"Why revolutionary hackbases? Why CHT/T?"

¶——— dcht00 @ 20240423

such a big room, I wonder what we could do If we actually communicated in some way 

What do you all wish for the world, that doesn't exist right now?

I started associating with the hacker community, and started building and documenting a hackbase, because I thought this will lead to everything else.###

###It's super weird to see so much lurking and so little spontaneous connections, especially after all this time. More than 10 years

¶——— @aimeejulia:matrix.org

I think given the challenges of coliving having experienced these myself and seen how others respond to them I can say that these are not for most people. Also having a space in which there is a constant or near constant stream of people in one's personal space is difficult for most. It is easier when the space has well thought out boundaries and sufficient individual private space to be on one's own if that's desired. Having said that coliving is definitely cheaper than living on one's own and in a world of increasing cost of living and rent this is becoming a necessity. If we did a survey here it would be interesting to see how many people here would actually go with a coliving arrangement and why. 

¶——— dcht00

"Also having a space in which there is a constant or near constant stream of people in one's personal space is difficult for most"

"It is easier when the space has well thought out boundaries and sufficient individual private space to be on one's own if that's desired"

###Bolded what I think are the key words where I disagree and want to seriously discourage, as I always have, this kind of philosophy of setting up bases.

And this will ofcourse lead to where you're getting to, that so called coliving (which people/students have always done) somehow becomes diluted to a minimum, and only another obstacle to bow down to in the capitalist normal.
Hackbases/bases are revolutionary infrastructure, (as anyway are hackspaces/hacklabs, or ought to be) and that's not supposed to be about desires of a "normal" capitalist subject, and what they deem difficult or easy.
If you don't understand this, then you will understand it at some point when NATO imperialism/capitalism pushes progressively more of us into "coliving" in the war trenches.
To see "coliving" as this introvert guess-I-gotta, since I can't afford to live alone anymore, is taking away its revolutionary potential.
These are not just empty words, CHT/Totalism.org has followed it and produced a shit load of actually powerful software and tactical writing.
The problem is participation of European men and women has been minimal, and always further minimized by this kind of attitudes, trying to make bases just an awkward flat-share peppered with some almost business-model like thinking.
Hackbases/bases are revolutionary communes, not retreats.

[reply:    dcht00
    What do you all wish for the world, that doesn't exist right now? I started associating with the hacker community, and started building and documenting a hackbase, because I thought this will lead to everything else. It's super weird to see so much lurking and so little spontaneous connections, especially after all this time. More than 10 years]

That's why, this simple proposal to think about what we actually want and need, and both before the point of & beyond petty, pathetic, capitalism-normalizing thinking of "I might go to a hackbase when I can't afford rent anymore even though I work on totally bullshit work, probably for the military, it might be a bit hard at times to find personal space and comfort but maybe we can also sometimes have a laugh!"

So if any of you people paying rent to capitalists, and having jobs making capitalists richer, can please respond to that that'd be fantastic, because it was always pathetic and terrible, and is just getting worse. What the fuck are you waiting for?



P.S. Doing a survey I can get behind, have one ready already, but even that's probably too much to expect from the majority of the geriatric-level-energy groupation here

PM for link to survey if you still have an actual pulse

¶——— dvn

"Hackbases/bases are revolutionary infrastructure"
what makes them revolutionary besides just asserting that they are?
i would think that they would need to seriously and materially challenge capitalism in order for them to be classified revolutionary, and that's the part that is disconnected to me. i see a lot of interesting "tactical writing", much of which I agree with, but I don't understand what inherently makes this model the thing people should be doing
i feel like the project is experimental, but for some reason tries to express itself as something that is tried and proven
it's hard to know though... i may not have enough information about things going on behind the scenes, or in real life, not documented, and if I did then i wouldn't have such an opinion
that's how i've felt for years about hackbases, before I ever knew that they were centered around a specific locus of ideas and work (CHT/Totalism.org), In more recent times, and getting to talk with you more, I'm at the same time more interested, but also in a way reinforced with my initial thoughts that this is some experiment that, despite all the writing, is somehow vague and I don't understand its revolutionary path in concrete terms.
That is to say, I don't know exactly how to engage in a productive way, because I don't want to get caught into a project that takes my time, energy, sweat, and tears, yet doesn't feel clear to me how it builds revolutionary potential. Again, I may be merely exposing my own ignorance to the room, but those are some of my honest thoughts.

