Category: Uncategorized

  • White Collaborators: A Reportback from Chicago’s ‘Anti-ICE’ Movement

    White Collaborators: A Reportback from Chicago’s ‘Anti-ICE’ Movement

    Editor’s Note: This is an outside submission not written by either of the editors of Avant!. The text has been minorly changed for grammatical reasons, but other than that it is largely unchanged. Enjoy this report back from the front. To bite off the author: Abolish Borders, Abolish Nations, Abolish Work.

    When we refer to white collaborators in our present moment, we speak not of whites nor of isolated white liberals. Rather, we speak of the ideology of the entire anti-ICE movement, including its “abolitionist” dress. White collaborationism is simply class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, enveloped in a civil respectability and solidarity politic. It places faith in a national project and legal system that, so far, has only ever granted mere concessions to the white proletariat. We can consider this civic legal nationalism one of the strongest remaining blocks to real white solidarity: Abolition of the race system itself.

    This ideology has decapitated a working class struggle and left it to run around aimlessly in the name of human rights. And at this moment it is simply tragic timing: The last few months of Chicago have been incredibly bloody, with September through November marking an intense escalation on the part of federal agents and their allies. The surveilance state has made leaps and bounds in its implementation, armed not only with a fleet of rental cars but helicopters, drones, and facial identification sofware, hunting and searching for life without discrimination. For the majority of this time they have been victorious in a total domination of even white collaborationist aims. In this we find a resistance on multiple fronts: Against the federal State, the State of Illinois’s jurisdiction, and the local City-State itself. Yet on every front and on every issue, we face a churning dilemma of collaboration which leaves neither mark nor scar but jovial cheers.

    Questions of what is liberatory are locked with a padlock and kept in high places. Class enemies continue to sink their teeth into the anti-State movement, subverting it, fracturing it and leaving it limp and lifeless. The classes themselves are brimming with contempt for each other. These contradictions propel us forward, but to where and what ends? This is the dilemma of whiteness and of white liberalism which plagues Chicago at this hour. Where are we going?

    Recent Developments in Chicago

    If we looked at the Anti-ICE mobilizations in Chicago from Trump’s inauguration to August, one could be mistaken for thinking this was not a mass movement at all. Citywide, nonprofits (mainly the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR)) both dominated and restrained the scene in the name of optics and incrementalism. It would mostly be a display of sadistic fanfare; Allusions to humanity and human rights were made, and that would be decisively it. These nonprofits held a flurry of public events and “training” sessions during this time, which served to entrench white allies in a placated white hero’s liberalism. The solution to thee burgeoning issues, ICIRR argued, was cheery solidarity politics. Or rather, a moral politics of the bystander. In this warped view of class expression, to look out for one’s neighbor meant to watch them be mauled by federal agents before being shipped off to a prison camp. The real work was in standing to the side and documenting the kidnapping as it occurred. ICIRR succeeded in pushing this view because of a lack of radical resistance in this sphere of organizing, but also because they employed white politics better than any other. They knew exactly how to facilitate an environment where their own bourgeois identity served as the basis for their supremacy, not class basis, tactical expertise or skillset. They simply had money and were the undocumented rights organization, which allowed them to isolate and dismember communists as outside agitators or federal agents looking for a fight. This tactic would be repeated by the white liberal movement several times, which we will discuss shortly. But it’s important to note by the end of Spring, there were very few raids. If you did show up to one of these few and refused to comply with the State, or worse, engage in community defense, you would be find yourself “documented” (doxxed) by their extensive volunteer network, segregated from the rest of the movement, and even physically fed to the Chicago Police Department.

    ICIRR was not the only organization attempting to capitalize on the popular interests of the time, though. Several large Communist Party/Popular Front marches were held downtown, culminating in a mazy PSL demonstration in early June. There, police vehicles were quietly attacked, and the streets of Chicago’s Loop bubbled in enthusiasm. The outside agitators bounced around with glee as CPD were pushed back several times by a wave of demonstrators. After putting up a meek fight, the city’s forces ultimately buckled its knees and allowed marchers to descend on them as they wished. For all of this effort, even a march of this trajectory was self-policing. ICIRR-trained civillians brandishing American flags droned on as blocced anarchists set their sights on property. It seemed half the crowd was there for an uproar, and the remaining group was there to rehabilitate the American Exceptionalism we have so sorely missed. This contradiction would not really boil over, as much as solidify the latter’s rightful place in the movement by the day’s end. And the day would end, with the more radical splinters of the march culminating in a massive police kettle. Small afflictions to property aside, the city kept churning on. After this day many radicals were turned off to these events if they had not been already. Marches drew less and less crowds as July encroached. Likewise, ICE would show themselves sporadically, but with few in strength it was just as possible those dwindling mobilizations were protesting an army of ghosts.  In Chicago we felt safe and sound, with our movement leaders reassuring us that there would be no need for rebellion.

    After the flashy demos leading in early June,  small groups of radicals and liberals alike began targeting ICE’s downtown Loop infrastructure. The only targets where ICE had been consistently present, this included a courthouse ICE camped out of to snatch migrants, as well as the DHS Chicago offices. Daily lookouts formed at these locations, culminating in a blockade of the courthouse’s parking lots which deterred ICE vehicles from rolling up unsuspecting. These insulated actions had varying degrees of success, but ultimately regressed into ICE Watch groups and spectacular protesting. Anarchists and a few radical liberals would muster a few numbers each workday, standing with signs and banners but no real struggle. If ICE were to show up, and they often did, the lack of crowd (especially at the DHS office) would mean there was little to be done anyway. Thus these displays soon died. 

    Chicago ultimately felt like a passenger to the wider movement and the decisions of the federal government. But as summer drew to a close and the leaves began to turn, so did the disposition of the federal government toward a Chicago-centric invasion. Whereas the working class could have learned from previous lessons around the country (i.e. Minneapolis, Los Angeles), we were wholly unprepared for anything the State were to throw at us. Movement leadership only doubled down on the white nature of our work, splitting the vast majority of the working class into vaguely distinct factions.

    On September 8th, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security announced ‘Operation Midway Blitz.’ Staged by Trump as “training grounds for our military”, hundreds of ICE agents bashed their way into the fabric of our city.

    Old Tactics, Old Faces

    This brutal operation touched every corner of Chicago, with a special emphasis on the Latino majority Southwest Side. It was immediately successful: In the first 13 days of the offensive alone, DHS claimed over 550 people were kidnapped by ICE. As this unfolded, various tactics became favorable among activists still under the ICIRR umbrella. The primary form was to assemble rapid response (RR) groups within each neighborhood or special geographic location, where local activists respond to ICE sightings upon receiving a notice from ICIRR. This infrastructure had been laid months ago by ICIRR in the hopes of providing civil and restrained responses to ICE activity; As stated earlier, ICIRR wanted responders to solely document ICE. Furthermore, all the RR groups report to ICIRR on their activities, enlist their membership to complete ICIRR’s trainings, and provide ICIRR their leadership’s personal identities. ICIRR is also notorious for monitoring these groups personally, through injecting their staff or allies into RR projects they would otherwise have no relation to. In return, RR groups receive information about ICE activity in the city, but ICIRR still maintains a monopoly on what information is allowed to reach the public. If an incident doesn’t receive their rubber stamp, it will go unanswered by any RR groups and sink quietly into the past. This has directly allowed numerous kidnappings to take place, and implicitly altered the fate of countless more.

