Let's Have a Dialect About Some Material Conditions on the Left in the First World.

   Don't worry, I won't make this a rant about what dialect materialism is. If you as a reader are not aware of what dialect materialism is then feel free to google it before continuing to read this post. This will be about what is material fact in the US and the west in general in re-guards to the left.

   In western nations (especially imperialist ones) there is a strong tendency among the left to throw logic and reality out of the window at every chance. The left is fractured, sectarian, ignorant of the masses wishes and desires. Most parties or groups in the Western nations believe they are leading the struggle for socialism. The US alone has about 10-15 self-proclaimed vanguard parties leading the revolution for communism!

   But in reality the left in the US is completely unknown outside of the left in the US. The organizations in this country would prefer to criticize each other and bicker over everything then they would to unite and struggle for what the people desperately need; socialism.

   Most all parties live in a utopian idealist setting where every time a group of people get upset they declare that socialism is winning and we are right around the corner from the revolution. Now lets be clear that no party in existence in the US is prepared for said revolution. Hell, most parties aren't ready to win 5% in a local election (with the exception of the socialist parties USA who just won a seat on a board of education in new jersey, congrats.) 

   See, in most all successful revolutions the party/organization leading the charge was not a specific ideology ready to split or kick people out for the smallest line difference at it's founding congress. 

  It is almost as if there was a secret meeting by all the leftist in the first world (with a few exceptions) where it was declared that all the left parties that are mainly unknown and not relevant whatsoever; must make their parties adherents follow and parrot a such sickly specific set of politics that the groups show little to no democratic potential. The "democratic" centralism practiced by most left parties in the US come off as drones who all mimic each other and have no thought process for themselves. So they take an already irrelevant group of organizers and then say to outsiders; 'you must follow our politics set by our leaders and parrot exactly what we say or else we will expel you from our group. Can we have your due's now.'  

   The left in the first world nations are so self defeating that it is depressing. We will literally split and fight over anything.

   Socialist revolutions are won because the socialist of said nation are willing to put aside silly issues and unite with other socialist/communist in the name of... wait for it... SOCIALISM! The left (for privileged reasons of course) in the west would rather argue over shit that happened in a different time, place and under different conditions then they would debate what we communist can do today to win the ultimate victory.

   The left is already irrelevant, fractured and unwilling to look at material conditions in order to fight for socialism. 

   Democracy is almost ignored, the masses can't connect to the parties because the parties set themselves apart from the masses by complaining about issues the masses don't care about. The masses don't know about socialism or anarchism enough to know rather there will be a state or not. Why do the elite/cadre of the left argue over things that only the proletarian masses will decide if a socialist revolution is achieved?

   The left in the US, and the UK are psychotically sectarian (in the actual meaning of the word) to the point we have multiple parties with the same ideology that exist separately because they refuse to unite either for opportunistic reasons or worse; individualistic pride in their said group.

   So there is the rant part now lets actually list some material truth about the left in the western nations.

We suck at showing the kind of democracy we want to enact after the revolution. It is confusing for the masses to see strict democratic centralism and then hear us speak of workers democracy.

The days of the one party/one ideology state/government are over. No one wants to be ruled by one clique of people. There will have to be greater democracy in any socialist revolution then there has been in the past.

Identity politics (while important to fight for on many issues) is not the end all be all. Just because your group goes to a LGBT rights event does not mean that the whole LGBT community in your area will now support socialism. Same goes for race etc. We need to make clear that under socialist society all people regardless of race, sex, hair color etc.will be equal and we stand for an egalitarian society based on co-operation and understanding.

We have an issue with complaining about the current thing that is upsetting leftist at any given time without putting forward a concrete unified statement as to why we as socialist oppose or support whatever it is that is popular at that time.

We have to get the hippie/pacifist element out of our revolutionary circles. It discredits us as a whole and every time something big happens the media just finds the hippie grouping and interviews them and instantly a whole movement is seen by the nation as a bunch of stoner peace loving hippies that have nothing better to do than to protest. 

We are really bad at propaganda and using the media to our advantage. After the local occupy was put down (they literally singled out and beat the shit out of the radicals that were present) by the pigs, the leaders (of the leaderless occupy) were asked by a news station "what is occupy's response to the police actions here last night." and the guy said (no shitting you) "we were not able to reach a consensus on a statement for what happened last night."

Most groups are too single minded and only utilize one or two forums of organizing. Workerist are pretty plenty among the left but that is for a different post I suppose.

There are too many groups and parties ORGs etc. 

The masses are scared right now. The job market is not stable, the state is poor and still starting and getting involved in conflicts and cutting welfare services. People are pissed. Where is the left? We are on the sidelines complaining about socialism in one country or if Lin Piao was actually guilty. Or if the Hungarian revolution was reactionary or not? Was Tienanmen revolutionary or counter? We should all quit as socialist and become professional historian debaters because it appears that that is all the left wishes to be. We in the west/first world are in such a privileged position that we have put the main goal (communism/classless stateless society) on the back burner and have forgotten all about it. Why should we fight for socialism today when we could argue about what happened yesterday? Forward to more obscurity comrades! Forward to make sure no one is lying about what we conceived to have happened almost a hundred years ago! Revolution will come! No need to organize, we must argue amongst ourselves first!




*disclaimer for this post; obviously this is a very generalized criticism and not every statement/comment applies to every group. First world privilege is a very real threat to the left in the first world. I am willing to work with most anyone who wants a future run and controlled by the masses for the masses.

   

     

An Honest Critique of the Black Bloc Tactic.

