chapotraphouse

Sorry comrade, but this is a bad take on multiple levels

This is a symptom of play-acting at being the One Important Group that will lead to the revolution. It reduces the total pool of active organizational talent by destroying something that's probably already working, and removing a place where a group can learn to organize. It destroys the resiliency possible from a web of organization. Exchange contact info and get on each other's mailing lists instead.

you're straight up doing pseudo psychology based on what i assume is experience with ML orgs that just live near you, a single person in a country of millions

what do you mean 'web of organization', where are they? and 'destroying something thats already working', if its working where is it? Where is the mass mobilization? Or do you believe that the people with side with you out of the kindness of the human heart?

'removing a place where people can learn to organize' you know what organizing seminars are right? most active communist orgs have them. The last one i went to was on the transgender experience in hawaii and america, as well as its connections to intersectional marxist resistance. It was open so members of the community could attend, but apparently us evil authoritarian partocrats in the end stifled them by not letting the community members 'grow their own organizing' or whatever individualist nonsense.

Organizing must be collaborative, and that usually means consolidation into a larger mass organization or popular front. Disconnected individuals 'doing their thing' are not nearly as effective as the broader collective organizing in synchronization.

and get on each other's mailing lists instead.

how nice, newspapers, incredible. No one's ever thought of using those. I bet if they had they'd be extremely successful and not useful idiots for libs.

I don't know if this is more play-acting or just people's minds being poisoned by capitalist bureaucracies. It wastes time and makes actual organization harder. Establish communication channels and interpersonal relationships instead.

how do you think this is done? Do you think the party can manage more than a few hundred people without making lists, or managing it? Institutions of large sizes will exist even without states, fighting something because its 'capitalist' when bureaucracies have existed since city states had to manage large agriculture (and before that) and was largely behind the existence of the written language.

'just establish dms and talk on ur phone or computer dude'

You arent that comrade, you will never be that comrade , there is no such thing as that comrade. You will not remember each person, or event that will take place, or which accounts are managed by who, or who holds what job in what position. unless youre so bad at organizing you can't actually engage with the local community and only have a group of 20 people. They're acting like they should be: organizing seriously to be competent at it, complete their goals, and collaborating and incorporating movements to further agitation.

You didn't actually change anything besides try to take the spine out of this. you literally did the meme with the engels quote,

"These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world."

except you didn't just change the name, you just tried to be different because of some personal spite with ML orgs and ended up pushing something silly and terrible. Do you seriously think that mutual aid is the end all be all of organizing? That by itself is just charity work, which is nice and all, but without radicalizing through a party platform is wasted potential.

its 2am and i dont want to waste any more of my beauty sleep on more anti-intellectualism, ideological inconsistency, and toxic hyper-individualism that occurs when you dont force everyone to rigorously read theory

do that, read theory, its literally one of the most important tools of every red and black.

Hard agree on the first one.

The second is a matter of degrees I think. Bureaucracy gets a bad rep, but it can be essential to ensure that especially action focused org don't descend into just a discussion group, and also it offers some protection against cops and wreckers deliberately trying to derail orgs. If you've got the kind of bureaucracy where you're having meetings about voting on a meeting chair for the next meeting or whatever, then you've already failed on those points anyway.