Any Good Parties? [Archive]

Monkey Riding Dragon

1st November 2009, 23:38

Though I'm not (yet) a member, I am growing fond of the Revolutionary Communist Party. (Web site of their official newspaper, Revolution. (http://www.revcom.us/)) The RCP is a revolutionary Maoist party. Not sure just how "big" they are, but I understand they're, according to Wiki, "by far the largest and most active" self-describe Maoist organization in the USA.

I find that many people simply dismiss the RCP on ridiculous charges. For example, they (the RCP) often stand accused of being a cult because they have recognized leadership, or of being Trotskyist because they're a revolutionary party. These charges, again, seem to me simply an excuse to dismiss the RCP's and Bob Avakian's actual stances.

You might listen to what their chairman Bob Avakian has to say in the REVOLUTION talk at the link in my signature and also visit here (http://www.bobavakian.net/audio4.html) for his views on other subjects like the Cultural Revolution in China, Stalin, leadership, etc. I think, like me, you might be interested!

RedSurprise

1st November 2009, 23:40

What do you mean by this? Real communism isn't authoritarian. What is it about "authoritarian communism" that you like?

I put the quotations there to convey that certain tales of authoritarianism have been over-exagerated. I'm not a fan of authoritarianism, but some see Communism under a State as completely authoritarian, if not totalitarian. Whereas I agree that oppression of the workers is wrong(no matter if the oppressor claims it's in the name of Communism), I know that Western propaganda has done a good job at making it overblown in certain areas.

I don't like "authoritarian Communism" in the true sense, but I don't see many former Communist States as authoritarian as they're made out to be. Although, those states were not what I would call ideal.

What Would Durruti Do?

1st November 2009, 23:42

Well its stance isn't Revolutionary, I mean. But what would make a Revolutionary Party illegal? Unless you're talking about violence, and that wouldn't really make the organization illegal, just the actions of certain members. Haven't members of the Progressive Labor Party gotten into trouble by beating up on Fascists?

And thank you, Hoboman. I have actually thought about joining the PSL and the Socialist Labor Party.

What kind of a revolution isn't violent?

RedSurprise

1st November 2009, 23:49

What kind of a revolution isn't violent?

No kind. But I would consider Parties which existed today whose focus was to awaken the Working Class as "revolutionary" even if they don't use violence. Besides, violence on any large scale now wouldn't be incredibly smart, at least, not in America. Since we don't have enough organization among the Workers to back it up.

The Idler

2nd November 2009, 00:00

There's a list in my sig.

RedSurprise

2nd November 2009, 00:07

There's a list in my sig.

That's a good list too. Haven't even heard of some of those. Thanks, comrade.

Weezer

2nd November 2009, 00:07

No kind. But I would consider Parties which existed today whose focus was to awaken the Working Class as "revolutionary" even if they don't use violence. Besides, violence on any large scale now wouldn't be incredibly smart, at least, not in America. Since we don't have enough organization among the Workers to back it up.

If a violent revolution were to take place in the U.S. right now, it would be hugely unsuccessful. First off, most Americans still think that "Communist," "Socialist," [insert revolutionary leftist ideology here], etc. is synonymous with totalitarianism/authoritarianism, or in the most uneducated cases, "Nazi."

Second of all, the government would just pull the terrorist card, and label us as godless, murderous terrorists. Thirdly, we have little support. We have to realize that the revolution may not happen in our lifetime.

If we are to pull off a revolution relatively soon, it would have to be a peaceful one, like the one Martin Luther King, Jr. pulled off, except ours would be longer and harder to successfully pull off in order to get enough support.

robbo203

2nd November 2009, 00:08

How about this one http://wspus.org/

What Would Durruti Do?

2nd November 2009, 00:13

No kind. But I would consider Parties which existed today whose focus was to awaken the Working Class as "revolutionary" even if they don't use violence. Besides, violence on any large scale now wouldn't be incredibly smart, at least, not in America. Since we don't have enough organization among the Workers to back it up.

I wasn't really suggesting anything of that sort. I just don't understand the use of reformist politics to further a revolutionary cause. Political parties do more harm than good in my opinion. They just break up and separate the workers instead of focusing on a true unified social movement. Putting politicians with no chance in hell of ever achieving something in elections seems rather pointless to me. You don't need parties to be politically active or to educate the masses.

Of course, I am an anarchist though and this is just my opinion. You seem pretty set in your views as well so best of luck to you. Hopefully you find what you're looking for.

RedSurprise

2nd November 2009, 00:28

I wasn't really suggesting anything of that sort. I just don't understand the use of reformist politics to further a revolutionary cause. Political parties do more harm than good in my opinion. They just break up and separate the workers instead of focusing on a true unified social movement. Putting politicians with no chance in hell of ever achieving something in elections seems rather pointless to me. You don't need parties to be politically active or to educate the masses.

Of course, I am an anarchist though and this is just my opinion. You seem pretty set in your views as well so best of luck to you. Hopefully you find what you're looking for.

Well, I don't see Leftist Parties as a tool to use reform. I see them as movements, really. I'm not focused on "voting in a Communist", but working with a Party to organize Workers. But you're right that sometimes Parties with different opinions begin to go after each other instead of uniting against Capitalism.

And thank you for your hopeful wishes, comrade.

SocialismOrBarbarism

2nd November 2009, 01:36

I'd suggest the Socialist Equality Party, but SPUSA doesn't seem too bad. SEP is one of the only parties that doesn't appeal mostly to identity politics or class vague terms like "oppressed peoples," "the masses" etc. instead of the workers as a class.

As far as SWP...
http://www.revleft.com/vb/really-shocking-account-t114579/index.html?t=114579

which doctor

2nd November 2009, 01:59

I put the quotations there to convey that certain tales of authoritarianism have been over-exagerated. I'm not a fan of authoritarianism, but some see Communism under a State as completely authoritarian, if not totalitarian. Whereas I agree that oppression of the workers is wrong(no matter if the oppressor claims it's in the name of Communism), I know that Western propaganda has done a good job at making it overblown in certain areas.

I don't like "authoritarian Communism" in the true sense, but I don't see many former Communist States as authoritarian as they're made out to be. Although, those states were not what I would call ideal.

