Are there any members of the US SWP here?

[M-L-C-F]

Just wondering, as I'd like to get into contact with some. Because I would like to work with, or join the party.

[KC]

Why on earth would you want to do that? I hope you like coal mining because that's probably where they'll assign you.

[M-L-C-F]

Why on earth would you want to do that? I hope you like coal mining because that's probably where they'll assign you.
:rolleyes: Being a coal miner wouldn't be that bad. It would certainly be better than being unemployed, like I currently am. :lol:

[Q]

Why on earth would you want to do that?
The SWP is pro-Castro and MLCF has a boner for that.

[DecDoom]

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is pro-Castro, and at least they won't assign you to a job.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

The SWP is a very old and crumbling organization whose ideas on workers' struggles is very narrow and economist. Read anything by the SWP and then compare it to what Lenin was struggling against in What Is To Be Done?


It's rather pathetic. Now, obviously, union struggles are quite important and should be supported, but the SWP refuses to join in almost all other struggles outside of traditional organized labor and fetishizes the classic concept of the "industrial worker" (while seeming to ignore the vast other sections of the proletariat- keep in mind only about 9% of U.S. workers are members of any form of union).

Another thing I dislike about them is their attempts to run for political offices. While I understand that they use it to "get the issues out" and be the "workers' alternative", it seems to me that all this strategy does is just suck workers and SWP supporters into electoral politics and leaving revolution behind (outside just very vague talk). I met the 2008 SWP Presidential candidate and talked with him about this, and he just kinda gave these very vague answers about himself being "the worker's alternative" and when I asked "what is your plan for revolution?" he said "Well this is part of the revolutionary struggle" and turned away from me. Not exactly very compelling arguments.

While I have read The Militant quite a few times and Is Socialist Revolution in the U.S. Possible? I have never been impressed at all with their line and see them going nowhere.

To quote Uncle Grandfather from Adult Swim's Perfect Hair Forever: "Yeah okay whatever, good luck with that."

[M-L-C-F]

The SWP is pro-Castro and MLCF has a boner for that.
I could generally say the same thing about you and Trotsky Q.

DeclinedDoomed: To me, the PSL seems like it needs a little more maturity, before I would join it. It is my second choice though.

Andrei Mazenov: I generally like the SWP's works, and think the Militant is a good paper. As someone who would prefer an industrial job, I like their stance on supporting industrial workers. That being said, I might just end up joining the PSL.

But, from the looks of it, there aren't any US SWP members here. :(

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Andrei Mazenov: I generally like the SWP's works, and think the Militant is a good paper. As someone who would prefer an industrial job, I like their stance on supporting industrial workers. That being said, I might just end up joining the PSL.

What political trend you support isn't about your personal subjective tastes. If you want an industrial job, that's absolutely fine- but the SWP's concentration almost solely on them and fetishizing them in a way that far too often discards the rest of the proletariat is a strategy that will not lead to revolution. Like I said, read What Is To Be Done? and compare it to the SWP's strategy: I think you'll see what I'm saying.

I myself do not support the PSL, but that's another story for another day... the main point is that the SWP's economism, outdated analysis of who the proletariat are and how to organize them, reformism, and finger-wagging at nearly every other international revolutionary communist struggle outside of Cuba are dead-ends and reasons that I have never seen the SWP grow in my own city in all my years of being active on the left.

[M-L-C-F]

What political trend you support isn't about your personal subjective tastes. If you want an industrial job, that's absolutely fine- but the SWP's concentration almost solely on them and fetishizing them in a way that far too often discards the rest of the proletariat is a strategy that will not lead to revolution. Like I said, read What Is To Be Done? and compare it to the SWP's strategy: I think you'll see what I'm saying.

I myself do not support the PSL, but that's another story for another day... the main point is that the SWP's economism, outdated analysis of who the proletariat are and how to organize them, reformism, and finger-wagging at nearly every other international revolutionary communist struggle outside of Cuba are dead-ends and reasons that I have never seen the SWP grow in my own city in all my years of being active on the left.
I see your point. (I have read WITBD.) I do agree with you, on the need to be broader, when it comes to workers (peasants if applicable), and the left. My like of the SWP comes from their party alignment. But, also my reading the works of Cannon and Dobbs. However, your point here, does make me less than willing to join them. Thank you for being polite too. :)

I think I will just go with the PSL after all. As they are a more universal party, and I like that about them. There's no rule I cant read the Militant still, when I join them. :lol:

[Red October]

:rolleyes: Being a coal miner wouldn't be that bad. It would certainly be better than being unemployed, like I currently am. :lol:

There's a reason why so many people in West Virginia raise their kids to not grow up and go to coal mines.

And the last time I met anyone from the SWP was over a year ago and it was just crotchety (but still kinda friendly and adorable) old man who tried to bum an overpriced copy of the Militant off on me. That should give you a good idea of how that party operates. Have fun in the coal seam, bro. :lol:

[M-L-C-F]

There's a reason why so many people in West Virginia raise their kids to not grow up and go to coal mines.

And the last time I met anyone from the SWP was over a year ago and it was just crotchety (but still kinda friendly and adorable) old man who tried to bum an overpriced copy of the Militant off on me. That should give you a good idea of how that party operates. Have fun in the coal seam, bro. :lol:
Well, I was being sorta sarcastic with that response to the coal mining thing. But even still, it certainly beats being unemployed, imho. Since at this point, I'll take any job I can get. As I need to start saving $, to get my own place. :p

At the same time, I'd probably rather deal with an old person, than some kid. :lol:

[Red October]

So do I. Now, if you don't mind, I have to go masturbate to a picture of Che Guevara.

fap fap fap

[Kassad]

Honestly, I haven't met a Socialist Workers Party member, spare a couple times, in years. They are never at protests, and if they are, they just try to sell the newspaper. But that's literally the point. There is not a party anymore. It's a magazine that runs candidates. The website is all about the newspaper. I mean, fuck. At least the Revolutionary Communist Party has stuff on Bob Avakian and they have different campaigns. Socialist Workers Party (US) doesn't do anything whatsoever. They are a relic that has gotten more and more irrelevant as the years have gone on.

[M-L-C-F]

There's Pathfinder too. I like that they publish Granma International in English, and I find it a good source for other materials.

Some people say they are too expensive, but you cant get some of the stuff elsewhere.

[Kassad]

There's Pathfinder too. I like that they publish Granma International in English, and I find it a good source for other materials.

Some people say they are too expensive, but you cant get some of the stuff elsewhere.

That's great, but what is theory without practice? What is a program without activism? The party has no activist presence. You never see them carrying banners or signs at demonstrations. You don't see them struggling with unions. You don't see them at anti-racism and anti-police brutality events. They are literally defunct. They ran a candidate for president, which didn't pull as many votes as Gloria La Riva, the Party for Socialism and Liberation's candidate. Sorry, but if you're a 70 year old party and you can't muster support against a 5 year old party, you're a relic. All of those combined show why the PSL is much more efficient.

[Pogue]

Are PSL the one who had the really attractive female candidate running for some US election or was that the SPUSA?

[M-L-C-F]

Kassad: I was only mentioning it, cause it hadn't been yet. :lol:

[Kassad]

Are PSL the one who had the really attractive female candidate running for some US election or was that the SPUSA?

Socialist Party USA ran Brian Moore, who is a male.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation ran Gloria La Riva. Here's the page from VotePSL on Gloria La Riva: http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7881

You sure you aren't talking about Sarah Palin? ;)

[Pogue]

nah there was this young woman who someone linked to months back who was in the SP running on some minor platform and everyone agreed she was very pretty

[Kassad]

nah there was this young woman who someone linked to months back who was in the SP running on some minor platform and everyone agreed she was very pretty

I honestly didn't think Socialist Party USA ran any other candidates besides Brian Moore for the presidency. Ask Eco-Marxist. He's the only Socialist Party USA member I know around here.

[Pogue]

she may not have been running for anything then, just a prominent member.

[Wanted Man]

Where it's dark as a dungeon damp as the dew
danger is double pleasures are few
Where the rain never falls the sun never shines
It's a dark as a dungeon way down in the mine

Anyway, I believe Severian here supports them, but he's long gone, it seems.

[Revy]

The SWP is a personality cult around Jack Barnes. Think of Bob Avakian and the RCP. It's just like that.

They've got a bureaucratic/authoritarian structure, and a lot of the dues and profits off of Pathfinder Press go to multi-million dollar condos and other such things, for the powerful people in the party (like Jack Barnes).

Members are expected to work in low-paying jobs, by choice. I guess the rationale behind this policy must have been "to keep a proletarian orientation" but that doesn't make a damn bit of difference since the Barnes bureaucrats have gotten wealthy off of all of it.

Very little activist presence, outside of selling their paper, and when they do run campaigns, they are VERY fond of their local /state candidates being write-in candidates, I don't understand that at all, but that's what it seems like, the SWP's candidate for Governor of Florida in 2006 was a write-in candidate, and he got like 76 votes (I'm serious), while all the third party/ independent candidates on the ballot got more than 10,000 votes.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Severian was a member at one time, and he continued to support the party afterward. Manic Expression supported the party at one time if I recall correctly.

Despite the claims from members of other sects, the SWP is still the second largest organization claiming to communist (the CPUSA being first). They are present at virtually every protest, meeting and strike near the cities in which they operate. Most often they organize around book tables at such events, factory gate / door-to-door newspaper sales, public meetings called "Militant forums," and electoral campaigns.

That being said, it too is a sect. It's long, storied history does not change that fact.

I have a number of criticisms of the SWP. But if you ask me, trying to organize in key sectors of the economy like mining is the least of their problems. Of course the irony is that the "turn to industry" came under the leadership of Jack Barnes, a well off guy who has never worked an industrial job.

In any event, I don't think choosing a political organization to join based on its representation on RevLeft.com is the best way to go.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Very little activist presence, outside of selling their paper, and when they do run campaigns, they are VERY fond of their local /state candidates being write-in candidates, I don't understand that at all, but that's what it seems like, the SWP's candidate for Governor of Florida in 2006 was a write-in candidate, and he got like 76 votes (I'm serious), while all the third party/ independent candidates on the ballot got more than 10,000 votes.

The most likely explination is that they were unable to get on the ballot. They have gotten on the ballot before, and even won some victories for democratic rights in the process (such as getting around the "loyalty oath" in Pennsylvania, formerly required of all candidates for public office).

[black magick hustla]

Severian was a member at one time, and he continued to support the party afterward. Manic Expression supported the party at one time if I recall correctly.

Despite the claims from members of other sects, the SWP is still the second largest organization claiming to communist (the CPUSA being first). They are present at virtually every protest, meeting and strike near the cities in which they operate. Most often they organize around book tables at such events, factory gate / door-to-door newspaper sales, public meetings called "Militant forums," and electoral campaigns.

That being said, it too is a sect. It's long, storied history does not change that fact.

I have a number of criticisms of the SWP. But if you ask me, trying to organize in key sectors of the economy like mining is the least of their problems. Of course the irony is that the "turn to industry" came under the leadership of Jack Barnes, a well off guy who has never worked an industrial job.

In any event, I don't think choosing a political organization to join based on its representation on RevLeft.com is the best way to go.

I thought the RCP was bigger than the SWP

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

RCP is probably bigger than the SWP (and I'm not just saying that because I used to be in the RCYB).

I'm not an expert and don't like to completely speculate in terms of "who's bigger", but in terms of the various Leninist groups in the U.S., it seem the RCP, ISO, and WWP are tied in terms of INFLUENCE (with PSL starting to slowly get up there). SWP used to be up there, but I really don't see them much outside of literature tables and selling some Militants (at least here in the ATL).

But at the end of the day, "size" isn't want matters to me, it's the correctness of their line... although if one's movement is shrinking in influence or is completely static, it may be a sign that somethin's wrong all up in thar... o_o

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

From all credible accounts, it's no where near as big. My experience and the experience of other comrades of mine bears that out. It's impossible to determine for sure though, since few actually admit to being RCP members.

[Kassad]

The Party for Socialism and Liberation has well over 300 members, which is higher than most estimates I hear for Workers World and Revolutionary Communist Party. Frankly, Workers World and Socialist Workers Party don't have a goddamn ounce of activist presence.

[KC]

The Party for Socialism and Liberation has well over 300 members, which is higher than most estimates I hear for Workers World and Revolutionary Communist Party. Frankly, Workers World and Socialist Workers Party don't have a goddamn ounce of activist presence.

:rolleyes:

You're such a party hack.

[Q]

The PSL has just over 300 members? And this is considered big for a country the size of Western-Europe?

[Kassad]

The PSL has just over 300 members? And this is considered big for a country the size of Western-Europe?

It's considered large for a party that's five years old and in a country dominated by anti-socialist fervor.

[KC]

It's considered large for a party that's five years old and in a country dominated by anti-socialist fervor.

300? Really? I thought they were much larger, but this just goes to show how utterly irrelevant they are and how inflated your ego is to have such a hard-on for such a small and irrelevant party.

[Kassad]

300? Really? I thought they were much larger, but this just goes to show how utterly irrelevant they are and how inflated your ego is to have such a hard-on for such a small and irrelevant party.

All parties started off small and irrelevent. Like the Bolsheviks, the Communist Party of China and all other revolutionary factions. Estimates range from 300-375 at the moment, not including candidate members. I mean, this is like inferring that Marxism in the United States is irrelevant because it doesn't have a large following. Sorry, but if you're going to construct a party, you have to start somewhere and I apologize that our current size doesn't sexually excite you. Either way, we're growing incredibly quickly and we are much more active than other Marxist parties. We're active in an assortment of struggles across the nation. Regardless, your opinion is the last one that I honestly care about.