Let me start off by stating that this will not be an anarchist bash post. I believe I have a legitimate critique of the tactic when it is being used incorrectly. *disclaimer; This is also not a call to use violence or a call to attack the pigs. I write this solely out of concern for the brain matter of my red and black brothers and sisters.

The Black Bloc tactic is a simple genius idea, the pigs can't tell the difference between people and so when actions are committed, with a simple Dosi doe among the crowd the cops cant tell who committed the action. This is not where my problem lies with Black Bloc tactics. My problem stems more from a tactical stand point then an idealogical one.

When the NATO protest took place this year (2012) in Chicago the black bloc separated from the main march and ran through the streets causing mass confusion among the police and the police even with their cars and police vans could not corral or contain the black bloc-ers.

But what happened the very next day? For those who don't know; the black bloc and the pigs had a little fight in the street.

Who won this battle in the streets? The pigs did. They left multiple black bloc members bloody a few bruised and roughed up a couple others.

This naturally leads to the next question; why did the anarchist lose? Were they weak and undetermined? Of course not. It is a simple answer of 'tactics'.

You see the first night when the black bloc broke off from the main march and they had the police scattered and scrambling to catch up is when they should have chosen to fight in the streets. They could have used hit and run tactics and had a more level playing field. They may have even had the advantage. However they chose to do the fighting in the middle of the day when the cops were highly concentrated and organized. They tried to fight the cops on the cops terms and when the conditions were least favorable for the anarchist to win.

Lets break it down to the most basic level; Cops: They are armored and armed to the teeth. They have (basically) a helmet with an eye shield, a bullet proof, padded vest (some have padded sleeves as well,) and a gas mask. They are bare minimum armed with a baton, tasser and spraying mace. Also they have the numbers and superior training.

But there is a down fall and a weakness in this as well, they are not highly mobile and can be fatigued easily when made to pursue in full dress. So when keeping these basic things in mind the number one thing a person should do is say to their-self;  'self, if we fight them in roman style battle where we are out armed and out armored then we will be slaughtered.'

Now the other side; Black bloc members are mostly not armored they wear a black hoodie (or shirt if it is hot, it is detrimental to wear a hoodie in 100+ degree weather) a bandana over their face and are usually not armed with anything and the ones that are usually only have a flag pole or something similar. This screams out one thing to me "not equipped to fight a head to head battle with the before mentioned forces."

With simply studying guerrilla warfare tactics it would be easy to turn the tide in these street exchanges.

One; Never engage the enemy on their terms. AKA when the pigs are standing in a line in full battle gear do not engage them with a smaller ill armed and less armored group of people in head-to-head fighting.

Two; Use the advantages available to you/Use the enemy's disadvantages against them. AKA The black bloc is not weighed down with armor so use your mobility to your advantage. Make the police chase you and wear them down before engaging. Possibly they will even scatter and break their lines in chasing you and you can hit and run, thus angering them further and causing them to give chase and making them more tired etc. repeat etc. AKA #2 "when the enemy attacks we retreat" is what I'm saying. "When the enemy is tired/resting we pester" hit and run and strategic retreats should be constantly used in these street fighting confrontations.

Three; Use your ideology for inspiration. Don't yell "fuck the pigs" yell "power to the people" or "for the people" don't give the liberal media free propaganda against your cause.

Be careful out there comrades! 













 

The Point of Polemics.

A polemic is a critique of a organization, groups, person, idea, tendency etc. It was brought to my attention lately by a leftist pal of mine that I am not a good communist because I don't help the local reformist and liberal class collaborators who pose as communist (not his words, but mine). I didn't think much of it at first because he is a "do something, anything-ist" but I think that he had a point in there somewhere. That even by not supporting a reformist party I am doing nothing because I don't participate in many local activities. While I do participate in some local activities, I try to keep to little circles who I think have potential or to participate in militant activities. I am not interested in how many news papers I can sell at a rally, but rather I am interested in meeting people and hearing of their thoughts and experiences. And through discussion trying to reshape their ideas to be more communist and create more awareness among the people, person by person.



While I must confess that to some leftist this does not fall into their category of "doing something" but I have had great success with this strategy. It is also more inspiring and energizing for me to do this than to go to a leftist event and hearing liberal and reactionary ideas being regurgitated as fast as they can be re-consumed by the ORGs followers.



It is no secret that others in my area read this blog. The reason why I write polemics about these groups and people (most polemics I write are about multiple ORGS and many of them are taken out of context) is because they have many incorrect theories, they are calling themselves revolutionaries while championing reformism and liberalism under the guise of workers power. They are using other leftist to further their goals and have personally told me that there will come a day when they have to turn their backs on the other groups (that's called opportunism). I write polemics because many groups have become theoretically ignorant and use dogmatism as their guiding light.



Polemics are important in making groups and people better themselves. If you read a polemic about your group or about your ideas and you brush it off for any reason than you may be a dogmatic follower. If you discredit anything that was said or written by Mao simply because it was written or said by Mao than you are dogmatic and thus anti-dialects. Same goes for other people if you discredit everything Stalin said because it was Stalin who said it, if you discredit everything Trots say just because they are trots than you are a dogmatic person. This is not to say that you can't disagree with all of someones thoughts and ideas. But disagree because you've read it and don't just refute because of who wrote it. I don't agree with 99% of what Trotsky wrote. But it is because I think he wrote things from a purest and Utopian view point and not just because it was Trotsky who wrote it.



If polemics scare you as an ORG than you probably need to reevaluate yourself as an ORG. Only great people and groups use a good polemic to better themselves. Only cowards who are theoretically bankrupt and dogmatic cry when a polemic is written about them. A polemic is a good place to start doing some self criticism and theoretical advancement.



Written by; Dustin Slagle