Progressive Labor Party

[Communist]

Has anyone had experience in or with the USA political party Progressive Labor Party (PLP)? I've read some of their old stuff but haven't seen much in the way of commentary. I'd be interested in what RevLeft comrades think of them.

[Yehuda Stern]

For a Maoist group, the PLP could've been far worse. They're very militant at anti-fascist demos from what I've heard, and they don't bow down to DP liberals. Still, they are Maoists, which means their "Marxism" is middle class, and their propaganda tends to be very bombastic and abstract. All in all, I think some of its rank and file has a lot of potential, but that's it.

[Pawn Power]

I know a few party members. They have changed somewhat since the 70's, both qualitatively and quantitatively. They are still active in NYC and LA and a few other places and release a bi-weekly newspaper Challenge. Check out their website if you are interested in their current politics/commentary.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Has anyone had experience in or with the USA political party Progressive Labor Party (PLP)? I've read some of their old stuff but haven't seen much in the way of commentary. I'd be interested in what RevLeft comrades think of them.

This is from their website:
Communism means the Party leads every aspect of society. For this to work, millions of workers -- eventually everyone -- must become communist organizers.

[willdw79]

I grew up around PLP and they are not "middle class" that is completely untrue. I grew up in Detroit, and the people in PLP there were from where we from. When we went to NY or other cities the party looked like the city. There seemed to be quite a few people who were teachers, if you consider that middle class, then so be it. Regardless, what if they were all from the power-elite? Its the ideas they have "Why We Fight" & "Road to Revolution IV" that defines them, so what if some members aren't poor. That is bull, and its divisive. I grew up in the hood and I'll take any PLP member over some lumpenproletariat or basically any proletarian. They are smart, tough, and they put it on the line for communism. Many of them have gone to jail. You killing me man, they had a pancake house in Detroit to serve the people who live in our city. People would be in there organizing and eating. We protested police brutality. We marched on the precinct. PLP/InCAR were extremely progressive.

This wild factionalism has got to stop. There will always be a person who can try and lay claim to a more legitimate revolutionary perspective. Probably if me and you went point for point about who we are, where we lived, what we have done, etc you may find out that I am more of a "legitimate" revolutionary than you. But after I alienate you, who is gonna have my back?

This is from their website: Quote:
Communism means the Party leads every aspect of society. For this to work, millions of workers -- eventually everyone -- must become communist organizers.

This is a legitimate criticism, I think. But I will say that PLP is definately open to talking about this point and they will be the first to admit that they are not perfect. I have known people who have raised the "every aspect" question. The explanation, I will try not to misrepresent, is that as a revolution gains momentum, they envision each person becoming a party member, as opposed to being a vanguard party after a revolution.

I would like to see more organizations find common ground. My rationale for this is that if there were a revolution in the U.S. it must be dynamic. By that I mean it must have the ability to change its line with new evidence. I believe that if we could find common ground:

1. Eliminate Sexism
2. Eliminate Attacks Against Homosexuals
3. Eliminate Money
4. Eliminate Racism
5. Revolutionaries observe NO CAPITALIST BORDERS & MAKE NO DEALS WITH
CAPITALISTS EVER!
6. Use the means of production to produce as much as possible (overproduce) until a
basic level for all has been achieved
7. No more wars for imperialism

I believe that there are enough groups/people that can agree on these 7 things to become a significant force in the U.S. However, arguing over how the future revolution will be should not be so divisive. No party knows exactly how things will be. And if we combined force people who are in a particular organization may take a liking to a different one and that is O.K. By the time revolution becomes possible many of us will be very old/dead and/or our ideas will have evolved. But I believe that finding common ground on the 7 ideas or maybe more would advance all of our lives considerably.

[heiss93]

PLP has been described as anarchostalinist. Its a contradiction in terms but thats what their historical position on Stalin, combined with their political position on immediate transition to Communism amounts to.

http://plpcolumbia.blogspot.com/2007/11/frequently-asked-questions.html

[willdw79]

Thanks for the link.