[KC]

All parties started off small and irrelevent. Like the Bolsheviks, the Communist Party of China and all other revolutionary factions. Estimates range from 300-375 at the moment, not including candidate members. I mean, this is like inferring that Marxism in the United States is irrelevant because it doesn't have a large following. Sorry, but if you're going to construct a party, you have to start somewhere and I apologize that our current size doesn't sexually excite you. Either way, we're growing incredibly quickly and we are much more active than other Marxist parties. We're active in an assortment of struggles across the nation. Regardless, your opinion is the last one that I honestly care about.

I was actually referring to your obsession with your own party, and to compare PSL to the RSDLP shows how delusional you actually are.

[Kassad]

I was actually referring to your obsession with your own party, and to compare PSL to the RSDLP shows how delusional you actually are.

If joining and supporting a party somehow classifies me as someone with an obsession, then I think you seriously need to address your view of the world.

[KC]

If joining and supporting a party somehow classifies me as someone with an obsession, then I think you seriously need to address your view of the world.

Based on how often you plug PSL on RevLeft and how you refer to both your own party and others it's quite clear that your affinity for PSL goes beyond simple support and borders on obsession.

[Kassad]

Based on how often you plug PSL on RevLeft and how you refer to both your own party and others it's quite clear that your affinity for PSL goes beyond simple support and borders on obsession.

I promote my party in any way I can and at all opportunities. Frankly, since I can think of 3-4 people here who have decided to join the party with my suggestions, I'd say I'm doing a fairly efficient job. Saying I have an obsession for my party is like saying people here have an obsession regarding socialism. Yes, we defend it. Yes, we promote it. Yes, we attempt to get others to join us. That doesn't mean we're obsessed with it. It's devotion, if anything,

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Wait, the fast growing PSL has 300 members? The only reason I ever showed the slightest interest in it is because of Kassad's countless posts talking about how it's growing so fast and gaining tons of supporters...

Anyway, concerning the SWP, I'm pretty sure they still get more votes than any other socialist party in the country, so I assume they're doing something right. They have tens of thousands of supporters.

They're running someone for Mayor of New York too..it'll be interesting to see how they do against PSLs candidate.

[KC]

They're running someone for Mayor of New York too.

The pinnacle of stupidity.

[Kassad]

Wait, the fast growing PSL has 300 members? The only reason I ever showed the slightest interest in it is because of Kassad's countless posts talking about how it's growing so fast and gaining tons of supporters...

Anyway, concerning the SWP, I'm pretty sure they still get more votes than any other socialist party in the country, so I assume they're doing something right. They have tens of thousands of supporters.

They're running someone for Mayor of New York too..it'll be interesting to see how they do against PSLs candidate.

Over three hundred members in five years. That means that in five years, our party has gone from about ten members to well over three hundred, not including candidate members. Our party started with one branch: Los Angeles. Now we are the most active Marxist party out there. From what I hear from branches in Chicago and in California, the economic crisis has caused a massive increase in membership. Also, you can't just join the party. There's a very extensive candidacy period, so you don't just fill out a fucking form and become a member. Compared to estimates of Workers World and the Revolutionary Communist Party, which are also around three hundred, we're growing very fast, since WWP has been around for fifty years; RCP for over thirty. So yes, we are growing very quickly.

Also, Socialist Workers Party does not have 'tens of thousands of supporters.' In the 2008 election for presidency, Gloria La Riva beat Calero by a few hundred votes and that's after five years of existence. Also, if you're only interested in the party because of our numbers, then I would request you look elsewhere. Becoming a member of the PSL is a massive commitment to struggle and if you'd refuse to join a party because they only have three hundred members, maybe you need to look elsewhere.

[Jack]

RCP is probably bigger than the SWP (and I'm not just saying that because I used to be in the RCYB).

I'm not an expert and don't like to completely speculate in terms of "who's bigger", but in terms of the various Leninist groups in the U.S., it seem the RCP, ISO, and WWP are tied in terms of INFLUENCE (with PSL starting to slowly get up there). SWP used to be up there, but I really don't see them much outside of literature tables and selling some Militants (at least here in the ATL).

But at the end of the day, "size" isn't want matters to me, it's the correctness of their line... although if one's movement is shrinking in influence or is completely static, it may be a sign that somethin's wrong all up in thar... o_o

The RCP is just a little bigger than NEFAC, and hard to find outside of the Bay Area and a little on NYC. Just over 100 members I would say.

[Kassad]

The RCP is just a little bigger than NEFAC, and hard to find outside of the Bay Area and a little on NYC. Just over 100 members I would say.

What about Chicago? I thought the party was based there. You really think they're that small?

In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised. Members of the PSL are quick to give estimates of party membership, but whenever I ask RCP supporters and members, they either say they don't know or the members are not allowed to discuss it. Makes it seem like they're hiding something, you know?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Over three hundred members in five years. That means that in five years, our party has gone from about ten members to well over three hundred, not including candidate members.

That's 60 members a year. Not really anything to brag about.



Our party started with one branch: Los Angeles. Now we are the most active Marxist party out there.Not according to wikipedia:


The San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and Washington, D.C. branches of WWP left almost in their entirety to form the PSL.
From what I hear from branches in Chicago and in California, the economic crisis has caused a massive increase in membership.If 60 members a year is "growing quickly" or whatever you usually say, then what is massive increase in membership? An extra 20 a year?


Also, Socialist Workers Party does not have 'tens of thousands of supporters.' In the 2008 election for presidency, Gloria La Riva beat Calero by a few hundred votes and that's after five years of existence.Go look at their results in various senate, mayoral, house of representatives, and city council elections. Add those votes. They get more votes for some senate and other elections than they do for president. I can't remember what election it was, but I remember seeing them get 10,000 votes in one race, and that's the highest I've seen any socialist get recently excluding people running under the green ticket. Their total votes for people running for senate in 2004 was 36,000, 45,000 in 2000...etc.


Also, if you're only interested in the party because of our numbers, then I would request you look elsewhere. Becoming a member of the PSL is a massive commitment to struggle and if you'd refuse to join a party because they only have three hundred members, maybe you need to look elsewhere.I wouldn't refuse to join a party because they have small numbers, but I might be able to put some things about that party behind me if they're gaining lots of support.

[Q]

Also, if you're only interested in the party because of our numbers, then I would request you look elsewhere. Becoming a member of the PSL is a massive commitment to struggle and if you'd refuse to join a party because they only have three hundred members, maybe you need to look elsewhere.
Interesting argument for someone who brags about membership numbers all the time.

[Kassad]

SocialismorBarbarism, you're being ridiculous. Are any other Marxist parties gaining a significant amount of support that surpasses the Party for Socialism and Liberation? I've yet to hear of anything of the sort. Also, I find it amusing that you believe wikipedia to be a reliable source, but I can tell you from all the first-hand accounts of the split that I've heard that the primary dispute resolved around Los Angeles. Though members also split from other branches, these branches weren't the epicenter of disputes and the branches most certainly did not leave in their entirety.

Anyway, Gloria La Riva ran for governor of California a while back. She got over 70,000 votes. Some PSL candidates got over 10,000 votes in their campaigns. However, the presidency is much different than smaller elections. After the four years of Bush tyranny, most people would do anything to see an ideological identical like McCain get elected. They saw Obama as the only way to avoid McCain, which is why all third parties had atrocious support in the 2008 election. However, I note again that Gloria La Riva had more votes than Calero. While we're discussing vote tallies, in the 2009 mayoral election in Los Angeles, Carlos Alvarez of the PSL got 3,047 votes, whereas James Harris of the Socialist Workers Party received 2,641. (Source: http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=351382)

As we can see, the Socialist Workers Party is losing relevance fast, whereas the PSL is growing very quickly. At the current time, I believe our party has many more supporters than any other Marxist party. Our membership rivals, if not surpasses all other Marxist parties. Though we would like to see it grow even quicker, we can only go so far until something triggers class consciousness. Joining us would not be a mistake by any means, as we are struggling for a chance to promote revolution.


Interesting argument for someone who brags about membership numbers all the time.

We are the most active Marxist party in the United States and the ANSWER Coalition is the largest anti-war group and organizer in the United States. We have a lot to be proud of, but you can continue to ignore our gains and continue to be negative and divisive like you so love to be.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

SocialismorBarbarism, you're being ridiculous. Are any other Marxist parties gaining a significant amount of support that surpasses the Party for Socialism and Liberation? I've yet to hear of anything of the sort. Also, I find it amusing that you believe wikipedia to be a reliable source, but I can tell you from all the first-hand accounts of the split that I've heard that the primary dispute resolved around Los Angeles. Though members also split from other branches, these branches weren't the epicenter of disputes and the branches most certainly did not leave in their entirety.

I'm not sure, but I really wouldn't be surprised. Even in America, 60 members a year should be fairly easy. I find it hard to believe that your party branch in LA, a city of 8 million, started with 10 members. Are you telling me the WWP's branches in all those cities only had 2-3 members?


Anyway, Gloria La Riva ran for governor of California a while back. She got over 70,000 votes. Under the Peace and Freedom Party ticket. If those count as supporters then the ISO or SPUSA probably have the most supporters. One of the SPUSA's members got 200,000 votes herein Michigan.


Some PSL candidates got over 10,000 votes in their campaigns. However, the presidency is much different than smaller elections. After the four years of Bush tyranny, most people would do anything to see an ideological identical like McCain get elected. They saw Obama as the only way to avoid McCain, which is why all third parties had atrocious support in the 2008 election. However, I note again that Gloria La Riva had more votes than Calero. While we're discussing vote tallies, in the 2009 mayoral election in Los Angeles, Carlos Alvarez of the PSL got 3,047 votes, whereas James Harris of the Socialist Workers Party received 2,641. (Source: http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=351382)Socialists never seem to do good in presidential elections, but they at least get some slightly noteworthy amounts of votes in senate, house, mayoral, etc races. I'm pretty sure the SWP's main area of support was always the Midwest and Northeast.


As we can see, the Socialist Workers Party is losing relevance fast, whereas the PSL is growing very quickly. At the current time, I believe our party has many more supporters than any other Marxist party.You can believe whatever you want. If we go by votes, then no.


Our membership rivals, if not surpasses all other Marxist parties. Though we would like to see it grow even quicker, we can only go so far until something triggers class consciousness. Joining us would not be a mistake by any means, as we are struggling for a chance to promote revolution.Depends on if you consider CPUSA Marxist. They have more than 8 times as many members.

Honestly, I'm not putting your party down, it's numbers or growth just isn't something to constantly brag about.

[Kassad]

It's not about votes, but you presented the fallacious argument that Socialist Workers Party has more supporters through that logic. However, if we go by votes in the most recent elections, then yes, we are the most active. Regardless, it isn't just votes. Our numbers are very critical, as we are growing at an incredible rate with the current material conditions in this country. Socialism is not incredibly popular right now, so our current growth is very significant, at least in comparison to the socialist movement in the United States. You want to look at activity? Look at the consistent demonstrations against the war that we organize. Look at the Kenny Lazo murder, the Oscar Grant killing and a multitude of other police brutality events. We were there. We concistently support strikes and workers rights across the country. All party members work for unions in their workplace. After proposition 8's bigoted passing, we presented militant opposition. We always demonstrate for immigrant rights and an end to racist injustice. Our presence is felt consistently through our constant organization. No other organization has that militant presence. I've been going to demonstrations in this country since I was a lot younger. It is almost always ANSWER that has provided the most material and numerical support, as well as the most anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist message. Lately, the PSL has been the most active party at protests I've attended. Not only do we sell our paper, but we carry signs. We carry banners. We produced our magazine for a few years and now we're printing quarterly journals, with a few new things coming in the near future.

Sorry, but no one does these things like the PSL does. It is not an ideal situation, but in comparison to other parties, we are accelerating at an amazing rate. I still find it amusing that you were so interested in the party, but now you're so critical because they aren't a massive party. Also, Communist Party USA membership is heavily disputed, with rumors of Sam Webb exaggerating numbers. Either way, they could have a million members. They still have no activist presence in the streets, whereas the PSL does.

[Q]

Could the PSL whining be split into another thread? Thank you mod overlords!

[Kassad]

Could the PSL whining be split into another thread? Thank you mod overlords!

You sure complain a lot while not contributing anything to the discussion. We're discussing Socialist Workers Party's relevance by contrasting them to a different party. Why is that a problem?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

It's not about votes, but you presented the fallacious argument that Socialist Workers Party has more supporters through that logic. However, if we go by votes in the most recent elections, then yes, we are the most active. Regardless, it isn't just votes. Our numbers are very critical, as we are growing at an incredible rate with the current material conditions in this country. Socialism is not incredibly popular right now, so our current growth is very significant, at least in comparison to the socialist movement in the United States. You want to look at activity? Look at the consistent demonstrations against the war that we organize. Look at the Kenny Lazo murder, the Oscar Grant killing and a multitude of other police brutality events. We were there. We concistently support strikes and workers rights across the country. All party members work for unions in their workplace. After proposition 8's bigoted passing, we presented militant opposition. We always demonstrate for immigrant rights and an end to racist injustice. Our presence is felt consistently through our constant organization. No other organization has that militant presence. I've been going to demonstrations in this country since I was a lot younger. It is almost always ANSWER that has provided the most material and numerical support, as well as the most anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist message. Lately, the PSL has been the most active party at protests I've attended. Not only do we sell our paper, but we carry signs. We carry banners. We produced our magazine for a few years and now we're printing quarterly journals, with a few new things coming in the near future.

