I was going to write like a lengthy response detailing what I meant by this, but I was mostly curious if they have politically advanced and dropped the Anti-Authoritarian rhetoric, but it doesn’t seem like it.
Just stop, someone else will build an alternative. How? Dunno, that’s Authoritarian.
“Authoritarian” is a slippery word, but “decentralized and human-scaled” is a lot more applicable to what we need.
It really doesn’t take much energy to provide humans with their essential needs. With good urban design, each person in cooler climates only requires about two tons of firewood per year for heating and cooking, the equivalent of a small fraction of an acre of pollarded trees. In temperate zones you can supply a city of up to about 200k people just from polycultures and agroforestry within easy biking distance (5 miles from the edge of town).
Most consumer goods get replaced within 1-2 years, promptly becoming trash. Much of the discourse behind “productive forces”, that does not specify what specifically is happening to improve quality of life, is just replicating the paradigm of overconsumption that we have been in since the 1910s. Pursuing a consumer goods economy, instead of building things to last and to be recycled or composted at end-of-life, is presuming a path of ecological devastation.
Keeping the means of existence easily understood and accessible and replicable is the most assured way of checking the power of the bourgeoisie and building a counter-power against them.
why decentralized? I just don’t get the supposed virtues of decentralization. aren’t decentralized systems far less efficient and less powerful? I’m pretty sure decentralizing economies is actually mentioned by Nkrumah as a tool of neocolonialism with regards to Nigeria: “internal balkanization.” we need large coordinated economic planning and that requires centralization.
decentralized and human-scaled" is a lot more applicable to what we need.
No it isn’t. We need a democratic centralized party structure and large scale organization. Only hardcore disciplined communism can defeat capitalism. You couldn’t be more off.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
i don’t know if decentralized is socially sustainable
I don’t know if centralized is socially sustainable. It covers a small minority of human existence, during which it has caused untold amounts of subordination and immiseration of human beings, both in absolute and relative (to other/competing societies) terms. It’s not even certain whether centralization as we know it will be able to exist 150 years from now.
there’s a lot to be said about a clear and unified direction
You don’t need one “leader” at the top to have a clear and unified direction. That is the mindset of the capitalists and monarchists.
it’s more that there’s going to be factionalism and separatism with decentralization faster than otherwise, not the need for a “strong leader”. would a spatial hierarchy of councils would be a manifestation of what you’re arguing for?
The entire history of centralized state apparatus is rife with factionalism and separatism, from antiquity where the death of a king led to a power struggle amongst heirs (expanded to the nobility under feudalism), to the past century of leftist parties that are better at splintering than anything else.
Does that not reflect a reality where every hierarchy has fractal struggles for autonomy? And is this not something corroborated by our modern understanding of ecology, neurology, physiology, and entomology of eusocial species?
i confess i probably haven’t invested the same study of the eusocial (i promise you didn’t introduce that word/concept to me) as you have but if you are a communist you’re converging on it from a significantly different memeplex than everyone else here, i’m inclined to go with the other guy’s judgement for this reason at least until i’ve paid my own dues for studying marxist methodologies if for no other reason than that i haven’'t gotten around to “reading theory”. that said it’s a shame that degrowth isn’t centered more in spaces like this. i agree with that
Not sure where to say it but perhaps here… this whole thread about democratic centralism versus ‘decentralization’ seems to miss that methods don’t come in a vacuum. They’re tied to political practice and particular time and place. I hope nobody is advocating for doing what did something in a semi periphery country in the 1910s.
As well, to say infighting is eternal to the reified concept of hierarchy and justify it on human nature obscures things. What causes factionalism? The struggle between correct and incorrect ideas is a cause. Another is the contradiction between theory and practice (see the decrying of ‘Stalinism’ for how this manifests). How will decentralization (in general, not as a specific outgrowth of a political program) prevent this issue, rather than make it more diffuse? A narrative where splits are a result of an abstract drive towards autonomy, where hierarchy is the foremost concern, again, throws away the depth which allows for meaningful analysis.
I think Nkrumah’s analysis of neocolonialism is most relevant to the conditions of the modern world’s imperial periphery and he does not advocate for decentralization. For semi-periphery countries and core countries I think theories of colonialism can be applied to internal super-exploited populations. For those people I think the goal is to try to use dual power and, as they are a minority population fighting against a much stronger state and supremacist society, a decentralized organization might help them, maybe.
