>>1852034>Are these all the types of proletarian organizations? Are there any missingYou hit all the big ones but I suppose there are peripheral class orgs like Youth Orgs, Neighborhood Assemblies, Charity orgs, Athletic orgs, agricultural orgs, environmental orgs, consumers cooperatives, etc. but these are often interclass. However they are very easily majority proletarian. But they should be taken control of lest they get steered towards reactionary ends. Especially Youth, Athletic, and Neighborhood orgs,
>>1858845guilds were interclass pre-capitalist organizations intended for town dwelling artisans, i.e. proto-proletariat, and proto-bourgeoisie. Guild masters were sort of like bourgeoisie and guild apprentices were sort of like proletarians, but not really. Guilds were sort of like precursors to both corporations and labor unions in some ways. But in any case guilds imploded during early capitalism for several reasons, one industrialization turned skilled labor into unskilled labor, abolishing the need for mastery of the old methods in many industries in favor of division of labor + simple machine operation that could be taught to anyone. The other problem is that the guilds became corrupt, and guild masters used their hierarchical structure to exploit apprentices by promising them mastery in exchange for long term loyalty, but then never actually getting around to educating them on closely guarded techniques, etc.
Honestly I'm astonished how little literature there is on organizing tenant unions, worker councils, and worker militias. There's way more stuff about co-ops, mutual aid, and labor unions.
Also there's not enough literature on how these organizations are supposed to relate to each other, interact, and cooperate. There's a lot of vague assumptions that these groups are supposed to simply show solidarity to each other and submit to a vanguard party, but beyond that there's very little written. Think of how much more potential a labor strike has if it's coordinated with a tenants' strike. Striking workers can only strike until they run out of funds because they have bills to pay, like rent, but if those same workers also organized tenants unions at home, they could strike for a lot longer, and if they form cadres they can hold out against the law. Nobody even tries shit like this any more. What changed? Is it the drones and the face recognition that makes everyone scared?
>>1852034>Are these all the types of proletarian organizations? Are there any missing?Syndicates? Or are we putting that under unions?
>How should these organizations relate to each other?They should have liaisons for coordinating with other orgs. How they organize together depends on the demands of the situation. In the looser end of things you have an "amity" system which is basically a distributed network where each individual org has other specific orgs they have a working relationship with. On the more hierarchical end you have some kind of central body (typically this has been a party) that has the most members from other orgs and does the main work of organizing and establishing strategy and line. This can be top-down or bottom up or both. Your central body can cover an area anywhere from a town to the globe in its reach. You can also have a mixture of collaboration methods, but these may conflict with each other. Ideally any petty power struggles would be subordinated to the interests of the workers, so you should at least have some kind of rank-and-file-based backup organizing method in the event that you get your central body(s) usurped by careerists or wrecked by glowies.
>Should they all submit to a party line?If you have some kind of central organ that the others coordinate with, then they ought to follow democratic centralism otherwise the central body is either pointless or doesn't represent the wider interests of the working class movement.
>To what extent should they seek interclass help (legal counsel, charity, consumer cooperatives, educational institutions etc.).Accept offers. Don't accept strings. Simple as.
>What about legal vs. illegal activity?Any official bodies should keep everything especially finances above board as much as possible to reduce avenues of attack. Illegalist organizations may collaborate with working class orgs as long as they don't threaten their ability to operate, and probably should do so through a liaison who isn't personally involved in any illegal activity directly.
>>1860963>Syndicates? Or are we putting that under unions?How would you distinguish them?
>>1860961tenants unions are a new thing but there's some literature
worker's councils was a shortlived idea like a century ago
worker militias are dumb since proles shouldnt be militarized without sufficient politicization first imo
>>1860975
>You will always lose because you're too busy masturbating over your own delusions of command
I'm an anarchist, I was just being inclusive for the sake of completeness. If you want to discuss the folly of the party structure or whatnot be my guest. Wasn't the point of that post.
