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.

  • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Watch out! They recommend reading this piece (https://mega.nz/folder/cuMwjRyK#eDPayQSdYFwaCh9qr8zzPw/folder/UjVXDLJA) about the importance of treaty rights and treaty recognition. I guess the natives who wrote it and recommended it are Maki-like settlers? That is a red flag, after all.

    • StalinistSteve@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      7 days ago

      ?? An appeal to the US government is extremely different than the plan for a revolutionary government to take its place. Why do white people think they can speak like this?

      • v_pp@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        7 days ago

        What do you think Socialist Reconstruction is about? Appealing to the bourgeois US government?

        • StalinistSteve@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          7 days ago

          The link they posted was broken, Im assuming they meant the piece in there that is an appeal to the US government to allow more soverignty for the natives through the following and amending of treaties. This is similar as to when hamas advocates for two state, it's not because it is the basis for their liberation, but by advocating for it and always ready to be working for it the hypocrisy and the untenable situation they are in becomes clear.

          Socialist reconstruction is not an appeal to US imperialism and I judge to a different standard