Strengthening Our Politics, Commitment and Growth: BRRN 4th National Convention

  • Posted on: 19 September 2017
  • By: thecollective

From Black Rose Anarchist Federation

A Report on the Black Rose/Rosa Negra 4th National Convention

By Romina, Lisette and Ollie

On a Saturday afternoon in Rochester, NY, fifty members of the Black Rose Anarchist Federation gathered outside The Flying Squirrel Community Space to take a group photo. Members from 14 locals, as well as many at-large members, travelled from across the country to participate in their organization’s fourth convention. As the group walked back inside, one member was quoted saying that, “the convention so far was one of the best conversations we’ve had in the federation on strategy, the current moment and our next steps.”

Turning Point

This convention represented a turning point for Black Rose/Rosa Negra (BRRN), the largest anarchist-communist political organization in the US. Founded in November of 2013 in Chicago, BRRN was born following a series of conferences known as the Class Struggle Anarchist (CSA) conferences. Four conferences took place from 2008 to 2012 and participating organizations included Amanecer based in California, Collective Action based in the Pacific Northwest, Four Star Collective based in Chicago, Miami Autonomy and Solidarity (MAS), Wild Rose Collective based in Iowa, Worker Solidarity Alliance (WSA) and what became the the First of May Anarchist Alliance (M1). The CSA meetings represented a sector of class conscious anarchists who believed in the need to create a specific anarchist organization to better coordinate their struggles politically and strategically. Some of the organizations were inspired by the writings of South American anarchist-communist organizations such as the Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (FARJ) in Brazil and Congreso de Unificación Anarco Comunista (CUAC) in Chile. While not all participating organizations and individuals in CSA went on to form BRRN, since the federation’s first convention in 2013 it has grown in terms of locals, individual militants, and its political development. This year’s convention was a step forward in solidifying those advancements.

Early Challenges

As one of our comrades further acquainted us with the history of BRRN, we recalled the many fold challenges that the federation experienced in its early years. First, there existed a political gap in which a large percentage of members had little experience working within a political organization or in mass social movement spaces or assemblies. US radicalism in the last several decades has been plagued by short-lived activism, with many militants dropping out of politics by their late 20s, so there has also existed a tendency towards reactionary activism instead of long-term movement building. Second, after its founding, BRRN militants had to undergo the challenge of organizing with a group of people who were brought together by ideological agreement with minimal experience in common political work outside of their cities and regions. Third, the majority of those who founded BRRN were politically trained in spaces that were either networks or locally based collectives that often functioned in large part by individual initiative. Thus began the sometimes difficult journey of adjusting the political work of our militants to a more fully developed political organization based on collective discussion and accountability. Lastly, over the course of the last three conventions, BRRN has struggled with constructing a national analysis of the current political moment, while understanding the complexity of social movements and worker struggles whose character vary geographically. In other words, BRRN has battled with coalescing local politics to national developments and moving away from activism and towards reflective and intentional militancy based on a shared strategic framework.

Steps Forward – Strategy and Sectors

With the growing pains and old wounds from participation in many struggles, it is important to keep in mind that BRRN conventions are a place to reconvene, reflect, and strategize. The overarching goal of this year’s convention was to agree on a national strategy, as well as for committees – BRRN’s social movement base – to create multi-year plans with intermediate goals. BRRN committees include labor organizing, territorial/community organizing, anti-criminalization committee, and international relations, as well as several others. By focusing on achievable committee goals and strengthening the relationships between locals, Black Rose/Rosa Negra has taken a substantial step in coalescing its political strengths, exchanging experiences, and supporting each other through much-needed solidarity campaigns. It also reflects a move to set priorities in the organization’s political work that is foundational to maintaining and building a revolutionary libertarian socialist movement.

Throughout the weekend, many conversations quickly centered on topics such as accountability and racial analysis, making it apparent that there was a need for increased attention on these subjects. This motivated some BRRN members to meet and discuss how to move forward on those issues in the coming year. The convention drew many positive takeaways, including the broad political discussion on the current political moment, also called conjunctural analysis or análisis de coyuntura, based on a document titled “Below and Beyond Trump: Power and Counter-Power in 2017.” It highlighted the agreement between delegates and other participants on the overall analysis and BRRN’s role as political and social movement actors. The discussion also illuminated the organization’s internal challenges and areas for development and focus in the coming year. We asked one member from Boston, a long time organizer who was a member of a predecessor organization, to give their thoughts: “The discussion following the presentation was one I’d never seen before in the federation and I believe showed the maturity of the organization. We were discussing an analysis by our own members, written about the current context of the US but rooted in cross-border traditions. It was a very uplifting and hopeful moment.”