>>1858924>but not reallyIt reaches into their social system a bit because economies cannot reproduce, move, or even exist without superstructure (ancient fantasies about the "silent trade" not being superstructure notwithstanding). Their class system was based on one's position in the life cycle of the community member, but it was based on reproducing the master qua social and economic person by molding the apprentice in the master's likeness, and it was overdesigned for success under a particular set of controlled conditions (as Germans do). The normal possibility of graduating to master status receded as capitalist relations encumbered their social-reproductive materials (workshops, wives, natural resources) and capitalist production ate their business traffic.
>>1858924>Guilds were sort of like precursors to both corporationsThey are still present in a more developed form as professional and trade associations such as IEEE, USB-IF, or the American Psychological Association.
>>1861012>They are still present in a more developed form as professional and trade associations such as IEEE, USB-IF, or the American Psychological Association.or, famously, the Screen Actors Guild
>Tenant UnionsWanting cheaper prices on commodities isn't a proletarian cause.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/housing-question/ch01.htm
>>1860981Mmmmm
>>1861042Does SAG have any real industry standards activity? I know that IATSE engages in some standards activity.
>>1861065The point is to set terms. For example, why shouldn't we kill you as a mental defective for thinking that price is all that is important in one's reproductive time? Serious question.
>>1860973Distinguish syndicates from unions? Well historically they have grown from unions but the type of structure they are can be a method of organizing and coordinating other things. It's more of a meta-structure than an org unto itself.
>>1861069>Guild socialism was partly inspired by the guilds of craftsmen and other skilled workers which had existed in England in the Middle Ages. In 1906, Arthur Penty published Restoration of the Gild System in which he opposed factory production and advocated a return to an earlier period of artisanal production organised through guilds.Wow, that is fucking awful lol
>>1861180English have a lot of indigenous experience with socialism, mostly utopian. But the utopians are light years ahead on social formation, thanks to the lobotomizing effect of vulgar materialism.
>not wanting to work in a factoryEither you think you're going to be a cube monkey after the revolution, or you're trying to avert the revolution. Which is it? ;)
>>1852034I think the question shouldn't be about "what should these orgs do" but "what do
we do regarding these orgs", since many of these tend to be liberal, like yellow unions, NGO "mutual aid", etc. Idk about militias and councils and whatnot, since they're more hypothetical at this point. That aside I think our relationship to liberal organizations should be to destabilize internally by bringing wider issues to the fore, etc., overall with the intention of poaching membership to revolutionary organizations. As far as the relationship between various revolutionary organizations, the militias should always be politically subordinate or else they're just roving bandits or trainaholic larpers, otherwise I think federation with the goal of conglomeration, while maintaining some compartmentalization, is desirable. It breaks with the mold, since the bolshevik way was to aggressively seed local groups and subordinate everything to the central committee, but this strategy actually suffered immensely under the reactionary rule after the failed 1905 revolution, and the experience of German resistance to fascism shows that the ability to create local groups for sabotage etc. was there, but the ability to link up and engage in war to contest power was absolutely lacking. I think a more robust model looks like taking the scattered groups that arise relatively organically, and working with them to raise their theoretical level and come to shared understandings, allowing for collective action between groups. Also, the theoretical priests of the movement shouldn't act as representatives or leaders, but advisors.
The context for these opinions is the fact that the state's strategy in countering communist insurgency is by aggressive social networking, profiling, and an aggressive policy towards anyone who seems too red or too relationally close to a known communist. Therefore our strategy should pursue anonymity, which means: moving all explicitly revolutionary organizations (even if only engaged in legal activities) 'underground' (aka membership is secret, and no open recruitment); communicating org-to-org rather than org-to-individual or representative-to-representative (as much as possible) (and this has repercussions how internal democracy might be carried out tho i don't think it's necessary to give any definitive answer as to that organizational form now); recruiting via social networks, which we should try to grow as much as possible, especially among more advanced members of the class, e.g. in unions or mutual aid orgs; theorists and analysts should not have their theoretical contributions tied too directly to their personal existence, so our best and brightest can't be targeted by the state. Overall we should strive for a 'movement' that can't be put down, which also has the capacity to self-organize (yet not on a hierarchical basis, which e.g. allows islamist conglomeration) in order to actually pose a challenge to the enemy's control over territory and ability to wage war, etc.