Communism under a state, eh? I suggest you buff up on your Marx a bit before you ideologically commit yourself to a party.

RedSurprise

2nd November 2009, 02:07

Communism under a state, eh? I suggest you buff up on your Marx a bit before you ideologically commit yourself to a party.

I probably should've put "Worker's State". But it's not really Marxism I'm having trouble with, just the applications of Marxism that have been attempted in the past and how certain existing organizations plan to put the Marxist ideology into action.

chebol

2nd November 2009, 07:00

While I strongly disagree with their positions on the USSR and Cuba (they are from the State Capitalist tradition), you could do worse than the US ISO (http://www.internationalsocialist.org/).

Long-term revolutionary (and certainly no State Cap), Paul le Blanc recently decided to join them. His reasoning is certainly worth reading closely (noting particularly his intention to continue his support for Cuba, despite the ISO's erroneous position): http://links.org.au/node/1323

That said, it's always best to do your own reading of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, and to take others' interpretations with a critical grain of salt.

2nd November 2009, 07:30

I'm fond of the Socialist Workers Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_%28United_States%29), it's mostly Trotskyist, and I understand not everyone likes Trotskyists(sadly).
The American SWP broke with the Trotskyist tradition in the early 1980's and kicked out any Trotskyists in it. They're now Castroite.

ZeroNowhere

2nd November 2009, 08:21

What kind of a revolution isn't violent?
A revolution which isn't violent.

I probably should've put "Worker's State".
WD's post still applies.

Anyhow, the SLP and WSPUS are the only ones I find remotely interesting, they're at least worth looking at.

Revy

2nd November 2009, 09:11

The Socialist Party USA is a good party.

And there is actually a Christian Socialist Party (http://christiansocialistpartyusa.org/).

Oh god, are you serious? You should have actually looked at the site. That group probably is one man only (who I am familiar with , but I hate discussing). It is about as "socialist" as "National Socialism", not at all. I am not saying that because of the absurd name, but because of the social conservatism and rightist social democracy of the group. There are genuine Christian socialists in America but none are fundie right-wing idiots like that.

chebol

2nd November 2009, 11:39

The American SWP broke with the Trotskyist tradition in the early 1980's and kicked out any Trotskyists in it. They're now Castroite.

Hardly. If they're "Castroite", they're more Castroite than Castro... They're not so much Cuba apologists as simply nuts over Cuba, more so than actual, genuine, revolutionaries in Cuba are...

The term "Barnesite" gets thrown around a bit, but it's fairly accurate (Castro at least has admitted that the East Bloc collapsed...).

But basically: US SWP = unhealthy.

chebol

2nd November 2009, 11:42

I probably should've put "Worker's State". But it's not really Marxism I'm having trouble with, just the applications of Marxism that have been attempted in the past and how certain existing organizations plan to put the Marxist ideology into action.

"Workers' State " is more accurate - and I'd recommend getting really familiar with the nuances around that term, as it's a somewhat contested term in the Marxist left.

The rest of your post reminds me of an important maxim - Karl Marx's favourite, in fact: "question everything".

chegitz guevara

2nd November 2009, 16:55

The Socialist Workers Party is not a Trotskyist organization, as previously mentioned. In fact, one can't even really call them a communist organization anymore. If you read their paper, it is largely filled with stories about selling their paper. The organization has degenerated into a cult of Jack Barnes, and he's a mediocrity. It's funny how so many of these cult leaders are.

The Socialist Equality Party is the former Workers League. They used to accuse all other socialist groups of being fronts for the CIA. Their leader, David North, owns a multimillion dollar printing company. His kids drive very nice cars and go to very good schools. If you're a very good comrade, you might get to work for him in his company. Needless to say: cult.

The Revolutionary Communist Party requires you to accept the New Synthesis of Bob Avakian. No one can explain what that new synthesis is, but he's got it and you have to accept it. The dividing line between real communists and fake communists is whether you accept Bob Avakian Thought. The new manifesto of the RCP requires you to report your thinking to higher ups in the Party. Suffice it to say: cult. You should read Nine Letters to Our Comrades (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/pamphlets/9-letters/) before joining the RCP.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is a split from Workers World. Both groups are Trotskyist/Maoists. I have a lot of friends in PSL and I have a lot of respect for them politically. You could do worse than PSL, but they are kinda sectarian, sadly. Workers World is only slightly less so. In other words, both groups seem more interested in building their groups than they do building socialism. Workers World seems to be changing on this, though.

The International Socialist Organization is the largest revolutionary socialist group in the United States, if you count active members. They largely, however, based in the universities and colleges, not in the work place. Also, their theoretical level isn't that good, but it's been getting a lot better. My experience is that they aren't internally democratic and they aren't very tolerant of different ideas. On the latter, however, things seem to be changing as they are publishing workers by people who disagree with some of their main thesis (such as the discussion of Lars Lih's new works on Lenin). If you want to be an activist in an officially Marxist party, it would be hard to do better than the ISO.

The Christian Socialist Party, previously mentioned, is likely only one person, maybe a handful of others. Atlee Yarrow was thrown out of the Socialist Party (the first person expelled in decades) and he helped refound the Social Democrats USA. Even they grew tired of him, and so he either left or was tossed out. I don't know and don't really care. Atlee is a cult leader in search of a following. For him, "socialism from the bottom up" means everyone on the bottom supporting him.

The Communist Party combines the worst aspects of democratic centralism (all centralism, no democracy) with the worst aspects of social democracy. It is, literally, the most useless organization on the American left. For some reason, however, the Young Communist League, the youth organization of the CPUSA, is attracting a lot of revolutionary minded youth.

The Kasama Project is not a party. It's a network of revolutionary communists. We're not Maoist nor Trotskyist nor anarchist, but we have all of those types of folks in the network. The main premise of our work is that the previous revolutionary paradigms have either been passed-by by history or they weren't even correct in the first place. Nonetheless, they have value and we seek to learn from them even as we try to forge a new revolutionary strategy for the present and in the belly of the beast.

