I think that you should begin organizing and flexing the muscles anyway, because nobody is going to save you except for yourself; and waiting for other people to do the work that is necessary is not a sensible position. Previously, I would have incredibly highly endorsed the PSL because it was a good way to go from zero to hero in terms of organizing a communist movement; but now I feel like it’s the task of those of us in the struggle to reconstitute a new party, and that means that we can’t rely on simply waiting for something to arise and sweep us off our feet. I think you should engage or keep engaging locally, and actively help to foster a local ML pre-party cadre organization or league, and then help to ensure it can help lead to a larger national movement overall down the line

No. I honestly think the first good one we get with splinter out of the DSA over a very serious issue like the spartacus league. If the DSA ever achieves significant electoral power and starts making reprehensible decisions that is.

There are many. They’re all small, which is basically true by default for all communist orgs in the US.

I know some local ones that are small and have good political programs. As for the parties with national reach, they all are imperfect, and some are beyond salvageable.

Someone gave me the advice to watch what the party actually does rather than seeking complete ideological match, which seems sound. As one keeps reading and developing their thinking, even a perfect match today won’t be in sync tomorrow. There will always be points of disagreement and debate, and how the organization handles those is telling.

Some demand more ‘alignment’ with interpretations of events and theory, which in practice means less critical thinking. Sadly, it’s a long history of excommunication and splits. Hyper-fixation on true interpretations of 1917 and the years that followed in Russia. That stuff matters, but a lot has happened since and I’d argue the present matters more .

Now are there any groups that are doing effective work? Yes, but it’s not enough yet.

I would look at Minneapolis and the coalition work to build the strike against Metro Surge as an interesting case example. From the success side, they used a coalition of diverse interests to call the government’s bluff and made them change tactics and put economic pressure that changed federal policy and leadership. On the opportunities side, extending the the political thrust of that movement was maybe not a possibility because of the consciousness level, differences of opinion, and lack of cohesive positive aims within then coalition.

I quite like SRA because it seems more open and solidarity focused. Great connections are possible through it and I trust those people, but it’s explicitly not a political program or group. Having a common interest that’s not just a party political program leads to way more interesting conversations.

If any were to grow large enough to become relevant they would combust due to internal controversies or division over semantics and minutiae pretending to be meaningful discourse. Like imagine if this place were a real org and we fractured every time we talked about outdoor cars or some stupid bullshit.

Deeply jealous

It’s good to remember we aren’t purely failing ourselves, many people that have tried to organize in a serious way on the left have been killed or imprisoned. After 2020 there were numerous people that were seen speaking at rallies and protests trying to organize that were later killed or went missing. And with the advanced indoctrination in the west it’s a massive uphill battle, but I think people are getting more serious and starting to let go of the old ideas about the state. Organizing is another thing, most people don’t seem to know how to organize for things outside of social media, and you’re not going to post about an action to disrupt the US war machine on instagram.

No, their politics are genuinely largely revolutionary and they uphold revolutionary politics, that’s awesome, its just that the party’s method of leadership and democracy have significant failings that prevent it from allowing the membership to enact any kind of popular will or vision. This stifling of internal debate and discussion has had negative ramifications for a long time despite the overall structure being largely positive and progressive; but I wouldn’t mark them as social Democrats. I think that term would lose a lot of meaning if you did and flatten it into something it isn’t.