Welcome again to everybody. Make yourselves at home. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is the weekly discussion thread.
☭ Matrix homeserver and space
☭ Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna’s Archive
Welcome again to everybody. Make yourselves at home. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is the weekly discussion thread.
☭ Matrix homeserver and space
☭ Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna’s Archive
Been thinking a lot about the state of organizing in the US Empire, and increasingly I’ve come to the conclusion that the main 2 options for anyone organizing are either the DSA while joining an explicitly ML caucus (at the moment Red Star) with the “DSA as the incubator for the vanguard, not the vanguard itself” strategy, or PSL. Starting a new org is tremendously difficult, and will likely come from a split from another org, rather than growing from a study circle like Red Clarion proposes.
Joining the DSA and an ML caucus is like a microcosm of being in the PSL, just narrowing your exposure largely to radicalized workers. The DSA is where the radicalized liberals flock to, not the PSL. This has tremendous advantage in terms of exposure, but you deal with the DSA’s paper membership. The 130,000 members the DSA promotes sound incredible on paper, until you realize that there is no commitment requirements to speak of. Nevertheless, an ML faction within the org has the ability to steer the org in a more correct direction and perhaps can form the basis of either a split from the DSA, or a new center to purge the reformists and force them to split. In either case, it isn’t a strategy without historic basis.
The PSL is a weak ML org. It has problems with the structure and adherance of democratic centralism, and has rapidly grown in the last couple of years to its own detriment, as the party seemed ill-equipped to handle this influx. There are problems with how discipline is handled, and the strategy for recruitment is a high bar, as it is a cadre org. Nevertheless, it is far more theoretically correct than the DSA could hope to be without the aforementioned purge of reformists, and at the present moment I have more faith in their ability to improve as an organization thanks to their cadre approach than I do the DSA to become a good org.
An org is its members, no matter how good or bad the structures you create are in theory, you need the highest level cadre to execute good structures well and mitigate the problems of weak structures. The primary weaknesses of the PSL can be overcome from within, I believe, by virtue of being a cadre org, than the DSA can by being a mass org. I might be proven wrong in the coming years, but this is historically why cadre orgs even exist in the first place, and Red Star Caucus has a long way to go to transition the DSA to an ML org.
The main tasks of the Statesian MLs are to build up cadre, and build up organization within the working class. Membership is fragmented. I expect either the DSA to split or the PSL to overtake them, and any ML should be watching the movement carefully. There could even be a new org that gains in membership quickly, like the Trotskyist RCI, only with an ML line. However, this is not that moment. This is the time before a vanguard has formed, and thus it’s our job to gain as much organizing experience as possible and front the most correct lines as possible, with careful attention to settler-colonialism as is often neglected.
CPUSA is thoroughly compromised and reformist. FRSO has been a tiny org for decades and minimizes settlers colonialism. Unlike the DSA, the CPUSA is too small the party incubation strategy to make any coherent sense, it’s weaker than the DSA as a reformist org and weaker than the PSL as a demcent org. It’s the worst of both worlds. Therefore, any communist should look to see the status of their local DSA and PSL, depending on which strategy you believe most advances your own organizing skills and your ability to advance a correct ML line to the radicalized working class.
I wish I had a definitive answer at this time, but there isn’t a vanguard. In the aftermath of the midterm elections, most of the energy is in the DSA, which invites new opportunity for communists to expose the working class to a correct understanding of theory and practice. However, this energy can quickly fizzle out as the DSA is not a cadre org and is reformist, so this moment in particular should fade. Where we go from there depends on the ever-shifting landscape.
Thoughts?
:no-thoughts: only further complications.
Something that’s (AFAIK) understudied is What is to be Done in the heart of hegemonic empire, one that’s a settler-colonial state, and also one that’s surveilled like never before in history?
An example: if we do manage to improve domestic working class conditions, would they become more radicalized or less, and would it harm empire or help?
Yep, it’s a frustrating conundrum.
In Australia the landscape is even more fragmented. There are quite a few smaller orgs but none of them are truly ML (even one that does label itself as ML is strictly anti AES). Currently the biggest org is SAlt (socialist alternative) and they are a western Marxist/Trotsky org. Although to be fare they are very effective organisers and have helped organise strikes, protests and they have set up seats in many of the electorates in the state of Victoria through Victorian socialist (the election is next week).
SA (socialist alliance) is also similarly sized and runs some elections in a couple of other states. I don’t know as much about SA although SAlt and SA don’t get along well with each other at all despite seemingly having very similar pro revolution anti AES policies.
Probably worth organizing with the most effective group to cut your teeth practically, and hope to either shift it for the better or use that experience to start a better org. The ML party being anti-AES is quite sad.