My hot take on vanguardism in the imperial core is that no revolutionary labor aristocracy party is possible. Due to the bourgeoise character of the imperial core, more horizontal forms of organization are necessary. There is no cause of national liberation to unite the country the way there is in the periphery.
It follows that Marxist organizations in the imperial core should focus on anti-imperialism and on the liberation of super-exploited groups and in settler states they should particularly focus on Indigenous independence. You can have a Marxist Indian party. You can have a Black Marxist party. You can have a Marxist transsexual party. You can have a Marxist drug user's party. You can't have a labor aristocracy party.
I still need to think about how to organize a white-trash party or an anti-white party. There is a lot I need to figure out. But the imperial core demands a much more federated approach to liberation.
Anyhow, I have decided that Lenin and Mao were basically good. Just that these kinds of approaches just won't work in the imperial core.
>>2174723Yeah, basically. I'm mostly inspired by the Black Panthers TBH. I think the main thing is that they didn't analyze the declassing of the labor aristocracy. White people wouldn't fall out of the labor aristocracy all at once. They would fall out in clumps like disabled and neurodivergent people. I liked Eldridge Cleaver's "On Lumpen Ideology."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41163604>>2174725There should be an autism party sure. Possibly, a GNC man's party.
As
>>2174723 says this approach has been tried and ultimately failed under high pressure from the reactionaries. Explicitly organizing around these issues makes sense, but i think we can't take any chances with spreading ourselves too thin. There would need to be a unifying principle compelling these organizations to intimately share resources and expertise, something like the idea of the general strike but more long-lived and adaptable.
The russian revolution was not only the victory of the bolsheviks but also that of the soviets, filled with workers and soldiers highly educated in marxism by all manners of socialists. The question is which structures can endure in a west that is deeply hostile to any type of organic political organization.
>>2175252Pale hands typed this post.
I guess the main thing is that I see Indigenous nations as being able to provide a storehouse of radical knowledge production outside of the academy.
https://youtu.be/ciINv0GlDkU >>2174719>Due to the bourgeoise character of the imperial core, more horizontal forms of organization are necessary. There is no cause of national liberation to unite the country the way there is in the periphery.EMBRACE WORKER OWNED COOPERATIVES
<noooooooo you can't just have workers starat small businesses and own them together, that's petty bourgeoisYOU WILL ALWAYS SAY IT'S "PETTY BOURGEOIS" socialism or "SMALL BUSINESS" socialism but the only alternative is BOURGEOIS socialism or BIG BIZ socialism.
>muh monopoly and centralization are a necessary evil to plan the economyWHY CAN'T YOU JUST CENTRALLY PLAN A BUNCH OF WORKER OWNED COOPERATIVES
>>2182196Sorry m8 but if your revolutionary subject isn't the majority of the population or at least supported by them then you're doomed to fail.
>>2177747The best is when people make demands and proposals which are absurd and unrealistic on their face and treat any criticism or skepticism as proof of the intractable kkkolonialist kkkarakkkter of kkkrakkkers.
>>2182201>Sorry m8 but if your revolutionary subject isn't the majority of the population or at least supported by them then you're doomed to fail. That combination of extra-oppressed people
is the majority of the population when added all together. Cishet, neurotypical, able-bodied WASPs are a minority in the west now, and that's a good thing.
>>2182333>They only recognize oppression when it involves some other process.Then maybe we shouldn't be reinforcing that tendency by de-emphasizing class as the primary basis of exploitation and oppression.