I don't know a better way to measure support. If we don't have any hard numbers to look at then I just have to take your word for it. Until then I'll stick to the idea that the SWP has the most support. To be honest, in the pictures of ANSWER and PSL protests I've seen, there wasn't one poster that said anything about the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Most of them tend to be things saying "end the war!" or "end racism!"


I still find it amusing that you were so interested in the party, but now you're so critical because they aren't a massive party.
Wow, you really do exaggerate everything in relation to your party, don't you? "Is PSL making a Michigan branch?" does not equal me being "so interested in the party."

[Kassad]

Prove to me that Socialist Workers Party is more active. Also, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Here's a picture from the recent March on the Pentagon organized by the ANSWER Coalition.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/avatar1/3386378986/in/set-72157615743544424/

See all those red signs? The signs that there were hundreds of at the rally? You do? Okay. They say 'War + racism + cutoffs + layoffs = capitalism. The alternative? Socialism!' There were also dozens of banners and signs promoting socialism, class struggle and anti-capitalism promoted by multiple organizations, including the PSL, which was promoting its upcoming conferences on socialism.

But wait, what about this? ANSWER and PSL signs at a demonstration against the AIG bailout. http://thewarrantandthesanction.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/aig_protests.jpg
The signs say capitalism is organized crime.

Here's a banner from ANSWER calling for resistance of imperialism. http://answer.pephost.org/images/content/pagebuilder/57362.jpg

Here's a PSL banner protesting the capitalist bailouts.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3363676877_6d84948bd0_m.jpg

I'd say you're about done.

[mykittyhasaboner]

To be honest, in the pictures of ANSWER and PSL protests I've seen, there wasn't one poster that said anything about the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Most of them tend to be things saying "end the war!" or "end racism!"

Don't most of their banners have a big picture of Che Guevara on them? As well as the words 'Socialism and Liberation' in big red letters? I can recall one of their signs saying "The worker's struggle has no borders" as well.

The pictures Kassad posted are also good proof that the PSL does in fact use anti-capitalist slogans and propaganda, I'm not quite sure why you chose to play this card, when it's quite obvious that the PSL are an anti-capitalist party.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

God, you PSLers react to anything that makes your party look slightly less glorious than it really is as aggressively as you do to criticisms of the Soviet Union. This thread isn't even about PSL. Seriously, I wasn't even trying to put down PSL, I just said that SWP seems to have more support, but you're trying to turn this into a debate about whether PSL is the most awesome organization in existence or not.


Prove to me that Socialist Workers Party is more active.

Never said they were. I said they have more support.


Also, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Here's a picture from the recent March on the Pentagon organized by the ANSWER Coalition.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/avatar1/3386378986/in/set-72157615743544424/

See all those red signs? The signs that there were hundreds of at the rally? You do? Okay. They say 'War + racism + cutoffs + layoffs = capitalism. The alternative? Socialism!' There were also dozens of banners and signs promoting socialism, class struggle and anti-capitalism promoted by multiple organizations, including the PSL, which was promoting its upcoming conferences on socialism. I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've yet to see a sign at a PSL rally calling for the overthrow of capitalism and it's replacement with the DotP. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I sure haven't seen any. They all seem to be focused on identity politics and the war. It personally took me 10 minutes of searching to find a post that even included the word "capitalism."

Also, that picture is far to small to read the signs. The version I found after 10 minutes didn't include "The alternative? Socialism!"


But wait, what about this? ANSWER and PSL signs at a demonstration against the AIG bailout. http://thewarrantandthesanction.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/aig_protests.jpg
The signs say capitalism is organized crime.

Here's a banner from ANSWER calling for resistance of imperialism. http://answer.pephost.org/images/content/pagebuilder/57362.jpg

Here's a PSL banner protesting the capitalist bailouts.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3363676877_6d84948bd0_m.jpgThat's pretty sad if that's all you could come up with. Even when I have seen something that slightly seems to support the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, like the "war + racism = capitalism" they seem to be in less numbers than identity politics focused ones.


Don't most of their banners have a big picture of Che Guevara on them? As well as the words 'Socialism and Liberation' in big red letters?There are plenty of organizations that support "socialism," such as the DSA, which has 10,000 members, or the SPUSA that Kassad has described reformist.


I'm not quite sure why you chose to play this cardBecause while Kassad likes to talk about how PSL is the most revolutionary party in the country, it seems like they focus much more of their energy on identity politics as opposed to anti-capitalism. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't particularly care because I feel like I'm just continuing to drag this thread off topic.

[mykittyhasaboner]

God, you PSLers react to anything that makes your party look slightly less glorious than it really is as aggressively as you do to criticisms of the Soviet Union. This thread isn't even about PSL. Seriously, I wasn't even trying to put down PSL, I just said that SWP seems to have more support, but you're trying to turn this into a debate about whether PSL is the most awesome organization in existence or not.
I can't speak for anyone else, but since I'm not a member of the PSL I certainly hope this wasn't directed at me. I was simply calling out what I thought was a poor argument on your party, I don't want to stir this thread up and go off topic anymore than it already has.


There are plenty of organizations that support "socialism," such as the DSA, which has 10,000 members, or the SPUSA that Kassad has described reformist.OK, but the point was that you claimed the PSL don't use any anti-capitalist posters, when in fact they do. If this is part of your overall argument against the politics and actions of the PSL I just don't see how it follows.

From what I understand, the SP-USA has a broad wing of leftist politics that includes reformism as well as more radical members who are for revolution. As for the DSA I don't know about them but 'democratic socialism'/social democracy reeks of reformism, however I could be wrong. The PSL on the other hand have an exclusively revolutionary platform, rather than allowing reformist tendencies into their party. While we can debate endlessly on whether or not the PSL's platform is "actually" revolutionary or not, it goes with out saying that there is no advocation for reforming capitalism or anything of the sort.


Because while Kassad likes to talk about how PSL is the most revolutionary party in the country, it seems like they focus much more of their energy on identity politics as opposed to anti-capitalism. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't particularly care because I feel like I'm just continuing to drag this thread off topic.I don't see how the PSL focus most of their energy on identity politics, or how they do so at all. What are they doing in this respect, at the expense of supposedly geniuine anti-capitalist politics, in your opinion?



This thread has gotten way off topic, and I'm surprised it hasn't been split into another yet.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't particularly care because I feel like I'm just continuing to drag this thread off topic. No, your not wrong. The PSL is an out-and-out reformist grouping, in a similar vein as it the body it split from (though with a bit more revolutionary rhetoric).

By request, I drew up this brief sketch of criticisms of the PSL a few weeks ago via pm. Reformism, identity politics and other things brought up in this thread are mentioned.

1. Dogmatically copying the Bolsheviks of 1917 Tsarist Russia. "Democratic centralism" of the Uncle Joe variety. Organizing around a newspaper.

"The necessity to concentrate all forces on establishing a regularly appearing and regularly delivered organ arises out of the peculiar situation of Russian Social-Democracy as compared with that of Social-Democracy in other European countries and with that of the old Russian revolutionary parties. Apart from newspapers, the workers of Germany, France etc. have numerous other means for the public manifestation of their activity, for organising the movement -- parliamentary activity, election agitation, public meetings, participation in local public bodies (rural and urban), the open conduct of trade unions (professional, guild), etc., etc. In place of all that, yes, all of that, we must be served -- until we have won political liberty -- by a revolutionary newspaper, without which no broad organisation of the working-class movement is possible." - Lenin

2. Popular frontism (eg. ANSWER), sharing stages and building alliances with bourgeois and petty bourgeois forces and reactionary outfits like the "New Black Panthers" in the name of 'building the biggest movement.'

Building single issue, multi-class coalitions organized around a basic slogan like "Troops Out Now" tells the working class (1) to ally with its own oppressor - joining with sections of the bourgeoisie who oppose the war for their own reasons (2) that the capitalist system can be reformed to the point where wars will no longer need to be waged.

Instead of looking to the working class to fight independently for an end to the war (and the system that gave rise to it) by utilizing their collective power they put forward "acceptable demands" to make sure they don't exclude any liberals.

"The 'struggle against war' cannot be conducted as something separate and apart from the class struggle itself, from the intransigent struggle of the proletariat against imperialist capitalism, that is, against that social order which inexorably gives rise to imperialist war and oppression and which is inconceivable without twin scourges. Any attempt to conduct a struggle 'against war' by means of 'special methods' separate or “above” the class struggle itself is at best a cruel illusion and as a rule a malicious deception that facilitates the work of the imperialist warmongers....

"The struggle against war, properly understood and executed, presupposes the uncompromising hostility of the proletariat and its organizations, always and everywhere, toward its own and every other imperialist bourgeoisie. Yet among the announced adherents of the London Bureau congress are to be found such notorious supporters of the League of Nations (i.e., imperialist) 'sanctions' as the Italian Socialist Party, which is presumably to organize a common struggle against war with opponents of these 'sanctions,' such as the British ILP claims to be. A prerequisite for the proletarian struggle against war is not the unity between pro-'sanctionists' and anti-'sanctionists' but the ruthless separation of them.

"The struggle against war and its social source, capitalism, presupposes direct, active, unequivocal support to the oppressed colonial peoples in their struggles and wars against imperialism. A 'neutral' position is tantamount to support of imperialism." - Trotsky

3. Bogus "global class war" theory which leads them to throw in their lot with every group that comes into conflict with imperialism - from anti-worker religious fanatics to privileged bureaucrats.

"It is particularly important to bear in mind ... the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc." - Lenin

"A certain understanding has emerged between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often, even perhaps in most cases, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, although they also support national movements, nevertheless fight against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes with a certain degree of agreement with the imperialist bourgeoisie, that is to say together with it.... The point about this is that as communists we will only support the bourgeois freedom movements in the colonial countries if these movements are really revolutionary and if their representatives are not opposed to us training and organising the peasantry in a revolutionary way. If that is no good, then the communists there also have a duty to fight against the reformist bourgeoisie." - Lenin

4. Focus on "the people" instead of the proletariat. Welcoming people of all classes into their ranks. Ignoring the truisms that being determines consciousness and that "the liberation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself." (First International)

"The emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself. All the other classes of present-day society stand for the preservation of the foundations of the existing economic system." - Lenin

5. Uncritical support of the privileged leaders of the bureaucratized proletarian states (Viet Nam, China, DPRK, Laos) and labor bureaucrats.

6. Reformism: (1) Advocating "community control of the police" - something that could never occur. Even if it did occur it wouldn't change anything any more than "Black faces in high places" do. Besides all this, it builds illusions in the police as something other than a vital part of the capitalist state (along with courts, prisons, etc.) which exists to oppress the proletariat and preserve the rule of the bourgeoisie. (2) Raising slogans like "Money for schools not for war" which build illusions in capitalism as a system which can meet human need if it's just "tweaked." It also builds illusions in the ability of people to "pressure" politicians into carrying out their objectives instead of running things in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

7. Confinement to the Unites States.

8. Uncritical support to the leaders of the capitalist states in Bolivia, Venezuela, etc.

9. Support of identity politics and the like.

Although those advocating them may have good intentions, "community control" and similar politics are reformist. They don't represent progress. Instead of taking on the system that spawns and maintains inequality, these sorts of politics were used to dispense special advantages to already privileged sections of the various groups while the majority of the population - of all races, sexes, nationalities, and sexual orientations - continued to suffer from stagnating or falling living standards.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

While we can debate endlessly on whether or not the PSL's platform is "actually" revolutionary or not, it goes with out saying that there is no advocation for reforming capitalism or anything of the sort.

Comrades thinking it "goes without saying" is a part of the reason they get away with it. You can call yourself a socialist, or even a communist, and call for "revolution" while still being reformist.

Slogans like "Money for schools not for war" are reformist.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

On splitting the thread.. I think the conversation should be allowed to go where it goes. The original question was answered. There's nothing wrong with a debate evolving from that.

[KC]

SocialismorBarbarism, you're being ridiculous. Are any other Marxist parties gaining a significant amount of support that surpasses the Party for Socialism and Liberation?


Also, if you're only interested in the party because of our numbers, then I would request you look elsewhere. Becoming a member of the PSL is a massive commitment to struggle and if you'd refuse to join a party because they only have three hundred members, maybe you need to look elsewhere.

I love how you basically accuse Q of being "against PSL" when you addressed him, even though in the same post you basically confirmed his claim of hypocrisy.

[Zeus the Moose]

For the interest of a clear record (in case anyone actually cares):

There were two SWP presidential candidates in 2008. Roger Calero isn't a natural-born citizen, and therefore some states would not print his name. This is something that the SWP has been doing for decades; in 1972, the party ran Linda Jenness, who wasn't 35. Anyway, between the two presidential candidates, the SWP recieved about 7,500 votes, more than the LaRiva campaign. So your claim that PSL did better than the SWP in the 2008 elections is not entirely accurate.

[Kassad]

For the interest of a clear record (in case anyone actually cares):

There were two SWP presidential candidates in 2008. Roger Calero isn't a natural-born citizen, and therefore some states would not print his name. This is something that the SWP has been doing for decades; in 1972, the party ran Linda Jenness, who wasn't 35. Anyway, between the two presidential candidates, the SWP recieved about 7,500 votes, more than the LaRiva campaign. So your claim that PSL did better than the SWP in the 2008 elections is not entirely accurate.

I didn't know that, actually, but I'm glad to see that the Socialist Workers Party is attacking a xenophobic policy. What was the second candidate's name? I believe you, but I hadn't heard about this until now.

