Actual meaningful praxis : the first step towards socialism

So I'm an individual who's been spending his spare time for the past few years reading marxist theory, philosophy, learning about history and generally trying to figure out how do we avoid the global general catastrophy.

The pdf file here outlines the first rough sketch of what I've come up with.

Other urls found in this thread:ère

TL;DR : refuse bourgeois politics, found phalansteries (ère ) in order to help the masses feeding/educating themselves outside of capitalist terms and eventually be more significant than the bourgeois state.



Fix this.
Also drop the 'moral responsibility' part. Morality plays no part in this.
Other than that: eh not bad, but it still needs some work.

Didn't mean to sage.

This is why I am not an anarchist.

Sure. There's a pastebin link if you want to suggest your own changes.

I'm a shitty writer (who loves reading). Just a regular ol' brainlet prole.
Also, look into dual power.

I want to end the division between workers and intellectuals. We have, for the first time in history, the means to do so and solve once and for all the problem of the avant-garde.
If you meant something else, feel free to elaborate on the dual power.

Dual power in a leftist context refers to building an alternative to bourgeois institutions which are ready to take over state functions at the moment state power is seized by proletariat. The soviets pre october revolution is an example of this.
I do agree with you that the distinction between prole and intellectual needs to go. Which would happen in the process of building socialism.

This is what I had in mind, although it did not stem from my (lacking) knowledge of the October Revolution. I believe Bourdieu said also something about replacing the state piece by piece.
Thankfully due to the liberal doctrine, the bourgeois state is already halfway in the process of dismantling itself in favour of private actors, I believe this is where we (as a decentralized collective of concerned individuals) need to step in.

Here have this short text by Lenin.
I vaguely remember Bordieu saying something like that, yes. Though I can't say for sure since it's been many years since I read anything by him.

Thanks, this is exactly what I was thinking. Phalanstery socialism is probably the key for the emergence of this dual power.
We need a proletarian government that will compete with the bourgeois illegitimate state.

Np buddy. I know nothing of phalanstery, but I'll look into it. Any books/articles you can recommend?

Not really, read up about Guise's familistère but basically it was designed as a way to provide decent living standards for factory workers. However a revolutionary action structured around phalansteries designed to turn workers into intellectuals has never been theorized so far I believe.

A phalanstery is a set of buildings for community use that is formed by the free association and the loving agreement of their members. For Charles Fourier, phalansteries will form the basis of a new state.

In his theory, "the earth of the Harmonic Society will be divided into three million phalansteries, each grouping 1,500 persons of the three sexes," (the underage, for Fourier, belong to a third sex, a neutral or immoveable sex).

The phalanstery is a kind of farm with buildings for housing and amusement, which can accommodate 400 families in the middle of an area of ​​2300 hectares where fruit and flowers are grown above all else. Fourier will describe at will the heated corridors, the large mess rooms and the pleasant rooms.

Designed to house 1,800 to 2,000 members forming a Phalange, the phalanstery is a very large building: a length of 600 toises, about 1,200 m, compared to 500 m of the Palace of Versailles; an occupied area - built and not built - of approximately 4 square kilometers; arcades, large galleries facilitating meetings and traffic in all weathers; large specialized rooms (central clock tower, purse, opera, workshops, kitchens); private apartments and many public rooms; wings reserved for "caravanserai" and noisy activities; a 600m x 300m courtyard of honor, in which would be the large gallery of the Louvre; a 300-meter-long winter yard (compared to 100 meters from Place des Vosges) planted with evergreen trees; gardens and multiple rural buildings …

The phalansteries were the subject of many attempts to apply in France and the United States in the nineteenth century, but with the notable exception of the Guise and Brussels families, all failed more or less quickly. But after 1968, the idea stimulated certain initiatives, notably the community of Longo Maï in Provence.

