Why do we need a united socialist party in usa?

[LeninistKing]

WHY DO WE NEED A UNITED SOCIALIST FRONT IN USA?

http://www.marxist.com/usa-why-we-need-mass-labor-party.htm

Written by Tom Trottier in the U.S.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009

Many US workers who voted for the Democrats because they hoped they would bring about reforms are already disappointed as the Democrats basically continue Bush’s policies, with a few cosmetic changes. Many workers would like there to be an alternative to the political parties of big business. That is why the unions to break with the Democrats and build a mass labor party.

There are many workers who voted for the Democrats because they hoped they would bring about reforms such as universal health care, job creation, stronger unions and an end to the wars in the Middle East. Many are already disappointed as the Democrats basically continue Bush’s policies, with a few cosmetic changes. Many workers would like there to be an alternative to the political parties of big business. The Workers International League (WIL) would like to address a few questions that often come up in discussions regarding our call for the unions to break with the Democrats and build a mass labor party.

Is the Democratic Party a workers’ party?
The Democratic Party was not created by the working class, nor is it under the democratic control of the working class. The Democratic Party has a long history that goes back to the days of slavery, when it represented the southern slave owners. Since the aftermath of the Civil War, the Democrats have been one of the two main parties of American big business. Whatever differences they might claim to have with the Republicans, their fundamental policy is based on maintaining capitalism and imperialism, which means the exploitation of American workers and the super-exploitation of workers in the “under-developed world.” Even the labor leaders do not speak of the Democrats as a workers’ party, but call them “friends of labor.” However, with friends like these, who needs enemies!

How does the capitalist class control the Republicans and Democrats?
Due to the populist movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Capitalist class set up a system of state-controlled primary elections. This was supposedly done to take control of nominating party candidates away from party bosses and put it in the hands of the people. In primary elections, candidates must first win the nomination of the party and then proceed to the general election. In practice, it takes lots of money and media coverage to win the primary campaign and then even more money to win the general election. This is perfect for the capitalist class. They have the money and they own the newspapers, magazines, book publishers, and radio and television stations. Even many billboards on highways are owned by the same companies that own the television networks and cable channels. This is one example of how they control the candidates of both major parties long before they are even elected.
Why not run candidates in the Democratic Party’s primary elections?

Couldn’t labor “take over” the Democratic Party?
Theoretically, the labor movement could run candidates in a party primary and try to secure the nomination, and then run in the general election. However, in order to accomplish this task, it would require the labor movement to come together in a political organization to determine policy and program, candidates and strategy. In other words, the labor movement would have to build a “party within a party.”
Such a strategy would be bad for a number of reasons. The labor movement would have to spend its precious resources in the primary election campaign and would then have less money left over for the general election. This is not a problem for the capitalists who control the media and have tons of money available for politics. If a genuine labor candidate fighting on a socialist or even moderately radical program won the Democratic primary, the party would quickly either dis-own the candidate or otherwise try to sabotage the campaign. An example of this can be seen with former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who was basically driven out of the Democratic Party because she was perceived as being “too far to the left.” Also, more people turn out for the general elections than vote in the primaries. This is due to the fact that many people do not identify with the big business political parties. It would not be a step forward in developing class consciousness to encourage workers to join or support the Democrats, a non-workers’ party. However, it would be an enormous step forward in class consciousness for the workers to come to the conclusion that we need a party to represent our class: a mass labor party! This is why we consistently call on workers to break with the Democrats and form such a party. However, until a mass party of labor is created, many workers will either remain with the Democrats as a “lesser evil,” or simply abstain from voting.

Why does the WIL call for a Labor Party?
Those of us who depend on our ability to work and on the paycheck we receive from it in order to support our living standards are the working class. The working class is the overwhelming majority of the population of the USA. Our class has interests separate and diametrically opposed to interests of the richest 2%, who own and control big business and the two major parties. The working class has built unions to represent its interests at the workplace and it now needs its own party to represent its political interests at all levels of government.

