Is there a Revolutionary communist/Marxist group here in America?

[GiantBear91]

If so are they active as of now?

I really think we are going to end up having another revolution by the year 2014...

anyway are their any here that are active?

Thank you comrades,
Bear

[jake williams]

The American left is pretty disorganized, I'm sorry to say. Being the centre of world imperialism does things to a country's politics, and they're not good for the Left.

That said, it's also a huge country and there are all kinds of people doing fantastic things. I don't know what's up in NC, but I'm sure you can find people to work with who really are getting stuff accomplished and moving forward.

[GiantBear91]

The American left is pretty disorganized, I'm sorry to say. Being the centre of world imperialism does things to a country's politics, and they're not good for the Left.

That said, it's also a huge country and there are all kinds of people doing fantastic things. I don't know what's up in NC, but I'm sure you can find people to work with who really are getting stuff accomplished and moving forward.

I have been searching for a Marxist or Communist party all over NC and i have yet to find one... it's very agravating... If nothing else, I could start my own but I need to finish my studies of Marx's theory.

[Il Medico]

The left here is very disorganized. However, there are a lot of leftist groups. If we can unify them under a single banner, such as "Marxist Party" or "Marxist Unity Party", then we would have the third largest party in the country. Might even win some seats in congress. :D
I don't know how this would go about being done, but I will help in any way possible.:D

[Prairie Fire]

The American Party of Labour is the most revolutionary M-L group in the USA that I know of.

[jake williams]

Especially until you network a bit, you're probably not going to find a perfect party just waiting for you. It's your call, but in a similar situation I think I would probably try to scope out any sort of community of leftist activists (anarchists, the more radical social democrats, etc.). There are people who you'll basically agree with even if they're not Marxists, and there will be people who might very well become more radical talking to you.

I don't know what your personal political life is like though, and you might already be doing this.

Are you in a big city? What kind of people live there? I don't know anything about North Carolina, beyond the fact that I'm guessing it's somewhere north of South Carolina and it's somewhere on or near the Eastern coast of the United States.

[Martin Blank]

Where in North Carolina? We have members in the Greensboro area.

[GiantBear91]

Where in North Carolina? We have members in the Greensboro area.

Right now Im in Randleman NC. Im about to move to Shelby(which is fucking right-wing/KKK capital USA) But Yeah Im around those general areas right now.

[GiantBear91]

Especially until you network a bit, you're probably not going to find a perfect party just waiting for you. It's your call, but in a similar situation I think I would probably try to scope out any sort of community of leftist activists (anarchists, the more radical social democrats, etc.). There are people who you'll basically agree with even if they're not Marxists, and there will be people who might very well become more radical talking to you.

I don't know what your personal political life is like though, and you might already be doing this.

Are you in a big city? What kind of people live there? I don't know anything about North Carolina, beyond the fact that I'm guessing it's somewhere north of South Carolina and it's somewhere on or near the Eastern coast of the United States.


Well Randleman is like a society for elders(really... as in I have hardly ever seen any young people here other than my few friends around here who are not to keen on Communism) and Im about to move to Shelby which is like the city for rednecks and ignorant conservatives from what I have seen... but ill have to see what I can find when I get there.

[scarletghoul]

http://www.pslweb.org/
Party for Socialism and Liberation

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, there are two. The SLP, who are currently undergoing some financial problems, but should recover soon, and had a problem with bureaucracy earlier, though I'm not sure whether that still exists. Also the World Socialist Party of the United States, who are awesome, but it's the WSM and you'll probably dislike them. Anyways, you'd probably prefer a Party just fitting the 'revolutionary communist' label, for which there's the PSL, as previously mentioned.

Though my advice would be not joining any of the available Parties.

[Q]

Socialist Alternative (http://www.socialistalternative.org/)

[JimmyJazz]

Why 2014? I would have said 2012...

[Red October]

I'm in NC, and I haven't heard of a single one of those parties being active in this area. There's not a whole lot going on North Carolina period, but I've never heard any of those parties mentioned by anyone who's active. Having members on paper doesn't always translate into much.

[KC]

Wow, I'm surprised it took so long for someone to plug the PSL, and especially surprised that Kassad didn't jump on this thread to write up why PSL is the most revolutionary party of all and the next vanguard party of the proletariat.:laugh:

Anyways, I suggest you take a look around at different leftist parties nationwide and pick one that fits your political views best and just join them. Hell, you don't even have to join them; the important thing is that you're involved in organizing, so joining a union if your workplace is unionized or a community group or something like that is much more important.

I'm obviously going to plug Socialist Alternative because I think that they're politically the most correct, but I'm not going to say that you should join them because your politics might not coincide with theirs. So if you really are hell bent on picking a communist organization, then shop around for national ones and don't just settle for ones that are in your area (although I'd suggest working with ones in your area even if you politically disagree with them and/or don't join them).

EDIT: Actually Socialist Alternative has a contact listed (http://socialistalternative.org/about/) for Chapel Hill, NC, so you could contact them and see if they're active. I know FRSO has something somewhere in NC, but I don't know how active they are and I find their politics to be batshit insane. That's all I personally know of in NC, though.

[Zeus the Moose]

I think both Freedom Road Socialist Organizations have members in North Carolina. The FRSO (orthodox, www.frso.org) has some people in the Asheville area, and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (refoundationist, www.freedomroad.org) has a contact listed in North Carolina, though no more specific information than that. They both have a Maoist bent to them, so depending on where your studies lead you, you might want to check them out. Solidarity (www.solidarity-us.org) also has people in the Raleigh-Durham area.

In some respects, though, you might want to balance between an organisation that you agree with politically to organisations with a strong local base. Aside from groups active in North Carolina, you might want to look at others. There are many, probably too many for me to make a comprehensive list (as I'm sure I'd leave out an organisation, leading someone else on the board who is a member of said organisation to call me sectarian or something). But that is one of the good things about RevLeft; basically every socialist group in the US has at least one or two people on here.

[GiantBear91]

Well The Party For Socialism and Liberation looks pretty good so far.
I will tak a look at some of the other parties in time.
Thank you all for your help so far,
Bear

Any more recomendations?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Oh shit, let the trot do plan "B"

Join the SWP or CWI.

[Jack]

Skip the various vanguard parties.

[redSHARP]

hell why not look up the CPUSA and RCP for shit and giggles? the CPUSA are not very communist anymore, but seem to be nice people. they tend to organize in the cities and are more community based.

[BIG BROTHER]

I would recommend that you got to different protests, actions, community groups, etc. There you will make connections with all sort of different radicals. And as you experience this you will find the right group for you.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I second what BIG BROTHER just wrote. Socialist Workers' Party and Party for Socialism and Liberation are pretty active here in the Midwest but I don't know about North Carolina. Just try to get in touch with some people.

