#revolutionary communist league | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

txttletale · 6 months

Note

healed ive been doing some very basic communist readings lately and. how do you cope with the fact that none of it seems particularly possible. how do you manage to put any of this theory into practice when the only two parties out there seem to be the We’re Basically Demsocs Party and the Sexual Abuse League. how do you not let it crush you and what ways have you found to like… manifest these ideas in your life? i guess one could say i was “radicalized” by recent events but having done basic reading (just beginner Lenin and Marx) has made me feel so much more hopeless. there’s no vanguard party and i don’t see what I can actually tangibly do to help proliferate communism. and it’s making me feel guilty for living my life, too, for doing things that I find fun and beautiful and enjoyable - there’s just the guilt of “this is a time-waster, this is brainwashing you”. do you have any assurance at all

so obviously the role of a marxist-leninist in a revolutionary situation (ie, one in which the conditions are revolutionary, in which the current bourgeois state is no longer tenable) is to be in a vanguard party at the head of the organized working class. but these things don't appear from nowhere--i think it follows that if you are in much of the world, where a revolutionary situation is not imminent in any forseeable near future, then the role of a communist is to help organize the working class and raise class consciousness through class struggle so that when such a situation presents itself the working class is both radical and organized, or capable of becoming such in short order.

that means that working within non-party organizations (unions, activist and mutual aid groups, grassroots campaigns) with the intent of learning the tactics of organization and radicalising the people around you is a meaningful participation in the class struggle. as much as i say 'get organized' and believe that a proletarian party is the best and most powerful vehicle for revolutionary action, that latter belief is of course to be taken and adapted for the situation.

do not be hopeless because you have read lenin--instead, be aware that when lenin was writing much of what he wrote, the situation of socialist parties across europe was dire. criminalized, divided just as they are now, replete with the exact kind of reformists you're complaining about (as well as adventurists). what lenin wrote about was not just a theoretical ideal party that did exist in his time, but instead the blueprints for the party he had a hand in creating. realize that lenin genuinely believed during periods that he would not see revolution during his lifetime.

organize with whoever you can, in whatever arena you can, and participate in the class struggle. develop the skills and understanding of the methods of struggle, even if trade unionism or climate activism alone are not sufficient vectors by which the contradictions of capitalism can be resolved, they are avenues by which your class consciousness and that of those around you can be honed and sharpened. find the most radical body around you and join yourself to their struggle--a vanguard party should emerge from the struggles of the working class, it should be an organization that serves as a vessel for effective action. you do not have to tie yourself to the decaying and rotting shambling zombie parties of the 20th century to participate in the class struggle--we as communists owe these organs no loyalty if they are not equipped for the realities of class struggle.

i'm lucky in that there is a small but dedicated group of marxist-leninists i have been able to join up with and work with. if that's not the case for you, conduct the struggle within anarchist collectives or trade unions or solidarity campaigns, while always keeping your true goal in mind. the class struggle unfolds across a multitude of arenas--as long as there's someone you can organize alongside on something, you are not powerless in your capacity as a revolutionary communist. good luck, comrade.

#ask

202 notes · View notes

radiofreederry · 7 months

Text

Happy birthday, Shigenobu Fusako! (September 28, 1945)

Born in the Setagaya ward of Tokyo to a far-right ultranationalist father, Shigenobu Fusako rejected her father's political leanings and embraced the left, becoming politically active in the New Left movements of the 1960s. A part of the Red Army Faction of the Communist League, Shigenobu became increasingly frustrated with the sexism prevalent among the Japanese left, and came to view the Palestinian struggle as one of the most important in the revolutionary cause. She traveled to the Middle East to volunteer with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and then formed the Japanese Red Army as an independent militant group, which carried out multiple actions throughout the 1970s and 80s, opposing the imperialism of Israel and the American bloc as well as the capitalist system in general. In 2000, after attempting to reenter Japan, Shigenobu was arrested and later sentenced to 20 years in prison, although she ultimately released earlier.

#birthdays #shigenobu fusako

176 notes · View notes

fuckyeahmarxismleninism · 3 months

Text

January 15, 1919: Comrades Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, leaders of the revolutionary Spartacus League during World War I and founding members of the Communist Party of Germany, are murdered.

