Chapotraphouse
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
the acts of terror that built the usa were organized and perpetrated by state-level actors not random proles with a rifle they legally bought at walmart
That's kind of how settler colonialism works. The state deputizes settlers to act as shock troopers and occupiers, but they're not necessarily state-level actors following orders. They're mostly independent and kept at a bit of distance for propaganda purposes, but when the natives strike back the army can come in and protect the settlers while pretending their actions are defending civilians.
That's half the point of the 2nd Amendment - the other half being a concession to slave owners that needed guns to maintain order.
There was a spike in approved health insurance claims when 
took out a mass murderer. Adventurism only provides a temporary solution, but it can be effective at that and pave the way for a more permanent solution.
Acts of terror achieve nothing
If an act of terror had been aimed a few inches more carefully in 2024, we might have avoided some of this past year.
Yes, a more competent head of the MAGA movement, and transforming the current one into a martyr, would surely make things better
Yeah, a magical new guy with the same cult following that Trump had groomed for 8 years would spring up suddenly and take over with the same degree of support.
And "more competent"? We've already got concentration camps and gestapo in the US, I daresay a "more competent" (less egomaniacal) head might have thought twice before kidnapping a fucking president of a sovereign nation.
But who knows, all of this is make believe. The point though is that acts of terror could in theory very much achieve things if done right.
The point of being against adventurism as a ML is that acts of terrorism not rooted in a mass worker's movement are useless for revolution. That conclusion was reached after watching decades of several groups fail to work with proletariat and get nowhere. Instead those groups eventually betrayed the workers or were opportunists who did it for kicks.
At this point people have been reading the gloating comments of libs and chuds all day. They've been doom-scrolling and their blood is up. Now they'll push the boundaries of fed posting until it wears off and then we'll go back to baseline. We've done this before.
At this point people have been reading the gloating comments of libs and chuds all day. They've been doom-scrolling and their blood is up.
Just going to amend this to: "At this point people have been watching the extermination of a people that has been rubber stamped by the entire western world. They've been doom-scrolling and their blood has been up for over 2 years"
Now they'll push the boundaries of fed posting until it wears off and then we'll go back to baseline. We've done this before.
Yes, this is true. Until the next bloodboiling, mind breaking war crime happens, and then those feelings will all rush back again.
Look, you're the one playing devil's advocate for something that is clearly wrong. If people who are angry don't know the difference between adventurism and an organized militant vanguard, then that's a good reason why they shouldn't be directing people towards action. A person on the other side of this argument was saying we should set wildfires and induce factory accidents (in a nation famous for caring about workers' injuries) as direct action. That's the exact kind of silly shit defending adventurism gets you.
I don't even think you or OP understand the word. I think you all are under the impression that adventurism is just a funny word for doing cool stuff like shooting CEOs and becoming a meme. You should want to label yourself an adventurist as much as you want to label yourself a liberal or reactionary. Imagine someone making a thread "Reactionary time" and then arguing that nothing can be done but being a reactionary. That's why I'm arguing with you. It's that ridiculous.
This isn't about anger being valid or not. Of course people should be angry. Purposefully using that anger to meme adventurism or drive people towards opportunists is shitty.
I am not playing "devil's advocate" - if you can't take what I'm saying in good faith, don't engage with me. I don't need to be spoken to condescendingly. What your post boils down to is the semantics of adventurism and once again, you people fail to understand people who feel the need to strike out and try to make a change (which is what we're talking about, regardless of which word you feel like using).
If people who are angry don't know the difference between adventurism and an organized militant vanguard...
https://hexbear.net/post/7235453
Here's a thread you might benefit from reading.
Devil's advocate is a perfectly applicable term for what you're doing. You're saying you're not an adventurist but that you understand them and see where they're coming from, then argue with people who disregard adventurism as a valid tactic. What else should I call it?
Here's some actual theory you might benefit from reading:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/09.htm
"When Marxists say that certain groups, are adventurist, they have in mind the very definite and specific social and historical features of a phenomenon, one that every class-conscious worker should be familiar with."
