Strategy Question nº 1

[Guardia Rossa]

I have recently entered in contact with a group known as Esquerda Marxista (Marxist Left) and have all intentions of joining it, if only to gain some practical experience on movement building. However, I had a discussion with some of it's militants about strategy, and would like to know what you think.

I had my conception of a communist organization: only communists, no reformists, acting as the vanguard of the proletariat, drawing from their discontent. The Esquerda Marxista, however, were more interested in entering the partly-revisionist party called PSOL - Partido Socialismo e Liberdade (Socialism and Liberty/Freedom Party) (It's actually a trotskyst-morenist party, but in practice it's a USPD or a Menshevik party - with the right section bigger or as large as the left section) in order to steer it leftwards.

You see, PSOL has some popularity, as it stood as an viable alternative during the Presidential elections of Brazil (Even if they got little votes - I won't enter in details, the post is big enough) and they believe they are capable of radicalizing it. (It's NOT entryism, they plan to really build the party, but leftwards.)

So, in your opinion, which works out best between these two strategies, or what works even better than these? I accept any contributions, provided it's not an one-liner saying how you know much more than me, blablabla, go read Marx, blablabla.

PS: If you are reading this, provide an answer because seemingly everyone ignored the question.
Should communist parties work alone to act as vanguard or join reformist organizations to radicalize them further?

[motion denied]

It's valuable to say that Esquerda Marxista is the Brazilian branch of IMT. CyM might be of help about it.

Anyway, your conception of communist organization is correct, but in the sense that it is very broad. Why not join PCB or PSTU? Heck even PCdoB fancy themselves as communists.

I don't think PSOL was a viable alternative at all. The worst that could happen to them was winning. Genro's only line of reasoning was common sense left progressive discourse about LGBT (democratic rights) and big-bad finance capital. I mean, they weren't text-book Comintern like PCB (Build popular power), PSTU (For a workers' government without bosses) or PCO (Dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, lol), but regular social-democrats whining about the 1%. They're still into Programa Democrático Popular, whether they admit it or not. "Ethics in politics" lmao.


Okay, I lost focus. It's cool that EM wants to shift PSOL leftwards, but I repeat myself: how? Why are they capable of radicalizing it? What will they do differently from LSR (CWI branch*) or Insurgência (USFI branch*) or MES (observers in USFI*)?



*so you gringos know what we're talking about

[Guardia Rossa]

I have no idea on their tactics, only on their general strategy. I do know there is some degree of infighting in the PSOL, including on the issue of whether to accept EM joining the PSOL or not.

I wouldn't join PCdoB PSTU or PSOL because they are not vanguard parties of the proletariat. I doubt PCB or PCO are this too. I'd rather join PCR, even if they are annoying Hoxhaists.

[Rafiq]

I would say join them and within the framework of this group, find people who have similar views as you do - that is to say, find committed radicals so that you can form a 'group within a group'. In practical terms what Leftists should be doing today is not really different from reformists, but it's still important to maintain distinction. You should attempt to influence the course of their actions if you could find others who share your views.

[Aslan]

good luck I suppose is all I can say!

[Guardia Rossa]

Please focus on the question, not in the back story: Working inside reformist groups or working alone.

PS: THE COMMUNIST FUCKING PARTY.

[motion denied]

Working alone is not effective at all. It doesn't mean you should join the first thing that comes to you though.

But if EM seems like a good group to you, if they do good things in your area, I say you should consider joining them, yeah.

[The Idler]

Hmm entryism, movement-building or vanguardism? How about an democratic transparent party strictly for uncompromising revolutionary socialism which is not and never plans on being substitutionist? Not a cadre group and not a vanguard and not a group looking to strike deals with groups with different objectives.

[Guardia Rossa]

It is NOT entryism, in case you didn't notice. They have no objective of growing their organization at the expense of the Party, they wish to push the party leftwards.

How about something communist, and not reformist, for once?

