Since parties and orgs are somewhat outdated as a revolutionary model because it's difficult to find consensus, there's no cohesion and they're likely to split into many factions, why not do the opposite? That is, start as small groups working with propaganda and debate, and then gradually come together when the circumstances demand us to?
So, for example, if you got 15 leftypolers you could work together spreading class consciousness (with Bunkerchan, that youtuber guy, our Facebook page and just online content in general), as more groups do this and the Left becomes more popular, we bind together into parties or mass movements that are more like alliances such as SYRIZA. Assuming other groups are also familiar with propaganda tactics, we can also end up with a decent mechanism of shaping popular opinion in our hands.
I think we're more effective like this, with small, likeminded and dedicated groups, as opposed to larger organizations where Maoist transexuals and social-democrats try to work together.
Maybe add a few low bar things the state can do, tax breaks for coops and their workers.
Jack Ramirez
...
Carter Perez
I made these webms, threads before you even reached political consciousness, tbh
Ian Cooper
...
Evan Stewart
...
Gabriel Garcia
...
Cooper Miller
...
Jack Wright
...
Robert Johnson
goddamnit Holla Forums
Aiden Torres
...
Cooper Gonzalez
...
Ethan Rogers
...
Nathan Adams
Look, this is right in essence but since Marx's time there have been certain shifts on how people organize themselves politically that we need to take into account.
The political temperament of the masses itself has changed. Cradle-to-the-grave affairs like pre-war SPD had are long gone, the clear divisions of class in partisan politics have been surpassed by personal differences, the sort of "communal" life that workers had disappeared, and so has the consensus that came with it. Society is fragmented into thousands of different identities, and they all have their own agenda.
The notion that the masses and their self-interest are out there and we only have to give it shape and political form is no longer appliable due to changes in communication and information. Now, shaping their mentality has taken over action as our biggest political concern.
Even mainstream parties, with all its media apparatus and political influence have showed us that you can't do that in a one-size-fits-all approach. Groups here and there stubbornly resist the call for homogenization, and fight for supremacy within those large parties. There's no way in hell that a Left-wing party, which probably will begin as a middle-class, college-educated, young-people affair in some big "hipster" city will succeed where establishment parties have failed. We'll no longer be resonating with people before we reach the city's boundaries.
We need political organization that can remain sensitive to different customs and cultures, to different temperaments and preferences. So why not organize ourselves around those, instead? That means there's potential to grow. Not all people are going to read Jacobin and Lacan, but if you get one of those cells in every milieu, they can find something equivalent that will help shift consensus to the Left. And then you have something to mold into a party, in the future, when circumstances demand it.
Anyway I'm not watching all those clips
John Diaz
No, unless you use the cigar you are not.
You were supposed to now this shit! You are who you appear to be, and so on.
The more people are in an org, the less "Radical" and concrete the ideas will be. This is why Syriza failed. In order to become gov, it encompased too much SocDem and became SocDem.
THANK LENIN!!!
+1 for further organizing, though.
Tyler Bailey
Fucking this. You can't educate hundreds of thousands of people at once.
Socialist theory and praxis is complex. You can get people to agree with basic premises, but after that it will fall on deaf ears.