Lastly, there was the Socialist Party USA. It was a social democratic party up until about a decade ago. The party is officially a multitendency organization, meaning any type of socialist is allowed, as long as they "subscribe" to the statement of principles. Revolutionaries who couldn't find a home in any other organization were welcomed by the Party, until we became a majority, then the social democrats began to attack.

In 2005, we revolutionaries won a majority of the leadership of the organization. In 2007, we had two-thirds of the leadership of the organization. In 2009, we took 3/4rs of the leadership of the organization. The Socialist Party still has social democratic elements in it, and if truth be told, the vast majority of dues paying members are most likely social democrats, but the vast majority of new members and active members are revolutionaries. In 2011, I think it likely we will drive the social democrats out of the national leadership bodies altogether.

Spawn of Stalin

2nd November 2009, 17:06

So...you write a long ass post in which you criticise every party except your own, and yet somehow manage to accuse the PSL of being sectarian? That makes sense.

chegitz guevara

2nd November 2009, 17:40

I've criticized by own organizations plenty. And my description of the SPUSA isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. If you want more specifics, however:

The biggest problem with the SPUSA is the still substantial social democratic minority. They are able to block the party from expressing a totally revolutionary politics. The Statement of Principles and the Constitution cannot be changed except by 2/3rds majority, and they are still able effectively veto substantial changes which would make the party less attractive to them, and more attractive to the revolutionary left.

I don't have any serious criticisms of Kasama. I guess the biggest thing is that it is more of a network than an organization. As such, it doesn't have a decision making body, let alone one that is responsible to its comrades. So there's a question of process. But we are a fairly small group of people, so there's a lot of discussion, and only one person has had any serious problems with how things are done.

Muzk

2nd November 2009, 17:58

What kind of a revolution isn't violent?

This.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1584768&postcount=20

chegitz guevara

2nd November 2009, 18:28

Technically, that was a coup, not a revolution.

Actually, many revolutions are not violent in their initial phases: the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Italian factory occupations, etc. A violent counter-revolution, however, often happens, for many different reasons, including naivete on the part of the revolutionaries.

What Would Durruti Do?

2nd November 2009, 23:55

I still see guns in those pictures anyway. Meaning they were militant and mobilized. How many leftist political parties in the U.S. could you say that about?

Anything of the sort would be illegal for that reason and thus, this is not possible.

Kassad

3rd November 2009, 00:00

As a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, I'm going to recommend us. We're a moderately new Marxist-Leninist party in the tradition of Sam Marcy and anti-imperialism. We are one of the most parties out there and we're growing pretty substantially. We're active in union activism, the anti-war movement and a lot more. You can find out about us at www.PSLweb.org (http://www.PSLweb.org) and if you have any questions about our line, where we're located and what we take part in, let me know.

Weezer

3rd November 2009, 00:09

The American SWP broke with the Trotskyist tradition in the early 1980's and kicked out any Trotskyists in it. They're now Castroite.

Whatta gyp.

gorillafuck

3rd November 2009, 00:24

Kassad

3rd November 2009, 00:38

Explain to me Sam Marcy's idea of "Global Class War"

Sam Marcy's theory of global class war, first of all, was never really stated directly. Marcy never said 'this is my theory.' It was more an ideology developed through his writings and it became the label for Marcy and the Workers World Party's ideology. Frankly, I don't even know if supporters or detractors of Marcy's beliefs came up with the name, since I don't think I've ever seen it directly stated or described in all of his writings that I have read.

The theory, as upheld current by the Workers World Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, believes that to date, imperialism has been the biggest impediment to the construction of socialism in the world. The intervention of capitalist states upon those developing socialism has led these workers states to either spend themselves into oblivion to defend themsleves instead of spending on basic necessities, or to become bureaucratically deformed to the point that they hardly manage to survive. Because imperialism has been the biggest impediment to socialist construction, it must be opposed at all costs so as to let all peoples and nations have the right to self-determination, as Lenin said. Thus, we support all struggles for self-determination, including national liberation struggles and defend the remaining workers states from counterrevolution, imperialist intervention and dismemberment. Marcy and his ideological successors realize that international socialist revolution is the only solution to the crisis of capitalism and imperialist exploitation and we struggle to make that possible, especially in the belly of the imperialist beast.

SocialismOrBarbarism

3rd November 2009, 01:35

The Socialist Equality Party is the former Workers League. They used to accuse all other socialist groups of being fronts for the CIA. Their leader, David North, owns a multimillion dollar printing company. His kids drive very nice cars and go to very good schools. If you're a very good comrade, you might get to work for him in his company. Needless to say: cult.

Proof please. Oh, right, none exists.

Also, to be honest, I don't think you should place too much weight on irrelevant things such as how the party's theorist think workers in underdeveloped countries can establish socialism, or how they proletariat needs to take power when we barely have any strength as a movement whatsoever, etc. While I do agree with a lot of what the SEP says, I'm not a Trot, and the main reason I support them is because they're the only ones in my area that I actually see doing something, agitating among workers, calling for an independent party of the working class(as opposed to liberal identity politics), etc. and I think that's for more important in determining which party you join.

Die Rote Fahne

3rd November 2009, 03:08

Not really sure, but:

The Socialist Workers Party

The Communist Party of the United States of America

The Socialist Party USA

The Revolutionary Workers Party (Trotskyist-Posadist)

rosie

3rd November 2009, 03:22

I would say you should read more political theory, maybe some sociology as well to strengthen your ideas. Then you could just talk to people in your own community.

redasheville

3rd November 2009, 04:53

The International Socialist Organization is the largest revolutionary socialist group in the United States, if you count active members. They largely, however, based in the universities and colleges, not in the work place. Also, their theoretical level isn't that good, but it's been getting a lot better. My experience is that they aren't internally democratic and they aren't very tolerant of different ideas. On the latter, however, things seem to be changing as they are publishing workers by people who disagree with some of their main thesis (such as the discussion of Lars Lih's new works on Lenin). If you want to be an activist in an officially Marxist party, it would be hard to do better than the ISO.

