I’m going to assume you’re American or European; please correct me if I’m wrong. The lack of ideological and practical gatekeeping is a large part of why you have no successful movements. You just allow wreckers, 白左, and radlibs to identify themselves with your organizations, diluting your purpose and misdirecting your energy.
Every successful revolutionary movement, from Lenin’s Bolsheviks to the Vietnamese revolutionaries, had to rigorously distinguish between genuine comrades and opportunists. Gatekeeping is about preserving the unity of purpose necessary to advance the material interests of the proletariat. Without it, the contradictions within the movement overshadow the struggle against the real enemy.
The contradiction between global-souths aims(anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, materially grounded) and the reformist or liberal tendencies of the western left is fundamental. Solidarity cannot exist where the goals are diametrically opposed. Understanding who is genuinely on the side of the people is a prerequisite for any meaningful cooperation.
The very first bit, “You shouldn’t.” still is not a great or practical message compared to “people need to be individually vetted” or something like that.
Well, that’s because these are two separate but connected points. From the perspective of the global south, the idea of solidarity with the western left in the abstract(or with western leftist organizations in general) doesn’t really make sense until they start taking themselves seriously, e.g., practicing proper gatekeeping. My wording was slightly hyperbolic, but the general point still stands. Obviously, occasional cooperation is possible when goals align, but that is different from genuine solidarity.
My point is that, since the question is phrased in terms of individuals (“western leftists,” rather than “western leftist organizations”), the correct answer is that it depends on the person because there are clearly many real leftists out there, even if overall the organizations are bad. I think hyperbole here is unhelpful, especially on this topic, because it undermines being able to usefully analyze our circumstances in a way that gives us actionable information (i.e. it’s effectively anti-organization because it is such a blanket condemnation of people here).
I understand your point, and I agree that solidarity at the individual level depends on the person, there are certainly genuine leftists in the West. My comment was deliberately hyperbolic to emphasize the structural problem: as long as the broader organizations/movement fail to take themselves seriously and allow opportunists to dominate, abstract solidarity with individuals is largely ineffective and irrelevant. The hyperbole isn’t meant to condemn every individual, but to highlight the material reality that weak structures undermine revolutionary goals and the movement as a whole. Occasional cooperation is possible when interests align, but that is materially different from sustained, principled solidarity.
How is it gatekeeping when all the Marxist literature is right there, out in the open, for everyone to read and learn about the contradiction of the system and how to combat them? The western left is gatekeeping itself from dialectical materialism.
Mao Zedong introduced the idea that has been tested and proven, “Unity - Critcism - Unity” for people’s democratic organization. The western left seems to have skipped the first part and thus can not reach the third part either.
The literature is hard to read especially for a population that can’t and doesn’t want to read.
It’s easy to mock Americans for this but much harder to actually address this problem.
It’s also much harder in the modern age to convince someone to sit down and read a book with endless distractions competing for your attention. We’re not just competing with capitalist propaganda, we’re competing with every other book, movie, video game, and the dopamine machines known as social media! How TF do you expect the masses to sit down and Crack open Marx when Love Island is on?
We don’t need everyone to read Marx, but we should expect our primary organizers to. Not everyone needs to be an expert on the intricacies of Marxist theory, but the revolutionary party must be to more effectively wage revolution. The masses just need to take to action and support the party, and the party needs to stay linked with the masses and earn its trust.
Comrade Lady Izdihar made a great diagram:
This explains Lenin’s revolutionary theory quite well.
I like the graph and your points. I simply don’t see DSA, even as the ML elements are pushing it left, becoming a Vanguard party or leading a revolution. Trying to materialize that from DSA is just going to lead to disappointment.
I think a org like PSL that has rigorous vetting in place should be a Vanguard org.