Oh another note but the bolsheviks were amazing organizationally in how they moved people around, supported sick comrades, and so on. They managed people very well. This should be emulated as much as possible. Where revolution first took hold, the average communist gave their whole life to the cause, uprooting themselves and putting down roots at the party's behest, getting arrested and escaping, holding down a job to fund the party or being a professional revolutionary, and so on.
>>1862793I only say so because they reject retarded proto-neoliberal ideology instead of economic Calvinism:
>there is no society, only economicsTell me more Ms. Thatcher.
>>1862824Stfu larper. Go act out your latent Christianity somewhere else you reactionary retard.
>>1862831>basic marxism is larpgo back to seething about jews anarchist. political education is not your forte.
>>1862834Ancestor worship is very material, yes.
You know those assignments they give in elementary school which tell you to read all the directions first and then at the very end tell you not to do some of them?
Well, that's what happens to Marxist churchoids who fail to read the Grundrisse and start following ancestor worship movements and try to realize bourgeois economics under cover of the "law of value". They "succeed" because they did capitalists' work for free.
I'd think a leftcom who actually read Bordiga would see what actually keeping time with their actual material situation would look like. But maybe not!
>>1862856even me, anon? ;~;
>>1862174great post, concise. that's it. /thread
>>1862863>even me, anon? ;~;to the extent that you gave a shit what the other guy was saying
>>1862856>>1862843TANKIE DENGOID INVASION DUCK AND COVER
>>1862858I'm saying that economic determinism is retarded.
<According to the Materialist Conception of History, the factor which is in the last instance decisive in history is the production and reproduction of actual life. More than this neither Marx nor myself ever claimed. If now someone has distorted the meaning in such a way that the economic factor is the only decisive one, this man has changed the above proposition into an abstract, absurd phrase which says nothing. The economic situation is the base, but the different parts of the structure-the political forms of the class struggle and its results, the constitutions established by the victorious class after the battle is won, forms of law and even the reflections of all these real struggles in the brains of the participants, political theories, juridical, philosophical, religious opinions, and their further development into dogmatic systems-all this exercises also its influence on the development of the historical struggles and in cases determines their form. It is under the mutual influence of all these factors that, rejecting the infinitesimal number of accidental occurrences (that is, things and happenings whose intimate sense is so far removed and of so little probability that we can consider them non-existent, and can ignore them), that the economical movement is ultimately carried out. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of any simple equation.Now, Engels having rejected that clear departure from Marx, and Stalin having picked it up again, today tankies and other fascist ancestor worshippers endeavor to perfect the bourgeois order and the managed society by doing it harder and faster than capitalists, while even after so much effort their program still came to naught.
I believe the reason this is so because Lenin intentionally inverted Marx's critiques in order to bless political economy, German Idealism, and French utopianism (the last only as color, however) as a revolutionary program for a feudal state just beginning to industrialize. All rhetoric aside, it was an instrumental choice based on the material conditions of his project. However, that work has already been done in the historical sense, if not by the USSR's command then by bourgeois history, and doesn't actually need to be repeated everywhere, no matter how many professional-managerial stratum members champ at the bit to get their FPS and girlboss panties
on.
freemasons lodge, its the true blanquist vanguard, why the hell don't we have a leftist version of P2???