The CNN election results are here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/allcandidates/
These show Gloria La Riva around 1,700 votes above Calero.

Regardless of how the numbers work out, I believe that's it's quite a feat for a five year old party to come very close to surpassing a party that was founded in the early 20th century.

As for the other posts in this thread, it's really hard to root out anything logical in the swarm of ignorant and trolling posters. If you would like to have anything addressed regarding the PSL, its comparison to the SWP or anything of the like, let me know.

[Revy]

For the interest of a clear record (in case anyone actually cares):

There were two SWP presidential candidates in 2008. Roger Calero isn't a natural-born citizen, and therefore some states would not print his name. This is something that the SWP has been doing for decades; in 1972, the party ran Linda Jenness, who wasn't 35. Anyway, between the two presidential candidates, the SWP recieved about 7,500 votes, more than the LaRiva campaign. So your claim that PSL did better than the SWP in the 2008 elections is not entirely accurate.

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia...
so I found the "official" results (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf)released by the FEC.


SWP (Calero + Harris) = 7,551
PSL = 6,808
SPUSA = 6,528

these were the only three genuine socialist tickets, I think the SEP canceled their campaign or something.

A lot of states actually don't count write-in votes, and that's a big problem. Getting on the ballot is hard in many states, so the only option for comrades in those states is to put in a write-in vote. So these might not be the "real" numbers.

[Revy]

Also, what was interesting in the results was that in Ohio the SP got 2,731 votes, I believe it was listed first, and with the tag "Socialist" rather than some innocuous abbreviation like "SOC". that's like a third of our votes in one state :tt1:

I wonder if the socialist parties might have gotten much more votes if they were all listed that way. I don't really know how they were listed in all states but I'm pretty sure that on my Florida ballot it just said SWP, PSL, and SOC.

[Kassad]

Also, what was interesting in the results was that in Ohio the SP got 2,731 votes, I believe it was listed first, and with the tag "Socialist" rather than some innocuous abbreviation like "SOC". that's like a third of our votes in one state :tt1:

I wonder if the socialist parties might have gotten much more votes if they were all listed that way. I don't really know how they were listed in all states but I'm pretty sure that on my Florida ballot it just said SWP, PSL, and SOC.

Don't know where you're getting some of your information at. Here's a sample Ohio ballot: http://votenader.org/files/states/Ohio_Ballot.pdf

Granted, I relaly have no clue how the electronic ballots appeared, so those may be slightly different.

[M-L-C-F]

lol @ SPUSA people trying to denounce other parties, when their party is no better than the DSA :rolleyes:

"Free Tibet" & congrats letter to Obama anyone? :lol:

[Lenin Cat]

M-L-C-F posted on the forums!

[Atlanta]

James harris was the other

[M-L-C-F]

M-L-C-F posted on the forums!
Yep. :laugh:

[manic expression]

On the SWP (in the US), I used to be an active supporter of the party for a period, so I have some direct experience with the group. My opinion is that the party's been dead for awhile, and outside of running a publishing outfit and printing a newspaper, it does absolutely nothing of note. Their ideological line is flimsy: for example, they view Russia today as a deformed worker state, even though every sane Marxist knows that Russia is presently capitalist. They accuse every other socialist party under the sun of "Stalinism", even if the charge is completely unjustifiable. They maintain an unnecessary and counterproductive system of control over members: the leadership decides where, with whom and how members live their lives at all times. They stubbornly refuse to believe that workers outside of heavy industry can organize effectively against capitalism, and thus they only talk about a handful of industries in America (meatpacking, mining and textiles, nothing more). I could go on.

I recently heard someone describe the American SWP as "Night of the Living Dead", and I think that sums it up quite well. I know a few SWP activists who I do admire and I wish them the very best, but the organization is stuck in the biggest rut you've ever seen, and far from trying to get out of it, they seem quite comfortable there.

As for some of the claims about the PSL on this thread, let's be serious. The PSL is the most energetic, visible, active and effective revolutionary socialist organization in America right now. Bar none. It is involved in just about every struggle touching the working class today, and it leads the way in many of them. At every turn, it promotes revolution as the only answer for workers worldwide. Any claim that the PSL is "reformist" is either foolish or uninformed, and such suspicions have been dealt with quite adequately on other threads (as well as this one).

And on the PSL's membership, you'd be surprised at how much a dedicated, motivated and organized cadre can achieve when juxtaposed with lethargic, stagnated and demoralized parties. Further, the PSL is growing quite fast, as people are getting interested and initiating their candidacy periods all the time. What other party in the US has the growth of the PSL?

Some may say that PSL supporters are "plugging" our party, but in truth, our only crime is being excited by an exciting party. I suppose if PSL supporters stopped being active and passively regretted the state of the American left like everyone else we'd fit in more, but in all honesty, I prefer being inspired by a party with a future.

[Revy]

I'm gonna ignore MCLF's libelous remarks about my party (they're not true), and respond to Kassad.

Yeah I looked at the ballot you linked to and it wrote out the party name, Socialist Party USA.

When I voted here in Florida, it was just "SOC". I just wondered if ballots listed our full party names, if we might have more of a chance of getting those people supportive of socialism.

[Revy]

On the SWP (in the US), I used to be an active supporter of the party for a period, so I have some direct experience with the group. My opinion is that the party's been dead for awhile, and outside of running a publishing outfit and printing a newspaper, it does absolutely nothing of note. Their ideological line is flimsy: for example, they view Russia today as a deformed worker state, even though every sane Marxist knows that Russia is presently capitalist. They accuse every other socialist party under the sun of "Stalinism", even if the charge is completely unjustifiable. They maintain an unnecessary and counterproductive system of control over members: the leadership decides where, with whom and how members live their lives at all times. They stubbornly refuse to believe that workers outside of heavy industry can organize effectively against capitalism, and thus they only talk about a handful of industries in America (meatpacking, mining and textiles, nothing more). I could go on.

I recently heard someone describe the American SWP as "Night of the Living Dead", and I think that sums it up quite well. I know a few SWP activists who I do admire and I wish them the very best, but the organization is stuck in the biggest rut you've ever seen, and far from trying to get out of it, they seem quite comfortable there.

As for some of the claims about the PSL on this thread, let's be serious. The PSL is the most energetic, visible, active and effective revolutionary socialist organization in America right now. Bar none. It is involved in just about every struggle touching the working class today, and it leads the way in many of them. At every turn, it promotes revolution as the only answer for workers worldwide. Any claim that the PSL is "reformist" is either foolish or uninformed, and such suspicions have been dealt with quite adequately on other threads (as well as this one).

And on the PSL's membership, you'd be surprised at how much a dedicated, motivated and organized cadre can achieve when juxtaposed with lethargic, stagnated and demoralized parties. Further, the PSL is growing quite fast, as people are getting interested and initiating their candidacy periods all the time. What other party in the US has the growth of the PSL?

Some may say that PSL supporters are "plugging" our party, but in truth, our only crime is being excited by an exciting party. I suppose if PSL supporters stopped being active and passively regretted the state of the American left like everyone else we'd fit in more, but in all honesty, I prefer being inspired by a party with a future.

So can you describe democracy within PSL? (I'm being friendly, here, just to clarify).

I do know that PSL obviously doesn't seem to have a personality cult, although some have alleged one around Brian Becker, or "the Becker family", but that sounds kinda silly, since I don't ever see much material on him.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Any claim that the PSL is "reformist" is either foolish or uninformed, and such suspicions have been dealt with quite adequately on other threads (as well as this one).

"Community control of the police" = reformist slogan.

"Money for schools not for war" = reformist slogan.

Participating in bourgeois elections on reformist program = reformism.

Multi-class popular fronts = reformism.

Appealing to capitalist politicians to act in the interests of the general population = reformism.

That said, the PSL isn't the biggest, the most widespread or the most active party in the United States right now. I have no stake in any of the sects operating in the U.S. today. I do not support the ISO, SWP, CPUSA, etc., but I know that they are larger than the PSL. This is objective reality.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Brian Becker, or "the Becker family", but that sounds kinda silly, since I don't ever see much material on him.

A quick search on the PSL site for "Becker" brought up 370 results.

[Zeus the Moose]

lol @ SPUSA people trying to denounce other parties, when their party is no better than the DSoA :rolleyes:

"Free Tibet" & congrats letter to Obama anyone? :lol:

I'm sorry, I must be confused. Where did a member of the SP denounce other parties?

[manic expression]

So can you describe democracy within PSL? (I'm being friendly, here, just to clarify).

I haven't participated in the week-to-week operations of a branch as I'm still at-large, but I can tell you that the members of each branch do vote on just about all important decisions. I wish I could give specifics, but more hands-on experience will give me just that.


I do know that PSL obviously doesn't seem to have a personality cult, although some have alleged one around Brian Becker, or "the Becker family", but that sounds kinda silly, since I don't ever see much material on him.

I had never heard of him until you mentioned the name, so I highly doubt it.


"Community control of the police" = reformist slogan.

That's something that's part-and-parcel to socialist society. According to your logic, then, community control of the means of production "= reformist slogan".


"Money for schools not for war" = reformist slogan.

That's opposing imperialism and underlining the capitalist scorn for working-class education. You're patently ignoring the fact that the PSL does emphasize revolutionary goals in its activities, anti-war and otherwise; taking a slogan in isolation isn't an argument.


Participating in bourgeois elections on reformist program = reformism.

Good thing the PSL doesn't do that.


Multi-class popular fronts = reformism.

Multi-class popular fronts = anti-imperialism. Read Lenin.


Appealing to capitalist politicians to act in the interests of the general population = reformism.

Good thing the PSL doesn't do that. Once more, do try to remember that taking slogans in isolation and ignoring broader messages isn't a valid argument.


That said, the PSL isn't the biggest, the most widespread or the most active party in the United States right now. I have no stake in any of the sects operating in the U.S. today. I do not support the ISO, SWP, CPUSA, etc., but I know that they are larger than the PSL. This is objective reality.

The PSL is the most energetic, visible, active and effective revolutionary socialist organization in America right now. Bar none.

I didn't say "biggest", and so my above statement remains true. And on having greater "membership":

And on the PSL's membership, you'd be surprised at how much a dedicated, motivated and organized cadre can achieve when juxtaposed with lethargic, stagnated and demoralized parties.

This statement, like the one above it, remains true and shows your criticisms to be immaterial.


A quick search on the PSL site for "Becker" brought up 370 results.

And a quick search on the PSL site for "Puryear" brought up 379 results; "La Riva" brought up 458. What, exactly, is your point?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I had never heard of him until you mentioned the name, so I highly doubt it.Which means you know less about the leadership of your party than others here who don't even support it. "Democratic centralism" in action.

Brian Becker is a leader of the PSL and its front group A.N.S.W.E.R.. He belonged to the secretariat of the WWP before the split. If you go to the front page of the PSL's website you can see his face and watch a video of him giving a speech.

Richard Becker is his brother. He is another leader of the PSL. He's on your newspaper's editorial board.


And a quick search on the PSL site for "Puryear" brought up 379 results; "La Riva" brought up 458. What, exactly, is your point? It should be pretty obvious. "Eco-Marxist" said he hadn't seen much on/from the Becker brothers. I showed that there were hundreds of articles from/on them on the PSL website.


That's something that's part-and-parcel to socialist society. According to your logic, then, community control of the means of production "= reformist slogan".Except the PSL doesn't call for it as a part of a socialist society. It raises the slogan now, under capitalism. That's why it's reformist.

Or course it could never occur under capitalism. And as I said, even if it did occur it wouldn't change anything any more than "Black faces in high places" do. Besides all this, it builds illusions in the police as something other than a vital part of the capitalist state (along with courts, prisons, etc.) which exists to oppress the proletariat and preserve the rule of the bourgeoisie.

The PSL actually calls for committess to "monitor every police action." (Of course community review board have existed for years in many places.) They don't pose this as a part of a socialist future (though in their version of "socialism" police would still exist of course .. for a glimpse into what they're fighting for remember that according to them China is currently "socialist"). They raise it as a demand, right now.


That's opposing imperialism and underlining the capitalist scorn for working-class education. You're patently ignoring the fact that the PSL does emphasize revolutionary goals in its activities, anti-war and otherwise; taking a slogan in isolation isn't an argument.As I said, raising slogans like "Money for schools not for war" which build illusions in capitalism as a system which can meet human need if it's just "tweaked." It also builds illusions in the ability of people to "pressure" politicians into carrying out their objectives instead of running things in the interests of the bourgeoisie.


Good thing the PSL doesn't do that.Really? Can you quote the part of the PSL's electoral program that calls for socialist revolution to bring control of production into the hands of the working class?


Multi-class popular fronts = anti-imperialism. Read Lenin.Lenin's writings aren't holy scripture that you can refer to end all discussion.

The ridiculousness of it all is that you clearly haven't read Lenin (or understood what he wrote).

The "popular front" was invented years after Lenin died.

The Mensheviks called for the same thing much earlier, without using the name. They wanted an alliance with a "progressive" section of the bourgeoisie. Lenin roundly rejected that.

Communists have fought for the political independence of the proletariat since the days of Marx. It's key to the fight for proletarian revolution.

If you're going to be a dogmatist, at least get the dogma right.

"The 'struggle against war' cannot be conducted as something separate and apart from the class struggle itself, from the intransigent struggle of the proletariat against imperialist capitalism, that is, against that social order which inexorably gives rise to imperialist war and oppression and which is inconceivable without twin scourges. Any attempt to conduct a struggle 'against war' by means of 'special methods' separate or “above” the class struggle itself is at best a cruel illusion and as a rule a malicious deception that facilitates the work of the imperialist warmongers....

