o7 to the internet drama troops
Also, descentralization is key for resilience.
We can't stop until the CIA is convinced poggers is a codeword for the revolution.
Two types of opsec by information overload: petty squabbles and overwhelmed by theortical jargon
First: pronouncing the r in bourgeois is itself bourgeois. No I will not explain.
My rhotacism keeps me winning! :screm-cool:
According to wikipedia Lenin also had rhotacism. Good to know that my speech impediment is actually revolutionary.
"State and Gh'evolution"
"Impegh'ialism: the highest state of cgh'inge"
:heart-sickle:
Decentralization is good for not getting arrested, but it's also good for not achieving anything.
So the synthesis is centralisation cloaked in decentralisation, so the enemy can't find out where the core really is.
More that you aren't utterly reliant on central leadership to the point of being easily decapitated.
Really, the difference between here and environments like Tsarist Russia and civil war China is that a communist party can operate in the open and need not rely on operated conspiratorially in cells. Theres a danger that comes with that in itself like infiltration and fragmentation, but you have to confront that bridge when you cross it. Or something.
Really the only real way for a communist party to succeed here and do revolution is for it to both be a disciplined vanguard of tested communists while also being a mass movement that is so widespread that the question of "centralization vs decentralization" becomes a moot one. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A mass movement that is also disciplined and self-educated is a robust one that cannot simply be decapitated at the center. It would have to be a party not of a small number of intelligentsia or guerrillas imposing a vision upon a passive proletariat, it must be a party of the self-educayed proletariat themselves forming a counter-society and counter-culture to the bourgeois dictatorship with their own hands.
This is essentially the left-communist way of viewing the problem, which while pretentious (armchairs lolol lmfao) I believe is correct. I personally don't think Maoist conceptions of Protracted People's War are feasible in the current conditions of America. The centralized bourgeois apparatus of state, in both its distributionist and repressive forms, is simply too robust for a cell-based guerilla movement to even take form, much less embed itself and succeed.
You can technically organize in the open in the US, but you will end up getting murdered by the FBI/DHS/CIA for doing so.
The US police state's MO has always been more of the "infiltrate, foster an environment of sectarian splitting and paranoia, let them self-destruct themselves" model than the "mass murder" model.
Take the Black Panthers, for example. Arguably the biggest misstep they made was being overly confrontational and militant toward the police state. It stepped up the urgency to destroy them, and allowed the bourgeois propaganda-media arm to cultivate a specific image of the Panthers as dangerous black supremacist, leather-and-beret-wearing terrorists hell-bent on killing cops, starting a race war, and burning down respectable white neighborhoods. It gave the police the excuse to start/exploit provocations to kill and arrest the leaders - Fred Hampton, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, Huey P Newton, etc - and arguably more importantly get away with it in the eyes of the public. The problem of the Panthers' militant attitude being a misstep is that they weren't a mass movement. Their threat level was always disproportionate to their size. So the confrontational militancy gave the police state the leeway to repress the leaders while they were still small, decapitating the movement. But arguably more important to the downfall of the Panthers than decapitation was infiltration, co-opting of moles in the organization, spreading disinformation and fostering a climate of paranoia, and letting them turn inward on themselves. The Panthers were militant enough that they killed some of their own members who were suspected of being infiltrators. When the leadership was decapitated, the membership ate each other out of paranoia; or, the murders of suspected infiltrators were convenient charges to hang around prominent members/leaders, and they dug that grave themselves.
A pretty running thread through the destruction of all major American left-wing movements is the dichotomy between those who discourage a violent militant stance and those who encouraged a radicalization toward that stance (see the RevComs and the SDS-Weatherman split). This dichotomy would inevitably lead to splitting along sectarian lines, and the more militant radicals who engaged in largely directionless violent acts that went nowhere would invite repression within the boundaries of bourgeois law. And uncannily, government-sponsored infiltrators and informants would tend to deliberately encourage these splits, especially on the militant violent side of the dichotomy, precisely because doing violence invites repression.
Any rebuilt and successful communist party would have to work in the open; avoid sectarian splitting over petty disputes; observe a strict dichotomy between open party work within the boundaries of bourgeois law and an underground apparatus that operates outside the boundaries of bourgeois law; an insulated leadership; and representing a movement of mass character that cannot be easily decapitated or repressed. Questions of how exactly we build such a movement and avoid the mistakes of the past, is a question we communists will have to answer every day in the course of praxis.
I'd say that's a characteristic of structurelessness, not of decentralization.
See how your post, sent via decentralized internet protocol, doesn't even achieve the purpose of getting read.
See how bees and ants and termites, with no central organization, don't achieve anything.
There's a lot to be said for the tyranny of structurelessness and also ephemerality and inefficacy, but this is a completely different thing from decentralization.
This is the anarchists place in the revolution
The manual Jeong references in her thread, specifically this passage.
I can't find any article that exactly matches the title, but it seems likely the link in the picture is referring to Ken Klippenstein's article for "The Nation".
It's probably an exaggeration to say that shitposting and infighting cost the DHS millions of dollars while leaving them with only lists of twitter fights. I think a better analysis is that DHS completely misunderstood the situation from the start, and would have wasted months of time and millions of taxpayer dollars regardless of what we did in a vain attempt to prove their preconceptions right.
The people in charge of these campaigns legitimately believe 'antifa' is a well disciplined organization receiving foreign aid that wants nothing more than chaos. It really wouldn't have mattered what protesters in Portland or twitter leftists did- the stupidity of DHS leadership and their disconnect from reality would have had them go all in on this doomed operation regardless.
- Stealing is good
- Not posting links is :LIB: shit
:stalin-stressed:
That sad moment where you realise that by 'leftists' they probably mean 'liberals'
And yet within the false self remains the true self
decentralization, but the extra s made it descent. descent realization
decentralization is great for resistance, it's not so great for organizing dual power.
I guess the takeaway from this should be more that social media sites like Twitter should be used as an outlet for all our petty squabbles, rather than actual information about organizing (which should be done in person or over actual protected channels). If you've got a divisive opinion that would otherwise cause sectarianism, throw it on twitter and convince the feds you're tearing each other apart.