¶——— mirsal ✨

in my opinion, the difficulty in organizing life in a commune indeed mostly stems from our collective dependence on the individualist lifestyles promoted by capitalism, especially as a vast majority of people found in hackbases / squats / communes would have lived most of their life without developing the skills and social constructs that are required for harmonious communal living. Unfortunately, realizing it does not make organising such spaces any less difficult. I would rather refrain from blaming victims there and focus on the kind of socio-political structures that can allow for diverse groups of humans to coexist while building out the collective skill sets needed for modern communes to function. Neglecting that, we are at risk of burning out any non-extraverted person willing to experiment with living in bases

¶——— Doug

    Absolutely loving the honest and emotionally vulnerable chat ❤️‍🔥
    There are loads of "coliving" spaces where hackers hack... but because they don't self-identify as hackerspaces, we don't see them. Just an observation I think is worth pointing out.
    The hackbase-theory-of-change as I see it: enabling hacking -> more hacking -> (many different paths) -> revolutionary change. (This theory is shared, presumably, with hackerbases, makerspaces, social change labs, etc—at leas the ones politically active)

¶——— dcht00

[reply:     dvn
    "Hackbases/bases are revolutionary infrastructure"
    what makes them revolutionary besides just asserting that they are? i would think that they would need to seriously and materially challenge capitalism in order for them to be classified revolutionary, and that's the part that is disconnected to me. i see a lot of interesting "tactical writing", much of which I agree with, but I don't understand what inherently makes this model the thing people should be doing]

The problem is you're coming off as cynical, but that is because I think you lack practical knowledge, which is natural if you lack the time & energy to pick things apart. Which is where bases come in.

What I wrote literally just before I came to this room, was a "hey what's up" to one of my favorite contemp marxists:

"""
I'm again active in the sinology/sinophile society of Slovenia.
Check out again the article here: https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dru%C5%A1tvo_prijateljev_Sovjetske_zveze (in Slovenian), basically in Slovenia and so in Yugoslavia, the precursor to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_National_Liberation_Front , which is the only major and successful resistance to the nazis in WW2, was the "Association of friendship to the Soviet Union".
Which is a kind of association of associations, that leaned on heterogeneous interests (communistic, panslovanic, antifascist, slovenian decolonization/nationalism, sociodemocratic and christian-socialistic, pragmatic/liberal, pacifist, etc).
But it lead quite organically and without too much excess into a centrifuge towards a clearer leadership of the CP, culminating in impeccably organized armed struggle and then revolutionary
state. Even though it didn't openly start off like that.
I think this is a good line to try tracing to organize and interact around today as well, ofc for PRC.
"""


What I'm trying to say is that Yugoslavia was the westernmost successful communist revolution, and now I find myself organically at the spot to lead and apply organizational and technical tools at a position that is congruent. 
<<< to the historic position then

And that's simply because I don't rent an apartment, have tools and a knowledge production logic, and so I don't need a job, so I have time and infra to do it. So you don't need to keep being cynical, because it has to be pretty easy to understand that if you have 8 hours more in a day, and you spend them building tools and positioning yourself, you'll be able to go further than if you don't. Are you able to confirm that?

¶—

[reply:
    dvn
    i feel like the project is experimental, but for some reason tries to express itself as something that is tried and proven]

CHT is absolutely both experimental & tried and proven, those don't exclude themselves but are a way to the result, right?
Simply see https://totalism.org/hackbases . Those communal models have been explored and their base anchors have been proven to be sound


[reply:    dvn
    That is to say, I don't know exactly how to engage in a productive way, because I don't want to get caught into a project that takes my time, energy, sweat, and tears, yet doesn't feel clear to me how it builds revolutionary potential. Again, I may be merely exposing my own ignorance to the room, but those are some of my honest thoughts.]