    There were many obvious issues with these tactics, beginning with the liberal nature of whom they answered to, which prompted some nieghborhoods to implement RR groups with their own tactical basis. Instead of preaching ICIRR’s bystander framework, notable groups introduced a diversity of tactics into their community norms. Albeit a long and ongoing struggle, it ultimately proved successful in onboarding sympathetic community members and building a reassuredly critical space. One that was open to questioning capitalism, activist’s authority, and the State. This of course earned the ire of ICIRR-adjacents, who continously sought to infiltrate these spaces and undermine their membership. Ultimately they were opportunistic enough to keep radical elements around, as long as the radicals were outnumbered and uncomfortable.

    When ICE presence began to multiply further, ICIRR shifted their primary focus from solely reprimanding activists. Yet after long debacles, doxxing, and community drama, sat the truth that rapid response was not a viable tactic in preventing kidnappings. By the time reports had been made, verified, and rapid responders dispatched, ICE had either located their target or managed to escape the premises. In a chance scenario where networks could muster a handful of responders, they would be reduced to shouting and waving their phones at caravans of armed agents. Thus even with ballooning memberships and public interest in stopping ICE, it became obvious responding was not enough to complete basic community defense, let alone push for a romantic class struggle that the few were pining for.

    While thousands across the city continued to pour into the rapid response networks, by September a second tactical frontier had emerged: Broadview. After some spectacular protesting and arrests at the turn of fall, this tiny Immigration Processing Center in a small western suburb of Chicago started to draw headlines. As a processing center and temporary prison for hundreds, it held an ultimate importance in conducting ICE operations across the Midwest. Without it, ICE would not be able to transport its prisoners to nearby airports and out of the country. Likewise, Broadview is an immense accumulation of federal capital and personnel. Should either avenue be frustrated in any serous capacity, should the Processing Center be taken out of the picture, Operation Midway Blitz would have been seriously jeopardized. Outside of the jurisdiction of CPD and with no hegemonic control from controlled opposition, Broadview quickly became the hot new thing on everyone’s minds. Marxist-Leninist cronies flocked there for press conferences as Anarchists were routinely arrested; Catholics prayed the Rosary while Democrat politicians fawned in front of a seas of cameras. It was an ideological Wild West, a circus of performance and spectacle bent by the underlying truth that something historic could really be done here.

    What were the outside agitators doing at this time? A new consensus resulted in rapid response being shelved at this time, as scores of activists continued to respond to calls and ultimately failed in stopping ICE. Instead of roaming around after a call had been sent out, the Leftists had its first site to coalesce. And with Broadview it represented a choke point, a definitive location that could be broadcasted to the working class to mobilize.

    Initially these calls were restricted to familiar contingents of activists, and the composition of the crowd typically represented as such. While a few loud liberals and clerical opportunists gathered for the photos and press, many anarchists and communists also took Broadview seriously. As the initial clashes commenced, anywhere from a few dozen to 150 activists mobilized every Friday and Saturday outside the facility’s front steps. When cars packed with prisoners entered and exited the building, activists routinely attempted to block them from access. Due to collaboration with the local police departments and general opportunism from hopeful electeds and clergy, these first experiences were relatively muted and tame. Crowds would surge to block a vehicle entering the facility, police and ICE would enter the mix, and dearresting was virtually impossible due to swarms of press restricting activists from each other. As a scare tactic, ICE was able to slap each detainee with federal charges, albeit said charges didn’t always stick. Regardless it proved effective in isolating detained activist from the outside, and ensuring that dearrest opportunities were limited in the future.

    In understanding how the white collaborators acted here, we have to understand the planning of Broadview’s protests at this time. The planning forum was “autonomous” in name and completely open to anyone who had attended a protest, thus becoming both unsecure and ideologically eclectic. Two blocs quickly began to form. One group, the nationalists, were mobilized by clergy and hopeful Democratic lawakers. They spouted off for civic nationalism and legal reform. The other group at this time, the anti-nationalists and communists/anarchists, had less vocal members yet slightly more approval from the general crowd. It goes to be said that the vast majority of this planning forum, which typically counted about 75 to 100 people, were relatively unideological in scope. As such, these two groups clashed often for the approval of the remaining majority, and many messes were made along the way.

    The most eventful happened to be on the removal of any electeds, social media influencers, reporters, or otherwise public figures from this chat for the sake of transparency and combatting careerism. For example, a Democrat in this forum happened to be a member of the Illinois National Guard, which clearly confounded the ability to operate securely. The liberals of course rejected this on the basis of being exclusionary, and quickly sunk their teeth into radicals for being abrasive. Regardless, a vote was eventually held, and every single radical petition had been won. Yet the very next day when radicals took to the forum and announced the results, several liberals alleged the vote to have been rigged and/or simply a false vote. They swiftly petitioned with clergy and were allowed to stay. It was sheer irony then those who have most faith in democratic process quickly jumped to dissolve this one.

    This stage in planning ultimately led to much of the anti-nationalist group bowing out of the tactical debate, and operating completely autonomously again. Yet even still, the next mobilizations responded by drawing on crowds that dwarfed the previous ones. We can say at these later protests, around mid-September, there existed anywhere from 250 to 400 protestors at absolute peak. Messages were muffled, and attempts to rein in on the movement by Democrats and clergy alike were mixed. With a shutdown of the facility-and its subsequent repurposing by the workers-as an absolute goal, protestors began fighting back, utilizing shield wall formations, de-arrest tactics, and responding to heaps of tear gas by either diffusing cannisters or throwing them back. Some prominent liberals at this time took to social media to denounce these actions and joined hands with the State to paint the angry masses as the primary source of violence. The liberals attempted to mute the movement into something they could control and utilize to advertise their own likeness, but with Broadview a new frontier, their strategy was untested. Just as quickly as some politicians entered into the fray at Broadview with glee, they exited (albeit not exactly kicking their feet; Some careers were assuredly made by these antics). Broadview was now consolidated as a mostly autonomous protesting scene.

    What was to follow after these splinters and spontaneous actions of resistance soured the mood, however. Following attempts to form another, more comprehensive shield line and push ICE out, they installed a chained fence some 20 or 30 yards from the facility. Heavily militarized with a tank, snipers, and a swath of armed Special Response Team units, any hope of an offensive seemed to have been foiled. This did not stop ICE from continuing to shower activists with less-lethal munitions, including rubber bullets, tear gas, and pepper balls, and eventually a pattern emerged. A docile crowd is angered by the sight of agents or blacked-out buses, begin shouting and pushing toward the fence, ICE opens the fence and all hell breaks lose until the crowd ends up even farther away from the Processing Facility than where they started. This period would last a few weeks, marked by liberal calls for bourgeois peace. Earlier, the liberal peace message had been shattered by terror and brutality; Now with the masses having little alternative, nationalists had a chance to regroup, and reinforce these ideological shackles. It was at this time that many radicals seemed to abandon Broadview as a lost opportunity.

