March on Wall Street April 3-4 2009

[Jay Rothermel]

http://www.workers.org/2009/us/april_3-4_0326/
http://www.bailoutpeople.org/
*Friday, April 3: 1 PM - Intersection of Wall & Broad Streets (The Stock Exchange)
Saturday, April 4: 1 PM - Intersection of Wall & Broad Streets (The Stock Exchange)*

[redSHARP]

world workers? who are they connected with (i.e. CPUSA, RCP, ect.)?

[Asoka89]

the March on Wall Street on April 4th is a major national mobilization for UFPJ

http://unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=4027

Doesn't have to do with the Stalinist politics between PSL and WWP. I would say that even though I disagree with their politics on the ground the PSL are active and have their house in order, while the WWP are totally irrelevant.

[Kassad]

Oh no. He said we're Stalinists. That must mean it's true.

[Wanted Man]

It's Workers World, the totally irrelevant party that the Party for Socialism and Liberation split from.
Why did they split? Just curious.

[Asoka89]

You believe that the Soviet Union was a healthy workers state. You believe the society in Cuba is a healthy socialist state.

How are you not Stalinist? It's not necessarily pejorative.

[Asoka89]

"both are workers' states"

That is why your a Stalinist.

[Kassad]

And that's why you're a feline figure from Nebula Nineteen. I can play the petty name-calling game with no real support for my baseless assertions too!

[Asoka89]

I would suggest you read:

Hal Draper: The Two Souls of Socialism
http://www.marx.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

Socialism: Past and Future by Michael Harrington


I have no qualms with the PSL's on the ground activism, I've worked with them, but their vision of socialism is authoritarian devoid of proletarian control and the expansion of democracy-- that's why I label it Stalinist.

[Kassad]

I'm sorry, but if you can't properly organize your own original text and argument, there's no point in me even addressing what you say to me. You're posting baseless assertion after baseless assertion and frankly, you make yourself look totally devoid of any and all rational thought when you make posts like that. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[redSHARP]

please keep this civil. if you are going flame please doing it over p.m. or fight it out in a parking lot. there is no need to do it on this thread. start a new one for this argument; just don't do it here.

now back to the thread it self....
why 2 rallies?

[Asoka89]

March 4th is the major UFPJ rally, maybe April 3rd is just a WWP called event?

----
Basically in PSL's stance they claim that the Russian Revolution was a successful revolution that spawned a socialist state, that never degenerated. This means that their stance can broadly be characterized as Stalinist. There's nothing wrong with this-- it is what it is. They say the working class ruled these countries directly and don't say that a beurcratic caste was in control--- that's okay if that's their stance, but that's why its Stalinist.

Here's some more suggested reading:
Bolsheviks and Workers' Control
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/bolintro.html

[Kassad]

Thank you for another baseless assertion. From the Party for Socialism and Liberation's Who We Are and What We Stand For: "Although the principled revolutionary internationalism eroded after Lenin's death in 1924, the Soviet Union under various leaderships gave military and economic assistance to those countries fighting for liberation from colonialism and semi-colonialism." -- In regard to spreading revolutionary ideology.

"After the Russian Revolution, a ruling stratum of bureaucracy developed that directed the management of the economic, military and political apparatus of the state machine." -- In regard to state bureaucracy.

The PSL doesn't claim that the development of socialism in the Soviet Union never degenerated, but that much of the state intervention and action was in the progressive interest of resisting counterrevolution, colonialism and imperialism - in the interest of continuing socialist development.

[Asoka89]

Actually thanks for bringing that up, because that is an important point. Trotsky said that the ruling Soviet Union elites were somewhat revolutionary domestically, but reactionary abroad... but the New Left Review's Perry Anderson sort of saw it as the other way around.

I would not contest that point completely, I would say that Soviet action during the Spainish Civil War, in Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary was far from commendable.

In Angola and elsewhere of course it was.

But that's on the international front---- what about the domestic front. Lenin equated "socialism with state capitalism" he was wrong.

