EDIT: The original article I posted kinda sucked. I'll keep it here for posterity if people want to read it, but I'll replace it with a link @RedWizard posted with original resignation letter and the PSL internal response. If you want to read just the resignation letter with the PSL criticisms without any preamble, it is here.
EDIT 2: Here is the leaked PSL internal response.
Comment by @chana in the general thread: (Sorry to copy your comment here but it's the only comment I've seen so far on this and it's a good way to start off the discussion, along with summer discussion questions I'll add below)
Comment text
Notable resignation and letter from PSL Central Committee member and related fomenting split in Brooklyn over PSL being run as a bureaucratic clique (which many will already be aware of from speaking with various PSL members trying to do more than participate in protests). PSL is good at specific local levels despite the national level dysfunction, and the vast majority of its membership good comrades. But the criticisms certainly ring true to me and are reasonable to cite as existential flaws. There is a bit of clown nonsense from the top on a regular basis (like the call for a general strike, cited in the resignation letter, lmao that is baby liberal idealism stuff).
If you're currently unorganized don't let this stop you from joining, it is more important to be active and learn locally from any non-abusive left space than to do nothing organized.
Discussion Questions:
- There's a lot of PSL fans or members here so what do you think? Like overall on this news?
- Do the complaints have merit, or not? Do some do, and some don't? Which ones? -- If so, what does this mean for the left in the US? What are the solutions and what is the path from here? -- If not, why don't you think so? And what does it mean for the left in terms of factionalism and splitting?
- Do you still recommend the PSL as an organization to join? What about the DSA? Join the Democratic Party? FRSO?
It's a sign of a party incapable of having convincing enough debates and discussions. There are correct answers to many questions and otherwise are correct strategies to find the correct answers (testing one while enforcing centralism and going to another position if it is shown to be unsuccessful). When parties split, it's because the debate didn't convince them of the new position/strategy enough to even want to test it out (or the party dysfunctionally refuses to self-crit after a strategy fails and so the faction assumes that decisions are absolute)
I think a large portion of this comes down to the weird self-referential bullshit that communists do now--every debate is a literary debate about what Lenin etc said (not testable) instead of a debate about strategies where Lenin etc can be utilized to communicate the position more clearly. I genuinely dont give a fuck if a quote supports my argument or not, and I'm tired of being forced into that debate, and I see it lead to factions often. Debate the concrete, decide on the concrete, and let older theory stand as a communication tool after a decision about what current theory and strategy is used.
Sorry, I'm not really ranting to you specifically, but I needed to say this which had been pissing me off recently