Feeling inspired from the day’s discussion on federation history, accomplishments, and strategy, members began to break out into various committees based on the strategic sectors and social insertion work they were engaged. These sectors reflect broad social movements that unite popular subjects across the multitude of causes that affect them. They also allow BRRN to gauge where the organization can begin to build popular power. During this time, members began to work towards drafting short, mid, and long term goals for each sector. Amid this workshop, news came flooding in from the Charlottesville that a fascist had driven a car into crowd of counter-protesters.

Don’t Mourn, Organize And Struggle

The room became somber as it was announced that one person was confirmed dead and that several others had been injured. We heard reports at the time that the person killed was marching with and might have been a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), an organization with close ties to BRRN and that many members are also involved in. Local Rochester members began planning with other left organizations for a vigil later that night and a committee of members from various locals quickly drafted a solidarity statement, “Mourn the Dead, Fight Like Hell for the Living.

It was imperative that as comrades everyone come together in solidarity – not only as members of BRRN from different parts of the country – but as a community. As members later gathered that at Washington Square Park in Rochester, they took turns speaking along with dozens of others who were mourning the loss of a comrade in the struggle against white supremacy and fascism. The noticeable effect of the tragic incident carried throughout the rest of the weekend – not in mourning but a sense of solidarity and seriousness to our work.

On Sunday, the last day of convention, delegates voted on proposals that would either become official documents or changes made to BRRN’s constitution before everyone headed back to their respective communities. The impressive persistence and debates to the topics at hand granted the opportunity to deal with most of the organization’s critical propositions. As the weekend came to an end, all attendees had a list of projects and tasks to follow through and bring back to their locals and committees. The overall feedback from BRRN militants, as well as integrating members (those in the process of joining), was that the convention had fulfilled or exceeded their expectations in terms of productivity and strategy with aspirations to continue the growth of their organization and its commitment to libertarian socialism.

category: 

Comments

Boy that's got me hooked.

the "best" of north american organizationalism. they don't even understand what could possibly be irrelevant about their style, their vocabulary, their activistism, their constitutionalism...
like almost every other organizationalist, they never question the need for organization, and they've already figured out how to expel troublesome members. it's a sick joke to call this "anarchist".

they can't even organize a sentence.

What are "class conscious anarchists?" Is there some sort of exam to rise up to the rank of class conscious?

it is an anarchist who thinks about "economic class" or "social class" in any kind of way recognizable within Marxist tradition.

Class consciousness in 1 easy step: be broke as fuck.

There's also an expensive alternative involving a lot of reading books in classrooms so that the children of the rich can vaguely relate to this experience through abstraction.

These kind of US anarchist attempts at some kind of ongoing real world effort always run like this:

1. An enormous and stupefying amount of verbiage is expended discussing the organization's ever-more improved and energetic internal seating arrangements and ability to issue name tags at conferences -- but, tellingly, there is nothing here describing what makes their politics any different from every other well-intentioned clueless compulsive protester to the left of Elizabeth Warren, including a large percentage of future Elizabeth Warren voters.

2. Attempts at some kind of real world social struggle that are exclusively based around anarchism are bound to go nowhere. There are plenty of excellent insights found in a better and more intelligent form in the writings and actions of Marx, the German and Dutch left, the Situationists and Gilled Dauve. Anyone who claims to be about the real world who ignores them cannot be taken seriously and is probably just not very bright.

3. Since they can't take any big chances, they aren't going to hurt anybody's feelings -- the last thing they want to do is to hurt anyone's easily bruised feelings! So, anachro-syndicalist role playing games -- leafletting the coal-stokers at the nearest Zeppelin factory with members of Ye Olde IWW -- must be humored. Nobody else on the 21st century planet Earth will humor this stuff, but anarchists must always play nice -- extra nicey nice! -- especially when it comes at the expense of contemporary real world relevance, which involves sharp thinking and a willingness to swim against the stream.

