Ben, Thanks for your detailed response. I think we both see that transparency isn’t neutral. It challenges people whose authority depends on controlling information, blocking criticism, or shaping their group’s history. Because of these factors, transparency is often polarizing, and that can sometimes be positive. I agree that an independent public information platform would be useful. My concern is with the larger historical role you assign to it. I think that role is a bit overstated. Your argument seems to be that user-controlled communication leads to transparency, which lets truth win out over falsehood. This, in turn, raises mass awareness, helps organizations become more flexible, and eventually leads them to break with capitalist property relations. Each step is possible, but the process isn’t automatic. That’s my concern. The internet has already made it much cheaper to share information and communicate across distances. But the change hasn’t only reduced dishonesty. It has also caused information overload, split audiences, spread conspiracy theories, encouraged self-promotion, and enabled large-scale manipulation. The problem isn’t just that powerful groups control algorithms. People also have different levels of time, education, authority, technical skills, support, and ability to get noticed. Even if things seem fair, organized groups would still have an edge over individuals. Factions could run campaigns to boost their reputation. Charismatic people could attract followers. Some might find ways to cheat any reputation system. While the system might punish obvious dishonesty, it could also make political judgment more about popularity than substance. The main question is, who sets the standards for judging reputation, and how can those standards be challenged? If every user has their own system, there’s no shared judgment. If the platform sets a common system, it’s still using political power, even if it calls that power democratic. I agree that your distinction between 'solid-state' and 'liquid-state' organization highlights something important, but I think it leads to the wrong strategic conclusion. Fluid networks can share information, start campaigns, connect people, and allow for experimentation. But if an organization keeps splitting, merging, dissolving, and reforming, it may have trouble building collective memory, training members, taking responsibility for mistakes, protecting people, keeping resources, or following through on decisions. Flexibility can help people avoid bureaucracy, but it can also make it easier to avoid accountability. At some point, political action means making decisions, such as whether to run in an election, organize a workplace, defend someone, allocate funds, suspend a member, publish a controversial statement, or start a long-term campaign. Information alone doesn’t make these choices, and neither does reputation. A group has to talk things through, decide, and take responsibility for what happens. That’s why I separate democratic communication from democratic centralism. Democratic centralism doesn’t have to mean, as some Leninist groups practice, a permanent leadership that controls information and treats disagreement as betrayal. When done well, it means open discussion, the ability to make decisions, and the ability to act together. The problem isn’t having an organization; it’s having one that isn’t accountable. You break the problem down into material conditions, mass consciousness, and the awareness and organization of activists. That’s helpful. But these three levels can’t be separated into neat stages. Activists’ thinking is shaped by their social position, the institutions they belong to, and their experiences in struggle. Workers usually don’t become revolutionary just because they receive the right information. People’s understanding grows through experience, conflict, organizing, and trying out different strategies. Productive property attracts investment, controls jobs, staffs the state, and has strong institutions that can keep its power going. Exposing its wrongdoings matters, but people may know that the Democratic Party is tied to capital and still support its candidates because there isn’t a credible independent working-class option. That’s not always an informational failure. It’s often a judgment about the current balance of power. This is also why I’m skeptical of the fifty-year timeline. It risks turning the platform into a kind of technological revolutionary party that’s always just out of reach, a future breakthrough that explains why today’s strategic problems can’t be solved yet. New technologies create possibilities, but they don’t automatically bring freedom. Capital can adapt to new technologies, reorganize around them, and use them to strengthen control just as easily as others can use them to resist. The key question is what we can build now and what can’t wait. So I’d put the relationship another way. An independent democratic information platform could be valuable infrastructure for a movement, but it can’t take the place of the movement itself. It could help groups keep records, share experiences, expose abuses, host debates, and communicate outside corporate channels. Those are real achievements. But building the platform should go hand in hand with workplace organizing, political education, independent elections where they make sense, mutual defense, and building lasting democratic institutions. The main goal is to use the platform to support organizing, not to replace it. About your proposed article, I think it would be stronger if it focused on a specific argument instead of just saying that transparency will eventually let the truth spread everywhere. I’d suggest: * The organizational failures that the platform is intended to address. * The institutional and technical features that distinguish it from existing platforms. * Concrete examples showing how user-controlled algorithms and reputation systems would operate. * The dangers of manipulation, factional capture, popularity ranking, and informal hierarchy. * The relationship between the platform and organizations can result in binding decisions. * A near-term proposal that activists could begin testing now. The article should make the strategic stakes visible from the start. * The institutional and technical features that distinguish it from existing platforms. * Concrete examples showing how user-controlled algorithms and reputation systems would operate. * The dangers of manipulation, factional capture, popularity ranking, and informal hierarchy. * The relationship between the platform and organizations can result in binding decisions. * A near-term proposal that activists could begin testing now. I’d suggest reaching out to Cosmonaut, Tempest, or the Platypus Review. Each of these publishes pieces on socialist strategy and organization, though you’d need to adjust your article to fit the political focus of each publication. The platform itself isn’t the main issue. Its importance depends on the political and organizational questions that still need to be answered. Technology can change the ground on which those questions are debated, but it can’t make them go away. Tony -- Tony
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#42432): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42432 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120158195/21656 -=-=- 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/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