[The Deepest Red]

Workers' International League
(http://www.socialistappeal.org/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/)

[KC]

Workers' International League
(http://www.socialistappeal.org/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/)

Do you actually know anyone that's in that?

[The Deepest Red]

Do you actually know anyone that's in that?

While undoubtedly a small organisation, and with conditions being very difficult for revolutionaries in the United States, the WIL/SA still propagates what I believe to be the correct analysis and strategy of the IMT.

[Kassad]

As a supporter of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, I'm going to recommend them, of course. You said you're looking for a Marxist party, so let's break it down group by group. If you eliminate the totally defunct, inactive and such, you're pretty much down to the following groups.

- Workers World Party - Endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008, a capitalist candidate. Has not run its own candidates for a long time. Growing more and more inactive. A party leader also praised Obama's election. No activist presence.
- Revolutionary Communist Party, USA - Their website is literally for the paper, not the party. The party has become secondary. Members promote Bob Avakian's 'new synthesis' like cultists and there is little room for dissent. As a friend of mine said, they don't ask 'is this correct?' They ask 'why is this correct?' It's a very unrealistic way to approach Marxism. They also have literally no activist presence besides the paper.
- Freedom Road Socialist Organization - Just split in half. Both halves are now down to probably a few members who have not shown their faces at protests or any events in years.
- Communist Party USA - Basically a radical wing of the Democratic Party. They support Obama, his policies and they oppose threats against him, such as those from North Korea. No activist presence.
- Socialist Party USA - They advocate 'democratic revolution' in the hopes of 'becoming the majority.' This is thinly veiled language stating that they don't want revolution. They just want to become a majority in the legislature and reform the capitalist system until it becomes socialist. Don't waste your time.

Really, I'd feel confident in saying that the only groups even relatively active in the United States are the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the International Socialist Organization and the International Marxist Tendency (Socialist Appeal). If you eliminate the two that promote Trotskyist elitism and incredibly misguided views at times, you're only left with Socialism and Liberation. I live six hours from a branch and I still get papers, fliers, stickers and a lot more to work with. Trust me, if you work hard, you can establish a branch in your city like I am doing. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. I think I'd be one of the best suited people here to answer them.

[Red October]

I live in the Raleigh-Durham area, none of these contacts sound very useful. You're all just listing a bunch of interchangeable parties that either don't exist here or have a few paper contacts that don't do anything. FRSO exists in this area in the form of about one guy who does stuff with other groups and hands out papers. Worker's World Party has a fair amount of members/supporters here, but they pretty much work under the guise of FIST, which is the youth group for WWP, even though much of the "leadership" of FIST here is pushing 30 or above. That said, they are active and do shit around here, but the politics suck (coming from an anarchist). Every other party I've seen listed here is nonexistant in the area or if they do have a few/one member(s), no one has ever heard of them doing shit around here. If all those parties were actually active around here, Raleigh-Durham would be the mecca of communism. I've heard RCP esixts in some form in Greensboro, but is now close to defunct. The International Socialist Organization has meetings and talks a ton about Marx down in Charlotte, but the people I know who've tried to associate with them say they don't seem interested in doing much.

I know this isn't super helpful, but it's North Carolina. If you go out looking for a party here, you'll be disappointed. If you want help with other stuff involving organizing in NC, I'm open to that.

[chegitz guevara]

As a supporter of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, I'm going to recommend them, of course. You said you're looking for a Marxist party, so let's break it down group by group. If you eliminate the totally defunct, inactive and such, you're pretty much down to the following groups.

- Workers World Party - Endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008, a capitalist candidate. Has not run its own candidates for a long time. Growing more and more inactive. A party leader also praised Obama's election. No activist presence.

It depends on where you are. WWP has a strong presence in the Northeast and NYC.


- Revolutionary Communist Party, USA - Their website is literally for the paper, not the party. The party has become secondary. Members promote Bob Avakian's 'new synthesis' like cultists and there is little room for dissent. As a friend of mine said, they don't ask 'is this correct?' They ask 'why is this correct?' It's a very unrealistic way to approach Marxism. They also have literally no activist presence besides the paper.

The RCP is falling apart because of the fact that is has become an open cult of Avakian (although it was apparent to most of the rest of the left that it had been a cult since 1981).


- Freedom Road Socialist Organization - Just split in half. Both halves are now down to probably a few members who have not shown their faces at protests or any events in years.

Another split or are you confusing the one that happened about a decade ago.


- Communist Party USA - Basically a radical wing of the Democratic Party. They support Obama, his policies and they oppose threats against him, such as those from North Korea. No activist presence.

The CP combines the worst aspects of Stalinism with social democracy.


- Socialist Party USA - They advocate 'democratic revolution' in the hopes of 'becoming the majority.' This is thinly veiled language stating that they don't want revolution. They just want to become a majority in the legislature and reform the capitalist system until it becomes socialist. Don't waste your time.

While that is certainly true of some members of the party, it is by no means true of all. Revolutionaries have won control of the leadership of the party two conventions in a row, and I think we're only track for a solid majority in the coming convention. I know the social democrats are running scared and feeling cornered and lashing out. I expect to see a split in the next few years once the social democrats realize they can no longer bully the party around.

It's true that the Statement of Principles uses a lot of weasel words, but it was that ambiguity that allowed revolutionaries to join the party and slowly become a majority of active members. Probably not this time around, or next, because it will be a Presidential year, but in 2013, I expect a revision of the SoP and for the party to become more explicitly revolutionary Marxists.

Anyone who wants to help us crush the Old Guard is welcome to join . . . provided you aren't a member of a democratic centralist organization.

BTW, Kassad, here in South Florida, the SPUSA and PSL have done several joint actions, and where we can, we support PSL actions. We have a lot of respect for each other.

[KC]

Socialist Alternative has a branch in Chapel Hill, NC, apparently. You can find contact info here (http://socialistalternative.org/about/).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Contrary to Kassad's partisan musings, as someone north of the US I must say, nevertheless, join either the SP-USA or the Workers Party of America (preferrably both).

Unlike the PSL, the SP-USA is multi-tendency (even with the upcoming revolutionary majority). However, unlike practically all other parties, the Workers Party of America is open only to "industrial" workers, corporate farm workers, retail workers, office workers, teachers, etc. - it is a workers-only organization. No bourgeois elements, petit-bourgeois elements, elements of unproductive labour, etc. are allowed.

This long-forgotten proletarian separatism is the key to building worker-class movements, not deeming the proliferation of collective bargaining machines (tred-iunionizm) to be some sort of "workers' movement."


I know the social democrats are running scared and feeling cornered and lashing out. I expect to see a split in the next few years once the social democrats realize they can no longer bully the party around.