Ye Olde IWW and accompanying anarchro-syndicalist role playing games are the empty organizational shell of a social movement that thrived for ten years and began to irreversibly die out one hundred years ago with US entry into World War One, and the accompanying U.S. government and lynch mob reign of terror. The very best the empty organizational shell of a once heroic and long dead real world social movement can come up with is activity that amounts to volunteer social work. Volunteer social work is not class struggle, it is not antagonistic to the capitalist mode of production, and no amount of self-indulgent wishful thinking will make it so.

It's time to retool...

Alexander Selkirk
e-mail: prole.anger@gmail.com

You're bringing a lot of baggage to a simple concept IMO. Obviously we form groups as force multipliers for the individual and every attempt is different and limited only by those individuals.

If the group gets too large, you start to run in to unavoidable problems of representation and latent hierarchy but that's the arena. Either jump in or leave the stadium, whichever you prefer.

Why would explicitly anarchist groups be any different?

I believe that's an oxymoron my friend;)

You believe that with an almost religious fervour... I haven't found it to be a contradiction at all. Individuals can participate in groups as individuals, bizarre to suggest they can't.

are the problem obviously. That's what usually drives force multiplication(military tactics for instance). Mere human scale grouping is quite fine so long as the association is lose or based on good bonds.

Oh right, you mean like, what I was talking about in the first place? ...You pedantic fuck?

Hhh...elll no. It's time for actual anarchic orientation which means moving away from contrived constituted struggle and organization. Organization and mediation are the twin towers of what anarchy is against.

SirEinzige: the previous post is aimed at thinking people, who want sustained collective action in the real world, not national socialist internet trolls like you.

I think I hear your mommy calling...or maybe its your attendant with the meds.

is precisely what national socialists want in their own way. I'm a thinker against organization and mediation. How that amounts to national socialism only you can explain.

Zen for instance has had a much more lasting impact in various worlds and people then constituted ideological struggle has. Anarchy needs to be a mind and body movement. Corporeal not constituted.

Ziggy, remember how you always say you're "not a realist"? This disqualifies you from certain discussions.

Being arealist does not mean one rejects that there is reality or 3rd person out their. One simply rejects that there is objective substance to it. You're not all that different from Ayn Rand if you believe that Aristotelian nonsense(something that captivated both Marx and Rand)

Yes well, staring in to our own navels can be amusing for awhile but it eventually started to bore me.

There's more to it then that;)

I sincerely doubt that. Damned internet is full of people who think they're accomplishing something by bashing away at the keyboard but most of it is just an electric daydream.

Go listen to The Brilliant interview with Jason McQuinn. The type of things that make anarch practice actual have nothing to do with constituted struggle. It's simply finding the creative other and creatively maneuvering around a mediated organized world.

You're assuming that I haven't AND assuming that it's interesting to me. Typical.

On a note related to the original post:

The New York magazine n+1 had a lengthy review of the ultra-left journal 'EndNotes' in its last issue.

This letter was published in the most recent issue of n+1, issue 29, Fall 2017:

DEAR EDITORS,

There was a factual error in your review (“The Bleak Left,” Issue 28) of the ultraleft journal Endnotes. The ultraleft theorist Gilles Dauvé was not involved in the journal Invariance. Since the 1970s, Dauvé has been involved in publications ranging from Le Mouvement Communiste and Mordicus to Troploin. Jacques Camatte was one of the main authors of Invariance and there is a world of difference between Dauvé’s perspectives and those of Camatte. A wrong answer on something as crucial as this could get you bounced out of the final round on Jeopardy.

Regarding Endnotes: my understanding is that after Marx died, Engels reminisced that when the two began their partnership as young men, they resolved to write all their works at a level that would be readily comprehensible to persons of average intelligence and educational level. Anything other than this they regarded as being irrelevant to the real movement to abolish existing conditions. A set of theories that can contribute to a liberatory downfall of the global market order must emerge from ongoing involvement in public action that has some potential to generate this. It must try to suggest practical strategies and tactics of use to nonacademic working people. It has to grow and adapt as it engages with the complex, contradictory reality outside a theorist’s comfort zone. This does not take place in Endnotes.

It is difficult to imagine anyone who doesn’t have a doctorate in advanced Marxoid studies reading Endnotes. It is even more difficult to see how its insights can be put to use. If transit-system operators, transit-system riders, supermarket cashiers, and enlisted people in the armed forces will never encounter Endnotes, then in real-world subversive terms, Endnotes does not exist. Pessimism about the possibility of global revolutionary change is understandable, but the specific kind of pessimism exhibited in Endnotes is consistent with its subjectively insurrectionary authors’ lack of a credible will to act on what they believe — outside a cosseted academic echo chamber, in contexts where they can be taken seriously by friend and foe alike.

