PSL Elitism

[Agnapostate]

I wanted to share a little incident that happened today, that’s hardly a huge deal but still reinforces my judgments about the petty factionalism of the so-called “progressive” movement.

I attended a conference that the PSL was hosting on socialism. To give a little background, I’ve been participating with the PSL and ANSWER for about two and a half years, but never formally joined the party because of my non-Leninism. When I arrived, I was a social democrat, and I became an anarchist about two years ago. There’s been talk of me joining, but the leader of our branch, who knows me best, emphasized to me that the party wasn’t much for “individualism,” which I could easily interpret as meaning that strict adherence to democratic centralism and the party line was necessary. So I could never see my aspirations developing in that kind of environment, but I do want to build bridges with the activist left, so I’ve been hanging around.

Today’s conference was well-attended and relatively productive, and during the course of it, I hung out with a friend of mine who’s an Iraq war veteran and anti-war activist, and he told me that there was going to be a party at his house after the conference for a few people, and invited me to come. I’ve hung out at his house for anti-war stuff in the past, so I agree, and the conference continues. This guy then slips out during the closing remarks to take care of something.

So after the conference is over, I run into the branch leader, who smilingly asks me if I’ve become a Marxist-Leninist. I laughed and told him “not quite,” which dims his smile a bit. This leader underestimates the firmness of my convictions (possibly because he knows of my earlier transition from social democracy), and has urged me to read a small chapter “rebutting” anarchism in a PSL handbook, as though there isn’t a sizable literature of anarchist responses to Leninist criticisms.

At this point, he mutters to me, “Anyway, there’s going to be some stuff that we’re doing after this, but that’s really kind of party only.”

“What stuff?”

“Just that some of us are getting together later, but it’s really only the PSL that’s doing it.”

“Well, I’m going to [anti-war vet friend’s] thing.”

“Yeah…that’s really going to be PSL only.”

“But he invited me.”

“Well, it’s really a PSL thing. We’ll have a more open thing next time.”

“But it’s his house and he invited me.”

“Well, he agreed to host it for us. So come if you want, but you’re not invited.”

This strikes me as kind of ridiculous, but I can’t quickly confer with the host, since he’d left early. So I quickly tell a few other people what happened. A couple of them are on my side, amazed that the leader would “uninvite” me to an event that he wasn’t hosting. A few are just silent, which I consider homage to the fact that democratic centralism prevents healthy contradiction of a Leninist leader’s decisions. One guy flat-out tells me that he’s not going to go against the leader, and tells me that my exclusion is a necessary condition for maintaining an atmosphere of “professional revolutionaries.”

I ended up not going, but all of this is idiotic, in my opinion. What annoyed me the most was not my non-attendance, but the fact that this leader is so audacious that he thinks he can tell me not to go to an event hosted by someone else that I was personally invited by and have hung out with before at the same location. The host also lives with a few other people; is the PSL leader going to kick them out when he gets to the house? Somehow, I don’t think that’s a condition the host agreed to. I can see not going if it was at the leader’s house, or at the PSL office, or even in a public location where I could *technically* show up if I wanted to, but telling me not to come to someone else’s house when the host, who knows me outside of the party, invited me?

This leader has also done this kind of stuff in the past. I showed up at the office once when I mistakenly thought there was a meeting, and after I was there for a few minutes, he gives me some not-so-subtle hints to get out because they were “closing up.” He says this while looking at his computer, not budging a single inch. After I leave, I still see the lights on in the office.

Anyway, as a result, now I feel unwelcome and obviously I’m not going to impose my presence on people, creating a hostile environment or uncomfortable scene. But this is really the kind of petty sectarian infighting that damages activism, in my opinion. I’ll continue working with this guy, but isn’t this a good way to simply drive away sympathizers?

Am I in the right here, or is the PSL leader?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well that does sound odd. They probably wanted to informally talk shit about other local activists and were worried about it getting out:lol:. or maybe it was reverse psycology - to make you so tantilized about their secret meeting that you would join.

But seriously, I think there is a place for some secrecy - like if they were meeting to discuss specific strategies around things or their own assessments of how things are going in various movements. In that case in order to have an open internal discussion and free exchange, I think it's reasonable to want things to stay "inside the room" since they would not be speaking for the organization as a whole. Any group from Marxist and anarchist to a public school faculty does this with varying degrees of formality.

But if that was the case, it would be best to be up-front about the reasons for having a private gathering and I think you would have understood. It's also odd because of the whole invite/uninvited thing. But beyond that I don't want to comment or speculate about the internal workings of their group because I only know them from the outside. I agree that in general, that secrecy that is uncalled for and not easily and reasonably explained is troubling on the left at a time when we should be trying to be as open as we can to all the new people being radicalized by the economic crisis.

