GenZedong

4302 readers

61 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why I Left The CPUSA - Comrade Birb (www.comradebirb.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yet from what I’ve read, as alleged, CPUSA extrapolated from one test that mutual aid is not effective and is pushing that as a line for the entire party.

The essay talks about a local chapter's stance on mutual aid. I didn't get the impression it reflects a broader party line. Frankly, the author is too light on details for us to really know what happened. Look at how oddly vague this is:

But our local leadership poo-pooed mutual aid as “ineffective” and “not worth it.” The metric being used was apparently the efficacy of converting MA recipients to dues-paying party members. Evidently they “tested” doing mutual aid work and opted against it, but from all appearances, the “test” was a one-off attempt

What does "poo-pooed" mean? Does the chapter want to reduce time spent on mutual aid but still do some, or do they want to do none at all? What do they mean by "apparently" and "from all appearances"? Do they know about the chapter's experiment(s) with mutual aid or not?

If nothing else, there's a lesson here about being specific when levying criticisms.

I broadly agree with all your points about how ideas should be tested -- you need at least a few tests to draw conclusions, and how you execute those tests can change a lot. Unfortunately, we're stuck talking about this in the abstract because the details here just aren't clear.