Informal hierarchies will develop in movements for systems change, but there should be zero tolerance for attempts to gatekeep in these movements.
Be skeptical of those taking on “organizer” or “activist” as an identity under broader organization and then expressing entitlement.
True social revolution is the culmination of many different social processes that are catalyzed as a result of many different actions in many different places. Not all of these social processes are catalyzed through actions tied to people or forces grounded in Left values either.
There are also many areas in which people must move in order to help others self-organize and cooperate; there is no one space to “organize,” and no one network through which people develop new social relations.
No one person or group can have a monopoly on new social relations.
What this means is that real systems change will not come about due to the actions of some “vanguard” alone, but through the collective actions of the people.
Thus, no one is entitled to exclusive rights within our movements, and we must move off of principles and communication.
Left political bodies or individuals should be grounded in direct democracy and transparency, moving in free association with one another, and deciding where their principles and goals coalesce in determining partnerships that can catalyze new social relations and systems change.
In the context of these partnerships, those who play key roles and gain the trust of others will have authority, but this authority should be monitored and instantly recallable, and it should not be used against other people just because they contribute more or present new ideas.
By confronting this matter, we are able to confront a reproductive seed of hierarchy and authoritarianism within our own movements for systems change that ultimately destroys said movements, and prevents us from transcending the hierarchical logic that currently holds us captive.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The term “dual power” was coined by Lenin in 1917, but most of the core conceptual underpinnings for this term were spoken to by Proudhon in 1851, over half a century earlier (please see here: panarchy.org/proudhon/econo…).
This is worth unpacking.
Let’s start with Lenin’s first use of the term in 1917 (see here: marxists.org/archive/lenin/…) when he began to observe workers self-organizing + self-governing, cultivating power that ran parallel to the power of the Russian Provisional Government set up after Nicholas II abdicated.
While Lenin emphasized characteristics of the soviets and their use of power that we’d certainly admire today, this was, for him, ultimately contextualized around the idea of this power being used to develop state power (as opposed to making the state obsolete and destroying it).
Please stop using “Communism” as a synonym for centralized economic planning under State Capitalism (aka “authoritarian Social Democracy”).
As people all across the political spectrum (Left or otherwise) continue to do this, they render the term/concept even more useless.
Communism is good.
No, it is not what exists or has existed in most of the territories most of the world points to and calls “Communist.” And no, just because a political entity paints itself red and calls itself “Communist” does not make it good (same for any other Left label).
A communist society is a classless, moneyless, stateless, post-scarcity society where the means of production are democratically controlled by the community for the benefit of all.
Wage labor is non-existent, and production is planned for human needs, rather than private profit.
“If the end result of a working-class revolution in the United States is the continued domination of non-white people by white ‘revolutionary leaders’ and a Left-wing [white supremacist] government, then we will make another revolution...”
Politicians claiming to be “Left” should be ditching the political theater, uniting to meet poor and working-class people where they’re at, and developing bottom-up, municipalist strategies with communities (in communities) in the lead-up to an international, #DualPower movement.
Entryism is not working. The inherent structure of the Democratic Party does not allow for anyone elected to be held accountable. New political vehicles and forums must be created, but they must be grounded in community and direct (or “liquid”) democracy.
Instead of just coloring inside the lines of the terms “representative democracy” has set for the present, “Left” politicians should instead be looking around and working in coalitions to plant grassroots seeds for the direct democracy of the future.