CutieBootieTootie

This response itself belies a chauvanism which is not befitting of a communist. Socialism requires the liberation of all, and queer workers face super-oppression due to their status as being queer or trans.

A solid stance on queer liberation is critical for socialists to have because queer people are one of the many groups in society that due to their super-oppression can act as lightning rods for conflict against the bourgeois state.

I recommend this article on Leslie Feinberg and hir life. It's critical as communists to have the right stance on this much in the same way as supporting AES and National Liberation, and dismissive attitudes such as your initial reaction here betray a chauvanism that other revolutionaries or oppressed people will likely find sickening. I don't say this to demean the possibility of your growth, but instead to say that I want to see your growth on this issue and to take the right stance.

It's LGBTQ, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans and Queer. Atleast pretend to be literate while you demean us and our hard fought victories to simply be able to live with dignity and respect that all people are due.

Their class interests align, even if they're not personally Hitlerites their economic dominance was each created by a Hitlerite form of subjugation against the rest of the world

It does seem to like to paste my clipboard which is not very cool, no idea what it's doing with it.

It's actually very common in Chinese apps because before some logic was introduced into android it was the most performant way to transmit states and info between screens. It was common on US apps too, just not when it was obvious that the clipboard was being used. I'm not sure why it's still around, probably just historical tech baggage, alipay, meituan, and WeChat do the same

I think you raise some interesting points but I think that this just falls back into the failures of prefiguration and expecting resistance and revolution to grow out of an "organic" movement.

If we require prefiguration for our organizational forms, i.e. that we try and create the world that we want in miniature in the organizations we create, then we'll largely fail without a greater strategic basis. This is the thesis of If We Burn by Vincent Bevins, which goes into how these tenets of prefiguration for our organizations lead to them being ultimately too flexible and loose to take hold of national revolutionary crisises which better-led movements are able to take to their advantage.

This just sounds like the age old problem of relying and requiring "organic" growth to happen. It'll happen, it'll get us far, but it has absolutely never been shown on a large national scale to get us far enough to lead to a revolutionary overthrow of society. The party justifies itself by being a conscious organ for working class people to collect knowledge, theory, and practice under one roof which is able to coordinate itself and operate outside the bounds of what would be "organic" or occur naturally otherwise. It doesn't exist at the exclusion of organic left-wing growth, as that's very necessary, but instead represents a section of this organic growth which is then conscious of itself and able to operate outside the bounds previously thought possible.

Am I understanding this all correctly?

I have to say my familiarity with NVNH is very surface level, as in I have no familiarity with it, but this concept of trying to create a "protocol" for safe, effective, and strong communication and cooperation between different people and groups sounds like the purpose of a socialist party. For example, a reason for a socialist party to exist is to give people from these different groups to sit down in one space, talk, compare notes, resolve tensions within working class communities for greater cooperation, etc. Am I wrong in saying that?