The militarist right-wing Freikorps and the opportunist Social-Democratic government of Ebert and Noske collaborated in plotting their arrest and assassination as part of their effort to crush the revolutionary struggle known as the Spartacist Uprising (January 4-15, 1919).

------

“Order prevails in Berlin!” You foolish lackeys! Your “order” is built on sand. Tomorrow the revolution will “rise up again, clashing its weapons,” and to your horror it will proclaim with trumpets blazing: I was, I am, I shall be!

- From Luxemburg's last known article, written hours before her arrest and murder

https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1919/01/14.htm

68 notes · View notes

workingclasshistory · 1 year

Photo

On this day, 9 April 1898, Paul Robeson, Black singer, actor, American football player, communist and anti-colonialist was born in Princeton, New Jersey. The son of a previously-enslaved father who escaped a plantation, and a blind mother who died when he was six years old, Robeson learned 15 languages including Latin, ancient Greek and Swahili, and played in the National Football League while graduating from law school. He quit the sport to focus on his acting and singing careers, starring in films such as “All God’s Chillun Got Wings” (1924) and releasing hits like “Ol’ Man River”. He also became a revolutionary, and was deeply involved with the struggle against fascism, actively supporting the fight against nationalist general Francisco Franco during the Spanish civil war. He played an active role supporting many workers' struggles, as well as the fight against racism and colonialism. After World War II, as cold war tensions escalated, he was attacked by the anti-communist programme of Sen Joseph McCarthy, blacklisted and had his passport revoked, which destroyed his career. This began a slide into depression and mental illness, which later resulted in a suicide attempt and repeated medical intervention. Despite his hardship, he maintained his ideals, and to a tribute held for his 75th birthday which he was unable to attend, he sent a recorded message stating: “I want you to know that I am the same Paul, dedicated as ever to the worldwide causes of humanity for freedom, peace, and brotherhood.” More information, sources and map of his childhood home: https://stories.workingclasshistory.com/article/10871/paul-robeson-born https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=606215021551717&set=a.602588028581083&type=3

303 notes · View notes

transhawks · 1 year

Text

as a fandom, I hope in 2023 my fellow villain stans (and those of us who identify as anarchists or socialists/communists and still try to find something ideologically worthy in this copaganda) realize that the League of Villains are not revolutionaries or antifa or any of the brave people standing up to fascism, and are incredibly traumatized people mostly on suicide missions led by a megalomaniacal man whose political views are best described as fascist. It's just not happening, y'all.

Spinner's embracing of Tomura led to his depersonalization and dehumanization. Twice's blood is being used in the worst way possible; his ultimate fear of being a clone while the original is dead is now realized and utilized. Dabi's grasping at anything to hurt his father while burning himself to death since he can't beat Shouto and because he's realized that people will use any excuse to not care about abuse victims, and he gave them the biggest one by trying to destroy society. Toga has given up on trying to make the world love her and discarded her need for it. Compress entrusted a society where the rich can't exploit the poor to Tomura, but actually managed to entrust it to a man whose plan involves tanking local economies so he can control them. They aligned with an ancapitalist-crypto-fascist army that preaches eugenics to achieve so much of their goals.

Tomura spent months trying to show he was his own person outside of All For One only to end up possessed. All For One wasn't kidding when he said it was all for him.

This is not a good end for them. This is not any shape or way or form of good. They're not going to come back from this sort of thing alive unless the heroes assigned to them save them.

Yeah, this is pessimistic, but someone really needs to wake y'all up. wake the fuck up. The League aren't happy. And they haven't managed to be happy. Tomura never wanted to be happy, either, even if he respected the wishes of his allies. He says it over and over because his trauma made him a depressed nihilist who justifies his lack of will to exist over and over again.

It's just so fucking frustrating, and I know I played a role in this for years, this beating of the drum of how much Hero Society is shit. it is shit, but the League aren't offering solutions. They're too hurt and traumatized to and some of you should really read upon on trauma-based politics and its short-comings.

Please, in 2023, get your head out your asses.

Boku no Hero Academia is a story with liberal values and ideals about reforming the status quo, not breaking it. You are not going to find far-left of center ideas actively pushed in this manga even if they are entertained, because in the end, the story will not have the League "win".

