“He writes: As capitalism inevitably produces injustices, the revolutionary party [PSL] calls or joins protests. It recruits participants in these protest movements by expressing views that participants come to see as correct. When there are not protests, the party does agitational outreach to show itself and change the minds of more people. Capitalism’s own dynamics ensure that this cycle can be relied on to continue. Eventually, the capitalist system produces a crisis acute enough to throw the system into question, and if the Party is big enough, the protests can become a revolution. This is essentially it. The PSL dresses up this simplistic concept with the socialist consciousness thesis—the idea that unique historical conditions [in modern America] preclude any path to revolution but to widely popularize our particular definition of socialism, positioning the party for the abrupt seizure of power at the time of a revolutionary crisis. What makes the thesis attractive to PSL is that it explains and excuses the sheer marginality of the organization—if the only road to revolution is the popularization of a given line, regardless of its resonance (or lack thereof) with mass struggle, then a group that “popularizes” is discharging its historic duty, and it does not need to analyze anything beyond assuring the presence of this line in the public.”

The only criticism here is that they are small. There is no magic formula for gaining more influence other than organising activities and repeating your own message.

“Smolarek then rejects PSL’s delusional self-conception as a party. He writes: PSL calls itself a party but, by concrete measures, it is an ideological tendency… A party is an organization that can credibly claim to represent a class or a section of a class… A tendency is an organization that gains ground not by organizing the working class but by gaining influence amongst radicals.”

Once again: what is the criticism here, apart from ‘being small’? I’d also love for us to be successful straight away, but unfortunately you have to build things up patiently if you want to establish a large organisation.

“People are afraid to say out loud what they suspect—that not joining any such sect may really be better than the PSL if the goal is to fight the class struggle in America today.”

Doing nothing isn’t better than doing something. Who on earth thinks like that?

“It uses that influence to do one thing: it persuades a generation of young radicals that revolution in America is impossible. ”

How does that work? This is a serious accusation, but is there any evidence to back up this claim?

“All three [PSL, DSA-faction ‘Red Star Caucus’ and the American Communist Party] share the same idealist core: that consciousness is transmitted from above, that the organization’s growth within its chosen turf is a worthwhile measure of progress, and that the working class will eventually fall in line behind the correct slogan—a formula that, as Smolarek notes, ignores the atomization of the working class, the strength of the right, and the simple fact that the masses make history only when they are organized as a class.”

• The ACP exists only on social media. Comparing them to those other two is not a serious undertaking.
• It is true that a party is built from the top down. Nobody is born a communist; you become one through ideological training within a party.
• The growth of a party is indeed a worthwhile goal. I agree with the author’s assessment of the opponent’s strength, but why is that an argument against trying to grow within the circles where you have influence? Again, I too would like to see things move faster, but there is no magic solution. The author acts as if one exists and is being kept secret by the PSL leadership. If he knows of it: make it public!