nah we should absolutely moneyball protest actions. it's the same analysis that tells us adventurism is usually counter-productive to our side, and we don't need people going out in one of the worst ways to do it because they wrongly think it'll make a difference if it will, in fact, not make a difference.
Counterpoint if you never actualy do anything then nothing ever actualy happens.
People who argue against adventurism out of pragmatism are completely disconnected to the reality we're losing, in fact in most ways we already lost and if you can't do anything meaningful at least do something that will be remembered for future generations.
Just surviving is rational but not inherently more productive, those that usualy argue against adventurism are also not doing any other form of praxis either.
I think it is fine to argue back and forth on whether its productive or not, but at the same time it is so hard not to be cynical and note the western left doesn't do anything period, so it is just hypocritical in the end from the perspective of a western left that is completely inert and disorganized.
you need support of the community, like the irl community where you're going to be violent to get away with it and have it not totally undermine the thing we want.
actually blowing up a pipeline would turn people against environmentalism better than years of propaganda ever could
the mckinley assassination lead directly to the creation of the FBI
regardless of how adventurous your adventure is you need some way for the action to lead to some outcome and the last time i can think of that happening in the US is the fucking weather underground getting a cop statue removed from a public park.
And like don't we need a strong vanguard party before making any moves? The christofascists will happily take over any revolutionary movement. Adventurism is decades away from being something to even consider.
I’ve been thinking and, like… Adventurism bad, definitely, but is it possible our definition of it is way too open-ended? I’m starting to think, like, there’s tons of violent and extreme things that led to and fed into mass movements, people didn’t just get told they had to do things for Communism, they actually achieved small victories and obtained goals through many means like strikes that could turn violent or huge sit-ins. I’m beginning to doubt that the Russian Revolution happened just because a bunch of people passed out fliers advertising the vanguard. Even if they did, I don’t think it would work in our current environment, because at least in the imperial core, people are too locked into the exact kind of rationality that tells us not to do adventurism to do anything.
Like the same impulse to label the idea of smashing in a boss’ windows (don’t do this actually or anything I mention, I’m just trying to think out loud here) “adventurism” is fundamentally the same impulse as the people who get angry over people blockading highways or whatever. It’s all about not rocking the boat or risking oneself for maximum gain, but it’s looking like we aren’t getting any gain no matter what.
I’m beginning to think pretty much no mass movement started with nonviolent organization
Anybody reading, please don’t do anything hasty, this is theoretical discussion. I am not joking or making a cheeky nod- I genuinely don’t know what I’m talking about and am trying to understand
We could get very far with just food banks and free after school childcare and things like that. The Russian Revolution wasn't thoroughly compromised by glowies and a surveillance state. Crimes are not feasible in 2024.
Honestly, I don't know. It's possible that violent direct action in the tradition of American civil disobedience would be popular. Burn down a bomb factory when nobody's there to get injured, stuff like that. People felt inspired by pulling down racist statues in 2020 and that practice spread widely even though those wins are solely symbolic. The problem is that these things are difficult. If property damage type "adventurism" was easy, individual-scale, and not too risky, it might be something that atomized Americans would take to. On the right we have stochastic terrorism, because doing a mass shooting of random innocents doesn't take much planning. But that's incompatible with leftism, and besides it's the product of well-funded right-wing media and not a self-sustaining movement. I also doubt that, even if the American consumer could somehow do leftist adventurism on a whim, that that would be able to grow into the eventual mass movement we need for lasting change.
I also do think that like, a strike or protest that turns violent isn't adventurism. Yes if it's a small cadre that planned to fuck shit up, but not if it's just cops attacking peaceful events as usual.
by ML/M way of thinking yeah. anarchists presumably have a different framework for how to get from here to there but i've never seen a case study of it on the level of the BPP.
i think some small-time adventurism is viable in the west today, maybe a mob going after a slumlord, but not anything that fundamentally threatens the state.
nah we should absolutely moneyball protest actions. it's the same analysis that tells us adventurism is usually counter-productive to our side, and we don't need people going out in one of the worst ways to do it because they wrongly think it'll make a difference if it will, in fact, not make a difference.