What would a mass Labor Party look like?
Unions would directly affiliate to this party and would have voting rights based on their membership. The unions should vote according to the democratic will of their membership. Also, a mass labor party would have local branches, which anyone who believed in the cause of labor, whether or not they were a member of a union, could join. These branches should also be able to vote in the Labor Party. A mass labor party should also organize a youth wing, mobilizing young workers, students and unemployed. This youth wing should also be allowed voting rights in the party.

Would a mass labor party lead to a Republican victory?
Some will argue that a mass labor party would “split the Democratic Party vote” and lead to victory for the Republican Party. One consequence of “lesser evil” politics is that eventually, you always get the “greater” evil. Right now, with the Democrats in control of Congress and the Presidency, how much has really changed for the better? If a mass labor party is not built, as anger over the status quo builds up, what will happen? If there is no alternative, the Republican Party will eventually take back power and this party could move even further to the right. Without a labor party, the lesser evil politics that the present labor leadership practices has provided no resistance to the Capitalists as they have pushed politics to the right in the last few decades as a way to deal with their crisis ridden system. At present, there is no political party that answers the lies and propaganda of big business.
The founding of a mass labor party would begin to educate the mass of workers and youth in this country as to how we can fight for the interests of the working class and combat the lies of Capitalism and their political parties. Deep down, many workers and youth sense that the two parties don’t represent them, but they feel that there is no realistic alternative. A labor party would win these people over. A labor party would gain votes from young people and many who now choose not to vote at all, but it would also take votes from the two major political parties, with more probably coming from the Democrats. Eventually, a mass Labor Party could become the largest party as disgust with the two major parties increases. It should be noted that in Canada, their labor party, known as the New Democratic Party (NDP), is still just third in size compared with the big business parties, yet its existence has forced the Canadian Capitalists to give more reforms. That is why, for example, Canadian workers have free universal health care and American workers do not.

Since organized labor is so small today, how could such a party be built today?
Even though less that 14% of the labor force is in unions, that is still more than 12 million workers! These members and their families and the resources of the labor movement would have a huge political impact. We should also include the millions of retired union members. The party would also reach out to the millions of workers who would like to be members of a union, but who fear employer retaliation such as being fired or the workplace being closed. This would include the most oppressed and exploited workers, including the undocumented. A labor party should fight to attain voting and trade union rights for all those who live here. Many people concerned about ending the wars abroad, getting free universal health care and fighting for more funding for education would also look to a labor party. A labor party could win over those concerned about pollution and the environment as it would be the force that would struggle against the business-controlled parties that have allowed so much damage to occur. It can be seen how quickly a large majority could be built up.
The Labour Party government in Britain, under Blair and Brown, invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan.

In light of this, why would a Labor Party be an improvement?
When a labor party is established and wins control of government, it basically has two choices. It can mobilize the working class for the socialist transformation of society or it can attempt to change things by merely tinkering with capitalism. When it chooses the later and capitalism is in crisis, the logic of the system leads the “Labour Government” to cut workers’ living standards and do the bidding of big business at home and abroad. In Great Britain, the workers need to re-claim the Labour Party and the trade unions so they can become instruments to transform society. However, there are still important benefits in Britain that workers here do not have, and this is due to past reforms attained through the Labour party. In the US, we need to build a labor party and learn the lessons of Britain. Our labor party needs to lead the working class to transform society by putting an end to capitalism and establishing socialism based on workers’ democracy.

Why does the WIL believe that a labor party should stand for socialism?
Capitalism is in a serious crisis and cannot be fixed or regulated back to health. As a result of the crisis, everyone is affected, but it is the workers, the poor and the middle class who shoulder the biggest burden. Therefore, it is not in the interest of workers to continue to be exploited by this rotten system. Socialism would mean that society could democratically plan the use of natural resources and technology to meet human needs and wants in a way that does not destroy the earth and make it unlivable. It would be a society of full employment, free universal health care and education, plenty of quality affordable housing, and well-maintained roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. Small businesses and worker co-operatives would be coordinated with worker-controlled state-owned industry to achieve these goals. However, as stated above, a labor party government that tried to manage capitalist crisis rather than transform society would lead to disaster and the public would turn away from such a party. The WIL would argue for these socialist policies within such a party, even if we were a small minority at first. We are confident that through patient explanation and on the basis of workers’ own experience, the majority will eventually draw the conclusion that capitalism must be replaced by socialism.