The ending to BNHA will not be revolutionary but reform, which means the saving of the villains will fall down to hero kids. You will not get amazing parables about how the villains should save themselves in this story because that's not what this story wants to tell. Please be realistic, for fuck's sake.

I'm so tired of reading takes that hinge on the idea that the League is a tight-knit family of antifascists and antistatists who love each other and will destroy the hegemonic systems around them. No, that's not what's happening. I'd fucking love if it did, but that's not Boku no Hero. Learn to read.

I love you all, but I truly think you would have happier times in fandoms if you started expecting less and less and realizing that the majority of the media produced in our zeitgeist is far from perfect and will also not cater to leftist ideals. Certainly not something published in Shounen Jump.

#boku no hero academia #villainstandom #im not taking this shit back and if you want to argue polemics with me come at me

302 notes · View notes

antiwaradvocates · 2 months

Text

On this day, Polish and naturalised-German Marxist revolutionary, Rosa Luxemburg was born! She co-founded the Spartacus League which became the Communist Party of Germany. She was a key figure in the 1919 Spartacist uprising and was later jailed and executed in response.

#rosa luxemburg #women’s history #women’s history month #communism

29 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 13 days

Text

A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?

Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of “anarchism,” have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are “free socialism,” “free communism,” “libertarian socialism,” and “libertarian communism.” For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. As Vanzetti put it:

“After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference — the fundamental one — between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government.” [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]

But is this correct? Considering definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:

LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will. SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these definitions to show that “libertarian” does not imply “free market” capitalism nor “socialism” state ownership. Other dictionaries, obviously, will have different definitions — particularly for socialism. Those wanting to debate dictionary definitions are free to pursue this unending and politically useless hobby but we will not).

However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of “libertarian socialism” to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many “Libertarians” think anarchists are just attempting to associate the “anti-libertarian” ideas of “socialism” (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those “socialist” ideas more “acceptable” — in other words, trying to steal the “libertarian” label from its rightful possessors.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term “libertarian” to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850’s. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term “libertarian communism” dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term “Libertarian” by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word “anarchy” in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire — The Libertarian — in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised “The Libertarian League” in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based “Libertarian” Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970’s, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression “libertarian communism” was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have “stolen” the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a “libertarian” capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.

As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership — what is commonly called “socialism” — is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state “socialism” is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is “not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling to a fictitious collective interest.” [quoted by Colin Ward, “Introduction”, Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]

Given the anarchist pedigree of the word “libertarian,” few anarchists are happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our ideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the “term ‘libertarian’ itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for ‘pure capitalism’ and ‘free trade.’ This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians … who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit.” Thus anarchists in America should “restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured by” the free-market right. [The Modern Crisis, pp. 154–5] And as we do that, we will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism.

33 notes · View notes

eretzyisrael · 23 days

Text

by NORMAN J.W. GODA

All of this made perfect sense to French Trotskyists and Maoists. Pro-Palestinian anti-Zionist organizations formed in France after the Six-Day War. They included university students who styled themselves as revolutionaries. Using the language of anti-colonialism still fresh from France’s ill-fated attempt to retain Algeria, these organizations also borrowed the legacy of the French Resistance, neatly turning the Israelis into the Nazis. French keffiyeh-wearing Communists complained of Jewish press control. “Palestine solidarity” events included distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. As Jewish writer Gérard Rosenthal put it in early 1970, “The problem of Israel is becoming a national problem.” Israel’s seasoned ambassador Asher Ben-Natan, who arrived in Paris in 1970, noted that relations with France had hit difficulties because “there exists also in France elements that have suddenly adopted anti-Israel attitudes.”

How did France’s Jews respond? By asserting their Jewishness without sacrificing their claim to France’s promise of universal dignity. “The world,” said Meïr Waintrater, the editor of the Jewish monthly L’Arche, in April 1970, “only likes dead Jews. . . . It is impossible today to open a newspaper without finding an article [that] gives Jews advice — which curiously resembles orders — on how to be Jewish or how to be French.” Later, in 1977, filmmaker Claude Lanzmann asked, “Why must the Jews feel obligated after Auschwitz to speak in [polite] language? To prove that they are really French? This language . . . is from the time of Dreyfus! It is the language [from] before the creation of Israel! If we are to protest, I ask that we do so as Jews!”

