Great thread on why political caucuses are an important vehicle for struggling thru conflict in movement orgs.

So many orgs failings I believe is they don't accept poltical conflict will happen over the strategy, tactics & idealogy and that such conflict is good. https://twitter.com/chorizanthe/status/1361821111521079299

Poltical conflict becomes bad due to NPIC & Labor bureaucratic un-democratic structures or activist non-npic horizontalist/direct democracy fundamentalist approaches to decision making processes that don't cultivate poltical containers for such conflict.

All these approaches incentivize flattening political differences in service of coming to decisions, or in there worse forms personalize and individualize poltical differences, which then leads to moralism about which side is right or wrong.

But more than anything left orgs needs forms of org building, organizing & democratic decision making that incentives building synthesis between the various tendencies of abolition, socialism, decolonization, communism, anarchism & radical queer feminism

& the strategic tendencies of voting, insurgency and dual power.

Political cuacuses with all its limits have done this best, some of the best examples of this is seen with CTU and DSA.

This approach I think is far better then the current reductionist take on blaming all failures on orgs being NPIC or philanthropy funded.

This is a real issue and explains some movement org failure but not all of it.

One just has to look to labor and see the NPIC explaining left failure or cooption is lacking

Labor is self funded & many have a elected member leadership that staff is accountable to but still we see a bureaucracy that is usually adverse to radical politics & militant tactics