you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 3 days ago (21 children)
  • [–] 18 points 3 days ago* (8 children)

    some person on the internet i guess, like us shrug-outta-hecks

    i agree with them but if they are actually in the party (i'm not, there is no nearby org and my lgbt org is probably the most marxist thing for miles) then they need to actually demand this of their local

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    I'm trying not to be too critical but this post isn't what I would expect from a cadre member of a ML party with experience doing strategic organizing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    I can find you a plethora of Marxists texts, essays, and quotes by the ML classics (Lenin, Mao, Uncle Ho) that espouse the opposite of cadre having to stay in a corrupt, non-democratic Party with opportunist leadership.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    All people who did excellent organizing, heading multiple formations in highly disciplined groups, adopting strategic organizing methods to achieve their aims. Take Lenin. Forming the Bolsheviks as a formal split was preceded by attempts by their faction to move the RSDLP towards a more intensely revolutionary cadre and away from broad base building or needing to "develop" the Russian Empire into something more like British capitalism first. They formed that faction (in direct contact with one another and meeting about it), agitated around their cause, organized votes and then also published various articles, including many criticisms. 1912 was a rupture from which they could form a new party because they had all of that organizing work behind them, basically already decfsctoy having a party already, cutting themselves free of the Mensheviks. But they did try to move the RSDLP first. I'm saying this not because you have to follow them exactly but because if you have a specific goal in a socialist organization you have to identify a strategy and how you will achieve it, fundamentally requiring other people to be aligned with you, to have meetings, to be in communication, to run a campaign that escalates through action and reaction.

    Specifically, this does not happen by writing a very short and somewhat vague polemic on social media where it isn't even clear you are a member.

    The immediate questions I had were:

    • Who is your audience?
    • What do you want them to do with this information?
    • How does it build your campaign? What is your follow-up?

    Signs that make me ask these questions:

    • No call to action.
    • No advertisement of an organized campaign resource of any kind.
    • No RSVP (probably a bad idea at this juncturebut the default of any organized campaign).
    • No "if you have experience X contact me here" to start chatting with people across branches since you lack those connections.

    In fact, I would say doing those things directly with members and making cross branch connections is an obviously much better use of your time if the removal of the Beckers is your goal. The post itself may not need what I mentioned because really it probably isn't strategic to post at all if this is your goal.

    I do not mean this criticism as an insult, but just a description that made me, by default, ask who was doing this, because it is missing the key elements I train people to always focus on and that I expect cadre to do out of habit alone. Instead it reminded me of imperial core horizontalist approaches to policing their own community (the inevitable anonymous call-out publications) or new DSA members making their first attempt at what they jokingly call "revolution through resolution", that you just say what should happen and then people see it and then of course they'll just vote for it, no need to have direct conversations and build your support to actually make it happen. Note that the more experienced and strategic DSA members do maintain lists of people they believe will vote with them and do direct reach-outs. So I see an incongruity between, "I am a cadre organizer in a ML party" and, "I am adopting organizing strategy dramatically inferior to a DSA electoralist and in line with horizontalist chaos methods" and wonder what's going on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    It's pretty much me sharing a tweet. We're not Lenin or the Bolsheviks. And it has been successful - I'm in touch with several comrades throughout the country now. It's not a formalized campaign right, it's an agitational internet post to "see what's out there." I don't want to unilaterally work on this campaign, make all the directives, and call to action. I have been part of many different campaigns over the years and organizations. Right now, this is me as an individual, feeling rather fractured after the PSL scandal and resigning. This is just me throwing a dart to see where it lands as an individual with little capacity right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 6 points 3 days ago (10 children)
  • [–] 14 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    I'm not a 9 day old account posting demands for resignations where it is unclear they are even claiming to be a PSL member.

    If the goal is resignations as a member you'd want to be organizing this internally and making connections across branches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 days ago* (4 children)

    I didn't know my history as PSL cadre was attached to my account here. I promise you, we have attempted to "organize this internally." They ignored us. And if you were in PSL, you would know there is no direct horizontal relationships between branches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    no direct horizontal relationships between branches.

    Hopefully there's a lot of informal horizontal relationships between branches, because you can't really challenge leadership (in any org) without having that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 5 points 3 days ago

    There's a conversation to be had about how limited horizontalism allows for a greater capacity to work and to foster a local social culture. In DemCent, there is a series of committees with overlapping liaisons that should make local and work group decisions and sentiment work their way to the center. It is then processed by leadership and works its way back outward. In socialist countries, cities tend to have a lot of autonomy within their predefined structure.

    But yeah — PSL is commandist. We have next to no power in the Party to change anything at the national level. Party Congresses, which include local delegates and are the highest body of power that could change internal policies within the CC, seem to be a bit of a facade based on many accounts. Also, the CC elects 40% of the Congress delegates, which is highly unusual for a Communist Party anywhere.

  • source
  • parent