No seriously where are they?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 day ago (7 children)

We need a democratic centralized party structure

What is your sample size for making that conclusion, and how many variables are you correcting for?

I'm going to leave aside the last 50 years of history of DemCent parties, because there are no lasting victories to point to in that period.

Only hardcore disciplined communism can defeat capitalism.

There is nothing that says that hardcore disciplined communism means "you have to report up the chain of command just like in a monarchist/capitalist army" or "you shouldn't be able to converse with your fellow cadres from other divisions without approval or oversight of upper management". In fact, being adapted to the local conditions, and being able to organically build power starting from a household or neighborhood level is extremely important for being a disciplined communist.

If you don't believe in decentralization, why are you posting on an instance of Lemmy, instead of assembling a clandestine organization to seize the structure of Reddit, or to make an armed coup that takes control of Reddit and puts it in the People's hands?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago* (6 children)

    What is your sample size for making that conclusion, and how many variables are you correcting for?

    the entirety of the modern age of human history, all attempted and sucessful revolutions and seizing of power (here, successful is defined by: Seized power away from the bourgeois class and held it for more than, say a year).

    I'm going to leave aside the last 50 years of history of DemCent parties, because there are no lasting victories to point to in that period.

    DPRK, Cuba, China, Vietnam, the USSR, over 50 revolutions that took power throughout the world for at least a year. Whereas non-dem cent parties have never once enacted a revolution or taken power from the bourgeois in any long term, large scale way in human history.

    There is nothing that says that hardcore disciplined communism means "you have to report up the chain of command just like in a monarchist/capitalist army" or "you shouldn't be able to converse with your fellow cadres from other divisions without approval or oversight of upper management".

    This isn't a mystery you have to guess at. Democratic Centralism is well defined by Lenin and others. Go read it here.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm

    In fact, being adapted to the local conditions, and being able to organically build power starting from a household or neighborhood level is extremely important for being a disciplined communist.

    Name all of the household and neighborhood organizations that wield political power over the heights of industry in order to enforce industrial policy and regulations.

    If you don't believe in decentralization, why are you posting on an instance of Lemmy

    You criticize capitalism, yet you use an iphone. Curious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (5 children)

    DPRK- 1945-53.
    Cuba- 1956.
    China-1949.
    Vietnam- 1975.
    the USSR- 1917/1925.

    "Over 50 revolutions that took power throughout the world for at least a year."

    Burying the lede there. Where are those 50 revolutions now? If you answer that question honestly, you admit to p-hacking.

    Zero sustained victories in the past 50 years. That doesn't mean it can't happen, though. Which is kind of my point. When Lenin was writing those works, there was no Marxist party that had ever seized power, and even republicanism was looking like a special case. Human relations weren't a "solved" problem then, and they aren't now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    Reform or revolution is indeed a solved problem. You are hundreds of years behind the dialectic, stuck in 19th century idealism. History has moved on.

    The working people of the world made huge victories through class politics via democratic centralized party structure and revolution, and then the world workers movement faced utter defeat when the USSR collapsed from a thousand small cuts, cumulative failures and mistakes. It still made it the furthest anything ever had until then, and we learn from and build upon the most advanced projects ever using those same tools and structures but with small adaptations. The core structure remains though, as it’s still the best thing we’ve ever devised for enacting revolution, taking power for our class and the following human governance despite its flaws, which can be worked at.

    Two steps forward, one step back doesn’t mean you should give up or start spinning in circles or going backwards

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    19th century idealism gave us the illusion of complete command and control rather than a dialectic between suppliers and users.

    An emancipatory political practice necessarily involves making technology equally accessible to everyone. There is a set of technologies that does not deplete the ability of the earth to support humanity, and there is a set of technologies that certainly does. The vast majority of human societies today are reliant on ecocidal practices and are therefore self-destructive.

    It's weird to deflect from criticism that says "your preferred ideology had some victories for 60 years but has had 0 victories in the past 50 years" by saying "you"re stuck in the past, history has moved on" while you cling to the ever-receding victories of 1917 and 1949. By the year 2033, the period of successful demcent Marxist revolutions will be surpassed in span by the period in which all subsequent demcent Marxist revolutions went belly-up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 22 hours ago* (2 children)

    That isn't what they are saying. Clearly, the dialectic has changed. However, that does not mean that the core organizational strategy and goals should be abandoned, as they are the only ones ever to produce any kind of tangible results, however fleeting. Not that I am arguing we must be in lockstep with Lenin or Mao or whomever on this. But we need to have a better understanding of how and why they were thinking what they were thinking, and when these things changed. Perhaps a more unorganized approach is required in the decaying ruins of modernity. After all, we are far more in a fight with international financial capital than the local industrial capitalists these days (though these people are becoming one in the same more and more as time goes on).

    The general issue imo is a complete lack of scientific practice and ability to learn from our mistakes. Due to our unfortunate propensity of ending up here is generally by being right and being outsiders, so the only thing we carry is our opinions and our pride. However it is these very things that must be set aside for the good of the social revolution.

    These things are never really recorded, and only become anecdotal word of mouth that are simply oral histories of liberalized personal failures rather than studied examinations of what the organization was offering, how that was communicated, what was wanting within the organization, and what the economic conditions actually were.

    The real issue though, with the pursuit of decentralization, is one that rests primarily within Marxist theory. All markets begin as decentralized networks but trend inevitably towards centralized systems. That is the nature of the market. In the same way, decentralized networks are inevitably dominated by those who have the time/money to put towards consolidating their area of the network, which then inevitably centralizes the network as competition is assimilated. Most people still post on Reddit, even though it sucks.

    Combatting this process appears to be extremely difficult. However, taking the reins of it appears to be possible, and perhaps through doing that, a better, more decentralized, way forward can be applied. Idk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    All markets begin as decentralized networks but trend inevitably towards centralized systems. That is the nature of the market. In the same way, decentralized networks are inevitably dominated by those who have the time/money to put towards consolidating their area of the network,

    This is true, and should be the number one reason for creating hierarchies so that they are transparent.

    It's worth noting that decentralization does not mean disorganization. It probably does mean that you can't predict the finer details, but that's not the goal. The primary goal is to tip the scales, and the secondary goal is to make people's lives better in the process.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago

    Ah, I think, for me, this is abit of a misunderstanding between a decentralized or diffuse organization, but we are definitely talking about the same thing here.

    Agreed, hierarchies must be transparent. We can't have situations where we say 'There is no hierarchy' but there is one. That is where issues quickly accrue. The key is justified heirarchies.

  • source
  • parent