There are a couple persistent internal problems that communist parties face in the US.
One is that people are in the habit of fragmenting over minor differences in ideology; meanwhile, the two main capitalist parties are giant tents, not tethered to any specific political position, evolving but always drawing support from capitalists and effortlessly maintaining a funding base and a dominance in democratic organs.
Another is that after a century of existing alongside state intelligence, it's fairly clear that the intelligence services have been running wide circles around the communist parties, and at this point the communist parties have settled in to a form of being that is benign to the American system. This may be through ranks being infiltrated and leadership being compromised, or through hegemonic liberal ideology that partisans accept to the point where their main activities are peacefulTM protests and electoral campaigns.
Without any desire to sound particularly sectarian, I would say that there is a strong cult vibe to American communist parties. They are largely opaque and insular, and tend to sound dogmatic more often than not.
It could be that all of these problems are closely linked. In any case, for any successful proletarian movement in this country, there needs to be a deep change in strategy that is able to compose diverse political forces, maintain a strong working-class appeal by embedding itself into relevant and winnable struggles, and frustrate all attempts by state and reactionary forces to decapitate or pacify it.
Do you have any ideas of what sort of change in strategy would be necessary within the current communist American parties? In my pre-branch, we have disrupted anti-LGBT bills from being passed (for example). We have educated many people and have grown a lot in our area within a small timeframe. We also have to be viligant and careful with which new members we recruit given the history of the feds infiltrating communist parties in America.
I've heard local branches have some sketchy history, but mine has been kicking ass and avoiding those mistakes. I do have some disagreements in our party and believe we need to work on our organization, but with all of the recent events and the work we have been doing, I am willing to forgive our shortcomings.
If you have one person who is The Big Leader, there's a huge target placed on them. It becomes clear that there's only 1 person who needs to be bribed or blackmailed or (less likely) accident-ed. Plus, you have the whole burden of deciding all the things under one person, and this can burn people out, stratify the organization, and make cadres feel less capable of action.
Someone posted an infobox yesterday on the Party of Bulgarian Communists, and while everyone was smiling at the vidya game logo, I was smiling at how they had a collective for top leadership.
Another thing that is important is making sure that there is a near horizon as well as a far one. Trying to build up a movement around "agitating and educating specifically for some time generations in the future when material conditions reach a breaking point" is a losing prospect; this is asking for people to put their whole lives aside for a revolution they won't have any experience of. If you can find a way to enrich people's lives in a way that is clearly moving toward a more equal society, that would be part of a winning strategy.
I am all for having a multi-person collective leadership instead of a single celebrity dominated party. I am really tired of major revolutionary leaders becoming co-opted, and I hope in the near future the American communist parties can overcome this flaw.
I would say that there is a strong cult vibe to American communist parties. They are largely opaque and insular, and tend to sound dogmatic more often than not.
I can confirm that this is the case in most of Europe as well, with very few exceptions.
In any case, for any successful proletarian movement in this country, there needs to be a deep change in strategy that is able to compose diverse political forces, maintain a strong working-class appeal by embedding itself into relevant and winnable struggles, and frustrate all attempts by state and reactionary forces to decapitate or pacify it.
You have hit the nail on the head here. I could not have said it better myself! Even here on this platform i sometimes see a kind of reflexive rejection of the idea of appealing to diverse political forces, and i see the occasional tendency to support sectarian strategies that would reject large parts of the working class. And i include myself in that criticism. We can all do better in this regard.
A lot of it is paraphrasing another Imaginary Partisan, but I put my own direction on it by emphasizing how the push for "strong leadership" (rather than just strong systems of coordination) in these movements can lead to serious vulnerabilities.
I would say that strong leadership doesn't have to be synonymous with a celebrity cult or an over-reliance on a small number of individuals.
But still, a party is not a social club, nor is it a mere association of individuals with vaguely similar beliefs. A vanguard party in the Leninist sense has to be a disciplined and well structured political organization. After all, we are not anarchists.
And of course a political party is not the same thing as "a movement". A party can and should have a broader movement that coalesces around it, these would be the numerous sympathizers and supporters (some of which will be more committed to the cause than others) but the party itself should be the disciplined core of the most competent, class conscious and dedicated revolutionaries.
And while the most important decisions should be made collectively, having a form of "leadership" (such as an executive council) to handle the day to day affairs and be able to respond quickly and decisively to a sudden crisis (or a time sensitive opportunity) without wasting time is still necessary. You need to put in place some well-established procedures and structures so that when the time comes there is no confusion or a big debate every time about how to make decisions and how to implement them.
This is at least the broad outline of what seems to me to have proven to be a successful model for revolutionary parties in the past. In practice we should always be willing to adapt this general framework as needed to the material conditions and the specific political and cultural environment of each country. What works in one part of the world won't necessarily work in another.
Crises and snap actions do need specialized point people, but I don't think those specialized point people need to be the same ones that keep the meetings running smoothly or that set the standard for partisan self-education. That's the beauty of it, the diversity of humans makes it possible for everyone to contribute more of what they're best at.
