The Party of Socialism and Liberation is Idealist
And that's putting it kindly.
One of the things I am regularly doing as a critic and someone who would like to see a higher mode of production in my lifetime is keeping my eyes on those who are apparently promoting the same cause I am. I find that many of communism’s biggest obstacles exist within the domain of so-called “communists.”
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) positions itself as a bastion of Marxist-Leninist thought, advocating for the liberation of the working class and oppressed groups. However, a closer examination reveals a disconnect between their self-proclaimed doctrine and their actions, which are idealistic, exclusive, and counterproductive to the cause of the working class.
Idealist
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) prominently features its anti-imperialist stance as a cornerstone of its ideology. While this position is grounded in the materialist analysis of global power dynamics, it's important to examine how PSL operationalizes this stance in practice.
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) emerged in 2004, following a split from the Workers World Party (WWP). This split was partly due to disagreements over ideological and strategic approaches, with PSL members seeking to establish a new organization that would better align with their interpretation of Marxism-Leninism. However, since its inception, PSL has demonstrated a tendency toward idealism, which is at odds with the materialist foundation of Marxism-Leninism.
The origins of PSL in a splinter movement may have contributed to its predisposition. Breakaway groups often form around specific ideological convictions or interpretations, which can lead to an emphasis on theoretical purity over practical application. Though they profess anti-imperialism, they declined to participate in a wide coalition against US intervention called “Rage Against the War Machine,” not because it included libertarians (though I’m sure they didn’t like that), but because it included Jackson Hinkle (whom I am no fan of, but this is a ridiculous reason not to participate in an anti-war coalition).
PSL’s anti-imperialist stance is undeniably materialist and practical. It recognizes the impact of global hegemony on the working class and oppressed peoples worldwide. However, the organization’s approach to anti-imperialism often seems more performative than substantive. The organization excels at whipping up anger and creating spectacles. While PSL effectively rallies people around the banner of anti-imperialism, these actions feel like ends in themselves rather than means to a larger, cohesive agenda.
The focus on spectacle and mobilization can overshadow the necessary work of building sustainable structures and strategies that can challenge and ultimately dismantle imperialist systems.
This approach creates a home for the “burn it down” left, offering a sense of belonging and purpose. However, without a clear agenda or pathway to systemic change, this mobilization risks becoming a cycle of performative outrage without meaningful progress (i.e. more fandom and consumerism).
This tendency is further reflected in PSL’s emphasis on purity and adherence. While a clear theoretical framework is important, PSL exhibits rigidity and a disconnect from the people PSL claims to fight for. To say the very least, this creates massive barriers to building broad-based coalitions and alliances.
PSL’s form of activism values the appearance of resistance over the actual efficacy of resistance (which I have addressed repeatedly and will again later in this article). This can be appealing because it provides immediate gratification and a sense of moral righteousness, but it does not lead to material change.
Uhuru
One glaring example of PSL’s misaligned priorities is its lack of support for Uhuru, a black socialist group currently facing repression from the US government. While I don’t personally agree with all of Uhuru’s theoretical positions, the principle of solidarity, especially in the face of state aggression, is fundamental to any kind of progress.
PSL’s failure to stand with Uhuru raises questions about its commitment to supporting marginalized communities when it truly matters. In fact, due to having a position that questions the NATO/Ukraine narrative, and for engaging with Russian political figures downstream of this view, Uhuru has been radioactive to most of “The Left,” to the point where the most prominent person to highlight their case is Tucker Carlson, who certainly isn’t highlighting them to support their socialism but is instead using their case to back up his claim to support for free speech “across the spectrum.”
While PSL professes to stand with marginalized communities, its failure to actively support Uhuru, especially when the group is under attack by the US government, raises questions about the authenticity of PSL’s commitment to solidarity.
Uhuru’s struggle against state repression is emblematic of the broader fight for racial and economic justice, as well as free speech. Their efforts to address systemic inequalities and advocate for the empowerment of black communities align with the basic principles socialism and anti-imperialism require. However, PSL’s silence on this front suggests a selective approach to solidarity, where support is offered only when it aligns with the organization’s specific agenda or public image.
This selective solidarity undermines the collective struggle against oppression. True solidarity is enacted even – or particularly – when it’s inconvenient or challenging. By failing to stand with Uhuru, PSL not only misses an opportunity to build a broader, more inclusive movement but also risks reinforcing the very divisions that socialism seeks to overcome.
Misguided Activism
I have long been on PSL’s ass. Last year, a Starbucks drive-thru protest organized by PSL was a prime example of their misguided activism. The demonstrators' intention was to demand an end to the war by… ordering it at a Starbucks drive-thru. Obviously, this form of protest not only fails to genuinely address anything but also trivializes the struggles of both the workers at Starbucks and the victims of war.
The protest was rooted in the flawed notion that consumerism can be a vehicle for societal change. It equates the serious matter of war with everyday consumer decisions, like ordering a coffee. This approach oversimplifies complex geopolitical issues and ignores the material conditions that drive conflicts. Furthermore, it places an undue burden on individuals, particularly low-wage workers, who have little to no influence over corporate or governmental policies. This is a criticism I continually make (because I think it’s important) and did again recently:
The PSL Starbucks protest showcased a performative aspect of activism, where the focus shifts from effecting tangible change to merely making a statement. While the participants might have felt they were taking a stand, their actions were more about self-satisfaction than effecting real change. This form of “activism” seeks validation rather than results, ultimately alienating both the intended audience and potential allies.
The Starbucks protest exemplifies a broader problem within certain segments of “the left”: the tendency to prioritize symbolic gestures over substantive action. Effective action requires more than good intentions. It demands a clear understanding of the issues, a strategic approach to addressing them, and a commitment to building collective power through relationships and community rather than indulging in individualistic displays of moral superiority.
Conclusion
While PSL may claim to represent the interests of the working class and oppressed, its current trajectory suggests a disconnect between its rhetoric and its actions. Its idealism, performative activism, and selective solidarity should undermine its credibility but, more importantly, impede the broader socialist movement.
I am a proud member of The Center for Political Innovation (CPI), though I don’t want to actively say, “This is the answer to the critique I have brought forward.” CPI is not a party, nor can it act as a replacement for one. That said, our organization emphasizes moving beyond the spectacle and embracing the hard work of organizing, coalition-building, and engaging with diverse communities.
Obviously, I would encourage people to check us out, but people don’t need CPI to do any of this. They just need to be able to identify useful actions and take them.
The success of the socialist movement depends not on the purity of its ideology but on its ability to connect with and mobilize the masses. It is through the collective struggle of the working class and marginalized communities that real change can be achieved.
Another problem with the PSL is that, like many other established left organizations, it expects "discipleship" to its specific theoretical tendencies as a condition for association. For all their bluster about "working-class" organizing, they only consider such valid if the workers in question can be bullied or lectured into PSL's specific line, and subordinated to PSL's specific priorities and aims.
Seems to me that we of the CPI mentality need to drop leftism/progressivism entirely. We may personally agree with the old progressive values of liberalism (tolerance). But that definition has been inverted. We gotta be there for our working class neighbors, when they turn to libertarianism out of disgust for the corrupt system, and be able to educate them on how we already have a libertarian economy.
Also, the more esposés on PSL, the more hope that a non biased internet search engine, were it to ever exist, would turn up these articles. The non leftist socialist view is hidden now, but it exists and is growing stronger.