Sacramento area Parties?

[Rusty Shackleford]

I just moved to Fair Oaks and was wondering if there were any parties in the area? right now im just looking for a list and their ideological background and maybe a few tips on what theyre like.

after that i might join one, but i dont want to just go out and join the first left party i see. i think there may be a CPUSA branch in Roseville but im not interested in them from what ive read on here.

[Kassad]

The Party for Socialism and Liberation isn't currently established in Sacramento, but we have branches for the party in San Francisco, San Jose and Los Angeles. I would say California is the most active state for the party and your help with the multitude of events and campaigns that take place in California would be great to have. Take into account that I live six hours from the nearest branch, yet I still receive a lot of materials. We're working on setting up a branch in the future for my city, so I'm sure you could do the same for Sacramento. I know we have some members in that city.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is a Marxist-Leninist party struggling for revolutionary change and socialism. We realize that capitalism is the destructive force behind the exploitation of the working class and the multitude of prejudices that divide the proletariat. Revolution is needed to break the shambles of this exploitative system.

If you have any questions, let me know.

[Q]

Socialist Alternative (http://socialistalternative.org/) has a presense in California. But you have to contact them to see if there is a branch near you.

[Kassad]

Socialist Alternative (http://socialistalternative.org/) has a presense in California. But you have to contact them to see if there is a branch near you.

I honestly thought Socialist Alternative was defunct. I haven't seen them participate in revolutionary struggle in all my life.

[Q]

I honestly thought Socialist Alternative was defunct. I haven't seen them participate in revolutionary struggle in all my life.
Shame on you.

[Zeus the Moose]

No matter what party you end up joining, I'd suggest looking into the Peace and Freedom Party. They're only active in California, but they're almost assuredly the largest socialist organisation in the state. My main criticism of them is the vast majority of their activity seems to be electoral, but that impression may just be because I don't live in California, so most of what I hear from and about them is election-related. One of the interesting things about the PFP is that members of other socialist groups can be members of the PFP as well, and participate in the life of the party. I only know of the Socialist Party USA and the Party for Socialism and Liberation that do this, but the option is there.

[Rusty Shackleford]

SA, PSL, PFP. thank you guys. as of now im checking out the PSL, PFP and SA ill look at.

thank you comrades.

[Kassad]

No matter what party you end up joining, I'd suggest looking into the Peace and Freedom Party. They're only active in California, but they're almost assuredly the largest socialist organisation in the state. My main criticism of them is the vast majority of their activity seems to be electoral, but that impression may just be because I don't live in California, so most of what I hear from and about them is election-related. One of the interesting things about the PFP is that members of other socialist groups can be members of the PFP as well, and participate in the life of the party. I only know of the Socialist Party USA and the Party for Socialism and Liberation that do this, but the option is there.

Peace and Freedom Party isn't calling for any kind of proletarian revolution. I deeply respect their struggle for the workers and oppressed communities, as well as for their consistent endorsement of Socialism and Liberation candidates, but they are definitely not a party for communist revolutionaries to join.

[KC]

Peace and Freedom Party isn't calling for any kind of proletarian revolution. I deeply respect their struggle for the workers and oppressed communities, as well as for their consistent endorsement of Socialism and Liberation candidates, but they are definitely not a party for communist revolutionaries to join.

Just because they are not a revolutionary organization does not mean that they should not be worked with, and I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest not only "looking into them" but working with them as well. Nobody said anything about joining them.

[Kassad]

Just because they are not a revolutionary organization does not mean that they should not be worked with, and I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest not only "looking into them" but working with them as well. Nobody said anything about joining them.

Since Vacant displayed interest in joining a party, it is only rational to suggest parties he should join. There's nothing wrong with working with them, as I never suggested anything to the contrary.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Peace and Freedom Party is the last group you should look into. They don't even draw crude class lines or advocate revolution (even in words). The PFP has been rightly described as a boarding house for homeless leftists.

[Comrade Ian]

I can't post links up, but you should google the Marxist School of Sacramento, I've occasionally seen them post up events and study groups that seemed interesting though I'm in San Francisco so I couldn't make it. Not sure what if anything they're up to right now. I don't know of any organizations with a branch presence in Sacramento though maybe you can meet someone through the Marxist school.

I personally am part of the International Socialist Organization, which has a very strong Bay Area presence. I don't know where you're coming from politically but I know I got to being a Socialist through the same route as Marx, which is pushing the limits of Democracy to it's logical conclusion of Democratic control over the economy. I think the ISO best represents this democratic tradition and has the most Democratic organization of any group I've encountered, as well as being the largest and most influential (Especially with Haymarket Books and the International Socialist Review).

