The task of illustrating why Brian Becker and PSL’s practice isn’t right for the communist movement is different from the one of illustrating why Joe Sims and the CPUSA’s practice isn’t right for it. Unlike with the CPUSA, the ways that PSL reinforces the Democratic Party’s dominance aren’t obvious on the surface. Its leaders don’t call for voting for Biden, like
Real “everyone’s revisionist except me” vibes with this article. Disappointed, Rainer. You usually produce good analysis but I think your argument is the one flawed here. We could debate each and every point you made (I don’t disagree with all of them btw) but the key issue for me, however, is instead how you are approaching this - throwing PSL under the bus, which is the most effective left-revolutionary org in the USA right now, rather than simply providing comradely constructive criticism. Good luck targeting libertarians rather than liberals. In my experience, they are not as anti-imperialist as they initially seem, but rather are just more pragmatic / cautious imperialists. I am fine working with anyone who can be worked with to advance progress and anti-imperialism, but most MLs in the West were liberals (not right-libertarians) first for a reason and so it is still warranted in my view to target them. Bernie is a disappointment for sure, as well, but him becoming President would have absolutely still been good for our movement and denying this as an ML is definitely ultra-leftist territory. I would lastly point out that the relationship between reform and revolution is DIALECTICAL and MLs need not approach it as either/or but rather should approach it as both/and. Reformist projects within PSL are acceptable as long as the org remains revolutionary, as well, which they have. Again - disappointed by this article, Rainer. I hope you reflect on this and do some self-criticism.
Russiagate changed the situation. Liberals are no longer the group with the most revolutionary potential, because they’ve been brought over to the neocon side. That was already true by 2020, as what remained of the Sanders base was largely these supporters of his who lacked integrity and chose opportunism. A party that makes itself dependent on this group, so much that it denounces Russia’s anti-fascist war to appease that group, can’t become the vanguard. It can only maintain the illusion of being effective, via the great funds it has to look like it’s actually doing something. The more the class struggle escalates, the more you will be disappointed. More actors are being forced to pick sides, and many aren’t loyal to the side you feel loyal to at this moment.
On a second read-through, I'd like to see further explanation of your allegation that "The organizers of the PSL’s March 18th ANSWER rally sought to discredit RAWM, based on Black Agenda Report’s radical liberal argument about how an anti-imperialist coalition shouldn’t be supported if it doesn’t meet some ill-defined diversity quota."
You'd know full goddamn well if you'd read *either BAR article* that came up about RAWM that what was being called to attention wasn't some pithily-penned 'diversity quota', it was about the kept receipts on the Mises Caucus that you totally ignore to cape for these larval fascists. You are literally lying in bed with the likes of Jeremy Kauffman(https://archive.ph/KD0Ip) and Angela McArdle(https://reason.com/2022/05/29/mises-caucus-takes-control-of-libertarian-party/), trying to tell people you're the most principled one in the room.
I consider you deeply unserious to the point of parody, likely to get people killed, and incapable of performing *any* kind of self-crit to change this tack.
one of the first in depth commentaries I heard about the SMO was Brian Becker when I was still a fan of his podcast. he said "multipolarity was what caused World War 1" and he immediately lost a fan. For someone who I thought seemed quite intelligent that phrase was such mindless garbage that I was astonished. Then I found out that him and his cohort that started the PSL came out of a defunct 90s Trotskyist group and it all made sense.
But he is not wrong. Imperialist multipolarity did indeed provide the necessary context for the start of World War I. That is a fact. He was/is not claiming that multipolarity in the modern day is equivalent, though. I have heard him speak positively of the current rise of multipolarity many times. But he has rightly also made the point that multipolarity at its best can only be a stepping stone to the future we actually want as socialists (and at its worst it can indeed lead to major war). The multipolarity of today is not the multipolarity of the early 20th century and Becker has never said otherwise; he has simply made the point that multipolarity should not be worshipped or fetishized but instead utilized pragmatically to improve conditions for socialists worldwide.
As for the Trotskyist allegation, this is more wrecker type talk. It may be true of his past, but it doesn’t matter if he is a reliable ML today, which he is. PSL is not Trotskyist. I have never seen or experienced evidence to the contrary. And PSL and Becker have never denounced Russia’s anti-fascist operation or supported the fascist regime in Kyiv. Mourning unnecessary deaths on either side is humanistic, not equivalent to such lazy accusations. It is true that PSL hasn’t taken a strong pro-Russia stance like PCUSA, but no one else really has either and I don’t see this as an issue considering the current state of the Russian state. And if you hadn’t stopped listening to his podcasts, you would see that he is a lot more sympathetic to the anti-fascist operation than he is to Zelensky, Biden, NATO, etc. His podcasts speak the truth about the conflict in Ukraine from a perspective that our enemies would easily deem as Russian-friendly. But apparently to you wrecker-types it is not Russian-friendly enough. LMAO - you people should not be taken seriously.