The chief vehicle of the French-Jewish campaign was the International League against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA), formed in 1927 in reaction to the dreadful treatment of Jews in Eastern Europe after World War I. After World War II, LICRA countered racism as well, monitoring everything from apartheid in South Africa to the civil rights movement in the United States to the war in Vietnam to the treatment of Arab workers in France. For French Jews, anti-antisemitism and the fight against racism were both part of the struggle for human dignity. LICRA saw no contradiction between opposing racism and advocating the safety of the State of Israel. If the world was divided, it was not between the oppressors and the oppressed. It was divided into those whose rights to safety were respected and those whose rights were not.

LICRA altered its view on de Gaulle. He was still the man who, on June 18, 1940, had called for resistance to the Germans in the name of the universalism France represented. As LICRA president and former Gaullist intelligence officer Jean Pierre-Bloch put it, “We will never forget.” But Pierre-Bloch also noted publicly that de Gaulle “is betraying the Franco-Israeli friendship, not to [help] the Arab people, but to support the potentates who rule these people to their great detriment.” Understanding that the French policy encouraged Arab extremists to hold out for Israel’s destruction rather than work for peace, LICRA also led demonstrations of Jews and non-Jews in Paris and other cities against what Pierre-Bloch called “the scandalous embargo.” Meanwhile LICRA called for a Palestinian state — but without the PLO, whose terror operations disqualified it from any human-rights struggle.

LICRA’s writers, Jews and non-Jews, also tried to expose the antisemitic nature of anti-Zionism in their newspaper Le Droit de vivre. Didier Aubourg, who worked for Judeo-Christian amity in France, wrote in March 1970, “Of all the forces that threaten Israel, the Arab armies are far from the most fearsome. The most relentless enemy . . . is indeed antisemitism, the old antisemitism that no longer dares to say its name, but which, rebaptized as anti-Zionism, has never lost its murderous virulence.” Former member of the Resistance, writer, and curator Jean Cassou was more direct. Anti-Zionism, he said, was “a wonderful invention,” because it “allows everyone to be an antisemite in good conscience from now on.”

As for the PLO’s mask of humanism and progressivism, philosopher Anne Matalon noted in the spring of 1968 that “one would be justified in thinking” that the PLO “would recognize . . . the Israeli people.” Instead, the PLO resembled “a capricious child or psychopath” who insisted that history could be turned back. Could the PLO really pose as revolutionary? Jacques Givet, whose family was murdered in Auschwitz and who narrowly escaped death by jumping from a deportation train, said no. “Any apology for al-Fatah, however veiled,” he wrote in March 1969, referring to the PLO’s main group, “is by necessity an apology for genocide.” Unlike the anti-colonial terror in Algiers, Givet argued, “Free Palestine” was little more than a slogan wrapped in pseudo-revolutionary imagery to justify Israel’s destruction and the killing of Jews. François Musard, a member of the Jewish Resistance, identified Palestinian terror as “defiance of the most elementary rules of civilization.” It “strikes blindly in theaters, in markets, among innocent populations where their victims are more often women and children. It wants nothing more than ‘to kill a Jew.’”

#jews #french jews #antisemitism #charles degaulle #plo #yasser arafat #anti-zionism

20 notes · View notes

loving-n0t-heyting · 1 year

Text

I have not seen it yet in the current round of gun rights discourse, but i guarantee that at some point in the near future you will encounter ppl citing the quote from marx, “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” The context of this line, however—his 1850 address to the central committee of the communist league—is rarely shared alongside it, which is a pity bc the relevant background is illuminating

The address was presented in the aftermath of the German Revolution of 1848, a pan-german nationalist and anti-feudal revolution led by a combination of liberal bourgeois and radical socialist factions. Marx had earlier predicted a liberal victory, to be followed with a swift betrayal by the ascendant liberal powers of their erstwhile working class allies—a prediction he saw fulfilled in the extraction of sweeping liberal constitutional reforms under the auspices of the freshly formed National Assembly