I was going to write like a lengthy response detailing what I meant by this, but I was mostly curious if they have politically advanced and dropped the Anti-Authoritarian rhetoric, but it doesn’t seem like it.
Just stop, someone else will build an alternative. How? Dunno, that’s Authoritarian.
“Authoritarian” is a slippery word, but “decentralized and human-scaled” is a lot more applicable to what we need.
It really doesn’t take much energy to provide humans with their essential needs. With good urban design, each person in cooler climates only requires about two tons of firewood per year for heating and cooking, the equivalent of a small fraction of an acre of pollarded trees. In temperate zones you can supply a city of up to about 200k people just from polycultures and agroforestry within easy biking distance (5 miles from the edge of town).
Most consumer goods get replaced within 1-2 years, promptly becoming trash. Much of the discourse behind “productive forces”, that does not specify what specifically is happening to improve quality of life, is just replicating the paradigm of overconsumption that we have been in since the 1910s. Pursuing a consumer goods economy, instead of building things to last and to be recycled or composted at end-of-life, is presuming a path of ecological devastation.
Keeping the means of existence easily understood and accessible and replicable is the most assured way of checking the power of the bourgeoisie and building a counter-power against them.
why decentralized? I just don’t get the supposed virtues of decentralization. aren’t decentralized systems far less efficient and less powerful? I’m pretty sure decentralizing economies is actually mentioned by Nkrumah as a tool of neocolonialism with regards to Nigeria: “internal balkanization.” we need large coordinated economic planning and that requires centralization.
No it isn’t. We need a democratic centralized party structure and large scale organization. Only hardcore disciplined communism can defeat capitalism. You couldn’t be more off.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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
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.
You criticize capitalism, yet you use an iphone. Curious.
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.
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
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.
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.
deleted by creator
I don’t know if centralized is socially sustainable. It covers a small minority of human existence, during which it has caused untold amounts of subordination and immiseration of human beings, both in absolute and relative (to other/competing societies) terms. It’s not even certain whether centralization as we know it will be able to exist 150 years from now.
You don’t need one “leader” at the top to have a clear and unified direction. That is the mindset of the capitalists and monarchists.
you’re talking about class society not centralization.
it’s more that there’s going to be factionalism and separatism with decentralization faster than otherwise, not the need for a “strong leader”. would a spatial hierarchy of councils would be a manifestation of what you’re arguing for?
The entire history of centralized state apparatus is rife with factionalism and separatism, from antiquity where the death of a king led to a power struggle amongst heirs (expanded to the nobility under feudalism), to the past century of leftist parties that are better at splintering than anything else.
Does that not reflect a reality where every hierarchy has fractal struggles for autonomy? And is this not something corroborated by our modern understanding of ecology, neurology, physiology, and entomology of eusocial species?
i confess i probably haven’t invested the same study of the eusocial (i promise you didn’t introduce that word/concept to me) as you have but if you are a communist you’re converging on it from a significantly different memeplex than everyone else here, i’m inclined to go with the other guy’s judgement for this reason at least until i’ve paid my own dues for studying marxist methodologies if for no other reason than that i haven’'t gotten around to “reading theory”. that said it’s a shame that degrowth isn’t centered more in spaces like this. i agree with that
Not sure where to say it but perhaps here… this whole thread about democratic centralism versus ‘decentralization’ seems to miss that methods don’t come in a vacuum. They’re tied to political practice and particular time and place. I hope nobody is advocating for doing what did something in a semi periphery country in the 1910s.
As well, to say infighting is eternal to the reified concept of hierarchy and justify it on human nature obscures things. What causes factionalism? The struggle between correct and incorrect ideas is a cause. Another is the contradiction between theory and practice (see the decrying of ‘Stalinism’ for how this manifests). How will decentralization (in general, not as a specific outgrowth of a political program) prevent this issue, rather than make it more diffuse? A narrative where splits are a result of an abstract drive towards autonomy, where hierarchy is the foremost concern, again, throws away the depth which allows for meaningful analysis.
I think Nkrumah’s analysis of neocolonialism is most relevant to the conditions of the modern world’s imperial periphery and he does not advocate for decentralization. For semi-periphery countries and core countries I think theories of colonialism can be applied to internal super-exploited populations. For those people I think the goal is to try to use dual power and, as they are a minority population fighting against a much stronger state and supremacist society, a decentralized organization might help them, maybe.
that is my thinking and i did mention it. eir response to me obscured the relative success of centralism at preventing this i wanted to maintain.