Creating Big Organizations and the Microparty Phenomenon

The radical left, especially in America, has no labour movement to back it up. Without this association, communists will always be the outsiders, representing only themselves and a fringe ideology separte from the now. The present. The current state of things. We must do whatever we can to revive the international labour movement and then and only then will our politcal parties will gain politcal power.

I suppose so, yeah. Or just give people a way to access your site or something like that, that'd be way more efficient and likely to be seen and read than a newspaper imo.

To have a big Marxist party, you have to have a lot of Marxists. You have to start with at least a handful of cadres who are educated or willing to learn about Marxism by actually reading the primary texts. And when they recruit people, those people need to read the texts as well.

Problems:
So you have a bunch of parties that people join out of the need to "do something," and then these candidate cadres never develop. Since very few of them can actually make substantial arguments based on Marxist theory, they instead draw lines around social groups, leader worship, action, and discrete stances.

So how do we solve this? Should we have people just give the basics of Marxism to people so that way they won't need to read so much? It's hard to think of another way to do it.

You have to get people to actually read the material and do research.
"No investigation, no right to speak." - Mao
There's no easy way out of it. You just have to educate people, explain the basics or what's relevant to their conditions, and then encourage them to read Marx. Start a reading group. Start a publication. Do counterpropaganda.

Well for starters reform Marxism because 19th century Marxism and 20th century M-L or M-L-M aren't going to stick

afaik the KPD and similar parties makes it mandatory to study

Revolutionary action without idealism is pointless.

Becoming mired in pragmatic realpolitik can lead to revolutionary goals being compromised and one dictator replacing another.

Beware of anyone who asks you to forget your ideals.

Attached: UaIcrdK.jpg (700x492, 66.45K)

Alphabet organizations
Socdem ""socialism"" placating the masses who then go onto think if the radical Bernie gets enough votes world communism will be established
Anti-communist/anti ML propaganda ie Stalin killed 90 million kulaks and ate the children and was a dictator who was basically Hitler. So don't ever defend anything the Soviets did none of it's victories,healthcare,education etc. Infact just disavow everything Cuba,USSR none of it matters cause their all evil dictators and they weren't real Socialism like based Bernie
Guttered or socdem loving unions with a liberal face. Make the IWW great again
Lack of funds

worldatlas.com/articles/biggest-and-most-influential-communist-parties-today.html

I've been thinking a lot about this myself. It's probably different in different countries but in much of the left at least the modern party (sect from here on out) has a different makeup and function from the IIint workers' parties and the IIIint communist parties. Hal Draper has a piece on this but it's mostly a partial diagnosis of our situation, no suggestions on *why* it is the case just that it is the case.
Sects I think have become something more like social clubs for like-minded people rather than organizations for deliberate coordinated action against the capitalist class. They appeal to people not on the basis of their current and immediate interests as workers (ex: you want to strike against your boss/ protest a state policy/ keep cops out of your neighborhood we can help you do that more effectively) but instead on a coherent "worldview" you buy into (to what extent was the USSR socialist/ what was the best policy toward the peasants at that point in time (this was unironically an active debate in the PSL iirc)). Grounds for a split have nothing to do with practice and everything to do with disagreement between competing worldviews. It is not surprising that this "worldview" centered party would be more attractive to students than workers. The modern sect is a tendency you pay dues to rather than an organ of collective action. That's not to say that a party should not concern itself with what socialism is/defending its viability etc. But its notable that the modern sect thinks of its own expansion less as an expansion of proletarian practical coordination and proletarian power against the capitalist and more as "convincing people" of a tendency. The sect is not a weapon in the hands of a class and does not see itself as a weapon in the hands of a class but as "convincing" that class of a worldview and of the need to take up the class struggle against the capitalist. Workers struggle against the capitalist on their own accord, a true class party's job is not to conjure these struggles into existence but give them direction, exacerbate crises of social control etc. Take existing struggles as one's basis and exacerbate them. This is what sects fail to do and that is why they remain sects.

I meant "much of the West at least" lol

socialistworker.org/2011/10/28/why-was-marx-a-materialist

You are absolutely right. We honestly need a new International based on the way the First International operated. They were involved in real labor struggles, and I think that a new International modeled off them would be highly effective.

Capitalism, obviously.

this article is rotting my brain.

Wrong. The USSR was a source of funds for revolutionary organizations.