While much of the ISO's activity is still on campuses, we are building a stronger union base. In the Bay Area we have many members that play leading roles in their union locals i.e. are shop stewards, on strike/bargaining committees etc. Plus, at least in California, the fight back against the horrendous budget cuts is picking up the most steam on campuses and the ISO is in a good place in that struggle especially at SFSU, UCB and UC Santa Cruz where we have played a leading role. Because of the CSU and community college systems, many college students in CA are undeniably working class and the struggle for education is a facet of the workers struggle, not something seperate to it (not that you were arguing anything different, or anything).

There are comrades in SF that have been convinced of Lih's central arguments. I am one of them.

chegitz guevara

3rd November 2009, 17:17

Proof please. Oh, right, none exists

David North's real name is David Green. This was exposed on the MySpace socialism group (which got nuked, but can still be found) a few years back. SEPtic never denied the charges, but instead asked people not to talk about it, because it would damage the important work they were doing.

David North's company http://grpinc.com/

More info
http://community.livejournal.com/marxism/300825.html

As for the cars, a comrade of mine went to school with his kids.

More:
http://community.livejournal.com/trotskyism/3890.html

Kassad

3rd November 2009, 23:42

While much of the ISO's activity is still on campuses, we are building a stronger union base. In the Bay Area we have many members that play leading roles in their union locals i.e. are shop stewards, on strike/bargaining committees etc. Plus, at least in California, the fight back against the horrendous budget cuts is picking up the most steam on campuses and the ISO is in a good place in that struggle especially at SFSU, UCB and UC Santa Cruz where we have played a leading role. Because of the CSU and community college systems, many college students in CA are undeniably working class and the struggle for education is a facet of the workers struggle, not something seperate to it (not that you were arguing anything different, or anything).

There are comrades in SF that have been convinced of Lih's central arguments. I am one of them.

The International Socialist Organization branch in my city has been ignoring my e-mails ever since the ISO-PSL debate on China/Tiananmen. Always found it kind of odd.

SocialismOrBarbarism

4th November 2009, 04:03

David North's real name is David Green. This was exposed on the MySpace socialism group (which got nuked, but can still be found) a few years back. SEPtic never denied the charges, but instead asked people not to talk about it, because it would damage the important work they were doing.

David North's company http://grpinc.com/

More info
http://community.livejournal.com/marxism/300825.html

As for the cars, a comrade of mine went to school with his kids.

More:
http://community.livejournal.com/trotskyism/3890.html

From what I was told, the "proof" that David Green and David North are the same person was that there was a David Green who wrote articles for the Workers Revolutionary Party. I mean, seriously. "THERE WERE TWO DAVIDS IN A PARTY, THEY MUST BE THE SAME!11"

Unless you have actual proof, such as a picture of David North, stop spouting unproven rumors.

h9socialist

4th November 2009, 15:39

This thread reads like an anthology of factionalism. The real question is not what party or organization we belong to, but whether we can put aside differences and build a viable socialist politics to fight against capitalism. I'm a member of DSA -- I know there are those who scoff at that -- but the ultimate goal of a socialist world combines all of us. And the only hope we have to build a socialist world is to set factionalism aside. Is that such a terrible thing?

chegitz guevara

4th November 2009, 15:41

From what I was told, the "proof" that David Green and David North are the same person was that there was a David Green who wrote articles for the Workers Revolutionary Party. I mean, seriously. "THERE WERE TWO DAVIDS IN A PARTY, THEY MUST BE THE SAME!11"

Unless you have actual proof, such as a picture of David North, stop spouting unproven rumors.

It's long been known, for decades, that David North and David Green are the same person. Tim Wolforth told us that much in the mid 90s. Hell, he used to be referred to as David "North" Green by other groups on the left.

Something as damaging as this would certainly be refuted by SEP if it weren't true. They could simply claim that North and Green weren't the same person. They have simply asked people not to talk about it. This from an organization that routinely denounced every other socialist as an agent of the CIA or FBI.

I was told about this by someone who was a member of SEP at the time. He has since quit over how they treated him when he discovered this.

As far as I'm concerned, it's proven. I know David North and David Green are the same person from my twenty years in the movement. I was told about this printing company from a member of the SEP. The SEP hasn't refuted the charge, instead asking people not to discuss it.

chegitz guevara

4th November 2009, 15:46

I'm a member of DSA -- I know there are those who scoff at that -- but the ultimate goal of a socialist world combines all of us. And the only hope we have to build a socialist world is to set factionalism aside. Is that such a terrible thing?

While this much may be true, there is certain factionalism that will never be set aside, such as revolutionary socialists versus social democrats. Not exactly sure why someone from DSA would come to RevLeft, though, since RevLeft is, by definition, revolutionary, while DSA is part of the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the real problems with other organizations, especially the cults, like the RCP, SEP, etc.

redasheville

4th November 2009, 15:51

redasheville

4th November 2009, 15:52

The International Socialist Organization branch in my city has been ignoring my e-mails ever since the ISO-PSL debate on China/Tiananmen. Always found it kind of odd.

Sorry, dude.

chegitz guevara

4th November 2009, 16:24

Sorry, dude.

So it was your fault!:cursing:

Niccolò Rossi

4th November 2009, 21:08

I'd like to add that the SEP oppose unions in the US (because union struggle neccessarily means joining the DP), and David North owns a non-union printing company. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. No conflict of interest there!

The line taken by the ICFI on the union question is one of its more interesting aspects. Their articles on various workers struggles and the role of unions played within them are of very good quality. I would advise you not to knee-jerkingly dismiss the position.

Also, it is not just the ICFI which holds this line - recognition of the counter-revolutionary nature of the trade unions is a basic position of the communist left, including the ICC and IBRP. I wonder if they will also be accused of housing mutli-millionare printing company bosses?

chegitz guevara

5th November 2009, 02:30

Only if your leader has one.

which doctor

5th November 2009, 02:46

This entire thread answers the OP's question quite well: there are no good parties to join in the US.

Niccolò Rossi

5th November 2009, 03:09

This entire thread answers the OP's question quite well: there are no good parties to join in the US.

*My emphasis added*

I agree, I can think of a couple of good tendencies and currents though. ;)

I wonder, which doctor, if their are no 'good' (whatever that means) political organisations (including, but not restricted to, parties) what would you prescribe for the OP as an alternative?

