Jumping off from the discussion in here
Socialism / the left seems particularly vulnerable to fragmentation and this obviously hampers the movement’s effectiveness in bringing about the kind of society I believe we all would like to see.
A certain element of unforgivingness seems a pre-requisite to wanting to drive social change. No pasarán is a popular slogan for a reason. Similarly ACAB functions to draw a firm battle line, leaving little in the way of a grey area.
Does this obduracy make internal conflicts inevitable or harder to resolve?
I strongly believe people should be able to point out when a comrade has done something they aren’t ok with and have an expectation that the reaction isn’t going to be immediately defensive or dismissive. Is having a fiery passion backing your convictions going to act as a barrier to listening to someone pointing out your flaws?
Often someone’s position within the movement will not only to grant them protection from criticism but also far greater exposure for the person criticising them. The latter’s dedication to the cause will be questioned or they’ll be pressured to back off. How do we balance someone’s good work with their less good actions?
How much stock do we put in the associations of our associations? To use the example from the NIP thread, should the NIP guy be suffering from his association with Novara and their having uncritically platformed a racist eugenicist?
Any large political movement is necessarily going to be broad. But can / should you share a party with transphobes or people who campaign against travellers?
I’d be interested in your thoughts