Ugh these people suck so bad. On average, western leftists are worse than useless. Some bullet points are kinda interesting, even if annoying.
Ugh these people suck so bad. On average, western leftists are worse than useless. Some bullet points are kinda interesting, even if annoying.
Lumping traits of bad orgs like sheltering abusers with traits of orgs you disagree with like "defending authoritarian governments" into one definition is actually gross.
Also these two traits are actually common among ML orgs in my experience and I wish they'd cut it out:
This is a symptom of play-acting at being the One Important Group that will lead to the revolution. It reduces the total pool of active organizational talent by destroying something that's probably already working, and removing a place where a group can learn to organize. It destroys the resiliency possible from a web of organization. Exchange contact info and get on each other's mailing lists instead.
I don't know if this is more play-acting or just people's minds being poisoned by capitalist bureaucracies. It wastes time and makes actual organization harder. Establish communication channels and interpersonal relationships instead.
Hard agree on the first one.
The second is a matter of degrees I think. Bureaucracy gets a bad rep, but it can be essential to ensure that especially action focused org don't descend into just a discussion group, and also it offers some protection against cops and wreckers deliberately trying to derail orgs. If you've got the kind of bureaucracy where you're having meetings about voting on a meeting chair for the next meeting or whatever, then you've already failed on those points anyway.
i see critical thinking went out the window for half your analysis but came back hesitantly probing at the god awful detatched-ness of the second.
I just read your reply to Owl above on the first point and think we agree on most of that.
Organising needs to be collaborative, organising seminars are good, mailing lists or newsletters aren't a substitute for action and relationships.
I have however been around some orgs over the years, especially much smaller ones unsurprisingly, that have been borderline hostile to the idea of not only collaborative organising but every other organisation in general. They certainly weren't collaborating or incorporating other groups or activists to achieve anything.
I read Owl's first point as specifically talking about that kind of behaviour from a limited number of experiences, not a blanket sweeping statement of vendetta against ML groups in general, as you seem to have. Which I suspect is a big part of our disagreement here.
Anyway, I hope you got that beauty sleep comrade.
Sorry comrade, but this is a bad take on multiple levels
you're straight up doing pseudo psychology based on what i assume is experience with ML orgs that just live near you, a single person in a country of millions
what do you mean 'web of organization', where are they? and 'destroying something thats already working', if its working where is it? Where is the mass mobilization? Or do you believe that the people with side with you out of the kindness of the human heart?
'removing a place where people can learn to organize' you know what organizing seminars are right? most active communist orgs have them. The last one i went to was on the transgender experience in hawaii and america, as well as its connections to intersectional marxist resistance. It was open so members of the community could attend, but apparently us evil authoritarian partocrats in the end stifled them by not letting the community members 'grow their own organizing' or whatever individualist nonsense.
Organizing must be collaborative, and that usually means consolidation into a larger mass organization or popular front. Disconnected individuals 'doing their thing' are not nearly as effective as the broader collective organizing in synchronization.
how nice, newspapers, incredible. No one's ever thought of using those. I bet if they had they'd be extremely successful and not useful idiots for libs.
how do you think this is done? Do you think the party can manage more than a few hundred people without making lists, or managing it? Institutions of large sizes will exist even without states, fighting something because its 'capitalist' when bureaucracies have existed since city states had to manage large agriculture (and before that) and was largely behind the existence of the written language.
'just establish dms and talk on ur phone or computer dude'
You arent that comrade, you will never be that comrade , there is no such thing as that comrade. You will not remember each person, or event that will take place, or which accounts are managed by who, or who holds what job in what position. unless youre so bad at organizing you can't actually engage with the local community and only have a group of 20 people. They're acting like they should be: organizing seriously to be competent at it, complete their goals, and collaborating and incorporating movements to further agitation.
You didn't actually change anything besides try to take the spine out of this. you literally did the meme with the engels quote,
"These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world."
except you didn't just change the name, you just tried to be different because of some personal spite with ML orgs and ended up pushing something silly and terrible. Do you seriously think that mutual aid is the end all be all of organizing? That by itself is just charity work, which is nice and all, but without radicalizing through a party platform is wasted potential.
its 2am and i dont want to waste any more of my beauty sleep on more anti-intellectualism, ideological inconsistency, and toxic hyper-individualism that occurs when you dont force everyone to rigorously read theory
do that, read theory, its literally one of the most important tools of every red and black.
He does start out with qualifying he is speaking from his own personal experience. On top of that the bulletpoint is not discussing communication, but a tendency wherein projects that were succesful outside of an org are moved within and subsumed by the org, which tends to have a negative affect.
I agree with most of your response talking about DMs and bureaucracy, but I think you are assuming the worst possible interpretation for a lot of what is being said. One could interpret @Owl@hexbear.net comments to just be descriptive of the tendencies we do see in many leftist orgs to create endless commitees and formalia for meetings. Those tendencies come as a result of feds infiltrating orgs and being wreckers. It's literally part of the wrecker playbook.
From 'Simple sabotage Field Manual' (highlighting done by some dorks on another website)
edit: wrong bird
Eh? Which comments?
Sorry pinged wrong owl lol
The flock is powerful
I believe REgon mixed up you and @Owl@hexbear.net.