Here is a description of the ideal phalanstery made by Victor Considerant, one of Fourier's most fervent disciples. It is taken from the pamphlet "Description of phalanstery and social considerations on architecture" 11 published in 1846:

"Let's look at the panorama that is developing before our eyes. A splendid palace rises from gardens, lawns and shaded lawns, like a marmoreal island bathed in an ocean of greenery. It is the royal residence of a regenerated population. In front of the Palace extends a vast carousel. It is the court of honor, the field of gathering of the industrial legions, the point of departure and arrival of the active cohorts, the place of parades, big collective hymns, reviews and maneuvers. The magisterial road through the countryside of its quadruple rows of sumptuous trees, lined with shrubs and flowers, arrives, along the two wings of the Phalanstere, on the main courtyard, which separates buildings industrial and rural constructions, developed on the side of large cultures. In the forefront of the industrial city, a line of factories, large workshops, shops, and granaries of reserve, erects its walls opposite the Phalanstere. "

- Victor Considerant, Description of the Phalanstere

Holy fuck thanks for this. So it's similar to a combination of workers councils, housing coops and, something similar to, contemporary permaculture communities all in one?

This is the future I want for everyone regardless of social class. Slap some intellectual emancipation and network phalansteries together in order to form the decentralized avant-garde that will replace the bourgeois state.

Phalanstères are utopian as fuck what the fuck is this thread

What point are you even making?

Hmm. It's all for nothing if you're not willing to seize state power and enact an DoTP though.
More Lenin.

Nah. Bourgeoisie only get the bullet.

Like clockwork. Why not try to contribute some constructive criticism, so that this idea can be developed into something less utopian? Simply reeing UTOPIAN is not an argument.

I would be surprised if masses do not spontaneously flock to phalansteries because of the stronger social cohesion, higher living standards and not having to toil a pointless, mind-numbing job for some anonymous faceless porky structure.
Anyway it is clear the goal is to construct the class conscious proletariat that will seize power for itself.
Thanks for the link.

It was, by two guys called Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels. Try reading their works.

Marx and Engels were controlled opposition agents that developed communism into something that would the bourgeois.

Based Bakunin!

Still not argument duderino. And I have. You're just making yourself sound like an assmad pseud right now.

*serve the bourgeois

Oh wow, sounds like YOU haven't a clue what you're talking about nor did you read Marx.Karl Marx criticized utopian socialists because :

Revolutionary phalansteries do fit in a wider class struggle dynamic. They are basically schools to turn workers into revolutionary intellectuals who will seize power.
Marx was criticizing Fourier or Comte because they basically were utopian socdems who wanted workers to have decent living conditions but to remain workers instead of actually seizing power, I think you completely miss the point here.

Phalansters are authoritarian as fuck.

Marx criticized them because they thought they could force their utopian visions on reality and it would work. Phalansters are not schools, they are apartment buildings where a single factory's workers would live and the philanthropic factory owner would provide them with welfare services. There's nothing revolutionary about them.

Yes, this is precisely where we are different, thanks for acknowledging this fact. Phalansteries meant to educate people with philosophy, history and theory are not what Marx' dismissed since they never existed before.

Promoting phalansteries, cooperatives or communes as ends in and of themselves is utopian and undesirable. However, there is nothing wrong with establishing them as means to raise class consciousness, build social solidarity and organize a movement for eventually confronting and superseding capitalist relations and the bourgeois state.


Wow, you keep missing the point with an unprecedented diligence. I tip my hat to you my man.
You keep linking to Lenin while advocating for non-action. You keep linking to an actual revolutionary while trying to shut down meaningful agitation and the emergence of a proper class conscious avant-garde. I'm going to ask again, what is your point? Do you have any to make besides saging for no reason? I'm going to ask you every single time to make your point clear so your sages are actually most welcome.

I enjoyed this post.

Eh I was linking some Lenin on specifically dual power before. I hope you don't think that's me.

Fugging auto sage

Obviously not. I guess the other guy is the saging dude saying this is all utopian while entirely missing the point Marx was making when criticising Fourier.

What the hell are you talking about?

Avant-garde? Art movements are replacing the vanguard now? 8ch wank is meaningful agitation?

My point is, read Lenin. There's a right way and a wrong way to do revolution.

It is tho. Holla Forums is the new intelligentsia, the new vanguard, the Fifth International!

Meme Magick is real!

Unless you stop sounding vague, I'm afraid nobody is going to take you seriously. Do you think paying some bourgeois rent while toiling in order to be able to afford food will leave you time to learn theory? Do you think gathering intelligent people together in order to allow them to gather what theoretical tools they need to affirm themselves as intellectuals is wrong? I don't think you've read past the title, this is precisely what we need now.