[Leo]

I grew up around PLP and they are not "middle class" that is completely untrue. I grew up in Detroit, and the people in PLP there were from where we from. When we went to NY or other cities the party looked like the city. There seemed to be quite a few people who were teachers, if you consider that middle class, then so be it. Regardless, what if they were all from the power-elite? Its the ideas they have "Why We Fight" & "Road to Revolution IV" that defines them, so what if some members aren't poor.

I think Yehuda called their ideology middle class rather than the sociological background of their members.

[bailey_187]

For a Maoist group, the PLP could've been far worse. They're very militant at anti-fascist demos from what I've heard, and they don't bow down to DP liberals. Still, they are Maoists, which means their "Marxism" is middle class, and their propaganda tends to be very bombastic and abstract. All in all, I think some of its rank and file has a lot of potential, but that's it.

says an Trotskyite and ISO member LOLOLOLOL

Alex Calinicos? Not even Middle class, fucking aristocracy!

I dont know what ISO membership is like in your country but in the UK you dont have a fucking leg to stand on. about middle class

[Mephisto]

Man, how I hate those fucking "I am a more proletarian proletarian than you!"-slipslop. What next? Will we share stories of our hard childhood in the working class district of our city and clap the others back for being such tough guys?

I want to conjure up that the marxist view on the working class and class conscience is not a dogmatic one of cultural steel worker cult. One can be a classical factory worker and still adopt a petty bourgeois or even conservative ideology. And guess what? That happens everyday all over the world.
So it is not our social backgrounds we should discuss but the political and social consciousness that we have.

Yehuda never talked about the social backgrounds of PLP members but the objective class character of maoism. Of course, it's a discussion board and such statements are made for discussing them.

But posts like the one of baily_187 indicate neither a comprehension for marxist theory nor a will to really deal with the discussion subject in a political and scientific way.

[bailey_187]

Man, how I hate those fucking "I am a more marxist and scientific than you"


Im not even defending the PLP. Their "forget socialism" thing is stupid.

Trotskyism seems to be more of a middle class ideology. While Maoists mostly are thirdworld peasents, trots are mostly university students in the first world.
Oh but no, we are not talking about actual classes! we are talking about ideologies. For some reason third world peasants and workers have adopted a middle class outlook and first world students have got a proletarian outlook. what a load of bollocks.

[Sam_b]

says an Trotskyite and ISO member LOLOLOLOL

Alex Calinicos? Not even Middle class, fucking aristocracy!

I dont know what ISO membership is like in your country but in the UK you dont have a fucking leg to stand on. about middle class

First of all, our international section is the IST. Secondly, and most importantly, Yehuda is not a member of the IST, he is a member of the Socialist League (Israel). These people are not part of the IST and differ in many of our opinions. So you take your sectarian rubbish out of this thread, y'hear?

[Mephisto]

Man, how I hate those fucking "I am a more marxist and scientific than you"


Which exactly means nothing but, that you rather want to argue in stereotypes and some easy to learn principles than to bother with analysing society on a revolutionary dialectical basis. By the way, I guess that exactly this was meant when Yehuda marked maoism a petty bourgeois ideology. ;)

[bailey_187]

First of all, our international section is the IST. Secondly, and most importantly, Yehuda is not a member of the IST, he is a member of the Socialist League (Israel). These people are not part of the IST and differ in many of our opinions. So you take your sectarian rubbish out of this thread, y'hear?

I'm not a sectarian, i hate you trots all the same

I did not know the SWP was not part of ISO though; sorry

[bailey_187]

Which exactly means nothing but, that you rather want to argue in stereotypes and some easy to learn principles than to bother with analysing society on a revolutionary dialectical basis. By the way, I guess that exactly this was meant when Yehuda marked maoism a petty bourgeois ideology. ;)

that was a joke btw....

the rest of my post is more importatn

[willdw79]

Man, how I hate those fucking "I am a more proletarian proletarian than you!"-slipslop. What next? Will we share stories of our hard childhood in the working class district of our city and clap the others back for being such tough guys?