Didn't some of them split off already? Another split by them would be pointless (two "Social-Democratic" parties in the US going head to head with each other).

[Kassad]

Jacob Richter has the best advice if you're looking for assistance from a person who supports a social-democratic party. In fact, I have mentioned this many times and Jacob Richter has never once resolved or attempted to discuss the issue. If you read through Socialist Party USA's website, you will never see them calling for proletarian revolution. Instead, they call for democratic revolution, which means a 'revolution' of socialists flooding the legislature. That's electoral reformism. Sorry to burst your bubble. Since Jacob Richter has absolutely no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the Party for Socialism and Liberation or any revolutionary socialist party in the United States in general, I would advise you to ignore his liberal babblings about revolutionary parties.

[chegitz guevara]

If you read through Socialist Party USA's website, you will never see them calling for proletarian revolution.

Let's see if Kassad will admit he's wrong.

http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/mayday09.html

The problem for much of the rest is that because the party is multi-tendency, which includes social democrats, we have to write our statements in a way which keeps everyone happy. That means we use vague references to workers revolution, which sectarians like Kassad can say is really a veiled reference to electoral cretinism.

We've had two conventions in a row where revolutionaries have had a slight majority. We weren't in a position to "impose" our will on the party. The upcoming convention I think will be different. We should have a solid majority this time. Without a 2/3rds majority, though, we might not be able to change the Statement of Principles to explicitly call for workers revolution.

Oh and one last thing, Kassad. Leon Trotsky was a member of the Socialist Party of America, our predecessor organization. :p


Didn't some of them split off already? Another split by them would be pointless (two "Social-Democratic" parties in the US going head to head with each other).

The thing about social democrats is they are every bit as sectarian as every other tendency of the left. DSA, CCDS, SDUSA, the CP, Solidarity, Freedom Road, etc. are all social democratic formations. Most of them don't like each other too much.

There are several factions of social democrats in the party, all pissed off and whining because they haven't controlled the party in years. Which way they go depends on the group. The only social democrats I want to keep are the younger ones, who might be swayed by logic and the course of events. The Old Guard I have no use for, and would just as soon see them leave.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Jacob Richter has the best advice if you're looking for assistance from a person who supports a social-democratic party. In fact, I have mentioned this many times and Jacob Richter has never once resolved or attempted to discuss the issue. If you read through Socialist Party USA's website, you will never see them calling for proletarian revolution. Instead, they call for democratic revolution, which means a 'revolution' of socialists flooding the legislature. That's electoral reformism. Sorry to burst your bubble. Since Jacob Richter has absolutely no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the Party for Socialism and Liberation or any revolutionary socialist party in the United States in general, I would advise you to ignore his liberal babblings about revolutionary parties.

It's a shame you have to resort to lies and slander. :(

"When it comes to any revolutionary socialist party in the US in general"? "Liberal babblings?" Give me a break! :rolleyes:

I never needed to "resolve or attempted to discuss the issue" because posters like Stancel and Chegitz bursted your bubble.

[Kassad]

They used the term 'class struggle,' which I suppose is a start. To be honest, you can see the party trying to avoid words like 'proletariat', 'bourgeoisie' and other revolutionary Marxist terms along those lines because the party, at its core, stills appears to be social-democratic. However, you're so incredibly delusional that you would criticize someone who makes a legitimate grievance towards your party as 'sectarian.' So now I can't criticize any party just because it's considered sectarian on your part? What utter nonsense. A lot of people think my party is reformist. Cool. That's not sectarian, it's a legitimate qualm with the party. If you look through your party's statement on electoral politics, you'd see that it states they plan to enact socialist reforms 'once a majority.' That's electoral reformism. Try again.

Good luck to the actual revolutionaries like yourself in Socialist Party USA, but until such a group becomes the primary influence, your party's ideological core, or at least how it appears to non-members, will be social-democratic. That's not sectarian, it's a statement of fact. Stop acting childish.

Anyway, here comes Jacob Richter ignoring my questions once again. Either answer the questions and provide me legitimate sources without having other people do your ideological debating or stop talking. I'd prefer the latter, to be honest.

[RedScare]

Your best bet is to go to local protests and talk to the radicals there. Everyone likes to plug their own party (I sympathize with the PSL) but you won't easily find out about the state of affairs in your area on the internet. Go out there and talk to people.

[chegitz guevara]

They used the term 'class struggle,' which I suppose is a start. To be honest, you can see the party trying to avoid words like 'proletariat', 'bourgeoisie' and other revolutionary Marxist terms along those lines because the party, at its core, stills appears to be social-democratic. However, you're so incredibly delusional that you would criticize someone who makes a legitimate grievance towards your party as 'sectarian.'

They used the slogans:

Long Live the Revolution!
Long Live the Workers!
Long Live May Day!

Sure, it could be more explicit, but I don't think you can mistake the meaning.

A sectarian is one who puts the interests of their own group (sect) above the interests of the movement as a whole. That description pretty well describes PSL. It also describes your approach towards the Socialist Party. So I think it's fairly safe to refer to you as a sectarian.

The problem isn't that you have a legitimate "grievance" (what did we ever do to you?). Other comrades have approached me with questions and concerns, just as valid as yours, about our crappy Statement of Principles. But instead of attacking, it was a dialogue, a discussion between comrades. I'm even using some of those suggestions in a rewrite of the Principles I'm proposing. That's the difference. Comrades should be trying to help one another, not take each other down.

[pierrotlefou]

I think your best bet is to first get out of north carolina.

[chegitz guevara]

Why? North Carolina has long been a hotbed of radicalism.

[Communist]

Workers World Party has a branch in the Durham area (http://www.workers.org/). From what I've been told, this cell has a good number of younger members and is growing.
WWP is Marxist-Leninist with a theoretical, activist revolutionary ideology; fully supports and maintains close relationships with revolutionary parties / governments / movements internationally; publishes an excellent weekly paper and is very active on the ground.
If a socialist is looking for a revolutionary Marxist communist party in the US, I of course recommend mine.

[chegitz guevara]

My interaction with comrades in WWP was always been wonderful. I've rarely met a group of comrades that treats other comrades with whom they disagree with such respect.

I do political work with a WWP comrade down here in South Florida, and you may be able to guess who I mean. He's a good guy, though he almost got me killed in a right wing Cuban riot.

[The Something]

The quotes in your profile(giantbear91) are misattributed. Not like anyone owns ideas or words, but if you're gonna quote people I think it would be best to quote the right guy. :lol:

[Revy]

Jacob Richter has the best advice if you're looking for assistance from a person who supports a social-democratic party. In fact, I have mentioned this many times and Jacob Richter has never once resolved or attempted to discuss the issue. If you read through Socialist Party USA's website, you will never see them calling for proletarian revolution. Instead, they call for democratic revolution, which means a 'revolution' of socialists flooding the legislature. That's electoral reformism. Sorry to burst your bubble. Since Jacob Richter has absolutely no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the Party for Socialism and Liberation or any revolutionary socialist party in the United States in general, I would advise you to ignore his liberal babblings about revolutionary parties.

