No they didn’t. PSL is not a militia. They defined their strategic boundaries and have been consistent with those boundaries for years. They do not engage in physical confrontations and they do not go toe to toe with police forces.
Telling people to physically engage ICE is not only irresponsible as a party but grounds for federal investigations and disruption of the party itself.
Yeah they did. They also did it again a few days later in Austin and we brought this criticism forward a few days before DTS did there’s. We intentionally made it non-attacking. I couldn’t find this one at first so I sent the one from DTS that at the time we felt was more akin to grab the pitchforks and attack PSL than a constructive criticism. This one was by me. I could not open this on my connection so apologies if it isnt. I’d highly advise peoples defense and Defend the streets over PSL. DSA already fills the role PSL has decided to take. https://www.instagram.com/p/DK69IDpxS5J/
DSA does not in any way fill the role PSL has decided to take up. Again, PSL is not a militia. It does not engage in physical confrontation and it does not encourage physical confrontation. It is not a decentralized leaderless org that is immune from disruption by the state. It is a mass movement building engine along Leninist revolutionary lines.
If you think PSL and DSA are equivalent, then your obviously poorly informed and if you’re poorly informed and also encouraging people to abandon the PSL then you’re a wrecker
The principle argument here is whether PSL is in a position to organize direct attacks against the state or not, and I retain my position that PSL is not yet a vanguard and as such needs to truly integrate itself into the masses of people for such a strategy to be useful. DSA is not a revolutionary party, nor a Marxist party. As freagle said, telling people to engage directly with the state before PSL is the undisputed vanguard of the proletariat is just asking to get destroyed by the state, without the protection that comes with being a mass workers party.
PSL doesn’t have nearly the size required to start an armed resistance. Though they are doing electoralism. But even for an armed resistance, step one is getting enough members before starting the armed resistance.
You’re correct, PSL is a party but not yet the vanguard, and as such their primary goal should be to gain membership and whatever material gains through mutual aid and labor/tenant organizing they can, protesting for Palestine and opposing imperialism, etc. Direct confrontation at this stage would be adventurism.
No they didn’t. PSL is not a militia. They defined their strategic boundaries and have been consistent with those boundaries for years. They do not engage in physical confrontations and they do not go toe to toe with police forces.
Telling people to physically engage ICE is not only irresponsible as a party but grounds for federal investigations and disruption of the party itself.
Yeah they did. They also did it again a few days later in Austin and we brought this criticism forward a few days before DTS did there’s. We intentionally made it non-attacking. I couldn’t find this one at first so I sent the one from DTS that at the time we felt was more akin to grab the pitchforks and attack PSL than a constructive criticism. This one was by me. I could not open this on my connection so apologies if it isnt. I’d highly advise peoples defense and Defend the streets over PSL. DSA already fills the role PSL has decided to take. https://www.instagram.com/p/DK69IDpxS5J/
DSA does not in any way fill the role PSL has decided to take up. Again, PSL is not a militia. It does not engage in physical confrontation and it does not encourage physical confrontation. It is not a decentralized leaderless org that is immune from disruption by the state. It is a mass movement building engine along Leninist revolutionary lines.
If you think PSL and DSA are equivalent, then your obviously poorly informed and if you’re poorly informed and also encouraging people to abandon the PSL then you’re a wrecker
The principle argument here is whether PSL is in a position to organize direct attacks against the state or not, and I retain my position that PSL is not yet a vanguard and as such needs to truly integrate itself into the masses of people for such a strategy to be useful. DSA is not a revolutionary party, nor a Marxist party. As freagle said, telling people to engage directly with the state before PSL is the undisputed vanguard of the proletariat is just asking to get destroyed by the state, without the protection that comes with being a mass workers party.
I guess this is the moot of the arguement?
PSL doesn’t have nearly the size required to start an armed resistance. Though they are doing electoralism. But even for an armed resistance, step one is getting enough members before starting the armed resistance.
You’re correct, PSL is a party but not yet the vanguard, and as such their primary goal should be to gain membership and whatever material gains through mutual aid and labor/tenant organizing they can, protesting for Palestine and opposing imperialism, etc. Direct confrontation at this stage would be adventurism.