The history of Russian Social-Democracy teems with tiny groups, which sprang up for an hour, for several months, with no roots whatever among the masses (and politics without the masses are adventurist politics), and with no serious and stable principles. In a petty-bourgeois country, which is passing through a historical period of bourgeois reconstruction, it is inevitable that a motley assortment of intellectuals should join the workers, and that these intellectuals should attempt to form all kinds of groups, adventurist in character in the sense referred to above.
"Workers who do not wish to be fooled should subject every group to the closest scrutiny and ascertain how serious its principles are, and what roots it has in the masses. Put no faith in words; subject everything to the closest scrutiny—such is the motto of the Marxist workers."
The term has a real historical meaning. This is like calling the distinction between communists and dem socs petty semantics. Lenin goes on to speak about the historical context. I encourage you to read it.
you people fail to understand people who feel the need to strike out and try to make a change
I'm a communist so, no, I don't fail to understand the need to strike out and make a change. It's why I'm a communist. Adventurism is not synonymous with communism. The thread you posted has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You saw the word "organized" in my post and assumed I'm being vague. Nope, I have posted specific texts explaining what I'm talking about. Just because you refuse to read them doesn't mean I'm being vague or evasive.
I'll post from this once again as it precisely explains this whole thread and attitude.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/sep/01.htm
There is no need, of course, to engage in a serious analysis of this theory of deviation from socialism (in the event of disputes proper). In our opinion, the crisis of socialism makes it incumbent upon any in the least serious socialists to devote redoubled attention to theory—to adopt more resolutely a strictly definite stand, to draw a sharper line of demarcation between themselves and wavering and unreliable elements. In the opinion of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, if such things as confusion and splits are possible “even among Germans,” then it is God’s will that we, Russians, should pride ourselves on our ignorance of whither we are drifting. In our opinion, the absence of theory deprives a revolutionary trend of the right to existence and inevitably condemns it, sooner or later, to political bankruptcy. In the opinion of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, the absence of theory is a most excellent thing, most favourable “for unity.”
If your goal is to reach and bring people who feel the "need to strike out and make a change" into the fold, then dropping theoretical rigor won't help you do that. It makes you weaker as a revolutionary. Even though Lenin is talking about a split between adventurists and communists, this applies to any crises. Revisit theory, use it to sharpen your analysis and place a nice thick divide between you and the elements that aren't dependable. In our case it's adventurism.
In their defence of terrorism, which the experience of the Russian revolutionary movement has so clearly proved to be ineffective, the Socialist-Revolutionaries are talking themselves blue in the face in asseverating that they recognise terrorism only in conjunction with work among the masses, and that therefore the arguments used by the Russian Social-Democrats to refute the efficacy of this method of struggle (and which have indeed been refuted for a long time to come) do not apply to them. Here something very similar to their attitude towards “criticism” is repeating itself. We are not opportunists, cry the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and at the same time they are shelving the dogma of proletarian socialism, for reason of sheer opportunist criticism and no other. We are not repeating the terrorists’ mistakes and are not diverting attention from work among the masses, the Socialist-Revolutionaries assure us, and at the same time enthusiastically recommend to the Party acts such as Balmashov’s assassination of Sipyagin, although everyone knows and sees perfectly well that this act was in no way connected with the masses and, moreover, could not have been by reason of the very way in which it was carried out—that the persons who committed this terrorist act neither counted on nor hoped for any definite action or support on the part of the masses.
We are going through something similar. Adventurists claiming that they are working as communists do, and in conjunction with mass organization. Meanwhile they want to disregard the dogma of communism as being too stuffy, too rigorous, too theoretical. They view adventurism as the more practical approach, which is exactly what people here are entertaining. This is not because the people here are bad or evil, they just lack understanding and rigor. That's why I'm posting these works from Lenin. Let's revisit the theory and reestablish our understanding of adventurism and why it doesn't work. Let's not disregard theory in favor of focusing on anger as if communists are not angry or focusing on pragmatic change as if communist are not pragmatic.
Lenin points to how the adventurists use an example of an assassination to prove they're helping the working class. But it's specious upon investigation and act itself was carried out in a way that could never be considered as working with the masses. This is people who bring up Luigi as proof that adventurism works.