What's interesting to me when I study your response here, well known and conveniently laid out, is I guess you have to do something, so what is it you actually do, then? Very simple, what's your superior proposal, because I guess you do something all those hours, so what's the superior activity to what CHT/T does?

¶—

[reply:    mirsal ✨
    in my opinion, the difficulty in organizing life in a commune indeed mostly stems from our collective dependence on the individualist lifestyles promoted by capitalism, especially as a vast majority of people found in hackbases / squats / communes would have lived most of their life without developing the skills and social constructs that are required for harmonious communal living. Unfortunately, realizing it does not make organising such spaces any less difficult. I would rather refrain from blaming victims there and focus on the kind of socio-political structures that can allow for diverse groups of humans to coexist while building out the collective skill sets needed for modern communes to function. Neglecting that, we are at risk of burning out any non-extraverted person willing to experiment with living in bases]

Let me before I forget, mention I respect and am grateful for every perspective expressed. But that doesn't mean I don't hate it. This is another example of it.

Clearly coming from a hyper-westernized place of cozied up privilege where self-pity and lamentatious attitudes are not only tolerated but encouraged. The discourse of "burnouts", "victims", "harmonious living", "difficult", "willingness", and "risk".

It doesn't take more than 10 seconds to try applying each of those attitudes to any revolutionary situation, to anyone's idea of revolutionary militant discipline, and they fly out of the window.
So while @dvn could start off understanding the character of Bases (or CHT/T anyway) already from the attitude that is also clearly and durationally embodied — yes, there are constant "difficult" and "risky" and "uncomfortable" situations , but who else does that —— will rather going to keep slim picking around?

¶——— dcht00

[reply:
    Doug

        Absolutely loving the honest and emotionally vulnerable chat ❤️‍🔥
        There are loads of "coliving" spaces where hackers hack... but because they don't self-identify as hackerspaces, we don't see them. Just an observation I think is worth pointing out.
        The hackbase-theory-of-change as I see it: enabling hacking -> more hacking -> (many different paths) -> revolutionary change. (This theory is shared, presumably, with hackerbases, makerspaces, social change labs, etc—at leas the ones politically active)]

Regarding #2 , I think you might have meant to write hackbases? In that case, of course it's the old : hackers hack in all sorts of spaces, and live in all sort of spaces, but those do not make them hackerspaces or hackbases, no more than my grandpa fixing his car at home, or my brother living and hacking in his room, doesn't make those a hackerspace or a hackbase. They need to be publicly accessible (via a clear and non-discriminatory process).

Re #3, makerspaces and "social change" labs are not politically active, or they wouldn't be makerspaces but hackerspaces, that's the specific difference. This is further complicated by the fact that something calling itself Y might be X, and vice versa, so we have many hackerspaces that are clearly makerspaces, and possibly some makerspaces that are hacklabs.

¶—

[reply:
    dvn
    There is an implicit assumption here that spending time doing the type of work you have determined to be productive will have good results
]

Obviously Mr.Cynic (←this might only be funny if you read the Lenin—Bogdanov discussion, so if you haven't, take that into account), doesn't everyone?
The question then is what framework we use and apply to support that claim. And that's tactics (as applying theory, and I have all the receipts.

Obviously it is impossible to see the future and know your work will have good results, but the point of bases (and the larger revolutionary good practices) is to apply science, schemas, systems to put yourself in the best position for that. That is 101 of revolutionary work and of bases.

And that's also the executive difference between "opportunistic"—idealistic anarchism and "disciplined"—scientific communism.

¶——— dvn

Okay, I get that. This makes me realize part of my problem. hackbases feel too similar to anarchist squats and wagenplatzen to me, which I spent too much of my younger years wasting time in. It seems like you have to spend a lot of time explaining that this is not what the project is, right?

¶——— dcht00

maybe about 0.5% of my time, not too much

¶——— dvn

really, you don't think that's part of why there are so many lurkers but so few contributors?

¶——— dcht00

https://totalism.org/what
https://totalism.org/why-how-what
https://totalism.org/goals
try to capture that

[reply:
    dvn
    really, you don't think that's part of why there are so many lurkers but so few contributors?
]

No. I think the problem is multifold. You, the people that come out and say something, and lurkers more so, are gooey as fuck.
<<< you can never get a handle; close one "concern", another one appears!