The address presents a clear thesis articulated emphatically: in the wake of the joint liberal-radical victory, the bourgeoisie will attempt to reassert its political and economic hold over the German ppl, and the organised working class must refuse to let down their guard and instead press on to full victory in a genuine workers’ revolution. The text is invigorating, even at nearly two centuries’ remove from the conflict, and exudes both pride in the recent accomplishments of the league and violent optimism about its chances in the revolution’s looming second phase. His instructions are extensive and detailed: the workers must, for example, push for a centralised over a locally distributed government (the better to seize) and deny the liberals any compromise when they offer progressive legislative reforms, treating them as bribes and always demanding more extreme versions (so as to stoke conflict and inhibit acquiescence). This is the context in which he makes his remark about the working class’ refusal to give up arms: he anticipates that the new bourgeois government will soon try to disarm the militant socialist factions under the pretext of restoring internal peace (that is to say, from the communist point of view, securing their continued advantage in the unrelenting class war). The militant wing of the workers’ movement must resist this pacification.

There are a few things that stand out about this context, in contrast to that of contemporary USAmerican left radicals:

He is addressing a highly organised party to have recently demonstrated its mettle over the course of a national revolution

The revolution itself is either (depending on your pov) just ended or currently ongoing, meaning he is trying not to will a proletarian militia into existence but to preserve one already armed and alert

The injunction against disarmament comes as part of an extensive political and revolutionary programme tailored to the situation of the German working class in 1850, with clear strategic goals—one that notably includes core “reformist” and “statist” elements

It hardly requires elaboration that this is a very different context from marginal leftist communities in the US in 2023 conducting discourse about insurrectionary tactics on social media. The established prominence of the league and its recent victories are what give the speech any credibility in the first place, and it’s not hard to extrapolate Marx’s advice for a moment more like ours: you are deeply fucked and need to start from the ground up if you want to accomplish anything at all

It’s also worth pointing out that Marx’s interpretation of the 1848 revolution, upon which he bases these recommendations, is different from the received one with the benefit of historical hindsight. On his view, it was the first half of a war led by the liberal bourgeoisie and abetted by the communist elements of the working class, culminating in its triumph through the reforms of the National Assembly, to then be succeeded by either the propertied classes’ reigning victory or their violent socialist overthrow. On the now traditional view, the revolution was a failure, enfeebled by the fractures between liberal and radical segments, crushed by the conservative powers of the German aristocracies, and papered over by toothless concessions from the assembly that were retracted over the next few years. This should perhaps colour our assessment and application of the address

188 notes · View notes

linkspooky · 1 year

Note

What are your thoughts on the Al ghuls?

My second favorite dysfunctional family (behind Slade Wilson, his ex-wife, his butler, his children and Terra which I collectively call the DeathFam). The Al Ghuls specifically Ra's Al Ghul and Talia are my favorite batman villains, sometimes anti-villain, and in Talia's case sometimes Anti-Hero (My Girl's got range.) Since you asked my thoughts I will try to give them as organized as possible but warning there are a lot.

1. On The League in General

The League, the Lazarus Pits, and the mythology surrounding them is one of the coolest parts of DC Lore in general. In my opinion the best portrayals of the league are when they are one hundred percent genuine about their ideals. One joke I like to make is that Poison Ivy and Ra's are both environmentalists, but unlike Poison Ivy R'as actually has a plan and resources. Ra's love for the world and his desire to save it is at the core of his character, and the reason he will not let himself die, or let go in any real way because his work is not done.

One aspect I do not like about the league is that they are supposed to be antagonists, but I wish Ra's plan was more developed than "kill a whole bunch of people so the resources can be split amongst the survivors." That's such a disagreeable plan Ra's point to make about how the whole planet is dying and nothing superheroes do is really fixing that problem is kind of lost. It's also as dumb as movie Thanos idea to snap and destroy half the life in the universe. If I were to tweak it, I would make Ra's agenda more in line of a communist revolution. That is get rid of the capitalistic systems that drive the destruction of earth's natural resources for endless production and profit. That change would make some of the leagues motivations and methods much more sympathetic.