There are a couple persistent internal problems that communist parties face in the US.
One is that people are in the habit of fragmenting over minor differences in ideology; meanwhile, the two main capitalist parties are giant tents, not tethered to any specific political position, evolving but always drawing support from capitalists and effortlessly maintaining a funding base and a dominance in democratic organs.
Another is that after a century of existing alongside state intelligence, it's fairly clear that the intelligence services have been running wide circles around the communist parties, and at this point the communist parties have settled in to a form of being that is benign to the American system. This may be through ranks being infiltrated and leadership being compromised, or through hegemonic liberal ideology that partisans accept to the point where their main activities are peacefulTM protests and electoral campaigns.
Without any desire to sound particularly sectarian, I would say that there is a strong cult vibe to American communist parties. They are largely opaque and insular, and tend to sound dogmatic more often than not.
It could be that all of these problems are closely linked. In any case, for any successful proletarian movement in this country, there needs to be a deep change in strategy that is able to compose diverse political forces, maintain a strong working-class appeal by embedding itself into relevant and winnable struggles, and frustrate all attempts by state and reactionary forces to decapitate or pacify it.
Do you have any ideas of what sort of change in strategy would be necessary within the current communist American parties? In my pre-branch, we have disrupted anti-LGBT bills from being passed (for example). We have educated many people and have grown a lot in our area within a small timeframe. We also have to be viligant and careful with which new members we recruit given the history of the feds infiltrating communist parties in America.
I've heard local branches have some sketchy history, but mine has been kicking ass and avoiding those mistakes. I do have some disagreements in our party and believe we need to work on our organization, but with all of the recent events and the work we have been doing, I am willing to forgive our shortcomings.
If you have one person who is The Big Leader, there's a huge target placed on them. It becomes clear that there's only 1 person who needs to be bribed or blackmailed or (less likely) accident-ed. Plus, you have the whole burden of deciding all the things under one person, and this can burn people out, stratify the organization, and make cadres feel less capable of action.
Someone posted an infobox yesterday on the Party of Bulgarian Communists, and while everyone was smiling at the vidya game logo, I was smiling at how they had a collective for top leadership.
Another thing that is important is making sure that there is a near horizon as well as a far one. Trying to build up a movement around "agitating and educating specifically for some time generations in the future when material conditions reach a breaking point" is a losing prospect; this is asking for people to put their whole lives aside for a revolution they won't have any experience of. If you can find a way to enrich people's lives in a way that is clearly moving toward a more equal society, that would be part of a winning strategy.
I am all for having a multi-person collective leadership instead of a single celebrity dominated party. I am really tired of major revolutionary leaders becoming co-opted, and I hope in the near future the American communist parties can overcome this flaw.
I can confirm that this is the case in most of Europe as well, with very few exceptions.
You have hit the nail on the head here. I could not have said it better myself! Even here on this platform i sometimes see a kind of reflexive rejection of the idea of appealing to diverse political forces, and i see the occasional tendency to support sectarian strategies that would reject large parts of the working class. And i include myself in that criticism. We can all do better in this regard.
A lot of it is paraphrasing another Imaginary Partisan, but I put my own direction on it by emphasizing how the push for "strong leadership" (rather than just strong systems of coordination) in these movements can lead to serious vulnerabilities.
I would say that strong leadership doesn't have to be synonymous with a celebrity cult or an over-reliance on a small number of individuals.
But still, a party is not a social club, nor is it a mere association of individuals with vaguely similar beliefs. A vanguard party in the Leninist sense has to be a disciplined and well structured political organization. After all, we are not anarchists.
And of course a political party is not the same thing as "a movement". A party can and should have a broader movement that coalesces around it, these would be the numerous sympathizers and supporters (some of which will be more committed to the cause than others) but the party itself should be the disciplined core of the most competent, class conscious and dedicated revolutionaries.
And while the most important decisions should be made collectively, having a form of "leadership" (such as an executive council) to handle the day to day affairs and be able to respond quickly and decisively to a sudden crisis (or a time sensitive opportunity) without wasting time is still necessary. You need to put in place some well-established procedures and structures so that when the time comes there is no confusion or a big debate every time about how to make decisions and how to implement them.
This is at least the broad outline of what seems to me to have proven to be a successful model for revolutionary parties in the past. In practice we should always be willing to adapt this general framework as needed to the material conditions and the specific political and cultural environment of each country. What works in one part of the world won't necessarily work in another.
Crises and snap actions do need specialized point people, but I don't think those specialized point people need to be the same ones that keep the meetings running smoothly or that set the standard for partisan self-education. That's the beauty of it, the diversity of humans makes it possible for everyone to contribute more of what they're best at.
Frankly I think this describes the situation in my country fairly accurately as well, and it's in Europe.
P.S. I still think supporting a party is important, because parties can play a key role in bringing about change.