EDIT: The original article I posted kinda sucked. I’ll keep it here for posterity if people want to read it, but I’ll replace it with a link @RedWizard posted with original resignation letter and the PSL internal response. If you want to read just the resignation letter with the PSL criticisms without any preamble, it is here.
EDIT 2: Here is the leaked PSL internal response.
Comment by @chana in the general thread: (Sorry to copy your comment here but it’s the only comment I’ve seen so far on this and it’s a good way to start off the discussion, along with summer discussion questions I’ll add below)
Comment text
Notable resignation and letter from PSL Central Committee member and related fomenting split in Brooklyn over PSL being run as a bureaucratic clique (which many will already be aware of from speaking with various PSL members trying to do more than participate in protests). PSL is good at specific local levels despite the national level dysfunction, and the vast majority of its membership good comrades. But the criticisms certainly ring true to me and are reasonable to cite as existential flaws. There is a bit of clown nonsense from the top on a regular basis (like the call for a general strike, cited in the resignation letter, lmao that is baby liberal idealism stuff).
If you’re currently unorganized don’t let this stop you from joining, it is more important to be active and learn locally from any non-abusive left space than to do nothing organized.
Discussion Questions:
- There’s a lot of PSL fans or members here so what do you think? Like overall on this news?
- Do the complaints have merit, or not? Do some do, and some don’t? Which ones? – If so, what does this mean for the left in the US? What are the solutions and what is the path from here? – If not, why don’t you think so? And what does it mean for the left in terms of factionalism and splitting?
- Do you still recommend the PSL as an organization to join? What about the DSA? Join the Democratic Party? FRSO?
The question has to be asked, as well, at what point in the history of Marxist-Leninist parties, were those parties simply “micro-parties” comprised and focused on courting “radicals”. I feel like this would have described the burgeoning party in Cuba and even the Bolsheviks at some point in both of their histories. Even the CPCs “mass line” concept is one that very likely came after a dedicated cadre of “radicles” had been formed (just a guess, my knowledge of this history is lacking). The attached article is nothing by cynical dribble, and from what I can tell through skimming this letter, it appears there is very little substance on what exactly is the plan for “what comes next”. Also, it should be worth mentioning that ideological struggle within the party is what comes with building the party, isn’t it? Marxist-Leninist history is awash of internal party conflict, one that builds until there is a clear political, and strategic path that separates one internal group from the other. I don’t really see that here? Just a kind of vague gesture towards “mass work”. No mention of what this new venture will look like structurally, and how that restructuring isolates this new formation from the kinds of issues being alleged here. Also, considering this was directed internally I feel like it says even little. If I was a PSL member who received this, what am I supposed to think coming out of this?
Anyway, apparently, the Central Committee within the PSL responded, and you can read that here: https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2026-06-16-the-psl-letters/#%3A~%3Atext=Response+from+the+Central+Committee
I do not know how Clarion/USU gained access to this internal letter. I couldn’t independently find it anywhere. So take it for what it is. I wrote the above before I even read it.