>Ironically you see more class consciousness and racialism from those groups that aren't defined by being proles, because they're already disillusioned with the aspirational myths of capitalism by virtue of how they are discarded.That's true to a point, and its certainly true that racialization makes racialized people far more likely to be dissidents, however it very often doesn't promote class consciousness as such. The relationship between capitalism and race is not always immediately apparent, and the experience of racialization can just as easily funnel people towards ethnic nationalism or othe forms of false consciousness. Remember that even at their height, the Black Panthers were significantly outnumbered by the Nation of Islam. Generally forms of bourgeois Black radicalism are more prominent than socialism. Dispelling this tendency requires materialist analysis and Marxist education/agitation, exactly like dispelling the white tendency to blame racialized people, immigrants, etc. This is a big issue I have with Sakai-adjacent arguments, a lot of the tendencies towards racially motivated false consciousness can be seen among racialized people, just as it can be seen among whites. The only difference is that in the former case its usually less virulently reactionary. Racialization alienates people from the status quo and makes them its enemies, but it doesn't necessarily promote an accurate understanding of the real causes of their problems or the necessary solutions.
>>2174719>My hot take on vanguardism in the imperial core is that no revolutionary labor aristocracy party is possible. Due to the bourgeoise character of the imperial core, more horizontal forms of organization are necessary. There is no cause of national liberation to unite the country the way there is in the periphery.This is the most incoherent basterdization of marxism that i've read in a while, congratulations.
>National liberationNot needed for the vanguard party, see the bolsheviks, who invented and perfected the entire model of a communist party. They did not fight a war of national liberation, they fought against their own national bourgeoisie and aristocracy. And Mao fought against the national bourgoiesie for a large part too, the KMT was the nationalist block, which the CPC then fought after jointly kicking out the Japanese. Only in examples such as Vietnam can you speak of the conception of the party as the national liberation vanguard.
>Due to the bourgeoise character of the imperial core, more horizontal forms of organization are necessary.1. Why would you need horizontal forms of organisation?
2. Does not follow at all from there being a higher degree of labour aristocracy.
> in the imperial core is that no revolutionary labor aristocracy party is possible.The labor aristocracy is the small section of the working class that fills positions of manegerial or extremely well paid jobs, and therefore have outlooks alligned with the bourgoiesie.
1. These are a minority even in the imperial core
2. By definition, they tend to be *bourgoies* minded, so it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of "a labor aristocracy party". "A labor aristocratic communist vanguard party" is an incoherent, self contradicting idea.
>My hot takeIts not hot, you're one in thousands of retarded uneducated nationalists who aren't marxists because you read marx but because you think xyz national hero figure is cool. Theres plenty of people with identical incoherent views as you.
>It follows that Marxist organizations in the imperial core should focus on anti-imperialism and on the liberation of super-exploited groupsYou cannot build mass politics by trying to organize exploited proletarians in the first world with the sole purpose of abstractly "liberating super exploited groups", of which you probably do not know the definition either. The proletariat organizes for its own interests, and its interests are international because capitalism and supply chains are international.
>in settler states they should particularly focus on Indigenous independence.Vague virtue signaling and not a concrete policy.
>You can have a Marxist Indian party. You can have a Black Marxist party. You can have a Marxist transsexual party. You can have a Marxist drug user's party.Completely absurd statement dreamt up by the mentally insane.
>You can't have a labor aristocracy party.You do not know what the labor aristocracy is.
>I still need to think about how to organize a white-trash party or an anti-white party.More incoherent bs.
>Anyhow, I have decided that Lenin and Mao were basically good. Just that these kinds of approaches just won't work in the imperial core.>MaoSaying Maoism doesn't work in the imperial core is the only correct thing you have said here, even if you do now know what Maoism is.
>LeninThe bolsheviks techniques explicitly are the only model for the imperial code that do work. Its the tactic for urbanized industrial countries. And any communist group in the "periphery" says that communists in the imperial core should emulate Lenin rather than Mao.
How about you stop watching whatever idiotic breadtuber you are binging and going to marxists.org or socialism4all and reading/listening to Lenins most famous works. You might actually learn what the labour aristocracy is, or what a party is.
Or stop being 12.
>>2175353>>2175356Not an argument.
If you want to play pretend about politics which say groups with a certain skin colour are better than others and are the only ones worth listening to, might I suggest checking out 4chan.org/pol
This is a marxist board, not a race fetish larp board.
Unique IPs: 35