>>1269032>You don't want the feds to see from your twitter posts that there is a major disagreement about the party line in the party because those are weaknesses that they can actively exploit. This argument only works if you ignore a glaring fact:
If you have democratic centralism as you describe, then all or most party members will know about it. This also means the feds placed in your org, probably on a position relatively high, will also know. All this measure does is asphyxiate the discussion because its constantly banned progressively more, out of fear of leaking, every time someone inevitably finds out, until its too late.
Its just paranoia that has no bearing on reality. Unless your party is actively in a civil war, you dont need this level of smoke and mirrors. And if you are, you cannot have the level of discussion or democratic centralism you describe anyway, since war situations demand lockstep and highly compartmentalized organization.
>>1269065Both of you, it seems much weaker to have our current situation. A situation wherein everything seems to go well, until suddenly it turns out there is an extreme rift at the top, leading to purges, a public fallout and a split. This hurts your image much more than being open from the start about there being differences of opinion within the party on certain topics. Knowing when and where to have heated debates is something that can fit perfectly fine with open discussions. Any communist worth their salt will know if they are in a situation where they should unify and preach the majority line, or in a situation where differences are allowed to exist.