That is the nature of the urban leftists living in the core.
Let me also just remind you that I was born in Yugoslavia.
Meaning I'm surrounded with people who not only have had all these discussions at the the highest level, but also did (in the most difficult circumstances) everything right, then had those discussions again, and then (in the most difficult circumstances) managed to fuck it up.
There's fragments of that past I can touch around here, that's more than "community kitchens" and "activism.

¶——— dvn

you're the one complaining that people are not enaged, and now i'm giving you my opinion on why, and you say that it's just because we don't get it and because of our disposition. you actually have no idea my background or who i'm involved with or correspond with

¶——— dcht00

Said again, the problem is not that there's a Magic Sentence or an Infographic that will get the people here engaged, though I'm not in lack of trying, as a hobby.
The problem is most have never made a fire or chopped wood, and would for sure find it "difficult".

[reply:
    dvn
    you're the one complaining that people are not enaged, and now i'm giving you my opinion on why, and you say that it's just because we don't get it and because of our disposition. you actually have no idea my background or who i'm involved with or correspond with]

Correct, I have no idea, because you're not saying it, though I asked

¶——— dvn

[reply:
    dcht00
    The problem is most have never made a fire or chopped wood, and would for sure find it "difficult".]

that is in no way my problem. i have lived "off-grid", lived in rural communities, self-ascribed "communes", etc.
the problem i have put plainly and concisely is that there is too much focus on making the "base", and not enough about what the idea is for afterwards. " Codevelop a sensible worldwide postcapitalism blueprint"
yea a lot of people want to do that

¶——— dcht00

... Well, I know you're with the "petits singularites", which I think have trash politics, trash infrastructure, trash attitudes, and trash outcomes. 
BUT I still came to offdem!

[reply:
    dvn
    that is in no way my problem. i have lived "off-grid", lived in rural communities, self-ascribed "communes", etc.]

That's probably why you're speaking and not just lurking. Psychologically, you think you can speak and be cynical. So you were the "ironic shield". I see this a lot and it's substantially documented. I'm saying there is an actual graph/flowchart of it.

[reply:
    dvn
    the problem i have put plainly and concisely is that there is too much focus on making the "base", and not enough about what the idea is for afterwards. " Codevelop a sensible worldwide postcapitalism blueprint"]

OK I am ready to entertain that idea seriously with you.
If you want to do that. 

¶——— dvn

Why would I want to do that with you? That's my point. What about totalism.org is supposed to make me think that you have serious ideas about this. It is so far a bunch of ideas (tactics) about bases, some of it connected, much of it scattered and piecemeal. Then you are frustrated people don't engage with you.

¶——— dcht00
<<< digression: #antinerd

I've gotta run to catch the last daylight to play basketball now.

I know many here think it's okay to be a "geek" or "nerd", and spend all your life in your room, and that this is what hackers are, and expect bases to be "easy" and not "difficult". 

But if you can't march 30km in a day with a 30kg backpack in 30celsius while having the biggest smile on your face, start training.

¶——— dvn

Plus when I try to engage you say I'm engaging the wrong way.

¶——— dvn

I'm not self-lamenting, I'm being critical. I'm engaged with some Marxists on scholarly projects. As someone who didn't go to university at all, I do think theory and analysis is very valuable and necessary, despite the liberal capture and corporatization of academia.
I'm also working with people who are engaged in peasant and other agrarian struggles against neoliberalism, where there is a very clear idea of what the demands are:
    Stopping imperialist intervention,
    and realizing self-determination through political, and direct means.
    This includes communes as a methodology for acheiving this. ;
    Reproducing local food systems and social relations, which is a fundamental element of exiting capitalism. ;
    Demanding land reform, benefits of which are self-evident.;
    etc.