I'd recommend an essay by Hal Draper "The Two Souls of Socialism" that can be found on Marxists.org. And if you're interested in that you should check out the ISO and our publications.

[Rusty Shackleford]

ok the Sacramento Marxist School sounds like a wonderful option, not really for party work. but for person to person study.

[Kassad]

I'd advise you to only join the International Socialist Organization if you are extremely Trotskyist. Is there any revolution they thought was socialist or progressive? I mean, they consistently call for the dismantling of the Cuban and Chinese governments, despite how detrimental these things would be for the working class. It's almost anti-communism, in my opinion.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The ISO has little to do with Trotsky or "Trotskyism."

The origins of the "International Socialists" lie in Tony Cliff's split with the Trostkyist movement because of his refusal to defend Korea from US imperialism.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'd advise you to only join the International Socialist Organization if you are extremely Trotskyist. Is there any revolution they thought was socialist or progressive? I mean, they consistently call for the dismantling of the Cuban and Chinese governments, despite how detrimental these things would be for the working class. It's almost anti-communism, in my opinion.

Firstly, the ISO and the rest of the IS tradition regards all revolutions as progressive, if by "revolution" you mean a historical process that involved capitalist relations of production being abolished through the self-emancipation of the working class - i.e. the Marxist definition of what constitutes a socialist revolution. The issue where the IS tradition and Stalinists such as yourself differ is that we do not regard events such as the Chinese Revolution of 1949 as well as the political changes that took place in eastern Europe after WW2 as revolutions in the Marxist sense of the word, because in none of these cases did the working class have a leading role. Instead, state-capitalism was imposed by an occupying military force, in the form of the USSR, or came into being through the victory of a movement that drew its support from the peasantry and conducted most of its operations in the countryside, as in the case of China, where the major cities were captured by the CPC only at the last possible moment, before the remnants of the KMT were forced to flee to Taiwan or surrender to Mao's forces. The nature of these events - one faction of the ruling class overpowering another, and implementing a different form of capitalism, whilst not actually abolishing the capitalist system - was manifested in the absence of workers control, the bureaucratic methods that were used by party elites to silence dissent and maintain an ideological hegemony over the proletariat, and the eventual restoration of market capitalism with little or no change in the composition of the ruling class.

Secondly, we do not and have never advocated the "dismantling" of the Chinese/Cuban government, whatever you mean by "dismantling". Our position on the situation in these countries is exactly the same as any other capitalist country - we support struggles to defend gains which have been won through past struggles, such as campaign against the privatization of the National Health Service in the UK, but we have no illusions about the class interests of the bureaucrats who govern these countries, in partnership with multinational corporations. We recognize that the overthrow of capitalism and the victory of the working class will necessarily involve conflict with the bureaucracy, because the bureaucracy constitutes a ruling class, whose material privileges depend on the accumulation of surplus value, and are maintained through political oppression. This is why, when workers take action, as they did in China in 1989, we support them, instead of calling on the state to gun them down in the streets just because the national flag has a tinge of red.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Secondly, we do not and have never advocated the "dismantling" of the Chinese/Cuban government,

Sure you (International Socialists) do. You say they are capitalist. So, in order to get to socialism, the states in Cuba and China would have to be smashed.

There's a contradiction between your outlook and that of the tendency you belong to. I've brought this up with you before. I hope you'll eventually resolve that contradiction positively and leave the anti-communist IS.

[BobKKKindle$]

Sure you (International Socialists) do. You say they are capitalist. So, in order to get to socialism, the states in Cuba and China would have to be smashed

Well, yes - we do advocate the smashing of these states by the proletariat, because they are states that are being used to enforce the class interests of a bourgeoisie, either in the form of a class of private capitalists who own their property on an individual basis, or a class of bureaucrats who own and manage the means of production through the state, increasingly alongside and in cooperation with private capitalists, at least in China. By "dismantling", it seemed as if Kassad was suggesting that we would welcome the current bureaucracies being removed from power and replaced with an even more exploitative and oppressive group of neo-liberals, who would accelerate privatization and get rid of any gains that still remain in either of these countries. This is not the case, in the same way that we don't advocate the bourgeois-democratic state in the UK being removed and replaced with an authoritarian system of government.

[redasheville]

Peace and Freedom Party isn't calling for any kind of proletarian revolution. I deeply respect their struggle for the workers and oppressed communities, as well as for their consistent endorsement of Socialism and Liberation candidates, but they are definitely not a party for communist revolutionaries to join.