For all its undoubted brilliance, Endnotes inadvertently proves that there is an impermeable firewall separating all college Marxist theory, no matter how subjectively radical, from life outside academia. What happens within the precincts of the bourgeois academy stays there. Ongoing collective action against what capitalism does to our lives has never been more necessary, and the conditions that give rise to it in the United States grow more promising by the day. If a body of supposed revolutionary theory does not contribute to mass collective resistance to capitalism however, this theory adds up to nothing.

 — Kevin Keating

It's disowned. There has been resistance to capitalism clear on back to 1848. There's nothing concrete being resisted. Only belief and behavior patterns which ultimately come down to issues of habit and preference. I hate to keep repeating the obvious, but it's the fucking obvious.

That's a false dichotomy. All of the resisters have long since disowned but after observing for awhile, they realized that being a passive spectator was still a form of participation.

It can lead to a profound sense of solitude and self which most individuals who are attached do not go down. Attachment alone can explain why something like capitalism can exist.

Annd you completely missed the point. Hint: You presume to lecture those who've moved so far past your own understanding that they're about to lap you but you think you're ahead ..

The problem with resisters is that they are not really disowning. Once you disown there is nothing really to resist outside of the corporeal.

That's a fluffy, metaphysical observation. At best, partially true up until the enemy kicks in your door. Your fancy ideas just bounce off of them ... They ignore you or laugh as you continue to explain you've "disowned the corporeal".

And that rarely happens in the grand scheme of things THEN it becomes corporeal struggle not constituted. You seem to think that living an anarchic life effectively entails some kind of threat detection, it doesn't. Overall what creates the door kickers is the integrated belief behavior totality of law order and organization among other things and these things are not struggled against, their disowned. There is also a realm of contestation in regards to hearts and minds and getting less people to believe and behave in and of authority law order ect but that again is not struggle, it's persuasion.

Blah blah blah, loosely translated as "I'm rarely targeted by, or have hostile interactions with police."

A very verbose version of the tired old adage that the innocent have nothing to worry about. A dangerously naive position.

The amount of door kicking I have to face is irrelevant. That aside, if I face that, that would be a good example of an actual STRUGGLE. It is abstract contrived struggle that creates even more problems on top of what already exists right now. Whether you like it or not it is more about belief contestation then any kind of abstract reified constituted struggle.

Right. The problem is you spend a lot of time here telling people you've never met and know nothing about, that their struggles aren't "real" according to you because it makes you feel clever.

You're impossible as always, only bad faith assumes I'm talking about matters of faith.

Especially since YOU were talking about physical struggle too, that was the topic. You just can't resist coming back to your irrelevant but familiar talking points.

Is that you can make just about ANYTHING feel real if you are just going for feels and belief and not focusing on the corporeal. In that regard I do think that elective ideologues have some commonalities with the religious believers of the past that they succeeded who had their own 'struggles'.

Yeah, you changed the topic because you were out of your depth. I'm well aware of how rhetoric works.

If you review I am making a distinction between corporeal vs constituted struggle which is not indicative of real vs non real(you're talking to an arealist remember). Feeling real has nothing to do with it. As I said certain things that FEEL real to someone do not feel REAL to another.

What exactly do you /mean/ by "constituted" struggle? In what way is it distinguished from "corporeal" struggle? Thanks in advance. I enjoy reading your posts.

bodies is perpetually bein made-up whereas constitution're categorically isolate.
the world aint finished, yo! best believe yo own self ,be

That or actually having a sense of belonging to defend. Think of any struggle based on elective positions and proposed solutions(the anti-globalization movement for instance).

Same anon from earlier ziggy, you realize that I accept this point you're belabouring? I get it. Some "struggles" are a mirage.

The problem is that you always assume everyone is making this mistake you're always talking about. You have no basis to assume that just because someone uses the word struggle, that they're talking about spooks.

It's as likely as not but you always assume that we're all idiots and need a stirner 101 lecture.

All of them are clear on back to that non corporeal class struggle nonesense. I'm open to idiosycracies but for the most part all conceptions of struggle I see our based on intention as opposed to dealing with an actual existential threat.

"All conceptions of struggle I see" This, right here, is your bias. The edge of your blinders, if you're at all interested in personal growth, look harder.