In their naïveté, the Socialist-Revolutionaries do not realise that their predilection for terrorism is causally most intimately linked with the fact that, from the very outset, they have always kept, and still keep, aloof from the working-class movement, without even attempting to become a party of the revolutionary class which is waging its class struggle. Over-ardent protestations very often lead one to doubt and suspect the worth of whatever it is that requires such strong seasoning. Do not these protestations weary them?—I often think of these words, when I read assurances by the Socialist-Revolutionaries: “by terrorism we are not relegating work among the masses into the background."After all, these assurances come from the very people who have already drifted away from the Social-Democratic labour movement, which really rouses the masses; they come from people who are continuing to drift away from this movement, clutching at fragments of any kind of theory.
Adventurists claim they are not sidelining the main work of communism yet they stray further and further away from the cause. Why does this happen? Once again, they lack rigor and are ready to disregard theory in favor of their supposed pragmatic work. You can again see flavors of this in praise of Luigi. Disregard that Luigi himself has no communist principles and that he acted completely alone and isolated from other victims of the healthcare industry let alone its workers or workers of any kind. Don't focus on that. Just focus on the headlines that came after, use vibes to show that it changed something. No rigor, no investigation, no critical support. This becomes the norm among adventurists and they become decoupled from communism. Only a movement grounded in rigor and discipline can push the needle.
Just listen to what follows: “Every terrorist blow, as it were, takes away part of the strength of the autocracy and transfers [!] all this strength [!] to the side of the fighters for freedom.” “And if terrorism is practised systematically [!], it is obvious that the scales of the balance will finally weigh down on our side.” Yes, indeed, it is obvious to all that we have here in its grossest form one of the greatest prejudices of the terrorists: political assassination of itself “transfers strength”! Thus, on the one hand you have the theory of the transference of strength, and on the other— “not in place of, but together with”.... Do not these protestations weary them?
This is in reply to pamphlet from an adventurist party. He's quoting what is printed. The party is advocating for more assassinations. Lenin notes a problem with their logic. They claim to be working in tandem with, not in place of, mass organization by communists. Yet they then describe their assassinations as the means by which power is transferred. This means that they don't actually believe in communism. They don't view change as something of the masses or democratic. This is why words have meaning. Communism is something specific, that describes a science or revolution. The science relies on certain ideas from which all others follow. If you fundamentally contradict or disagree with those ideas, then you're not talking about communism. The adventurist, unwittingly or otherwise, do not take the fundamentals of communism to be true. They don't see a value to mass organization because one person with a gun can just as easily, if not more easily, affect change. All the social engagement stuff goes out the window.
But this is just the beginning. The real thing is yet to come. “Whom are we to strike down?” asks the party of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and replies: the ministers, and not the tsar, for “the tsar will not allow matters to go to extremes” (!! How did they find that out??), and besides “it is also easier” (this is literally what they say!): “No minister can ensconce himself in a palace as in a fortress.” And this argument concludes with the following piece of reasoning, which deserves to be immortalised as a model of the “theory” of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. “Against the crowd the autocracy has its soldiers; against the revolutionary organisations its secret and uniformed police; but what will save it...” (what kind of “it” is this? The autocracy? The author has unwittingly identified the autocracy with a target in the person of a minister whom it is easier to strike down!) "... from individuals or small groups that are ceaselessly, and even in ignorance of one another [!!], preparing for attack, and are attacking? No force will be of avail against elusiveness. Hence, our task is clear: to remove every one of the autocracy’s brutal oppressors by the only means that has been left [!] us by the autocracy–death."
Here Lenin discovers more problems in the fundamental logic of adventurists. The argument is that small groups or individuals are better suited to take down the autocracy since it has soldiers to defend it from crowds and secret police to defend it from revolutionary orgs. So they're picking targets out of convenience rather than actual importance to the autocracy. Meaning it's a weaker strategy if you're attacking power. This is in contrast to communism which goes after the entire autocracy and systematically smashes it into pieces. It also wrongly identifies the individual parts of autocracy as the autocracy itself.
You can use Luigi as an example once again. Going after one CEO of one company (which has several other CEOs) because that happened to be the guy who takes morning walks with no security. Not because Brian Thompson was uniquely powerful or important to the healthcare industry.