I'm not saying this to prove myself as a "worthy communist" in your eyes, but my point is that I am engaged and devote much of my time to what I consider building revolutionary forces and efforts

I'm not convinced that hackbases would unlock some hidden door to the one true pathway to revolution that you seem to assert. (I know this is an uncharitable characterization, but i'm kinda pissed by now, and resent the personal attacks when I'm resisting them in return)

¶——— dcht00

It's good you "think" theory and analysis is valuable and necessary, because there's too many idiots who think Rojava is an accomplishment but the PRC or USSR or Yugoslavia, the non-aligned movement, or Cuba, are not.
That Rojava is a pre-industrial society that only exists because Amerikans are using them as a pawn, and might not want that tomorrow anymore, while PRC went from weakest to strongest power in the world, applying solid and clearly defined principles, is beyond the mental reach of some simple idealists. I'm just stating this because I'm sure some of the lurkers here think Nestor Makhno is a more worthwhile person to study than Stalin.

Specifically with the shitlib "personal attacks" discourse, @dvn , that's pretty pathetic, I'm not going to let you manipulate the field here rattling passive aggressively and exciting the sentiments of the sensitive and gullible observers.
Obviously this whole conversation is a personal attack, it is an outward facing challenge at what persons are doing. With an implication what they are doing, is no good.
About your practice, as I understand you're involving yourself in some sort of via campesina / agrarian socialism things. I don't know why it's so difficult to drop a few references, maybe being oblique makes it Cooler.

I think that's bad practice, so CHT/T always tried documenting these lines best I can, for example:

https://totalism.org/alike
https://totalism.org/networks
https://pad.land/left-media
https://totalism.org/struggling
https://totalism.org/postuni
https://totalism.org/non-shitty
etc

If you actually care about a functional revolutionary configuration, I'm sure it's easy for you to recognize that showing this openly is valuable work, and in this way is an expression of relative power. But I'm actually afraid that some people don't just not do that, they're actively dismissive of it. I see this a lot in anarchists, the same as in librarians, actually. It's a peculiar form of activistic gate keeping: "you have to go through me to learn stuff". But at the same time "why would I want to talk to you". 

Also obvious, that's not the hacker way.

Re your politics, (in which I'm interested only as to the implicit suggestion it's more valuable to engage in that direction rather than in the CHT/T direction),

what I'm trying to decrypt from what you mentioned there, I personally find this agrarian directions one of the weirdest a western technically literate person could take, I see it basically as a more hip version of anarcho primitivism. "Making demands" sounds really relevant </s> and I wish you all the luck in them being granted. Meanwhile I'd personally like to try getting involved at the surface, which is obviously technical.

In this moment I'm reminded that the thing you @dvn keep talking about is, if I understand, how you actually used to be super into tech, but now don't believe into it at all. And yet, still here you are, for whatever reason?

My experience in communes and technology has, as I understand opposite to yours, been incredibly fruitful . If you have wasted as you say, time with hackers, communes, social centers, wagenplatzen etc, ... maybe your judgement of where it makes sense to spend time not only didn't work then, but is still just as terrible now? Or maybe it's also your own method of doing it?



[reply:
    dcht00
    Well to start off because I ask the right questions.
    Number 1: If you're not just full of cynical self-lamentation, tell me and everyone else, what are your exact criteria for evaluating who you will talk to or not.
]

So to get back to the main point.

I thought what I wrote was actually a good question for @dvn , of course it's a rephrasing of his "Why would I want to do that with you?". But cynics will always pose bullshit rhetorical questions that are not there to be answered. What is more annoying, is that these evasive maneuvers always come as a point where they might have a chance saying something that would actually be worthwhile writing down.
That's probably why it also works for you as an exit statement — it makes you feel so cool to say something so edgy on the way out

If anyone wants to actually try answering the phenomenal "Why would I want to do that with you?", in a general way, whereas What they are doing and Who they're doing that with has some semblance of a system, a logic, something that didn't just come out of habit, or comfort, please go ahead, that could be valuable.

That of course should immediately be applied to what you're, with whom you're, doing whatever you're doing right now, since apparently that's better than being in a hackbase?