You might notice what I posted right before your quotation. If we are talking about corporeal extensions involving, say, a place of belonging then I would consider something like that legitimate. Most of what is called struggle however tends to based on elective proposed political dispositions which are rooted in deeper tribal and religious behavior. Nothing relatable to ownness which is mostly what matters.

As you so often repeat ... So I'll do it too.
I understand your pedantic crap ziggy. But you aren't god of what is and isn't real, you just like waving your hands around as if you are.

your nuances re the word "struggle" and which also relates to "realism" and "arealism' are, in my view, important to moving us in the direction of 'on the same page'.

i posted a comment in this regard but it was removed by thecollective.

in fact, such nuances are not only unpopular generally, to persist in bringing them up seems to increase the odds of getting one's comments removed; i.e. there seems to be a 'pro-realist' bias [intolerance of 'arealist' views] in the editorial actions of Anarchistnews. If so, this would be worth exploring as well.

my erased comment with a prefix on this sense of a (pro-)realist editorial bias can be found (hopefully) at this location in the forum;
'Realist' bias (intolerance) in Anarchistnews Editorial policy

That's great sweetheart but nobody was talking to you. A relational exercise in futility if ever there was one, Emile is truly a "thing in himself".

Questions for BRRN:

1. What distinguishes your politics from every other hapless gaggle of anarcho-leftist protest ghetto scenesters?

2. Please go into some telling detail about how you've applied this politics in some kind of contemporary real world social struggle.

when colonizers induce rebellion in the indigenous populace they are colonizing and claim that this 'past abuse' that 'rears its ugly head' is the self-actualized product of independently-arising, terrorist 'systems-in-themselves', such denial amounts to 'paranoid schizophrenia'. an example is 'the war on terrorism'.

as adam curtis has pointed out, the scattered brushfires of rebellion in indigenous populations induced by Euro-American colonizing activity were arising independent of one another because they were inductively actualized rather than centrally directed,... like the hairs that rise up on your head from the inductive influence an electrical field. there is no point in going up to one of a group of hairs 'standing at attention' and demanding; 'take me to your leader' because there is no leader and no common central directed organization where the animating source is inductive actualization [epigenetic influence].

as mach, nietzsche and other philosophers have noted, the ability of 'errors of grammar' in noun-and-verb language, to invert the animating order of things by inventing notional 'things-in-themselves' and imputing 'genetic agency' to relational activities within a global relational matrix wherein such activities are inductively actualized, ... is the source of 'incoherency' [Bohm] characteristic of the Western social dynamic. After the past abuse of colonizing activity rears its ugly head in scattered brush-fires which are evidently 'inductively actualized', colonizers-in-denial will insist that such rebellion is arising as a 'system-in-itself' [terrorism] actualized by its own internal genetic agency.

curtis pointed out that Al Qaeda is a name coined by the CIA to refer to a cluster of induced rebel actions that Osama bin Ladin was helping to finance. there was no common centrally directed 'terrorist organization' and bin Ladin was in no way a 'commander'.

to understand how we can come up with the notion of an 'independent system-in-itself', we only need recall that science bases its models on the simplification that 'the present depends only on the immediate past'. therefore colonization's abuses of the past do not figure in science's [rationality's] deduction of the 'cause' of rebellious action, and thus 'rebellious action' is assumed to be the action of independently-existing 'rebel systems in themselves' animated by their own internal genetic agency; i.e. when many brushfires break out, there is no thought of 'inductive actualizing' arising from 'past abuses' which have never gone away but continued to smolder and finally 'flamed up' where sufficient oxygen [money and AK47s] became available.

the notional dualist separating of 'inhabitant' and 'habitat' simplifies the modeling of physical phenomena by obscuring inductive influence and reducing the source of dynamics to cause-and-effect actions traceable to notional 'things-in-themselves', superficially avoiding relational complexity. meanwhile, rationality applied to social-relational dynamics in this dualist manner is the source of paranoid schizophrenia as characterizes the now globally Dominant Western Society [ 'Fuck You, Buddy' (Adam Curtis) ]

indigenous peoples, those with traditionalist beliefs, which have mostly been sublimated beneath the noun-and-verb language based European culture, have complained to colonizer governments (e.g. of the US and Canada) about how they have been treated. this is absurd if you don't believe in the existence of these authoritarian structures.

