I was afraid of this, I was going to have another paragraph but I thought it was too confusing, so what I said is a simplification.
The problem is that they aren’t theories that are tested, at least not to the extent that a principle would be. Lenin was in a specific situation when he wrote what he did, and we don’t have enough examples or data to be sure it’s anywhere near a principle. Maybe a good hypothesis, but it would take truckloads more data and scrutiny for it to come even close to a principle. More importantly, It is not near-universally applicable in the way principles of multiplication are, for instance.
It’s true that scientific principle exist, and I apologize for using a simplified explanation, I shouldn’t have done so.
Also, when I said the PSL was too specific, I was citing their program on their website. I suppose it was implicit, so I understand the confusion. But I was not making a vague gesture at nothing, I was reading through the PSL’s program at the exact time I was writing that comment.
And at no point did I say the article didn’t advocate a network of loose groups, I was saying they didn’t advocate a network of disconnected loose groups. A coalition of loose groups is legitimately a good idea right now, and is likely to accomplish more than a hyper-sectarian Maoist death cult or whatever. To be fair, I thought the DSA mention was the only example until you mentioned the Marxist Center being advocated for, but given that it is a unified collection of groups and not just a random assortment, it seems reasonable. Is there any particular reason a loose collection of groups with unified action and contact with each other wouldn’t work?
I’ve seen how useful national resources and contacts are within the PSL. From helping smaller branches get off the ground to organizing training to mobilizing comrades from across the country for major events in DC. Earlier this year we had the March for peace in DC and now just a few months later were mobilizing carpools again for an event in DC on the 25th. There’s also a massive amount of centralized administrative expertise so that branches can focus on local organizing with the masses. None of that would be possible with a loose confederation of groups.
I feel like it doesn’t really dismiss the main point of the article, but the article really gives me a “we had a good idea but made a bunch of extrapolations from it without proof” vibe I don’t like.
Their criticism of the US left is correct, their solution is not. It seems silly to suggest that any one group of people could come up with a solution so easily, anyways.
True, there is a problem obviously. Otherwise the revolution would have happened. But yeah definitely agree that they are right about the problem in broad strokes, not so much about the direction suggested.
My current hypothesis is that we need some kind of centralized organization that focuses on extremely short-term goals for building worker power, as a kind of transitory organization until the extremely sectarian nature of the US left either subsides or boils over. This organization would exist in tandem with other organizations, not requiring or enforcing specific political memberships besides what directly interferes with specific, short term goals decided by organization leadership to build the power of the proletariat (or long term goals which are specific, effective, and do not demand any kind of ideological purity besides a general commitment to building worker power). These goals would have to be decided by committed socialists.
A kind of meta-organization, which would share resources and important information about achieving it’s specific short-term goals, and would let the US left live on “life support” while we figure out exactly what’s going on.
I was afraid of this, I was going to have another paragraph but I thought it was too confusing, so what I said is a simplification.
The problem is that they aren’t theories that are tested, at least not to the extent that a principle would be. Lenin was in a specific situation when he wrote what he did, and we don’t have enough examples or data to be sure it’s anywhere near a principle. Maybe a good hypothesis, but it would take truckloads more data and scrutiny for it to come even close to a principle. More importantly, It is not near-universally applicable in the way principles of multiplication are, for instance.
It’s true that scientific principle exist, and I apologize for using a simplified explanation, I shouldn’t have done so.
Also, when I said the PSL was too specific, I was citing their program on their website. I suppose it was implicit, so I understand the confusion. But I was not making a vague gesture at nothing, I was reading through the PSL’s program at the exact time I was writing that comment.
And at no point did I say the article didn’t advocate a network of loose groups, I was saying they didn’t advocate a network of disconnected loose groups. A coalition of loose groups is legitimately a good idea right now, and is likely to accomplish more than a hyper-sectarian Maoist death cult or whatever. To be fair, I thought the DSA mention was the only example until you mentioned the Marxist Center being advocated for, but given that it is a unified collection of groups and not just a random assortment, it seems reasonable. Is there any particular reason a loose collection of groups with unified action and contact with each other wouldn’t work?
I’ve seen how useful national resources and contacts are within the PSL. From helping smaller branches get off the ground to organizing training to mobilizing comrades from across the country for major events in DC. Earlier this year we had the March for peace in DC and now just a few months later were mobilizing carpools again for an event in DC on the 25th. There’s also a massive amount of centralized administrative expertise so that branches can focus on local organizing with the masses. None of that would be possible with a loose confederation of groups.
Makes sense to me.
I feel like it doesn’t really dismiss the main point of the article, but the article really gives me a “we had a good idea but made a bunch of extrapolations from it without proof” vibe I don’t like.
Their criticism of the US left is correct, their solution is not. It seems silly to suggest that any one group of people could come up with a solution so easily, anyways.
True, there is a problem obviously. Otherwise the revolution would have happened. But yeah definitely agree that they are right about the problem in broad strokes, not so much about the direction suggested.
My current hypothesis is that we need some kind of centralized organization that focuses on extremely short-term goals for building worker power, as a kind of transitory organization until the extremely sectarian nature of the US left either subsides or boils over. This organization would exist in tandem with other organizations, not requiring or enforcing specific political memberships besides what directly interferes with specific, short term goals decided by organization leadership to build the power of the proletariat (or long term goals which are specific, effective, and do not demand any kind of ideological purity besides a general commitment to building worker power). These goals would have to be decided by committed socialists.
A kind of meta-organization, which would share resources and important information about achieving it’s specific short-term goals, and would let the US left live on “life support” while we figure out exactly what’s going on.