be fighting for their lives, but usually the way war goes is that even those defending their country will spend their efforts purging "useless eaters" and cut a deal with the invader to live another day. Outright conquest of a whole nation is the exception in war. When the Americans fought the natives and began enclosing the land, the terms of surrender were that the natives would get to keep living as nations, and this seemed less bad than the alternative they already knew about. It wasn't until the democidal policies of the education regime and eugenics were imposed that the major genocide claimed its numbes, and then to turbocharge it, the white man sold the loads of beer and drugs at cutrate prices because it would have a demoralizing effect. What else do you expect from an opium empire? That's what empires usually thrive on - vice and degeneration. Romans were big on that, same with every big empire. There is a reason the Qing were so vulnerable to the opium trade, despite the government taking efforts - serious efforts out of dire necessity - to get to the bottom of it and fix the drug problem. The Chinese weren't above dealing opium to the dirty foreigners back in their heyday, and did not particularly mind when it turned inward during the fall of a dynasty or barbarian invasion. Empires are rotten like that - but it's how power really works, rather than "the state" as such, or nations which were never purely political units and mostly existed because they counteracted the effects of civilization rather than any plan of the rulers.
>>5647Probably should have made explicit that Stalin identifies here with the will of the soviet people needing more tanks to defend themselves.
Here we have a prototype, either ruin or circumstances forcing a better way. The soviet people chose the better way. I have confidence people can do it again.
>>5650Well, there is always the goodwill of people. If Stalin were pure slavery and torture, he would have done the stupid thing, and that's the sort of person Trotsky was. Mostly though, the Soviets did things that would be to us basic sense, like coordinating industry - you know how ridiculously ineffective "real capitalism" was at meeting any need a country would have, let alone the need for military equipment? These retards would send men to fight without any guns or realistic possibility of obtaining them, and forgot that to have that army of conscripts, they kind of need to be able to keep and bear arms and actually know how to use them. Leave it to Germans to not understand that basic concept of a democratic society, or at least as democratic as humans were ever going to manage. The communists did a lot of basic shit that makes sense, and the Nazis invented this fabulous story of "Soviet inefficiency" as a cope for their own failed race and retarded plans for the world. The Soviet system was not "good", and suffered all of the drawbacks of a militarized society conscripted for the cause, but it was less than the pants-on-head retardation of capitalists who think they're going to be Rough Riders or bringing Jesus back. That tells you just how fucking retarded capitalism always was, and how for so long we are taught to pretend that this is totally the best idea humanity ever had, rather than a liberal get rich quick scheme.
Usually, functional countries - i.e. not Germanic retardation - are worth enough to fight for in a real war, so much that most people will not question signing up to fight a war of necessity. That was the only thing, in spite of being ruled by pederastic retards, that Germans fought at all - because their country really was under attack, after Hitler convinced people that war was easy with the "get your shitty aristocrat fag friends to sell out the enemy country" strategy. You can't blame Hitler for doing that because it worked, until it didn't - when the Anglos sprung the trap after feeding Hitler's faggotry for a decade and a half. Crown agent Adolf Hitler, I should remind you.
If you're a paranoid and observant Russian, you're probably pissed at being made the plaything of the Empire and forced to die yet again for their horseshit. But, one way or another, you're going to have to fight for your life, again, for the sake of some Kraut and Anglo stupidity.
Unique IPs: 32