No matter how many reams of paper the Socialist-Revolutionaries may fill with assurances that they are not relegating work among the masses into the background or disorganising it by their advocacy of terrorism—their spate of words cannot disprove the fact that the actual psychology of the modern terrorist is faithfully conveyed in the leaflet we have quoted. The theory of the transference of strength finds its natural complement in the theory of elusiveness, a theory which turns upside down, not only all past experience, but all common sense as well. That the only “hope” of the revolution is the “crowd”; that only a revolutionary organisation which leads this crowd (in deed and not in word) can fight against the police—all this is ABC. It is shameful to have to prove this. And only people who have forgotten everything and learned absolutely nothing could have decided “the other way about,” arriving at the fabulous, howling stupidity that the autocracy can be “saved” from the crowd by soldiers, and from the revolutionary organisations by the police, but that there is no salvation from individuals who hunt down ministers!!
Lenin here further dismantles the adventurists. Their actions and way of communicating their ideas reveal their true thoughts of revolution. The idea of power transference through terrorism is elusive and disregards all past experience and common sense. They fundamentally do not understand the role of people in revolution or how it works. That's why they think crowds and organizations can't harm the autocracy but disorganized individuals can.
This fabulous argument, which we are convinced is destined to become notorious, is by no means simply a curiosity. No, it is instructive because, through a sweeping reduction to an absurdity, it reveals the principal mistake of the terrorists, which they share with the “economists” (perhaps one might already say, with the former representatives of deceased “economism”?). This mistake, as we have already pointed out on numerous occasions, consists in the failure to understand the basic defect of our movement. Because of the extremely rapid growth of the movement, the leaders lagged behind the masses, the revolutionary organisations did not come up to the level of the revolutionary activity of the proletariat, were incapable of marching on in front and leading the masses. That a discrepancy of this sort exists cannot be doubted by any conscientious person who has even the slightest acquaintance with the movement. And if that is so, it is evident that the present-day terrorists are really “economists” turned inside out, going to the equally foolish but opposite extreme. At a time when the revolutionaries are short of the forces and means to lead the masses, who are already rising, an appeal to resort to such terrorist acts as the organisation of attempts on the lives of ministers by individuals and groups that are not known to one another means, not only thereby breaking off work among the masses, but also introducing downright disorganisation into that work.
The adventurists criticize communists for something they don't understand. Lenin and the communists understand the problem which he describes as the movement growing so quickly that leaders couldn't keep up with the expansion, and therefore lead the proletariat properly. Adventurists act as opportunists during such a time of strain on the movement, and lead it off course by encouraging unvetted rando groups to carry out assassinations. This screws up the work of communists.
It goes on but the point is not vague or elusive. I'm not pointing at some ill defined idea that adenturism doesn't work and giving unclear instruction. I'm saying that in times like this, when you're feeling angry and humiliated, when the reactionary forces seem to be winning, when you feel lost in the face of witnessing atrocity, return to theory. Steady yourself. Bolster your commitment and focus. If you find people who are lost, scared, angry, lead them to the same rigor and understanding. Do not disregard the principles of communism or theoretical rigor out of hopelessness. Do not suddenly become more lax and let in all sorts of reactionary ideas.
I think in the wake of Trump's assassination and martyrdom someone really would be able to seize that momentum. They wouldn't need to come out of nowhere, it would be Vance or someone else high up. Trump's actions I mostly doubt actually originated with him - I believe he's a figurehead, a very ill and likely senile figurehead, and a different one could hardly be less competent. But yeah it's all pointless speculation of course.
Sorry but there isn't anyone who comes close to having 1/8th of the weird charisma that Trump does. Of course he's a figurehead, but the puppeteers are making good use of the unique world he's cultivated. Not everyone can get away with doing the most heinous things and just brushing them off with dismissive one-liners or incomprehensible rants.
It's that brovado that might be emboldening them to push forward with more and more brazen acts where someone else who was leading the charge straight up could not command the needed degree of overconfidence. (Again, hypothetical, pointless, because we're talking about a parallel universe, but I do think Trump is not so easily replaced like for like.)
