ok, very cool, i had not heard of you guys at all. i gave it a cursory look (the first links, not the pamphlet, i'll check that out later) and i think it's a very interesting approach. i have some questions! you genuinely don't have to reply if you don't want to. you gave me reading material and the answers might be in there, whenever i have the time to look deeper.
i think we absolutely need to work on developing a contemporary marxist approach to the issue of race. what we have currently simply doesn't suffice! and when i talk about race i mean specifically black people, specifically in the americas. (although of course, you have the latino thing to deal with, but we wouldn't know much about that! we have immigration from other south american nations, but it's a completely different situation)
the national issue has always been one of the most complex ones to solve as a socialist state, in my opinion. you could argue the ussr collapsed in part because of mismanaging this. but neither the soviets not the chinese had to directly deal with the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade. in this regard i think the USA and Brazil have a lot of similar lessons to learn.
so it's very encouraging that you are making that a central theme in your program. i think my party is lacking in this regard, personally. not incorrect policies per se, but the lack of something more substantial and concrete.
you talk about creating a "Black nation within the boundaries of the U.S.". that's frankly, a big shock! my party is in favor of giving autonomy for indigenous peoples to split off from brazil, if they so choose. but since black people aren't organized by territory in the same way, and instead spread out across the country, this seems strange to me. reminds me of when the usa shipped people out to liberia. of course, the difference would be staying in the continent. but does it not feel segregational to you?
i also agree that the main party work should be in the unions. we organize our cells based on industry, and whenever possible specific workplaces. we also have in our resolutions a list of strategic sectors of the economy that we try to focus on (energy, transport, IT...). we are currently making some headway in bankers' unions. the economic fight needs to be the basis of our work, and we take that from lenin as i assume you do too.
(but that is dangerous and thankless work, of course. we even have organized crime openly controlling several unions.)
another thing i read, but i currently can't find where, was about your strategy when it comes to working together with other social movements. that's always a big point of contention for us in daily party life. we tend to analyse it case by case: whether we can effectively represent our point of view and dispute the political line of a given group or action, to see if it's worth it for us to participate. and sometimes the central commitee or state fractions will also make those considerations and send guidance down the chain.
there many different forces to work with here, many political parties on the left, a lot of them with subdivisions that work somewhat autonomously. and there are constantly new coalition groups for, say... supporting cuba... anti-institutionalization... legalizing weed... lgbt rights... all of them with different rules and different internal power struggles. tricky to manage.
so yes! i thought i read somewhere that you criticize other orgs for "only letting party members decide things", something like this. i can't find it. maybe you can shed some light on how you negotiate with other organizations and parties and such?
but speaking of this, do you abide by democratic centralism? because otherwise you seem quite marxist-leninist: acknowledging imperialism, recognizing class divisions based on relation to production, etc. but this was something that was not clear to me while reading, if you are democratic centralists.
and speaking of this, i saw a few times the use of the phrase "united front". what are your thoughts on dimitrov and the 7th (i think) commintern congress? that's our key political difference with PCR, one of our main "rival" communist parties.
sorry, almost forgot! you speak of revolution, of course. but when you say revolution, you mean you would like to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. right?
thank you for your time if you read this!
cheers, comrade! venceremos!
