Re: The Party Question Cont'd (Was Marxism and War)

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I have some comments and also a question for you at the end.

-- 1 --

>  I like the impulse behind this - transparency
>  as a solvent for the sectarian and cultish
>  patterns Marv and I have been circling.
>  A record that everyone can see, instead of a
>  leader's account of what happened, would make
>  a real difference to how newer people evaluate
>  groups instead of having to take founders'
>  word for it.

We can note, however, that transparency will not benefit everyone.  For some, transparency represents a threat.  Some gain.  Some lose.  This means that transparency can be polarizing.  Some want and need transparency--while others hate and fear transparency.

>  But I don't think the platform gets at what's
>  binding here. The isolation from the class
>  that Marv and I agree on wasn't primarily an
>  information problem-it was capital mobility,
>  deindustrialization, a scattered and insecure
>  workforce, and a labor movement institutionally
>  closed to the left. None of that is friction
>  that better communication tooling reduces.

Here is another way to look at it:

Let's consider the spectrum--I list below 3 points on that spectrum--as we move from the objective factor (closer to matter) to the subjective factor (closer to consciousness):

(1) The material conditions of society (including
      the development of the productive forces)
(2) The consciousness of workers and the oppressed
(3) The consciousness and organization of
       the activists groups which aspire to lead
       the struggle of the working class and
       oppressed

An independent and democratic platform would have its biggest and most immediate impact on the 3rd point above.  But we need to keep in mind that this platform will continue to grow and develop, as decade rolls after decade.  I have been studying the revolution in digital communications from the time that the ancestor of the internet connected a total of 6 computers--more than 50 years ago.  I advocate taking a long-term view.

-- 2 --

In the next 50 years--it is likely that such a platform will impact point 2 above in a major way.  Such a platform will connect activists with one another--and with the working class and oppressed--without ruling class gatekeepers, censorship, interference, ranking or shadow banning by corrupt governments or greedy billionaires.  This has never been possible before in history.  This will, most likely, happen within the next 50 years--if not sooner.  All of the lies that have kept our minds in bondage--will no longer be able to conceal from us anything important.

-- 3 --

People have a natural desire to understand their world.  The main obstacle to this, for most people, is that the solid and reliable answers they seek are not easily available anywhere convenient--or anywhere at all.  This obstacle will *inevitably* be broken.

The friction between the questions people have--and the answers they need--will be subject to steady and unrelenting erosion.

-- 4 --

>  WeUser-generated, algorithmically mediated
>  platforms operate at massive scale but
>  primarily sort users into ideological silos
>  and elevate performative voices,

The sentence above appears to have suffered from an edit error.  But it appears to be speculation that the primary impact of a platform where users control the algorithms would be to:

(1) segregate users into ideological silos, and

(2) amplify the voices of the activists who
    are most superficial and who attempt to
    "look good" rather than "be good".

I believe the two tendencies you identify above are real and would exist.  Where you are mistaken is in the belief that these two tendencies would be more *powerful* than their opposing tendencies:

(1) *escaping* the restrictions of one's silo, and

(2) learning to *recognize* which voices have the
    most to say and are most deserving of attention.

-- 5 --

>  rather than encouraging patience or
>  accountability, the mechanism needs
>  spelling out:

Note in particular scenario # 5 (page 8, subhead: "Who controls the icons of your reputation?") in my letter to the "No Azure for Apartheid" organization: http://communism.org/node/4058/4058.pdf

I show how all users of such a platform could be held accountable for their actions (or lack of integrity) on the basis of damage to their *reputation*.

Such a platform would represent a level playing field.  When you act like a good guy--that will be your reputation.  When you act like a jerk--ditto.  Everyone will be able to see your reputation.

This means that if you acquire a reputation for impatience--people will filter out your comments--and you may eventually be motivated to learn the value of being patient.

[cid:[email protected]]  [cid:[email protected]]

-- 6 --

>  what specifically about user-controlled
>  algorithms breaks that pattern rather
>  than reproducing it in a new venue?

A public information platform--and the transparency it will bring--will break all kinds of patterns--and create new patterns.

