IMO organize and recruit more already radicalized people. Build democratic structures, processes, contingency plans, etc. The rest will follow. Growth and good organization structures is #1.
We are already doing that. We have come to a point where we are building news chapters with old members because we have so many members. We need to know what to do, rather than show up to the eternal useless protests, all symbolic politics.
Cont. I don't think you can just "create the ideal structures" and then sit on your ass or keep doing the same fruitless symbolic politics again and again. Our task is to convince others and train then to be communists to do the same in return, as well as build a party movement, our own media, our own political parralel state. But how do we do that. What can a group of 15 people do locally, how did they build media, how did they convince people, how do you build unions, what protests are and aren't fruitfull, what is useless charity work and what is movement building?
I think all symbolic shit should merely be a strategy to get more members. Basically advertising by protesting. Besides that, anything that reclaims property is good, like organizing squats, building coops that feed the org and themselves, obtaining free food. Stuff like that. Anything that can game the system and strengthen the members and membership. The biggest issue is how to balance that with normal living and formal work IMO.
Another crucial aspect that is sometimes not mentioned is that contemporary life is very atomized and isolated. Communists can provide that with social clubs and gatherings. It all needs to tie together.
Our biggest issue is that squatting is really hard, legally, and getting a base of operations going is also really hard.
organize as much of the working class as possible and wait for The Big Moment
or go blanqui mode if you want, provided you have backing from the workers
I'm organized in the youth wing of a boomer communist party. We've been steadily growing the last couple of years. People just keep trickling in. The problem is that the only people who actively SEARCH for an org are the academic types. These people can read good and organize protests, but they can't form the basis of a communist party. Because we're all either high schoolers or university students, we lack any and all connection to the actual working class. I don't know about the end goal, but ingraining your organization in the actual working class seems like a good place to start. Otherwise we'll all be damned to just going through the motions as a labor movement without any labor.
As Marx said (IIRC), the proletariat needs to be intellectualized and the intellectuals need to be proletarized. Get a job in construction or logistics. Think of it as salting, but more hc. Go to where the people are and become one of them.
>>8906>construction or logistics
LOL how about an actual job
No that is actually fucking stupid and never worked.
nooope, they're extremely marginal and most of the time they're just make-work handed out to petty bourgeois. even the service sector is more productive than them
While looking around I finally found something usefull
This lecture series (ignore some of the retarded takes):https://youtu.be/IdJI4ZtvyE0
Based in this book:https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/cpusa/1935/07/organisers-manual/>>8928
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Truckers went on strike in Paris for a week and the entire country ground to a halt because nobody could get gas or industrial goods. Construction workers have critical roles during times of war, able to sabotage infrastrucute being build like railroads, and workers in weapons factories can stop entire wars.
Meanwhile, "service sector" jobs like manicures or restaurant have no power. Nobody fucking cares if the McDonald's are closed, and the rich just have personal chefs and expensive af restaurants which won't go on strike.
>>8929>Truckers went on strike in Paris for a week and the entire country ground to a halt because nobody could get gas or industrial goods.
and?>Construction workers have critical roles during times of war, able to sabotage infrastrucute being build like railroads, and workers in weapons factories can stop entire wars.
you don't know what you're talking about
>>8931>you don't know what you're talking about
NTA but could you explain how a hot war could proceed if workers in weapons factories and people involved in transport were able to unite and sabotage their work?
weapons factories are complicated, they're usually regular peacetime factories hijacked by the state for the war effort, workers are usually not really doing much productive work anymore, and will naturally unite and even disrupt the bs production
as for transport, doesn't matter, they are peons with no real autonomy, they can be replaced easily, and "infrastructure" is inherently an authoritarian structure that will proceed whether the """workers""" want it to or not
>>8896>Anything that can game the system
This is the best suggestion in the thread.
The capitalists are doing more systematizing than they used to.