I want to conjure up that the marxist view on the working class and class conscience is not a dogmatic one of cultural steel worker cult. One can be a classical factory worker and still adopt a petty bourgeois or even conservative ideology. And guess what? That happens everyday all over the world.
So it is not our social backgrounds we should discuss but the political and social consciousness that we have.

Yehuda never talked about the social backgrounds of PLP members but the objective class character of maoism. Of course, it's a discussion board and such statements are made for discussing them.

But posts like the one of baily_187 indicate neither a comprehension for marxist theory nor a will to really deal with the discussion subject in a political and scientific way.


There is no objective class character of maoism, you are simply making that up. Second PLP is not a maoist group, you got that from Yehuda.

[Sam_b]

I'm not a sectarian, i hate you trots all the same

I did not know the SWP was not part of ISO though; sorry

Classic first sentence.

I think you misunderstand completely, which is usual when going on baseless swipes. I can only imagine you and your ilk criticising the Bolsheviks back in the day for Lenin being 'middle class', but I digress. The ISO is not an international, the IST is. Many groups going by the name of International Socialist Organisation are members or supporters of the tendency/tradition (for example, the ISO in Zimbabwe, the ISO in New Zealand [who are not members but share the same outlook] and the ISO in the US [former members]). Hope that clears it up.

[Jimmie Higgins]

says an Trotskyite and ISO member LOLOLOLOL

Alex Calinicos? Not even Middle class, fucking aristocracy!

I dont know what ISO membership is like in your country but in the UK you dont have a fucking leg to stand on. about middle class
Hmm - ISO member here. I'm in my 30s, work in a hotel, make very little money and have no health care or other benefits, my parents were blue collar - I work in the service industry and would love the wages and benefits my parents made. I've worked many jobs and been an active member in 2 unions.

As several people have mentioned, the original "middle class" comment has to do with the political outlook of Maoists in general, not the specific backgrounds of individual members. Fine - if you want to debate this charaterization of maoism or argue that this group is different, then that is perfectly valid. Unfortunately it seems like some can't muster such an argument and so they fall back on sectarianism.

If we evaluated political groups by individual members, both the Republicans and Democrats would be "working class parties" since the majority of their members are working people. But since most of us aren't idiots, we can easily distinguish the political outlook of these two ruling class parties from the backgrounds of individuals who support these parties.

[willdw79]

Hmm - ISO member here. I'm in my 30s, work in a hotel, make very little money and have no health care or other benefits, my parents were blue collar - I work in the service industry and would love the wages and benefits my parents made. I've worked many jobs and been an active member in 2 unions.

As several people have mentioned, the original "middle class" comment has to do with the political outlook of Maoists in general, not the specific backgrounds of individual members. Fine - if you want to debate this charaterization of maoism or argue that this group is different, then that is perfectly valid. Unfortunately it seems like some can't muster such an argument and so they fall back on sectarianism.

If we evaluated political groups by individual members, both the Republicans and Democrats would be "working class parties" since the majority of their members are working people. But since most of us aren't idiots, we can easily distinguish the political outlook of these two ruling class parties from the backgrounds of individuals who support these parties.
The plp says that they are not maoist. In the 60ss they were the fraternal party of china. But they never supported adventurism or other so called maoist edicts.

Sometimes the categories that people apply force them away from the truth. Yehuda just gave them the hot write off from the gate.

"For a Maoist group, the PLP could've been far worse."

PLP is also not Stalinist or Leninist. They have taken some from Marx, Mao, Lenin, etc and tried to formulate a plan for communism/revolution that they believe will work. They went through this process in earnest, just like the groups or individuals including yourself that you support.

