Which segments of the proletariat should we target? Which ones contain most revolutionary potential?

Which segments of the proletariat should we target? Which ones contain most revolutionary potential?

I think the strategy of pandering to minorities of the Left has failed and outlived its purpose, but "white working class" is too vague.

Just target all of it like we used to do and how it used to work.

A vanguard with required study and debate, with members being responsible for creating, organizing, and orchestrating activity for demographic-pandering mass-organizations. Get demographic-orgs together to highlight common interests and shared protests where it makes sense to bring them together (a subject they're both angry about, and both on the same side-of).

Demographic mass-orgs can exist for ethnic groups, but can also exist along gender lines, age groups, regions.

The heads of demographic groups need to be members of the vanguard. Low-level leadership should not require heavy theory background but advancing within the organization and broadening responsibilities should have requirements. The mass-orgs can offer "workshops" ostensibly about leadership and organizing that are themselves means of conveying a particular theoretical understanding.

what about MBTI type? this is the true diversity.

The reemergence of "the People," in contrast to the steady decline of "the Proletariat," verifies the ascendancy of community over factory, of town and neighborhood over assembly line. The hand fits the glove perfectly—and clenched, it makes the real fist of our time that can advance by restoration, progress by conserving the radicality of the past, change by the catalytic act of preserving the very institutions Caesarism seeks to fragment and corporatism seeks to obliterate. Such tension—once it fully emerges between the locality and the centralized State, the citizen and power broker, the body politic and bureaucracy, democracy and totalitarianism—can never remain strictly defensive. - Bookchin

lol

If you can get people up and taking action based on Meyers-Briggs affiliation then you're a hero.

most potential: engineers, programmers
least potential: non-STEMM students
this is the truth
go on and post your shitty fedoratism memes i dont care

Why would that be the case? Skilled workers tend to have more money and a better lifestyle than most, and thus less grievances with the system.

It never ceases to amaze me how much of a bad writer and poor thinker this guy was, at least based on what you post here.

That's the mistake, this is not the 20th century anymore, we should target unemployed and NEET peoples.

What is "the People"?

By that measure, the homeless would have the most revolutionary potential. There are technical professionals and there are professionals for maintaining a particular social system. Society can go from tsarism to leninism or what have you, and people good at teaching physics continue to be good at teaching physics. A doctor continues being a doctor. The value of a patent lawyer's expertise evaporates the moment patents are abolished.

No, poorer workers who deal with low wages and the threat of unemployment have the most revolutionary potential. Homeless people are not workers, and usually have more important things to worry about.

ALL OF THEM

...

The average internet NEET has the same revolutionary potential as a Clinton.

Risky group to target, given that working-class is evolving into the precariat.

They'll be essential, of course, but many of them literally can't afford class-consciousness or meaningful political action.

The NEETs, the Satanists/Other LHP Occultists(Theistic), the "mentally ill", the homeless, biker gangs, drug addicts, and pretty much everyone that has taken the black pill.

Yes, of course, let's ignore the most easily radicalised demographic and let the alt-right have them.

Normalfags get the bullet too

Totally the wrong way to think about it. We should aim for universal appeal. Targeting particular groups means we'll probably miss the chance to recruit other people,. In practice it tends to turn into exclusionary practices because when you specifically target particular groups you start to attract idpolers smelling an opportunity.

Convicts. We need commie prison gangs.

It's a pretty small sacrifice. There's no telling how long young NEETs have been young NEETs and they may not want to be anything else. Like everyone else is saying everyone should be targeted. As a minority we'll get no where without both rural whites, and low income people of any color.

This is such a dumb thing to say.

Yes, we all know that the ideal scenario is to have all workers come together under one political programme. We also know, or at least we should know, that this is very unlikely because there are radical inequalities of wealth, culture and levels of political engagement among the working classes, which lead to an incredible variety of thought and political ideas, making it hard to come one with one perfect message/program that will appeal to literally everyone. Given that time, resources and manpower are limited, it only makes sense that we'll identify the most open to radical ideas and target them, it's just cost- benefit.

To say "yeah, why not just talk to ALL OF THEM instead" as if that's even feasible is plain fucking retarded.