[Agnapostate]

I understand the whole "secret meeting" thing. I've never shown up at party-specific conferences, since I'm a non-member, despite the fact that I've been volunteering and donating for two and a half years.

What really irked me was not the fact that they were having a private meeting (though I still would have considered the explicit statement "you're not invited," said loudly in the middle of the room with a few people still there rather impolite), but that I was issued an "unvitation" from an event that I'd been invited to by the host, who knows me personally outside of any party function. It takes a damn massive ego and a lot of audacity to do that.

[Robocommie]

I don't really know any of the people involved, obviously, but this branch leader sounds like a massive prick, going solely off of your description. It almost sounds like he's got some kind of problem with you personally.

Mind you, that's my reaction going off of incomplete understanding of the circumstances.

[Agnapostate]

Apart from the incidents I've mentioned, we've really had no problems with each other. I can't speak much about wider party opinion of him because of my detached involvement, though.

[Il Medico]

Sounds like a prick.

[Rusty Shackleford]

maybe the meeting was going to involve more internal matters. yes, its kind of rude that someone else uninvited you from a party that someone else invited you to.

have a chat with him and your friend? it could have been a mistake.

[Kléber]

Is it so hard for the boss and his sycophant to get laid, they have to "uninvite" competition from their party? Democratic centralism is about maintaining unity on key political issues, not giving a theological excuse for the leadership to pull dick moves on comrades who have paid their dues for 2 years. You can't take someone's money, have them do political work, but then refuse to let them fraternize with the other comrades and participate as a full member. This is a classic bureaucratic tactic taken straight out of bourgeois cubicle office culture. Now if you protest or complain about it, you look like the antagonist. I'd say ask your friend what was up, because he probably wouldn't have invited you if they were doing a study group on "why anarchism sucks," but don't act offended or mistreated or say anything negative about this "leader" because that will make you appear "individualist."

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Sounds like a massive douche

the real question is that why is it, that despite the best efforts of so many good revolutionaries, parties always seem to turn into little clubs for a few dicks to throw their weight around

[bailey_187]

Sounds like you should probably become a Marxist-Leninist then.

[Wanted Man]

Well, if the intention was simply to have a party, then the branch leader guy was in the wrong, in my opinion. Of course, you need a bit of privacy when having an informal gathering with other members, but I see no reason why an active sympathiser should not be included on this. It's also unhealthy for internal culture when members are scared of a leader.

If they wanted to discuss internal matters that non-members should not hear, then it should have been done at an actual meeting. Also, in that case, if one person makes his house available to hold the meeting, it is right that the group decides who is invited (members and perhaps trusted sympathisers), not the host on his own. But for a party, that's a bit different.

I'd say these people should get some schooling about how the organisation works.

[gorillafuck]

The branch leader sounds like a stupid fuckhead.

[Raúl Duke]

Am I in the right here, or is the PSL leader? You are right, the PSL Leader is an asshole.


the real question is that why is it, that despite the best efforts of so many good revolutionaries, parties always seem to turn into little clubs for a few dicks to throw their weight around I've been getting the slight impression that some organizations tend to become like this.


Is it so hard for the boss and his sycophant to get laid, they have to "uninvite" competition from their party? lol


There’s been talk of me joining, but the leader of our branch, who knows me best, emphasized to me that the party wasn’t much for “individualism,” which I could easily interpret as meaning that strict adherence to democratic centralism and the party line was necessary.

So after the conference is over, I run into the branch leader, who smilingly asks me if I’ve become a Marxist-Leninist. I laughed and told him “not quite,” which dims his smile a bit.

This stuff reminds me of behaviors inside cults or something of the kind.

[manic expression]

I think it's premature to make any conclusions without hearing the other side of the story. There could have been a lot of reasons why that decision was made, it sounds like someone thought it was an open social thing when it eventually ended up being a party-only event...which would be just a miscommunication. But again, without the other side of the story I think it's unfair to judge at this point. Just my $0.02.

[Q]

Wanted Man and Raúl Duke have said what I wanted to say. This is ridiculous sectarian bullshit and a great way to scare away sympathisers.

Gangsterio also makes a good point and it points to dynamic of party officials being on their spot for many years, becoming bureaucrats of the worst kind. This is a reason why I defend the need to change fulltimers every now and then. But the reason is also one of education I think. A trade union activist once told me that an organizer is only a good organizer if he can make himself redundant, so that other people can pick up his work even if he is gone. Many "leaders" of the left splinters don't realise this vital point and see themselves as "educators" for the members beneath them. In that logic it makes sense that members don't speak against their leaders and that differing opinions are inherently seen as a threat.

[manic expression]

In that logic it makes sense that members don't speak against their leaders and that differing opinions are inherently seen as a threat.
This cannot be applied to the PSL at all. As a candidate member, I had disagreements with some very high-ranking members and my positions were respected to the fullest extent, and they were treated on their own merits. The PSL is also very good at getting new members into positions of responsibility rather quickly (far quicker than any other party I've seen). It's probably one of the reasons why the PSL has grown so fast over the past few years.