Only if your leader has one.

A leader?

Also, on a side note, I'm not a militant of any currently existing political organisation.

SocialismOrBarbarism

5th November 2009, 03:29

It's long been known, for decades, that David North and David Green are the same person. Tim Wolforth told us that much in the mid 90s. Hell, he used to be referred to as David "North" Green by other groups on the left.

Something as damaging as this would certainly be refuted by SEP if it weren't true. They could simply claim that North and Green weren't the same person. They have simply asked people not to talk about it. This from an organization that routinely denounced every other socialist as an agent of the CIA or FBI.

I was told about this by someone who was a member of SEP at the time. He has since quit over how they treated him when he discovered this.

As far as I'm concerned, it's proven. I know David North and David Green are the same person from my twenty years in the movement. I was told about this printing company from a member of the SEP. The SEP hasn't refuted the charge, instead asking people not to discuss it.

"It's long been known" is not proof. Someone with a bad history with the party saying it's true is not proof. The SEP ignoring slanderous posts on myspace is not proof. You have offered up absolutely nothing to back up what you said, instead appealing to your involvement on the left as if it makes you automatically correct. You're no better than the picture you paint of the SEP.

Not only did the SEP not deny it, IIRC, they implicitly admitted it because members defended it by saying "BUT ENGELS WAS A CAPITALIST". The difference, of course, being Engels never hid that act from rank n file communists.

Apparently every person on the internet who attempts to defend the SEP in some way is either an SEP member or actually "the SEP."

edit: It seems that most of these rumors about the SEP come from the International Bolshevik Tendency. I really don't think that helps your case.

SocialismOrBarbarism

5th November 2009, 03:58

I'd like to add that the SEP oppose unions in the US (because union struggle neccessarily means joining the DP), and David North owns a non-union printing company. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. No conflict of interest there!

Not only did the SEP not deny it, IIRC, they implicitly admitted it because members defended it by saying "BUT ENGELS WAS A CAPITALIST". The difference, of course, being Engels never hid that act from rank n file communists.

http://blacksungazette.com/?p=1065

http://www.internationalist.org/iranturmoil0907.html

http://www.internationalist.org/isogodssocialists_large.jpg

See, I can be a sectarian too! W00t! And don't worry, that website also upholds North as a capitalist, so they have a precedent for having accurate information. :rolleyes:

Oh, and don't forget this, by the people whose uncompromising investigations allowed them to show the whole left that North owned a factory and that the ISO is a bourgeois party:

http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no23/Nadertr6.HTML

Credible sources? Obviously!

Niccolò Rossi

5th November 2009, 04:18

In response to the OP; Normally these threads pose the question as "Which organisation should I join?" There are alot of problems with this. Of course the most fundamental is that the question is posed entirely in the wrong way. If you have to appeal to a leftist message board to tell you which group to join, you aren't ready to join any! The other major problem being that the majority of responses you will get are idiots trying to 'sell' their party (Join X! We are Y and do Z!).

In contrast to this I think the way the OP has posed the question is very positive and mature, i.e., not seeking to join an organisation pre-maturely or on the whim.

In my opinion (and I speak from experience) it is important to be in contact with political organisations and not merely to treat politics as a hobby or acedemic excercise involving reading books and surfing the internet, but at the same time, not be bogged down and disoriented in the mire of 'activism'.

I would very much recommend that you do get in contact with existing political organisations and experienced political militants. Initially, and especially if you are politically and geographically isolated, this means through correspondance. Subscribing to organisations' press is also a good thing in order to get news and analysis, not all of which you may agree with. Regular meetings, reading circles and discussion forums are good to attend to discuss and debate questions and disagreements you might have and generally to clarify your politics.

Anyway, to wind up, in contrast to the various leftist parties (Trotskyist, Stalininist and Social-Democratic) which have been suggested, maybe you would be interested in looking into the Communist Left, including the International Communist Current (http://en.internationalism.org/) (ICC) and Internationalist Communist Tendency (http://www.ibrp.org/) (ICT - Formerly IBRP). There are militants of the ICC and sympathisers of the communist left more generally who are more than happy to answer questions you might have.

Good luck, you will need it!

What Would Durruti Do?

5th November 2009, 04:34

which doctor

5th November 2009, 05:49

I agree, I can think of a couple of good tendencies and currents though. ;)

I wonder, which doctor, if their are no 'good' (whatever that means) political organisations (including, but not restricted to, parties) what would you prescribe for the OP as an alternative?

That's a good question, and one that needs to be discussed right now. I really don't have a definite answer because it's something I still haven't made up my mind on.

Clearly, working-class organization is practically non-existent in the US, and these myriad tiny political sects that dominate the supposed "radical" left nowadays and the culture of protest politics on the idealist left aren't helping the situation. The left has inherited a lot of dead weight, historical baggage so to speak, and we need to take some time to reevaluate it all, and determine the best way to move forward with. Building any sort of strong, revolutionary working-class organization in the US will be no easy feat, because it has to be rebuilt from the ground-up. Right now, the most important role of communists in the US is to be building a class consciousness, by engaging other people with new ideas.

A lot of revolutionary infrastructure is borne out periods of crisis, when it become a necessary and imminent goal. Perhaps, if capitalism fails to save itself quickly enough, we may find ourselves plunged into a crisis as a result of the worsening economic situation, if which case it will be interesting to see what, if any, networks are built. Of course I think we still need to be laying the foundations for organization right now, but you'd be delusional to think that we're anywhere beyond infancy yet.

redasheville

5th November 2009, 05:55

http://blacksungazette.com/?p=1065

http://www.internationalist.org/iranturmoil0907.html

http://www.internationalist.org/isogodssocialists_large.jpg

See, I can be a sectarian too! W00t! And don't worry, that website also upholds North as a capitalist, so they have a precedent for having accurate information. :rolleyes:

Oh, and don't forget this, by the people whose uncompromising investigations allowed them to show the whole left that North owned a factory and that the ISO is a bourgeois party:

http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no23/Nadertr6.HTML

Credible sources? Obviously!

zzzzzzzzzzzz.

Niccolò Rossi

5th November 2009, 09:11

That's a good question, and one that needs to be discussed right now.