>>1862890I agree that Lenin's revolutionary program was for a semi-feudal and majority peasant country, as was Mao's, but I still don't understand what you meant by Utopians being ahead
>>1862974Recall that the anarchist tradition split from the social-democratic tradition before Kautsky, Lenin, Stalin, et al. applied their practical distortions. They forswear the vulgar materialism that M-Ls seem to fall into with disturbing regularity, and its taboo against manipulating the superstructure directly. Thus they are more free to consider Marx's actual materialism, in which action passes from matter through meaning (ideas) and into matter, and experiment with the complexification of social relations.
That taboo rendered the proletariat defenseless against capitalist culture, was broken by the New Left and in any case was critically anticipated by Marx (Grundrisse, MIA pdf, pp.623-624):
<Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.
>>1862865>>1862856>>1862843I'd tell you to touch grass, but touch Marx instead
>>1862983 (me)
>>1852034>Labor Unions>Tenant UnionsIt's hard to hunt them down by name, but there are at least a small handful of instances in the 1st half of the 20th century where labor unions coordinated with tenants to rent strike during a labor strike, in order to strengthen both strikes. As another anon pointed out, if the workers go on rent strike, that basically removes all the rent they normally pay from the strike fund. So you can hold out for longer. Problem is this is a wildly illegal tactic, so it requires some pretty hardcore people. You aren't gonna pull this off with a by-the-books liberal labor union. The lawyers they have on retainer will yank the leash so fucking fast and leadership will cower.
But this did happen in Glasgow in 1915, Burger Land in the 1930s, Mexico in the 1920s and 1930s, and in Spain during the civil war 1936-1939.
>>1867950> if the workers go on rent strike, that basically removes all the rent they normally pay from the labor strike fund. (clarification)
>>1858826>salting.webmsalting sounds so badass but most people will never get enough grass touching time in to organize 1 labor union, let alone dedicate themselves to being a salt
>>1852034>Political parties (electoral and vanguard)Gay and retarded.
>Mutual Aid GroupsBased
>Worker Co-operativesBased
>Labor UnionsBased
>Tenant UnionsBased
>Worker Councils (Soviets)Mega based
>Worker Militias (Cadres)Based
>>1874948Syndicalist pilled
>>1874451did you miss the part where anon makes the point that reality
isn't an RTS?
>Revolution is a real time strategy game that you cannot pause, and rather than being the omniscient "player" micromanaging everything, you are just one of the millions of entities on screen, playing a small role
>>1852034>Political parties (electoral and vanguard)No, these are not proletarian organizations, in fact these organizations only serve to degrade the class sentiments of the socialist movement and the members joined to them. Parties are how you get spineless bourgeois-socialist social-democrats
>Mutual Aid GroupsGetting closer
>Worker Co-operatives>Labor Unions>Tenant Unions>Worker Councils (Soviets)>Worker Militias (Cadres)These are purely proletarian organizations
>To what extent should they seek interclass help (legal counsel, charity, consumer cooperatives, educational institutions etc.). the total separation of the revolutionary class from the others is the only way for the movement to progress. Do you WANT the movement to be compromised by the bourgeois?
>>1862824>sorry to say but revolutionary syndicalism was tried and those shits led nowhere. large-scale support for socialism in Western Europe has never been higher than it was during the peak of Syndicalism — almost exactly after the Marxist hegemon collapsed Socialism started to gain more support in Western Europe, since it was not horribly mismanaged by a monopolistic cabal of Marxist bureaucrats anymore. Your ideology has enjoyed the benefits of the USSR, a state created purely through a series of lucky events in favor of the Marxists, so long that you have mistaken an organizational method propped up merely by inertia and DESPITE its failings, as one superior to those made up of purely the proletarians and that founded the socialist movement as we know it.
Remember, the socialist movement must be dictated BY the proletariat, not FOR the proletariat. The proletariat of today demands the end of Marxism, and so we are obligated to comply.
>>1878676You are right in that the Bolshevik revolution had an element of luck and "revolutionary inercia" like you call it. But everything else you said is workerist nonsense.
