this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
22 points (86.7% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

965 readers
1 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I have been considering the obvious organizations such as FRSO or PSL. However, an article really made some points that stood out to me:

https://cosmonautmag.com/2018/10/from-workers-party-to-workers-republic-2/

“What made the “Leninist party of a new type” different was not democratic centralism. Rather than simple centralism, Comintern parties had a form of ‘monolithism’ to use the phrase of Fernando Claudin.14 In other words, Comintern parties emphasized centralism over democracy or often just disregarded democratic norms entirely. While this wasn’t absent in the Second International, the Third was born as a sort of militarized civil war organization rather than a political party in the sense of a mass workers association as envisioned by Marx. While this may have been justified at a time when an actual global civil war against capitalism was on the table, this is not the case right now – we are not living in the same era of ‘Wars and Revolutions’ as the leaders of the Comintern were. When modern Leninists claim the secret of their parties’ road to success is ‘democratic centralism’, it tends to mean an overly bureaucratized group that puts heavy workloads on individual members to make them more ‘disciplined’, and a lack of actual democracy in favor of a more militarized party structure. Factions are forbidden, ideological centralism (rather than programmatic centralism) is imposed from above, and groups aim to build an ‘elite’ cadre that tails existing mass struggles, hoping to bank in on them to recruit members. The Comintern model is simply a recipe for failure in today’s conditions, just another guide to building yet another sect that will compete for the latest batch of recruits. How this actually works in practice is exemplified by the state of actually existing contemporary Leninism in the USA.

Take PSL, FRSO-FB and the ISO as case studies. Alongside schemes to take over union bureaucracy, these organizations essentially form front groups that hide affiliation to any kind of communist goals and aim to mobilize students around the latest liberal social justice issues and work in alliance with NGOs to throw rallies of mostly symbolic value. Through these activities, the cadre (or inner group) of the Leninist organization hopes to recruit parts of the liberal activist community in order to grow their base of support and garner more influence in these social movements. The organizations themselves proclaim democratic centralism, but in reality, there is no public debate about party positions allowed between congresses. At the congresses debate, takes place as little as possible and is usually led by an unelected central committee that composed of full-time staffer careerists. By using their “militant minority” tactics to act as the “spark that lights the prairie fire” in popular struggles, the modern Leninists (with some exceptions of course) tend to tail these struggles instead of fight for a class-conscious approach to issues of civil and democratic rights. One tactic often used is to hand out as many of their signs as possible to appear larger in number, when in reality this is often protesting street theater backed by NGOs connected to the Democrats who are simply using leftists as useful idiots for “direct actions” against the Republicans. Usually, the rationale for this activism is to raise consciousness among liberals. Theoretically, by ‘riding the wave’ of spontaneous activism, the militant minority group will build up enough influence to launch an insurrection. This is a delusional hope. It leads to chronic involvement in activism that takes up time and energy but doesn’t build working class institutions that can actually offer concrete gains for working people through collective action. One could describe this general strategy of tailing social movements as ‘movementism’.”

I have definitely observed this within FRSO's seeding of cadre in "front" "mass" organizations such as New SDS, anti-war groups, or various NAARPR chapters to recruit other cadre.

There is also a strange divide and turf war between otherwise similar programmatic unity between PSL, FRSO, and WWP. Like, UNITE!

Open to feedback and thoughts, need to talk it out with other comrades.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jack@hexbear.net 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

"Israeli and Palestinian working class unite!"

PSL doesn't say this. The party position is that Israel as a state must cease to exist and full self-determination and decolonisation must happen from the river to the sea.

CPUSA, PSL, FRSO doesn't make distinctions between the white labor aristocracy and the black proletariat

PSL is a fully black nationalist organization that supports the total self determination of the internally colonized Black nation in the geographic Black Belt, including independence. We have published multiple books on Black liberation and the unique, central revolutionary role of the Black nation, and we tactically and strategically prioritize building in Black communities above almost everything else. Ask any PSL member directly and they will tell you the party must be disproportionately Black in composition and leadership, because otherwise it cannot be part of any revolution in the US.

These interests are different and the distinction is vital and necessary to be made

Yes, which is why PSL makes that distinction as a fundamental part of their analysis and strategy

what comes to mind is their Socialist Reconstruction book where they advocate for the liberation of native peoples under "working class leadership" of the whole of America

What about the part of the program that says full self determination, including the right to absolute independence? Or the part of Socialist Reconstruction where colonized nations that elect to remain within the revolutionary socialist state will receive representation in the Congress of Oppressed Nations, an upper legislative and executive body where those peoples have full approval/veto power on all laws? (Not to mention you can't actually quote natives being "under" working class leadership from the book because it's not in there)

could also mention the numerous times they've mentioned "honoring treaties" as a solution, a red flag we should be treating as if people advocated for a "two state solution"

Tell that to all the native nations whose immediate demand is treaty recognition because it would instantly be a practical, large scale land back program. And the follow up question to those nations from PSL is - what relationship do you want to have with the revolutionary state? And if the answer is "we are going to be fully independent and you should fuck off" then PSL's positions is "yes sir".

My issue with the online milieu your criticism is a part of is not that your positions on national liberation, settlers, and socialism are wrong - it's that you completely misrepresent PSL on those issues. We are absolutely in agreement on everything you're laying out.