Dude, you're obsessed. I have never seen you give an opinion about groups in the US that wasn't an all -out assault on any groups that aren't PSL.

We are not a social democratic party, thank your very much :closedeyes:

We call for proletarian revolution plenty of times. You don't have any evidence we support "socialists flooding the legislature" beyond your own psychotic perceptions.

And calling Jacob a liberal? Well that tactic must be new :rolleyes:

[Kassad]

The Socialist Party does not divorce electoral politics from other strategies for basic change. While a minority, we fight for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. When a majority we will rapidly introduce socialist reforms, with priority to the elimination of the power of big business through public ownership and workers' control.

Emphasis is mine. Are you done? You say you aren't social-democratic, yet you have never once provided any source that calls for proletarian revolution. Nothing about communism as a final stage of socialist construction. Nothing about revolution that isn't 'democratic.' Sorry, I suppose using sources to rationalize my claims is now 'psychotic.'

[Revulero]

Kassad no bullshit, but you sound like a sectarian prick. Its true that Socialist party have reformers, but assuming that everyone in the party is reformist is straight up absurd. I'm assuming you don't know anyone who is a member of spusa because if you did you wouldn't be so damn ignorant, instead of being sectarian you should talk with an actual member, it'll probably amaze you how revolutionary they are.

I would join the psl because I agree with their issues on almost every level according to what I've read, but the problem is that there isn't anyone here I know thats from psl, so instead I hang out with members in the spusa and they are as revolutionary as anyone here.

Most of the ones I hangout with admit that they joined because there is no other revolutionary organization here. So think its badass that revolutionaries are taking over the spusa and I wish the best for them.:thumbup:

[Revy]

Kassad no bullshit, but you sound like a sectarian prick. Its true that Socialist party have reformers, but assuming that everyone in the party is reformist is straight up absurd. I'm assuming you don't know anyone who is a member of spusa because if you did you wouldn't be so damn ignorant, instead of being sectarian you should talk with an actual member, it'll probably amaze you how revolutionary they are.

I would join the psl because I agree with their issues on almost every level according to what I've read, but the problem is that there isn't anyone here I know thats from psl, so instead I hang out with members in the spusa and they are as revolutionary as anyone here.

Most of the ones I hangout with admit that they joined because there is no other revolutionary organization here. So think its badass that revolutionaries are taking over the spusa and I wish the best for them.:thumbup:

awesome post.

PSL itself has not been free from "reformist" accusations. I remember quite clearly how someone said that about PSL's mayoral campaign in New York City on this forum.

The notoriously sectarian Internationalist Group called PSL a number of names including "bourgeois", "reformist", a rehash of social democracy, etc.

There should be co-operation between our two parties. And if PSL ever become a huge party, leaving us in the dust, it won't be because they convinced people with sectarian rants.

[Saorsa]

^ There's criticism and there's blanket dismissal. The tendency on this forum is generally towards the latter...

I've got a question for all the SP USA comrades here. Why do you guys see taking over a social democratic group and transforming it into a revolutionary one (I'm not in the US and my knowledge is limited, but that's what I think is happening) as the best course of action, as opposed to just setting up a revolutionary group or joining an existing one? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

[Revy]

^ There's criticism and there's blanket dismissal. The tendency on this forum is generally towards the latter...

I've got a question for all the SP USA comrades here. Why do you guys see taking over a social democratic group and transforming it into a revolutionary one (I'm not in the US and my knowledge is limited, but that's what I think is happening) as the best course of action, as opposed to just setting up a revolutionary group or joining an existing one? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

It just had a faction of social democrats in it. They left furiously after the radical wing grew. But they never were the majority.

It shouldn't be about starting a party that is perfect from the beginning. The idea of the broad party, it's about building a mass revolutionary party, and sometimes that involves entryism, sometimes it doesn't, but right now, revolutionary left entering the Socialist Party USA is a good strategy for building it and developing it. Revolution is a process to build not a product to sell.

If the SPUSA was controlled by social democrats it would look futile, but that's not the case. The majority are revolutionary.

[KC]

It shouldn't be about starting a party that is perfect from the beginning. The idea of the broad party, it's about building a mass revolutionary party, and sometimes that involves entryism, sometimes it doesn't, but right now, revolutionary left entering the Socialist Party USA is a good strategy for building it and developing it. Revolution is a process to build not a product to sell.Yes but there is a clear difference between entering into a tactical alliance with reformists/liberals and merging into a single organization. In doing the latter, you inevitably end up watering down your organization's principles in order to pander to the reformists, as has been demonstrated by Kassad's quotes. I don't think the argument that it is composed of revolutionaries as well as reformists is a good argument because ultimately the organizational line gets watered down and becomes representative of the reformists in general. This is what we can see happening in the SPUSA, and this is why we don't see any type of vigorous and open struggle against such reformist tendencies (as any type of struggle would cause the reformists to break off and go against the pandering and compromises that has maintained the organization over the years).


If the SPUSA was controlled by social democrats it would look futile, but that's not the case. The majority are revolutionary.Then why is this not represented in their publications/statements? If the majority is revolutionary then why are we finding reformist ideas being expressed in party literature?

[Communist]

^ There's criticism and there's blanket dismissal. The tendency on this forum is generally towards the latter...
I've got a question for all the SP USA comrades here. Why do you guys see taking over a social democratic group and transforming it into a revolutionary one (I'm not in the US and my knowledge is limited, but that's what I think is happening) as the best course of action, as opposed to just setting up a revolutionary group or joining an existing one? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

Appalled at the tragedy that has befallen the historic and once-relevant Communist Party USA, the idea is around to enter and hope to return it to Marxist-Leninism. They won't even *accept* new members if they profess communist ideology, so it's futile. But if the SPUSA revolutionaries can accomplish this, great. However, and what I wonder is, even if the revolutionary socialists take over, what then? If there isn't democratic centralism within the SP, and factions and tendencies are still around, what's to stop the party from continuing to flounder in turmoil and ideological confusion? Will the socialists institute centralism at that point?
I don't know a lot about the contemporary SP but have heard about various tendencies.

[KC]

If there isn't democratic centralism within the SP, and factions and tendencies are still around, what's to stop the party from continuing to flounder in turmoil and ideological confusion?

There is nothing wrong with factions/tendencies, and in fact this is the sign of a healthy party, provided of course that these factions/tendencies don't go against fundamental principles.

