I would urge you to go onto the PSL website and Liberation School site to investigate further. PSL and WWP have very different positions on things. The author admits from the start that they have limited experience with the PSL and honestly make a lot of unjustified assumptions based on the misconception that the PSL is a split faction from the WWP. The PSL was formed from the what was essentially the ML faction of the antiwar movement in DC in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. Some of the founding members were has been members of the WWP and had grown disillusioned with the WWP, but many of the founding members were young comrades just getting into ML politics like Eugene Puryear. The PSL was basically constituted out of whole cloth from its own points of agreement and really didn’t carry anything over from the WWP. I address some other points in another comment
Sure, their positions may be different, but a point made later in the essay is that ML orgs like to act like everyone needs to be on the same exact line and once they agree they can become the vanguard. What actually matters is practice (not the I’m saying the parties are equal in action, but where’s PSL’s insurrection or mass movement?).
Things like this are the problem I have with this trend this article is a part of. Mass movements don’t come from nowhere. Somebody has to be willing to do the groundwork. You can’t make the criticism that the PSL doesn’t have a fully formed mass movement and at the same time say all the parties are bad and refuse to participate in building the mass movement. It’s not even just with the PSL. If you suggested another party that’s a conversation and the merits could be debated. But this trend is functionally an endorsement of individualism
I get that, but I also think the article has a point. Yes, they gave a wide generalization that psl falls into the traps they lay out based on a small situation five years ago, but their analysis of the communist movement as a whole as lacking is true. Please show me evidence that PSL is making progress, Im not certain there’s not, just give me evidence.
This is a compilation of the PSLs national weekly newsletter for the second half of 2022. I thought these were all on Liberation News but the most recent ones seem to not be. If I find them I’ll post them here. But in terms of progress the most recent newsletter it included news of another branch upgrading their Liberation Center, which is what the party calls the community centers referenced in the article. Most branches have one, even a lot of the smaller cities. The PSL is the only org I’m aware of with such an extensive network. If you have any more specific questions let me know. A good example from earlier this year was the national response to the Tyre Nichols murder. The PSL national called for a nation wide mobilization and emergency actions were ready within days. In my city this drew massive media attention from the mainstream media. Also keep in mind, most stories of local struggle on Liberation News are struggles thf party is directly involved in.
I think your getting confused what we’re saying, we’re not saying that the PSL is bad because it’s not building a mass movement, we’re using the lack of a mass movement as proof that the current approach of the US left is lacking. And no one is saying you shouldn’t organize with these parties, quite the opposite. We need to have unified action and one aspect of that is, paradoxically, going to be accepting that some orgs are particularly secular, and still being willing to work with them.
The criticisms are not meant to actually be hostile to these parties or drive anyone away from joining them, but systemic critiques of the general approach of the parties, out of hope that they and other parties can improve. Indeed, joining them might be essential to making sure that happens
I understand that but you are confusing the reason for my original comment. The article doesn’t use evidence to criticize the PSL. That’s all I wanted to clear up.
The article, if I’m being honest, feels like it’s trying to do way too much at once. It’s trying to make a salient point about the western left (which I think it does), but the criticism of the PSL is strange. I understand and agree with you there.
I remember reading it and thinking that was the strangest part of the article.
It’s an easy trap to fall into because, as Marxists, a lot of the stuff we analyze is either holistic in the first place or had very wide ranging applications.
Makes sense, i wonder why. Again, it would probably have been better to just have psl be a faction within WWP
I would urge you to go onto the PSL website and Liberation School site to investigate further. PSL and WWP have very different positions on things. The author admits from the start that they have limited experience with the PSL and honestly make a lot of unjustified assumptions based on the misconception that the PSL is a split faction from the WWP. The PSL was formed from the what was essentially the ML faction of the antiwar movement in DC in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. Some of the founding members were has been members of the WWP and had grown disillusioned with the WWP, but many of the founding members were young comrades just getting into ML politics like Eugene Puryear. The PSL was basically constituted out of whole cloth from its own points of agreement and really didn’t carry anything over from the WWP. I address some other points in another comment
Sure, their positions may be different, but a point made later in the essay is that ML orgs like to act like everyone needs to be on the same exact line and once they agree they can become the vanguard. What actually matters is practice (not the I’m saying the parties are equal in action, but where’s PSL’s insurrection or mass movement?).
“Where’s PSL’s insurrection or mass movement?”
Things like this are the problem I have with this trend this article is a part of. Mass movements don’t come from nowhere. Somebody has to be willing to do the groundwork. You can’t make the criticism that the PSL doesn’t have a fully formed mass movement and at the same time say all the parties are bad and refuse to participate in building the mass movement. It’s not even just with the PSL. If you suggested another party that’s a conversation and the merits could be debated. But this trend is functionally an endorsement of individualism
I get that, but I also think the article has a point. Yes, they gave a wide generalization that psl falls into the traps they lay out based on a small situation five years ago, but their analysis of the communist movement as a whole as lacking is true. Please show me evidence that PSL is making progress, Im not certain there’s not, just give me evidence.
I’ll put together a highlight list later tonight I suppose
This is a compilation of the PSLs national weekly newsletter for the second half of 2022. I thought these were all on Liberation News but the most recent ones seem to not be. If I find them I’ll post them here. But in terms of progress the most recent newsletter it included news of another branch upgrading their Liberation Center, which is what the party calls the community centers referenced in the article. Most branches have one, even a lot of the smaller cities. The PSL is the only org I’m aware of with such an extensive network. If you have any more specific questions let me know. A good example from earlier this year was the national response to the Tyre Nichols murder. The PSL national called for a nation wide mobilization and emergency actions were ready within days. In my city this drew massive media attention from the mainstream media. Also keep in mind, most stories of local struggle on Liberation News are struggles thf party is directly involved in.
https://www.liberationnews.org/from-the-frontlines-of-struggle-the-psl-in-action-across-the-country/
I think your getting confused what we’re saying, we’re not saying that the PSL is bad because it’s not building a mass movement, we’re using the lack of a mass movement as proof that the current approach of the US left is lacking. And no one is saying you shouldn’t organize with these parties, quite the opposite. We need to have unified action and one aspect of that is, paradoxically, going to be accepting that some orgs are particularly secular, and still being willing to work with them.
The criticisms are not meant to actually be hostile to these parties or drive anyone away from joining them, but systemic critiques of the general approach of the parties, out of hope that they and other parties can improve. Indeed, joining them might be essential to making sure that happens
I understand that but you are confusing the reason for my original comment. The article doesn’t use evidence to criticize the PSL. That’s all I wanted to clear up.
The article, if I’m being honest, feels like it’s trying to do way too much at once. It’s trying to make a salient point about the western left (which I think it does), but the criticism of the PSL is strange. I understand and agree with you there.
I remember reading it and thinking that was the strangest part of the article.
That’s a great way of putting it. Trying to do too much at once.
It’s an easy trap to fall into because, as Marxists, a lot of the stuff we analyze is either holistic in the first place or had very wide ranging applications.