[Kassad]

...Okay, thanks for that. Why don't we get back to the entire point of my post and address whether or not the Party for Socialism and Liberation praises the socialist development in the Soviet Union unconditionally or not?

[Asoka89]

The working class never assumed state power in the Soviet Union. There was no proletarian development---- socialism is not state capitalism.

I've had enough of this thread, you are more naunced than I thought on some fronts, but do yourself a favor and real Hal Draper in that link I posted, its probably the most influential single essay post-1917 written on socialism.

He himself at that time was still a Leninist.

[griffjam]

There is a need to build on the discontent that is raging in the U.S. But this needs to be built in the direction of an emancipatory social movement. It needs to have a structural critique of capitalism, not a simple attack on the wealthy which lets the system off the hook. And it must not mistake the so-called "insurgent struggles" of sectarian violence in Iraq or elsewhere for its own emancipatory project.
The call for a demonstration -- "Bail out the People Not the Banks!" -- opens with the following line: "March on Wall Street on the Anniversary on the day Martin Luther King gave his life fighting for social and economic justice." But MLK did not give his life on that day. Rather, it was on that day that his life was taken from him, by political assassination. What is the difference and why does it matter? Because MLK did not seek self-sacrifice. On the contrary, he viewed the struggle for justice as part of the realization of life. Being politically engaged was an expression of life. He committed himself to it. He did not commit himself to dying for it. Dying for it was not in the cards. It was not determined. And he did not strive for it. He did not seek to be a martyr, but rather an organizer, for building popular struggles against oppression. To (mis)characterize him as a martyr is to misunderstand his struggle and to conflate it with the suicidal and anti-emancipatory violence of Iraqi "insurgents" or suicide bombers which have nothing to do with freedom struggles.
It is telling of the historical moment, wherein strong left movements are seriously absent in the U.S., that U.S. activists try to conflate two completely different forms of politics, that of liberation and social movement building for justice, and that of the self-sacrificial violence and nihilism of "insurgency" and jihad. The conflation of the two is a disservice of the civil rights and freedom struggle of the black masses in the U.S. and of MLK in particular. It is the former that should be drawn on for inspiration in rebuilding an anarchist/socialist and emancipatory movement today. The latter has sought, in Iraq and elsewhere, only to destroy such movements. They are the enemy of the Left, not it's saviour.
The next line reads: "we must demand that the needs of the people come before the greed of the super rich. Millions are jobless and homeless, and millions more will be living on the streets if the government continues to waste trillions of dollars on saving wealthy bankers instead of saving people." This line focuses on the moral character of the wealthy rather than the structural dynamics of capitalism. But it does not matter whether the super rich are greedy or not. The structure of capitalism is oriented towards the maximization of profits, in contrast to the needs and desires of people. That is a structure in which the society is organized, which we must oppose. The attempt to personalize this structure by speaking of bad individuals only downplays the fact that our lives are structured according to logic of abstract domination of commodity society. Particular individuals' behavior may stand out at particular moments, but to personalize the social structure is to scapegoat individuals for the social structure which must be transformed. Additionally, the billions of dollars are attempts to bailout banks not bankers. It is a flawed attempt to support the financial sector which is directly linked to the "productive" sectors. The state's 90% taxation of the bonuses shows exactly this, that the bailout is an attempt to prop-up the faltering economy. While some wealthy individuals do receive millions of dollars personally from the financial bailouts, the structural problem is that these firms are oriented towards profit maximization, and masses of people who have lost their homes, jobs, or retirement funds will continue to be left in the cold. This is a structural problem of capitalism, not simply a problem of personal privileges given to certain wealthy individuals connected to these firms. The problem is that the state is trying to prop up a structure that is fundamentally exploitative. The fact that certain wealthy individuals benefit from this arrangement is only part of the larger system.
We need an emancipatory, anti-capitalist movement! Not one that plays in self-sacrificial political rhetoric and nihilist violence. Not one that personalizes the social system of capitalism. But one that fights for this social system's overthrow, and builds an emancipatory society.






http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20090327132735859

[DancingLarry]

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s279/jlsresist/mlk4344part3.jpg