Leo says: "I think Yehuda called their ideology middle class rather than the sociological background of their members. "

In what way is their ideology middle class? I know first hand that it isn't, Idon't know how someone would figure that.

To Mephisto who said: "Yehuda never talked about the social backgrounds of PLP members but the objective class character of maoism. Of course, it's a discussion board and such statements are made for discussing them."

What is "the objective class character of maoism"?
Why would you classify PLP as Maoists other than the fact that they used to be the fraternal party of China before PLP severed that connection on the basis that China was not moving toward communism and was reverting back to capitalism?

Is that "middle class"? Is being a communist who does not want China to revert back to capitalism why people say they are abstract? That is material.

[Mephisto]

There is no objective class character of maoism, you are simply making that up. Second PLP is not a maoist group, you got that from Yehuda.

Every ideology has a class character.

By the way, I never said, that the PLP is maoist, I never dealt with the PLP and can't say anything about it. My comment was just a critique of how this discussion is going on.

[Yehuda Stern]

Others have indicated this already, but to be clear

1. I don't know and don't care about the class composition of the PLP. If it does have many working class people within it, that only means that it is effective in holding back these workers from coming to the ideas of authentic Marxism. Their middle class nature manifests itself in their inability to relate to mass struggles with more than rhetoric and in their inability to distinguish between the oppressed and their oppressors (they call the Palestinian intifadah "reactionary" and the clashes between the masses and the coup regime in Honduras a "bosses' dogfight").

2. I am not a member of the ISO or IST. I am a member of the Internationalist Socialist League, an Israeli group which currently has no international affiliation. The ISO was the IST's US section until they were expelled following a clique fight several years ago.

3. As for classes and ideologies, it takes someone as ignorant as Bailey 187 to make the claim that Maoists are mostly peasants and Trotskyists are mostly students. I know many working class Trotskyists; most Maoists I've met were middle class professionals. However, that in itself is absolutely no evidence to the class character of either ideology; the overwhelming majority of Israeli workers are Zionists, and most American workers are pro-Israeli. Zionism must be a proletarian ideology! Even more so, given the fact that in the past many workers world wide supported it as a way to defend Jews from destruction.
This example should show that arguing against ideologies purely by citing the alleged class identity of those who espouse them is not only a logical fallacy (ad hominem), but also a lazy acceptance of the existing consciousness of the masses.

4. The PLP claim they are not Maoists; most communist parties today would claim that they are not Stalinist. A shame that by Stalinism and Maoism one means not just the personal rule of Stalin or Mao, but what these men represented; namely, the bureaucratic-reformist distortion of Marxism.

[heiss93]

You should take a look at their pamphlet section of their websites. A lot of old theoretical articles. They did some good work on dialectics but even there their ultraleftist line led them to abandon non-antagonistic contradiction.

On China they take a very Left-Communist position siding with the ultraleft who wanted to dissolve the CPC, and create the People's Commune of China. So their defense of Stalin, is mainly historical debating, because in actual practical terms they favor council communism. That is certainly not the direction Stalin would have criticized China from.

Their theory of state is either anarchism or etaism. On the one hand they want immediate Communism which is anarchist. But they also say Communism will have a dictatorship of the proletariat. Since they don't recognize stages you could interpret that as wanting state dictatorship without withering away. I'm suprised they did not support Pol Pot as he was the only one to every implement their scheme of abolishing all wages and money immediately.

In sum they have some interesting theoretical works, and they do important historical defenses. In general I think the comrades in the PLP are good fighters, and we generally have the same ultimate goals, although I could say the same thing about just about every self-proclaimed Marxist or even socialist group.

I suppose my strongest criticism of them in actual struggle which I also have of many Trotskyist and Maoist groups is their Third Campist position that all nations are equally bad. That has negative consequences for those working inside an imperialist country.