Revival of the radical prison movement when

IMO there's a strategic argument for this.

Of course, we shouldn't ignore them as we shouldn't ignore anyone, but to focus too much on them can backfire because, first, young people are not predictable. Most of those under 30 still have a lot of common marks to hit, like starting families, finishing their education, finding a job and a place where they'll spend most of their lives, etc. When that happens, people change, and they also find themselves not really able to keep the same activities as before. So if you adjust yourself to people who are college-age now, in five years we'll be dealing with a completely different group of people who would probably just move on.

This is what the Panthers did: they pandered to the urban black youth, were immensely popular with black youth (according to one research almost half of blacks under 21 had "immense respect" for it), blew up and went national in 1969/70 and in 72 they were basically one small local community again. If we target people who for the most part have already settled to a degree, there's a predictability in their future habits and routines that could suit a long-term strategy better.

As far as the unemployed go, that's always a good opportunity for left-wing movements, but there's also the fact that once they find employment they will probably lose radicalism. We can't become dependent on sporadic events and crisis. What we need is a steady, sustainable growth that can strike in those moments.

And if he thinks he can, he should be an hero.

The proletariat have become so degridated that this point their merely puppets of the Republican Party. Instead we need to be focusing on the young, and disenfranchised, people of color, the unemployed, people from immigrant families, and even people from the lgbtq+ communities. Unfortunately these people have also become tools to fit an ideological agenda.

what about the working class whites that don't vote, and consider themselves apolitical/lean slightly one way or the other?

Start with the youth.

He who has the youth, has the future.

Provided you start early with responses to the arguments they'll encounter frequently.

Explanations about "human nature," USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and so on.

Try to target all. Remember though, that different groups of people are swayed better by different arguments.
Cops in my country would love anything against bureaucracy.
Homeless, unemployed and those in deep debt will like financial stability. So that's already 13% of people with student debts here (percentage of students who can't pay debts off). Furthermore, house loans, car loans and credit card loans are also becoming heavier and heavier. They will end up scared of meeting a man in suit at the door, demanding them to pay back. This fear is… Exploitable.
Then there are two groups of unemployed people: friction unemployment, when they will find a job quite quickly, and chronically unemployed.
Obviously, chronically unemployed will be easier and better converted, also for longer, as they will have more problems with getting back into the system.
However, the temporarily unemployed are also worth targeting, perhaps by suggesting something along the lines of "temporarily unemployed, temporarily employed" or "how long until you will end up on the streets again?"
They will be able to provide more financial support.
Perhaps it's worth looking into coop banks and the like for more of that.
NEETS are a branch of chronically unemployed that are also interesting. They generally engage in a lot of escapist behaviour I imagine, perhaps they may like to be part of an epic struggle in real life too?

NEETS, yes
satanists, no. They are the most spooked people on earth, next to zero potential.
other LHP occultists. I don't see it.
Homless = useless.
"Mentally ill".. what makes them better or worse than any other group?
Bikergangs, maybe weekend warriors, but the 1%-ers are only fit for hanging.
Drug addicts, again, why? Drug addicts will stab you in the back if they run out of drugs. An ex-addict could have some potential, but actual addicts are the most destructive and useless people around.

t. Liberal Pundit

says liberal that will be supporting protectionist socdems if his gibmedats will come under attack

NEETs for sure.

why are you defending Ayn Rand the religion?
..wait did you misread the post? You did, didn't you?
we're talking about satanists not stalinists

"The People" is the revolutionary agent of populism. In the modern era, it first appeared in the French Revolution. With the industrial revolution, it was eclipsed by the proletariat, but has come back in recent history (witness the surge in populist movements around the globe).

And it never ceases to amaze me how many cocks you suck, but I don't go and be rude about it now do I?

oh shi~

they're the most exploited and have work as a necessity in their lives

arts students are rich fags with trust funds and no work to exploit cuz life is paid for

this is what happens when we argue with stereotypes tho

not the guy you were responding to, but at least you've saved me wasting my time on Bookchin.

The segment you should target is the one that won't tell you to fuck off when you start talking about the political economy. I target liberals only because they're the most accessible audience to me.