>>1878676I agree with your notion of Syndicalism, AND about worker's having a more proactive role in as you said the movement must be dictated by the proletariat, but what the actual fuck why reject Marx? Why go that far pity sectarian bullshit. Marxism is a very important critique of Capitalist ++ State partnership in working the marrow out of the worker's bones through altering social dynamics, relationship with commodities etc., THESE ARE EXTREMELY RELEVANT TO SYNDICALISM AS WELL! I am absolutely amazed in what the fuck are you saying, are you a glow-bot ?
>>1878676>>1878636Syndicalism flag unfailingly makes the worst posts in every thread
>>1882989>Marxism is a very important critique of CapitalistMarx's critique of Capitalism was brilliant, though I don't see how it can be equated with Marxism, the CONSTRUCTIVE ideas of Marx. Marx was a statist and at the time one of the greatest opponents of Proudhon and his followers, the direct ancestors of Syndicalism.
>>1882989"Marx was not a Marxist" is one of the most pernicious falsities infecting the Proudhonist/Anarchist movement today, it is to separate all the vile aspects of Marxism from the founder of the ideology, to peddle some false degradation of the ideology by Lenin or Stalin or whoever, instead of accepting the truth that Marxism has always been a rather vile religion.
>>1884069>with Marxism, the CONSTRUCTIVE ideas of MarxMost historically literate syndicaloid. In fact you're just a fascist who needs to be raped to death like the others.
What if we just take the buildings? Stop waving signs stop Picketing outside* the gates. Go in the gates lock them behind you. Take the building, declare worker ownership! So they remove us… the point should be state our right in ownership as worker's. What if we took the building and did an event inside. We need to stop beating the bush and strike the tree.
>>1884134There's nowhere near enough of us to do that
>>1884138At first it should be symbolic, direct action but not something standoffish and confrontational. Then as capital over reacts (and it really will just indulge itself). This is when the importance is to show to the public capital as it is. Naturally people will be begging the movement to firmly form itself. This opens a chain of events outside today's scope.
>>1884077>needs to be raped to deathI suspect you're syndflag samefagging trying to make his opponents look unreasonable
We need to normalize the idea of appropriating the bourgeoisie's assets! Surplus value is theft, thieves don't get to keep what they steal. Criminalize the bourgeoisie. Do it like the news does to expand the privatised prison's.
>>1884159This guy revolutions
>>1884156>"fascists should be summarily and brutally executed with all the surplus there is to enjoy" is a controversial opinionSigh, you can take the board out of 8ch, but you can't take 8ch out of the board
>>1884146Acting in an uncompromising manner with the capitalist class and break them of their modern philanthropic and charitable attitudes towards the poor, thereby reinvigorating the capitalist class sentiments and forcing the proletariat to awaken as well?
Good idea anon
>>1884159socialism in one penis.
>>1852034From best to worst:
Labor unions
Political parties
Worker co-operatives/worker councils
Mutual aid groups
Tenant unions
Worker militias
Ideally the last three wouldn't even exist, since they could be replaced by the welfare state, public co-operative housing, and nothing respectively. Worker co-operatives are cool but not particularly game-changing. Political parties and labor unions are absolutely critical for achieving any positive change for the working class. No exception.
I don't really understand workers' councils. They haven't existed anywhere in the world for decades. At a glance they seem just like co-operatives.
>>1884279gun ownership should still exist, workers socialist militas are not a burden to the socialist movement. Better to have a little form of military training and specialization than no training at all. Better than
>Nothing
>>1884279>I don't really understand workers' councils. They haven't existed anywhere in the world for decades. At a glance they seem just like co-operatives.I don't think it necessarily means "only pre-revolutionary" forms of proletarian organisation. Workers councils are a means of democratic decision making on public matters, as opposed to co-ops giving power to its own workers to decide the direction of a privately owned company (the workers might own the company, but it is still privately owned). But like, if we got to that point that means capitalism is either already abolished or on the cusp of being abolished.
>>1884279I can never tell if rose posters are satirical or if some people on /leftypol/ really still think like this
Unique IPs: 33