Comments on: Presenting Insurgent Notes

By: John A Imani

John A Imani — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:43:49 +0000

Just chanced upon the website. Good luck, comrades.
JAI

By: ‚Insurgent Notes‘ – Journal of Communist Theory and Practice « Subprole

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:29:27 +0000

[...] Im Folgenden möchte ich auf die erstmals im Juni publizierte sowie u.a. von Loren Goldner editierte kommunistische Theoriezeitschrift Insurgent Notes verweisen. Eine Art programmatische Selbstdarstellung findet sich hier. [...]

By: ‚Insurgent Notes‘ – Journal of Communist Theory and Practice « Subprole

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:12:27 +0000

[...] Im Folgenden möchte ich auf die erstmals im Juni publizierte sowie u.a. von Loren Goldner editierte kommunistische Theoriezeitschrift Insurgent Notes verweisen. Eine Art von programmatischer Selbstdarstellung findet sich hier. [...]

By: sks

sks — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:56:17 +0000

Any group who purports to organize and influence revolutionary forces and yet rejects more than proposes is bound to failure.

While revolution in itself is a negation – by definition – of what previously existed, negation is not the same as rejection. Reject nationalism all you want – the important thing is to negate it, and history shows this is not achieved by rejection; in fact, the rejection of nationalism has only led to its resurgence in more rabid and successful forms afterward (ie Nazi Germany, Eastern Europe, Islamism, Zionism, etc). It is better, practically, to provide a framework for negation, than to outright reject.

Likewise, a critique of identity politics that merely rejects it with empty declarations of class solidarity, but will not dare to explore the material basis of the existence of privilege not aligned with class that has concrete effects on class politics is theoretical poverty and practical abstention – or worse – practical exercise of these privileges in an oppressive fashion.

A critique of anti-imperialist forms that assume the support of States rather than peoples cannot become anti-anti-imperialism without becoming imperialist in discourse and practice. Or social-imperialist if you will. Just as Polish workers rejected the Bolsheviks early on, one can both reject facile, reactionary nationalism, and understand the need for national self-determination as an integral part of the process of class self-determination. Chavez’s State is not the same, qualitatively and quantitatively, as Obama’s and to treat them as the same is theoretical lazyness at the level of those who hide behind this fact to provide unconditional defense of Chavez.

Lastly, I cannot help but view this as yet another sectarian, shibboleth pseudo-academic study group that will do nothing to organize real people, with real tasks, that have any real political impact. Too bad, because some of the things said here are indeed important.

By: Mikey

Mikey — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:15:34 +0000

Good stuff. I was wondering if y’all could provide some references for your perspective on Argentina. Sounds fascinating and I’d love to learn more.

By: Why Are Things As They Are? » Blog Archive » Rouge Forum Update: All Out October 7th! Plus More!

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:21:35 +0000

[...] http://insurgentnotes.com/2010/06/presenting-insurgent-notes/ [...]

By: Erratum

Erratum — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:07:26 +0000

The quotation you begin this essay with is from The German Ideology, not the manifesto.

By: S.Artesian

S.Artesian — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:56:15 +0000

Thanks Simon. I’m not quite so sure that there is a Leninist paradigm. As a matter of fact, I’m quite sure there isn’t a Leninist paradigm. There is definite mythology of a Leninist paradigm, but the paradigm itself? Nope… don’t see it. I do see, at its peak, the organization of Bolsheviks, not just representing the most militant, aware, aggressive section of the Russian workers, but actually being “overtaken” in a sense by those workers.

And internationally? Well, if the 3rd International is a paradigm, it’s a paradigm of something other than how an international communist movement should conduct itself.

Anyway, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. If a “new paradigm” is going to be developed, in order for it to be new, and developed, and a paradigm, it’s going to take a lot more than me and you talking about it. I’m pretty sure that part of the “trick” to all this is that the working class has to put itself into a position to establish its own organizations, its own models, its self as a paradigm.

best regards,

By: Simon Zarrow

Simon Zarrow — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:54:49 +0000

The issues of the class nature of the USSR was dealt with in an intelligent way, so that people like myself and Walter could both live with it. But it raises an issue which is dialecticsally inter-related to the issue of the Leninist theroy of a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries. You can reject Trotsky’s theory of the USSR after 1921 as being a workers state, without rejecting the theory of a vanguard party. I think the latter issue is still an open question.
The way I de-link the two is in my distiction between supporting a workers state without supporting state property. I think that the failure of the Bolshevik revolution and its extensions in Asia and elsewhere does not prove that we have to scrap the Leninist theory of the vangurd party, only that we have to scrap the strategy of having the workers state expropriate the bourgeoisie through nationalization of statetification of the major means of production.
Nationalization is inherently regressive, even if carried out by a workers state.
The road to socialism does not mean that we have to give up the idea of the dictatorship of the proleteriat, which under cases of civil war and capitalist encirclement may require a one-party state. My main difference with Bolshevism is thus not on their organizational form but on their party-state expropriating the capitalists, rather than allowing the mass working class organizations to do it themselves. That is why I have consisenty called for the de-commodification of the means of production, distribution and exchange, so that they are not the property of anyone, including the workers state. They should be controlled by the workers own mass-, workplace- and community-based organizations, and noone one should be able to gain a capitalist profit from them or buy or bequeth them or trade shares in them. The way to expropriate the capitalists is not to nationalize their property but to declare all capitalist property titles, all shares, all stocks, all bonds, all debts to capitlaist financial institutions to be null and void.

By: Simon Zarrow

Simon Zarrow — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:03:57 +0000

I.N. Editorial: “… the more theoretically and practically armed the real movement is, the less it will need “leaders” and “vanguards” of any kind. In contrast to the centrality of key leaders (one thinks e.g., of Lenin) in most revolutions of the past, we feel that the deeper and more substantial the revolutionary leadership is, the stronger it will be…”
The theory and practice of the revolutionaly organization of the masses, needs to both appropriate and surpass the bourgeoise theories of governmental, business and military organization. It is not enough to dismiss the Leninist paradigm. A new paradigm needs to develop which insures the survival of any form of working class (self-) leadership from the attacks of the capitlaist class and their governmental, business and military agents.
Otherwise, I can agree with everything else in your editorial comment, and look forward to working with you, at least in a literary capacity.