How will these discussions take place? Who will they involve? Where will they happen?

Clearly, working-class organization is practically non-existent in the US, and these myriad tiny political sects that dominate the supposed "radical" left nowadays and the culture of protest politics on the idealist left aren't helping the situation.

Agreed

Right now, the most important role of communists in the US is to be building a class consciousness, by engaging other people with new ideas.

Why the need for new ideas? Have the old ones failed?

A lot of revolutionary infrastructure is borne out periods of crisis, when it become a necessary and imminent goal.

I'm not sure what 'revolutionary infrastructure' is. To be is seems like a pretty standard profound sounding buzzword. Then again, maybe its just not terminology I'm used to.

Despite this, I agree with what you are saying here (that is, if I'm interpretting what your saying here correctly).

Perhaps, if capitalism fails to save itself quickly enough, we may find ourselves plunged into a crisis as a result of the worsening economic situation, if which case it will be interesting to see what, if any, networks are built.

What are 'networks'?

Of course I think we still need to be laying the foundations for organization right now, but you'd be delusional to think that we're anywhere beyond infancy yet.

On this point I disagree. I disagree on two fronts. One is that we can actually talk about a 'we'. I'm not interested in being part of or working with 'the left'. Secondly, I don't agree that the foundations for organisation need to be layed down now, atleast in the sense I think you mean. I don't think it is the role of revolutionaries to organise the class. I believe there are political organisations of revolutionaries already in existence, and despite the fact that they are not the class party, they fight for it. I believe revolutionary mass organisations will be created by the working class in struggle.

zzzzzzzzzzzz.

This just tells me you can't actually respond to the points made. Either do so, or don't make stupid one liner posts like these, please.

chegitz guevara

5th November 2009, 15:46

Yes, because what a group did 30 years ago is so relevant. Zzzzzzzzz. If you're going to complain about the ISO, complain about today's ISO, not the ISO from over a generation ago.

chegitz guevara

5th November 2009, 15:46

"It's long been known" is not proof. Someone with a bad history with the party saying it's true is not proof. The SEP ignoring slanderous posts on myspace is not proof. You have offered up absolutely nothing to back up what you said, instead appealing to your involvement on the left as if it makes you automatically correct. You're no better than the picture you paint of the SEP.

Apparently every person on the internet who attempts to defend the SEP in some way is either an SEP member or actually "the SEP."

edit: It seems that most of these rumors about the SEP come from the International Bolshevik Tendency. I really don't think that helps your case.

Blah, blah, blah, nothing is proof, I won't believe anything bad about the SEP!

Random Precision

5th November 2009, 16:10

They largely, however, based in the universities and colleges, not in the work place.

I think this is something that should be engaged with. Yes, the ISO has a reputation of limiting itself to campuses. But to single them out in this way is to ignore the history of the left in this country since 1980 or so. What major left group has not been based primarily on the college students since then? Except for groups like the SWP, who sent all their members into meat-packing and coal-mining, you won't find many. This is because colleges have been the place you want to be to grow, where you'll find the most people interested in class politics. Furthermore in this country at least most people don't go to college to become academics, they go to learn skills for working class occupations. Which is why a lot of the ISO's work at schools at least in the past decade has been at community colleges. I wouldn't say you can define anyone who goes to a community college as ruling-class in any way.

Also, their theoretical level isn't that good, but it's been getting a lot better.

I'm not sure what you mean by "theoretical level", I always thought that was sort of a joke term, but my experience with the ISO has been that it has many members who are very gifted theoretically.

My experience is that they aren't internally democratic and they aren't very tolerant of different ideas. On the latter, however, things seem to be changing as they are publishing workers by people who disagree with some of their main thesis (such as the discussion of Lars Lih's new works on Lenin).

The international socialist tradition has always rejected traditional view of Lenin the authoritarian, and seen building a Leninist cadre as a fundamentally democratic project. You can read Tony Cliff's biography of Lenin, specifically Building the Party, the first volume, which is one of the most common texts the ISO has study groups on. Lars Lih is just saying what we have been saying all along, except in a more academic fashion.

which doctor

5th November 2009, 18:15

How will these discussions take place? Who will they involve? Where will they happen?
I think public fora have a lot of potential, in which people are brought together in a non-sectarian environment to discuss and debate the problems confronting us. I also think newspapers, especially ones that publish material that isn't party-oriented, are still vital in disseminating ideas.

Why the need for new ideas? Have the old ones failed?
The ideas didn't fail per se, but the revolutionary left has a long history of defeat. I think we need to look to the past for inspiration and insight to see what how best to proceed given our present material conditions.

I'm not sure what 'revolutionary infrastructure' is. To be is seems like a pretty standard profound sounding buzzword. Then again, maybe its just not terminology I'm used to.

Despite this, I agree with what you are saying here (that is, if I'm interpretting what your saying here correctly).
I'm using the word in a pretty broad manner in this instance, but in general it's referring to networks of communication and groups of militant working-class.

What are 'networks'?
Groups of people sharing ideas and resources with each other.

On this point I disagree. I disagree on two fronts. One is that we can actually talk about a 'we'. I'm not interested in being part of or working with 'the left'. Secondly, I don't agree that the foundations for organisation need to be layed down now, atleast in the sense I think you mean. I don't think it is the role of revolutionaries to organise the class. I believe there are political organisations of revolutionaries already in existence, and despite the fact that they are not the class party, they fight for it. I believe revolutionary mass organisations will be created by the working class in struggle.
When I say "the left," I'm referring to the broadly defined project of moving towards a more emancipatory mode of politics, which in capitalisms case involves the superceding of class antagonisms through a working-class revolutionary struggle. I don't mean it in the strict sense of the left/right political dichotomy prevalent in capitalist politics.

Maybe you misunderstood me, maybe you didn't, but I'm not advocating the creation of a mass class party either, mostly because, frankly, I don't see how it could come to fruitition given our present circumstances. I don't think rigid, hierarchial political organizations fulfill a vary productive role anymore, at least not on the behalf of the working-class. Nonetheless, I think building the groundwork for informal organization, which is synonomous with the development of class consciousness, is one of the first steps to take. I use the word "informal organization" purposefully vague because I'm not exactly sure what this is going to look like, but I think it will involve a variety of forms working in various capacities.

