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.
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.