to get traction on this lies beyond the common everyday level language that marx and engels opted for. it does not lie beyond the intuition of the people nor beyond 'relational languages, but it does lie beyond 'reason' or 'rationality' which are the product of noun-and-verb languages [languages are simple tools-of-convenience for sharing facsimiles of experience that cannot possibly 'go the distance' in capturing the physical reality of our actual experience]

this is absurd. it only concretizes the imputed 'existence' of the sovereign state structure which is based on nothing other than 'belief' in it. In addition to this, the indigenous peoples are employing the white man's moral judgement based retributive judgement and seeking retribution from, who else, the authoritarian structure they don't believe in the existence of.

in Canada, there has been huge effort by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to place on record how Canada has mistreated its indigenous peoples, and to demand an apology. ["IT'S" indigenous peoples???]

the fluffy metaphysics lies with the unquestioned belief in semantic structures like Harvey, Irma, Katrina, Canada, US, GM. these structures are psychological pseudo-realities whose existence comes from legal declarations written up by politicians, scientists and lawyers, ... they are not physically real "things-in-themselves". sure, there is physically real impact in association with people who believe in them and claim that they are acting 'with the authority of God and the Queen/President' and all of that crap, .... people who, in order to get a piece of a colonizing real-estate grab, have to swear an oath of allegiance affirming belief in the existence of absolute incontestable Sovereign Authorityand agreeing to bear arms and, if necessary, give their lives to preserve belief in the notional 'existence' of these 'things-in-themselves' that 'must be obeyed'.

yesterday, Justin Trudeau gave a speech at the United Nations which was described as a 'mea culpa' for the way that Canada has "treated its indigenous peoples" ["IT'S" indigenous people??? ... how paternalistic is that?]. what this does is to reinforce the paternalism that is inherent in the belief-based sovereign state authoritarian structure which has risen to global dominance.

'capitalism' depends on belief in the authority of sovereign states and their land-grabs [property ownership, itself, depends on the dualist belief in inhabitant-habitat separate existences].

at the bottom of both of these 'resistances' is psychological 'dualism', the metaphysical belief in the independent existences of 'inhabitant' and 'habitat' which sets up 'property ownership' and thus the authority of the state which is 'property ownership' based.

physical resistance by indigenous peoples against the 'state' does not touch 'belief' in the existence of the state. in fact, it bolsters belief in the state's existence, even among the 'resistors'. the same is true with resistance to capitalism.

too bad marx and engels decided to use it to convey their debunking of capitalism.

as whorf and watts and others have pointed out, the simple, convenient, 'easily understood', 'semantic realities' we construct with noun-and-verb language-and-grammar is where 'psychological dualism' comes from.

resistance to capitalism is absurd if you don't believe in capitalism.

EMILE9000 is a poor facsimile of the real emile.

as adam curtis has pointed out, the scattered brushfires of rebellion in indigenous populations induced by Euro-American colonizing activity were arising independent of one another because they were inductively actualized rather than centrally directed,... like the hairs that rise up on your head from the inductive influence an electrical field. there is no point in going up to one of a group of hairs 'standing at attention' and demanding; 'take me to your leader' because there is no leader and no common central directed organization where the animating source is inductive actualization [epigenetic influence].

when colonizers induce rebellion in the indigenous populace they are colonizing and claim that this 'past abuse' that 'rears its ugly head' is the self-actualized product of independently-arising, terrorist 'systems-in-themselves', such denial amounts to 'paranoid schizophrenia'. an example is 'the war on terrorism'.

curtis pointed out that Al Qaeda is a name coined by the CIA to refer to a cluster of induced rebel actions that Osama bin Ladin was helping to finance. there was no common centrally directed 'terrorist organization' and bin Ladin was in no way a 'commander'.

as mach, nietzsche and other philosophers have noted, the ability of 'errors of grammar' in noun-and-verb language, to invert the animating order of things by inventing notional 'things-in-themselves' and imputing 'genetic agency' to relational activities within a global relational matrix wherein such activities are inductively actualized, ... is the source of 'incoherency' [Bohm] characteristic of the Western social dynamic. After the past abuse of colonizing activity rears its ugly head in scattered brush-fires which are evidently 'inductively actualized', colonizers-in-denial will insist that such rebellion is arising as a 'system-in-itself' [terrorism] actualized by its own internal genetic agency.

