The discussion exploded as a result of different approaches towards the identity question and its relation towards the class consciousness. DAMTP decided to publish it as it was – our intention to put forward the discussion and not to make it round. That is about the need to orientate the 0123 fimension to the masters space and time.

[Saul U. comments]

Friday, February 8, 2013 5:55 PM

Apologies for a looong delay, but I (and I am sure everyone else) had more pressing issues to deal with rather than engage in another irrelevant leftist feud… Having said that, somehow I don’t want this malarkey to go unnoticed.

Quite a few assertions (shall I say mere?) were made in these online exchanges coming from ‘Redas’ camp’. To reiterate, I am not sure if it is possible to have a constructive discussion about revolution, be it romanticized or otherwise, communism, classless society etc. with someone who, judging by now infamous Saturday discussion and absentee post-commentators, has a very confused understanding of identity, backdates oppression to language/primitive society a la Zerzan, doesn’t grasp what makes the world tick (capital/wage labour relation) and wants to ‘finlandize’ the whole globe (for the better of ‘humanity’, of course), sides with ‘traditional values’, understands revolution as ‘continuation’, maintains vulgar conception of class and goes on quoting leftist black nationalist at length to back up his/her ‘revolutionary’ claim/s. Well, if you don’t see a problem with all of the above, we should just stop here… ‘How we think and understand the form and history of capitalism is a crucial point of debate to develop forms of struggle against it, and different understandings lead to very different conclusions.’

And now, to the point. To give you some background - Redas was recording some of the sessions in Alytus and I phoned him the following week asking not to reveal the names of certain participants etc. During that conversation we exchanged our impressions/opinions about the meeting and somewhere along the line Redas half-gigglingly accused G. and us (?) ('our group', which for the record, doesn’t exist) of... racism. Obviously, it didn't go down well with me and soon afterwards I wrote him a letter saying that colonial/postcolonial problematic was important, but it seemed to me he was drifting in somewhat convoluted waters. Also, I mentioned my disappointment with discussion in Alytus which paradoxically hasn't gone 'beyond' identity problematics. I attached, in my opinion, a relevant libcom comment (since when copy and paste is a problem? I thought you were all for plaaaaagiarism.!?) to the letter I sent to Redas suggesting he gives it some thought. He replied saying he didn't think a 'liberal-reformist' tone of the Alytus discussion on Saturday was a major issue and that it wasn't a 'sect' meeting (fair enough) where everyone had to agree… All in all, ‘our group' wasdabblingin [intellectual] chauvinism and according to Redas the libcom comment I forwarded illustrated structural racism...

So, it looks like the history is repeating itself… Certain members of ‘Redas’ camp’ are famous for throwing dubious accusations around, but this time Redas I would like you to back it up – you can’t just go around accusing of racism everyone who disagrees that race as a historically constructed social formation is central to the ongoing struggles… Why not gender, for instance, discussion of which was completely lacking in Alytus’ meeting? Shall I call every single attendee a sexist?   

I would like to get a clear response where do you actually see ‘structural racism’ in aforementioned comment and why ‘our  group’ deserved to be labelled ‘chauvinist’?

I think it was rather disingenuous of you to cherry-pick the recording of the meeting which resulted in not publishing all the problematic sections of the discussion!

On a related note, it would be curious to know what exactly makes ‘your group’ immune from ‘structural racism’?

Asim (and others), in my corner of the world you’re not going to get a lot of credit quoting someone who has a bit of the confused-reformist position, quote:

‘Kelley: Social Democrats. Well, I'm very catholic when it comes to the Left, which has been my downfall in some ways, because I've always been willing to support movements at war with each other. I can't say I agree with every single thing that these Social Democratic movements support, but the general consensus is that capitalism is not serving us well. I still don't think it's serving us well. And so I feel an imperative to support movements that are trying to claim a radical path. Even if it's not really clear what that path will be, it's still important just to defend them….

