This is a good essay. We certainly need more strategy in the western left. Their analysis of WWP reminds me of my experience at PCUSA. The first thing I noticed was that I, like them, was there for only five months. The commonality I noticed is that PCUSA seems primarily focused on having people go to as many RAWM protests as possible, along with trying to grow their membership. I also thought of them with the “debunking the ML party” section, As they seem to think if they get like five people in each US state to join the mystical “vanguard party” will materialize out of nowhere.
if we combined the collective power of all the different parties, we could get a lot of organizing done. instead, it’s all splintered across dozens of different completely ineffectual parties
the fact we have not changed this situation is a sign something is deeply wrong with our strategy. it shouldn’t take all that much effort to connect with socialists we can already contact and interact with, and yet, unification of all these different groups feels almost impossible
it’s deeply ironic that a vulgar form of anti-factionalism has resulted in the most fractured and factional movement i have ever heard of
It would probably be better to have one umbrella organization with factions than whatever we have now. Sure, you don’t have to work with patsocs or leftcoms, but why are WWP and PSL different organizations? They seem to have basically the same platform.
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.
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
This is a good essay. We certainly need more strategy in the western left. Their analysis of WWP reminds me of my experience at PCUSA. The first thing I noticed was that I, like them, was there for only five months. The commonality I noticed is that PCUSA seems primarily focused on having people go to as many RAWM protests as possible, along with trying to grow their membership. I also thought of them with the “debunking the ML party” section, As they seem to think if they get like five people in each US state to join the mystical “vanguard party” will materialize out of nowhere.
if we combined the collective power of all the different parties, we could get a lot of organizing done. instead, it’s all splintered across dozens of different completely ineffectual parties
the fact we have not changed this situation is a sign something is deeply wrong with our strategy. it shouldn’t take all that much effort to connect with socialists we can already contact and interact with, and yet, unification of all these different groups feels almost impossible
it’s deeply ironic that a vulgar form of anti-factionalism has resulted in the most fractured and factional movement i have ever heard of
It would probably be better to have one umbrella organization with factions than whatever we have now. Sure, you don’t have to work with patsocs or leftcoms, but why are WWP and PSL different organizations? They seem to have basically the same platform.
I don’t know the whole history around it, but the PSL started from a split in the WWP.
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 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