After much effort in developing  it had been his intention to give much needed focus to reviewing zeer-consciousness and finishing the pathtivism book. However the system-for-the-rich is presenting the movement with an opportunity - to free the grassroots movement from Rev-Left authoritarianism.
zandtao will not use the term Radical left because that is the term the system-for-the-rich is using and he does not want to be associated with their intentions. Their fundamental intention is to shutdown grassroots democracy. They have usually controlled electoral democracy, but grassroots dissent and action has always been a problem for them. Their usual manipulations are to focus attention on the violent within the left, and often through agent provocateurs targeting them have created the violence on the left that has divided the movement. But now the system-for-the-rich in the US (and elsewhere?) is going for grassroots democracy - genuine democracy, whilst calling it the Radical left.
It is of benefit to grassroots democracy to lose the violence and left authoritarianism.
Let's start with the violence. Ever since Marx there has been violence on the left. Whilst Marxist analysis of the sources of the system-for-the-rich (the economic system of the bourgeoisie) were sound for its time, his analysis does not look at the bottom-line of accumulation because he was not alive for this level of accumulation and its impact. Within the movement at the time developed a tactic of revolutionary class change, and it is in this idealism that ego has led to division. There has never been a revolution led by all of the proletariat, never in any country has the revolution been started by the 99%. What has historically happened is that the revolutions were started by a vanguard, a much smaller proportion of the proletariat who claimed they were the views of the 99% and claimed that the 99%-revolution would develop. Whilst the vanguard had crossed the line and accepted the need to fight, the rest of the 99% had not so they were not wholeheartedly behind the revolution. This vanguard-led revolution left the class change vulnerable. Not all of the 99% were behind the revolution so they were vulnerable to sedition - being bought off by the system-for-the-rich from outside the revolutionary state. To counter this, revolutionary states called for a dictatorship of the proletariat primarily to fight off the system-for-the-rich. In practice this dictatorship of the proletariat left the revolutionary state as authoritarian. Whilst the people in power might have had the interests of the 99% at heart, authoritarianism in any form is not the answer even well-intentioned authoritarianism. These authoritarians let idealism ego take over, and they lost compassion by limiting the freedom of their peoples.
Left-wing authoritarianism also exists within grassroots movements of countries whose governments work with the system-for-the-rich. These authoritarians work within small groups within the grassroots movement as a whole, they either work as small separate parties or they work as factions within the leftish party of the veil. Within their own like-minded groups they are democratic, but within the wider grassroots movement they are tactically manipulative. These tactics are based around 51% democracy. Because of the manipulations of the system-for-the-rich apathy dominates the grassroots movement (or lack of movement). This means that meetings of the wider movement such as trade unions or the wider leftist party (left-veil parties) meetings are not well attended. As a result these smaller parties or factions could strategically flood the wider meetings, and by 51% democracy would win the votes. This often meant that the wider movement supported factional activism democratically even though the people of the wider movement were not in support. As a result of such tactics grassroots activism became limited instead of building into the 99%. In his book on pathtivism zandtao will describe actual tactical situations.
Occupy appeared to be building into the 99%, and they eschewed this left authoritarianism. Instead of accepting 51% democracy they sought genuine democracy looking for legitimate voting democracies of 90% etc. This meant that factionalist idealists could not control Occupy. Occupy however was destroyed by the violence in the system-for-the-rich. Such systemic violence with its technology can never be countered by left-wing violence, and any such left-wing violence is often manufactured by agent provocateurs and manipulated to divide the movement. Occupy in the US however was simply destroyed by the brute force of the system-for-the-rich. From the outside Occupy appeared to be governed by compassion but after the systemic violence they did not rebuild and start again - start again with changed tactics; path would have given that conviction. Aspects of radical love have to be the answer.
With the system-for-the-rich now calling for the end of "Radical Left", compassion needs to mobilise support for the grassroots movement behind radical love. Dissociate from sources of violence, dissociate from left-wing authoritarianism, dissociate from the Revolutionary Left, and work harmoniously in the grassroots movement - let compassion build harmonious action that all can unite behind.
| RADICAL LOVE AS GRASSROOTS ACTIVISM |
 | | RADICAL LOVE AS PATHTIVISM |
|
|
Books:-