… The culture's really becoming bankrupt in some ways, and I feel like I'm caught between a lot of different movements. I feel like I'm still somewhat of a Marxist, but that Marxism is too little. I feel like my roots are in Black Nationalism, as critical as I am of nationalism and of nations. The core of that movement, that attracted me in the first place, was the idea of building a sense of humanity. Black Nationalism allowed ordinary black people to stake a claim to history, to say that we're contributing to the world. That sense of pride is something that I'm still very much connected to, as much as I'm anti-nationalist.’

(History and Hope: An Interview with Robin D. G. Kelley:

What is the ‘end goal’ of this uncritical affirmative R.Kelley/Sojourner Truth Org./Black Panthers mish-mash? Guess, we have a different understanding what fundamental social change means… And different stance towards BPP which, to quote, ‘began as a mix of a 10 point radical-reformist programme, some 3rd worldism and pro-stalinism (i.e. Cuba, China etc), in ideology and form, but did develop towards a confused kind of anti-statism later in their history.’

As to your ingenious remark ‘your cut and paste from libcom serves a very useful purpose as it allows us to debunk various anarcho racist bullshit positions’, I should point out that this ‘comment’ was made by ‘marxist’ Chris Wright who also happened to write this:

Marxism and White Skin Privilege

And I would like to clarify here, where do you find ’racism’ and ‘bullshit’ in his positions?

I know, I am going to annoy you with an inquisitive tone, but somewhat similar question I would like to address to Andrius: what sort of ‘depths’ you talk about which were apparently lacking in the ‘oppression comment’?

Also, what is not comical is your misunderstanding (cf. your letter) and treatment of class not as a social relation, but purely economic category. Hence someone would say your ‘vulgar marxism’.

I would suggest you read this:

Not that these debates are not happening in anarchist/communist circles, and for someone genuinely(!) interested I would suggest uberlengthy thread which followed the Anarchist Bookfair presentation:



Various differing trends of ‘communisation theory’ have been trying to address gender/race/sexuality problematics and most of the stuff can be found on the internet, mainly in French, some translations/original pieces were made/written in English. To mention just a few:

Incendo magazine recently dedicated the whole issue to gender and class:

[G. comments]
Fri, Feb 8, 2013 16:16

It seems I mistook Redas for a jolly joking open person, who certainly has his views (different from mine, needless to say) and is able to explain and defend them, but who does not take himself too seriously. I thought a bit of “class analysis” would be acceptable in the discussion we became part of. The last thing I expected was this useless aggressiveness.

Those who are uninterested in what people like me do, think and write can just forget about me (and among others things the book you published).

Those who are interested (especially if they read English and have access to our English texts)  can understand for themselves that:

1) I don’t believe in “class struggle or nothing else”.

When I (and a couple of others) stressed the emphasis on class and the working class, it was  because this dimension was being implicitly put aside (and as the discussion went on, explicitly rejected) by most participants.

2) I don’t believe in “the economy determines everything” theory. Exact opposite: I think what we call the economy is the domination of production over our lives; there was no prehistoric economy, and no economy in Native American tribes in 1800. If Redas wishes to lump me together with the SPGB as another variant of narrow-minded Marxism, I can’t help it.

3) Everyone who bothers to read our Communization text (in particular the § “Revolution of daily “life, but also other sections) will see that the anthropological revolution we speak of is completely opposed to a worker-
or factory- centred perspective.

I certainly do not dismiss the subversive potential of “the assault on serious culture”. For example, I agree with “the importance of also connecting anti-Vietnam uprisings with the boycott of Museum of Modern Art New York”. The question is the relation between this and the rest.

4) The identity question has to be addressed : maybe we’re able to, maybe not, Redas certainly is not.

5) If someone thought my “comments were dominated by mentoring tone (Fidel, one of the participants described it as typical colonial franco-centric) plus [my] lecturing on French history”, such a statement would need to be documented by facts, to put it mildly.

As for us being mostly “white, European males of not the poorest background”, it reminds me of Godwin's law… Except this time, my views are treated as illegitimate not because I would be a Nazi, but because I am white and European (in my case, it seems being French born is an aggravating circumstance: in other milieus, I suppose coming from Germany or Russia would be worse).