You do know that Gloria La Riva is a Peace and Freedom member (she has run on Peace and Freedom tickets before, and tried to get the party's nomination for 2008 presidential candidate)? I know that other PSLers in the Bay Area are as well. Workers World, prior to the split that formed PSL, was heavily involved in Peace and Freedom.

Also, just because you have never seen SA around, how does that mean they are defunct or not active? Sometimes, just sometimes, socialist organizations do not have a presence in a particular geographical area. Before moving to SF, I never encountered PSL members but I certainly didn't come to any asinine conclusions about PSL's level of activity as a result.

The ISO had a branch in Sacremento but no longer. We may still have a member or two there...not sure.

I won't address the dumb anti-ISO/IST posts on this thread, as they have been adequately covered by my comrade from the UK.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Bob: Gains are represented in capitalist states? So capitalism still has a progressive role to play?

[redasheville]

Bob: Gains are represented in capitalist states? So capitalism still has a progressive role to play?
You're being intentionally obtuse here.

Historically, vis a vis fuedalism, capitalism WAS progressive. Similiarly, nationalist revolutions, upon succeeding and forming state capitalist regimes made all sorts of gains, vis a vis imperialist domination e.g. education and health in Cuba, irradaticating illiteracy in China etc. etc. not to mention an end to imperialist dominance outright/winning self determination.

Your attempt to "read between the lines" and win rhetorical points against the comrade above is pathetic.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So capitalism was progressive up until the 1960's?

[Comrade Ian]

I believe the comrades point, though I cannot claim to speak for anyone else, was not that Capitalism today or up until the 60's was progressive, but that in the same way in which capitalism was progressive when it was wiping away feudalism, the nationalist revolutions (Such as the Cuban Revolution) are progressive when they are wiping away imperialism, as in, kicking out brutal foreign domination and taking control of their own resources. This benefits the people of those regions, and helps to undermine global imperialism, but it does not amount to socialism or anything approaching it as some organizations argue.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're saying that the bourgeois of imperialist-oppressed countries like Cuba was capable of not only carrying out a bourgeois revolution but throwing off the yoke of imperialism as late as 1959?

So, capitalism was progressive up until 1959?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Just to clarify for those who aren't aware, what's being argued by these Cliffite "Trotskyists" is not only false but goes directly against what Trotsky said..

A key element of Trotsky's theory was "Permanent Revolution" which says that the bourgeoisie in the backward countries was no longer capable of carrying out the bourgeois revolution (in 1929).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're line is full of contradictions.

Either (1) the revolutions in Cuba in 1959 and China in 1949 were bourgeois revolutions that brought gains, meaning capitalism was still progressive when they took place, (2) capitalism long ago ceased to be progressive and the revolutions in Cuba in 1959 and China in 1949 were simply reorganizations of capitalist state that brought no gains, or (3) capitalism long ago ceased to be progressive and the revolutions in Cuba in 1959 and China in 1949 brought gains by overthrowing capitalism.

[redasheville]

Just to clarify for those who aren't aware, what's being argued by these Cliffite "Trotskyists" is not only false but goes directly against what Trotsky said..

A key element of Trotsky's theory was "Permanent Revolution" which says that the bourgeoisie in the backward countries was no longer capable of carrying out the bourgeois revolution (in 1929).

You really are smug and immature!

First Trotsky first formulated the theory of the Permanent Revolution in 1905, a year later he summed it up in Results and Prospects.

Now, I'll address both of your strawman arguments:

When did I say that the bourgeoisie in "backward" (do you still use that term in 2009?) countries were capable of carrying out the bourgeois revolution? Another aspect of Trotsky's theory is combined and uneven development, which says that in underdeveloped countries, capitalist forms of production exist side by side with remnants of pre-capitalist economic formations (get it? capitalism EXISTED IN CHINA AND CUBA PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTIONS IN THOSE COUNTRIES). Therefore, the task of the democratic revolutions cannot fall on the native capitalist class. Trotsky held then that this role fell to the working class and that, if waged consistently (this is important), would necessarily challenge the rule of capital and transition into a socialist revolution (this was the experience of 1917).

However, the history of the Cuba and Chinese revolutons tell a different story, somewhat. Cliff did not argue against Trotsky's position that the native capitalist class would not be able to accomplish the tasks of the democratic revolution in underdeveloped countries, he said "the conservative, cowardly nature of a late developing bourgeoisie....is an absolute law" (see "Trotskyism After Trotsky").

