CutieBootieTootie [she/her]

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?

Social democracy and social democrats are more focused on maintenance of the current society than on fundamentally changing it, and the most critical part of the current society is the domination of one economic class (the ruling class, bourgeois class, whatever you want to call it). This party, as a social democratic party and not a revolutionary socialist party, is more interested in the maintenance of the gains they’ve made while not challenging the fundamentals of bourgeois class rule. Necessarily though, that means they’ll abandon trans people like us, so this makes sense in a sad way. Much like how liberals and social democrats will talk about their lofty goals, but ultimately cooperate and work with fascists and fascism; when revolutionary changes are taken off the table, backsliding is inevitable.

Social democracy is the left wing of fascism

deleted by creator