thirdform

pass the sick bucket
If someone's response to why they read Shakespeare is because it's fun and makes them feel good then that's a perfectly acceptable answer. If someone offers the same response to being asked why they're an activist then they're likely to get some pushback for being self-interested and using other people's plight for personal ends.

Right wingers, pro-system types can be activists though. It doesn't mean anything.

You hardly think the majority of anti-islamophobia activists are all out to overthrow the nuclear family do you? Although some may be, of course, but they are a very small minority.
 

version

Well-known member
You're making an artificial separation here. Peoples politics and critiques don't just exist in aspic, they can of course contribute to revolutions, or more than not, understand how they degenerate. The problem here is centring the locus of desire as if its some transhistorical absolute. It's a case of being pushed (quite literally) into these conditions. I doubt many people in Syria in 2008 saw themselves as revolutionaries, yet by 2011-12 this was evidently the case. Your image of human behaviour seems to be static, as if the will and not the stomach is king.
I was responding to Danny's separation of the two,

"Revolution (or change) will arise due to structural forces at play. This has fuck all to do with our wants and desires."

The stomach being king just furthers the division, doesn't it? If people's material conditions override their politics at a certain point and they unwittingly become revolutionaries then what's the purpose of revolutionary politics, theory and critique? You'd be better off just putting your efforts into starving them if a revolution is what you want.
 
Last edited:

version

Well-known member
For instance the problem with the likes of k-punk and co-thinkers is they try to be everything to everyone. Which is natural. it makes money, generates a lot of chattering, and so. But if they were part of some anonymous left com group posting on a website that looks like it was designed in 2002, they would hardly get any traction would they? And its not because they lacked a comms team.
It makes sense to want to reach as wide an audience possible though, doesn't it?
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Verso probably, Bastani looks like a hooligan to me
What?
Idk you'd have to ask communist. Maybe @john eden could enlighten as to the leftcom position on revolution, it's inevitablity or ...not?
Don't forget there have been plenty of revolutions all across the Arab world in the last 10 years, it's a bit parochial to assume otherwise
The trad leftcom position is that communism is inevitable I think - capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, the historic mission of the proletariat is to abolish itself etc. So communists maybe just nudge things a long a bit where they can, and aim to become a home for the more militant sections of the working class.

Personally I don't that communism is inevitable at all. I do think that at some point the world will be organised in a completely different way. (In the sense that capitalism is different from feudalism). Probably this will be preceded by revolutionary upheaval, because that is just what seems to happen.

But as we can see on the "coming authoritariansim" thread, other options are also available.
 

version

Well-known member
The trad leftcom position is that communism is inevitable I think - capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, the historic mission of the proletariat is to abolish itself etc. So communists maybe just nudge things a long a bit where they can, and aim to become a home for the more militant sections of the working class.
Is this distinguishable from left accelerationism?
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Now if you want to argue what is the point of politics, that's a different question. But that's different to saying whats the point of being a communist.

Here's the old moor on the topic:

The more powerful a state and hence the more political a nation, the less inclined it is to explain the general principle governing social ills and to seek out their causes by looking at the principle of the state – i.e., at the actual organization of society of which the state is the active, self-conscious and official expression. Political understanding is just political understanding because its thought does not transcend the limits of politics. The sharper and livelier it is, the more incapable is it of comprehending social problems. The classical period of political understanding is the French Revolution. Far from identifying the principle of the state as the source of social ills, the heroes of the French Revolution held social ills to be the source of political problems. Thus Robespierre regarded great wealth and great poverty as an obstacle to pure democracy. He therefore wished to establish a universal system of Spartan frugality. The principle of politics is the will. The more one-sided – i.e., the more prefect – political understanding is, the more completely it puts its faith in the omnipotence of the will the blinder it is towards the natural and spiritual limitations of the will, the more incapable it becomes of discovering the real source of the evils of society. No further arguments are needed to prove that when the “Prussian" claims that “the political understanding” is destined “to uncover the roots of social want in Germany” he is indulging in vain illusions.

 

john eden

male pale and stale
I was responding to Danny's separation of the two,

"Revolution (or change) will arise due to structural forces at play. This has fuck all to do with our wants and desires."

The will and stomach being king just furthers the division, doesn't it? If people's material conditions override their politics at a certain point and they unwittingly become revolutionaries then what's the purpose of revolutionary politics, theory and critique? You'd be better off just putting your efforts into starving them if a revolution is what you want.
Starving people don't make good revolutionaries.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Is this distinguishable from left accelerationism?
I've always found that the accelerationists tend to be a bit gloaty about things spiralling out of control. Leftcoms tend to be a bit more sober about things - analysing the unfolding of history and trying to learn the lessons of the past. Because of this they tend to be a lot more cautious about predicting the immediacy of communism.
 

version

Well-known member
Starving people don't make good revolutionaries.
Does anything else make revolutionaries at all, let alone good ones, if revolutions are driven by material conditions? Seems like the kind of thing you can't really pick and choose with.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Does anything else make revolutionaries at all, let alone good ones, if revolutions are driven by material conditions? Seems like the kind of thing you can't really pick and choose with.
Well class consciousness is one of the missing ingredients at the moment, certainly.
 

version

Well-known member
Well class consciousness is one of the missing ingredients at the moment, certainly.
That would be an argument in favour of k-punk and co. trying to reach a wider audience, wouldn't it? You want as many as possible to be on side, surely? This is why I don't get Third's criticism above.
 
Top