    Despite this trough, numbers continued to swell, so much so that Illinois State Police entered the circus by October. Compared with the erratic behavior of ICE and their SRTs, the ISP proved to be a composed and methodical force. Having been trained in crowd control tactics, ISP engaged in more directly physical conduct than ICE’s “shoot from afar” strategy. Wielding batons, ISP battered and brutalized activists with no remorse in their early encounters. They also established a stronger perimeter of the facility, and collaborated with even more local police departments to put the surrounding streets and neighborhood under a microscope. Protestors were also kettled into blocked-off walkways even farther from the facility, not even being able to take the street as they had rountinely done in weeks past. This was a thorough crushing of the movement, something disembodied and hardly resemblant of the clashes that had previously taken place with ICE. This was a genuine occupation by Illinois State forces, and one that they consolidated overnight.

    Many were still ready for a long-term fight at this time. This illusion shattered when leading clergy, and several nationalist activists attempted to broker a peace deal with Illinois State Police. Done without the consent of any other individuals within the planning forum nor on the streets, this group attempted to place themselves as leadership of the entire movement. In true spirit of collaboration, they told the same State Police force that had been crushing demonstrators on a weekly basis that: 1.) They needed special protections and safety measures, 2.) The State Police needed to de-escalate, and 3.) If they didn’t like an owner of a pack of dogs this group would sic the scary anarchists once more on the Police. It goes without saying that ISP didn’t take this exchange incredibly seriously, and this ultimately just led to further discontentment in the entire anti-ICE camp.

    Having faced severe repression and isolated by collaborators, radicals took note of both the errors of rapid response and Broadview. Rapid response, while feeling critical, had the right idea of community defense but offered no real cover. Broadview offered a tactical site for hundreds to gather at, but felt completely lost after over a month of severe repression. What was theorized next was a combination of community defense and a proper site. To do this, radicals would need to refamiliarize themselves with the working class.

    The Workers & the World

    Just as quickly as many communists and anarchists bought stock in Broadview, they were to dump all hopes in fomenting revolt. The loss described prior encapsulated the sheer lack of direction felt, hitting a brick wall in the State that simply overpowered the white hesitance of the Broadview protests. Now activists had to search past a damning indictment for something new, and that would show itself in the Back of the Yards neighborhood.

    Some 5 weeks prior, ICE and CPD collaborated once more in rounding up migrants and activists alike. The result was the use of lethal munitions against a female driver, as ICE agents shot into her car multiple times before she fired back. The detainments and these actions prompted a wide response from the community, where over 100 locals quickly mobilized. Some threw projectiles at agents. The road was shut down, with ICE eventually having to draw back and escape with the help of a CPD line. While there was no victory today, it reminded activists of the potential of local hotspots. Even with an SRT detachment and the help of local police, ICE was quickly outnumbered by a mass on their own turf.

    Fast forward a week and the impetus shifted once more to the workers themselves. As ICE staged outside locations where migrants regularly coalesced, this manifested itself in their picking up day laborers at the Back of the Yards Home Depot on 47th and Western.

    There, a community center has been built to decisively combat the raids and ensure as much safety as possible for migrants. To varying extents, this has been somewhat successful in doing so. Several times, agents flocked to the area only to be turned or chased back by the community. In other circumstances, the community was simply able to prepare spaces for migrants to hide. Regardless, the communalizing of the space provides for distinct relationships between activists and locals, and the regularity of both groups mean they can depend on each other beyond community defense. Over food, coffee and agitprop, the most meaningful interactions between the two are shared.

    The primary issue is that even if property is repurposed, this does not mean it is communised. That is, it does not mean property is not beholden to capital. In fact, the current practice just mitigates the recirculation of capital. And it is not just activists still have to gome home, thus inserting a repurposed space back into capitalist life; Community defense alone is awfully neoliberal. Every laborer escorted to the back of a pick-up truck is an activist assisting in slavery. And there is no glory in subjugation, no matter how spectacular the shape of resistance has occasionally taken. This itself is its own form of tacit white collaboration.

    As many are reflecting on this time period, the true goals of the movement need to be discussed. The anti-nationalists can either show the working class the nature of the antagonism that exists, or collaborate on their own front for community defense. The latter is not without merit: The radical are the few who have taken the most leadership and have been the most beaten, time and time again. But we have concerns with recent assessments of this movement’s success on the grounds that they maintain the capitalist status quo. There is no need for a solidarity politic. ICE is a State enemy, yes, but we are not here just to fight ICE. We are not here just to fight CPD, or ISP, or CBP. Our scope includes all of the former as well as class abolition itself. We exist to put an end to our miserable condition. 

    Black Disenchantment with White Identity

    Editors Note: This section encompasses our questions regarding tenant organizing work being done on Chicago’s Far South Side, and the role of the Black proletariat in relation to a white movement.

    Outside of white collaborator bases, this invasion ironically had more support from the far South and West Sides. Trump and ICE touted this as a pretext for both military rule and a matter of public safety. For many Black workers, they believed that their communities would be safer as a result. In this, they took on the white collaborationist views of the other bourgeoisie, who otherwise had but a few scattered ethnic White strongholds in Chicago.

    This is symptomatic of a wider issue: The movement’s own white identity with the class base most subjugated in Chicago for over a century. As a foundation it is wrapped in slurred nationalist drawl. It is clear the Right’s political language is appealing for the Black worker, but also there is a notable absence of the ICIRR-adjacent political landscape even making its way to Black neighborhoods. Not that it would do much good. The legalists and nationalists parrot those things which many Black proletarians have come to know are wholly untrue proclamations. The bourgeoisie have been attempting to sell the world a vision of Chicago before ICE, and the petit-bourgeoisie and white liberals could not have been more enthusiastic to buy. Likewise, the Latino sections of the city  have seen the most ICE presence, and understandably are participants in this visionary spectacle. The group this vision most dismembers is the Black proletariat, and the liberal foot soldiers have made no use in catering to them. We call these out as much as we must call out our own spaces. For Chicago to ever communise, it would require most sections of the proletariat to come together or simply revolt at the same time, due to similar causes. Our failure to engage with the Black proletariat, then, represents the ongoing failure to alter the content of this movement, if it can even be so. 

    Just as tenant organizing was pivotal in shifting Los Angeles’ community defense into more offensive content, tenant struggles have been engaged with on Chicago’s Far South Side. The nature of these unions are problematic in the same way that any trade union movement is such. There is a magnificent vehicle being built off the struggles of so many workers and their families, fighting against billionaire slumlords who live across the country. The growth of these tenants as they continue to hold up the struggle and extend it to their neighbors is the kernel of communism that we wish to seek. And after almost a year of struggle, these tenants have been mobilized to fight for a seat at their management’s table. As much as it is impressive, in the heart of a community that has been entirely left to rot by the city, we have to engage in self-criticism when understanding that this union function only breeds a content reformism. This may be enough to keep the workers alive a bit longer, but it does not fundamentally alter anything.

    Thus, when tenants are engaged with on the basis of migrant struggles, a behavior is exhibited similar to that of the student being asked to step off university. This union is phenomenally being granted its seat in community administration, and wishing to manage wholeheartedly. We fear how quickly this giddy to manage becomes manifested in a gleeful casting aside of other symptoms of the proletarian condition.

    We have to remind ourselves that the Black workers’ opposition to this movement is not on the grounds that it is impossible to engage in both migrant and Black struggle. But rather, that the movement itself has been sanitized and stripped of its class character, thus granting it an opposition from Black workers. The question is of how to rid both communities of the capitalist in one swoop.