Gee, you are trying way too hard to be contrarian.

t. Porky

I'm not being vague, I'm unambiguously telling you to read Lenin. Lenin was the leader of the Bolsheviks, who accomplished the first long-lasting communist revolution. His writing on praxis is invaluable, and if you don't read Lenin, you are effectively starting from square zero and you will make many pointless and time-wasting mistakes.

The Bolsheviks betrayed the Revolution. In fact, Marx himself was controlled opposition.

When you're such a pure "revolutionary" you end up being a complete reactionary prick.
If you think people who work shit jobs all day to afford crap food have time or the basic means to educate themselves, you're deluding yourself.

Also the authoritarian tsarist "the tsar must control everything" state was the complete opposite of your typical euro neoliberal "the state shouldn't do anything" state.
Your points are irrelevant unless you are just here to bait people into bumping the thread, which is fine.

It's one thing for them to do a little reading, but to expect them to read thousands of pages of Lenin before doing anything?

this remindes me of that jews ancient society I'm too stoned now to clearly rememnber about



Here are a few objections that were immediately obvious from reading your manifesto. Despite the overly confident style, it is full of holes.

1. You highlight two reasons why previous socialist experiments failed, but your proposed solution only addresses the emergence of the second one.
2. You claim that it can be solved by a "large and intellectually sharp demographic basis" but repeatedly state that your solution is supposed to produce an intellectual elite.
3. You claim that the Internet is favourable for intellectual debate in a moment when even the mainstream was forced to admit that the opposite is true.
4. You do not address previous situations where leftist propaganda was widely circulated yet claim that this is a historically unique moment.
5. You call the Internet a "truly communist institution" without explaining what that supposed to mean (I honestly have no idea) or how it could be true when every level from infrastructure to software and content is privately owned and controlled.
6. You propose phalansters as the new basis of organization without exploring how they are different from other forms of organizations and how they will overcome past limitations.
7. There's nothing about how a phalanster could sustain itself.
8. If phalansters worked fine, how come there are none today?
9. "Any political thought exposed clearly enough will, through its own self-explanatory potential, convince thousands and thousands." Yet yours didn't convince anyone.
10. Despite your insistence on knowing history your manifesto seems to actively ignore it. Other than mentioning the past of phalansters, there is no trace that you would be familiar with the history of similar ideas.
11. Despite the appeal to an educated mass in the introduction, you really seem to insist that an intellectual elite of gifted individuals is what we need. You need to address how this elite won't turn into the "despotic and parasitic bureaucracy" that you fear so much.
12. The whole idea that simply better thinkers will automatically lead to socialism is laughable and ignores the reality of intellectual work, our enemies' resources and the functioning of propaganda.

It's largely not agitation though.

They don't, and Lenin perfectly describes how to approach this dire situation. Hence why you need to read Lenin.

It's up to YOU, having read him, to quote him when relevant, comrade.

What the fuck are you going on about? Is this a samefag or a raid or something? Why the completely idiotic non-sequiturs?

This is why you need to read Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, because Lenin talks about this EXACT PHENOMENON, that is, the "legality" of communist politics in liberal governments like Germany. He compares it to the way revolution panned out in Russia, and explains why liberal governments cripple revolutionary movements by encouraging opportunism while simultaneously arresting/killing any potential real revolutionaries.

More samefagging and complete non-sequitur.

I'm not arguing about HOW we should get to revolution, I'm arguing that IF YOU READ LENIN, you will learn more about how to get to revolution. If I quote him then it can't impart the full context and insight of his arguments anyway, so there's no point.

Personally I think his praxis is shit, and that the Bolsheviks nearly killed the Revolution.

Stop posting pictures of my wife.

YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ HIM. And how the hell can you criticize his praxis, his praxis has been the starting point for ALL MAJOR REVOLUTIONS ever since. If you don't like his praxis, you don't like revolution, you are an idealist.

I know enough to know his praxis is shit. But I'm an anarcho-communist, so that shouldn't surprise you. I think Marx's praxis is shit too.

Finally clear points.

1. I'm going to assume thee CIA will have a harder time discreetly shutting down many phalansteries should they become widespread due to the obvious decentralized nature of them.

2. ?

