cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6501985 > 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.
I’m writing this as a response to the linked thread and realized it should be it’s own post.
I’ll be brief: My DSA chapter is in the planning stages of what we will focus on next year. We are a smaller chapter so we are working to pick programs that we can realistically do with a handful of people.
I read a lot on here about how orgs such as this one are doing everything wrong… so is there a step-by-step guide to doing the “right” thing?
Potential programs we may pursue next year (these are being put up to a vote in a few weeks):
A internal membership development program. Lots of political education including a reading group for the new translation of Capital Vol. 1
An agitprop program. We will teach each other how to work Canva/GIMP, design flyers, posters and other media and start being more outgoing around the area with our advertising.
A “mass line” project where we plan to hold community “listening sessions” in the more impoverished parts of town.
A Crisis Pregnancy Center awareness campaign. We would point out these centers around town, agitate against them through awareness campaigns and maybe lobby to get them banned in our area?
When I was in the organization I found that their internal organization was genuinely horrific and it was no surprise that they could barely do anything except glomming onto Democrat campaigns. You should focus on identifying who your members are, where they work, what they want to do, and what skills they have and how you can get them to be active. Train them to be semi-cadre who actually have a degree of discipline, education, and investment in the organization. Then you should work with them to identify and solve the issues they face, especially if they’re genuine proletarians.
We’re trying. One of the big pushes we have is a member survey that asks these kinds of questions. Like most DSA chapters we’re looking at 90% of our dues-paying members being “inactive” as in they never show up to meetings or events. I want to get more of these people active or figure out why we never see them at meetings, socials, etc.
That sounds like a good start. When I ran the membership committee in my area we ran some surveys and it was sort of helpful to identify the structural barriers to participation.
Making an effort to just reach out and talk to less involved members on a regular basis can be surprisingly effective too. I wanted to do more of it but nobody really wanted to pursue it with me so it died.
The solution to that is to have a committee of people call these people and schedule 1-on-1s. Follow the standard organizing conversation steps:
figure out why they joined and get them to rant/vent with you. This is 80% them talking and 80% of the conversation.
pivot the conversation to actually making a plan to fix the problem. Who is the enemy? How can we beat them.
get them to commit to taking the first step to solving the problem: go to an actual meeting.
make sure they understand this will take their time and effort.
ALWAYS follow up with them later to ensure they don’t forget.
The Socialist Platonic Dating Committee. I’ve done it, it works. For paper members its still all online stuff. Meeting them IRL breaks that reality for them.
When I was in the organization I found that their internal organization was genuinely horrific and it was no surprise that they could barely do anything except glomming onto Democrat campaigns. You should focus on identifying who your members are, where they work, what they want to do, and what skills they have and how you can get them to be active. Train them to be semi-cadre who actually have a degree of discipline, education, and investment in the organization. Then you should work with them to identify and solve the issues they face, especially if they’re genuine proletarians.
We’re trying. One of the big pushes we have is a member survey that asks these kinds of questions. Like most DSA chapters we’re looking at 90% of our dues-paying members being “inactive” as in they never show up to meetings or events. I want to get more of these people active or figure out why we never see them at meetings, socials, etc.
That sounds like a good start. When I ran the membership committee in my area we ran some surveys and it was sort of helpful to identify the structural barriers to participation.
Making an effort to just reach out and talk to less involved members on a regular basis can be surprisingly effective too. I wanted to do more of it but nobody really wanted to pursue it with me so it died.
The solution to that is to have a committee of people call these people and schedule 1-on-1s. Follow the standard organizing conversation steps:
The Socialist Platonic Dating Committee. I’ve done it, it works. For paper members its still all online stuff. Meeting them IRL breaks that reality for them.