The league would still be villains however, because even if in this tweaked versions their methods are understandable they're still a big huge cult. Which is an aspect that a lot of fans and sometimes comic writers seem to miss. In the microcosm (Ra's personal family) and the macrocosm (the whole league) the league is a cult centered entirely around Ra's ego, his ideals, his wishes. Even if you can sympathize with their ideas of revolution and go "Hey, that might work" the League is still going about it the wrong way because they constantly prey upon vulnerable minors and people on the edge of society and then raise them up into loyal pledges to a cause. A lot of real life fringe groups do this too. In this version the league recruits members because it's easier this way, which is in line with Ra's character. The whole conflict with Ra's is that he just will not let go of control, he talks about how he wants an heir to take over everything but that's never going to happen because he won't even let himself die. You could fix this too, take the league out of Ra's hands, reform it, and it could be a more genuine force for good. So yeah, my take is less the league isn't good because they assassinate politicians and have more revolutionary ideals, but rather the league is bad because they regularly groom minors.

2. Ra’s Al Ghul

Here is a comic panel of Daphne from Scooby Doo sword fighting Ra’s Al Ghul, mostly because I love it.

Ra’s is THE Batman villain for me. If the Joker represents Batman’s completely anti-thesis, then Ra’s is Bruce, all of his ideals, his nobility, taken to their most logical extreme. He’s the definition of the noble demon. If you want to ready story arcs that I think show off Ra’s at his best, there’s the “Tower of God” storyline where Ra’s finds all of Batman’s measures against the Justice League he prepared in case any of them turned evil and then decides to use them himself. Then there is “Injustice 2″ which is one of the better depictions of Ra’s where he is at his most genuine to his goal of environmentalism and even at points sits down at the table to talk with the superheroes in a more peaceful manor on how they could be doing better.

If the Tower of God storyline did not explain it to you, Ra’s reflects Bruce in good aspects and bad ones. The same relentless dedication that Bruce has to saving Gotham, Ra’s applies to the whole world. Ra’s also like other batman villains shows how a generally positive trait like Bruce’s insane levels of dedication can easily turn into a flaw. Bruce has no powers just his martial arts training, but just will not give up under any circumstances. Ra’s determination gets him into a horrible cycle of corrupting himself worse and worse over the years both due to overuse of the pits and also frustration at a world that refuses to change, and also shows in his inability to surrender power in any real way.

The way Ra’s treats his direct family, and the league as a whole is also a dark mirror to Batman and the Bat Family. Now, I don’t believe that Bruce is raising up hero sidekicks as child soldiers... Suspension of disbelief people! However, Ra’s genuinely does treat all of his children as tools for his agenda. As much as he has the capacity to love them, their needs and desires will always come second to his use for them. Ra’s is undeniably a groomer not in the sexual sense but in the sense he is using his position of power raising up and manipulating these minors to shape them into what he wants them to be.

Ra’s also represents Bruce’s paranoia and the times where he abuses his position as patriarch of a family to manipulate his kids lives. Ra’s is undeniably the one who holds the most power in the Al Ghul family, and he uses that imbalance in power entirely to his own ends. What he creates is a cycle of generational abuse that lasts all the way until Damian. Ra’s also represents Bruce’s sometimes toxic ideas of masculinity turned up to 11. My man is a 400 year old misogynist. He is obsessed with ideas like divine birthright, dynasty, legacy as shown by the way he once again treats his children. His oldest son is disqualified for being albino and therefore having a defect, Nyssa and Talia are disqualified for being born women. The fact that Bruce represents his ideal heir and he is a man with money and power the peak of what society considers is masculinity is you know, telling of his opinions towards gender. Bruce and Ra’s are both carriers of family legacies, who devote all of their money and power to their genuinely good goals, but Ra’s seems to believe that might makes right, the money, resources and bloodline he has makes him inherently better or even chosen. Which cycles into the reason why he will never let go of said power.

3. Talia Al Ghul

Talia is my favorite member of the family, she is also hardest to talk about because she suffers from two things number one being wildly different depending on the writer, and two orientalism. Now I won’t discuss this much not because I don’t think it’s important but because I’m not qualified to talk on such subjects and a practicer of the “stay in your own lane” philosophy. The orientalism in Talia’s character is undeniably there, and also a part of a pattern in DC where female brown mothers are regularly villainized to make their white fathers look better. I think Grant Morrison’s take on Talia is inherent dehumanizing of her and kind of reducing her to a plot object, and also a deviation from the original ideas her character was meant to represent. I think also Talia has a habit of being reduced to her relationships to the men in her life rather than her own person with you know thoughts and feelings. Women have those. The league also as a whole is orientalist as a concept there’s really no getting away from that.