They are trying to use systems to shackle people, that makes them more vulnerable to "system-gaming"
A intuitive way to think about it is this: if you have a big demonstration you are trying to persuade people to change what they are doing, if you are gaming the system, you try to persuade machines to change what they are doing.
I won't say (potential privacy issue, I forget how public the conversation was), but they don't post much here any more.
But if they somehow see this, their input would be welcome. Incidentally I recall them claiming to have done active sabotage in a previous job.
Stalin and many other bolsheviks would disagree with you.
Pool resources and try to get political change at the local level (as in municipal). You don't have to try to get someone on the city council, but if you don't have enough resources to directly solve the problem, you can use the resources you do have to pressure people with more resources to solve the problem. This is also good for recruitment and as a result getting more resources. Figure out what the community needs and go from there.
At least in Chile the communist party is well-known for never voting on shit that matters and letting the nastiest laws pass by abstaining.
1.build a mesh network
2.form a gun club
3.Gather data and statistics
4.build a free workspace that everyone invests in and owns an equal share in
5.clean up communities
7.physical fitness and health clubs
8.run free courses and training
11.help to form workplqce and tenants unions
13.community patrols and protection in neglected neighborhoods
14.free digital libraries of (pirated) materials
18.discussion of current issues
19.group boycotting and anti scab activities
21.assitance with school and free tutoring
22.a noteboard for helping party members out with chores like moving
23.free expert advice and assistance
Close, what Marx, Engels, Kautsky (pre-renegade), and Lenin advocated for was the merger formula. That is the merger of "socialism with the workers' movement" culminating in a independent working-class party. Read Lenin Rediscovered by Lars Lih to better understand what this means and how Lenin applied it to Russia's conditions.
The main issue with modern communist party is that they're not really parties, but more like sects. With their party structure not only discouraging Marxists to unite, but also encourages splits based on personalities or minute theoretical differences. https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1252/reclaiming-democratic-centralism/
The cure to this is instead programmatic unity, where members of the party are free to have theoretical differences as long as they're united in the tasks of the party's program that has been democratically decided.
Another issue with modern communist parties is that they're either reformists who want a peaceful road to socialism or they're "revolutionaries" who put a marxist coat of paint on Bakuninist praxis.https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1266/containing-our-movement-in-safe-forms/
At least recommend a theorist who was actually successfully and wasn't retarded. The Dutch-German Leftcoms were supremely retarded and sabotaged the German Revolution
>>8948>The Dutch-German Leftcoms were supremely retarded and sabotaged the German Revolution
How so? I thought they only became relevant in the 1920s-1930s, and only had a minor role in the events of 1918. Also, council communists advocate for workers to directly control production, I don't see how this is retarded.
Geman Leftcoms actually had a large, disproportionate amount of delegates (compared to their size within the whole German socialist movement) within the KPD when it initially formed. They're not retarded for wanting workers' councils, every communist at the time advocated for workers' councils.
The councilcoms were retarded because of their shitty praxis. They had an overrepresentation within the early KPD because the IKD was one of the orgs that merged to form it. And because of the IKD's large presence within the KPD it resulted in the KPD taking a retarded line such as not participating in the German national elections and having an immediate uprising leading to the failed Spartacus uprising.
Rosa and Liebknecht fought against the councilcoms within the KPD and their retarded line. Also you can read "Left-wing Communism: an infantile disorder" to read more about how Dutch-German Leftcoms' praxis is retarded.
And read Pierre Broué's "The German Revolution, 1917-1923" to gain a better understanding of the German socialist movement at the time.
It looks like these PDFs about Panekoek and Council Communists? But tbh I don't see the relevancy of Council Communists to OP's question. The Councilcoms never reached the same relevancy or reach as the SPD or Bolsheviks, and the councilcom tendency has proven itself to be a historical deadend in terms of overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
>>8982>The Councilcoms never reached the same relevancy or reach as the SPD or Bolsheviks
where? in the halls of government? lmao
councilcom may be as historical as SPD or bolsheviks, but they bring up much more pressing strategical/tactical/political questions for communists nowadays than the rest
>>8983>where? in the halls of government? lmao
Yeah? The Bolsheviks were able to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, more than you can say for CouncilComs
Could you elaborate on how Council Communism is at all relevent to the modern era and applicable to our current conditions?