In a not too remote past, you and I would have been despised by Stalinists, unionists or even Trotskysts as “petit-bourgeois” : not being a (manual) worker put us at a disadvantage, and sometimes anarchist or ultra-leftist groups took great care to show their working class members as proof of the alleged validity of their theory and action. The discriminating factor has shifted, but the mindset is similar : you don’t become legitimate or illegitimate because of what you say, just because of you are (i.e. what you are said to be). It’s possible we didn’t look poor enough. Coming by bus was OK, but one must admit being driven back in Renata’s car was a bit excessive...

… I only believe in debate when people more or less agree on the *questions*to be asked, though of course they disagree on the answers. Debate is useless between people who pose utterly different questions. If Redas (or
other people) misunderstand me that much, it’s either because I am unable to make my points clear, or because they are unable to grasp what I am saying. Either way discussion is impossible.

I’d like to add this :

What does it mean when a person is most tolerant of many (many !) brands of ideas like those we heard on that Saturday morning, and then suddenly intolerant of ideas like the ones we put forward ? Is what we said enough to label us semi-racist, Euro-centred, etc. ? What logic is at work here ? What comradeship or friendship or community ? I am afraid the jolly good fellow stops being cheery and welcoming when his discourse (to use a
fashionable word) is seriously questioned just for a few minutes...


[Asim comments]

Feb 8, 2013, at 7:12 PM

Thanx for the comments - A quick clarification on my position on some points  - I will comment more after I check your links

For me the great problem with libcom text was that it is not engaged in struggle

I can only take serious a situated perspective from a worker in struggle - otherwise its just academic and eurocentric.

That's why I rate kelly - I think his position is not perfect of course but I see he is engaged in real struggle from a real position - same with BPP. Any text too should be situated in space time and class as well as identified by its origin

Similarly I do not throw around accusations but make suggestions and point out problems from a position of engagement

Similarly if you raise issue of sexism I will be very interested if you are 1 a woman and 2 suggest strategies

[Mawuna comments]

Friday, February 8, 2013 7:27 PM

You could put a lot of cats in the same room, it doesn't make them an army of cats! 

The problem from where I see it comes from people who spend too much time in their head, and take the fact that their brain could produce thought out of thin air a sign intelligence. 

- Show me the change you've brought into the world during the last 12 months, and i'll tell you where you stand in the struggle. 

- Give me the name of 10 people you have positively touched with your actions during the last 12 months, and i'll understand who you are. 


Redas has positively touched my life personally during the last 12 months. This is the most important for me. 

The name calling and anger is good only it serves other purpose than being perceived as the one who is right. 


Some folks are just part of the problem, Not part of the solution. 



[Andrius comments]

Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:44 AM

As a follow up to G. comment addressed to me --- ("As for us being mostly “white, European males of not the poorest background”, it reminds me of Godwin's law… Except this time, my views are treated as illegitimate not because I would be a Nazi, but because I am white and European (in my case, it seems being French born is an aggravating circumstance: in other milieus, I suppose coming from Germany or Russia would be worse). / In a not too remote past, you and I would have been despised by Stalinists, unionists or even Trotskysts as “petit-bourgeois” : not being a (manual) worker put us at a disadvantage, and sometimes anarchist or ultra-leftist groups took great care to show their working class members as proof of the alleged validity of their theory and action. The discriminating factor has shifted, but the mindset is similar : you don’t become legitimate or illegitimate because of what you say, just because of you are (i.e. what you are said to be). It’s possible we didn’t look poor enough. Coming by bus was OK, but one must admit being driven back in Renata’s car was a bit excessive...") --- communication really might be impossible, since i labelled participants as I did exactly for what's been said and for the inability to comprehend life of a black/woman, streaming from their privileges.

I really don't have that much to add, except one thing that has been explained in "NOT the red menace" "Do Men Exist?": WOMEN ARE OPPRESSED FOR BEING WOMEN and BLACKS ARE OPPRESSED FOR BEING BLACKS, also independently of class. Is that true or false?