SocialismOrBarbarism

5th November 2009, 22:53

Blah, blah, blah, nothing is proof, I won't believe anything bad about the SEP!

Blah, blah, blah, I don't have any proof so I'll just spit out a bunch of logical fallacies and act like a condescending ass!

Now seriously, I'll believe it when it's proven. It wouldn't even be that hard to prove your point, all you'd need to do is get someone to go to one of their meetings and take a picture of North. Hell, I'll do it myself the when he's next in Michigan if I have the time. But instead of doing that, you like to rely on "proof" from the most sectarian, slanderous party I've ever seen(IBT) and the fact that you're old, as if that means you're automatically correct. Apparently the IBT is only credible when they attack the SEP, but if they attack anyone else...

redasheville

5th November 2009, 23:37

Nobody even brought up the IBT except you. Get off it.

spiltteeth

6th November 2009, 00:43

redasheville

6th November 2009, 01:06

Personally, I think the really new, theoretical stuff will come from Kasama.

For right now both PSL and SP-USA are great.
PSL is small, but has plenty of potential and some really innovative open strategies.

I'm actually wondering if anyone here knows about, or is a member of, Freedom Road Socialist Organization - http://www.freedomroad.org/

I know there are two groups by this name, but the one in the link above seems to have a lot going on for it, although obviously still new.

Does anyone have any experience with these people?

They're actually not very new, having formed in the mid 80s with the fusion of several remnants from the Maoist/"New Communist Movement". I haven't had much experience with them, though from what I understand they don't do much as a group i.e. individual members are active in movements, but more as individuals. Solidarity is sort of the same way. They are much less hardline about their Maoist/Stalinist roots than the 'other' FRSO.

I know a lot of people from the 'other' FRSO. If you can stomach their hardline Stalinist politics, they'd be a great group to get involved with. FRSO members are not sectarian, highly committed and talented activists, and have a pretty good approach to movement work. They are active in building the new SDS, and from what I can tell are taking a leading role within it.

SocialismOrBarbarism

6th November 2009, 03:29

Nobody even brought up the IBT except you. Get off it.

Yeah, because according to them it was one of their members who "revealed the truth" about North.

redasheville

6th November 2009, 03:57

Yeah, because according to them it was one of their members who "revealed the truth" about North.

The person Chegitz referred to became a catholic and abandoned Trotskyism after quitting the SEP...

Niccolò Rossi

6th November 2009, 06:42

I think public fora have a lot of potential, in which people are brought together in a non-sectarian environment to discuss and debate the problems confronting us.

I agree discussion forums are important, however I don't think they can possibly offer an alternative for the lack of 'good' political organisations (which I what you have suggested). I suppose though it also has to do with how you define a 'public forum'. Again, there are concrete questions to be dealt with. What are the criteria for participation in 'public fora', i.e. who is involved? How do they function? When do they occur? Where do they occur? These are serious questions because you are posing these as the means by which alternatives to the old, 'bad' parties will be found. Are you currently involved in any such fora?

I also think newspapers, especially ones that publish material that isn't party-oriented, are still vital in disseminating ideas.

Again, concrete details. Where are these papers? How will they come about? How will they be co-ordinated? Who will be publishing them?

The ideas didn't fail per se, but the revolutionary left has a long history of defeat.

I think the defeat has been suffered by the working class, not 'the left' ('revolutionary' or not).

I think we need to look to the past for inspiration and insight to see what how best to proceed given our present material conditions.

I agree. Drawing the lessons of the history of the class struggle is important. The communist programme is not an invariant, stone-carved list of commandments, it is a living guide for revolutionary practice, constantly criticised, tested and enriched.

When I say "the left," I'm referring to the broadly defined project of moving towards a more emancipatory mode of politics, which in capitalisms case involves the superceding of class antagonisms through a working-class revolutionary struggle. I don't mean it in the strict sense of the left/right political dichotomy prevalent in capitalist politics.

Away from the flowery language, I don't think such a definition includes what is traditionally regarded as 'the left' - namely the various Trotskyists, Stalinists, Anarchist, et al.

I'm not advocating the creation of a mass class party either, mostly because, frankly, I don't see how it could come to fruitition given our present circumstances.

Agreed.

Nonetheless, I think building the groundwork for informal organization, which is synonomous with the development of class consciousness, is one of the first steps to take. I use the word "informal organization" purposefully vague because I'm not exactly sure what this is going to look like, but I think it will involve a variety of forms working in various capacities.

I appreciate that we can't prescribe recipes and draw up blueprints here, but I think this kind of intentional vagueness is more often than not a way out of answering the tough questions.

Related to this, out of curiosity, what kind of political activity (if any) are you involved in, WD?

which doctor

6th November 2009, 18:15

I agree discussion forums are important, however I don't think they can possibly offer an alternative for the lack of 'good' political organisations (which I what you have suggested). I suppose though it also has to do with how you define a 'public forum'. Again, there are concrete questions to be together a cdealt with. What are the criteria for participation in 'public fora', i.e. who is involved? How do they function? When do they occur? Where do they occur? These are serious questions because you are posing these as the means by which alternatives to the old, 'bad' parties will be found. Are you currently involved in any such fora?
I really don't have the answers to the "concrete" questions your posing because I don't think there is a single model to follow, nor are these public fora the means to our ends, but I think they are a step in the right direction, as far as creating dialogue and clearing the idealogical fog the radical left in America's been for the past century. And yes, I have attended such events. Since this debate consists mostly of an interrogation of my own ideas, which I welcome, but what ideas do you have in regards to this situation?

Again, concrete details. Where are these papers? How will they come about? How will they be co-ordinated? Who will be publishing them?
I'm not sure how you want me to answer this question. These things tend to develop organically.

I agree. Drawing the lessons of the history of the class struggle is important. The communist programme is not an invariant, stone-carved list of commandments, it is a living guide for revolutionary practice, constantly criticised, tested and enriched.
Which is why I think self-criticism and critical theory are key components of any revolutionary struggle. We need to look to the past, from the standpoint of the present, to see what ideas still have utility for the future.

