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.
PSL doesn't say this. The party position is that Israel as a state must cease to exist and full self-determination and decolonisation must happen from the river to the sea.
PSL is a fully black nationalist organization that supports the total self determination of the internally colonized Black nation in the geographic Black Belt, including independence
Yes, which is why PSL makes that distinction as a fundamental part of their analysis and strategy
What about the part of the program that says full self determination, including the right to absolute independence? Or the part of Socialist Reconstruction where colonized nations that elect to remain within the revolutionary socialist state will receive representation in the Congress of Oppressed Nations, an upper legislative and executive body where those peoples have full approval/veto power on all laws? (Not to mention you can't actually quote natives being "under" working class leadership from the book because it's not in there)
Tell that to all the native nations whose immediate demand is treaty recognition because it would instantly be a practical, large scale land back program. And the follow up question to those nations from PSL is - what relationship do you want to have with the revolutionary state? And if the answer is "we are going to be fully independent and you should fuck off" then PSL's positions is "yes sir".
My issue with the online milieu your criticism is a part of is not that your positions on national liberation, settlers, and socialism are wrong - it's that you completely misrepresent PSL on those issues. We are absolutely in agreement on everything you're laying out.
But they do not agitate for this. They say they will "give" them autonomy, but they don't fight for their autonomy. They use minimal language when talking about reperations, settling for the demand that native communities ask for because it shows the clear disregard colonizers have for anything including their own law as long as natives can be oppressed. In practice, they continually push out native ppl and native orgs like the red nation have cut ties with them over this systemic issue. Brian becker's white ass doesn't get to just say he supports native liberation and get off the hook, no settler does. It's about the work and its about having native people write that theory.
And hey listen, I don't know the work you do or your branch. I have a problem with systemic issues in the org and the settler family business style of leadership they have. That doesn't mean you and your comrades arent doing good work in black communities, but that doesnt also mean that the many many people i know who left the org because of anti-blackness are just wrong, or misrepresenting the org. It doesn't mean the sexual assault that does happen in PSL isn't covered up, it doesn't mean that Brian Becker isnt a millionaire that puts him and his white family in leadership positions. These are all legit problems and the fact it always gets dismissed as exclusively online criticism or fed jacketed doesn't help PSL beat the cult allegations
You have laid out many extremely specific criticisms of PSL in this thread that are entirely false, like that the party doesn't recognize a distinction between Black and White Americans, that it says native nations will be "under" the working class, or that it's entire position on indigenous issues in the US starts and ends with treaties. All of these are easily disproven by a cursory engagement with party publication, publicly documented work, or a conversation with a member. I would think you'd start to seriously question your sources.
Now, I'm sure there are people who have racism or sexual assault within the party - it's an organization of thousands of people that has existed for 20 years. I'm also sure, because I've seen it in action at multiple levels in the party, that such behavior is absolutely not tolerated and strong structures exist in the organization to combat these issues. And I'm skeptical of your specific claim that you know "many, many" people who left because the party's anti-blackness, or that there was a "mass exodus" of Black or native party members. The party has many Black members today and has never declined in membership.
It's true that the party does not have a large native membership or presence in native communities. That's due to two reasons. First, it's an urban party, and most organized maybe communities are far outside of cities (not all, of course!). Second, we specifically do not expect to tell native nations how to pursue their liberation, only to struggle alongside them and in support of them. That's a difficult area of work to break into without an organic starting presence, and I have no first hand experience given my branch is in an area with an incredibly low native population. I certainly agree that in the long run it will be a necessity.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14wF1Ti5GT2w5GZmwqvhvk6uH4zUss_a-B2GZ9NZEx74/edit?usp=drivesdk
I'm sorry for not posting sources sooner, but you need to understand this pops up continually and PSL doesn't get a free pass from criticism even if I'm just talking about the personal experiences from my comrades. PSL started as and has never not been a marcyist, trotskyist party that runs elections and polices protests to control revolutionary energy. Richard Becker and his wife Gloria La Riva have always had oversized control of the party failing to adhere to any sense of democratic in democratic centralism. Ben Becker and his wife Karina Garcia are also on the central committee, clearly through nepotism and/or just clear as day fed shit. And you can't say without being an SA apolgist that they have power structures in place to prevent it from taking place. They harbor and take the side of abusers time and time again and the only reason why Im so mad about it is because ppl rather deny it happens than acknowledge it and try and be better or hold leadership accountable