To saul: I was saddened by the "Oppression" txt and even more so if you say you sent it as written by yourself. I admit I am disgusted by your (its) anti-feminism. Then follows a difference you must acknowledge between BPP and Nation of Islam. Then there's a bigger difference between white nationalism and black nationalism. It is not
that I say communisation has never touched gender/race, it is just evident you are part of the bandwagon that is up for white class struggle under certain circumstances. Your letter just proves it, does it not?

Most importantly, if we are to live in 2013 and not in 1920s or something - that had a capitalist, a blue collar, and a black - we are to learn from movements such as "anti-deportation" initiatives. Is it reformist to stop a deportation? Is it counter-revolutionary to demand an investigation of a racist murder? Now I really don't care.

Call me an absentee but I write about the concrete events and statements that were made in or after the meeting, that (might) prove a strange dissimilarity from the exclaimed positions.

Maybe maybe we are for a different social change! Or is it that certain peeps are not ready to give leadership to the unprivileged ("uncultured") and would rather keep it to themselves? I am not an "interested", i know where it's at. Though I admit my privilege and take part accordingly.

[Redas comments]

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 18:29

As a person with “a very confused understanding of identity” I must admit that I have distrust to anybody having clear understanding of it (usually I call it fascist, but as there were enough of labels produced lets leave it aside). While during discussion in Alytus I’ve stopped pushing towards the class understanding in the moment when realized that identity question is the most painful to the majority of people gathered then in Alytus… and when appeared that some of the attendees, whom I was expecting to share with their knowledge on class understanding, started to identify with revolutionaries instead. Then it was named as “romantic” revolution what resulted some anger, but indeed the understanding of the revolution as the ideal, or as some mysterious “cut” without taking into account the contextual events which result the evolutionary row – that was what from my point of view G. and Saulius were not able to comprehend… as the very notion that revolution and evolution as the concepts are far away from being in opposition – that is rather one more eurocentrist fraud.

“backdates oppression to language/primitive society a la Zerzan” - there it starts and unfortunately there it ends – sophisticated talking on oppression is a different thing from struggling (if has anything in common at all).


Struggling starts from a very primitive steps. I do not stream for it, but I am not afraid of it either.

“doesn’t grasp what makes the world tick (capital/wage labour relation)” – the problem is that capital is an abstract, while the labour is concrete. Usually those who write on the relationship never go on strike.

‘How we think and understand the form and history of capitalism is a crucial point of debate to develop forms of struggle against it, and different understandings lead to very different conclusions.’ – there I see a problem of the spatialization of the time concept – one more eurocentrist fraud… if you will follow thread while going out from space labyrinth you’ll find the way, but in time dimension it doesn’t work – one gets totally lost to follow the thread. That is concerning the concept of history (and historification) which was “unfortunately lacking” in Alytus meeting. That is why I see no problems in different understanding, but I agree that there must be found a new way to make conclusions or to inter-deal with the different ones.


Saulius is accusing me in a „cherry-picking the recording of the meeting which resulted in not publishing all the problematic sections of the discussion!” I was thinking about placing the original recording, but Saulius asked me not to publicize it in any way. So far I thought and still think the discussion was essential to reveal basic features of the “colonialization of mind” - I wrote every fixed position of this particular discussion so far I was expecting kind of accusations.


If to be very detailed on our conversation on the phone with Saulius – there was one more note occationally addressed towards Alytus meeting – „it was messy [the discussion]“ – this actually was followed by my emotional response – „revolution is always a messy thing“ and further on it lead to the lable „structural racism“ – it was not an agressive one – i would consider it beeing rather the warning. As Saulius said then that „it is painful that you accusing my friend in beeing racist“. Then I responded that the problem is not about a friend, but about overlooking the problem and/or of not taking the means. Time passed and it seems that the scum is left – just want to say sorry for any personal connotations which could be mistaken from this episode – definetely it was not my intention to harm anybody – the only thing i want to address is the broader problem inherent in this kind of discussions (i would say that the very adequate impact we had few years ago with Bifo and then it was left not discussed in the end, but remained unsolved on some personal ambitions‘ level)


Continuous pointing to the theoretical ignorance, ignoring of primitivism etc., pointing to the more important subjects and less important ones, pointing towards the „wrong“, „reformist oriented“ people, blind fidelity to the fixed meanings of the terms – that‘s what I kept in mind when using the term of „structural racism“ – the thing what i found present in myself after a long exchange with Asim during some years. In the very beginning I never saw any trace of it. Then i realized how it is structured in the artworld and in the structures of „serious culture“ which i was used to belong to. And I admit it. And it is not whom i am or what color i look like, but rather what and how i think.