Just as an example of how Talia and Damian’s relationship could be better depicted than it currently is in comics. There’s a storyline in the fourth season of Young Justice that I really like (even though I don’t like the cartoon that much) which explores the family dynamic between Cheshire, Roy and Lian. Cheshire attempted to stay with Roy to raise Lian for awhile, until she went back to the lifestyle and could not give it up. Her sister Artemis eventually goes after her and it’s revealed that Cheshire left Lian with Roy not because she chose being an assasin over her but Cheshire believes she is inherently bad and harmful person and has too much in common with her abusive father and if she is in that kid’s life she will only hurt them. It also ends on a hopeful note that if Cheshire puts the work in on becoming a more emotionally healthy version of herself she could return to that household.

Now that that disclaimer is out of the way (please don’t yell at me for this I love Talia. If you want to discuss it further please use my askbox, I don’t like it when people reblog my posts to argue with me.) The most interesting aspect of the Demon’s Head is the generational abuse storyline. There’s no two ways about it, Talia repeats the cycle with Damian. That’s what makes abuse generational. Once again the whole storyline from conception of Talia having a secret love child with Bruce is kind of orientalist but you have to work with the plotline you got. At least until somebody retcons it.

Now I am going to go on a long diatribe on how Talia repeating a cycle of abuse that starts with Ra’s does not make her an inherently bad person. This is where I am qualified to talk because I’ve done a lot of research into this subject! Talia grew up in a cult. Not only that she was the direct daughter of the cult’s leader. In the microcosm Ra’s family is what you would call a Narcisstic Family Structure: a family centered around one person’s individual needs where the other’s needs go underlooked. In the macrocosm it’s a goddamn cult.

People view members of cults as either stupid, or immoral for joining because they imagine it could never happen to them, but the way cults work is by preying on vulnerabilities every single person has.

No one joins a cult voluntarily; they are recruited into it. There is lack of informed consent. Everyone has vulnerabilities. Possible situational vulnerabilities include illness, the death of a loved one, breakup of an important relationship, loss of a job, or moving to another city, state or country. [x]

Haruki Murakami wrote a book named “Underground: The Tokyo Gas Attack and the Japanese Psyche.” It is a non-fiction book containing several interviews of victims in the aftermath of the Saren Gas Attacks. This is a real life event where the Aum Shinrikyo Cult convinced its members to release Saren gas in several subway trains. While the attack was viewed by society as an act of fringe extremists, the cult was made up of members who were educated people, doctors, lawyers, who were still somehow convinced this was a good idea.

The interviews highlight many intriguing aspects of the Japanese psyche. Work was a high, if not central, priority for most of the interviewees. Isolation, individualism, and lack of communication were also strong themes which were common throughout many accounts of the attacks. Many of the interviewees expressed disillusionment with the materialism in Japanese society and the sensationalistic media, as well as the inefficiency of the emergency response system in dealing with the attack.

The book also includes Murakami's personal essay on the attacks, "Blind Nightmare: Where Are We Japanese Going?" In this essay, he criticizes the failure of the Japanese to learn from the attacks, preferring to dismiss it as the extreme act by a group of lunatics rather than analyze the true causes and prevent similar events from occurring in the future.

I bring this up once again to reinforce the idea that anyone can be preyed upon by a cult, and Talia was literally born into that environment. Clts also operate with a specific method of cutting off their members from the outside world to cut off their ability to leave (BITE: Behavior Control, Information Control, Thought Control, Emotional Control). Talia grew up in an environment where most likely all her social interactions and her contact with the outside world was controlled by Ra’s and only Ra’s because in most versions her mother dies early in her life usually in some horrific way.

That’s not even getting to the kind of parent that Ra’s is. He is always a really outwardly loving parent to Talia, but that love comes with a big huge asterisk. Ra’s loves his children until they either have a defect, or they decide to be someone other than what he wants them to be, at which point he either cuts them off, or relies on emotional manipulation to regain control. Talia’s only parental figure was both extremely loving, but made it clear that love was conditional. Even if Talia tries to live up to Ra’s expectations of her and be what he wants her to be, she’s immediately disqualified from actually taking on the mantle she was groomed for her entire life by being a woman. Even the original concept of Talia’s character who is much more anti-hero than anti-villain chooses her father over Bruce at times because Ra’s conditional love is what she knows, whereas Bruce’s love for her is something she does not understand fully even if she desires it.