[New Tet]

Has anyone had experience in or with the USA political party Progressive Labor Party (PLP)? I've read some of their old stuff but haven't seen much in the way of commentary. I'd be interested in what RevLeft comrades think of them.

Unless it's the permutation of a previous organization known to me from their literature and intervention, I know absolutely nothing about the PLP.

Their web site, however, looks interesting though a bit heavy on the symbology.

[willdw79]

Others have indicated this already, but to be clear

1. I don't know and don't care about the class composition of the PLP. If it does have many working class people within it, that only means that it is effective in holding back these workers from coming to the ideas of authentic Marxism. Their middle class nature manifests itself in their inability to relate to mass struggles with more than rhetoric and in their inability to distinguish between the oppressed and their oppressors (they call the Palestinian intifadah "reactionary" and the clashes between the masses and the coup regime in Honduras a "bosses' dogfight").

2. I am not a member of the ISO or IST. I am a member of the Internationalist Socialist League, an Israeli group which currently has no international affiliation. The ISO was the IST's US section until they were expelled following a clique fight several years ago.

3. As for classes and ideologies, it takes someone as ignorant as Bailey 187 to make the claim that Maoists are mostly peasants and Trotskyists are mostly students. I know many working class Trotskyists; most Maoists I've met were middle class professionals. However, that in itself is absolutely no evidence to the class character of either ideology; the overwhelming majority of Israeli workers are Zionists, and most American workers are pro-Israeli. Zionism must be a proletarian ideology! Even more so, given the fact that in the past many workers world wide supported it as a way to defend Jews from destruction.
This example should show that arguing against ideologies purely by citing the alleged class identity of those who espouse them is not only a logical fallacy (ad hominem), but also a lazy acceptance of the existing consciousness of the masses.

4. The PLP claim they are not Maoists; most communist parties today would claim that they are not Stalinist. A shame that by Stalinism and Maoism one means not just the personal rule of Stalin or Mao, but what these men represented; namely, the bureaucratic-reformist distortion of Marxism.
Yehuda says, "If it does have many working class people within it, that only means that it is effective in holding back these workers from coming to the ideas of authentic Marxism."
willdww79: How are they holding back working class people within it? Please be specific.

Yehuda says: "Their middle class nature manifests itself in their inability to relate to mass struggles with more than rhetoric and in their inability to distinguish between the oppressed and their oppressors (they call the Palestinian intifadah "reactionary" and the clashes between the masses and the coup regime in Honduras a "bosses' dogfight").
willdw79 says: The intifadah is led by non-communists religious people. The Honduras' former president is a reformer who doesn't advocate for the dictatorship of the proletariat=non-communist. After the failures of comintern's support for united fronts to generate more communism, why would you expect a communist party to support anything less than international communism? These religious and refomist movements have their own goals which fall incredibly short of the goals of communist revolutionaries.

Yehuda says: "the overwhelming majority of Israeli workers are Zionists, and most American workers are pro-Israeli."
willdw79 says: You have got to be kidding me. Who did you check with on this? I would guess that most American workers cannot find Israel on a globe or explain very much at all the Israel/Palestine question, they can't tell you one thing about zionism or even tell you one difference between hamas and al-qaeda, you are making a severe miscalculation.

Yehuda says: "The PLP claim they are not Maoists; most communist parties today would claim that they are not Stalinist."
willdw79 says: What does a group have to do to show you that they are not Maoist/Stalinist etc?

Yehuda says: "A shame that by Stalinism and Maoism one means not just the personal rule of Stalin or Mao, but what these men represented; namely, the bureaucratic-reformist distortion of Marxism"
willdw79 says: There are several thousand pages of writings by the PLP that go to differing levels of detail about what the party lines were in the past, what they are now, and they address many different issues as well as theoretical understandings. How could you say that they only mean by "stalinism" the rule of Stalin. That is patently untrue.