However, and this is where he differs from Trotsky, Cliff argued that the existence of a revolutionary working class (revolutionary in a subjective sense, i.e. possess revolutionary consciousness) is not a given. The labor movement in Cuba, at the start of the revolutionary struggle against Batista, was conservative (this changed somewhat as Castro's forces gained popular support in the cities) and that the militant revolutionary working class had been wiped out by the KMT in China (not to mention the KMT countrolled all the industrialised areas of China, where the CCP was unable to operate). However, oppressed nations don't wait around for revolutionary working class movements to challenge imperialism (why should they?) and the task leading the democratic revolution against imperialism and for self determination falls on the revolutionary intelegensia (e.g. Castro and Mao). This is why we do not describe Communist China and Cuba as socialist, because the workers played, at best, an auxilary role, and to paraphrase Marx: only the working class itself can acheive its total emancipation (i.e. socialism). This, in a quick nutshelf is Cliff's theory of "Deflected Permanent Revolution". You are free to take issue with it/disagree completey, but please be honest and do not put words in my mouth (or my comrades' mouths).

Now on to your second BS argument: When did I say anything about being capitalism being progressive up until 1959 (or 1960 or whatever the hell you said)? I said when a nationalist movement frees their country from imperialist domination, it is progressive. Are you arguing otherwise?

Essentially NHiaA, you are using an old rhetorical trick where you assign a position to your opponent that they don't actually hold and then tear it down. This is called a "strawman". If you want to be a sectarian goon you should learn to debate a little more honestly and effectively.

[redasheville]

You're [sic] line is full of contradictions.

Either (1) the revolutions in Cuba in 1959 and China in 1949 were bourgeois revolutions that brought gains, meaning capitalism was still progressive when they took place, (2) capitalism long ago ceased to be progressive and the revolutions in Cuba in 1959 and China in 1949 were simply reorganizations of capitalist state that brought no gains, or (3) capitalism long ago ceased to be progressive and the revolutions in Cuba in 1959 and China in 1949 brought gains by overthrowing capitalism.

Wow, this is extremely schematic and abstract, i.e. not materialist and not dialectical.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

First Trotsky first formulated the theory of the Permanent Revolution in 1905, a year later he summed it up in Results and Prospects."The Permanent Revolution" was written in 1929. I chose the latest possible date in the interest of fairness. I could have said 1905, but that would have only shown your position to be more distant from Trotsky's.


Now on to your second BS argument: When did I say anything about being capitalism being progressive up until 1959 (or 1960 or whatever the hell you said)? I said when a nationalist movement frees their country from imperialist domination, it is progressive. Are you arguing otherwise?The argument itself is bunk. A country can't free itself from imperialist domination unless it breaks with capitalism.

Not only is the bourgeoisie in the imperialist-oppressed countries incapable of carrying out bourgeois revolutions in modern times (and unwilling to do so in any event), without the spread of revolution and the replacement of capitalism with socialism as the dominant system, no country (let alone one historically oppressed by imperialism) can truly break from the global imperialist web.

Capitalism ceased to be progressive long ago. That's why it must be overthrown.

Bob said the Cuban Revolution was a bourgeois revolution that brought gains. If was a bourgeois revolution as he says, then that means capitalism played a progressive role in Cuba into the 1960's (the period immediately after the victory when things like universal healthcare and education were introduced).


When did I say that the bourgeoisie in "backward" (do you still use that term in 2009?) countries were capable of carrying out the bourgeois revolution?When you said "nationalist revolutions" that threw off the shackles of imperialism were carried out in China and Cuba.

You can promote the Cliffite "deflected permanent revolution theory" all you want, but it's complete crap. A "revolutionary intelegensia" carrying out revolutions that the ruling bourgeoisie and ascendent proletariat are supposedly "too weak" to do themselves?? It's completely alien from any materialist analysis and especially foreign from anything Marx, Lenin, Trotsky or any other serious revolutionary ever suggested.

As for the term "backward", it was used by Trotsky when he put forward the theory of permanent revolution. That's what i was describing.

I would use it if it fit, objectively speaking. I don't suffer from liberal guilt.


Wow, this is extremely schematic and abstract, i.e. not materialist and not dialectical....which is a fake "Marxist" way of weaseling out of the question.

This is a simple question.

Did the 1949 revolution in China and the 1959 revolution in Cuba bring gains? If they did, as you say, and if those revolutions were bourgeois revolutions (again, as you say), then capitalism was progressive as late as 1959.

"Dialectics" can't get you out of this.