When users have full control over what they see and hear--it will be possible for people to get an accurate and big-picture view of everything important.  The truth will penetrate everywhere, and lies will have no space to hide.

-- 7 --

>  There's also a category problem.
>  "Democratic centralism" is a decision structure
>   - it's how a group decides where to put its
>   people and what to do next. "Democratic
>   communication" is an information structure.

The kind of organization you describe above, based on what you call a "democratic centralist" structure, is what I call a "solid state" organization.  An independent information platform would make possible a different kind of organization--what I would call a "liquid state" organization.

Such "liquid state" organizations would be more fluid, more difficult to define.  They might change form rapidly, splitting, merging, splitting again--and then merging again--like the motion of some parts of a stream as it passes over, under and around the rocks in its way.

Solid state organizations may always have a role to play--at least for a very long time.  But I believe that "liquid state" organizations are more important--and more deserving of our focus.  We know from studies of brain functionality--that some parts of our brains operate more on a "top-down" hierarchical basis while other parts are more "bottom up" and self-organizational.  There is a time and place for everything.

I wrote about the key distinction between solid state and liquid state organizations in "SpartaBase: our weapon of mass transparency" (page 43: "Solid, Liquid and Gas") here: http://communism.org/node/4056/4056.pdf

-- 8 --

You said:

>  Transparency can expose incompetence and
>  hypocrisy, which are real and useful, but
>  transparency doesn't resolve the actual
>  disputes on this list:

I believe it can help quite a bit more than you might expect.

>  entry versus independence,

Transparency will vastly increase awareness of the genocide and other crimes committed by our ruling class and its two main political parties.

In all fairness--once people understand the real criminal nature of the Democratic Party--and its history and function as a supermassive black hole engineered to suck up and safely liquidate activist energy--this would be likely to negatively impact their willingness to invest their youth and their life energy in such a hopelessly compromised cesspool of shit which is designed to betray, steal and destroy their enthusiasm.

People need to breathe fresh air, in my humble opinion.  Transparency will help them understand this.

-- 9 --

> reform work versus revolutionary
> preparation, and how to allocate
> scarce cadre. Those are strategic
> disagreements that don't dissolve
> once everyone can see them clearly.
> If anything, full transparency just
> makes the disagreements more visible
> without adjudicating them.

The first step in solving any important problem is to see it clearly.  The more eyes that are looking at the problem the sooner someone will be able to find the solution.  People need to see and understand what is going on.  This is the fundamental way forward.

-- 10 --

You said:

>  a breakthrough on the horizon
>  that will make the current impasse
>  retroactively make sense.

It appears to me that the public information platform I describe on nodes 4056 and 4058 is the breakthrough.  This appears likely to be the point where the steady growth of the productive forces (which move as slowly as the continental plates, but carry with them as much power) lead to a massive burst of consciousness and organization and a decisive rupture with capitalist property relationships and the rule of society by capital.  The world got a foreshadowing of this in Arab Democratic Revolts of 2011.

In 4056 ("SpartaBase") I estimate that this is likely to begin within the next 50 years.

[cid:[email protected]]

-- 11 --

You said:

>  I'd prefer to hear what you think existing
>  groups should do differently in the meantime,
>  whether there is a platform or not.

I view most existing "cemocratic dentralist" organizations as something of a lost cause.  There are all, to one degree or another, afraid of transparency.  If we want to see what is powerful--we will need to look in other directions.

I am not claiming that the work these groups are doing is without value.  Rather--I am claiming that there are more important things that require our focus.  History will judge us harshly if it looks like we wanted to fiddle while Rome was aflame.

What I would say to all these groups is that if only one percent of the effort they are investing in electoral politics were invested instead in an independent and democratic public information platform--based on democratic algorithms and open to all activists--the dysfunction and paralysis that plague the left would eventually be overcome.

[cid:[email protected]]

-- 12 --

Finally--I am interested in writing a short article (similar in content to this post) for publication in one or more online left forums.  You appear to have a lot of knowledge of the left.  Would you have any suggestions for which forum I might contact and how this might be structured to be of potential interest to readers?



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#42404): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42404
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120158195/6024700
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/10173629/6024700/1441833971/xyzzy [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-