Looks like Socialist Alternative is going to try to make DSA form a workers party by having some of it's members join DSA.
Current DSA by-laws allow for chapters to expel members for being in Democratic Centralist organizations but its not automatic. It also seems like SAlt isn't telling their members to join en-masse, just a few to push for a new workers party at meetings.
My DSA chapter isn't happy about this but it seems like most apprehension seems to be from their experience with individual SAlt members, first and the rudeness of the tactic, second. But there seems to be little consideration of their goals.
To be fair... Democratic Centralism actually prevents the kind of harm this behaviour causes. One of the major reasons ML parties are so resilient while Trots are known for splits left right and centre is because democratic centralism keeps ML parties from doing that shit while the Trot parties splinter over and over and over again over disagreements.
In this case, the threat this poses is that it could cause splits within DSA. That's precisely one thing Democratic Centralism has helped prevent for ML parties.
ML parties/groups are not exactly resilient compared to trots either (Trotskyists use democratic centralism very explicitly too lol, it does not stop splits, if anything it increases them). ML parties in the US have died and split just as much as Trotskyist parties (The New Communist Movement was all ML and it split incredibly badly). Same in the UK, France, Germany, India (especially India, there was a 20 year period of constant splits), the Philippines. The only places they've never split is where one faction got state power and used that state power to maintain unity by forcing the splits out of politics all together or keep the factions bubbling underneath the surface (neither of which is a good thing in the long run and not good for moving to socialism).
I mean just look at this image, which traces the origins of different ml groups in the US between 1956 and 1977. The largest US left group in the sixties, SDS, blew up because of ML infighting among those factions of the organization.
I'm thinking these guys might be up to no good.
There's actually an interesting story behind that one: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-2/cousml-6.htm
That's all just in the US in the years 1956-1975, which were years of internation crisis and splits in ML parties after the death of Stalin and Khreuchev's denunciation of Stalin, which created a huge legitimacy crisis which caused an upsurge in factionalism. Many countries with a strong party were able to weather the storm, but the CPUSA was not and pro-Stalin, ML members like Harry Haywood were purged and a lot of these people got caught up in the second red scare. Those that remained were left to pick up the pieces with no single big party to really orient themselves around, so they formed up into a bunch of tiny groups.
I mean that's the point about state power backing and demcent, without it you split. Why do all the trotskyist groups split, a fragile 4th international with no power and active persecution.
I don't think a single country whose communist party was not in control of the state and suppressed splits has not had at least one severe split.
Not to move the goalpost, but I think there is something to be said about the different kinds of splits. I won't try to argue this here, but I think when people view Trotskyists as "splitters" they're mostly trying to say that Trots will split over very minor things and are being sectarian. The verify the truth of such a claim would require a pretty robust understanding of many Trotskyist splits across time and space.
I see a lot of ML party splits to have been pretty necessary, such as the split between the CP of Great Britan and the CP of Britan or the CPUSA and PCUSA but that's just because I have a much better understanding of the history behind those parties than I do the Trotskyist parties. Maybe the Trotskyist splits are principled as well and this is just inevitable when the party isn't wielding state power, as you put it, but I think this is where MLs at least are coming at least. I hope this doesn't come off as sectarian, I have no beef with any present-day trotskyist parties lol
Yeah idk, you have to go track all the reasons. I'm mainly familiar with the new communist splits and the us trotskyist splits, of which this is a decent graph of their splits, those some groups are also dead now/do not refer to themselves as trotskyist anymore.
Yeah I've seem that map before, it's pretty neat especially how it tries to give some detail on the nature of the splits. If you have any resources on Trotskyism in the US and their splits I'd be pretty interested.
I do have one on Bolivia, Bolivia's Radical Tradition: Permanent Revolution in The Andes, as Bolivian Trotskyists were actually very important to the left movement of the country for a pretty long time.
There's also a satire novel about Trotskyists during the fall of the USSR by Tariq Ali that is very funny if you know the people it's alluding to. It's called Redemption.
Haymarket books has a good three volume series on the history of US Trotskyism .
thank you :chavez-salute:
Most of the shit on that are not parties, let alone ML parties.
"ML splintering caused Students for a Democratic Society and the Committee for a Unified Newark" I wish we could claim that.
Unless, is this graph just meant to show the ML identifying groups in the US? Or is it supposed to show party splits?
This is all known (at least to who made the graph and deemed relevant) ML identifying groups in the US between 1956 and 1977, showing where they form, split, rejoin, etc. Some acted as parties some did not. It's broadly charting the new communist movement, which was for the most part ML(M).
SDS is on there to show the origin of the different ml groups that split from it after 1969. Also if anyone wants to read the absolute insanity that was 60s ML and Maoist sectarianism, check out this recount of the 1969 SDS convention.
Ah, that makes sense.
I agree with your take about state power. I'd also add that a communist party that is constantly splitting will never achieve state power. The successful parties have been ML parties which effectively use DemCen. There are also countless ML parties that are dogshit at DemCen.
Thanks for that image !!
Thanks, it actually needs to be updated as there have been more splits and defunct orgs since. It'd be neat to get it all mapped out.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/new-communist-movement-revolution-sds-maoism here's a really good article on some of those splits.
Yeah but if DSA was DemCent then it wouldn't be a big enough organization worth taking over. 🤷♂️
if DSA was demcent the electoralists and economists would win the majority and DSA would suck lol. that kind of methodology doesnt really work when broadly applied in an org where you have both social democrats and communists
as long as they brand as DSA i think itd still be p big
The process of DSA becoming DemCent would invariably cause splits and plummets in membership because people who signed up to be in DSA did not sign up for a DemCent organization.
It is incredibly naiive to believe that DSAs power was its brand and not its ideology of being a big tent.
The paper membership would be a huge coup for whatever group took over DSA. But, the meetings would just wind up being the 3 Trots discussing their newspaper and issuing condemnations of other microsects.
SAlt is dem cent