Even the example with the cats, who „do not recognize themselves because they do not have self-understanding“, starts to look denigrating in the whole context.


Due to Chris Wright’s and “where do you find ’racism’ and ‘bullshit’ in his positions”. I think there is one:„At the beginning of the twentieth century, during the height of anti-Chinese hysteria, one of the finest of all revolutionary organizations in U.S. history, the Industrial Workers of the World, stood at the dock in San Francisco greeting incoming Chinese workers with a huge banner. The banner read, in English and Chinese, "Chinese workers, welcome. Join the One Big Union of the Working Class." We stand in that tradition, and call upon all proletarians who pass through these doors to reject the poison bait of race privilege held out by the master class that despises them. As they say in Harlan County, there are no neutrals there: you'll either be a union man or a thug for J.H. Blair.“ – there is evident the failure to understand the real situation of the immigrants and their relation to the capital located in the 1-st world. There you can find out a reason (one of the few at least) why IWW‘s remained 1st world whities organization in the end. Asim would give you a more consistent overview of it. But besides there are many things i agree with – „whitening“ of the american society is analogous to the word of bourgeoisiefication.


G. says: „there was no prehistoric economy, and no economy in Native American tribes in 1800“? There was some, just it was differently called (if has name at all) and it had no domination on peoples lives – here i agree with you... but it had an important factor for their survival and definetely had no aspects of excess, neither of profit, nor that of greed..or supremacy – but this is not about the economy but about the shifted capitalist human relationships, or lets say alienated bourgeois culture. I would say the writing of books is a kind of excess economy. What does it means the disability to talk to people before they do not read your text or book? Usually I talk to person first and then decide to read his/her books or not...



The aggreement with “the importance of also connecting anti-Vietnam uprisings with the boycott of Museum of Modern Art New York” is also either lacking broader „historical“ knowledge either is prejudicedly „structuraly racist“ and sexist too by the way..– The MOMA boycot was arranged by mostly the white male artists and was openly opposed by black organizations and faced with counter-strike-picket lead by Faith Ringgold & WSABAL.


“But I was first struck by the true dimensions of that problem in 1970, when Faith and I attended a guerilla art action protest against Art Strike, which was itself a protest against ‘racism, war and repression’. A group of famous white male artists led by Robert Morris decided to withdraw their work from the Venice Biennale, a prestigious international exhibition, in order to protest US bombing of Cambodia and the murder of college students at Kent, Jackson and Augusta. Although the protest was supposed to be against ‘Racism, War, and Repression’ (sexism was not yet on their agenda), Art Strike then expected to mount a counter-Biennale in New York without altering the all-white male composition of the show. This seems to be the key to understanding the intrinsic limits of Western cultural avant-gardism: while it can no longer deny its own white male supremacist presuppositions it cannot be rid of them either.


In the first years of our feminism, working through an organization that we founded called Women Students and Artists for Black Art Liberation (WSABAL), Faith and others succeeded in opening this exhibition to women and people of color. WSABAL was also influential in the subsequent development of Ad Hoc Women Artists, led by Lucy Lippard. This group repeated WSABAL’s 50 per cent women demand in their protest against the Whitney Biennial, which was in the habit of including white male artists almost exclusively. Specifically because of Faith’s research and support of Ad Hoc, black women artists Barbara Chase Riboud and Bettye Saar were included in the next Whitney Biennial.”

Michele Wallace “Invisibility Blues”


Simply – the racism is much deeper then only the social relationships constructed from capital, but it is a true eurocentrist problem which started with the classical aesthetics – I think it is not an coincident that G. pointed out his references and fascinations towards clasical aethetics during the Alytus Saturday discussion (greek tragedy for example). Sure, sexism must be addressed too, but it is another hard & painful issue.