    Cutting Ties With Ideologues

    The collaborators have done an immense job in securing Chicago for ICE. But even radicals are dooming themselves to haggle over the price of their soul. To defeat ICE,  we need to defeat the sanctity of the working class. That is, to stop viewing workers as mystical cattle to be herded, but as a contradiction which be only be unclassed through revolutionary struggle. So far, the movement in Chicago has not been reformist, let alone revolutionary. It is simply a scrap of activists and workers fighting to maintain the status quo. We have to break with this decisively,as  nearing December the presence of ICE remains.

    Abolish Borders, Abolish Nations, Abolish Work.

  • Marx’s Severed Head & Refutations of Anarchist Values

    Marx’s Severed Head & Refutations of Anarchist Values

    Editor’s Note: There is a PDF version of this text at the bottom of the article. Feel free to download and share.

    Marx’s Severed Head

    A flagrant misunderstanding of our revolutionary tradition has seen Marxism codified into a historical ideology; This error has enclosed historical-political and historical-economic (the realms of bourgeois science and allocation) speculations and passed them off as eternal truths. Instead of changing the world, the overwhelming majority of Marxists now seek only to interpret it, to identity objects as they currently exist. To commit what Marx himself considered pseudoscientific analysis in his own critique of political-economy. In essence: To end history in the age of liberalism.

    Likewise, the Marxists constitute the most outwardly reactionary elements of the communist left. In the United States, their representatives spend their time sandwiched between parliamentary reformism, spectacular protesting, class collaboration, and chasing Anarchist shadows. Through building their Parties and organizations external to the movement of communisation itself, these mediators have warranted themselves a precious role in making revolution. This of course has come at the cost of revolution in practice. Their philosophy simply pools together transient clumps of activists, and/or divides the proletariat along liberal-bourgeois lines. Just like Bernstein and the bourgeois democrats sought the death of revolutionary social democracy, Marx’s own followers have sought his swift decapitation.

    Thus, it becomes almost impossible for any communist -that is, any subject of capitalist alienation who is conscious of the real existing movement for communisation- to earnestly call themselves a Marxist. In order to properly address these issues with the relevant currents of such a diverse tradition, we will discuss the philosophical content of leading Marxists and their recent discrepancies in action. We speak of many tendencies here: The DSA’s concoction of reform and revolution, Leninist-inspired PSL, Leninist-role playing FRSO, and the Maoists and libertarian communists of varying cliques and tendencies. In these organizations we have analyzed and sometimes even collaborated with “Democratic Socialists”, “Orthodox Marxists”, “Marxist-Leninists”, “Marxist-Leninist-Maoists”, “Gonzaloites”, “Councilists”, and “Autonomists”. While there are various refutations of these historical tendencies, this article seeks to understand how they live and interact today.

    Political Enthusiasm

    Of any communist, it seems that the Marxist is always the most enthusiastic to engage in bourgeois politics. Outside of the Leftist Maoists and Gonzaloites (the more fringe of the general Marxist canon), each and every Marxist has tried and failed to penetrate this bourgeois apparatus. Whereas they conduct trench warfare and fight for mere inches on one another, this struggle is situated on a mountain of scraps. The DSA and Orthodox may be most guilty of this, but likewise Leninists cling to the illusion that running their programs in the realm of politics produces revolutionary potential in the platforming of demands. We emphasize that this cannot be any further from the truth. For example, glance around at how the Leninists, Trotskyists, and hardcore Stalinists hold their candles to the flame. Nowhere do any of these groups call for Communism, but for an enlightened welfare state and the virtue of Man. The very moment one limits their work to the scope of this bourgeois science, is the moment communism cannot possibly bear its own weight. Communism and liberalism are incompatible, and liberal ideas of moving the masses likewise. 

    But what of the momentum of successful Marxist electoral campaigns today? Do they not present our best opportunities yet to connect to the masses? Simply put, no. The movements of Zohran and DSA’s allies represent the pinnacle of anyone from Bernstein to the Roosevelts to Mussolini. To be clear, we can have our own feelings regarding conditions potentially bettering for the proletariat. But whether a cookie or a crumb, Zohran, for example, has won his campaign due to the contradictions of capitalism propelling him forward. Of course New York City is unaffordable: Rent is infamously astronomical, food costs are rising still, and transport is not cheap. This is the real contradiction of capitalist life slowly grinding away at its own children, its inputs to production. This increases the feverish pitch of communisation, but also signals the loosening of the leash. With this comes the widening palate of the bourgeoisie and the befriending of the petit-bourgeoisie, possibly the most reactionary base in society. These groups will serve as allies to the political campaign in some respects, as many have done with charming Zohran. Demands for small businesses are even made in his own program! This contradiction is all fine, as it is only a contradiction in name: Together, the petit-bourgeoisie and social democrats are the true stopgaps to Communism. Historically these two have taken it on themselves to beat the life out of the communist movement, insofar as to turn around and ask their bourgeois masters for acceptance. This goes for any social democrat, from NYC to Minneapolis and so on.

    The rest of the bourgeoisie may fear Marxists in office, yet this is precisely because they fail to study Marx or his contemporaries. For them, a 2% raise in taxes is the culmination of the real movement, of communisation in final form. If they were truly aware of an imminent revolutionary threat, they would raise taxes on themselves tenfold. So we can laugh at their childishness, but turn our noses up at these theatric practices. The sad tale is that this is not a trend of Democratic Socialists, but again of the majority of contemporary Marxist organizations. They adopted Marx’s political opinions at the time of writing the first edition of the Manifesto (i.e. raising taxes), and subsequently left the theoretical model to rot. 

    Of course, the language of bourgeois politics is more than holding a program to the light or partaking in an election to seek concessions. It is a violent strain of thought that has found its way in Marxist theorizing and understanding of the world (see our work on Multipolarity for a more complete analysis). Every Marxist is an allocator of an absurd-typically nationalist-bent. By allocation we mean to take existing capitalist relations and diagnose the problem at distribution, not production itself. In this Marxists use a political understanding to sharpen their weapons and shape their campaigns. They will be the first to ask for fairness for entire peripheral State apparatuses and mystifying their proletariat, for better trade deals, for more diplomacy, and representation. They will instruct themselves on class struggle through the lens of geopolitics and devil’s advocacy of a lesser bourgeoisie (BRICS). None of these questions have to do with making war with the international bourgeoisie, but strengthening alliances on the false premise that our only option is collaboration!

    Economics & Allocation

    If the favored action of the Marxist is political, the favored language is economic. If you handed them the world today, they would promptly re-allocate the existing system and leave its functioning as is. We have discussed this extensively but from the wider-reaching tendencies. Yet be it any flavor of Marxism, even councilists or autonomists, and this typically stands. How so?

    This is all due to the understanding many Marxists have of history: As a process of linear development. The idea that progress is pushing inevitability, and that the cycles of history always push us to a new epoch of development, a higher plane. If the revered Stalin was to be correct, the capitalist mode of production can be utilized to push forward socialist production. If not Stalin but Pannekoek, and it is the workers who should directly observe their own misery through the implementation of workers’ calculated management. This still rests on measuring productivity and various schemes of increasing productivity through coercion. If not Stalin not Pannekoek but Negri, and it is the workers who both should find glory in their own identity as worker, and strive to have autonomy over their localized poverty. Similar to the councilists, this is ultimately a new form of management. A more palatable one? Of course. But revolution breaks here yet.