"The struggle against war, properly understood and executed, presupposes the uncompromising hostility of the proletariat and its organizations, always and everywhere, toward its own and every other imperialist bourgeoisie...

"The struggle against war and its social source, capitalism, presupposes direct, active, unequivocal support to the oppressed colonial peoples in their struggles and wars against imperialism. A 'neutral' position is tantamount to support of imperialism." - Trotsky


Good thing the PSL doesn't do that. Once more, do try to remember that taking slogans in isolation and ignoring broader messages isn't a valid argument.So why march on congress? Or the White House? Or the Pentagon?

When you call for "money for schools not for war" who exactly are you talking to? Who are you demanding that from? Who decides what money goes where under capitalism?

Why did the PSL say "What is needed is a clear program focused on what the new administration should do to meet the needs of the working people" in a statement on the election of Obama?

Why does the PSL push the lie that "a powerful and independent people's movement" ended the invasion of Viet Nam when it fact it was years of bloody fighting by Vietnamese people that drove the imperialists out?


I didn't say "biggest", and so my above statement remains true. It's subjective. You're clearly trying to portray your party as "the best." Yet in all objective measures it falls behind.

* * *

You're clearly unable to respond to any criticism of the reformism of your party in any meaningful way. Your retort basically boils down to a bunch of one-lines saying "no we're not." If you're serious about revolution you may want to dig a little deeper into the content of the debate.

Since you're so keen on Lenin, remember what he said: "A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it fulfills in practice its obligations towards its class, and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification - that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses."

[Zeus the Moose]

I didn't know that, actually, but I'm glad to see that the Socialist Workers Party is attacking a xenophobic policy. What was the second candidate's name? I believe you, but I hadn't heard about this until now.

The CNN election results are here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/allcandidates/
These show Gloria La Riva around 1,700 votes above Calero.

Fair enough. The SWP didn't seem to publicise their second candidate (James Harris, btw) much, so it's an understandable mistake. I'm a bit of an elections geek as well as a revolutionary socialist, so I tend to find out these things.


Regardless of how the numbers work out, I believe that's it's quite a feat for a five year old party to come very close to surpassing a party that was founded in the early 20th century.

Perhaps, though the total socialist vote went down in 2008 compared to 2004. Back in 2004, there were about 23,000-ish votes cast among the four socialist presidential tickets running (SP-USA, SWP, WWP, and SEP.) In 2008, I think the total socialist vote was around 20,000. This probably shouldn't detract from the work that PSL did and the splash that it made, but probably deserves to be considered.

[Kassad]

So can you describe democracy within PSL? (I'm being friendly, here, just to clarify).

I do know that PSL obviously doesn't seem to have a personality cult, although some have alleged one around Brian Becker, or "the Becker family", but that sounds kinda silly, since I don't ever see much material on him.

We practice democratic centralism. Also, the Becker family (Richard Becker, Brian Becker and Ben Becker) are three of the most active people in our party. They constantly write articles for Liberation Newspaper and Socialism and Liberation magazine. They also work very efficiently inside ANSWER. The assertions that there is some kind of personality cult is absurd. Yes, the Beckers are some of the founders of the party, but go to our website. Are there any pictures of them? Links to their work specifically? Any mention of them at all? No, there's none. Though I know two of them, at least, are members of our political and national committees, there is nothing close to a cult. I mean, none of them even ran for office during the elections.

Nothing Human is Alien is making wide, baseless assertions about the Becker family. There are also dozens of articles from Gloria La Riva, Eugene Puryear, Heather Benno, Mazda Majidi and many other party members. Your assertions are totally insane.

Also, you want a quote about the PSL's program? This is from the first line of the program of the PSL, available in our pamphlet Who We Are, What We Stand For. "The Party for Socialism and Liberation believes that the only solution to the deepening crisis of capitalism is the socialist transformation of society." Later on, it says "None of these aims can be achieved without the abolishing of the capitalist system and replacing it with socialism." "A revolution cannot take place without society entering into a revolutionary crisis. [...] A revolution is a life and death battle." Along with our website and program that consistently states that reforms are impossible without the destruction of capitalism and revolution, we see that you claims of reformism are absurd.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes, the Beckers are some of the founders of the party, but go to our website. Are there any pictures of them? Links to their work specifically? Any mention of them at all? No, there's none.Front page of the PSL website:

http://www.sunriseabove.net/rico/psl.JPG


I mean, none of them even ran for office during the elections.Neither did Bob Avakian or Jack Barnes.


Nothing Human is Alien is making wide, baseless assertions about the Becker family. There are also dozens of articles from Gloria La Riva, Eugene Puryear, Heather Benno, Mazda Majidi and many other party members. Your assertions are totally insane.What assertions did I make? The only time I mentioned the Becker clan was to say that they were leaders of the PSL, a fact some of its own members apparently don't know. I also mentioned that there were hundreds of items on the website by or about them. These are objective, easily demonstrable facts.

The only one being untruthful here is you when you accuse me of making 'wild assertions.'


Also, you want a quote about the PSL's program? No, I want one from the electoral platform that its candidates run on. That's what we're talking about. Go back and reread the convo. It went a little something like this:

Me: The PSL runs candidates in bourgeois elections on a reformist platform.

manic expression: No it doesn't.

Me: Show me the part of the PSL's electoral platform that calls for socialist revolution to bring production under the control of the working class.

* * *

More than once comrades have exposed the reformism of the PSL on this site. The response from PSL members has been arrogant dismisal and weasling. It seems you're more interested in saving face, winning debates and supporting an organization that getting down to the truth. That's a shame.

[manic expression]

Which means you know less about the leadership of your party than others here who don't even support it. "Democratic centralism" in action.

The time I've spent working with the party has had more to do with getting involved with the struggle, not memorizing the list of party leaders. Try it sometime.


Brian Becker is a leader of the PSL and its front group A.N.S.W.E.R.. He belonged to the secretariat of the WWP before the split. If you go to the front page of the PSL's website you can see his face and watch a video of him giving a speech.

Richard Becker is his brother. He is another leader of the PSL. He's on your newspaper's editorial board.Good info, but what in the world is your problem with this? You imply that there's a personality cult within the PSL, but when a PSL candidate hasn't heard of the supposed objects of this supposed cult, you throw out cheap insults like a five-year old. Obviously, you have nothing here.


It should be pretty obvious. "Eco-Marxist" said he hadn't seen much on/from the Becker brothers. I showed that there were hundreds of articles from/on them on the PSL website.And I showed that there are similar articles from/on others on the PSL website. Once again, you have nothing here.


Except the PSL doesn't call for it as a part of a socialist society. It raises the slogan now, under capitalism. That's why it's reformist.Every slogan raised now is a slogan raised under capitalism, big guy. And the PSL DOES call for it as a part of socialist society. Please review the website and read its statements. Thanks a bunch.


Or course it could never occur under capitalism.Exactly what I said. What we said. What you ignored.

"None of these aims can be achieved without abolishing the capitalist system and replacing it with socialism."

From the Villar campaign website: http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7971


The PSL actually calls for committess to "monitor every police action." (Of course community review board have existed for years in many places.) They don't pose this as a part of a socialist future (though in their version of "socialism" police would still exist of course .. for a glimpse into what they're fighting for remember that according to them China is currently "socialist"). They raise it as a demand, right now.That's perfectly reasonable. Getting cops to stop murdering and attacking oppressed communities now is what every socialist should be doing. Evidently, however, many socialists are more content whining about revolutionaries who actually do stuff in the real world.


As I said, raising slogans like "Money for schools not for war" which build illusions in capitalism as a system which can meet human need if it's just "tweaked." It also builds illusions in the ability of people to "pressure" politicians into carrying out their objectives instead of running things in the interests of the bourgeoisie."Money for schools not war" is a slogan that is used to oppose imperialism and raise revolutionary consciousness. The PSL propagates revolutionary politics within every struggle it is involved with. You would know this if you weren't so oblivious to its line and activities.


Really? Can you quote the part of the PSL's electoral program that calls for socialist revolution to bring control of production into the hands of the working class?I'll do you one more, here's a little something from the PSL's current electoral campaign for Mayor of NYC, entitled "Why socialism?":

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7971

Have fun with that.


Lenin's writings aren't holy scripture that you can refer to end all discussion.First you need to recognize what imperialism is, and then we can discuss that very entity.


The "popular front" was invented years after Lenin died.The Popular Front wasn't "invented" like the light bulb or penicilin, it was utilized by anti-imperialist and anti-fascist working-class struggles around the world. It was and is directly connected to Lenin's analysis of imperialism.


The Mensheviks called for the same thing much earlier, without using the name. They wanted an alliance with a "progressive" section of the bourgeoisie. Lenin roundly rejected that.Of course, you're ignoring both the PSL's line and the entire historical context. The PSL does not want to ally with a "progressive" section of the bourgeoisie, the PSL wants to oppose imperialism. If the former was the case, the PSL wouldn't be running independent candidates on socialist platforms; the WWP is supporting the Green Party, not the PSL. Moreover, the Mensheviks were allying with the Provisional Government in a revolutionary situation; the PSL is defending oppressed communities in a time of capitalist offensive. The only similarity between the two is solely in your imagination.


Communists have fought for the political independence of the proletariat since the days of Marx. It's key to the fight for proletarian revolution.Good thing the PSL does that more than any other party in America.


If you're going to be a dogmatist, at least get the dogma right.
So why march on congress? Or the White House? Or the Pentagon?Because those institutions represent the center of imperialism, and as such the workers must confront them, oppose them and defeat them.

Do I really have to explain this to you like you're a child?


When you call for "money for schools not for war" who exactly are you talking to?The workers.


Who are you demanding that from?It's about demanding the means with which to dictate society from the capitalists, and underlining the murderous policies of imperialism and its utter negligence for working-class education.


Who decides what money goes where under capitalism?The capitalists decide where the money goes because they have it all, and that is precisely what the PSL is struggling to change.


Why did the PSL say "What is needed is a clear program focused on what the new administration should do to meet the needs of the working people" in a statement on the election of Obama?Because it underlines the fact that Obama doesn't have such a program and will never have such a program. It speaks to people who voted for Obama because he was for "change" and "hope", because it emphasizes how much he doesn't stand for them.

It's about being two steps ahead of the people, not twenty.


Why does the PSL push the lie that "a powerful and independent people's movement" ended the invasion of Viet Nam when it fact it was years of bloody fighting by Vietnamese people that drove the imperialists out?You don't think the anti-war protests made a difference? 50,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam and many more were crippled for life; the bourgeoisie would have had no qualms murdering more Vietnamese people by sending more Americans to their deaths if they could have done so. Lack of support for the war, which Nixon tried to court, was key in ending the imperialist slaughter in that country.


It's subjective. You're clearly trying to portray your party as "the best." Yet in all objective measures it falls behind.Once again you tapdance around the truth instead of dealing with it head-on. I'll give you another try:

The PSL is the most energetic, visible, active and effective revolutionary socialist organization in America right now. Bar none.


You're clearly unable to respond to any criticism of the reformism of your party in any meaningful way. Your retort basically boils down to a bunch of one-lines saying "no we're not." If you're serious about revolution you may want to dig a little deeper into the content of the debate.And the misrepresentation ensues. You've singularly failed to deal with what I've said, and so there was little for me to respond to. Try going back to my first post and dealing with it in a mature manner, because all you've done is side-stepped the issues time and again.


Since you're so keen on Lenin, remember what he said: "A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it fulfills in practice its obligations towards its class, and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification - that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses."That would be pertinent, but the problem is that you've been unable to outline any real mistakes here. Implying that there are mistakes, which you've attempted to do for quite some time, is very different from showing that there are mistakes, which you simply have not done so far. By all means, keep implying, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

[manic expression]

Me: The PSL runs candidates in bourgeois elections on a reformist platform.

manic expression: No it doesn't.

Me: Show me the part of the PSL's electoral platform that calls for socialist revolution to bring production under the control of the working class.

manic expression: http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7971

manic expression: No it doesn't.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're not even trying to debate anything seriously. You're not digging into the content of anything. I made a mistake in thinking that you were a serious comrade.


Oh, and the fact that I wasn't aware of the Becker family simply proves that there isn't a personality cult at all, which means you're making a perfect fool of yourself.Can you show me where I said there was a personality cult in the PSL? ...Should be pretty difficult since I never said it.

Someone said there was no mention of the Becker clan. I proved that there were in fact hundreds.

Another person said Brian Becker doesn't appear anywhere on the PSL's website. I proved that his face and name are on the front page.

This is all plain truth. I didn't add anything.

If you go back and actually read what I wrote you'll see that one of my criticisms of the PSL was its practice of "democratic centralism."

You don't even know who leads the party you belong to. :lol: Go ahead and tell me how well "democratic centralism" is working for you.


And I showed that there are similar articles from/on others on the PSL website. Once again, you're making a fool out of yourself.But neither I or Eco-Marxist said anything about anyone else or other articles. Eco-Marxist suggested that nothing about or by the Becker's existed in the PSL's materials. I showed that there were hundreds of mentions.

Are you so blinded by your religious-fervor-like enthusiasm for the PSL that you can no longer understand basic English communication?


Every slogan raised now is a slogan raised under capitalism, big guy.So, like I said, the PSL is calling for "community control" of the police under capitalism.

The PSL is building illusions in the police as something other than a vital part of the capitalist state (along with courts, prisons, etc.) which exists to oppress the proletariat and preserve the rule of the bourgeoisie and which could never come under the "control" of the working class.