That doesn’t mean DSA has no role. I think where DSA is the best fit is as a gateway or on ramp for baby leftists to learn how to organize, how to become leaders, and how to shake off the Democratic party brainstorms they have been hammered with over decades. If DSA can completely break from the Dems and be that entry-point to Socialism then they can become an incubator for new revolutionary forces that a more advanced/focused org like PSL can lead. In a perfect world PSL and DSA would work more closely together and DSA folks would stop trying to make DSA something it can’t be. I’m trying in my little corner of burger land but 🤷♀️
I’m not really arguing for the DSA, I’m more in favor of the PSL. My point was more about organizing in general. I think you’re getting threads mixed-up, the DSA was brought up in another thread. I mostly agree with you here.
I simply don’t see DSA, even as the ML elements are pushing it left, becoming a Vanguard party or leading a revolution. Trying to materialize that from DSA is just going to lead to disappointment.
i agree with this. as much as i’m sure there are good comrades in caucuses like Red Star, i’m pretty unconvinced by their overall project.
I think a org like PSL that has rigorous vetting in place should be a Vanguard org.
that’s the idea/goal, yeah! but a Vanguard Party can’t just declare itself as such, it needs to be embedded in working class struggle to the point it earns the trust of the masses and they look to it for guidance and leadership and want to fight alongside it. that’s a long, difficult project but PSL is trying to build toward that horizon.
I think where DSA is the best fit is as a gateway or on ramp for baby leftists to learn how to organize, how to become leaders, and how to shake off the Democratic party brainstorms they have been hammered with over decades. If DSA can completely break from the Dems and be that entry-point to Socialism then they can become an incubator for new revolutionary forces that a more advanced/focused org like PSL can lead. In a perfect world PSL and DSA would work more closely together and DSA folks would stop trying to make DSA something it can’t be. I’m trying in my little corner of burger land but 🤷♀️
you cooked with this analysis, comrade! i would rather radlibs/baby leftists have a big net they can get caught in to do some kind of struggle rather than nothing, and which at its best will train them as organizers and expand their consciousness. it seems to me the biggest internal contradiction (or one of) re: DSA is how compatible this goal is with Democratic Party entryism. every now and again that tactic gets Ws for the movement in the form of electing a Mamdani-esque figure (who for all his limitations is still a net win), using a base of activists who tbh probably aren’t in that moment ready for struggle beyond a campaign like his. but then you have such a large swath of the org who see that as an end rather than a situational means to an end, and it seems like that absorbs energy that could be put toward more meaningful organizing.
Hell yeah. Love to see leftist gatekeeping.
I’m going to assume you’re American or European; please correct me if I’m wrong. The lack of ideological and practical gatekeeping is a large part of why you have no successful movements. You just allow wreckers, 白左, and radlibs to identify themselves with your organizations, diluting your purpose and misdirecting your energy.
Every successful revolutionary movement, from Lenin’s Bolsheviks to the Vietnamese revolutionaries, had to rigorously distinguish between genuine comrades and opportunists. Gatekeeping is about preserving the unity of purpose necessary to advance the material interests of the proletariat. Without it, the contradictions within the movement overshadow the struggle against the real enemy.
The contradiction between global-souths aims(anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, materially grounded) and the reformist or liberal tendencies of the western left is fundamental. Solidarity cannot exist where the goals are diametrically opposed. Understanding who is genuinely on the side of the people is a prerequisite for any meaningful cooperation.
The very first bit, “You shouldn’t.” still is not a great or practical message compared to “people need to be individually vetted” or something like that.
Well, that’s because these are two separate but connected points. From the perspective of the global south, the idea of solidarity with the western left in the abstract(or with western leftist organizations in general) doesn’t really make sense until they start taking themselves seriously, e.g., practicing proper gatekeeping. My wording was slightly hyperbolic, but the general point still stands. Obviously, occasional cooperation is possible when goals align, but that is different from genuine solidarity.
My point is that, since the question is phrased in terms of individuals (“western leftists,” rather than “western leftist organizations”), the correct answer is that it depends on the person because there are clearly many real leftists out there, even if overall the organizations are bad. I think hyperbole here is unhelpful, especially on this topic, because it undermines being able to usefully analyze our circumstances in a way that gives us actionable information (i.e. it’s effectively anti-organization because it is such a blanket condemnation of people here).
