oh look, it's the trot org with an SA scandal that struggles to be different from a reading group
Organized cover up of sexual assault exempts you from left unity
You know what, I'm going to look into this. I don't want to be involved in a org like that.
If they're referring to Philly that chapter did indeed fuck up, but in a more complex way than what these serial abuser orgs like IMT do. The fucking up was in the (unfortunately common) "circle the wagons" response that many orgs have when something may damage their reputation. The stated logic is usually that someone is hurting the cause by making an accusation public, something that usually only happens when the org itself is fucking up and failing to adequately address abuse.
For PSL in Philly the context is a little more complex because the person coming forward was also actually very publicly threatening to doxx a lot of PSL members and far from just those accused. And to doxx them to the FBI, etc. Like the literal thing that orgs use as a false pretext for hiding abuse, only really threatening to do it. And the main issue is that their response ended up being to publicly address the person that came forward and with their name. Just a clusterfuck.
There's a lot more to it and I recommend looking into it because it was a case where a seemingly good faith non-cis-men-led grievance process failed and is an example to critique when supporting your own org's processes.
If you're talking about Philly that wasn't even in the same category as what IMT does.
I'm about to pinch my nose off of my face. PSL is actually gaining ground in Wisconsin and people are still like, "we need three more parties so we can water shit down". I've only been a dirty commie for a couple years now and I'm so tired.
Be fair, IMT have been around for a while. They're the continuation of Militant and while they kinda fucked up strategically back in the day they're dead serious and have more actual real success in organising than I think any other communist organisers have had in imperial core countries post ww2. Unless someone wants to correct me? I can't think of communists taking over many cities quite as thoroughly as they did.
With that said they're Trots and they have an absolutely dogshit party line on China being a "capitalist regime".
Why do people want more parties? Is this some more parties = more democracy nonsense?
IMT are Trots and I have heard exclusively bad things about them from irl comrades. They churn through younger members like a lot of Trot orgs (retention is shit) and every single person tells me some personal story about them or someone they knew facing serious sexual harassment or abuse and having it covered up / getting harassed out of the org when it was brought up.
Why do Trot orgs churn through younger members quickly? Always forcing a lot of work onto them or?
I'd have to partially speculate. They usually stay pretty small, have high turnover, and recruit from college students, so that's the young people churn part regardless of the exact cause.
I can note some personal observations.
-
Putting people at risk for no reason leading to people getting fired or arrested for doing what the org asks them to do. Pointlessly in both cases and due entirely to not really trying to plan actions appropriately. Certain aspects of organizing seem to be deemphasized, deliberately.
-
Internal infighting in the context of weird versions of Demcent. This leads to the meme of splitting but it also comes in the form of people just leaving and looking for a different org and an explanation for why the one they were in sucked. Sometimes those folks leave Trotskyism behind entirely and become very critical of it, instead trying out DemSoc/Maoist/ML thinking. Some still align with Trotskyism but join a non-Trotskyist org to take a break.
-
A lot is probably explained by recruiting from students and just not being very organized. Retention requires slotting people into projects so they can develop leadership skills. Students often leave town in a couple years. Put the two together and you've got a challenge.
-
I think some of the orgs have such ridiculous takes and ridiculous focuses that people eventually just question why they're in it. This is a key part of the awkward Demcent stuff. Folks that are sick of X thing will come together, form a small reform committee within the larger org, and try to push through a reform agenda. Political maneuvering will often alienate that reform group to the point that they leave, both because they now believe the thing they wanted to reform is extremely important but will never happen and because they've lost faith in those particular Demcent structures. This kind of thing happens in every communist party but I think it's particularly acute in a hypercritical tendency. We're all probably familiar with the isolated and anemic Western leftist habit that holds that having the right ideas and disavowing anything with problems is the main focus of being a socialist (as opposed to doing revolutionary work lol). That isn't exclusive to Trots at all, but it is common among their orgs.
I'm sure there's more to it than that but that's my initial take.
-
hadn't heard of Socialist Revolution but that they have all those chapters caught my eye. Well, it's just the IMT. I've been in a room with them once, when I was looking for an org to join. I'm reading here they also deny the Big Bang? that's hilarious. definitely better to be physic crackpots than polanski defenders like ICFI I guess. Please go tweet a picture of the Cosmic Microwave Background at them if you have the time.
Show