    We say this, writing with affinity for the questions Pannekoek and Negri have raised as well as their contributions to the communist movement: To synthesize the communist movement as a movement to manage capitalism is an error, precisely because new management does not break capitalist socialization. Similar to the errors of Stalin, we can call these forms of developmentalism or stageism, two of the primary enemies of the communist movement yet two critical elements of the Marxist canon. Let us continue.

    Developmentalists may hold the belief that history is a process of economic development, but they stretch this to include the claim that the modern capitalist economy simply requires a higher stage of development for socialism. This can typically be contextualized in the praise of China’s great “modernization” or any other supposed region which has not undergone “sufficient” development for socialism. Likewise, stageism simply implies the existence of unique and linear historical stages of development, furthering the claim that from feudalism to early capitalism to late capitalism, we will finally arrive at socialism. To contend with these ideas seriously is just as reasonable as to submit to the Abrahamic God. Regardless, we address them both with their very liberal birthmarks.

    The Stalinists and their offspring are the most rugged of developmentalists, this is true. They assumed they could develop the Soviet Union into Communism, they were proved to be wrong, and their ideas bounced around the globe as they took root in the minds of peripheral bourgeoisies and intelligentsias. Seize a nation, nationalize as one pleases, and modernize to a new socialist age. Now China and “Dengism”, or “Maoist Thought” is the rage. Yet this is the same exact deficiency that was found in Stalin’s project: A belief in the progress of humanity through defined stages, and that progress was implied through modernizing. Meanwhile the Chinese bourgeoisie launches even more attacks on the proletariat, both domestic and international. All in the name of developmentalism, it has become apparent that increasing economic output and efficiency does not breed a working class revolution.

    The councilists and libertarian Marxists are more rigorous in their approach and earnest in class struggle. Recognizing the excesses of Russia’s bureaucratic nightmare, they have opted for a stage of Communism closer to the ground. But this is still yet a belief in a mostly linear transition and needless prolonging of capitalism, should it not last forevermore. The historical step “up” to toppling management and placing the workers at the seat is all too much similar to the Bolsheviks’ theses. They argue the workers’ liberation must be made through war with the bourgeoisie. We argue that war must be made with the entire mode of production, with the inputs of the mode of production-such as the workers, abolishing themselves as workers in immediacy. The mere fulfillment of capitalism’s contradiction without fomenting extra steps. These views are not reconcilable as long as workerism, Stalinism, or any “ism” clings to the real movement. 

    We refer back to the introduction and implication that Marxists wish to “end history” in the age of liberalism here: They wish to imbue in the world the preceding Enlightenment notion that progress is not only necessary, but guaranteed. This is a thoughtful notion that attempts to make sense out of the history of humanity, but this does not make it less utopian. Stalin surmises the working masses will inevitably smash capitalism, Deng claims that the modern nation will give birth to true socialism; We cannot always be so sure. At every moment, our allegiance can only be with the working class and its immediate victory.

    Marxists in Action

    In our time and place, the Marxists are more likely to be at the services of the State than of the proletariat. Elections are one thing, peace-policing is another. At the advent of a wave of energy, they are in vests, hoping to quell the rage. It is their everlasting wish to bottle up the rage and save it for when they have prescribed it best fit. When this epoch never presents itself, they never admit defeat, but change the definition of success. These experiences are based on both Chicago’s Leninist-NGO marriage, the “Coalition Against the Trump Agenda”, and PSL’s own marches. These actions will draw anywhere from hundreds to thousands of people, feature platitudes of “fighting back” and “getting organized” before a masturbatory claim that these showings in themselves are a success. While these protests celebrated progressive culture in the downtown Loop, neighborhoods continued to be ravaged by federal agents. These bubble-like alternative realities are nauseating and deceptive. 

    While these claims may feel too broad to be applicable to the many tendencies of Marxism, they are assurably in the nature of the dominant positions we are reviewing today. The Democratic Socialists, Orthodox, and Leninists are the first victims of their own ineptitude. Parroting Enlightenment ideals of progress and fairness, they have limited their own action to the accumulation of capital. While endearingly, the Maoists and Gonzaloites preach a gospel of “mass work”, they are still abject friends of accumulation and resolute nationalists, the basis of many an intellectual poverty. Their work thus consists of rousing “nationally-oppressed” communities on the basis of their identity or race, rather than from their potential to communise. They’ll next proceed with a push for civil rights for these nationalities on varying grounds. Likewise with the “less radical” variants of Marxism, they shoot themselves in the foot in a push for a fairer allocation of resources.

    In a similar vein, the Marxists engage with trade unionism at an industrial level but only go so far as to jostle for the reins. In a city like Chicago, absolutely brimming with union activity (relative to the rest of the country), there is a completely compartmentalized trade union movement. Union representatives and ardent socialists meet with the bourgeoisie, haggle over the price of their members, and both will claim they have won a tremendous victory. Meanwhile the more critical Marxists devoid of hedge fund backing (see: PSL) will pine for a workers’ trade union movement. While romantic, this action is still the inverse of linear stageist philosophy and we cannot parse out a movement bent on reinforcing wage slavery. The workers do not yearn for work.

    The many ways these groups act in relation to the proletariat is that of a teacher mistreating the learning of a student. By assuming the proletariat does not have the ability to abolish itself without canonised Marxist ideology, these revolutionaries dumb down, or altogether alter the most radical of the canon: The content of capitalism itself. For the proletariat, this places Communism on a political-economic-ideological mantle with liberalism, or conservative liberalism, of Democrats and Republicans. Something to be tried and tested within the confines of liberal democracy, and dispensed with after each experiment inevitably goes haywire. Instead of vying for the proletarian’s attention with a “new” ideological communism, perhaps we should just reject ideological communism in favor of Communism itself?

    Dismembering Class Against the Wishes of Marxists

    As per our work on the topic of ICE: Should the Marxists or other degenerations of liberalism triumph, we will be doomed to haggle over the price of our damnation. To scientifically allocate our share of life, our time of death, always evading the cause. 

    The bourgeoisie is international, yet communisation is not a thought. It is a historical process inherent in our social tension now. This does not mean it is inevitable. Only the international working class, in a movement of abolishing itself, can fulfill this decisively. Thus, we say not “Long Live the Workers”, but “Abolish Work”. We seek to leave behind our miseries and sorrows in the Old World, to revolt and communise.

    Refutations of Anarchism’s Value System

    If not a historical Marxism, it is many a Communist’s pivot to Anarchism which can be just as troubling. To be transparent, we find ourselves sympathetic to Anarchism in the same way we might be of councilism or autonomism. We recognize its historical vindication in the errors of Marxism-Leninism, and especially with the rise of the Stalinists and Maoists. We recognize its place on the cutting edge of tactical approaches in America and worldwide, and its contributions as an ideology in imbuing these approaches with sufficient leverage to combat the State. Yet, when we recognize its relevance as a value system and historical ideology, we must also address its shortcomings. Like Marxists, Anarchists have fashioned-sometimes an even more obvious-historical ideology. Tracing back their rich heritage centuries, they also cling to the ideological burden that comes with these tactical innovations. We can refer to these as Anti-Authoritarianism, Freedom, Human Rights, Liberty, Justice, and so on. 