3. It precisely boils down to education. The Internet is the soapbox Hitler wouldn't have dreamt of and any theory was a strong enough explanative power will eventually prevail (thus why Holla Forums users can be converted to marxism but the other way around never happens)

4. Widely circulated between the intellectual classes. I can absolutely guarantee you a huge portion of the former workers (today's structural unemployment) have never heard about very basic sociological/historical determinism.

5. Free software is far from anecdotal. A large majority of web servers run on GNU/Linux. It wouldn't be impossible to have networks operating purely on free hardware/software. Also it can be tailored to allow unrestricted free speech.

6. You cannot live today without prostituting yourself as a wageslave nor can you live without consuming stuff on capitalists' terms. Phalansteries allow self-providing communities to thrive outside of the typical consumerist mode. Also they're environmental friendly since they work on their own.

7. Phalansteries typically include their own crops.

8. Because they were only used as a way to provide good living standards for workers. Guise' familistere is still a thing and people STILL LIVE THERE today. I know it because I've visited it a few years ago.

9. Purely personal attack, pointless to even adress.

10. Such ideas have been first formulated by Fourier, Saint-Simon and Comte, however they were not familiar with marxist theory due to obvious chronology. Therefore their conception wasn't aimed towards fostering class consciousness.

11. Gifted individuals exist in all classes and aren't likely to act out of selfish interest. If you believe intelligent individuals with good theory are irredeemable, we might as well give up on politics due to "human nature" or some other trite notion.

12. Not even an argument.

You are totally clueless, you are WILLFULLY IGNORANT.

Kibbutz was utopian nonsense practiced by colonial settlers as a method of whitewashing their actions.

Dictatorship of the proletariat leads to communism. Vanguardism is divisive.

1. Not phalansters
2. shit


You are a dilettante. Your writing is pathetic and devoid of any meaningful analysis. You are willfully ignorant. I'd tell you to stop, but you won't, because you're too stupid to do so, and you're probably a kid.
Here's the final word on the matter: when you grow up you'll either decide to learn some real history and theory and abandon this incoherent childishness, or your weak theory will evaporate and you'll just embrace your inner liberal.

But they clearly do
Yeah no shit, they're not meant to provide living quarters for workers
Yes, but what if we build phalansteries OUTSIDE of Israel or stolen clay, have you considered such a possibility?

Good dialectics my man

t. Porky

Marxism was specifically designed as a way to subvert the Communist Revolution!

Based Bakunin

I was just stoned and remembered that retarded jew shit didn't mean to make it such a shitfest

Calm down ☭TANKIE☭, nobody is buying that you are an actual anarchist.

I'm an insurrectionary anarchist with a non-violent memetic praxis.

? Do you even read authors you recommend or are you just plain retarded ?


Fuck vanguardism!

No, I was just making fun of your revolutionary posture that has no real theoretical basis. No need to bring liberal nonsense ITT.

Why no Stirner?

Huis reads out like Thomas Moore's Utopia on a thread about meaningful praxis.

So this is the power of intellectual debate on the Internet, you didn't even consider my objections, you just disregarded them outright.

1. Any radical organization has to consider that they will be infiltrated and destroyed before they could properly establish themselves. Your phalansters won't even have a chance to federate.
2. You start with an appeal to mass education and then silently switch to elite education.
3. There are millions of highly educated people who came to different conclusions than you. Your ideology did not prevail despite its supposed "explanative power." If your main point was that the Internet would make education easier to spread you did not make it clear and did not argue for it. I would mostly disagree with it. But it doesn't really matter. The belief that your enemies can simply be debated and educated away is a liberal pipe dream. That's not how the world works, despite what they want you think there is no "marketplace of ideas." In almost every case those with the bigger and most advanced propaganda network wins, despite the merit of the ideas.
4. Widely circulated among the workers. There were countless radical leftist publications, at times despite their illegal status. Those who could read would read them out loud for the illiterate. There were also various organizations that would teach workers basic literacy, sometimes organized by philanthropic individuals, sometimes by trade unions. Despite your insistence of studying history, you clearly don't know anything about the very topic you are trying to innovate in.
5. Of course the Internet could exist in a communist society, but it does not exist on communist principles today. Your claim that it is a communist institution is very misguided and completely ignores material reality no matter how you are trying to ignore it.
6. There were plenty of different organizations that claim to do the same. Your phalansters are not unique in this regard but we are yet to see a single reason why it wouldn't fail for the same reasons those did.
7. They do? How many exist today?
8. Does it still function as a phalanster?
9. It is not a personal attack. If you are to achieve anything with your piece, you are going to have to address why it did not convince anyone. Is your thought lacking in "explanatory potential?" Is it not clearly expressed? Could it be that these are not enough to convince people?
10. A lot happened since then. Communes, squats, anti-capitalist villages, there were countless different experiments that you clearly don't know anything of.
11. I know that those in privileged positions will work first and foremost to protect their own position and power. You can choose to ignore this but you will still need to address that in the introduction to blame a bureocratic class for the failure of some socialist systems yet you recommend reproducing the same class.
12. Maybe pointing out that you are hopelessly idealistic and completely ignore material reality is not an argument, but I still hope realizing it will help you come up with a better manifesto the next time.