We've already seen what a Trump replacement looks like, though. It was Joe Biden and he's the one who started the genocide in Palestine. He also wanted to fight Russia to the death of every last Ukrainian.
Reaction in the US isn't exclusively republican. Had Trump been assassinated or lost reelection, a democratic president would be sitting in front of us talking about how Venezuela is a threat to US sovereignty and security. The Gulf of Tonkin was a lie by a democrat. Pol Pot was backed by a democrat. Libya was had open air slave markets because of a democrat.
So the point still stands: adventurism is just adventurism. Violence has a place and is not only justified, but necessary. But it has to have revolutionary organizing behind it with changes that are systemic.
i mostly agree but when they shot mckinley the state responded by creating the FBI and it's impossible to predict whether trump is worse than the crackdown we'd get if somebody actually got him
a more competent head of the MAGA movement
I don't think this exists. If Trump had got got we would have seen a TPUSA/Candace Owens style split on the right times a thousand. JD Vance would not have been able to hold the coalition together.
Adventurism defenders are the exact same as vote blue libs. Yes let's keep trying the same thing that has literally never worked! It'll definitely work if we just do one more adventure! The only reason it hasn't worked is because we just need to do one more! Just one more adventure and this time, unlike literally all of the other times, we'll see widespread systemic change! Just one more bro! Just one more adventure!
Ridiculous and frankly reactionary ideology. Random acts of violence against individuals alone do not and cannot and have not solved any widespread systemic issue. There are real solutions that can exist and do exist. Go do those things rather than daydream about something that doesn't accomplish anything meaningful.
The assassination of CEO Brian Thompson accomplished quite a bit. It galvanized lots of people, showing everyone that not only are these billionaire CEOs not untouchable, but that there is widespread approval for using violence against them. It showed millions of people that they aren't alone in thinking "yeah, those capitalist fuckers who exploit us and profit off our misery really should die." I know several mostly apolitical people that before that would have said "violence is always wrong" but afterward started saying they think people like Thompson deserve what happened to him and never would have felt comfortable saying so before.
Adventurism defenders are the exact same as vote blue libs.
Yes, many radical leftists are no different than this other group we all agree are bad. Great argument.
It'll definitely work if we just do one more adventure! The only reason it hasn't worked is because we just need to do one more! Just one more adventure and this time
What does it mean to have "worked"? Has it overthrown the bourgeoisie? No. But neither has all the organization efforts ever conducted in the imperial core. If that's what it means for a tactic to have "worked," then when you say "Yes let's keep trying the same thing that has literally never worked!" then you have to say the same thing about organizing, which we all agree is absurd. But if you change your definition of "worked" to "helping move things in the right direction," then individual acts HAVE worked many times and in different ways. They've failed and had a negative effect at times too, but so have organizations and attempted vanguard parties. Red Army Faction being an example.
Random acts of violence against individuals alone do not and cannot and have not solved any widespread systemic issue.
Disingenuous to call them "random," because specific individuals being targeted is anything but random. And while these acts may not be able to "solve" systemic issues on their own, that doesn't mean they can't be powerful demonstrations or have any positive effect.
There are real solutions that can exist and do exist. Go do those things rather than daydream about something that doesn't accomplish anything meaningful.
What are those real solutions, then? If they were complete solutions then either they would have solved things by now, or they haven't been tried yet. If they haven't been tried yet, then enlighten us all and tell us how to free ourselves from capitalism. If they HAVE been tried then obviously they aren't complete solutions and you aren't on any better footing than people who do advocate for adventurism. It takes all kinds.
The assassination of CEO Brian Thompson accomplished quite a bit.
Name a positive long term systemic change that happened as a result of this
Whenever positive systemic change happened in history, the events were rebranded as "fighting for freedom". Literally all positive systemic change happened this way throughout the history. French peasents beheaded soldiers, that's how they got democracy. If they had failed, the events would have been known as a "terrorist attack". But the important thing is, there has to be a social movement behind the actions. Individual attacks may spark the initial flame, but if there is no movement behind it the flame won't last for long. That's the thing you are right about. No matter how many times this happens, it will not result in any change unless there is also a social movement behind it.
Didn't the assassination of Shinzo Abe actually get that right wing cult be purged from Japan?
