• 1 Post
  • 159 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle


  • I appreciate the well thought out response. My main point of contention is the enforcement mechanism. I agree with point 3 as a strategy, and I have actually participated in groups that follow this general principle, but I have always had the option to simply leave and find another group or form my own. The problem arises when the group is the only permissible form of organization (such as, for example, if it is the one party in a one-party state). You actually see this problem in China, when the state cracks down on workers who attempt to organize on their own terms by forming independent unions. I see this as an unambiguous moral failing of the Chinese state, and is an issue on which I will not budge. Bureaucracy makes determining the will of the majority complicated (no democracy is perfect), but even if it is indeed the will of the majority, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

    There are things more important than unity. I do not believe that a better world must necessarily come at the cost of individual autonomy.



  • Personally, I think that Democratic Centralism is too strict. I understand the idea behind ensuring the subordination of the minority to the majority, but as the party grows and especially after it seizes state power that subordination becomes enforced, and at that point it becomes oppression. It doesn’t get rid of factions either, it just hides them and fosters resentment towards the majority faction.

    Just so we’re clear on what we’re talking about, here are the tenets of Democratic Centralism as I understand them:

    1. That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected.
    1. That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organization.
    1. That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority.
    1. That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.

    I believe that point 3 should be a suggestion, and never enforced. It should be up to the individual whether any given disagreement is enough to warrant going their own way, and an option should be given to “stand aside” in cases where someone would prefer not to participate in an action but otherwise wants to remain with the group.

    Point 4 is backwards IMO, and a recipe for authoritarianism. Any sort of elected authority should always be instantly recallable by the electorate, and any “lower” body should always have the autonomy to make their own decisions.

    Factionalism is not a bad thing if you embrace it rather than trying to fight it.



  • I think part of it is that a lot of straight people who are allies but not as familiar with the queer community feel strange about using the word queer, thinking that it’s a reclaimed slur that they wouldn’t be allowed to say if they aren’t themselves queer. They don’t realize that the queer community has collectively decided that no “pass” is needed for the word queer.



  • The CCP acts like just because the state owns major enterprises then the workers - through the state - own the means of production. That doesn’t hold up when the state does not adequately represent the will of the workers. Never is this contradiction more clear than when the Chinese state suppresses workers’ attempts to organize on their own terms.

    China is communist in the same way that the US is democratic, which is to say that it’s a sham to keep up appearances that is suspended when convenient for the few who hold real power.


  • Hyperindividualism and car culture explains it all. Americans don’t trust each other (especially not their neighbors) and want to put as much distance between themselves as possible. We’re also mostly NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard) and have very strict zoning laws that prevent commercial and residential buildings from coexisting in the same area. This is great for the auto industry because it means you can’t do anything without driving, and they lobby the government to block any attempt to change things.

    Our suburbs are liminal spaces that more closely resemble purgatory than actual communities, which is why everyone who grew up in them is at least slightly insane.





  • So they took over a building they don’t own, refused to leave, and had a list of demands?

    Yeah, sounds like something the police should be called for.

    Would you say the same thing about organized sit-ins in segregated buildings during the civil rights movement? Same set of facts, took over a building they didn’t own, refused to leave, had a list of demands. If not, then clearly you believe that if the status quo is untenable and the demands reasonable then the action is justified.

    This is peaceful civil disobedience in opposition to an ongoing genocide being broken up by the police state.