[Communist]

There is nothing wrong with factions/tendencies, and in fact this is the sign of a healthy party, provided of course that these factions/tendencies don't go against fundamental principles.

I support multi-tendency socialist organizations. But factions inevitably lead to confusion regarding fundamentals within a socialist party.

[KC]

I support multi-tendency socialist organizations. But factions inevitably lead to confusion regarding fundamentals within a socialist party.

How are you differentiating between a socialist organization and a socialist party?

[Communist]

An organization can be made for the express purpose of uniting for activist causes.
For example, Bail out The People. And other reasons, such as educational and academic purposes. These organizations don't require a specific ideology, nor do they promote one, just a commitment to their purposes. A political party should have a specific ideology for their members to formulate their goals and rally the working class and oppressed around. A solid, clear political purpose.
The vanguard needs to be united, and the presence of factions only invites the possibility of counterrevolutionary elements in the party.

[KC]

A political party should have a specific ideology for their members to formulate their goals and rally the working class and oppressed around. A solid, clear political purpose.

Yes, but factions aren't necessarily based upon fundamental principles (nor do I think they should ever be). The blurring of the lines between fundamental issues and non-fundamental issues is what causes splits.

[fredbergen]

What would you know about principles KC?

Do you know who this is?

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/pic/823.jpg

It's John Hancock, the head of the Prison Officers Association (POA) at Wormwood Scrubs prison, speaking at your very British party congress in 2008!

The members of this racist, anti-working class "union" have made quite a name for themselves at Wormwood:


“In one incident, an Irish inmate was choked as eight officers beat him, with one shouting for him to call him ‘English master’. Others were left with broken bones; one was so terrified that he slashed his wrists. On several occasions officers psychologically tortured prisoners by threatening to hang them.”

(Guardian, 13 November 2006)


“The allegations include claims that inmates at Wormwood Scrubs in west London were beaten, burnt with cigarettes, forced to eat paper and subjected to obscene abuse about members of their families…. Most of the original complaints were by black prisoners. One said he was forced to eat a ‘Black is Beautiful’ poster that was taken from his wall. Many white prisoners have also now come forward claiming they were brutally treated.”

(Independent, 4 March 1999)

Besides agitating for higher pay for the bosses’ racist thugs, the POA, like the police “labor” organizations, lobbies for political changes, like replacing minimum-security “open” prisons with fortified, fenced-in jails. The POA also represents members in Northern Ireland, who have threatened to strike if Irish Republican prisoners are granted separate accommodations and other rights due to them as political prisoners. Recall that IRA prisoner Bobby Sands led a hunger strike to protest brutal treatment and demand that Republican inmates have their status as political prisoners be reinstated. Sands was elected to parliament from his cell in H-Block, yet died a painful death as the British state refused to give in.

Cops, prison guards out of the unions!

[Q]

A political party should have a specific ideology for their members to formulate their goals and rally the working class and oppressed around. A solid, clear political purpose.
The vanguard needs to be united, and the presence of factions only invites the possibility of counterrevolutionary elements in the party.
This may make perfect sense in your mind, reality however is the exact opposite: you can only unite the vanguard if you allow factions, tendencies and disagreement to flourish. In all other cases you end up with a sect.

The argument that you might allow "counter revolutionary elements in your ranks" is really a clincher. Different views are a given, the workers movement isn't "pure" as you might wish. The way forward however to create political clarity in the movement by open discussion. Said in another way, the logic of purging the "counter revolutionary elements" eventually leaves you very alone or with an insignificant group that is totally cut loose from the working class movement.

[KC]

What would you know about principles KC?

Do you know who this is?I'm not a member of Socialist Alternative or the CWI.

Nice try, though. ;)

[Q]

What would you know about principles KC?

Do you know who this is?

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/pic/823.jpg

It's John Hancock, the head of the Prison Officers Association (POA) at Wormwood Scrubs prison, speaking at your very British party congress in 2008!

The members of this racist, anti-working class "union" have made quite a name for themselves at Wormwood:



(Guardian, 13 November 2006)



(Independent, 4 March 1999)

Besides agitating for higher pay for the bosses’ racist thugs, the POA, like the police “labor” organizations, lobbies for political changes, like replacing minimum-security “open” prisons with fortified, fenced-in jails. The POA also represents members in Northern Ireland, who have threatened to strike if Irish Republican prisoners are granted separate accommodations and other rights due to them as political prisoners. Recall that IRA prisoner Bobby Sands led a hunger strike to protest brutal treatment and demand that Republican inmates have their status as political prisoners be reinstated. Sands was elected to parliament from his cell in H-Block, yet died a painful death as the British state refused to give in.

Cops, prison guards out of the unions!
First of all, KC isn't a member, but a sympathiser of the American section of the CWI, Socialist Alternative.

Second, I agree with you here. The Socialist Party's POA cheer was really embarrassing in my view. Mind however, I do agree with the need to split sections of the working class working for the state - like the bureaucracy, army and police - from that state to take an independent class position and thusly undermine the capitalist state. But in this case the POA cheer amounted to ignoring the fact that these people are one of the most reactionary layers of the working class around and fully support them regardless. This amounts to defending them so they can carry out their job better, thusly strengthening the state. Therefore I think the SPEW made a big blunder with this cheer.

[KC]

But in this case the POA cheer amounted to ignoring the fact that these people are one of the most reactionary layers of the working class around and fully support them regardless.They are not members of the working class.

[Q]

They are not members of the working class.
Defining the working class as the class deprived of ownership of the means of production and thusly dependent on the wagefund for their livelihood, they definantly are.

[KC]

Defining the working class as the class deprived of ownership of the means of production and thusly dependent on the wagefund for their livelihood, they definantly are.

Yes but one's relationship to the means of production is not the only way of defining one's class. One's relation to other classes as well as their own class are also defining, and in this case much more important. Prison guards and cops are members of the state apparatus, and as such their class affiliation is with the bourgeoisie. In this case, they are petit-bourgeoisie because of their social position in society.

As an interesting aside, your definition (assuming it is your complete definition) would include managers and many other non-proletarian elements. Your definition is incredibly one-sided.

[fredbergen]

What to cops and screws "produce"? Capitalist oppression!

I have to apologize to KC, I thought you supported the Taaffeites, but I guess you only "sympathize" with them despite their support for the police and prison guard "union rights."

The working class has a material, objective interest in smashing the capitalist state (i.e. the police, prisons, and military) and establishing its own class rule. This is true independently of the false consciousness that workers may possess. But how do the guard dogs of capital fit into this as "workers"? Sure, they want to be paid more ... so does every CEO and army general! But it certainly wouldn't benefit them for the order which they viciously defend to be brought down through revolution! They'd be out of a job, if not up against a wall! The fake "socialists" who want to bring these enemies of the workers into the workers movement are 1. helping cops be more satisfied and compensated for their "job" of racist oppression and 2. sowing deadly reformist illusions among the workers themselves.