    Most Anarchists remain committed to these values, and our intent is for these values to be dissected at once. We critique the usage of any value system for studying history. Even if we happen to agree that “authoritarianism” genuinely relates to something harmful, or deem it necessary to fight for a society with more “freedom” or “liberty”. These values are not eternal but transient manifestations of class society at a given time. What constitutes “Human Rights” at one point may be the right to conduct a diabolical chattel slavery, or have ownership over their spouse. Likewise, we must recognize that even if values were less malleable, they are not the movers of history. Rather it is the basis of class society, and the contradictions which lead to conflict, collapse, and revolution. Since some Anarchists do not seem necessarily interested in the observation of class society, they tend to roam about in declassed movements which treat each one as a human rather than a Marxist would a worker. This is ironically a closer conception to what a communised society could look like, but it forgets one thing: We are not yet occupants of a communist society. We recognize this philosophical slide as very much an equivalent to the Marxist’s stageist-utopian vision. 

    Whereas many Anarchist-dominated movements are declassed, or void of class content, whereas we seek a violent abolition of class, or class movement to abolish classes. The former is subject to the most intense of bourgeois co-option: Our Anarchist friends know this well. Yet even still, the liberals successfully sink their teeth into the trove of values Anarchists offer. Where they mainly come to differ (the State), they still resemble themselves on the topics of liberty, human rights, and freedom. In a crowd you couldn’t pick these two out; If the liberal is feeling dangerous, they’ll even throw on the bloc to match. In the end the sea of reaction will split open to brutalize and detain the Anarchist, and the movement will be left in a repressed mess. 

    It is not the fact that Anarchists have failed on which we rest our criticism: We are a historical tradition of failures. Rather, it is the basis of their activism which draws it out. On this basis they have made great analysis about the role of the State and coercion, and the necessity to do away with it at once. But because these were conducted on ideological lines, they could not see this for the half-baked equation that it is. Namely, the forces that have led to the rise of the State, and the forces that have taken part in its maintenance. They have left these forces unaddressed in popular movements where class struggle is most eminent. In practice, it shelves communism itself for a debate on moral righteousness amongst class enemies. 

    We analyze these similarities between Marxists and Anarchists because they both fall along ideological lines. Yet what is needed is the embrace of communism, with the content of communism: Neither program or ideology will do. Tactically astute and more apt for confronting the State, Anarchist contributions cannot be overlooked. Yet as we must break free of the Marxists’ liberalism to revolt, we must of the Anarchists’ to communise.

  • Revolutionary Semantics

    Revolutionary Semantics

    Editor’s Note: We have discussed in our previous work, ‘In the Midst of ICE: Against Protesting & the Allure of Nothing’, the tepid nature of protest work. Specifically in its structure and how the protest confines the real movement to an isolated event, we understand these events ultimately to be reactionary spaces. Derived from the real movement to abolish classes and the real movement alone, they are the brainchild of activists and intellectuals competing for ideological hegemony. In this piece, we will peel back further some of these errors specifically with the popular language protests these days typically take. This popular language is nothing more than a popular mediation which seeks to mask the true nature of capitalist life, and we will analyze them both in their content in the format of a “sloganeering” encyclopedia.

    Protests often have the intended consequence of assailing an attendee’s senses. There’s the monotonous droning of, an often all too small, megaphone haphazardly clung to the belt of a scrawny organizer. Faintly one can make out the lull of a kettle bell or drum struck just ever-so-slightly off beat that it induces a sensory nightmare. Party organizations and NGOs dissect what momentum has grown to insert their own rhetoric, complete with heady speeches and a lengthy pamphlet which you will throw in the trash shortly after the scene has disbanded. All of these and more bless a gracious viewer who sifts through rubbish, hoping to find something worthwhile; this is a barren and hostile environment, littered with plastic and debris. 

    However, nothing at a protest is more mind numbing and intellectually jarring than the abysmal sloganeering which cloaks the mechanisms which define life. And like a broken record, these chants are repeated ad nauseum until they are burned into memory, satirical soundbites which loop in the brain well after the event has died. Furthermore, nearly all of the Parties involved in this spectacle seem to have no stake in revolutionary action or activity, thus to fuel their revolutionary itch they “muster up their courage” to stand on the side of a street or intersection and hurl their chants like spells at any passerby that is unfortunate enough to be in their vicinity. 

    Now, whether we have issues with these ideological vagrants of the Left propping themselves up on a busy intersection is not the purpose of this article (See the aforementioned piece for more). Today, we draw our issue in the specific content of these slogans and chants and what their language reveals about their aims and methods. Tactics aside, it is the content itself that seeks a departure from class struggle into something else altogether. Organizers will draw in the masses off the energy of the real movement, and leave them with nothing but a moral set of values. This itself is violence, violence waged against the working masses in the hopes of nullifying them before they take the chance to resist. Before the worker can reassemble life they are confronted by these values, which please them by offering an alternative reality where the clinical life remains holy. Thus these values must be dissected and taken apart, semantic or otherwise. Let us examine a few grotesque examples:

    “Protesting is not a Crime! Justice for the [group of arrested activists]!”

    At first glance you may say: “What’s wrong with this? All I hear is calls for justice against an unjust state.”, and that is precisely where we draw our issue. Moralistic claims such as these are alien to Communism, as was demonstrated heavily in Marx’s work Poverty of Philosophy. The statement above acts functionally identical to that of Proudhon’s claim that “Property is theft”, in that it is objectively incorrect in its analysis of the present situation. Let us examine this slogan piecemeal before looking at it in its totality. 

    1. “Protesting is not a Crime!”

    An utterly false statement on its face. While in America there exists minimal protections for the “right” to protest and assemble, the State consistently throws off its sheepskin of “civil rights” to gnaw its true fangs. Many of the tactics taken by protestors across the U.S. are indeed illegal under U.S. law. It is illegal to block highways. It is illegal to impede traffic. It is illegal to even use amplified sound in some areas! Nearly every stage of a protest is full of many micro-actions that are often very much illegal, and this is by design! The Bourgeois State wants you, the hopeful proletariat, to believe that it can use the very mechanism of state power to reform the system by limiting the spontaneous power of action in the streets and workplace. We can see that this call is not only factually incorrect, but in its core messaging it seeks to integrate itself into the system! By claiming that they are not acting illegally they believe that they are granted some special privilege to continue their acts. It is a foolish and childish mistake.

    1. Justice for the [group of arrested activists]!”

    Calls for “Justice” are utterly meaningless and devoid of Communist sympathies because whose “Justice” are we seeking out? One may say: “We are seeking justice for our bereaved comrades who were valiantly assaulted in the class struggle.” Very well, but who is to deliver this “Justice”? Is this holy “Justice” to be rained down on the aggrieving pigs by the Communists themselves? Of course the answer to that is “No”, so then, again, who is to deliver this “Justice” we seek? We see that the only entity that could possibly right this wrong is not the Proletarian class at large, but rather the Capitalist State itself! What logic is this? The State has already dispensed its justice! You ask me what “Justice” looks like and I’ll show you. Justice looks like an army of pigs descending upon the streets, cracking their batons at anyone they see. Justice looks like the bullet that every pig fires at an unarmed black teen. Justice is the blood that runs down the streets and into the gutters after every vicious attack upon those of our class. You see, this is the justice you cling to so rapidly. The State will never right this wrong, because by all legal definitions no wrong has been committed!

    1. “Protesting is not a Crime! Justice for the [group of arrested activists]!”