the notional dualist separating of 'inhabitant' and 'habitat' simplifies the modeling of physical phenomena by obscuring inductive influence and reducing the source of dynamics to cause-and-effect actions traceable to notional 'things-in-themselves', superficially avoiding relational complexity. meanwhile, rationality applied to social-relational dynamics in this dualist manner is the source of paranoid schizophrenia as characterizes the now globally Dominant Western Society

to understand how we can come up with the notion of an 'independent system-in-itself', we only need recall that science bases its models on the simplification that 'the present depends only on the immediate past'. therefore colonization's abuses of the past do not figure in science's [rationality's] deduction of the 'cause' of rebellious action, and thus 'rebellious action' is assumed to be the action of independently-existing 'rebel systems in themselves' animated by their own internal genetic agency; i.e. when many brushfires break out, there is no thought of 'inductive actualizing' arising from 'past abuses' which have never gone away but continued to smolder and finally 'flamed up' where sufficient oxygen [money and AK47s] became available.

Everyone knows that the schizo is a machine.

Open the pod bay doors emile.

"1. This is totally not a hostile, loaded question in bad faith because it clearly isn't a reflection of my biases.

2. Seek my approval and ye shall receive none but I still expect thee to seek it because I'm a big deal in my own mind."

Oh, but of course. We must bear in mind that U.S. anarcho-subculture weenies bruise more easily than functional grown-up.

Presumably the BRRN people don't bruise this easy, though. I'm looking forward to their response.

Not even from the US Kevin but you've long since lost the ability to do anything but hurl abuse at your little strawman. Still have to wonder if this is only a troll parody because damn is it sad if that's actually you!

yeah, it's actually him; the limited and obsessively repetitive vocabulary gives him away. arguably he's been a self-parody at least since he got arrested for being drunk and disorderly while disembarking from that international flight at SFO... one could almost feel sorry for him. until he opens his yap

Are any BRRN people paying attention to this? Or is it just the usual anonymous nothing to say and no words to say it with turds?

You scene weenies are ineffectual!
https://youtu.be/yUR5V7ykdpA

While addressing the inadequacy of certain ultra-leftoids, this letter, in the current Fall 2017, Issue #29 of the NYC journal 'n+1,' also addresses alternatives to ancient mariner anachro-swindacalism:

DEAR EDITORS,

There was a factual error in your review (“The Bleak Left,” Issue 28) of the ultraleft journal Endnotes. The ultraleft theorist Gilles Dauvé was not involved in the journal Invariance. Since the 1970s, Dauvé has been involved in publications ranging from Le Mouvement Communiste and Mordicus to Troploin. Jacques Camatte was one of the main authors of Invariance and there is a world of difference between Dauvé’s perspectives and those of Camatte. A wrong answer on something as crucial as this could get you bounced out of the final round on Jeopardy.

Regarding Endnotes: my understanding is that after Marx died, Engels reminisced that when the two began their partnership as young men, they resolved to write all their works at a level that would be readily comprehensible to persons of average intelligence and educational level. Anything other than this they regarded as being irrelevant to the real movement to abolish existing conditions. A set of theories that can contribute to a liberatory downfall of the global market order must emerge from ongoing involvement in public action that has some potential to generate this. It must try to suggest practical strategies and tactics of use to nonacademic working people. It has to grow and adapt as it engages with the complex, contradictory reality outside a theorist’s comfort zone. This does not take place in Endnotes.

It is difficult to imagine anyone who doesn’t have a doctorate in advanced Marxoid studies reading Endnotes. It is even more difficult to see how its insights can be put to use. If transit-system operators, transit-system riders, supermarket cashiers, and enlisted people in the armed forces will never encounter Endnotes, then in real-world subversive terms, Endnotes does not exist. Pessimism about the possibility of global revolutionary change is understandable, but the specific kind of pessimism exhibited in Endnotes is consistent with its subjectively insurrectionary authors’ lack of a credible will to act on what they believe — outside a cosseted academic echo chamber, in contexts where they can be taken seriously by friend and foe alike.

For all its undoubted brilliance, Endnotes inadvertently proves that there is an impermeable firewall separating all college Marxist theory, no matter how subjectively radical, from life outside academia. What happens within the precincts of the bourgeois academy stays there. Ongoing collective action against what capitalism does to our lives has never been more necessary, and the conditions that give rise to it in the United States grow more promising by the day. If a body of supposed revolutionary theory does not contribute to mass collective resistance to capitalism however, this theory adds up to nothing.

Kevin Keating

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
3
V
3
Y
W
T
x
Enter the code without spaces.