[Q]

Yes but one's relationship to the means of production is not the only way of defining one's class. One's relation to other classes as well as their own class are also defining, and in this case much more important. Prison guards and cops are members of the state apparatus, and as such their class affiliation is with the bourgeoisie. In this case, they are petit-bourgeoisie because of their social position in society.

As an interesting aside, your definition (assuming it is your complete definition) would include managers and many other non-proletarian elements. Your definition is incredibly one-sided.
For completeness sake, I define the working class according to an objective and a subjective factor. The objective factor is the one I gave above but indeed doesn't give a complete picture. The subjective factor, the one consciousness of the class as a class, is just as important. This is why I put the prison guards away as one of the most reactionary elements, because of the dominant ideas and practices (as fred mentioned above), i.e. them working for the capitalist state. So we agree with the definition, but we disagree with the conclusion. I think petit-bourgeois is objectively wrong in this case and therefore meaningless.

[chegitz guevara]

^ There's criticism and there's blanket dismissal. The tendency on this forum is generally towards the latter...

I've got a question for all the SP USA comrades here. Why do you guys see taking over a social democratic group and transforming it into a revolutionary one (I'm not in the US and my knowledge is limited, but that's what I think is happening) as the best course of action, as opposed to just setting up a revolutionary group or joining an existing one? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

I can't speak for others, but I wanted to be in an organization where I wasn't required to join in the group-think. Unfortunately, as we've seen in nearly every revolutionary group, there is a strong tendency to degenerate into a cult, even if there isn't a leader of veneration, cult-like methodology is still employed.

This false democratic centralism is one of the biggest problems the left has that it can control. They call it Leninism, and yet not only did the Bolsheviks not engage in such discipline, but Lenin himself even went outside the party press to state his opposition to a party decision. I want the freedom that existed in Lenin's organization.

And hey, what's wrong with stealing the Socialist Party back from the social democrats? It was the party of Eugene Debs, Big Bill Haywood, Mother Jones, Leon Trotsky (when he was in the US), Helen Keller, and so on. Why let the liberals keep our revolutionary icons?

[fredbergen]

Q: they don't "work for the state" -- they are the state, a special body of armed men to maintain the rule of one class over another. Of course, you Taaffeites believe in the peaceful democratic transformation of capitalism into "socialism" so what use would you have for Lenin anyway?

[KC]

I have to apologize to KC

Apology accepted. :)


For completeness sake, I define the working class according to an objective and a subjective factor. The objective factor is the one I gave above but indeed doesn't give a complete picture. The subjective factor, the one consciousness of the class as a class, is just as important. This is why I put the prison guards away as one of the most reactionary elements, because of the dominant ideas and practices (as fred mentioned above), i.e. them working for the capitalist state. So we agree with the definition, but we disagree with the conclusion. I think petit-bourgeois is objectively wrong in this case and therefore meaningless.

Your separation of "objective" and "subjective" into two distinct categories is incredibly flawed and more reminiscent of economism (or more generally mechanical materialism) than actual Marxism. In reality objective and subjective are not really two distinct aspects but rather one inseparable whole, merely looked at from two different perspectives. You are attempting to separate the inseparable, and in doing so are resorting to mechanical materialism and ultimately vulgar Marxism.


And hey, what's wrong with stealing the Socialist Party back from the social democrats? It was the party of Eugene Debs, Big Bill Haywood, Mother Jones, Leon Trotsky (when he was in the US), Helen Keller, and so on. Why let the liberals keep our revolutionary icons?

Could you please address my earlier post (EDIT: this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/there-revolutionary-communist-t110293/index.html?p=1529085#post1529085)) regarding the issue of merging with reformists? I'm interested in hearing the position of SPUSA members/supporters on that.

[Kassad]

Kassad no bullshit, but you sound like a sectarian prick. Its true that Socialist party have reformers, but assuming that everyone in the party is reformist is straight up absurd. I'm assuming you don't know anyone who is a member of spusa because if you did you wouldn't be so damn ignorant, instead of being sectarian you should talk with an actual member, it'll probably amaze you how revolutionary they are.

I would join the psl because I agree with their issues on almost every level according to what I've read, but the problem is that there isn't anyone here I know thats from psl, so instead I hang out with members in the spusa and they are as revolutionary as anyone here.

Most of the ones I hangout with admit that they joined because there is no other revolutionary organization here. So think its badass that revolutionaries are taking over the spusa and I wish the best for them.:thumbup:

This is quite a statement. Remind me again where I said that all members of Socialist Party USA are social-democrats or reformists? Wait, what's that? Oh, that's right. I never said anything of the sort. What I did say is that from the website's appearance and the party's statement of principles, they appear to advocate electoral reform as the prime means of attaining socialism, as opposed to a revolutionary socialist vanguard. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of revolutionaries in the party. By the way, before you mount your high horse and ride off into the sunset, you should realize that I have a nearby branch of Democratic Socialists of America (called Democratic Socialists of Ohio here, but they're a part of the broader organization) in my city. I attend their meetings when they have them and out of the 10-15 people that attend, at least 3-4 of them are supporters or members of Socialist Party USA. All but one of them that I've talked to have rejected the idea of a violent revolution or any kind of uprising of the working class led by a revolutionary vanguard. In fact, my membership in the Party for Socialism and Liberation is criticized heavily due to our advocacy of a violent proletarian revolution. They advocate peaceful means of socialist construction, which basically means electoral victory, which is a social-democratic ideology. I think it's safe to say you're completely lying and maybe you should ask first before you make assertions about who I am and what I know.

As stated earlier, and I thank Nothing Human is Alien for his statement as well, accusations of sectarianism on my part are pretty narrow-minded. Criticizing an organization, whether it's the Democrats, Greens, Socialists or whoever, due to their ideological flaws is not sectarian. It is criticism that needs to be noted. Is criticizing Communist Party USA for its liberalism sectarian because it has some actual revolutionary socialists in the party? No, and the same goes for Socialist Party USA. Social-democratic ideologies mislead actual revolutionaries, which is why I'm a supporter of a revolutionary party. If people want to try to alter a party to support more revolutionary means, that's awesome, but I view it the same way I view radical leftists joining the Democratic Party, the Green Party and Communist Party USA to alter their views to be more radical. I think it's a waste of time, which I've stated before. I'm not attacking revolutionary members of these groups, but merely noting that revolutionary aspects of their party's programs and ideology are missing. If I'm being so ignorant, please provide me with a statement where I claimed all members of Socialist Party USA are reformists or please cite me a source where Socialist Party USA promotes a revolutionary socialist program and advocates a proletarian revolution. Good luck.

