Honestly its rude to be invited by a country to meet their president who decided to respond to your criticisms of their administration only to not show up and go meet the opposition.
Being invided and then no showing shows complete disregard to basic diplomatic Etiquette since it was a mission to show solidarity against the embargo
Bonus socdems being cringe part 4.5: about another member that didnt show up to the presidential meeting
Show
Deeply unserious people
Not a communist party, yet
Hopefully the more effectively organized left wing can succeed in eventually taking it over, this last wave of elections seems promising to that effect.
:bloomer:
entryism has never worked a single time in history i'm pretty sure
The only time it worked was when Kenyan communists took over a socdem party, and the very big difference between their entryism and virtually every other instance of entryism is that Kenya had banned communist parties, so there was no way to openly organize as communists. After Kenya lifted the ban on communist parties, there was a line struggle between social democrats who wanted the Social Democratic Party to stay a social democratic party and communists who used the Social Democratic Party to get around the ban on communist parties with the communists winning out. Once they kicked the socdems to the curb, they changed the party's name to the Communist Party of Kenya.
Big fucking W for our Kenyan comrades
Not saying to do entryism, I think the org is organically moving left as left folks have more success.
i'm not holding my breath.
I'm definitely coming at this through rose tinted glasses (pardon the pun) because my local chapter are actual communists who disagree with the bernsteinist politics of DSA at large.
I just don't see any alternative orgs to hop onto at the moment tbh.
I mean one of the two current cochairs of DSA is in an ML caucus. It’s not a sure thing they’ll maintain power long enough to corral the libs towards a better politic but it’s not totally outside the realm of possibility.
The trots that infiltrated the DNC thought the same thing back in the day, but look how that turned out.
I guess the question is is the DSA hopelessly captured by the dems or not? I know my local chapter isn't, I know some who are, I'm not sure about nationals.
Personally, I would say it's a completely reformist institution with about as much hopes for achieving socialism as the eurocommunists of the EU do.
I'm not particularly against people being a part of it or other organizations as long as they are gaining good experience and education that they can carry on with them in their life and other more professional parties should try chose to move on.
Well that’s kind of the key isn’t it. DSA’s structure is going to be worthless in any sort of revolutionary crisis. However, communists in DSA have access to an audience of underdeveloped but sometimes open minded libs that are willing to listen and learn. They can help convert them into the kinds of organizers with good politics that will be necessary for any future party to succeed.
Not having a vehicle to do effective political work makes converting those people pointless. You change people's minds by being the party that does effective work. Join a real org.
I disagree that’s it’s pointless. I think it’s a necessary precondition towards building an effective party that actually has a mass membership given the conditions of the US. However if people disagree and want to join PSL or CPUSA instead then they should!
Why is the assumption that a mass movement can only be built through a less radical organization? Radicalism wins the legitimate that draws the masses. PSL's extremely strong line on Palestine, predating 10/7, has lead to an explosion in applications. Our uncompromising anti-imperialism is a strength at connecting with the masses.
And when you convert people within DSA (resisting internal forces to do so) what do they do then? The organization cripples its ability to take action through its structure.
It's not going to become one. The only similar outcome would occur due to a split.
I'd settle for a split that creates a national communist organization
Just join
, why waste your time in an organization whose structure necessitates constant pointless factionalism?
The way they respond to sexual abuse allegations, I've also heard they have a very non-leninist idea of what democratic centralism entails.
Also the ones in my area seem more interested in recruiting than doing literally anything at all outside of recruiting
Honestly how is that? This is always so vague. There was one high profile case that the organization was slow to respond. The accused was suspended and left during their suspension. Then we established a national-level body composed entirely of survivors to investigate and adjudicate these cases. We learned from a structural failure and adjusted how we operate to prevent that from happening again.
Please elaborate.
Are you referring to the Steven Powers case? Because the issues there go further than failing to respond, they straight up used disciplinary measures to protect an abuser. And the Steven powers case isn't the only one.
I will admit my bias on this issue though, I've had several encounters with PSL members where they've disrespected my bodily autonomy in mild-moderate ways to the point that I feel it is a pattern and am more inclined to believe specific reports of abuse.
Can you give me any details on this?
From what I've heard they use the idea of democratic centralism to shut down debate during the democratic process instead of after a decision has been reached democratically.
The result of the internal process around Steven Powers is that it was poorly handled at all levels and structures needed to be put in place to ensure that never happened again. The body I referred to above has final authority on any cases related to sexual impropriety, harassment, and abuse. Comrades are able to directly contact this body if they feel the need to go around intermediate leadership bodies for any reason.
I've been in the party for two years and never seen anything like this. Our practice of democratic centralism is extremely democratic, and even candidates who don't get a formal vote are given significant say in the process. I don't know how else to repudiate something so vague.
What other changes happened beyond being able to go to this body directly and skip intermediate leadership? Because that sounds like a good idea but also completely inadequate on its own.
https://fashbusters.wordpress.com/2020/12/30/psl-stalked-doxxed-harassed-steven-powers-accuser/
this goes into some misuse of democratic centralism in the Steven case. Not sure about the politics of the site but the evidence provided seems pretty damning. You'll note that the issue with the case wasn't a delayed reaction, the response by women in national leadership was pretty overtly anti-feminist.