Or in another paraphrase, "What is to be done?", Lenin 1902.
<<< not developed

My whole point with hackbases is ... that hacking is to not be on autopilot, it's not autopilot to install Linux or even to pirate MS Windows, (and also to not listen to what's on the radio, to not eat terrible and overpriced food offered to you by for-profit places, etc) , to demand more from technical systems and put that together, and to build institutions where people can be together and bring and master tools to not be on autopilot.
Hackbases are just an extension of that, you de-autopilot paying rent, having jobs, and so on, AND then you win loads of free time, completely new skillsets, greatly increased potential for progress in all directions. Of course this will organically lead to a leap in understanding political theory — that most hackers already at least have an intuitive feel for (somewhat "anarcho communistic").
To really be a hacker you have to not just awkwardly ask "Why would I want to do that with you", but actually answer that question in an abstract way. If you just want to be a cynic, you might as well just keep being a western anarchist.
today

¶——— dcht00 (next day)

zzzzzzz how boring.

    #) All politics, and especially revolutionary politics, is the application of organizational potential (ideation, publication, decisioning, execution, oversight/sensors) to economic, knowledge/scientific, military, etc domains.

    #) Every human activity is augmented by tools, from farming, industry, to obviously organization.

    #) Organization tools are systems of information in the most general sense, and more specifically it's hypermedia, cybernetics, ubiquitous/pervasive computing, HCI, dialogue models, representation systems, etc.
    
    #) Hackers — as it is understood, even already now, by everyone, even though hackers haven't yet reached a iota of full potential (and being around this "community"/"movement" for 20 years, I see it is actually moving in reverse) — are ideally positioned, in our interests, capacities and attitudes, to develop and deploy (pioneering, radical, complex) information systems. Duh.
    
    #) So. While the capitalists run on SAP and Excel and Oracle and Google Docs (lol!) and try desperately to grift up, in some whatever way, a "information revolution" which would both keep them ahead, but more importantly meanwhile, keep all of us in the dark from figuring how things actually run —— whereas of course communist analysis, shows it's inevitable that people will figure it out sooner than later, (!) but not necessarily without terrible turbulences also know as fascism (which is assisted by idealistic sidelining digressions including liberalism and anarchisms) —— this is becoming increasingly more impossible as our informational capacity as a global organism develops. Ffs, even timewasting bs such as "social media" Myspace/Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat now inevitably lead to Tik Tok. They can't even keep a lid on that. So on the information plain, it's clearly all falling apart. Not to mention how Twitter's doing. Practically noone but the biggest fool under 40 believe in that the west maintains its imaginary core ideals. All that's left is cynicism.
    
    #) In this situation, hackers obviously have a slam-dunk simple opportunity to develop the full potentials of next-generation political/organisational/knowledge tools. And I know this for a fact, because almost solo and within half-baked Bases, I've in the last 10 years been doing it and the results are nothing short of mindblowing.
    
    #) AND YET the level of discussion raising this all results in: boohoo crybaby cynicism, "how difficult it can be to share a kitchen with people", the "why would i work with you" cheap sardonics ... It's actually pathetic and I'm embarrassed to witness a grown person coming out and "posing" that question, without then having the integrity, esp when asked and called out, to understand it needs to be answered.

¶—

Anyway since I keep saying it's a valuable question, Mr.Cynic, and I suppose you're out of commission, I'll give a short answer to it myself:

Why would I want to do that with you?

*) As I've already said, the first thing to realize is that you need to do something with somebody. While shitlibs & anarcho-idealists are always "shopping around" in self-sabotage for something pure, that satisfies every pettiest concern they concoct in the moment — the struggle is real, something really needs to be done with somebody. 

If you aren't doing anything with somebody, write down the options, declare the criteria, and then have the integrity to publicly stand behind that.

(...Unless of course you're some sort of an incognito Anarcho Batman! That's why oblique activism and "privacy" is so popular with fake-hackers. If everything is private, anyone can be Lenin behind closed doors!)

P.S. The communists typically Do Something WIth Somebody within the domain of the Communist party/-ies.


*) ... So as you now know you need to do something with somebody, but "why you" or "why her" or "why them" and who's even out there?

You need to write down the options: https://totalism.org/systematics
<<< duplicitious



*) If the options aren't written down fully somewhere, the thing you need to do is to write them down, obviously — you want to take a clear account over what is out there. So at that point, maybe you will entertain that The Thing To Do With Somebody is actually a systematic project first??