I understand your point, and I agree that solidarity at the individual level depends on the person, there are certainly genuine leftists in the West. My comment was deliberately hyperbolic to emphasize the structural problem: as long as the broader organizations/movement fail to take themselves seriously and allow opportunists to dominate, abstract solidarity with individuals is largely ineffective and irrelevant. The hyperbole isn’t meant to condemn every individual, but to highlight the material reality that weak structures undermine revolutionary goals and the movement as a whole. Occasional cooperation is possible when interests align, but that is materially different from sustained, principled solidarity.
How is it gatekeeping when all the Marxist literature is right there, out in the open, for everyone to read and learn about the contradiction of the system and how to combat them? The western left is gatekeeping itself from dialectical materialism.
Mao Zedong introduced the idea that has been tested and proven, “Unity - Critcism - Unity” for people’s democratic organization. The western left seems to have skipped the first part and thus can not reach the third part either.
The literature is hard to read especially for a population that can’t and doesn’t want to read.
It’s easy to mock Americans for this but much harder to actually address this problem.
It’s also much harder in the modern age to convince someone to sit down and read a book with endless distractions competing for your attention. We’re not just competing with capitalist propaganda, we’re competing with every other book, movie, video game, and the dopamine machines known as social media! How TF do you expect the masses to sit down and Crack open Marx when Love Island is on?
We don’t need everyone to read Marx, but we should expect our primary organizers to. Not everyone needs to be an expert on the intricacies of Marxist theory, but the revolutionary party must be to more effectively wage revolution. The masses just need to take to action and support the party, and the party needs to stay linked with the masses and earn its trust.
Comrade Lady Izdihar made a great diagram:
This explains Lenin’s revolutionary theory quite well.
I like the graph and your points. I simply don’t see DSA, even as the ML elements are pushing it left, becoming a Vanguard party or leading a revolution. Trying to materialize that from DSA is just going to lead to disappointment.
I think a org like PSL that has rigorous vetting in place should be a Vanguard org.
That doesn’t mean DSA has no role. I think where DSA is the best fit is as a gateway or on ramp for baby leftists to learn how to organize, how to become leaders, and how to shake off the Democratic party brainstorms they have been hammered with over decades. If DSA can completely break from the Dems and be that entry-point to Socialism then they can become an incubator for new revolutionary forces that a more advanced/focused org like PSL can lead. In a perfect world PSL and DSA would work more closely together and DSA folks would stop trying to make DSA something it can’t be. I’m trying in my little corner of burger land but 🤷♀️
I’m not really arguing for the DSA, I’m more in favor of the PSL. My point was more about organizing in general. I think you’re getting threads mixed-up, the DSA was brought up in another thread. I mostly agree with you here.
DSA ain’t the Vanguard. Will never be.
i agree with this. as much as i’m sure there are good comrades in caucuses like Red Star, i’m pretty unconvinced by their overall project.
that’s the idea/goal, yeah! but a Vanguard Party can’t just declare itself as such, it needs to be embedded in working class struggle to the point it earns the trust of the masses and they look to it for guidance and leadership and want to fight alongside it. that’s a long, difficult project but PSL is trying to build toward that horizon.
you cooked with this analysis, comrade! i would rather radlibs/baby leftists have a big net they can get caught in to do some kind of struggle rather than nothing, and which at its best will train them as organizers and expand their consciousness. it seems to me the biggest internal contradiction (or one of) re: DSA is how compatible this goal is with Democratic Party entryism. every now and again that tactic gets Ws for the movement in the form of electing a Mamdani-esque figure (who for all his limitations is still a net win), using a base of activists who tbh probably aren’t in that moment ready for struggle beyond a campaign like his. but then you have such a large swath of the org who see that as an end rather than a situational means to an end, and it seems like that absorbs energy that could be put toward more meaningful organizing.