In my experience groups dedicated to specific time-bounded goals have been meritocratic, focused and generally pleasant experiences. Long term orgs eventually become stagnant with rusted on individuals who start putting their own interests before the organizations. This is something I have observed even in nonpolitical orgs with low budgets and power only over pretty trivial things. So to your question, yes.
Yeah and where on the timeline does revolution sit, or is that supposed to be spontaneous? If you don't have quarterly goals then there's no point in organizing apparently because corruption could happen some day.
Revolution like any greater task must be broken down into smaller specific tasks with constant reassessment as to what has worked and what needs to change. I don't think you disagree with this. However when those tasks have ambiguous timelines or completion metrics then the incentives of those assigned to the task drift from doing the task towards maintaining or improving their position. If you haven't witnessed this in your workplace or elsewhere then you are very lucky. Then when you add the real power and privilege that rising in the ranks of a state provide then you will see misalignment of interests that is far beyond what anyone in a temporary workgroup would face as well as selecting for those who want the power rather than those who want to see the job done.
I mean yeah kind of. You probably won't be able to eliminate opportunism entirely but I believe it's gonna happen less in more decentralized organizations where leadership turnover is higher.
I get why ML parties have centralized and hierarchical leadership but it's also pretty fucking obvious that it would eventually get filled with opportunists.
In my (ex Yugoslavian) country most of our political elite are ex communist party members, both in center-left and center-right parties. There's clearly a huge problem of opportunism that ML parties just never really solved.
I mean it wouldn't even be THAT hard to mitigate, just have some system of checks and balances (that actually for real works and doesn't just exist on paper) within the party to prevent disasters like the Cultural Revolution in China.
Say what you will about liberal democracies but SOMETIMES these checks and balances actually fucking work.
OPPORTUNISM???? Haha silly child, that is the easiest way for living to once again come to fruition. Embrace the pain, embrace the suffering, embrace the tyranny.
My argument is that a state apparatus could promote people who ARE ideologically committed to Marxism, who will nevertheless perpetuate the state. I think it's actually counterproductive to guess at their intentions, because it implies that the state might just wither away if they just purge any secret "cultural non-Marxists".
I think of the state like any self perpetuating system, what is useful to it's survival or reproduction will be maintained or promoted and what opposes this goal is destroyed. This is to say I don't think a state will or even can promote someone who is ideologically committed to dissolving the state at least beyond any short-term usefulness they may have to the state.
I think the point of the meme is that the state by it's nature promotes opportunists who are not ideologically committed to Marxism.
As opposed to the voluntary democratic council commission working group?
In my experience groups dedicated to specific time-bounded goals have been meritocratic, focused and generally pleasant experiences. Long term orgs eventually become stagnant with rusted on individuals who start putting their own interests before the organizations. This is something I have observed even in nonpolitical orgs with low budgets and power only over pretty trivial things. So to your question, yes.
Yeah that's a shit load of qualifiers
It's exactly two qualifiers; What and When.
Yeah and where on the timeline does revolution sit, or is that supposed to be spontaneous? If you don't have quarterly goals then there's no point in organizing apparently because corruption could happen some day.
Revolution like any greater task must be broken down into smaller specific tasks with constant reassessment as to what has worked and what needs to change. I don't think you disagree with this. However when those tasks have ambiguous timelines or completion metrics then the incentives of those assigned to the task drift from doing the task towards maintaining or improving their position. If you haven't witnessed this in your workplace or elsewhere then you are very lucky. Then when you add the real power and privilege that rising in the ranks of a state provide then you will see misalignment of interests that is far beyond what anyone in a temporary workgroup would face as well as selecting for those who want the power rather than those who want to see the job done.
Great well then you'll love to hear about my 5 year plan
I mean yeah kind of. You probably won't be able to eliminate opportunism entirely but I believe it's gonna happen less in more decentralized organizations where leadership turnover is higher.
I get why ML parties have centralized and hierarchical leadership but it's also pretty fucking obvious that it would eventually get filled with opportunists.
In my (ex Yugoslavian) country most of our political elite are ex communist party members, both in center-left and center-right parties. There's clearly a huge problem of opportunism that ML parties just never really solved.
Listen, you should be so lucky that opportunists think they can get somewhere in your movement. DJ Khaled: Suffering from success.
I mean it wouldn't even be THAT hard to mitigate, just have some system of checks and balances (that actually for real works and doesn't just exist on paper) within the party to prevent disasters like the Cultural Revolution in China.
Say what you will about liberal democracies but SOMETIMES these checks and balances actually fucking work.
This is pure ideology
OPPORTUNISM???? Haha silly child, that is the easiest way for living to once again come to fruition. Embrace the pain, embrace the suffering, embrace the tyranny.
My argument is that a state apparatus could promote people who ARE ideologically committed to Marxism, who will nevertheless perpetuate the state. I think it's actually counterproductive to guess at their intentions, because it implies that the state might just wither away if they just purge any secret "cultural non-Marxists".
I can see your point.
I think of the state like any self perpetuating system, what is useful to it's survival or reproduction will be maintained or promoted and what opposes this goal is destroyed. This is to say I don't think a state will or even can promote someone who is ideologically committed to dissolving the state at least beyond any short-term usefulness they may have to the state.
deleted by creator