And you will look for capacity to do that (an information/media superiority), and you will see that capacity by its direct/public expression, but also you would want to reasonably account that where there's public expression, there's also more covert capacity.

(At this point, hypermedia agents like CHT/T, or hackerspaces.org, should start looking pretty good ... compared to say wagenplatzen, or movements based on sitting in a circle and talking into the air, or "hacker collectives" making terrible notes that are deadlinks in 2 years, or of course anything to do with post-its, or people wasting trees on printing yet another paper book).

I'm only going to briefly mention that EVERY single person in history making any sort of real contribution to revolutionary practice did this, all of Marx Lenin Stalin Mao Tito+Kardelj and Kropotkin and Graeber and Wark were all not just "idea people", but had all of: monstrously total grasp of all available analyses, never failed to lean on them and celebrated them, contributed systematic (historiographic, territory reports, etc) analysis themselves, and were always out to find novel ways to navigate them.


*) So now that you've hopefully found a link to the totality Mr.Cynic, found some most superior tool (technology) to engage with it and contribute to it, you now need to be able to make some sort of a "choice" in where you can activate yourself to contribute where the potential for supporting and maxing the revolutionary potential is strongest.

This is going to be a combination of factors: what your capacities are, how you can most maximize your capacities, how you can maximize capacities of others, etc ... and progressively towards what the system you are interacting makes available to you formally and materially.

Formally, a superior revolutionary practice would offer, first, a clearly stated understanding of this, basically an inter-systemic capacity. So that it has a functional motor of self-improvement and positioning in available space, which is obviously finite, as it comprises from a limited pool of potential revolutionary militants.
This includes especially:
    * ability to relate(→debate/adopt/reject) features of other systems, and
    * understanding its own end-conditions (→merger/consolidation, etc). ...
Such as sketched on https://totalism.org/intersub , for example!

And second, being a system with a set of inherent positive properties, including:
    * being easily-improved and malleable;
    * being scalable;
    * showing immediate informational superiority (both in extent of content, and the systems of dealing with it); give hints of covert potential;
    * having a malleable, helpful system of discipline and excellence in behaviour;
    * not empower but transgress capitalist relations, especially economic (=shared property, goods procurement, taking stock & management, accounting excellence, cooperative employment, financial conspiracies ...);
    * being durational (=exist for some time) without losing steam;
    * ###
...etc etc etc...


These can go on, and again most are obviously related to the information/informationalizing capacity of the system, which is in contemporary time anchored in computer systems. And so you form an efficient basis for the theory→tactics→practice→theory cycle.

Seems complicated or random? OK, pick a few failed "revolutions" and grade them on this pattern, and see what came out of it. (I advise not to try to grade successful ones, because maybe Mr.Cynic you would go to say, well no revolution was successful! But I guarantee that's only a temporary hiccup.)

The end

¶—

TLDR: Mr.Cynic, if you wanted to actually help overthrow capitalism these days (it is, without saying, of course always falling by itself, that's the basic law of communism, and well into that dynamic, championed by the there-are-way-more-of-them-than-us-and-they-are-doing-great PRC), ... and you have a bit of computer capacity, you'd probably want to engage in some sort of non-capitalist information system/organization production (=hacker), you'd want to free up time to do that, not waste around at wage-labour jobs within capitalism (=quit job, quit rent, move to a hackbase), and you'd want to do it in some sort of a radical collectivity which has already done the work of systematics, writing out the protocols and tactics, and putting it out there in the most malleable and advanced way possible (=CHT/T).

And if you'd whatever either agree with this or disagree with this, it would be a pretty good idea, Mr.Cynic, to tell everyone that you do, and exactly why, because it's a paramount question, because the shared alternative is the fascist cycle of capitalism.

But, you need to make some sort of a "choice" in what-and-with-who you engage ("Why would i do that with you"), and as properly anchored "choices" are actually again just expressions of decision systems, and this is an important one, it would be real fucking dandy Mr.Cynic if you would share your alternative decision system and the results thereof with us.

¶———