And finaly: „I only believe in debate when people more or less agree on the *questions* to be asked, though of course they disagree on the answers“. The point of fixed questions is about more or less fixed meanings. But the problem starts with the very essence of the labeling the things – to note its eurocentrist origins too – and colonialist practices - and the mechanisms of the meaning shifted away afterwards – and finaly the fact that with every answer the meanings are shifting too and that it is a continuous process. If the meanings are not shifted during the debate – I do not believe in it – it is a form of spectacle.


[Martin comments]

Sunday, February 10, 2013 5:26 PM

following text is maybe too  far from fire, but after all when I try really articulate how i feel about it – and even when it sounds a bit naive even to me – it is really how I feel: 


I have been for a longer time playing with the idea of treating similar meetings as an excuse to meet without a purpose to create some records or reports or anything durational. Meeting as an opportunity to meet in person and after some structured rituals just hang out together with someone you usually don’t have chance to meet often or in general. Meeting which in a better case can be a source of a set of thinking and emotional particles for further contemplating in individual seclusions.  


Let discussion be a fluent talking, where topic modifies according to general mood and interest of people involved but its environment is also open to accept or incorporate the momentary enlightenments or endarkenments of disturbing or shifting contributions.  

...mostly for the pleasure of developing or sometimes negating certain idea in concrete constellation of people and their /ours immediate reactions - agreements or disagreements and even possibly changing it into different ones... 


It probably requires two things – first - kind of choice of invited people if it doesn’t happen by itself but as a part of a planned event (– to ensure some polarity in attitudes –), second - no records, because the outputs – if to follow spontaneous reactions can sometimes be painful to remind even for their authors... not every quick reaction is a good one. 


The aim could be to try to create the choir sound – respecting – giving space to individuals, not really to form a codex which would become a base for some further processing.

Then later on - people could only speak about the mood they shared not about formulations or accusations. 

Maybe it’s not so much within the tradition of making annals... but anal is interesting or important only sometimes...

P.S. this text can be also considered to be  a continuation of following part of the letter i sent to Redas on Monday, October 15, 2012 4:10 PM long before all this passionate comments (I mean the ones from last few days) appeared:


as to Alytus meeting text – that is different case BUT – again – the text has the ability to recollect the great communal feeling of meeting people with different attitudes and common  desire to talk togehter and share - deal with serious matters – BUT!!! again I feel from the text as well as from the meeting itself - the importance of proper words and exact deffinitions is not the main thing, the formal – language expression has just substitutional role. It was more like a jazz session where notes as words do not have reall meaning outside the  complex of the session.  that is why I do not feel anymore any need to correct anything in the text – and for me sufficient reflection is : it was great – it made me feel and thing – there are some seeds from the meeting growing in my head – but not sure what seeds and what will grow from them... and very optimistic experience that there are some fantastic people around


with friendly greeting : JAZZ UP!



[Asim comments]

On Feb 10, 2013, at 10:06 PM


Hi Redas -  I have always been impressed by your solidarity. sure u have laughed at me too on some matters - being English and privelidged for example - and yes it hurts - but i would not want that to change - I appreciate your criticisms because of your support and I want to say to both Saul and G  - anyone can agree with us - even an enemy can agree and be jolly . it takes a comrade to make criticisms and then stick around to help overcome them!!!
i've read some of the texts recomended by Saul
I don't have anything really to add - they are all written from an academic perspective and not from the perspective of workers engaged in struggle against the specific issues they raise.
so now i should write something of our own perspective - or rather i on mine.
i first came invovled with the Alytus Biennial with the Art Strike biennial - sent the text "the end of the age of divinity" - and suggested that before we can effectively strike we need to form a union. a union for psychic workers - my objections to the terms immaterial labourers or non-productive workers are already outlined in '"the end"
we explored how we can make one person unions or multiple person unions.
the DAMTP - a psychic workers union was formed and Redas, Andrius, myself and some others to lesser degrees, drew up a constitution and translated it into russian and urdu. in there we explain that our intention is to form workers council/s - and how we propose to begin this process.
The 2011 biennial conference explored some difficulties in definitions. Comrades were divided whether the union exists, is usefull, can have a membership etc. Nonetheless, Redas, myself and some others, have supported the union forming  of dead workers unions/councils, made up and non-existent workers councils, regional groups eg Tunjur group. So this was our development of the line of black power consciousness and was attacked by the anarchist follower of Bifo.

