AI text summary:

Xi Jinping expressed gratitude to foreign businesses for their contributions to China's development during a speech to global CEOs. He acknowledged challenges faced by multinationals in China and promised to improve market access and support. Xi emphasized that China remains a favorable destination for foreign investment and aims to enhance cooperation and communication with international companies.

The Trump administration’s recent foreign policy shifts, including rapprochement with Russia and criticism of NATO, have sparked confusion and debate. While some attribute these changes to Trump’s admiration for strongmen or Russian influence, a deeper analysis suggests a split within the U.S. ruling class over how to confront China’s economic rise. This faction, prioritizing a “reverse Kissinger” strategy, aims to pull Russia away from China, viewing it as a more significant threat to U.S. dominance.

The Trump faction of the capitalist class acknowledges the shift towards a multipolar world, prioritizing a Cold Peace with Russia to counter China’s growing influence. This strategy, outlined in a 2017 book, involves strengthening anti-China blocs, restructuring the Middle East, and overhauling trade policies to protect U.S. corporate interests. While criticisms of the old imperial order resonate, the proposed replacement—a new Cold War and corporate-driven blocs—offers no real benefit to the working class.

Interesting timing with the cuts to USAID.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6501985

I have been considering the obvious organizations such as FRSO or PSL. However, an article really made some points that stood out to me:

https://cosmonautmag.com/2018/10/from-workers-party-to-workers-republic-2/

“What made the “Leninist party of a new type” different was not democratic centralism. Rather than simple centralism, Comintern parties had a form of ‘monolithism’ to use the phrase of Fernando Claudin.14 In other words, Comintern parties emphasized centralism over democracy or often just disregarded democratic norms entirely. While this wasn’t absent in the Second International, the Third was born as a sort of militarized civil war organization rather than a political party in the sense of a mass workers association as envisioned by Marx. While this may have been justified at a time when an actual global civil war against capitalism was on the table, this is not the case right now – we are not living in the same era of ‘Wars and Revolutions’ as the leaders of the Comintern were. When modern Leninists claim the secret of their parties’ road to success is ‘democratic centralism’, it tends to mean an overly bureaucratized group that puts heavy workloads on individual members to make them more ‘disciplined’, and a lack of actual democracy in favor of a more militarized party structure. Factions are forbidden, ideological centralism (rather than programmatic centralism) is imposed from above, and groups aim to build an ‘elite’ cadre that tails existing mass struggles, hoping to bank in on them to recruit members. The Comintern model is simply a recipe for failure in today’s conditions, just another guide to building yet another sect that will compete for the latest batch of recruits. How this actually works in practice is exemplified by the state of actually existing contemporary Leninism in the USA.

Take PSL, FRSO-FB and the ISO as case studies. Alongside schemes to take over union bureaucracy, these organizations essentially form front groups that hide affiliation to any kind of communist goals and aim to mobilize students around the latest liberal social justice issues and work in alliance with NGOs to throw rallies of mostly symbolic value. Through these activities, the cadre (or inner group) of the Leninist organization hopes to recruit parts of the liberal activist community in order to grow their base of support and garner more influence in these social movements. The organizations themselves proclaim democratic centralism, but in reality, there is no public debate about party positions allowed between congresses. At the congresses debate, takes place as little as possible and is usually led by an unelected central committee that composed of full-time staffer careerists. By using their “militant minority” tactics to act as the “spark that lights the prairie fire” in popular struggles, the modern Leninists (with some exceptions of course) tend to tail these struggles instead of fight for a class-conscious approach to issues of civil and democratic rights. One tactic often used is to hand out as many of their signs as possible to appear larger in number, when in reality this is often protesting street theater backed by NGOs connected to the Democrats who are simply using leftists as useful idiots for “direct actions” against the Republicans. Usually, the rationale for this activism is to raise consciousness among liberals. Theoretically, by ‘riding the wave’ of spontaneous activism, the militant minority group will build up enough influence to launch an insurrection. This is a delusional hope. It leads to chronic involvement in activism that takes up time and energy but doesn’t build working class institutions that can actually offer concrete gains for working people through collective action. One could describe this general strategy of tailing social movements as ‘movementism’.”

I have definitely observed this within FRSO's seeding of cadre in "front" "mass" organizations such as New SDS, anti-war groups, or various NAARPR chapters to recruit other cadre.

There is also a strange divide and turf war between otherwise similar programmatic unity between PSL, FRSO, and WWP. Like, UNITE!

Open to feedback and thoughts, need to talk it out with other comrades.