Stop posting pictures of my wife.

But she's so cute!

Mass education is precisely the long-term objective, turning masses into an educated elite, I fail to see how is this even an issue.
Yeah no shit, I just exposed a rough first sketch today on the internet and it hasn't conquered the world yet. However people (including you) have read what I had to say. What if there are hundreds of thousands more people like me, densely networked and politically active instead of a few hundreds spread haphazardly around the world with no global coherence ?

The rotary club has no revolutionary goal. Most unions are deeply corrupt (and I say this from a country with a very strong union tradition) and have pretty much given up on workers' rights.
Yeah well that's just a gratuitous personal attack , I'm not going to pretend there is anything of substance here to be discussed. I don't see what do you hope to gain from this but whatever.

Literally happened countless times in history. Have you ever heard of class consciousness? I'm starting to think we might be lacking some fundamentals here.

Are you going to tell me about human nature next? Cut out the non-ideas next time, it will save the both of us much time.

Yes, I'm sure you can fairly easily quote a few of them and explain how they're relevant in the discussion at hand.

The fact is the next capitalist crisis is looming over the horizon and people will need to eat. Once the poorer classes get desperate, your almighty "propaganda networks" won't be of much use.
Really I fail to see what point are you even making. 95% of the American society cannot tell social-democracy from socialism from communism from liberalism. This is a fundamental education issue, you can deny it as much as you want and dump anime girls, I'm still not convinced.

My praxis is to keep paying rent to my landlord, keep paying for garbage groceries, keep buying shit manufactured by children treated like slaves in south-east asia and shitpost on the internet. At least I can tell people to read Lenin xd

Ah yes, because detaching yourself from society as if an economic system can be boycotted out of existence on an individual basis totally works. This is why instead of Lenin we're still reading the author of the famous Hippie Revolution.

When did leftypol become so fucking reactionary? I feel like I'm arguing with some boomer.

This is a terrible fucking plan. Any revolutionary strategy that revolves around a community building their own "institutions", with resources and intelligence that will obviously be limited in relative terms, is idiotic and Utopian, even worse if coupled with a policy of abstention from the institutions that actually correspond to political power. Seizing political power is our aim, not coming up with alternatives to it that will lack the material basis to compete.

The messianic, communal bullshit of leaving society and entering a new, "better" one is not historically proven to be limited, it's also frankly ludicrous and embarrassing. You're 200 years out of date.

Are you a liberal? Parliamentarism is specifically tailored to keep a conservative majority.

If you don't see the need to explore the history and material basis of what you are talking about I really don't think we should continue this conversation.

Whoa, congrats on your rhetoric prowess.

The FBI would burn these things down before you could say Waco.

Using what strategy and tactics, do you figure?

they set you on fire.

They had the legal right to invade Waco because of their illegal firearms. If we stayed within the bounds of the law, they would have to subvert us.

The regular cops gun unarmed people down all the time. The elite cops are totally unaccountable to anyone. They'll find a reason.

Who? Leary?

lmfao is this a bootlicker thread now?


I'm obviously not implying it was ethical, what the Feds did. Just that they had legal cover. There are all sorts of cults out there that they don't raid, although they do often try to infiltrate them.

Dude just shut the fuck up.


Relying law enforcement's professional scruples protect yourself is asking for trouble. The leadership of these groups would be targeted and assassinated.

I'm not. I'm relying on the justice system.

fukken dropped

oh excuse me: "it's in our own interest to do so"