I have since also begun to formulate a reproductive workers union - which is I think more relevent than bourgeois notions of sexism - but anyway I hope to be superceded in this by woman comrades if needed
so you see we are not exactly clear - we are not static - we are making changes and changing. this is the confusion of practical activity and informs the formation and development of theory.
as to identity, DAMTP has written of how "identity" is a dimension of "class". the 0th dimension is the letter - the 1st is the name - the 2nd dimension is the nation and the 3rd dimension is the situation.
is that unclear? yes of course it is! and i make no apologies for that. as we explored in the 2011 conference - using asemic, arabic, urdu, hindi, english, russian, belarussian, french, lithuanian and more - we will always find it hard to understand each other - is clarity the goal - or is the overthrowing of class society ?
we have put forward a road towards working class organisation - away from academia and art - and we are taking that road - that is our practical activity and building class consciousness through the letter, name, nation and situation is imperitive.
I will second the question asked by Mawuna and expound it slightly differently: what is the practical activity of Communisation?

[Mawuna comments]

Monday, February 11, 2013 12:46 PM

I'd like to clarify my "cats" comment, so confusion will be maintained but properly: 

1. Cats are the only animals which live with humans without obeying them, while profiting from them and being loved by them.

2. Some of of us are like cats. We proclaim a lot but at the end of the day we have to go back home to eat.

3. Cats have no intention to change humans, so they don't do Unions. Cats get in group only when they have a gang bang! (other when they are fighting).

4. Cats in Unions are called "Capitalists", "Aristocrats" or "Nobles". They are wild cats like Lions. They still are cats BUT they work together in Unions. 

5. Most of the leftists, communists, anarchists are Domestic cats, while they dream to resemble the wild cats. 

6. I love Domestic Cats and Wild cats. We need both of them. 

7. Confusion comes from when Domestic cats forget who they really are, and spill their confusion all over. 

8. A good domestic cat takes the food and continue his/her day as lovely domestic revolutionary 

9. Wild cats don't reads books, they are not on youtube (not a lot), they don't masturbate. 

10. I still love cats anyway, domestic or wild.


PS: Racism is a disease[1]. It's a european mental disease, but it's epidemic. Until racism will be included in the dictionary of mental diseases with a proper diagnosis protocol and treatment guidelines, this disease will continue to haunt humanity and destroy more lives and relationships. 



[Asim comments]

Saturday, February 23, 2013 5:40 PM


cool cats, crazy cats,
sure proletarians and bourgoisie relationship is like cats to humans
i agree that the revolutionary class is neither wild nor domestic nor noble but :
those cats eg whose production of awe, wonder, love makes them indispensible to the humans while also expendible those cats eg whose natural hunting is utilised in killing of rats by humans

The sign and the signifier is thus superceded by the Signified ie the letter and name by the nation - but class consciousness is not acheived as situation is not understood

The trajectory from the letter or sign for cat (eg "cat") through to the actual cat and so on to every possible cat continues to other animals and on to humans

Just like the roman letter G god gangster etc to a romanised asim and the damtp

in other words while the wild can leave the wild to become domestic and the domestic can recounce identity to become wild -  cats must be aware of her identity as cat - and indeed her nationality as wild or domestic - it is her situation in relation to other animals that allows her to become conscious of her class and therefore revolutionary potential - in uniting with other animals to overthrow human domination

[Fidelis comments]
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:23 AM


Dear comrades,


Its a great pleasure addressing you people. Its been a long time since last year. Sorry that you didn't hear from me but it was due to some mix up with my email as I later realised after some mails with Redas.