Deeply disappointed in Brian Becker whom I have held in high esteem. To see the PSL become a tool of oppression is unbearable.
Real “everyone’s revisionist except me” vibes with this article. Disappointed, Rainer. You usually produce good analysis but I think your argument is the one flawed here. We could debate each and every point you made (I don’t disagree with all of them btw) but the key issue for me, however, is instead how you are approaching this - throwing PSL under the bus, which is the most effective left-revolutionary org in the USA right now, rather than simply providing comradely constructive criticism. Good luck targeting libertarians rather than liberals. In my experience, they are not as anti-imperialist as they initially seem, but rather are just more pragmatic / cautious imperialists. I am fine working with anyone who can be worked with to advance progress and anti-imperialism, but most MLs in the West were liberals (not right-libertarians) first for a reason and so it is still warranted in my view to target them. Bernie is a disappointment for sure, as well, but him becoming President would have absolutely still been good for our movement and denying this as an ML is definitely ultra-leftist territory. I would lastly point out that the relationship between reform and revolution is DIALECTICAL and MLs need not approach it as either/or but rather should approach it as both/and. Reformist projects within PSL are acceptable as long as the org remains revolutionary, as well, which they have. Again - disappointed by this article, Rainer. I hope you reflect on this and do some self-criticism.
Russiagate changed the situation. Liberals are no longer the group with the most revolutionary potential, because they’ve been brought over to the neocon side. That was already true by 2020, as what remained of the Sanders base was largely these supporters of his who lacked integrity and chose opportunism. A party that makes itself dependent on this group, so much that it denounces Russia’s anti-fascist war to appease that group, can’t become the vanguard. It can only maintain the illusion of being effective, via the great funds it has to look like it’s actually doing something. The more the class struggle escalates, the more you will be disappointed. More actors are being forced to pick sides, and many aren’t loyal to the side you feel loyal to at this moment.
On a second read-through, I'd like to see further explanation of your allegation that "The organizers of the PSL’s March 18th ANSWER rally sought to discredit RAWM, based on Black Agenda Report’s radical liberal argument about how an anti-imperialist coalition shouldn’t be supported if it doesn’t meet some ill-defined diversity quota."
You'd know full goddamn well if you'd read *either BAR article* that came up about RAWM that what was being called to attention wasn't some pithily-penned 'diversity quota', it was about the kept receipts on the Mises Caucus that you totally ignore to cape for these larval fascists. You are literally lying in bed with the likes of Jeremy Kauffman(https://archive.ph/KD0Ip) and Angela McArdle(https://reason.com/2022/05/29/mises-caucus-takes-control-of-libertarian-party/), trying to tell people you're the most principled one in the room.
I consider you deeply unserious to the point of parody, likely to get people killed, and incapable of performing *any* kind of self-crit to change this tack.
one of the first in depth commentaries I heard about the SMO was Brian Becker when I was still a fan of his podcast. he said "multipolarity was what caused World War 1" and he immediately lost a fan. For someone who I thought seemed quite intelligent that phrase was such mindless garbage that I was astonished. Then I found out that him and his cohort that started the PSL came out of a defunct 90s Trotskyist group and it all made sense.
But he is not wrong. Imperialist multipolarity did indeed provide the necessary context for the start of World War I. That is a fact. He was/is not claiming that multipolarity in the modern day is equivalent, though. I have heard him speak positively of the current rise of multipolarity many times. But he has rightly also made the point that multipolarity at its best can only be a stepping stone to the future we actually want as socialists (and at its worst it can indeed lead to major war). The multipolarity of today is not the multipolarity of the early 20th century and Becker has never said otherwise; he has simply made the point that multipolarity should not be worshipped or fetishized but instead utilized pragmatically to improve conditions for socialists worldwide.
As for the Trotskyist allegation, this is more wrecker type talk. It may be true of his past, but it doesn’t matter if he is a reliable ML today, which he is. PSL is not Trotskyist. I have never seen or experienced evidence to the contrary. And PSL and Becker have never denounced Russia’s anti-fascist operation or supported the fascist regime in Kyiv. Mourning unnecessary deaths on either side is humanistic, not equivalent to such lazy accusations. It is true that PSL hasn’t taken a strong pro-Russia stance like PCUSA, but no one else really has either and I don’t see this as an issue considering the current state of the Russian state. And if you hadn’t stopped listening to his podcasts, you would see that he is a lot more sympathetic to the anti-fascist operation than he is to Zelensky, Biden, NATO, etc. His podcasts speak the truth about the conflict in Ukraine from a perspective that our enemies would easily deem as Russian-friendly. But apparently to you wrecker-types it is not Russian-friendly enough. LMAO - you people should not be taken seriously.