Revolutionaries organize to smash the capitalist state. The PSL hoplelessly tries to gain control over a part of it.


Exactly what I said. What we said. What you ignored.
That's perfectly reasonable. Getting cops to stop murdering and attacking oppressed communities now is what every socialist should be doing. Evidently, however, many socialists are more content whining about revolutionaries who actually do stuff in the real world.Wait.. which one is it? If workers can't control the police under capitalism, why do you call for exactly that? Why do you raise the call for committees which you say can't exist? Why do you say in the next sentence that such committes (which can't exist remember) can "get cops to stop killing people."

Cops will always kill/injure/harass/attack/arrest people. That's what they do.

Revolutionaries are fighting to get rid of cops. You're (futily) trying to get some of your own.


"Money for schools not war" is a slogan that is used to oppose imperialism and raise revolutionary consciousness.It's a reformist slogan by definition. It's calling for the reform of capitalism to make it a little better.

Revolutionaries are fighting to end capitalism. Only after that will the priorities of society be set by human need instead of capitalist greed. That can't and won't happen now. It's the job of revolutionaries to clarify this, not to muddy the waters.


I'll do you one more, here's a little something from the PSL's current electoral campaign for Mayor of NYC, entitled "Why socialism?":That's not an electoral platform. That's an article on your website.

This is the electoral platform your candidate for mayor of NYC is running on:

What the Frances Villar for Mayor (PSL) 2009 Campaign Stands For


The billionaires are going to pay for this crisis! They created the crisis—now they should be the ones to pay for it. Tax Wall Street and the big landlords.



People before banks! The city currently pays $5 billion every year to the banks in debt payments—before it ever makes it to the city budget. We are calling for the city to put the banks at the back of the line.



Every New Yorker has a right to a job!



New York City should be an eviction-free zone. No foreclosures or evictions in the city.



Education is a right. Make sure every child in the city has a safe and modern classroom. Raise the salary for every public school teacher in the city, and make parents have a real say in their children’s curriculum. CUNY should be free.

Thoroughly reformist. A Green Party candidate could (and has) easily run on the same platform.

Speaking of the campaign for mayor of NYC.. Can you tell me why your candidate Frances Villar argued in support of Leonel Fernandez, the anti-communist, anti-worker president of the capitalist state of the Dominican Republic at a public PSL meeting in Harlem in late 2007?


The Popular Front wasn't "invented" like the light bulb or penicilin, it was utilized by anti-imperialist and anti-fascist working-class struggles around the world.Actually, the collaborate-with-anyone popular front was devised by the Comintern in the 1934 as it swung in the complete opposite direction of the policy of refusing to work with any non-communist groups it held immediately prior.


It was and is directly connected to Lenin's analysis of imperialism....only as a distortion thereof.

Lenin fought for the independence of the proletariat and constantly pointed out that only the international proletariat could smash imperialism.


The PSL does not want to ally with a "progressive" section of the bourgeoisie, That's what a "popular front" is comrade.


the PSL wants to oppose imperialism. What some of its members want it to do (and think it is doing) is a bit different from what it's actually doing.

Sections of the bourgeoisie oppose the war in Iraq for their own reasons (eg. forces are tied down there that can be "better" used in Iran). Sections of the petty-bourgeoisie and other forces do as well.

The PSL not only marches side by side and shares stages with these forces but has built a coalition with them (A.N.S.W.E.R.).

Through this coalition it mobilizes larges people for reformist demonstrations carried out under demands moderated in order to build the "biggest movement possible." Calls for the defeat of US imperialism were nowhere to be seen. Instead we got general liberal-pacifist "No To War" slogans.

Revolutionaries rely on the working class to end the war. They understand that the proletariat in the only force capable of ending this war and war in general - by overthrowing capitalism. That's what they organize. They don't seperate the "struggle against war" from the struggle against capitalism because they know that the "struggle against war" cannot be seperated from the struggle against capitalism.

One transportation strike against war is worth 100 "peaceful marches."

The capitalists let the reformists marches go on relatively unhampered. It promotes the illusion of "democracy" and releases some presure among some of the more forward sections of the population.

But when workers at a tire plant that sometimes produced for the army hinted that they may strike for purely economic reasons a few years back, they were immediately threatened with an invasion by the National Guard.

I shouldn't have to tell you why that is.


Good thing the PSL does that more than any other party in America.Building an "anti-war alliance" with reactionaries, reformists, petty-bourgeois outfits, intellectuals and clergy is fighting for the political independence of the working class?

If that's the case, then I agree, they are the best.


Because those institutions represent the center of imperialism, and as such the workers must confront them, oppose them and defeat them.So the way to defeat imperialism is to march to the Pentagon, center of military decision making, asking them to "Fund People’s Needs NOT THE WAR MACHINE"?


The workers.But workers don't determine what money goes where, as you say.. "The capitalists decide where the money goes."

So why don't you call on the working class to overthrow capitalism and take power into its own hands? That's what revolutionaries do.


and that is precisely what the PSL is struggling to change.You can't do that by appealing to the capitalist rulers.


It's about demanding the means with which to dictate society from the capitalists, and underlining the murderous policies of imperialism and its utter negligence for working-class education.This jumble of words is a little difficult to decipher. Perhaps you're finding it hard to weasel out of this one.

If you're demanding that the capitalists give priority to education (or housing, employment, etc.) instead of pursuing their own goals (military or otherwise), you're promoting reformism. Period.

The capitalist rule in their own interests. That will always be the case. They can not and will not rule in the interests of meeting human need.

Revolutionaries need to point that out and every turn. We need to dispell illusions, not build them up!

There's a contradiction in what you want and what you're party is actually doing that you eventually have to resolve one way or the other.


Because it underlines the fact that Obama doesn't have such a program and will never have such a program. It speaks to people who voted for Obama because he was for "change" and "hope", because it emphasizes how much he doesn't stand for them.Maybe you think that's what your party is saying.. but it's not.

You think you're saying "Obama can never meet the needs of working people because he's the executive of the capitalist state.. a state which by definition serves to defend and preserve the rule and interests of the capitalist class."

What your party is actually saying is "We need to make a plan to show Obama how to meet the needs of workers."

Read your party's own statement again.


You don't think the anti-war protests made a difference? 50,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam and many more were crippled for life; the bourgeoisie would have had no qualms murdering more Vietnamese people by sending more Americans to their deaths if they could have done so. Lack of support for the war, which Nixon tried to court, was key in ending the imperialist slaughter in that country.The US was defeated militarily in Viet Nam.

I shouldn't have to tell you that bourgeois democracy is a farce. A lack of "popular support" doesn't end wars under it. A majority of the population has been against the war in Iraq for years, yet it continues.

Wars are ended by military defeats, a lack of needed supplies due to strikes, mutinies, revolutions, etc.. They're not ended by groups of people in tie dyed shirts singing kumbaya on the National Lawn.


Once again you tapdance around the truth instead of dealing with it head-on.The truth is that your statement that "The PSL is the most energetic, visible, active and effective revolutionary socialist organization in America right now" is subjective.

In all objective measures (number of members, number of votes, etc.) it is surpased by other organizations.


That would be pertinent, but the problem is that you've been unable to outline any real mistakes here.You're claiming your party is infallible. That's pretty sad, but the kind of thing I've come to expect from members of a dogmatic political cult.

[manic expression]

You're not even trying to debate anything seriously. You're not digging into the content of anything. I made a mistake in thinking that you were a serious comrade.

Sorry, saying something's true doesn't make it so. The mistake you made was forgetting to make an argument.


Can you show me where I said there was a personality cult in the PSL? ...Should be pretty difficult since I never said it.

Oh, my apologies, you insinuated it:

Neither did Bob Avakian or Jack Barnes.

The comparison, I think, is quite clear, and so is its meaning. The only problem is that both are completely absurd.

Oh, but wait, here's your newest version of your slander:

That's pretty sad, but the kind of thing I've come to expect from members of a dogmatic political cult.

Funny how that came in the same exact post. I said you were making a fool out of yourself, but I didn't expect you to do it so soon.


Someone said there was no mention of the Becker clan. I proved that there were in fact hundreds.

Another person said Brian Becker doesn't appear anywhere on the PSL's website. I proved that his face and name are on the front page.

Good for you. Nothing you said, however, justifies the comparisons (and insinuations) you've made.


This is all plain truth. I didn't add anything.

Just false insinuations. Nothing more.


You don't even know who leads the party you belong to. :lol: Go ahead and tell me how well "democratic centralism" is working for you.

There isn't a single leader of the party, and I concentrate on my branch first and foremost, I know its leaders and I work with them closely; that's what matters to me. The five-year old insults might make for easy :lol:'s, but the only thing this has established is that I care more about reaching workers with a revolutionary message than anything else, and that's what I do with the PSL. Once again, keep implying stuff, kid.


But neither I or Eco-Marxist said anything about anyone else or other articles. Eco-Marxist suggested that nothing about or by the Becker's existed in the PSL's materials. I showed that there were hundreds of mentions.

And I showed that those "hundreds of mentions" don't mean remotely what you've been implying.


Are you so blinded by your religious-fervor-like enthusiasm for the PSL that you can no longer understand basic English communication?

That's quite a different affliction than being unable to understand the muddled banter that fills your posts.


So, like I said, the PSL is calling for "community control" of the police under capitalism.

It's fighting the murder of workers. Good to know you don't approve of that.

And if the workers CAN check the capitalist police tomorrow, I say let them do it. Hell, I'll help them. Our sisters and brothers are being murdered right now, and any revolutionary party worth the label would try to stop such outrages as soon as possible. Community control of the police is what the Black Panthers fought and died for.


The PSL is building illusions in the police as something other than a vital part of the capitalist state (along with courts, prisons, etc.) which exists to oppress the proletariat and preserve the rule of the bourgeoisie and which could never come under the "control" of the working class.

:rolleyes:

Under the capitalist justice system, these criminals are shielded from any consequence from their repressive tactics against the working class.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10301&news_iv_ctrl=1361

Would it kill you to know what you're talking about?


Revolutionaries organize to smash the capitalist state. The PSL hoplelessly tries to gain control over a part of it.

More ridiculous slander. Obviously you haven't read the article I posted previously. Please do so. Thanks.


Wait.. which one is it? If workers can't control the police under capitalism, why do you call for exactly that? Why do you raise the call for committees which you say can't exist? Why do you say in the next sentence that such committes (which can't exist remember) can "get cops to stop killing people."

Workers, through militant self-defense, can check the oppression and brutality of the capitalist police. The Black Panthers showed this was possible some decades ago. Your position is like saying strikes and unionization are irrelevant, because workers can't control the means of production under capitalism; the point is to defend the workers and further their interests today and tomorrow. Just as unions are legitimate tools for class struggle in the workplace, so too can workers form bodies to protect themselves from police violence on the streets. That is what the PSL line represents.


Revolutionaries are fighting to get rid of cops. You're (futily) trying to get some of your own.

No, actual revolutionaries, in the real world, are fighting cops. That's what the PSL is doing. You seem comfortable with workers dying while we all wait for your revolution (since you have some sort of problem with actual revolutionary activity).


It's a reformist slogan by definition. It's calling for the reform of capitalism to make it a little better.

Does it say "Money for capitalist schools not capitalist wars"?

No, it doesn't. It says "Money for schools not war" as part of a struggle against imperialism. The message is clear to workers:

“I’m a student who can barely afford to stay in school, and I’m so mad about the war and tuition hikes. This was the most powerful action I have ever been a part of. It makes me want to do more—everything I can, to stop this system,” said Yasmin Abdullah, a Lebanese American student at Los Angeles Valley College.

Shakeel Syed of the Islamic Shura Council denounced the U.S. government’s continued attacks on the Muslim community. He called for an end to U.S. wars, the occupation of Palestine, and for a revolution in the United States.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11579

Whatever the reason, you haven't gotten the message, but don't blame the PSL for your inability to see the obvious.


Revolutionaries are fighting to end capitalism. Only after that will the priorities of society be set by human need instead of capitalist greed. That can't and won't happen now. It's the job of revolutionaries to clarify this, not to muddy the waters.

Using your logic, "Land, Bread and Peace" would "muddy the waters". Your points have absolutely no bearing on what people involved with PSL are actually saying.


That's not an electoral platform. That's an article on your website.

From...the official website of Frances Villar for Mayor of NYC. That's an electoral campaign.


This is the electoral platform your candidate for mayor of NYC is running on:


Thoroughly reformist. A Green Party candidate could (and has) easily run on the same platform.

Like I said, I have to explain this to you like I would explain it to a child. Go back and read what I posted, then talk. Make sure you get through it, OK?


Speaking of the campaign for mayor of NYC.. Can you tell me why your candidate Frances Villar argued in support of Leonel Fernandez, the anti-communist, anti-worker president of the capitalist state of the Dominican Republic at a public PSL meeting in Harlem in late 2007?

Post a transcript or some sort of quote.


Actually, the collaborate-with-anyone popular front was devised by the Comintern in the 1934 as it swung in the complete opposite direction of the policy of refusing to work with any non-communist groups it held immediately prior.

Did the Bolsheviks work with the Mensheviks before 1917?


...only as a distortion thereof.

Lenin fought for the independence of the proletariat and constantly pointed out that only the international proletariat could smash imperialism.

That's what the PSL is doing. Organizing workers to smash imperialism.

But then they get criticized for marching on the Pentagon by you. :lol:


That's what a "popular front" is comrade.

What of Bolsheviks working with Mensheviks, or Lenin accepting help from the Second Reich? I'm sure you'll be so willing to criticize those two policies from your high horse, too.