I want to thank everyone for the discussions of the event and hope we shall turn out in our numbers for the upcoming event in August.


I would wish to address an issue that I read in most mails sent by some of us. I noticed that we were pointing fingers at each other for disputes on points or topics that we found relevant. Please I want to suggest that we should take a positive approach in addressing each other. We should avoid excessive language. In the worl and our communities of today, we always identify ourselves with a community or group. We have come together because we share a common thoughts and ideologies. We want to address the eurocentric behavioural patterns and make our activities be felt in the community.


I never came last time to impose an ideal discussion but to share my experience which I thought could help me identify myself and get your views on the same issue. Identity, was discussed everyday of our meetings. It rang a bell in my head when I came back and I asked myself several unanswered questions. Does it mean that we all have the same questions about this identity of ours? Please I should not be mistaken with this. Its a topic I ould talk much about because its actually part of my present studies. I came to realise that we all have issues identifying ourselves where we are. Usually it goes to everyone lving out of his home land. When you see somebody, that person my be a man, woman, mother, father, teacher, doctor, politician, maaried, single, european, african, footballer, a jew, a moslim, criket player, athlet, speaks German and french, and you may name the rest. All these do make an identity. Thus, its not just cultural background or language but its the way we and other look at our community, how it is and how we would want it to be. The changes we all do want most of the time have to start with our own selves.


Please lets put our heads together for this common course and criticise positively with some degree of respect for each other. I want to applaud the convinction and energy of Redas for being able to organise these events. We all know how difficult it is to gather us and form a mutual group but he has done that. We should not forget that we have to dispute to find a common ground and work together. That is the beginning of new collective ideology. Lets stop threatening to stay away or go out of discussions because without disputes and arguments, there would never be a concrete unilateral direction to follow. That is the same way a legislative body ponders before laws and regulations are passed.


The discussion on the frech revolution almost took another turn. My message there was that the internal causes of the french revolution which class distinction and which led to the property act after the revolution. Though what sparked the revolution was that class disparity. The vent in the world at that moment like the American revolution and the seven years war in europe did help the situation. Below is a shot text on the french revolution so we all get an idea about the social class disparrity that did reigned at that time. This is the same we still experience today in our societies in a very disguised form.


"Ultimately, these various problems within late 1700s in France weren’t so much the immediate causes of the Revolution as they were the final catalyst. The strict French class system had long placed the clergy and nobility far above the rest of the French citizens, despite the fact that many of those citizens far exceeded nobles in wealth and reputation. Moreover, these exclusive titles, most of which had been purchased and passed down through families, essentially placed their bearers above the law and exempted them from taxes. In 1789, when France’s ancient legislative body, the Estates-General, reconvened and it became apparent that the higher-ranking classes refused to forfeit their privileges in the interest of saving the country, the frustration of the French bourgeoisie reached its boiling point. The French Revolution was thus a battle to achieve equality and remove oppression, concerns far more deep-seated and universal than the immediate economic turbulence France was experiencing at the time".


Forgive me if my mail may hurt your feelings but remember that is just my own way of looking at things and not that of every one of us so thee is room for dispute and discussion to learn from each other.


[1] [Martin‘s comment]

Wednesday, March21, 2013 0:22 PM


Dear Mawuna,

Its been almost 6 weeks since I wanted to send you this information which is used by some neonazis as an argument in opposite dirrection to your PS - basically as a proof that who is not racist and xenophobic is sick. It was one of the funny things comming to me in swarms during my Berlin Biennale madness last year:

Williams syndrome (WS or WMS; also Williams–Beuren syndrome or WBS) is a rare neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by a distinctive, "elfin" facial appearance, along with a low nasal bridge, an unusually cheerful demeanor and ease with strangers; developmental delay coupled with strong language skills; and cardiovascular problems, such as supravalvular aortic stenosis and transient hypercalcaemia.

It is caused by a deletion of about 26 genes from the long arm of chromosome 7. The syndrome was first identified in 1961 by Dr. J. C. P. Williams of New Zealand and has an estimated prevalence of 1 in 7,500 to 1 in 20,000 births.