Anyway, you shouldn't be too afraid to admit that the logical conclusion of your line is that capitalism is still progressive. It would at least give some kind of excuse to your tendency's history of siding with imperialism (though of course one with nothing to do with communism or reality).

[BobKKKindle$]

Bob said the Cuban Revolution was a bourgeois revolution that brought gains.I didn't say it was a bourgeois revolution, actually - it would best be described as a petty-bourgeois nationalist revolution that resulted in the creation of a state-capitalist regime. It wasn't a bourgeois revolution because it didn't involve the bourgeoisie (or any other class) carrying out bourgeois-democratic tasks, as Trotsky predicted. The only thing that will allow those tasks to be completed is a revolution led by the proletariat, which will also transcend those tasks by making the revolution permanent. That's not the important thing here though. You are making the mistake of assuming that because a particular political change produces gains, i.e. things which are good from the viewpoint of the working class, it must be a sign that capitalism is still a progressive social system - but this is not the case. There are many recent political events that have resulted in incremental gains for the working class because they have involved bourgeois leaders being pressured to slightly diminish the level of capitalist exploitation, and combat social oppression, mainly through government intervention - such as Obama's election, or the election of the Labour Party in the UK in 1945. These events (and others, such as the Cuban Revolution) are progressive insofar as the changes that have resulted are worth defending, and the only way they can be defended is through working-class struggle, because the ruling classes of these countries have shown that they will take every opportunity to attack the gains which have been won through neo-liberalism whenever it seems that the working class is weak and unable to fight back. They do not prove (or require me to argue) that capitalism is progressive, as it has been clear for some time now that the only way capitalism is able to sustain itself is through increasingly destructive wars of imperialist aggression as well as the degradation of the natural environment, ultimately undermining mankind's ability to reproduce its material existence.

[redasheville]

No Human is Alien:

First, you start by arguing something that I STATE IN MY POST. It is true that the capitalist class cannot solve the democratic tasks in countries that arrive "late on the scene". I don't disagree, and explained that above.

Also, it is also true that countries can never break from imperialism until there is socialist revolutions the whole world over (or at least covering large areas of the planet). However, you do admit that after 1949 China was no longer a battle ground for rival imperialist gangs? And that after 1959 the US no longer had a puppet dictator in power in Cuba and to defend corporate interests on the island? You would say that these aspects, plus an end to illiteracy, starvation, and a host of other indignities were progressive?

Saying there is nationalist revolution isn't the same thing as saying that the capitalist class is capable of solving democratic tasks in oppressed countries. Revolutionaries in China and Cuba WENT FURTHER than the democratic revolution by OVERTHROWING the capitalist class and destroying private property. The difference here is that the WORKING CLASS did not take power. I explained why I think this is the case, and your approach to arguing with me on this point is not to actually refute the claims I made but to slander my organization (and sister organizations) and to simply write off my points as "bunk" and "complete crap". You don't explain why, just simply stomp around saying that it is "NOT MATERIALIST" and "MARX/LENIN/TROTSKY NEVER SAID IT".

I've explained my points to you, pretty clearly. You don't actually argue in an honest way. You just twist my (and others) words, deflect my arguments and spout some abstract dogma, then have the arrogance to tell me that I am "weaseling out" of answering your asinine questions.

You are trying to bait me, like you tried to bait Kassad and other PSL comrades about how they are supposedly reformists because of their electoral campaign (living in a city where the PSL is very active, I can say PSL are definitely NOT reformists).

Have fun in your little sandbox, comrade.

[Kassad]

On top of how much I disagree with you and the International Socialist Organization, I can't believe how petty and disrespectful you're is being to Nothing Human is Alien throughout this discussion. That kind of comment is coming from me, so I think that is a testament to how immature you really are acting. Why don't you tone down the insults and present a logical argument without calling people 'immature,' 'obtuse,' and 'pathetic.' It's really unnecessary, since your logic should serve as more than enough to debate him with.

I appreciate your defense of me, and I respect the International Socialist Organization a lot, but tone it down.

[redasheville]

On top of how much I disagree with you and the International Socialist Organization, I can't believe how petty and disrespectful you're is being to Nothing Human is Alien throughout this discussion. That kind of comment is coming from me, so I think that is a testament to how immature you really are acting. Why don't you tone down the insults and present a logical argument without calling people 'immature,' 'obtuse,' and 'pathetic.' It's really unnecessary, since your logic should serve as more than enough to debate him with.

I appreciate your defense of me, and I respect the International Socialist Organization a lot, but tone it down.

Apologies, I will tone it down in the future.