I feel that your arguments are made strictly from emotion and a factionionalized imagination of political parties other than your own. I wouldn't even try to find some things to cut your party down about for two reasons.
1. I could critique anything I read right away. But, I would have to read a substantial amount of what is available from your party in order to feel comfortable about honestly generalizing about your party's character.
2. If you are representative of your party then it wouldn't matter what they say, if they have a person like you who seems to be a know-it-all stereotyper, then I will pass.

Furthermore, one of the main reasons that PLP is not 100% Marxist/Leninist/Maoist/Stalinist is that their fight is for a moneyless, classless, borderless, egalitarian society directly following revolution. They state that one of the reasons that China, Russia, and every other country returned to capitalism is because they did not eliminate money and class. Also, their goal is not towrds ideological homogeneity, they are trying to use things that all struggles have done right, so sometimes they do give credit to people that you have determined to be bad. But that does not justify using the "ist" (Maoist-Stalinist).

[Yehuda Stern]

A better of doing this is to use the quote button. When you're writing a reply, there is a button on the top, first to the right in the quick reply menu and fifth from the right on the advanced reply menu. press it and then enter your quote between the ] and the [.


How are they holding back working class people within it? Please be specific.

The social role of all centrist and reformist groups is to prevent radicalizing workers and youth from developing a Marxist consciousness by keeping them at the organization's level of consciousness. Thus, in situations where many workers would develop a Marxist consciousness, instead they are recruited by one of these groups and thus are held back by them until some event leads them to reconsider their allegiance to the group.


The intifadah is led by non-communists religious people. The Honduras' former president is a reformer who doesn't advocate for the dictatorship of the proletariat=non-communist.

A person who fails to distinguish the oppressed, fighting masses from their oppressors, no matter their leadership, is not a communist but a sterile reformist or at best centrist. Your indifference to this question, as well as that of the PLP, shows the signs of a middle class ideology which expresses the interests of a class caught between the camps of the big bourgeoisie and the working class.


I would guess that most American workers cannot find Israel on a globe or explain very much at all the Israel/Palestine question

Your contempt for oppressed masses fighting for liberation is matched only by your contempt for the working class, as one can easily see. At any rate, most American workers know very well that Israel is fighting against the Palestinians, or at least the Arabs, and feel that Israel is "on their side."


There are several thousand pages of writings by the PLP that go to differing levels of detail about what the party lines were in the past, what they are now, and they address many different issues as well as theoretical understandings. How could you say that they only mean by "stalinism" the rule of Stalin. That is patently untrue.


I find that in both the cases of the PLP and those of the different communist parties, they criticize aspects of these totalitarian regimes but keep most of the ideology that they upheld intact. So they gave up on a socialist stage. So what? That is certainly not what caused Stalinism - indeed, the attempt to 'skip a stage' led to an unmitigated disaster in Cambodia.


I feel that your arguments are made strictly from emotion and a factionionalized imagination of political parties other than your own.

I have given historical facts; you have only put forward outraged indignation. Let others judge for themselves whose arguments are based on "emotion" and "factionalized imagination."


If you are representative of your party then it wouldn't matter what they say, if they have a person like you who seems to be a know-it-all stereotyper, then I will pass.

You can claim what you want on why you won't criticize us; what it seems to be to me is that you are a coward who, instead of facing your lack of knowledge and educating yourself, would rather write off a group without trying to read its material.

[willdw79]

Yehuda says: "The social role of all centrist and reformist groups is to prevent radicalizing workers and youth from developing a Marxist consciousness by keeping them at the organization's level of consciousness. Thus, in situations where many workers would develop a Marxist consciousness, instead they are recruited by one of these groups and thus are held back by them until some event leads them to reconsider their allegiance to the group."

This may sound sensible to you, but you don't express a rationale for it. Why am I to believe in your classifications?

Yehuda says: "Your contempt for oppressed masses fighting for liberation is matched only by your contempt for the working class, as one can easily see. At any rate, most American workers know very well that Israel is fighting against the Palestinians, or at least the Arabs, and feel that Israel is "on their side."

