CutieBootieTootie [she/her]

🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️ Happy Easter!!! 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️

  • 0 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 4th, 2024

help-circle

  • More accurately to the article, dual power can not exist and be built during regular periods, it has to be built and introduced during times of crisis (historically this has been done rapidly by having a well-equipped and well-connected communist party as the article suggest). You’re right that we’re not going to build those institutions now, and that’s exactly what the article is saying, but instead that these things function and work in periods of instability in society; and are successful based off of being able to bring regular people into them and have regular people put their trust and faith moreso into them than their fear of the currently existing government.

    The article says that “dual power” tactics as we commonly see them are best done for outreach, not to be done for their own ends, but instead as ways to access sections of the community and create the potential to really bring people into a revolutionary party and eventually building dual power structures when periods of serious crisis occur.




  • I think you raise some interesting points but I think that this just falls back into the failures of prefiguration and expecting resistance and revolution to grow out of an “organic” movement.

    If we require prefiguration for our organizational forms, i.e. that we try and create the world that we want in miniature in the organizations we create, then we’ll largely fail without a greater strategic basis. This is the thesis of If We Burn by Vincent Bevins, which goes into how these tenets of prefiguration for our organizations lead to them being ultimately too flexible and loose to take hold of national revolutionary crisises which better-led movements are able to take to their advantage.

    This just sounds like the age old problem of relying and requiring “organic” growth to happen. It’ll happen, it’ll get us far, but it has absolutely never been shown on a large national scale to get us far enough to lead to a revolutionary overthrow of society. The party justifies itself by being a conscious organ for working class people to collect knowledge, theory, and practice under one roof which is able to coordinate itself and operate outside the bounds of what would be “organic” or occur naturally otherwise. It doesn’t exist at the exclusion of organic left-wing growth, as that’s very necessary, but instead represents a section of this organic growth which is then conscious of itself and able to operate outside the bounds previously thought possible.

    Am I understanding this all correctly?


  • I have to say my familiarity with NVNH is very surface level, as in I have no familiarity with it, but this concept of trying to create a “protocol” for safe, effective, and strong communication and cooperation between different people and groups sounds like the purpose of a socialist party. For example, a reason for a socialist party to exist is to give people from these different groups to sit down in one space, talk, compare notes, resolve tensions within working class communities for greater cooperation, etc. Am I wrong in saying that?