Part of the point of the DemCen system is to increase the prevalence of good-faith actors and decrease the prevalence of bad faith ones. It is not as if MLs have historically just ignored education of the youth or the cultivation of good faith actors.
This doesn’t practically explain the how. You’re talking about building patronage networks. That effectively means that those networks themselves can be evaluated as good or bad faith. This just moves the question to another area of the political structure typical of DemCen systems.
Then what are we even arguing about?
When reading theory I don’t see us as being on “teams”. What’s the purpose of writing this stuff if we’re evaluating this solely through the lens of “teams”? At that point any article might as well say “Right Marxist Leninism is the best”. It’s a bad argument it could be better. I’m not even settled on what the “ultimate system” here is, I don’t think there is one, especially not as simple as just do “hierarchy”. If we want to converse about this stuff in good faith we should generally have a complex conversation about it in reality, that often means there’s a lot of grey areas and not a lot of practically right answers if we’re being honest with ourselves.
Like I’ve said elsewhere in this thread: CPC’s done a really good job, but they’re not in the business of exporting socialist thought. I linked this
The CPC’s own words are:
Second, while continuing to learn from and absorb ideas from other countries, we have made our own explorations and innovations to avoid blindly copying the system or democratic model of any other country
While leading the people through the periods of revolution, construction, and reform, the CPC always held fast to the belief that no two political systems in the world are the same and that no universal political model exists.
This is a very adult way of speaking about socialism compared to other sets of thinkers who argue implicitly about universal contexts, and universalize ML concepts without explaining their application to their context or even explaining what their context is. If you believe in whatever theory and whatever individual practices, the onus is on you to explain why those practices work in the contexts you’re referring to. OP has not done this vis-a-vis hierarchy. They have created a very abstract rationale.
This doesn’t practically explain the how. You’re talking about building patronage networks. That effectively means that those networks themselves can be evaluated as good or bad faith. This just moves the question to another area of the political structure typical of DemCen systems.
When reading theory I don’t see us as being on “teams”. What’s the purpose of writing this stuff if we’re evaluating this solely through the lens of “teams”? At that point any article might as well say “Right Marxist Leninism is the best”. It’s a bad argument it could be better. I’m not even settled on what the “ultimate system” here is, I don’t think there is one, especially not as simple as just do “hierarchy”. If we want to converse about this stuff in good faith we should generally have a complex conversation about it in reality, that often means there’s a lot of grey areas and not a lot of practically right answers if we’re being honest with ourselves.
Like I’ve said elsewhere in this thread: CPC’s done a really good job, but they’re not in the business of exporting socialist thought. I linked this
The CPC’s own words are:
This is a very adult way of speaking about socialism compared to other sets of thinkers who argue implicitly about universal contexts, and universalize ML concepts without explaining their application to their context or even explaining what their context is. If you believe in whatever theory and whatever individual practices, the onus is on you to explain why those practices work in the contexts you’re referring to. OP has not done this vis-a-vis hierarchy. They have created a very abstract rationale.