>>8988>Could you elaborate on how Council Communism is at all relevent to the modern era and applicable to our current conditions?
i attached a book on it
That is to say you cannot.
how are the SPD or Bolsheviks >>8982
any less of a dead-end for modern attempts to "overthrow the bourgeoisie"? at least councilcom evolved into building proper critiques of itself (i.e. situationists, theorie communiste, dauve, entire 68 movement and its aftermaths, etc) and actually scientifically looking for new avenues of proletarian praxis
social democracy and lenin's supposed heirs meanwhile are nothing but dogma that can only alienate pretty much the entire working class nowadays
sorry, meant proletariat
Apologies for the late response>>9004
Do you mind summarising the arguements of the book? Unfortunately I do not have the time to read everybook that comes my way, and I think if the book does a good job at explaining why Council Communism is at all relevent to modern times you can give a good summary.>>9013>"at least councilcom evolved into building proper critiques of itself (i.e. situationists, theorie communiste, dauve, entire 68 movement and its aftermaths, etc) and actually scientifically looking for new avenues of proletarian praxis"
Well that's not something unique to council communism considering many supposed "heirs" to Lenin also aim to provide proper critiques of Leninist theory and look for new avenues of proletarian power. One such example would be MLMs, critiquing past theory on its own doesn't necessarily make a tendency worth studying or following.
Council Communists have not once won political hegemony in the workers' movements, so the claim that they also alienate the working class with their dogma can also be thrown at them.
>>9035>so the claim that they also alienate the working class with their dogma can also be thrown at them
autonomists are active in labour struggles in almost every country in the world, although i mostly only know about the UShttps://endnotes.org.uk/issues/1/en/endnotes-afterword
this basically summarizes that book
Apologies OP for sorta derailing your thread with this talk about council communists so here's a PDF of Mike Macnair's Revolutionary Strategy. Which is Mike Macnair writing a whole book about how do go from the current state of the left to building a mass party like socialists in the 20th century and overthrow the bourgeoisie whilst also trying to avoid the pitfalls of past experiments.
This book is very popular with the modern orthodox marxist/neokaut tendency, think the CPGB-PCC/weekly worker or cosmonaut/Marxist Unity Group.
Audio version too incase you want to listen to it instead, be sure to read the preface in the linkhttps://cosmonautmag.com/2021/09/audio-book-of-mike-macnairs-revolutionary-strategy/>>9036>According to this shared view, the transition to communism is not something that happens after the revolution.>Communisation, then, is the immediate production of communism: the self-abolition of the proletariat through its abolition of capital and state.>the proletariat does not generalise its condition to the whole of society, but dissolves its own being immediately through the abolition of capitalist social relations.
These lines about immediate abolition makes communisation sound very… anarchistic… and the article really doesn't make a clear case on why Council Communism is the way forward to overthrow and abolish the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie as opposed to other marxist tendencies.
>autonomists are active in labour struggles in almost every country in the world, although i mostly only know about the US
Firstly I think you're really
exaggerating the influence and spread of autonomists, and even if they're active in labour struggles all around the world…. so what? Trots, MLs, SocDems, Anarchists, and every other tendencies are active in labour struggles across the globe, autonomists also being so doesn't make them special. Nor does it disprove the accusation that autonomists are also out of touch with the working class.
Interesting that you go from talking about Council Coms to talking about Autonomists (no they're not the same) but nevertheless Autonomists are also historical dead-ends. With Autonomia Operaia mainly being active for a couple years in the 70s and existed as a group of sects who refused to unite together (so I guess one commonality with KAPD and the council coms of the 1920s) before fizzling out. Once again another historical failure and no explanation on why we should bother replicating their failed praxis.
Unique IPs: 17