Like I think a central state is needed for the first phase of the revolution, but the more brutal aspects is something I just don't want to do, even if I understand why they did them?

  • pooh [she/her]
    ·
    4 years ago

    This is partly why I think something like “revolutionary intercommunalism” might be a more viable path towards revolution around the world, and especially within the US. This is from Huey Newton’s “Intercommunalism” speech:

    We believe that there are no more colonies or neocolonies. If a people is colonized, it must be possible for them to decolonize and become what they formerly were. But what happens when the raw materials are extracted and labor is exploited within a territory dispersed over the entire globe? When the riches of the whole earth are depleted and used to feed a gigantic industrial machine in the imperialist’s home? Then the people and the economy are so integrated into the imperialist empire that it is impossible to “decolonize,” to return to the former conditions of existence.

    If colonies cannot “decolonize” and return to their original existence as nations, then nations no longer exist. And since there must be nations for revolutionary nationalism or internationalism to make sense, we decided that we would have to call ourselves something new.

    We say that the world today is a dispersed collection of communities. A community is different from a nation. A community is a small unit with a comprehensive collection of institutions that serve to exist a small group of people. And we say further that the struggle in the world today is between the small circle that administers and profits from the empire of the United States, and the peoples of the world who want to determine their own destinies.

    We call this situation intercommunalism. We are now in the age of reactionary intercommunalism, in which a ruling circle, a small group of people, control all other people by using their technology.

    At the same time, we say that this technology can solve most of the material contradictions people face, that the material conditions exist that would allow the people of the world to develop a culture that is essentially human and would nurture those things that would allow people to resolve contradictions in a way that would not cause the mutual slaughter of all of us. The development of such a culture would be revolutionary intercommunalism.

    • originalsin [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I like this. This is a fitting description of the current situation. The biggest hurdle is creating and nurturing this revolutionary intercommunalism.

      I think that in the existence of most nations, there is still a large sense of independence and nationalism that occurs through state-run/funded propaganda. Until that aspect of the state is eliminated, how do you grow a sense of unity among the global proletariat? For every ML or anarchist that has the ability to connect with individuals globally, there seems to be three fascists that instill nationalist beliefs globally.

      From Brexit, to the response of the European migrant crisis, the coup of Bolivia, or Trump's presidency, there do not appear to be enough international prole victories for how quickly global mobilization needs to occur, to divert humanity from it's rapidly approaching demise.

      • pooh [she/her]
        ·
        4 years ago

        I like this. This is a fitting description of the current situation. The biggest hurdle is creating and nurturing this revolutionary intercommunalism.

        There are some groups out there pursuing something similar, and often connected to Bookchin's ideas regarding 'Communalism'. Rojava is one project most people here are aware of, but there are others with related projects like Fearless Cities, Symbiosis Revolution, and Black Socialists in America, to name a few. Maybe not directly related, but Vietnam and Cuba are both also pursuing things like cooperative farms and businesses that are more decentralized and community-based, and could become an important part of that global effort.

        I think that in the existence of most nations, there is still a large sense of independence and nationalism that occurs through state-run/funded propaganda. Until that aspect of the state is eliminated, how do you grow a sense of unity among the global proletariat? For every ML or anarchist that has the ability to connect with individuals globally, there seems to be three fascists that instill nationalist beliefs globally.

        I think you're right, but I also think that technology, combined with neoliberalism's quest to spread capitalism across borders, has maybe created a backlash and served to weaken nationalist sentiment among young people. So, opposition to neoliberalism and transnational online communities (like Kpop comrades?) could serve as a basis for a global movement. I think the threat posed by global warming also presents an opportunity for people to band together against a common enemy. It's going to take a lot of work, though.

        From Brexit, to the response of the European migrant crisis, the coup of Bolivia, or Trump’s presidency, there do not appear to be enough international prole victories for how quickly global mobilization needs to occur, to divert humanity from it’s rapidly approaching demise.

        Not yet, but there is some room to be hopeful. As bad as things are, there are still people who are willing to fight back in places like Bolivia, Paris, Portland, Latin America, etc. I think the will is there, but the left is poorly organized at an international level, and we need to change that as soon as humanly possible.