Away from the flowery language, I don't think such a definition includes what is traditionally regarded as 'the left' - namely the various Trotskyists, Stalinists, Anarchist, et al.
I agree with this, and consider it an problem of sorts myself. I'm not quite sure if you advocate a sort of "anti-politics" or not, but what suggestions do you have?

I appreciate that we can't prescribe recipes and draw up blueprints here, but I think this kind of intentional vagueness is more often than not a way out of answering the tough questions.
Consider my "intentional vagueness" as symptomatic of the fact that I haven't answered these tough questions yet, so I don't think I should pretend I have.

Related to this, out of curiosity, what kind of political activity (if any) are you involved in, WD?
Since I don't think a discussion of my merit badges is appropriate in this thread, check your PM box for a reply.

Niccolò Rossi

6th November 2009, 23:56

Since this debate consists mostly of an interrogation of my own ideas, which I welcome, but what ideas do you have in regards to this situation?

Well contrary to yourself, I do think their are 'good' organisations and hence reject this whole grand project of re-inventing 'the left' of whatever (something it seems to me the Platypus Afilliated Society seem to have an unhealthy and unhelpful obsession over).

On the matter of discussion fora, I do think they are positive and significant occurances. Thus, for example, I myself have been a participant and initiator of a Sydney Class Struggle Discussion Forum (which you can read a little about in the Oceania user group or the 'Upcoming Events' board).

I'm not sure how you want me to answer this question. These things tend to develop organically.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in pursuing the point, but I wonder where these things have tended to develop organically in the past. What examples are there from history? Saying these things will develop organically, and saying they tend to are two different things.

Which is why I think self-criticism and critical theory are key components of any revolutionary struggle. We need to look to the past, from the standpoint of the present, to see what ideas still have utility for the future.

Agreed.

I agree with this, and consider it an problem of sorts myself. I'm not quite sure if you advocate a sort of "anti-politics" or not, but what suggestions do you have?

I'm not sure what 'anti-politics' is. My point is that I don't think 'the left', i.e. the extreme political left-wing of capital, has anything to offer the working class.

Consider my "intentional vagueness" as symptomatic of the fact that I haven't answered these tough questions yet, so I don't think I should pretend I have.

Fair enough.

Since I don't think a discussion of my merit badges is appropriate in this thread, check your PM box for a reply.

I don't understand your objection to discussing it here, but thanks for the reply.

chegitz guevara

7th November 2009, 07:59

Yeah, because according to them it was one of their members who "revealed the truth" about North.

Only one of those links was from the IBT.

chegitz guevara

7th November 2009, 08:08

I'm actually wondering if anyone here knows about, or is a member of, Freedom Road Socialist Organization - http://www.freedomroad.org/

I know there are two groups by this name, but the one in the link above seems to have a lot going on for it, although obviously still new.

Does anyone have any experience with these people?

My real world experience with them is limited to this:

When I was in Chicago, a group of Socialist Party members were entertaining a comrade from Russia in a bar. We were singing The Internationale (our foreign comrade sang it for us in Russian and Chinese). We discovered that at the table behind us were a number of comrades from Freedom Road (before the split--this group later became part of the "Fight Back" section).

They didn't join us in singing.

Pretty much they are social democrats who think they are revolutionaries, although the "Fight Back" group is more militant. Freedom Road was involved in the Rainbow Coalition and never quite left. Still, if you go back an look at some of their early stuff (back when they were the Proletarian Unity League, iirc) they had some of the better analyses in the New Communist Movement.

which doctor

9th November 2009, 00:29

Well contrary to yourself, I do think their are 'good' organisations and hence reject this whole grand project of re-inventing 'the left' of whatever (something it seems to me the Platypus Afilliated Society seem to have an unhealthy and unhelpful obsession over).
I think you mischaracterize Platypus, but I think in the spirit of self-criticism, they perform a vital role. By the way, exactly which good organizations are there? I'd like to know, but if you're just going to say the ICC, I'd like to know why. I'm still unsure of exactly what they do and why one should join.

I'm not sure what 'anti-politics' is. My point is that I don't think 'the left', i.e. the extreme political left-wing of capital, has anything to offer the working class.
I understand and respect your critique of the left as the "left wing of capital", but from what I gather you're an ICC member, and as an ICC member, how can you not see yourself in the Left tradition, which is inherited from the theoretical tradition of Marx, even though Left Communism ultimately writes off much of "the Left."

Niccolò Rossi

9th November 2009, 03:41

I think you mischaracterize Platypus, but I think in the spirit of self-criticism, they perform a vital role.

A spirit of self-criticism is of course I am a firm supporter of. Again, the issue is of who the 'self' is. I don't think it is 'the left', i.e. the various Trotskyist, Stalinist, Anarchist and Social-Democratic organisations. They should be criticised, yes, but this is not an excercise of self-criticism.

By the way, exactly which good organizations are there? I'd like to know, but if you're just going to say the ICC, I'd like to know why. I'm still unsure of exactly what they do and why one should join.

I don't think 'good' is a very meangingful or effective way to put it. There are lots of left groups which manage themselves well, have high quality and widely read press, have large membership numbers, etc. In so far as these groups are alien to, and act objectively against the working class, it is not of real importance for revolutionaries as to whether they are or are not 'good'.

I think the ICC is one of a very small number of organisations internationally, let alone in the US, which defends a revolutionary programme and stands firm on proletarian principles, emobodied in its platform. The most fundamental of these is an intransigent defence of proletarian internationalism, but also on other questions such as parliamentarism, the union question, frontism, the nature of the October revolution and the analysis of its degeneration, etc.

I understand and respect your critique of the left as the "left wing of capital", but from what I gather you're an ICC member, and as an ICC member, how can you not see yourself in the Left tradition, which is inherited from the theoretical tradition of Marx, even though Left Communism ultimately writes off much of "the Left."

To clarify, I'm not a member of the ICC or any other political organisation at present.

Yes, the communist left sees itself in continuity with the work of the First, Second and Third Internationals (through the first two congresses). However this, and an indentification with 'the left' are two very different things.