Adventurism is a symptom of oppression with no organized outlet for the pain and frustration. It means the fields are riper than we can currently harvest, and we should put our efforts into harvesting.
I am not advocating for adventurism and I am not saying adventurism works - but I understand the desperation, the defiance, and the rage. People who only mock or dismiss these feelings don't help anyone and do not make a compelling case to not do adventurism.
Adventurism is worse than organized violence but better than doing nothing. The real question is whether adventurism is better than organized nonviolence. You're not going to take down the war machine by killing randos, but you're also not going to take down the war machine through peaceful marches either. Which is less effective, killing cogs that are easily replaceable or holding protests that can be easily ignored?
Liberal moderators (internet cops) removed my post on this subject
"No calls for adventurism" Please feel free to offer any alternative that can actually happen in a reasonable timeframe and not just "trust me bro we gotta wait for the white Amerikkkan treatlerite pigs to gain class consciousness it'll only take a few years"
Pal I know you're frustrated but we shouldn't be fatshaming
Fine
This post was meant to be a response to yours, but your post was deleted before I could post it
How well we know this Language of people who are free of the constraint of firm socialist convictions, of the burdensome experience of each and every kind of popular movement! They confuse immediately tangible and sensational results with practicalness. To them the demand to adhere steadfastly to the class standpoint and to maintain the mass nature of the movement is “vague” “theorising.” In their eyes definitiveness is slavish compliance with every turn of sentiment and ... and, by reason of this compliance, inevitable helplessness at each turn. Demonstrations begin— and blood thirsty words, talk about the beginning of the end, flow from the lips of such people. The demonstrations halt— their hands drop helplessly, and before they have had time to wear out a pair of boots they are already shouting: “The people, alas, are still a long way off....” Some new outrage is perpetrated by the tsar’s henchmen—and they demand to be shown a “definite” measure that would serve as an exhaustive reply to that particular outrage, a measure that would bring about an immediate “transference of strength,” and they proudly promise this transference! These people do not understand that this very promise to “transfer” strength constitutes political adventurism, and that their adventurism stems from their lack of principle.
Amazing how some guy wrote about people freaking out over big events and calling for adventurism only for it to pass and they get bored until the next big event and call to adventure. How those people think adherence to a mass movement is some kind of weakness in initiative.
Lenin had a population who weren't Yakubian devils that love pedophile billionaires and only care about their own comfort
There's really no substantial way in which the differences in conditions between the US today and Russia in the 1910s make it more suitable for adventurism as a strategy.
In fact, the present conditions mean adventurism has higher costs and less benefit. Any propaganda value of adventurist acts is more easily neutralized because the media has complete control over the narrative (sometimes slips a bit but is recuperated or memoryholed). Higher surveillance makes an adventurist operation less likely to be successful. The government has more legitimacy than Nicholas II's.
If I'm being as balanced as possible, I could possibly see the value of adventurism being that all other options are poor anyway, so why not gamble? But I'd still argue having more comrades alive and free where they can be ready to act should better opportunities arise is always better than contradicting the lessons past revolutionaries have learned out of desperation.
You can participate in creating some kind of safety mechanism for your community, keep tabs on which people aren't joining orgs yet but are sympathetic, agitate people you talk with. None of these things are revolutionary, but they'll be useful once revolutionary organization is more viable.
He was dealing with an almost uniquely backwards and brutal absolute monarchy.
I just want to say one of the things I really appreciate about Hexbear is sitting in on your struggle sessions. I am not educated enough yet to actually participate, but reading the opinions of leftist on things I’m really conflicted about has served my education and thought process on many topics. ❤️
I'm glad you find it informative. 😊
Depending on what you define terrorism as, it can certainly achieve something (though it is more often counterproductive unless you're a warlord or something of the sort), but even then only really in a larger campaign that is ready to capitalize on it with non-terror measures, which is completely different from adventurism.
I know I shouldn't say this but I'm angrier than hell against the US
So 
alert
spoiler
If you know of any USians traveling / US expats living in your country, don't make it safe for them. Maybe even get a little bloody or fire-y. But make them think twice about stepping out the US ever again. Fuck'em.
weak