    Now we see the true nature of this slogan. It is not a harmless cry of anger, but is the carefully articulated response designed by the State to mediate and pacify the Proletariat once again. This is not to say those that call for justice are class enemies, but that they are both mistaken and misguided in their approach for retribution. Justice will not come from the halls of the courts, but from the barrel of the rifle, as it rings out the last shot in our final battle. It is to say that we must cease with these calls that show our adherence to liberalism and the State. We must throw off the veil of mediation and dawn the cloak of insurrection. Embrace the illegalism they cast upon us! In this matter the State is correct! What we do is illegal precisely because we have no wish, want, or desire to exist under the State or its so-called justice anymore!

    Let’s sort through another common slogan found in recent protests:

    “Hands off Iran! [Or any country our State is currently aggressive towards]”

    Again, at first glance this phrase may seem innocuous, or even positive. What could possibly be the issue with being anti-war? Well, is this phrase necessarily anti-war? We would answer this question in the negative. Even if the slogan was reformatted to say “No war with Iran!” we  would still find issues with it. Under its current makeup, the slogan does little to show genuine internationalist sympathies with the proletariat of Iran, all it does is show allegiance to a foreign state rather than the United States. No state is worthy of defense or support. The correct position to hold in this matter is to agitate against both the American and Iranian states, as no state is innocent under the Capitalist Imperialist system. All states are the aggressors and the international proletariat are their victims.

    After reading this, you may believe that our argument here is purely a semantic one. That our goal here is to create a “Pure Communism”, but that is not the case. We merely seek to truthfully represent the tenets of Communism as it exists as a real movement to abolish what exists. As it stands, these linguistic deviations serve little to do but act as lip service for the State and Capitalism. They take moments of unrest and convert them into ideas easily rehabilitated by liberalism, and thus by nurturing sects of the bourgeoisie. This is not simply a matter of semantics, but of rhetoric. When a proletarian that is burgeoning in class consciousness and sympathetic to Communism is approached with these slogans and liberal ideas their revolutionary potential is effectively neutered. That is why we must be precise and cautious with our language, and show genuine discipline in these moments where conditions are deteriorating. It has real and tangible results on our practice. 

    Unfortunately in environments predicated on a spoken or unspoken Democratic Centralism, there is either little debate on rhetoric, or it is actively discouraged. To question leading ideas is mischaracterized as idealist itself, a bitter irony considering the role of the activists’ mediatory ideas in building these movements. When we criticize ideas and especially these ideas, we are not-necessarily-criticizing those that struggle for them; We are certainly not criticizing the rank-and-file. We are criticizing the bourgeoisie, and the idealists with their head in the clouds of righteousness. They claim not to want to draw out debate on immaterial issues, but when they so graciously welcome bourgeois ideas into the movement, these ideas materialize in the most violent of ways. To criticize before, during, or after a critical moment is imperative.

    The following section includes a small encyclopedic analysis of some of the most present language in movements with Communist presence today. We provide alternative slogans not because we are master sloganeers, but rather to hint at a more revolutionary direction that language can be taken. As it stands, movement language either hinges on humanity and the rights of man, concessional rhetoric, lawfulness, and other diversions which stifle a clear understanding of each issue. What we hope to incite is not a laundry list of our own slogans, but to encourage Communists to critically examine the slogans they struggle under and for.

    ALTERNATIVE SLOGANS AND THEIR REASONING

    Original Slogan:

    Protesting is not a Crime! Justice for the [group of arrested activists]!”

    Amended Slogan:

    “Abolish the Courts! Tear down the Prisons!”

    Stated above. Legality is morality and morality is legality, i.e. the supremacy of liberalism.

    Original Slogan:

    “Hands off Iran!”

    Amended Slogan: 

    “No War but Class War!”

    The proletariat have no nation or incentive to defend their State rulers. States and the Capitalist class trap workers inside their nations and keep them held hostage. When we, as Communists, choose sides between Capitalists we grant legitimacy to their cause, whether that be tacit or explicit. By cheerleading for one imperialist power over another we effectively mediate the class conflict that is happening abroad in the minds of the domestic proletariat. The most recent wave of escalations between the United States and Iran have done little, except exacerbate the suffering of the Iranian proletariat, but to justify, and solidify, the existence of the Iranian State and ruling class. Our goal is to always escalate the class struggle to its highest level, the international revolution. We must thoroughly reject any war, but the class war.

    Original Slogan: 

    “Fight for 15!”

    Amended Slogan:

    “Abolish Wages!”

    Many Communists create an arbitrary distinction between the supposed “immediate” struggle and “end goals”. While well meaning in their attempts to alleviate the suffering of those around us they misunderstand what the Communist tactic is. Class struggle is not a moralistic claim, or a simple tactic to be used and then abandoned when needed. Class struggle is the driver of history, to deny the role of the real struggle in the current movement is to deny Communism altogether. 

    Not to mention that wages are the tools of the Capitalist class. Serfdom, and the peasantry, was eradicated by the creation of the wage labor system. By attaching our aims to the tools and framework of the Capitalist mode of production we do nothing but assert and affirm our class position instead of denying it.

    Original Slogan: 

    “No Human is Illegal”

    Amended Slogan:
    “No Borders, No Nations!”

    As we have discussed in our previous article, In the Midst of ICE: Against Protesting & the Allure of Nothing, we discussed the issue of inserting ourselves in the intra-class fighting of the bourgeoisie. Our support for those proletarians that are shouldered with the “undocumented” label must lie concretely in their dignity as humans and our assault must be against the very bourgeois legal system itself. Our criticisms of the legalistic and moralistic rhetoric found in the first section of this article stand here as well. To read further on this specific issue we recommend reading our article, In the Midst of ICE: Against Protesting & the Allure of Nothing, in its totality.

    Original Slogan:
    “Housing is a Human Right!”

    Amended Slogan:
    “Communal Housing for All!”

    Human rights trace their existence to the beginning of bourgeois philosophy. To speak of rights presupposes the question of who/what will enforce and protect that right, and that responsibility falls upon the State. As we have demonstrated and said (as well as can be found in numerous other Communist works) many times now, the State is the vessel of class society. As long as the State remains, so does class. As long as class exists, so do the miserable and alienated lives of the proletariat remain. We must also look at what type of housing we are demanding. Well it is certainly true that any housing is better than no housing, the revolutionary viewpoint necessitates that we must end the current housing system, of large swaths of single family homes, that breeds alienation and replace it with communal housing. 

    Original Slogan:

    “Freeze the Rent!”

    Amended Slogan:

    “Cancel all Rents!

    A similar argument to those of increasing wages, calling for a mere freezing of rents represents a temporary halt in the progression of the deteriorating quality of life the proletariat faces. It is not necessary to repeat the same line of argumentation twice; however, it is important to note that the primary call of campaigns surrounding access to housing and rents should be centered on the decommodification of housing and the ability to live. 

    Original Slogan:

    “It’s Time to Get Organized” (As seen with National PSL)

    This slogan doesn’t require amending, simply the end of its use for it grossly misunderstands social organization. To put it mildly, at points of crisis we seek the dissolution of every tangible class form, of the social relationship of labor, and so on. This means that there is no “time to get organized” as much as there are more and less tangible moments to strike at capital. 