[The Idler]

It is NOT entryism, in case you didn't notice. They have no objective of growing their organization at the expense of the Party, they wish to push the party leftwards.

How about something communist, and not reformist, for once?

Ok if it is not entryism and you agree with PSOL then just join PSOL.

[Decolonize The Left]

So, in your opinion, which works out best between these two strategies, or what works even better than these? I accept any contributions, provided it's not an one-liner saying how you know much more than me, blablabla, go read Marx, blablabla.

PS: If you are reading this, provide an answer because seemingly everyone ignored the question.
Should communist parties work alone to act as vanguard or join reformist organizations to radicalize them further?

Diversity of tactics is perhaps the most paramount strength and obstacle for the left. It is a paradox we need to overcome. I suggest you adopt any and all tactics you have the energy for, assuming that you can engage each one sufficiently and with sustained strength.

In more theoretical terms: it the moment, it matters little whether communist parties work alone or join reformist organizations to radicalize them. What matters is that action is being taken. The left is too fragmented and weak to debate what tactics are better than others, because this is energy spent against each other and not against the enemy. It is only when there is a sustained and global movement against capital that we can begin to dialogue over what course to take--until then, there is no course other than resistance.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Communist Platform, of which I am a member, is presently doing 'not entryism' (let's call it constructive entryism, as opposed to predatory entryism) in the Socialist Party, which I presume is a bit more socialdemocratic than the PSOL. I am not myself engaged in this activity. We frequently encounter the criticism that it makes no sense to try and build socialism on capitalist quicksand instead of on socialist foundations -- which is supposed to be easier. But if we look at organisations that have tried to do this, in the Netherlands, they've had between 100-200 members since the 1980s. I think ultimately both approaches aren't going to be optimal.

[Thirsty Crow]

You see, PSOL has some popularity, as it stood as an viable alternative during the Presidential elections of Brazil (Even if they got little votes - I won't enter in details, the post is big enough) and they believe they are capable of radicalizing it. (It's NOT entryism, they plan to really build the party, but leftwards.)

So, in your opinion, which works out best between these two strategies, or what works even better than these? I accept any contributions, provided it's not an one-liner saying how you know much more than me, blablabla, go read Marx, blablabla.

It depends on what you want to do really. But just this brief comment, I don't get it how this doesn't constitute entryism? It's a basically entryist tactic, to collectively join a larger workers' party and work within it, either as a "mole" who expects being thrown out but leaving with more recruits for their communist organization (which was the idea of Trots here where I live), or actually expecting to build that organization and steer other people to the left.

If it's not entryism, that means this Marxist Left would renounce even informal faction status, as an intra-party group with specific views.

So, what you want to do? I know it seems weird, but this is really crucial. If you want to join an organization with some established contacts among the unions and the working class, and further work with these people on what seems as basically an electoralist basis (maybe also helping out workers and other folks gain small gains in the meantime ), then go ahead. I don't think that such a basis can have an effect of escalating class struggle beyond some point when it is recuperated (and mostly it is recuperated and redirected into election of honest social democratic politicians; see SYRIZA).

[Homo Songun]

'entryism' and 'not-entryism', at least how you describe it, are the same thing. That is fine if you think it is a good strategy to win.

I think joining a group solely to build up experience is a really bad idea. You shouldn't agree 100% with a group's ideology, but there has to be some common ground.

Also, if the past is any guide, Morenoism, Grantism etc., are branches of Trotskyism that are particularly prone to endless fracturing and fusing. It will likely take up a large part of your time.

[Art Vandelay]

The Communist Platform, of which I am a member, is presently doing 'not entryism' (let's call it constructive entryism, as opposed to predatory entryism) in the Socialist Party, which I presume is a bit more socialdemocratic than the PSOL. I am not myself engaged in this activity. We frequently encounter the criticism that it makes no sense to try and build socialism on capitalist quicksand instead of on socialist foundations -- which is supposed to be easier. But if we look at organisations that have tried to do this, in the Netherlands, they've had between 100-200 members since the 1980s. I think ultimately both approaches aren't going to be optimal.