I have been considering the obvious organizations such as FRSO or PSL. However, an article really made some points that stood out to me:

https://cosmonautmag.com/2018/10/from-workers-party-to-workers-republic-2/

“What made the “Leninist party of a new type” different was not democratic centralism. Rather than simple centralism, Comintern parties had a form of ‘monolithism’ to use the phrase of Fernando Claudin.14 In other words, Comintern parties emphasized centralism over democracy or often just disregarded democratic norms entirely. While this wasn’t absent in the Second International, the Third was born as a sort of militarized civil war organization rather than a political party in the sense of a mass workers association as envisioned by Marx. While this may have been justified at a time when an actual global civil war against capitalism was on the table, this is not the case right now – we are not living in the same era of ‘Wars and Revolutions’ as the leaders of the Comintern were. When modern Leninists claim the secret of their parties’ road to success is ‘democratic centralism’, it tends to mean an overly bureaucratized group that puts heavy workloads on individual members to make them more ‘disciplined’, and a lack of actual democracy in favor of a more militarized party structure. Factions are forbidden, ideological centralism (rather than programmatic centralism) is imposed from above, and groups aim to build an ‘elite’ cadre that tails existing mass struggles, hoping to bank in on them to recruit members. The Comintern model is simply a recipe for failure in today’s conditions, just another guide to building yet another sect that will compete for the latest batch of recruits. How this actually works in practice is exemplified by the state of actually existing contemporary Leninism in the USA.

Take PSL, FRSO-FB and the ISO as case studies. Alongside schemes to take over union bureaucracy, these organizations essentially form front groups that hide affiliation to any kind of communist goals and aim to mobilize students around the latest liberal social justice issues and work in alliance with NGOs to throw rallies of mostly symbolic value. Through these activities, the cadre (or inner group) of the Leninist organization hopes to recruit parts of the liberal activist community in order to grow their base of support and garner more influence in these social movements. The organizations themselves proclaim democratic centralism, but in reality, there is no public debate about party positions allowed between congresses. At the congresses debate, takes place as little as possible and is usually led by an unelected central committee that composed of full-time staffer careerists. By using their “militant minority” tactics to act as the “spark that lights the prairie fire” in popular struggles, the modern Leninists (with some exceptions of course) tend to tail these struggles instead of fight for a class-conscious approach to issues of civil and democratic rights. One tactic often used is to hand out as many of their signs as possible to appear larger in number, when in reality this is often protesting street theater backed by NGOs connected to the Democrats who are simply using leftists as useful idiots for “direct actions” against the Republicans. Usually, the rationale for this activism is to raise consciousness among liberals. Theoretically, by ‘riding the wave’ of spontaneous activism, the militant minority group will build up enough influence to launch an insurrection. This is a delusional hope. It leads to chronic involvement in activism that takes up time and energy but doesn’t build working class institutions that can actually offer concrete gains for working people through collective action. One could describe this general strategy of tailing social movements as ‘movementism’.”

I have definitely observed this within FRSO's seeding of cadre in "front" "mass" organizations such as New SDS, anti-war groups, or various NAARPR chapters to recruit other cadre.

There is also a strange divide and turf war between otherwise similar programmatic unity between PSL, FRSO, and WWP. Like, UNITE!

Open to feedback and thoughts, need to talk it out with other comrades.

Looking for input from actual people with knowledge and experience with FRSO and PSL. I asked ChatGPT to compare and contrast based on public data, and was curious if this summary was accurate?

FRSO and PSL are two different organizations with differing ideologies and approaches, primarily within the context of left-wing politics in the United States.

Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO): FRSO is a Marxist-Leninist organization formed in 1985 as the result of a merger between several smaller socialist groups. It advocates for revolutionary socialism and seeks to build a mass movement of the working class to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism. FRSO has a decentralized structure with several branches across the United States, each with its own priorities and strategies. It focuses on a broad range of issues including workers' rights, racial justice, gender equality, and anti-imperialism.

Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL): PSL is a Marxist-Leninist party founded in 2004 by former members of the Workers World Party. It aims to build a revolutionary socialist movement in the United States and advocates for the overthrow of capitalism through mass organizing and militant action. PSL is known for its involvement in various social justice movements, including anti-war activism, immigrant rights, and racial justice campaigns. PSL has a more centralized organizational structure compared to FRSO**, with a national leadership guiding its activities and priorities. While both FRSO and PSL share a commitment to socialism and revolutionary change, they differ in their organizational structures, historical backgrounds, and specific approaches to activism and organizing.

… before the bankers who are actually in power told them off. The liberal lefty FDR removed it.

Don’t trust a liberal. Two party system, one master - the bourgeoise.

… before the bankers who are actually in power told them off. The liberal lefty FDR removed it.

Don’t trust a liberal. Two party system, one master - the bourgeoise.