[chegitz guevara]

We have members in Ohio? :ohmy:

[chegitz guevara]

Yes but there is a clear difference between entering into a tactical alliance with reformists/liberals and merging into a single organization. In doing the latter, you inevitably end up watering down your organization's principles in order to pander to the reformists, as has been demonstrated by Kassad's quotes. I don't think the argument that it is composed of revolutionaries as well as reformists is a good argument because ultimately the organizational line gets watered down and becomes representative of the reformists in general. This is what we can see happening in the SPUSA, and this is why we don't see any type of vigorous and open struggle against such reformist tendencies (as any type of struggle would cause the reformists to break off and go against the pandering and compromises that has maintained the organization over the years).

In this case, the line was already wretched, but it was vague enough to allow revolutionaries to interpret it our own way. It's not that a revolutionary line was watered down to keep the alliance with the social democrats. We reinterpreted an existing crappy line for our own ends. We've also started putting out some clearly revolutionary politics, such as the May Day piece, and while the politics expressed in The Socialist has yet to catch up, the last two covers show more militant, revolutionary bent.

http://socialistparty-usa.org/images//mayts09cover.gifhttp://socialistparty-usa.org/images/tsaug09cover.gif

For the past several years there has been a rather sharp political struggle within the organization. There was a small split, by the most wretched of the social democrats, who then left to take over the Social Democrats USA. This fight has been over the leadership elected by the past two conventions, which had clear revolutionary majorities (Luxemburgist / Trotskyist / libertarian socialist / revolutionary Marxist).

The struggle is not over what line the organization will take, but rather, will the organization be internally democratic.The social democrats don't want to submit to democratic rule, but you can't actually do anything to discipline them until they actually break rules.

Lenin did not expel the Mensheviks. Over the years, he continued to try and get them to rejoin the RSLDP, but on the basis of majority rule. That's the fight we're having in the party, but social democrats oppose majority rule, and they drop out or split away. I think this is a rather principled way to conduct the struggle. Not over abstract theory, but democracy.

Why not struggle over line? Well for one thing, it should be painfully clear by now that's self-defeating. It has led to ever smaller organizations, each trying to achieve the perfect line, with no actual means of testing it in reality to see if that line is even correct. The approach taken by the Kasama Project, of which I'm also a member, is that we unite around shared questions, not shared positions. Plus, as can be seen, the revolutionaries are not a single block, but a coalition of different communist thought. Were we to struggle over line, the left would be hopeless divided while the right would have a plurality.


Then why is this not represented in their publications/statements? If the majority is revolutionary then why are we finding reformist ideas being expressed in party literature?A lot of the literature is old (we've even pulled some of the more explicitly social democratic lit, like, A Lot of What's Best in America is Socialist--social security? :rolleyes:), and the Constitution and Statement of Principles requires a 2/3rds majority to change. So, until we have that 2/3rds majority at a convention, we're stuck with it.

If comrades would like to help us achieve that 2/3rd majority at the next convention (the delegates have already been selected for this one coming up), feel free to join the party.

[chegitz guevara]

Your separation of "objective" and "subjective" into two distinct categories is incredibly flawed and more reminiscent of economism (or more generally mechanical materialism) than actual Marxism. In reality objective and subjective are not really two distinct aspects but rather one inseparable whole, merely looked at from two different perspectives. You are attempting to separate the inseparable, and in doing so are resorting to mechanical materialism and ultimately vulgar Marxism.

The think the real problem with a "subjective" definition for worker class/proletariat is that is philosophical idealism. Some currents of Maoism define the proletariat as anyone who agrees with Mao.

Marxism focuses on the worker class as the agent of revolution for one reason, because the worker class has their hands on the means of production. They are the ones the produce and reproduce society. Should they stop working, society stops. No other class has that power.

In feudalism, the bourgeoisie was the revolutionary class, but it was not exploited. In capitalism, the revolutionary class is also the exploited class, but one does not necessarily follow from the other.

Economism originally was the political hypothesis that workers don't need to organize for anything other than their material needs, that they are being exploited by revolutionary minded middle class dilettantes. It expanded to include what is now called social democracy. I think it also covers those overtly revolutionary currents that believe that you can build a revolutionary movement by fighting only for reforms, in the belief that out of that struggle, the workers will realize the impossibility of achieving their aims through reform and then become revolutionaries. Solidarity is the prime example of this last type of economism, but it is widespread in the Trotskyist movement.

We do have to fight for reforms, but we must do so as part of an effort to build an organization that is explicitly revolutionary. We can't expect the worker class to develop revolutionary consciousness on its own, when the bourgeoisie and the labor bureaucrats do everything they can to snuff it out. We must put it to people directly that only revolution offers a permanent solution and the best we can hope for by struggling in this system is some crumbs.

[manic expression]

Why not struggle over line?

Sorry to jump in, chegitz, but the last I checked, the SPUSA doesn't enforce democratic centralism, and so members a free to criticize the party publicly. If this is the case, party line is meaningless because there's no discipline. You cited Lenin's insistence that the Mensheviks rejoin the Bolsheviks, but from what I understand the SPUSA is simply not formed along Bolshevist lines. Is this a correct assumption or no?

[Die Neue Zeit]

For completeness sake, I define the working class according to an objective and a subjective factor. The objective factor is the one I gave above but indeed doesn't give a complete picture. The subjective factor, the one consciousness of the class as a class, is just as important. This is why I put the prison guards away as one of the most reactionary elements, because of the dominant ideas and practices (as fred mentioned above), i.e. them working for the capitalist state. So we agree with the definition, but we disagree with the conclusion. I think petit-bourgeois is objectively wrong in this case and therefore meaningless.

So what objections do you have to my definition of class, then? :confused:

[Q]

So what objections do you have to my definition of class, then? :confused:
I think it is too abstract and arbitrary.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Funny. I was expecting the criticism "it's too mechanical" (the ultra-left criticisms of Kautsky coming from Korsch and Lukacs). It is, indeed, based almost entirely on Marx's own class analysis in Capital.

If anything else, the traditional Marxist definition of "petit-bourgeoisie" from the Manifesto is, for example, abstract and arbitrary.

[chegitz guevara]

Sorry to jump in, chegitz, but the last I checked, the SPUSA doesn't enforce democratic centralism, and so members a free to criticize the party publicly. If this is the case, party line is meaningless because there's no discipline. You cited Lenin's insistence that the Mensheviks rejoin the Bolsheviks, but from what I understand the SPUSA is simply not formed along Bolshevist lines. Is this a correct assumption or no?

