This “Power and Strategy” course seems interesting!
Does anyone know where I can find it?
Anyone, it's good that they taught them people like W.E.B. DuBois and the Combahee River Collective's own texts.
Definitely give the article a read-through or at least a skim-through.
That doesn't contradict what I said. I didn't say, "don't learn from other orgs" lol.
If you don't consider different goals and allies, as I mentioned, you'll end up with counterproductive strategies. For example, attempting to emulate an org that only "succeeded" because of a US bombing campaign is an unscientific approach, you'd be missing the obvious alternative hypothesis. If you try to run your org as if the bourgeois media apparatus will do your work for you, for example, you'll be quickly scratching your head about why your propaganda isn't reaching people like these others said it would. Similarly, if you try to organize like student groups that only ever achieved some protests and then petered out, don't be surprised when you fail to retain members. In all of these cases, a skeptical approach should have been taken to either rule the strategy out (your org cannot rely on friendly treatment from bourgeois media and military) or to be hyper-aware of its historical limitations so that you can change course if you see the same thing developing. Or, at least weigh the likely downsides when making a decision.
In my experience, Western orgs often fail at all of this because they simply aren't asking the right basic questions or allowing themselves to avoid harmful dogmas. The foundations of good organizing isn't a set of tactics, which people tend to focus on, but a healthy process that discovers, wields, and discards them relative to their conditions. Ask yourselves what your goals are. Ask yourselves how you'll develop your hypotheses (usually reading or gathering info from a community). Ask yourselves how you'll know whether a hypothesis is wrong and you should change either tactics or strategy. Figure out how to do this without alienating each other, because people will get attached to failed strategies. Free yourselves to reject core strategy tools that were extremely valuable in other conditions but that limit you now - e.g. demcent is often adhered to solely due to its efficacy under conditions that do not apply to your imperial core city, and actually prevents a given org from experimenting to identify how you'll build your base in these conditions. If it's not having the desired effect, jettison it. Make a front group that experiments with not using it for a domain for a few years. See if the experiment fails. It might! Maybe Demcent is appropriate under the conditions for your org. If you ask the question of how you'll measure failure at the beginning, you'll find it easier to make these decisions later and it won't be a surprise if the experiment is ended.
Anyways feel free to do whatever you'd like.
Western orgs are quite successful and have to deal with a lot so, yes, we should definitely learn from them as the communist movement in the West is back in Square One, more or less.
It feels like you didn't read anything I've said
I did.
You're not reading most of the articles by cpusa.org.
Then why are you continuing to mischaracterize my point as being against learning from other orgs, including Western ones? I've explicitly stated and explained how that's not the case, and nothing in what I've said could even be characterized as such. I see no acknowledgment or engagement with the points I've raised, including patiently explaining your misunderstanding.
What does that have to do with anything here?
I am not mischaracterizing your point so don't mischaracterize what I'm saying or myself as well.
"What does that have to do with anything here?"
You don't understand the CPUSA and are not a member, as far as I can tell, and are just going off a few things said.
Yes, you are. I've explained how. You can choose to engage with that, but it is uncomradely to belabor this falsehood in such a flippant and dismissive way.
In what way am I mischaracterizing you?
Literally nothing in this thread is about CPUSA. Unless you're outing the authors of this book as members, something they're presumably avoiding being public given they do not state that association anywhere online?
"Yes, you are. I've explained how."
You have not and can't read my mind.
"In what way am I mischaracterizing you?"
By saying that I'm mischaracterizing you.
"Literally nothing in this thread is about CPUSA."
Oh nvm, wrong thread, but you're still wrong.
Why would I need to read your mind to know whether you've mischaracterized me? You're not making any sense.
Anyways, you have done so twice, I've patiently explained how, and you have yet to engage with what I've said there. Please consider doing so before continuing this discussion.
You're confusing disagreement with mischaracterization. I can't have been more clear that my position is not "don't learn from other orgs". There's nothing in what I've said that can be called, "hey don't listen to other (Western) orgs". I've explicitly stated that it's not and have literally used examples drawn from other orgs. Yet you persisted in this straw manning.
I invite you to engage with the substance of what I have said and to please avoid these defensive behaviors. While I am very patient, most people are not, and these behaviors would be very off-putting to them.
Please use this opportunity to ask yourself whether you're paying sufficient attention to what I've said.