At any rate, I'll ask you again to read and comprehend the articles I've posted.


What some of its members want it to do (and think it is doing) is a bit different from what it's actually doing.

I've been posting what the PSL has actually been doing: fighting capitalism. You're just unable or unwilling to recognize that.


Sections of the bourgeoisie oppose the war in Iraq for their own reasons (eg. forces are tied down there that can be "better" used in Iran). Sections of the petty-bourgeoisie and other forces do as well.

The PSL not only marches side by side and shares stages with these forces but has built a coalition with them (A.N.S.W.E.R.).

What, exactly, are you objecting to? Stop implying and be specific. Do you object to the Free Palestine Alliance? The IFCO/Pastors for Peace? The Mexico Solidarity Network?

Stop insinuating and start arguing.


Through this coalition it mobilizes larges people for reformist demonstrations carried out under demands moderated in order to build the "biggest movement possible." Calls for the defeat of US imperialism were nowhere to be seen. Instead we got general liberal-pacifist "No To War" slogans.

Obviously you're not paying attention. ANSWER split with UFPJ because the latter wanted to build the "biggest movement possible" while ignoring the plight of Palestinians and other peoples under imperialism. ANSWER calls for the defeat of US imperialism all the time, and if you read the quotes and links I posted above you'll notice this.

Just in case you didn't read the other quotes (which is probably the case):

Members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation led a strong multinational contingent with chants calling for an immediate end to the United States’ imperialist wars in the Middle East and for a movement to bail out the people. Thousands of leaflets were handed out for the April 25 Socialism Conference in Chicago. The responses to literature about the conference and the PSL slogan "Capitalism is Criminal! Fight for Socialism!" were very enthusiastic.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11577&news_iv_ctrl=1022

Who's muddying the waters now?


The capitalists let the reformists marches go on relatively unhampered. It promotes the illusion of "democracy" and releases some presure among some of the more forward sections of the population.

But when workers at a tire plant that sometimes produced for the army hinted that they may strike for purely economic reasons a few years back, they were immediately threatened with an invasion by the National Guard.

Actually, the cops were pretty aggressive from what I heard. At any rate, your talk of an anti-war strike is all well and good, but we're having enough trouble trying to get unions to strike at all right now. I can't click my heels together and make an anti-war strike, so let's deal with what we can do and build up to something like that, big guy.


Building an "anti-war alliance" with reactionaries, reformists, petty-bourgeois outfits, intellectuals and clergy is fighting for the political independence of the working class?

The vague slander continues. Be specific or concede your non-existent points.


So the way to defeat imperialism is to march to the Pentagon, center of military decision making, asking them to "Fund People’s Needs NOT THE WAR MACHINE"?

If crowds of workers marching on the center of the imperialist military isn't revolutionary for you, you're just being thick.


But workers don't determine what money goes where, as you say.. "The capitalists decide where the money goes."

They can, by liberating themselves through socialism.


So why don't you call on the working class to overthrow capitalism and take power into its own hands? That's what revolutionaries do.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I've posted numerous references in which the PSL does exactly that. You're simply refusing to recognize what's been clearly posted on this thread.


You can't do that by appealing to the capitalist rulers.

Good thing the PSL doesn't do that.


This jumble of words is a little difficult to decipher. Perhaps you're finding it hard to weasel out of this one.

Of course you can't understand it, it's revolutionary politics. What it means is that the demand is for control of society. Not that difficult to figure out.


There's a contradiction in what you want and what you're party is actually doing that you eventually have to resolve one way or the other.

That contradiction exists in your imagination.

Please review the links I've posted.


Maybe you think that's what your party is saying.. but it's not.

See previous answer.


What your party is actually saying is "We need to make a plan to show Obama how to meet the needs of workers."

No, my party is saying Obama doesn't have a plan to meet the needs of the workers, and it's because he doesn't want to have a plan to meet the needs of the workers.

Imply all you want, it doesn't change a thing.


The US was defeated militarily in Viet Nam.

The Nazis were defeated militarily at Kursk, the war still raged on.


I shouldn't have to tell you that bourgeois democracy is a farce. A lack of "popular support" doesn't end wars under it. A majority of the population has been against the war in Iraq for years, yet it continues.

Wars are ended by military defeats, a lack of needed supplies due to strikes, mutinies, revolutions, etc.. They're not ended by groups of people in tie dyed shirts singing kumbaya on the National Lawn.

The fact that you think the anti-war movement consisted of that shows me that you're absolutely lost. The anti-war movement, especially by 1970, was militant and finding allies within the US military. They weren't singing kumbaya, they were rioting and getting beaten by cops.

Of course, you think marching on the Pentagon is bourgeois, so I'm quite certain you have no capacity to recognize militancy when you see it.


The truth is that your statement that "The PSL is the most energetic, visible, active and effective revolutionary socialist organization in America right now" is subjective.

"Socialism is good" is subjective. Your inability to respond to my statement goes to show how little of an argument you have.


In all objective measures (number of members, number of votes, etc.) it is surpased by other organizations.

Those are terrible ways to measure the effectiveness of an organization, but you wouldn't know one if you saw one.


You're claiming your party is infallible. That's pretty sad, but the kind of thing I've come to expect from members of a dogmatic political cult.

Can you show me where I said there was a personality cult in the PSL? ...Should be pretty difficult since I never said it.

There you have it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Nazis were defeated militarily at Kursk, the war still raged on.
That was one battle. Germany later lost the war militarily, which is why it stopped fighting.

You're grasping for straws.


Oh, my apologies, you insinuated it:You're crediting arguments to me that I'm not making. I never said that the PSL was or wasn't a personality cult.

I brought up some facts to clear up falsehoods that others had put forward:

The Beckers are mentioned hundreds of times on the PSL website and Brian Becker appears on its front page, contrary to the claims of its members (or at least those who know who the leaders of the party they belong to are).

Whether or not a party runs someone as a candidate for office has no bearing on whether or not a personality cult exists around that person.

I do however consider the PSL a dogmatic political cult.


ANSWER calls for the defeat of US imperialism all the timeA.N.S.W.E.R. demands:


Stop the War in Iraq
End Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine to Haiti
Support the Palestinian People’s Right of Return
Stop the Threats Against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran & North Korea
U.S. Out of the Philippines
U.S. Out of Puerto Rico
Bring all the troops home now
Stop the Racist, anti-Immigrant and anti-Labor Offensive at Home, Defend Civil Rights
Military Recruiters Out of Our Schools and Communities

Which one of those points calls for the defeat of US imperialism?

While we're at it, which one mentions Afghanistan (also known by liberals as "the good war")?

* * *

Look, there's no point of continuing this. You're not serious about addressing any of the questions at hand. Your argument is just "am not!" phrased a thousand different ways.

I talk about the reformist platform your candidate is running on, and instead of addressing it I get a separate program and article.

I talk about the reformist call for "community control of the police" which you put forward and I get references to the Black Panthers and worker self defense.

I talk about the class-collaborationist reformist "anti-war" alliance your party heads and you talk about two sections of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party working together.

I talk about the importance of industrial action over "peace marches" and you give me the age-old "pragmatic" reformist argument about the impossibility of strikes against war.

I criticize the A.N.S.W.E.R. popular front by name and you ask me what I'm talking about - bringing up a number of other fronts your party is engaged in that I never mentioned.

I talk about your candidate for mayor's support for the head of a brutal capitalist state in Latin America and you ignore the issue completely.

You do everything but engage the critical questions.

You call liberal marches marching to offices of the bourgeois government in which you beg for crumbs "militant worker action" and scorn actual organizing in the workplace.

You deny that the heroic fighting of the Vietnamese workers and farmers, which left millions of them dead, is what caused the US to withdraw from their country. Instead you say it was "militant actions" carried out by a mostly student movement in the US. All this in order to prove how "militant" the class-collaborationist marches on Capitol Hill are.

You are the definition of a sectarian: someone who puts the interests of his party above the interests of the working class.

The proof is in the pudding. The PSL is a reformist organization.

[manic expression]

That was one battle. Germany later lost the war militarily, which is why it stopped fighting.

It was the battle in which Germany lost the war militarily. From Kursk on, they could only retreat, Germany's defeat was a matter of time. You don't think the war was lost militarily when they started sending kids and the elderly to die on the front lines? I know you can't think rationally when discussing the PSL, but at least try to do so here.


You're crediting arguments to me that I'm not making. I never said that the PSL was or wasn't a personality cult.

Tap-dancing again, I see. It's a political cult, not a personality cult. But then you bring up a person. You're displaying an effortless disregard for logic or consistency.


I do however consider the PSL a dogmatic political cult.

No reasons given for this insipid statement, unsurprisingly enough. You expect it to be true because you said so, a mark of thick immaturity.


Which one of those points calls for the defeat of US imperialism?

Read all of them. Comprehend all of them. Connect the dots.

The list of demands, in totality, demands an end of imperialism. If all those demands were met, what would be left of imperialism? More to the point:

Members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation led a strong multinational contingent with chants calling for an immediate end to the United States’ imperialist wars in the Middle East and for a movement to bail out the people. Thousands of leaflets were handed out for the April 25 Socialism Conference in Chicago. The responses to literature about the conference and the PSL slogan "Capitalism is Criminal! Fight for Socialism!" were very enthusiastic. To find out more about the conference click here (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=11531).

"Capitalism is Criminal! Fight for Socialism!"

I'll keep posting these if you keep refusing to read them.


While we're at it, which one mentions Afghanistan (also known by liberals as "the good war")?

It demands the end of all occupations. Point 2. Try reading it.


Look, there's no point of continuing this. You're not serious about addressing any of the questions at hand. Your argument is just "am not!" phrased a thousand different ways.

You mean "am not!"...with evidence and support. You have utterly failed to provide any real reasons for you outlandish claims; your "arguments" amount to a temper-tantrum.


I talk about the reformist platform your candidate is running on, and instead of addressing it I get a separate program and article.

No, you get a statement from the PSL's present campaign, which is as relevant as you can get. Nice try.


I talk about the reformist call for "community control of the police" which you put forward and I get references to the Black Panthers and worker self defense.

The aims of the Black Panthers and the principles of working-class self-defense are what the PSL is calling for. You're just refusing to recognize this.


I talk about the class-collaborationist reformist "anti-war" alliance your party heads and you talk about two sections of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party working together.

I talk about historical examples of opposing imperialist slaughter.


I talk about the importance of industrial action over "peace marches" and you give me the age-old "pragmatic" reformist argument about the impossibility of strikes against war.

:lol: No, I gave you a dose of reality. I told you marching on the Pentagon was not reformist or bourgeois, and you throw a hissy fit.


I criticize the A.N.S.W.E.R. popular front by name and you ask me what I'm talking about - bringing up a number of other fronts your party is engaged in that I never mentioned.

Those other organizations I mentioned are other members of ANSWER, which is exactly what you were talking about, it's just that you were too oblivious to know that. Read up a bit on ANSWER, then talk, got it?


I talk about your candidate for mayor's support for the head of a brutal capitalist state in Latin America and you ignore the issue completely.

I asked you for something concrete, not an anecdote. I wasn't at the meeting so I wanted more info. You obviously have nothing to offer on that subject, so it's safe to assume you're talking nonsense yet again.


You do everything but engage the critical questions.

Except I'm the only one providing actual arguments and actual evidence. You're too obsessed with implying and insinuating fallacies to notice.


You call liberal marches marching to offices of the bourgeois government in which you beg for crumbs "militant worker action" and scorn actual organizing in the workplace.

Well, by god, the Bolsheviks were liberal because they marched on the Winter Palace! :lol: Back to the drawing board, big guy.


You deny that the heroic fighting of the Vietnamese workers and farmers, which left millions of them dead, is what caused the US to withdraw from their country. Instead you say it was "militant actions" carried out by a mostly student movement in the US. All this in order to prove how "militant" the class-collaborationist marches on Capitol Hill are.

You belittled the effects of the anti-war movement, which took blood, sweat and tears and claimed some of the American working class' greatest fighters. You deny, at every turn, the internationalist character of the struggle against imperialism. You spit upon the legacy of the Vietnamese resistance.


You are the definition of a sectarian: someone who puts the interests of his party above the interests of the working class.

You're being so hasty to slander the PSL you're making a complete foolof yourself. Your double-standards, duplicitousness and hypocrisy are evident in every word of your posts.


The proof is in the pudding. The PSL is a reformist organization.

You've only proven your own idiocy, kid. Go play with your toys and let the real revolutionaries build a party for the future.

[Kassad]

Front page of the PSL website:

http://www.sunriseabove.net/rico/psl.JPG

:laugh:

Oh no! Brian Becker got time on the air, so we shouldn't post it. Scroll down. You'll find multiple speeches and air spot fillings by Gloria La Riva, Eugene Puryear, John Beacham, Natalie Hrizi, Ben Becker, Ian McInery, Richard Becker, Heather Benno and many, many more. How is a video proof of a cult? Show me where we promote Brian Becker's work exclusively.


Neither did Bob Avakian or Jack Barnes.

But we don't specifically promote his works. We don't promote Brian Becker as above anyone else in the party. Ever.



Wat assertions did I make? The only time I mentioned the Becker clan was to say that they were leaders of the PSL, a fact some of its own members apparently don't know. I also mentioned that there were hundreds of items on the website by or about them. These are objective, easily demonstrable facts.

Ridiculous. You insinuate, as by claiming that Brian Becker could've ran as the party's great leader, that the party creates a cult of personality or appreciation around the Beckers. This is absurd, as we don't exclusively promote their works. We don't say "hey, look! Brian Becker's new article is here! Get it now!" We post his articles and videos just like dozens of other party members.