Counterpoint if you never actualy do anything then nothing ever actualy happens.
People who argue against adventurism out of pragmatism are completely disconnected to the reality we're losing, in fact in most ways we already lost and if you can't do anything meaningful at least do something that will be remembered for future generations.
Just surviving is rational but not inherently more productive, those that usualy argue against adventurism are also not doing any other form of praxis either. I think it is fine to argue back and forth on whether its productive or not, but at the same time it is so hard not to be cynical and note the western left doesn't do anything period, so it is just hypocritical in the end from the perspective of a western left that is completely inert and disorganized.
you need support of the community, like the irl community where you're going to be violent to get away with it and have it not totally undermine the thing we want.
actually blowing up a pipeline would turn people against environmentalism better than years of propaganda ever could
the mckinley assassination lead directly to the creation of the FBI
regardless of how adventurous your adventure is you need some way for the action to lead to some outcome and the last time i can think of that happening in the US is the fucking weather underground getting a cop statue removed from a public park.
And like don't we need a strong vanguard party before making any moves? The christofascists will happily take over any revolutionary movement. Adventurism is decades away from being something to even consider.
I’ve been thinking and, like… Adventurism bad, definitely, but is it possible our definition of it is way too open-ended? I’m starting to think, like, there’s tons of violent and extreme things that led to and fed into mass movements, people didn’t just get told they had to do things for Communism, they actually achieved small victories and obtained goals through many means like strikes that could turn violent or huge sit-ins. I’m beginning to doubt that the Russian Revolution happened just because a bunch of people passed out fliers advertising the vanguard. Even if they did, I don’t think it would work in our current environment, because at least in the imperial core, people are too locked into the exact kind of rationality that tells us not to do adventurism to do anything.
Like the same impulse to label the idea of smashing in a boss’ windows (don’t do this actually or anything I mention, I’m just trying to think out loud here) “adventurism” is fundamentally the same impulse as the people who get angry over people blockading highways or whatever. It’s all about not rocking the boat or risking oneself for maximum gain, but it’s looking like we aren’t getting any gain no matter what.
I’m beginning to think pretty much no mass movement started with nonviolent organization
Anybody reading, please don’t do anything hasty, this is theoretical discussion. I am not joking or making a cheeky nod- I genuinely don’t know what I’m talking about and am trying to understand
We could get very far with just food banks and free after school childcare and things like that. The Russian Revolution wasn't thoroughly compromised by glowies and a surveillance state. Crimes are not feasible in 2024.
Yeah which kicks ass and unfortunately no one does grrr
Yeah that checks out
Honestly, I don't know. It's possible that violent direct action in the tradition of American civil disobedience would be popular. Burn down a bomb factory when nobody's there to get injured, stuff like that. People felt inspired by pulling down racist statues in 2020 and that practice spread widely even though those wins are solely symbolic. The problem is that these things are difficult. If property damage type "adventurism" was easy, individual-scale, and not too risky, it might be something that atomized Americans would take to. On the right we have stochastic terrorism, because doing a mass shooting of random innocents doesn't take much planning. But that's incompatible with leftism, and besides it's the product of well-funded right-wing media and not a self-sustaining movement. I also doubt that, even if the American consumer could somehow do leftist adventurism on a whim, that that would be able to grow into the eventual mass movement we need for lasting change.
I also do think that like, a strike or protest that turns violent isn't adventurism. Yes if it's a small cadre that planned to fuck shit up, but not if it's just cops attacking peaceful events as usual.
by ML/M way of thinking yeah. anarchists presumably have a different framework for how to get from here to there but i've never seen a case study of it on the level of the BPP.
i think some small-time adventurism is viable in the west today, maybe a mob going after a slumlord, but not anything that fundamentally threatens the state.