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?
IMO this is exactly why we need to dismantle empire first. Any attempt at revolution prior to the US exhausting itself militarily will fail. But if it has its empire collapse and loses most of its military power then we would be able to stand a chance using asymmetric tactics. We have to be at a point where while we are fighting the revolution in the US Cubans can take guantanamo bay back at the same time, and China can take guam, and so on. The US is a global entity so if we try something without that global empire collapsing then it would be easy for it to just destroy us from military bases we can’t touch.
You’re ignoring the issue of domestic fascists in the controlled territories like the fascist movement in Ukraine, which repeatedly tried to carve out its own fiefdom.
Handing off gitmo to Cuba is totally irrelevant. Obviously that should happen, but it’s trivial to this issue.
You misunderstood me. I meant Cuba taking Gitmo by force. Not handing it off to them. They do not need our permission to take their land back. Domestic fascists have nothing to do with the point I’m making here. That’s a seperate issue. What I am pointing out is that the US is a global empire. If a domestic revolution were to ever succeed it would have to coincide with a collapse of US overseas holdings. otherwise the US will use its global forces to suppress the uprising at home. So we would have to rise up while other anti-imperialist powers are already actively keeping the global forces busy. Then it would be OUR job to handle the domestic fascists while they handle the global forces. Does that make it more clear what I mean?
This is moralistic grandstanding. If Cuba wants gitmo back, it’s very unlikely to accomplish that goal without the destruction of the US either by revolution or it simply becoming an impotent failed state, neither of which Cuba can do on its own. The US would sooner burn the entire island down. You’re surely going to reply “that’s what I went on to say in the same comment” but then what is this?
When I said domestic fascists, I didn’t mean domestic to us, I meant domestic to the liberated territories (which is why I mentioned Ukrainian fascists and not Russian fascists).
If you know I had already said that then why did you reply to me saying it lol
I answer that question in the text immediately following what you quoted.
I’m lost. Genuinely don’t even know what point your trying to make. Could you explain specifically what your position is? I don’t even understand what our disagreement is at this point.
I think that I misread CyborbMarx’s comment, so my bad. My position is that national sovereignty is fine for the purpose of anti-colonialism but that ultimately what is required, and what there should be preparation for from an early stage, is a global socialist democracy rather than a bunch of independent nation
statescommunes, and some people lean to heavily on the nationalism thing in a manner that, if taken seriously, would inevitably lead to reactionaries taking power in several of those not nation states.But again, I was talking about this due to a misreading, so I’m not attributing that position to you here, just explaining what I was talking about.
No problem. I got confused cuz I was reading what you said and was like “what did I say?” lol. When I was talking about like Cuba taking back gitmo on their own I wasn’t coming at it from a like “morally the right thing to do is for them to not need permission” I was just coming at it from a like “They literally don’t need us. The US empire is crumbling and they’ll be able to take gitmo back on their own long before we can create a domestic socialist government.” positon.
It was a practicality argument basically. As for your point about the global government I’d agree eventually. It’s just so far off it’s like what form does that even take? It’s hard to know what we’ll be doing after capitalism period. I’m more focused on just ending imperialism and opening the way to whatever future comes next.
I see American imperialism as this arresting force on global societal development. Anytime someone tries something experimental America sabotages it. So to even figure out where we need to go we need to get rid of empire first. Then we’ll have to do a lot of experimenting and figuring out and eventually I’d hope we reach a point of having a global government.
I do think there will always be a need for localism. Like how the USSR had local soviets. Local communities have their own unique problems and should have the freedom to solve them on their own to a degree. I’d envision a global government as not being much more than like something that handles the big stuff. Prevents wars, protects the environment, ensures no regions are suffering in poverty, everyone has basic needs met, etc. And then the more detailed stuff is handled at a local level and really heavily tailored to the material conditions of that locality. But when it comes to actually organizing now and what we need to do today I really just think we need to be accelerating imperial collapse. That is step 1 of any future plan. And yeah there will probably be a lot of chaos and fascism and reactionary stuff too. But we’ll get through it.