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.
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.