I’m going to bring up my favorite comic book character Terra here. Terra was also a character who her creators have said several disrespectful things about and she was not created by the best of intentions. However, Terra is a unique character because she is one of the few grooming and CSA victims who is allowed to be downright unlikable, to show her trauma in what are considered to be traditionally bad ways. She’s a character with flaws and agency and stuff. Terra represents a specific kind of fifteen year old kid who usually does not get help and adults believe is a lost cause. Characters who carry Terra’s trauma either magically get over it, or they are just reduced to weak, pitiful shells. I’d rather have Terra be the mess she is than either of those things. It’s honest to a reality that certain people face, and also shows victims who would not normally get sympathy.

I just went to great length to establish the horror of Talia’s upbringings so she’d undeniably be affected by it. I won’t even mention what kind of mother Talia is because wildly depends on the author, but the decision to raise Damian in that cult rather than try to leave is her perpetuating the cycle. This is something that happens in real life too, parents who are preyed upon by cults will either drag their kids into it, or raise them up in that same life when they are young and vulnerable. It’s undeniably something she did to Damian and deserves to be called out on.

If Talia shares Ra’s nobility and idealism she also reflects his bad qualities as well, his belief in special people, of causes that succeed individuals, of noble purposes. Especially since these are toxic ideas that Ra’s has essentially forced onto her. I don’t even think Talia is past the point of redemption or incapable of learning to be a better mother, because while abuse is a chain it’s also a chain that can be broken.

4. Damian Wayne / Al-Ghul

To begin with I don’t think Bruce is a good parent to Damian, and Talia is a bad one. They both kind of fail Damian in equal and totally different ways. I don’t believe Robin is a child soldier, but right away making Damian Robin is kind of a mistake because Bruce makes him Robin to try to fix some perceived flaw from being raised by the League, when really Damian is more or less just a ten year old kid reacting how any ten year old kid would if they were groomed their entire life and had that kind of destiny practically forced upon them.

The difference between Talia and Damian is of course, Damian got out of there which gives him a unique opportunity that Talia didn’t to make connections outside of the League and to the outside world and therefore learn to think in different ways then how he was raised to think. Damian represents the chance to break the cycle of generational abuse passed down from grandfather, to mother, to son.

Because like I said Damian reserves the right to call out his mother for not choosing to put him first, but at the same time Damian undeniably loves his mother. Even in the storylines where they have a strained relationship at best Damian is fiercely loyal to her because essentially Damian and Talia want the same thing which is to have a loving family of their own, and to be their own people outside of their usefulness to other people (cough, cough, Ra’s).

Damian’s character arc tends to repeat a lot but there are more modern storylines that are pushing Damian in this direction where his goal is a reconciliation of the past and to be able to move on with a healthier version of their relationship. Ra’s getting shot in the head helped a whole lot.

Damian represents a chance to break the cycle for both himself and his mom, because like I said Talia isn’t an inherently bad person, or a bad parent, she just like anybody else has an opportunity to grow and develop as a person especially if one day she gets to finally move on from the league. People can be influenced by circumstances, but also circumstances change and in better environments people have a chance to do better. Damian isn’t obligated to forgive either parent for the ways they’ve failed him but at the same time he clearly wants a connection with both of his parents, and is willing to work with them on it.

It is funny how Damian typically gets portrayed as the edgy Robin, because in my mind he’s actually one of the most normal ones. He acts like a thirteen year old boy, with the needs of a thirteen year old boy, he desires a normal life outside of capes and costumes. He just has been told he’s the chosen one all his life and that’s had an effect on the way he views the world. Damian has every chance to break the chain that Ra’s started though, and that’s probably where the comics should go if they didn’t repeat the same plotline with him like nine million times.

#league of assassins #league of shadows #batman #ra's al ghul #talia al ghul #damian wayne #al ghul family #demon's head #dc #dc comics #dc comics meta

130 notes · View notes