And what your organization is doing amounts to sacrificing the political independence of the proletarian class. It's an expression of a political line about as right wing as that of the IMT, and is a strategy that has been employed over and over without success by those who refuse to seriously engage with the history and lessons of the Marxist movement. When something looks like a social-democrat and organizes like a social-democrat, it doesn't take much logical inference to figure out what is going on, and it certainly doesn't matter if the flag they wave is red.

[Homo Songun]

Should communist parties work alone to act as vanguard or join reformist organizations to radicalize them further?

The traditional answer has usually been, "it depends on the concrete conditions where you organize."

In practice, it hasn't turned out very well. The KKE (the Greek party) has put out some compelling research arguing that, of the really big 20th century parties that started out as splits or fusions of mainline social-democracy, all rotted from the inside under the influence of Eurocommunism or other revisionistic tendencies. I have no idea where the article is but I probably read it somewhere on their English website, inter.kke.gr .

As for Trotskyism's "French Turn" and so forth ... the results speak for themselves IMO.

[Decolonize The Left]

And what your organization is doing amounts to sacrificing the political independence of the proletarian class. It's an expression of a political line about as right wing as that of the IMT, and is a strategy that has been employed over and over without success by those who refuse to seriously engage with the history and lessons of the Marxist movement. When something looks like a social-democrat and organizes like a social-democrat, it doesn't take much logical inference to figure out what is going on, and it certainly doesn't matter if the flag they wave is red.

I disagree (and I am not a member of any of the parties in question) as I think your argument is based on false premises.

There is no such thing as "the political independence of the working class." Politics under the boot of capital is capitalist politics; political independence only results from an overthrow of capitalism and is not possible otherwise. Therefore, there is no "political independence" to be sacrificed. What you are spouting here is pure idealism.

What matter is action and a diversity thereof: a diversity of tactics. Your post above brings us no closer to the end of capitalism, and, on the contrary, in fact mires us in inter-party disputes that achieve nothing and serve only to weaken the resistance to capital.

I think it would be far wiser to say to Tim Cornelis (as I will now), "hey, I disagree with your tactics but acknowledge that they are tactics employed in the effort against capital and towards the liberation of all peoples. Therefore, I wish you luck and let me know if I can be of support as I engage in my own tactics." If you say this then you support your comrade and we all get closer to victory. If you say what you said above, then you put down your brother in arms in the name of false idols.

[The Idler]

By all means see what works but it is a false dichotomy between

• "entryism"/ "constructive entryism" / not really entryism
• vanguard

These are not the only choices. Although I would say "entryism" - where a minority join a majority only to try and shift its opinions, it never works.


So if you join an organisation who will not let you control it from the outset, or whose leadership are going in another direction, you're going to have a bad time, if you want to hand over your money and time to PSOL (or PSOL via EM) then go for it.

[cyu]

Should communist parties work alone to act as vanguard or join reformist organizations to radicalize them further?

Sometimes you have to go it alone because your friends are too scared to follow. Sometimes you have to help your friends. Ultimately, communists have to join society in order to radicalize the society, but never let society water you down.

[Guardia Rossa]

By all means see what works but it is a false dichotomy between

• "entryism"/ "constructive entryism" / not really entryism
• vanguard

These are not the only choices.

And I fucking wrote this at my first post. Yet...

Ultimately, communists have to join society in order to radicalize the society, but never let society water you down.

I didn't understand the "join society" part... well, do you suggest we exclude ourselves from society at some moment?

Also, if the past is any guide, Morenoism, Grantism etc., are branches of Trotskyism that are particularly prone to endless fracturing and fusing. It will likely take up a large part of your time.

Morenism is, on practical terms, equal to social-democracy in my nation. Moreno is right out.