Well, to be honest, the Bolsheviks weren't organized along "Bolshevik" lines. As noted above, when Lenin referred to democratic centralism, he was talking about a national government. Democratic centralism as an idea for organizing political parties came after his death and was put forward by Zinoviev as "Leninism." As I pointed out, no one was ever expelled from the Bolsheviks for disagreeing. Lenin himself, when he disagreed with the party's decisions, would even have his objections printed in other papers, if he couldn't get it in the Bolshevik's paper (April Theses, anyone?).

There is a marvelous new translation of What is to be Done? that every comrade who considers himself a student of Lenin must read, Lars Lih's, Lenin Rediscovered: "What Is to Be Done?" in Context. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931859582/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=9004131205&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1A1CJ4DDGZTNGPNJ2B6X)

Of course, even were we to understand what kind of party Lenin tried to create, that doesn't necessarily mean we should copy it. Lenin himself wrote Left-Wing Communism: An infantile disorder precisely to attack the notion that we in the West should ape the Bolsheviks. The true Leninist method would be to find a method of party organization that works for us here and now. In that, all of Lenin's self-proclaimed followers have failed. All "Leninist" parties have split (or are the result of a split) and they can barely keep their membership up. Some groups have practically 100% membership turnover.

As for the SPUSA, no, we're definitely not "Leninist." Theoretically, we could throw people out of the party for not agreeing with the Principles, as everyone has taken an oath to subscribe to the Principles as a condition of membership, but we are a very undisciplined bunch. So, we could have a struggle over line, but again, unless 2/3rds of us agreed, it would be a pointless struggle. Since there are multiple different revolutionary tendencies in the party (and I'm using the term very loosely), such a struggle would immediately divide the revolutionaries and hand power to the social democrats.

And really, what's the point of struggling over politics when you can't test your hypotheses in the real world? One might as well argue over the nature of YHWH as argue about whether or not the USSR was a degenerated workers state or bureaucratic collectivism or state capitalism, etc. We are in no position to prove our claims so why have different organizations because we disagree?

This isn't to say that we shouldn't study and push for theoretical discipline, but a lot of the stuff we communists fight about is stupid.

And no apologies needed for jumping in. I'm always happy to dialog with comrades.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Is the SP-USA branching out into "alternative culture" services to emulate what I think should be the party model - the pre-war SPD and USPD?

On another board, I suggested that some specific political party provide food bank services, for example.

Also, the Lars Lih link should be corrected, since the whole first chapter and key bits of other chapters are free here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&dq

One more thing: I provide this additional work (besides my own work if anyone's interested via PM) for study:

Revolutionary Strategy: Marxism and the Challenge of Left Unity (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205)

[chegitz guevara]

Is the SP-USA branching out into "alternative culture" services to emulate what I think should be the party model - the pre-war SPD and USPD?

On another board, I suggested that some specific political party provide food bank services, for example.

We're a poor people's party. That means the party is poor too.

Interestingly, though. My local atheist group is doing something like this.

[MarxSchmarx]

In fact, socialists have historically been very active in creating alternative instituions even within "civil society":
e.g.,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Sunday_Schools

To some extent, this spirit lives on in less explicitly political groups made up of radicals, e.g., FNB.

[chegitz guevara]

What, my Sunday Night Socialism (http://socialism.meetup.com/80/) isn't original? :(

[manic expression]

Well, to be honest, the Bolsheviks weren't organized along "Bolshevik" lines. As noted above, when Lenin referred to democratic centralism, he was talking about a national government. Democratic centralism as an idea for organizing political parties came after his death and was put forward by Zinoviev as "Leninism." As I pointed out, no one was ever expelled from the Bolsheviks for disagreeing. Lenin himself, when he disagreed with the party's decisions, would even have his objections printed in other papers, if he couldn't get it in the Bolshevik's paper (April Theses, anyone?).

Noted. However, didn't the party expect members to support the ban on factions (among other policies) after 1921? Didn't Lenin call on the Mensheviks to return to the party on the basis of democratic centralism? Didn't Zinoviev and Kamenev (IIRC) abide by the decision to strike against the Kerensky regime even though they voted against it?


There is a marvelous new translation of What is to be Done? that every comrade who considers himself a student of Lenin must read, Lars Lih's, Lenin Rediscovered: "What Is to Be Done?" in Context. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931859582/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=9004131205&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1A1CJ4DDGZTNGPNJ2B6X)

Thanks, I'll try to take a look at that.


Of course, even were we to understand what kind of party Lenin tried to create, that doesn't necessarily mean we should copy it. Lenin himself wrote Left-Wing Communism: An infantile disorder precisely to attack the notion that we in the West should ape the Bolsheviks. The true Leninist method would be to find a method of party organization that works for us here and now. In that, all of Lenin's self-proclaimed followers have failed. All "Leninist" parties have split (or are the result of a split) and they can barely keep their membership up. Some groups have practically 100% membership turnover.

As for the SPUSA, no, we're definitely not "Leninist." Theoretically, we could throw people out of the party for not agreeing with the Principles, as everyone has taken an oath to subscribe to the Principles as a condition of membership, but we are a very undisciplined bunch. So, we could have a struggle over line, but again, unless 2/3rds of us agreed, it would be a pointless struggle. Since there are multiple different revolutionary tendencies in the party (and I'm using the term very loosely), such a struggle would immediately divide the revolutionaries and hand power to the social democrats.

First, I agree that communist organizations must adapt to conditions at every turn. The question is to what. The self-proclaimed followers of Lenin have been exceptionally successful for some time, so it seems to me that Leninism, or at least its modern form, is the best game in town for revolutionaries today.

Second, not to take a swipe at the SPUSA as a whole, but isn't what you outlined an avoidable weakness? If such an internal struggle would divide the party, wouldn't external pressures be even more damaging? Also, how do you envision genuine revolutionaries working with out-and-out social democrats and reformist elements in the same party (without a line struggle, no less)?


And really, what's the point of struggling over politics when you can't test your hypotheses in the real world? One might as well argue over the nature of YHWH as argue about whether or not the USSR was a degenerated workers state or bureaucratic collectivism or state capitalism, etc. We are in no position to prove our claims so why have different organizations because we disagree?

I agree in principle, as you will see below. However, don't such arguments have concrete consequences? If you defend the USSR, not only does it change your relationship to political discourse in the US and your relationship to communist organizations around the world (such as the PCC, KKE and others), it changes the way you approach workers and allies. Of course it might seem somewhat arcane to spend time talking about something that happened 80 years ago, but I think a good example would be how you clarified Lenin's view of democratic centralism above.


This isn't to say that we shouldn't study and push for theoretical discipline, but a lot of the stuff we communists fight about is stupid.

Very well said.


And no apologies needed for jumping in. I'm always happy to dialog with comrades.

I definitely appreciate it, comrade.