    Yet at every social inflection point there is a Marxist group shouting at the masses to “Get Organized!”, which is usually a feeble attempt to draw away a few unsuspecting recruits into an activist and/or book club adjacent environment. They do this as inherent opportunists: What they really mean is to get organized with us and our programming, which is the only real program and the only really revolutionary program that can transform social relations. As if the proletariat needs to be pampered with source material for a movement to become “real”. 

    All we see here is a bleak departure from any notion of action or movement. “Getting Organized” just means to hyper fetishize structure and growing memberships, neither of which correlate with the overthrow of capitalism nor provide the platform for capital’s death. When a struggle is to be won or lost, and a group’s rallying cry is one of sublime organization, we see an ambitious SPD with a kernel of their capacity.

    Original Slogan:

    “Keep the Promise” (As seen with United Auto Workers)

    Amended Slogan:

    “We Demand Nothing But the World”

    The bourgeoisie do not make concessions, they make concessions as fit which are ultimately subject to a falling rate of profit. The righteousness of capitalists is a cheap appeal, albeit one that is well ingrained in union circles.

    Original Slogan:

    “March for Humanity” (As seen with National PSL)

    Amended Slogan:

    “March for Workers’ Liberation”

    A march for humanity could be led by absolutely anyone from PSL to the Democratic and Republican Parties. Furthermore, if class is the distinction on which these claims of human rights are made, then it is class against class that we will abolish such notions. 

    Original Slogan:

    “No Money for Massacres” (As seen with National DSA)

    (Money for the State, just not this one specific tragedy)

    Amended Slogan: 

    Abolish the State, Abolish Capitalism”

    Only an ingrained ideologue could look at a history of State-sanctioned genocides over the entirety of its existence, isolate it to one time period and as one variable to be contained, and contrast it to other forms of public expenditure.

    There is frankly one correct way to approach the question of “money for massacres”, and it is not in the maintenance of a parasitic capitalist life form.

    Original Slogan:

    “Abolish ICE” (As seen everywhere)

    Amended Slogan:

    “Abolish the State, Abolish Capitalism”

    The American State has overseen some of the most calculating genocides, atrocities, and wars in human history, much of which it has dealt with on its own soil. This regime has consolidated itself like no other Empire in history, and it has done so for centuries without the existence of ICE. Thus when critiquing its use of force, why do we isolate ICE as a historical phenomenon? It is an inflection point undoubtedly, but it is the product of an incredibly cyclical spiral of nativist campaigns, deportation efforts, and maintaining hegemonic capital. ICE is a norm, a product of an entire ethos and employment of life. And in the context of our contributors, we have seen first hand how this derailment aids liberal entryist mystique. Any hope of struggle is ceased, because this slogan substitutes an existential threat for a medication that is easy to stomach.

    Original Slogan:

    “Unions Uniting so Families Keep Thriving” (As seen with Teamsters)

    Amended Slogan:

    “Abolish Labor For a Liberated Life”

    One of the greatest achievements of the union bureaucracy in this country is that they have managed to still convince masses of people that they are guiding an upward trend. The unions are not only subject to little criticism, but in fact they are subject to no public criticism even when they undergo the underwriting of contemporary history. Families have not thrived this century! But we are to believe them insofar that when we sign their cards, they will lead us to this new imagination. 

    The unions fear an employment of life that is not predicated on wage labor, so they paint over the cracks left by capitalist education, media, and superstructure. 

    Original Slogan:

    “Defend Pilsen: Stop the TIF Expansion” (As seen with Residents Against TIF Expansion)

    Amended Slogan:

    “Liberate Pilsen: Fight Capital”

    Gentrification is a perfect microcosm for those defense movements that go so wrong. This is precisely because the term and understanding of gentrification itself is bourgeois! Just as we attack the use of life under wage labor, we attack the use of land under State, finance, and so on. But in the case of labor we are not satisfied with a return to higher real wages or a step towards workplace parity. No, we seek the evolution of our collective life to something greater, more liberating. The same must be said for gentrification then in that we must resist staking a claim on gentrification, as if what? The petit-bourgeoisie are the base of support we seek to build our platform on? As if poverty, caste, and segregation are anymore desirable? 

    We must resist this tendency.

    Original Slogan:

    “It is Right to Rebel/Resist” (As seen with Maoists, FRSO, SDS)

    Amended Slogan:

    “Abolish Rights, Abolish Classes”

    As we have previously stated, ad nauseum, rights are inextricably tied to the bourgeois system. Since we have discussed this at length we see no reason to relitigate the issue at large, however we will still discuss the peculiarities of this phrase. No State has allowed this “Right to Rebel” in practical terms. Philosophers and Leaders have opined and made gestures towards this “right”, such as Locke and Jefferson to even Lenin, but in practice this right has never materialized. In America, the “right of succession” was shot down with the Civil War and rebellions were quashed in Indian Country. Out of all the  rights that “exist:”, this one is the most insane. 

    Original Slogan:

    “No Justice, No Peace!”

    Amended Slogan:

    We Seek Neither Justice or Peace: Only Liberation”

    Justice is a fluid and slanted judgement. It holds no truth to its claims, and as such there should be a staunch rejection of empty promises. What is justice can only be defined by the justice system, and thus we observe this slogan as another which leaves a sour taste in our mouths. 

    Peace is likewise a virtue so exalted as it is hollow. We cannot come to define peace as anything other than passivity, and as such we view peace as reactionary. Any peace we seek can only come in the abolition of classes, i.e. not under capitalism nor its justice system. Yet even then this supposed peace can only come at the end of the bitter struggle that will undoubtedly leave bloodshed and destruction around the world. Thus, we seek no justice, and no peace.

    Original Slogan:

    “Arrest Killer Cops!”

    Amended Slogan:

    “Abolish Police & the State”

    Arresting killer cops implies the supremacy of  the justice system. As we discuss above, this is empty and reactionary. Furthermore, this slogan also implies the existence of good cops within the State system, therefore relying on a juxtaposition of morality within the State itself.

    As much as one may enjoy a moral witch-hunt of such capacity, we simply don’t share in this hilarity. The bourgeoisie can purge its forces’ ranks every 4 years, and we would still be left in crisis.

    There are no good nor bad police officers, and there is no divine nor inspired justice. Abolition-the absence of any being at all-is thus what we are left with.

    Original Slogan:

    Protect Academic Freedom”

    Amended Slogan:

    “Return Education to Life!”

    When not institutionalized or severed from life, education as an action can be incredibly valuable. That is, we are proponents of education as a process of engaging with life itself, and through those interactions forming comprehensive knowledge. Or rather, when learning ceases to be reduced to education. 

    We are not proponents of the State’s monopoly on this process, its institutionalization, and reduction to beautifying labor power. As such there is a need to return education to its intentional use: Learning and life.

    Original Slogan:

    #ShutDownNation, Boycott Israel, Defund Israel, Stop Supplying Weapons to Israel, etc.” (As seen with the BDS Movement)

    Amended Slogan:

    “To Free Palestine, Free the Working Class”

    The various economic attempts to punish Israel (as discussed in our first piece, “The Student Psyche in Political Crisis”) are entirely hapless. Throwing one’s weight behind such a movement is not viable due to the appeals toward both the petit-bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie proper, and so on. Any one of the “popular” slogans listed are slogans utilized by the bourgeoisie to protect itself from criticism or examination during this movement. The truth is that should Palestine be liberated, it can only come with the liberation of the international working class. Thus we seek not economic reallocation but a war on economics itself.