>>2420655>I have to say that if going up the ranks is measured on their success as real world organisers, at least they do something, unlike the countless of other trot groups that are just student book clubs - and very boring ones.I mean "mass org" is probably more aspirational in a lot of cases. I've only seen the PSL around and they always kept a certain distance from other left-wing orgs. I think part of the negative reputation among local activist scenes is because it's a one-way street with them. They want to do their own thing and don't tend to form coalitions.
But the mass org thing is how I've understood Leninism for awhile, and it tracks with my experience. And I think historically that it how cadres would rise up the ranks. It's not really about communists leading communists, or necessarily about going out and "preaching" communism to people, it's getting in with the masses and participating in their spontaneous struggles (in 1917 that was crystallized in "peace," "land," and "bread") and getting them maneuvering in the right direction. Also cadres can't simply be created by filling their heads with the right ideas, they have to be tested. A vanguard party leads, and it has to have
something to lead. So by working in
other organizations, cadres gain a lot of experience in leadership and organizing skills, which is what you're going to need if we ever have a revolution. It's a ruthlessly logical way to eye at power and something I like about Leninism. That's why these groups try to find ways of participating in mass movements even if they don't have any real chance of influencing things. It's good experience.
Part of the issue too is that if you're trying to organize something in a reactionary town whether a trade union or during the civil rights movement, showing up and being like "we need a communist revolution!" is not what you want to do. That's what provocateurs do to wreck the movement. But then the right would call mass orgs "communist front groups" which makes it sound more menacing or whatever.
> I guess some modernised form of "blue eyed soul" was popular in England back then - think about Simply Red, but also Wham! and George Michael as a solo having a soulful vocal style - and that was very succesfull internationally … Also, Bowie expressed displeasure at the fact "the same people that like Phil Collins" were listening to his music in the eighties.Right. I was thinking of Bowie doing that kind of stuff at the time. "Modern Love."
>Iggy Pop or Lou Reed in BerlinI'm auyghy Pop fan but I can't stand Lou Reed. These are purely subjective whims. Dude simply cannot carry a tune at all. Iggy has at least crazy monkey chimpout energy.
>On the other hand, Bowie had to be edgy from time to time.That makes sense. Then he started making industrial music.