[Wanted Man]

This stuff reminds me of behaviors inside cults or something of the kind.

Really? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Seems more likely to me that this person is just a bit over-eager or doesn't get "it". Cultism in political organisations is quite a bit more serious than just some guy having unrealistic expectations about recruiting you. And I'm quite convinced that the PSL is nothing like a "cult" at all.

I guess it's more that the person who does this has the wrong attitude. It sometimes happens that you get to work with sympathisers who are on a completely different line. In that case, they usually know enough about their own ideology that some pamphlet from your organisation isn't going to convince them. They are more likely to feel patronised. For that reason, I'm never a fan of those "What's Wrong With Anarchism/Leninism?" booklets that some organisations on the left use.

[Q]

This cannot be applied to the PSL at all. As a candidate member, I had disagreements with some very high-ranking members and my positions were respected to the fullest extent, and they were treated on their own merits. The PSL is also very good at getting new members into positions of responsibility rather quickly (far quicker than any other party I've seen). It's probably one of the reasons why the PSL has grown so fast over the past few years.
I don't know if this an general image of the PSL, I just don't know the party enough for that. I was basing my comments on the experiences of the OP. It may very well be only a local branch phenomenon, I was just pointing out some general mechanisms.

[Raúl Duke]

Really? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Seems more likely to me that this person is just a bit over-eager or doesn't get "it". Cultism in political organisations is quite a bit more serious than just some guy having unrealistic expectations about recruiting you. And I'm quite convinced that the PSL is nothing like a "cult" at all.

I guess it's more that the person who does this has the wrong attitude. It sometimes happens that you get to work with sympathisers who are on a completely different line. In that case, they usually know enough about their own ideology that some pamphlet from your organisation isn't going to convince them. They are more likely to feel patronised. For that reason, I'm never a fan of those "What's Wrong With Anarchism/Leninism?" booklets that some organisations on the left use.

Only a little bit (after all, it isn't an account on what the PSL is like in the inner cadre circles so who knows besides insiders?) and considering that I live in Florida with a lack of revolutionary groups I'm not used to that kind of behavior ("oh, are you ready to join the "true ideology" and become a real member of our group" reminds me of christian evangelists) and personally find it off-putting if I ever encounter it in real life.

[manic expression]

Only a little bit (after all, it isn't an account on what the PSL is like in the inner cadre circles so who knows besides insiders?)
"Inner cadre circles"? Look, sure, if you're not a member you won't know what the internal meetings are like because they're for members. That's basically how every communist party has been run since 1903. But honestly, anyone who thinks the PSL is insular needs to go to a branch office, meet the people there, go to public meetings and see how it all works. Really, it's a party that's very open and welcoming...you don't grow as fast as the PSL has without being a welcoming organization.

[Rusty Shackleford]

"Inner cadre circles"? Look, sure, if you're not a member you won't know what the internal meetings are like because they're for members. That's basically how every communist party has been run since 1903. But honestly, anyone who thinks the PSL is insular needs to go to a branch office, meet the people there, go to public meetings and see how it all works. Really, it's a party that's very open and welcoming...you don't grow as fast as the PSL has without being a welcoming organization.


absofuckinglutely. i went down to the nearest branch and they are all great people. when its party business being discussed, they just go into a room or something, they dont tell me to leave the building. they were also very open about things but i am fine with them having internal matters for members only.

[Agnapostate]

To reiterate again, I'm fine with their private meetings restricted to party members and completely understand that, though I still don't think it's right that a two and a half year participant is treated like a complete outsider. What irks me is not that, since I've always respected those boundaries, but that I was uninvited to an ostensibly informal event that the host, a personal friend/acquaintance completely outside of the party, had asked me to come to.

[The Grey Blur]

It's Kronstadt all over again.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Cue lame leftist jokes about "purging".

[The Red Next Door]

I am sure, not all PSL leaders are like that, and they are very nice and welcoming. I have went to one of their meetings and it was awesome, i am going to the conference in chicago on the 15

[Tyrlop]

I am sure, not all PSL leaders are like that, and they are very nice and welcoming. I have went to one of their meetings and it was awesome, i am going to the conference in chicago on the 15
BUT THATS STRAW HAT DAY! how can you go to a conference on one of the most important days of the year? :crying:

[Robocommie]

I am sure, not all PSL leaders are like that, and they are very nice and welcoming. I have went to one of their meetings and it was awesome, i am going to the conference in chicago on the 15

Yeah I want to state that my comments about this guy in Agnapostate is just going off of his description. I don't know any of the LA PSL people. The PSL folks I have had contact with are in the Midwest, and they're all really nice, friendly, down-to-Earth people.