I have contempt for the reactionary aspects of the working class. If you think they are just fine how they are then so be it, but I don't. Plus, there are many groups that are comprised of the "oppressed masses" that I don't want any part of. The U.S. Army is comprised in large part by the "oppressed masses", no dice on this one either.

Yehuda says: "A person who fails to distinguish the oppressed, fighting masses from their oppressors, no matter their leadership, is not a communist but a sterile reformist or at best centrist."

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Yehuda says: "Your indifference to this question, as well as that of the PLP, shows the signs of a middle class ideology which expresses the interests of a class caught between the camps of the big bourgeoisie and the working class."

Its not middle class it is precisely the fact that we are from the working class that we know that the "opressed masses" are fallible.

Yehuda says: "I have given historical facts; you have only put forward outraged indignation. Let others judge for themselves whose arguments are based on "emotion" and "factionalized imagination."

What facts? It all sounds like jargon-laden mis-characterizations to me. As far as "letting others judge" if the people judge so correctly, why did the vote in Bush twice. Truth is not always the most popular position.

Yehuda says: "You can claim what you want on why you won't criticize us; what it seems to be to me is that you are a coward who, instead of facing your lack of knowledge and educating yourself, would rather write off a group without trying to read its material."

The web is the safest place to call someone a coward or hurl personal insults. As far as knowledge goes, I am an honest person, there are some things that I believe today that will change with new evidence, but for now, I stand by all of my criticisms of your positions.

[Yehuda Stern]

This may sound sensible to you, but you don't express a rationale for it. Why am I to believe in your classifications?

You don't have to. If you believe that reformism can advance the class consciousness of the working class, you are more than welcome to advocate reformism.


The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

This is not a real response. If you do not see yourself as being on the side of the oppressed masses, you are simply not a communist, not in the Leninist-Trotskyist sense at least. Revolutionary proletarians solidarize with the oppressed masses not because they are the "enemies of their enemies," but because their class interest is in those masses' liberation from imperialism. Their struggles, therefore, are to be supported even if their leadership is not revolutionary.


As far as "letting others judge" if the people judge so correctly, why did the vote in Bush twice. Truth is not always the most popular position.

I am not talking about all of humanity but about the readers of this site. Let them judge who bases his arguments on sentimental nonsense and who puts forward facts and arguments.


The web is the safest place to call someone a coward or hurl personal insults.

It is also the safest place to call someone a factionalizer or any of the other nonsense that you have called me. The web is, all in all, a pretty safe place. The difference between me and you is that I am a member of a group which is active outside the web as well, while I see no evidence that you do so yourself.

[willdw79]

Yehuda says: "If you believe that reformism can advance the class consciousness of the working class, you are more than welcome to advocate reformism."

False categorizations make a deductive argument invalid. i.e. You have not shown what makes PLP reformist.

Yehuda says: "If you do not see yourself as being on the side of the oppressed masses, you are simply not a communist, not in the Leninist-Trotskyist sense at least. Revolutionary proletarians solidarize with the oppressed masses not because they are the "enemies of their enemies," but because their class interest is in those masses' liberation from imperialism. Their struggles, therefore, are to be supported even if their leadership is not revolutionary."

This is a textbook false dichotomy. So now I have to choose a side in every fight against the ruling capitalists even if it means siding with "oppressed masses" that want to be the new oppressor. I support members in the working class who are striving to make it a class-for-itself. I do not blindly support all aspects of working class struggle, some of it is reactionary.

Yehuda says: "I am not talking about all of humanity but about the readers of this site. Let them judge who bases his arguments on sentimental nonsense and who puts forward facts and arguments."

I respect the opinions of people on this site as individuals and as a collective. However, we can collectively be wrong. So, I don't know what the people here think about this debate going on between me and you. If they agree with you, so be it, I still am not convinced that you are right. I stand firmly on my criticisms of your positions.