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 apologize, that specific section was more so directed at the other person you were responding to than you yourself. They were exemplifying what I was critiquing namely framing history through an idealist narrative, human nature talk, and missing of the dialectical (im not jargoning here it’s true) relationship between autonomy and centrality. Which is not ahistorical but deeply historically contingent. I hope my comments didn’t come off as an attack against either of you. It’s in the spirit of pointing out something I saw being overlooked.
i knew you weren’t attacking me. i’ll be frank with you, the other user makes me suspicious. i agree with you about eir appeals to a nebulous human nature, trying to blindside me with the grand sciences and statistics that back em up. there are fingerprints of lesswrong all over the place, i just don’t know if it’s a residual component of eir personality or not.
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.
I apologize, that specific section was more so directed at the other person you were responding to than you yourself. They were exemplifying what I was critiquing namely framing history through an idealist narrative, human nature talk, and missing of the dialectical (im not jargoning here it’s true) relationship between autonomy and centrality. Which is not ahistorical but deeply historically contingent. I hope my comments didn’t come off as an attack against either of you. It’s in the spirit of pointing out something I saw being overlooked.
i knew you weren’t attacking me. i’ll be frank with you, the other user makes me suspicious. i agree with you about eir appeals to a nebulous human nature, trying to blindside me with the grand sciences and statistics that back em up. there are fingerprints of lesswrong all over the place, i just don’t know if it’s a residual component of eir personality or not.