No, I want one from the electoral platform that its candidates run on. That's what we're talking about. Go back and reread the convo. It went a little something like this:

You asked for the program. However, for the electoral program, why don't you look over the entire website of VotePSL.org? Why don't you read the link Manic Expression provided called 'Why Socialism?' Why don't you read from the La Riva/Puryear campaign, the Villar campaign and the Alvarez campaign of all the calls for socialism and an end to destructive capitalism? This isn't hard.


While we're at it, which one mentions Afghanistan (also known by liberals as "the good war")?

How about the protests to end that war that were organized by ANSWER when the war started? How about the constant reports calling for an end to the war? What about the slogan 'From Iraq, to Afghanistan and Palestine, occupation is a crime!' I'm honestly close to saying that you are totally illiterate and are just firing blanks; hoping your argument sticks.

Your entire argument fails at the first request for you to use common sense. Our website, our program and our campaigns all run on the same general platform of socialist revolution and the destruction of capitalism. We're sorry if this doesn't satisfy you.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Did I hit a sore nerve? Again, I never said the PSL was or wasn't a personality cult. I simply cleared up some falsehoods in this thread.

It was said that the Beckers aren't mentioned. I showed that that's not true.

It was said that Brian Becker doesn't appear anywhere on the PSL site. I showed that that's not true.

It was suggested that personality cults run their leaders in elections. I showed that that's not necessarily true.

If your conscious is connecting these facts and coming up with something that's well and good, but don't claim I said something that I didn't.


However, for the electoral program, why don't you look over the entire website of VotePSL.org?

Because I'm not talking about the "entire site." I was talking about the campaign platform - the platform your candidate is campaigning on.

I said that you run candidates on reformist campaign platforms. That's what I was talking about. Address that. Stop trying to weasel out of everything.

I never said that the PSL doesn't sprinkle references to revolution throughout some of its materials. Lots of reformists do that. The CPUSA still mentions the need for revolution here and there too. Are they revolutionary?

The point is that what your party puts forward to the general public and actively organizes around is reformist to the core.

I reposted your mayoral candidate's platform here for everyone to see. No serious revolutionary could or would deny that it is thoroughly reformist. It's no different from the platform of a Green Party candidate.


Oh no!

I agree that it's not a big deal.

You asserted that he appeared nowhere on your site. In fact he appears on the front page. In the interest of the truth I pointed that out.

I'm not sure if you were being dishonest or just had no idea what you were talking about. Either way, it shows that you're not a great source to go to on the PSL (incase your over-the-top fervor didn't already).


How about the protests to end that war that were organized by ANSWER when the war started? How about the constant reports calling for an end to the war? What about the slogan 'From Iraq, to Afghanistan and Palestine, occupation is a crime!' I'm honestly close to saying that you are totally illiterate and are just firing blanks; hoping your argument sticks.


There's no call for the defeat of imperialism in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Calls to "End the war" and "End the occupation" are perfectly acceptable to liberals. The sections of the bourgeoisie that oppose the war in Iraq are happy to demand an "End to the war" and call to "bring the troops home!" That's why A.N.S.W.E.R. uses those slogans instead of calling for the defeat of U.S. imperialism or worker's actions to the end the war. It's a watered-down popular front aimed at building the "biggest possible movement" instead of a principled proletarian movement.

Look at the A.N.S.W.E.R. demands from the 2005 march in DC that I posted above. I got those from a leaflet given to me when I attended. Despite being written four years after the invasion of Afghanistan, it's not mentioned. There's is certainly no call for the defeat of U.S. imperialism anywhere.

Instead there are pleas to "end the wars" and “Cut the Pentagon budget! Double the education budget” - calls to the capitalist rulers to bow to "popular pressure" and prioritize human need.

In 2006 A.N.S.W.E.R. called for a march in October to "force the issue of the Iraq war onto the U.S. political stage… less than two weeks before the election." How much clearer can it be?

It's reformism brother, plain and simple.


We're sorry if this doesn't satisfy you.

I'm sorry that you have failed to learn the lessons of history and are following on the same reformist road as so many before you.

[manic expression]

Did I hit a sore nerve? Again, I never said the PSL was or wasn't a personality cult. I simply cleared up some falsehoods in this thread.

You compared the PSL's relationship with Brian Becker to that of the RCP and Bob Avakian and the SWP and Jack Barnes. You can't really be in complete denial of your own words, can you? Keep tap-dancing.


Because I'm not talking about the "entire site." I was talking about the campaign platform - the platform your candidate is campaigning on.

I said that you run candidates on reformist campaign platforms. That's what I was talking about. Address that. Stop trying to weasel out of everything.

I never said that the PSL doesn't sprinkle references to revolution throughout some of its materials. Lots of reformists do that. The CPUSA still mentions the need for revolution here and there too. Are they revolutionary?

It's been shown beyond any doubt that PSL candidates, far from "sprinkling references to revolution throughout some of its materials", makes it perfectly clear that socialist revolution is the only answer for the working class today at every turn. At street demonstrations, through electoral campaigns, this remains true. The links I've posted have proven this.

But here you are, denying the obvious.


The point is that what your party puts forward to the general public and actively organizes around is reformist to the core.

You obviously haven't read the posts on anyone on this thread with any accuracy. The PSL puts forward revolutionary rhetoric and activity to the general public consistently and patiently, and this has been shown time and again on this thread and others.


I reposted your mayoral candidate's platform here for everyone to see. No serious revolutionary could or would deny that it is thoroughly reformist. It's no different from the platform of a Green Party candidate.

Like I said, I'll keep reposting this if you keep having trouble reading it:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?pag...rticle&id=7971

Yeah...just like the Green Party! :rolleyes:


I'm sorry that you have failed to learn the lessons of history and are following on the same reformist road as so many before you.

You think it's true solely because you said so: the last refuge of someone with no argument.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Campaign platform of the PSL's mayoral candidate in NYC:


The billionaires are going to pay for this crisis! They created the crisis—now they should be the ones to pay for it. Tax Wall Street and the big landlords.



People before banks! The city currently pays $5 billion every year to the banks in debt payments—before it ever makes it to the city budget. We are calling for the city to put the banks at the back of the line.



Every New Yorker has a right to a job!



New York City should be an eviction-free zone. No foreclosures or evictions in the city.



Education is a right. Make sure every child in the city has a safe and modern classroom. Raise the salary for every public school teacher in the city, and make parents have a real say in their children’s curriculum. CUNY should be free.

- - - -

Demands raised by PSL's multi-class anti-war popular front:


Stop the War in Iraq
End Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine to Haiti
Support the Palestinian People’s Right of Return
Stop the Threats Against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran & North Korea
U.S. Out of the Philippines
U.S. Out of Puerto Rico
Bring all the troops home now
Stop the Racist, anti-Immigrant and anti-Labor Offensive at Home, Defend Civil Rights
Military Recruiters Out of Our Schools and Communities

PSL:

Advocates "community control of the police," which it defines as committees to "monitor every police action" whose "recommendations [to the stewards of the capitalist state] should be enforced."

Disappeared references to the imperialist war in Afghanistan in literature for marches its popular front organized long after that invasion had taken place in an opportunist attempt to gain support from liberals.

Openly stages protests strategically to "force the issue of the Iraq war onto the U.S. political stage… less than two weeks before the election."

Builds single-issue coalitions with clergy and petty-bourgeois radicals and shares stages with liberal politicians and reactionaries like the "New Black Panther Party."

Runs candidates on the ticket of the rad-liberal petty-bourgeois Peace and Freedom Party.

Said that since "The fact that there have been so few Black elected officials in this country is a testament to the country’s deeply-rooted racism" its presidential campaign had "absolutely no quarrel with those who have devoted their time to righting this historic wrong ."

- - - - -

What Marx said:

"The democratic petty bourgeois, far from wanting to transform the whole society in the interests of the revolutionary proletarians, only aspire to a change in social conditions which will make the existing society as tolerable and comfortable for themselves as possible. They therefore demand above all else a reduction in government spending through a restriction of the bureaucracy and the transference of the major tax burden into the large landowners and bourgeoisie..."

"...the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable. ...Our concern cannot simply be to modify private property, but to abolish it, not to hush up class antagonisms but to abolish classes, not to improve the existing society but to found a new one."

"Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes..."

What Lenin said:

"The emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself. All the other classes of present-day society stand for the preservation of the foundations of the existing economic system."

"...the revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses ... can be aroused only by acts of revolutionary policy patent to all and undertaken daily and everywhere [I]against almighty Capital and against its making profits out of the war, a policy that will make for a radical improvement in the standard of living of the mass of the poor... Even if you were to hand over all the land to the people immediately, this would not end the crisis unless revolutionary measures were taken against Capital. ... You want control over, and partly even the, organisation of, production? You cannot do this without the revolutionary enthusiasm of the proletarian and semi-proletarian mass. This enthusiasm can be aroused only by taking revolutionary measures against the privileges and profits of Capital. Failing this, your promised control will remain a dead, capitalist, bureaucratic palliative."

What Trotsky said:

"The mass of workers does not consist of infants! It consists of people with the harsh experience of life. It does not tolerate nursemaids, whose strictness is as a rule proportional to their stupidity. The worker seeks not commands, but assistance in political orientation. For this it is first of all necessary to tell him what is. Not to distort, not to tendentiously select, not to embellish, not to sugarcoat, but honestly to say what is. The politics of communism can only gain from a truthful clarification of reality. Untruth is needed for salvaging false reputations, but not for the education of the masses. The workers need the truth as an instrument of revolutionary action."

The “struggle against war” cannot be conducted as something separate and apart from the class struggle itself, from the intransigent struggle of the proletariat against imperialist capitalism, that is, against that social order which inexorably gives rise to imperialist war and oppression and which is inconceivable without twin scourges. Any attempt to conduct a struggle “against war” by means of “special methods” separate or “above” the class struggle itself is at best a cruel illusion and as a rule a malicious deception that facilitates the work of the imperialist warmongers....

"The struggle against war, properly understood and executed, presupposes the uncompromising hostility of the proletariat and its organizations, always and everywhere, toward its own and every other imperialist bourgeoisie..."

"Partial reforms and patchwork will do no good. Historical development has come to one of those decisive stages when only the direct intervention of the masses is able to sweep away the reactionary obstructions and lay the foundations of a new regime..."

What Rosa Luxemburg said:

"The proletarian movement cannot reconquer the place it deserves by means of Utopian advice and projects for weakening, taming or quelling imperialism within capitalism by means of partial reforms..."

What Che said:

“[S]ome people offer limited formulas: minor election campaigns; an election victory here or there; two deputies, a senator, four mayors; a large popular demonstration broken up by gunfire; an election lost by fewer votes than the preceding one; one labor strike won, 10 strikes lost; one step forward, 10 steps back...."

- - - -

You make the call.

[manic expression]

You make the call.

You're obviously incapable of making the call, so I'll let the facts do that for me:

Capitalism thrives on oppression and division along the lines of nationality, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, age, ability/disability and religion. We seek a new society based on equality and solidarity among all people.

Instead of endless war, capitalist globalization, and imperialist domination, the PSL stands for international cooperation, friendship and respect for the rights of all peoples and nations, large and small.

None of these aims can be achieved without abolishing the capitalist system and replacing it with socialism.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7971

Have fun dodging the facts again!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Mentioning socialism in one place hardly makes up for reformism elsewhere (in words and practice).

The CPUSA calls for revolution here and there as well.

Are they revolutionary?

[pastradamus]

*NOTICE*

This thread is titled "Are there any members of the US SWP here?"

Please discuss the topic at hand (the swp). Keep it on topic. If someone wishes to talk about groups such as the PSL then please create another thread.


Pastra,
Practice Mod.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Your post is doing more to derail discussion than anything else. The question about SWP membership was answered long ago. The discussion evolved from there.

[manic expression]

Mentioning socialism in one place hardly makes up for reformism elsewhere (in words and practice).

The CPUSA calls for revolution here and there as well.

Are they revolutionary?

It's certainly not "one place", it's prominently placed on the Frances Villar for Mayor website. And I posted many other examples of revolutionary rhetoric, and still more examples of revolutionary activity. You have simply failed to address these clear instances of the PSL being what it is: a revolutionary organization.

Here's a quote from Frances Villar's announcement of her campaign (at a conference entitled "Billionaires, Your Time is Up - We Need Socialism!", no less):

I’m here because we need a new system! This city’s wealth—and the wealth of this whole country—needs to be put at the service of the people who created it. We may be today’s poor and working people, but we are the only ones that can get us out of this system of poverty, racism and war.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12201&news_iv_ctrl=1034

That, really, is as clear-cut as you can get. Just like everything else I've posted throughout this thread.

[Q]

Your post is doing more to derail discussion than anything else. The question about SWP membership was answered long ago. The discussion evolved from there.
Then the logical thing would be to split it like I called for quite a while ago. Kassad derailed the thread in the first place with his constant PSL whining, something hardly appreciable in a mod I must say.

[Kassad]

Then the logical thing would be to split it like I called for quite a while ago. Kassad derailed the thread in the first place with his constant PSL whining, something hardly appreciable in a mod I must say.

I don't understand why you have to act like this. M-L-C-F expressed interest in the Party for Socialism and Liberation before and then he posted this thread. I saw it only fitting to defend my party and explain why I thought it was a bad choice. A few members and I discussed the differences between the Socialist Workers Party and my party. The discussion then turned into one about my party completely. I'm not 'whining.' No one here is 'whining.' Please tell me what your post contributed to the conversation.