What happened to the Labor Party established in the 1990s?
In the 1990s, there was the beginning of a labor party in the US, but the vast majority of the unions in this country refused to break with the Democrats and Republicans and join this party. Even a few of the unions who supported the Labor Party also continued their support of some Democrats. The Labor Party could have played an educational role in developing a future mass labor party. It would have needed to organize rallies, mass meetings and run at least some candidates in a few elections. The fact that it did not do this led many people to drop out as they could not see it developing further.

What changes will need to happen in the labor movement, prior to the establishment of a mass labor party?
The economic crisis facing us today will develop into a deepening social and political crisis in the future. This will eventually be reflected in the labor movement. Any labor leaders that take a step toward a labor party, independent of the two big business parties, should be supported. If leaders representing a noticeable section of the labor movement did so, this could open the flood gates and create an unstoppable movement.

What does the WIL do today, to help build a labor party?
The WIL raises the issue of the need for a labor party in every union where we have supporters. We see the struggle to change the union leadership’s policies of supporting the big business political parties as part of a struggle for more democratic unions that will the fight against give-backs to the boss and use more militant tactics to win strike battles. The WIL works with any and all who struggle for these changes in the unions. We also bring the issue of the need for a mass labor party to other campaigns such as the immigrants’ rights and anti-war movements.


Let other people you know learn about socialism! Spread the word... the more people who know the truth, the greater the force against the capitalist system! Resistance forever!

Here are a good links toward the introduction of socialist ideology (The only solution for the United States):

http://www.socialistviewpoint.org
http://www.ifamericansknew.org
http://www.stopaipac.org
http://www.socialistaction.org
http://www.socialistworker.org
http://www.workers.org
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com
http://www.trotsky.net
http://www.marxists.org
http://www.socialisappeal.org
http://www.marxist.com
http://www.wsws.org
http://www.socialistalternative.org
http://www.permanent-revolution.org/


......................./´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............


STICK UP YOUR MIDDLE FINGER TO US, EUROPEAN, NATO, ISRAEL AND WORLD IMPERIALISM AND CAPITALIST OPPRESSION !!

.

[Revy]

This "labor party" issue pushed by the CWI and IMT sections (splits of each other) in the US is merely a way of excusing their support for the Greens and Nader. They do not want to engage with the socialist parties. So their drop-in-the-bucket support, critically meaningless, is added to these political campaigns which are not about socialism.

I am sure that the IMT would prefer to spend decades writing about their dream of a reformist "labor party" than spending time in the present to help build a mass revolutionary party. This is what the IMT does in Britain, believing that socialists can reclaim the Labour Party, instead of trying to build an alternative.

It has less to do with unity, more to do with conforming things to their own poorly formulated political perspective. The IMT, of all groups, is NOT interested in a "united socialist front", even when we are talking about their US section. Though I can't say that for any party here. But the IMT is the least likely to do so with the politics they have now. They want to see a Labor Party created (it's more important to them that the party be created by labor unions than by revolutionary working people), in which they will act as an entryist group.

[FSL]

Trotsky was the one who advocated not forming a working class party but instead joining one of the major "labor organizations" and working within to change it. IMT is simply upholding that line.
Even if there have been big changes in the social democratic parties between then and now, this is another indication on how Trotsky's politics were getting worse by the minute.

If people do intend to bother with anything, they might as well do it in a workers' party that aims in working class emancipation. A large "left-leaning" party might seem comforting in some way, but you'll have few decent people working their ass off to see frauds take the spotlight and promote "humane capitalism". And that'd be a shame.

[syndicat]

oh sure, workers can liberate themselves by electing politicians to head the hierarchical state. fat chance.

any labor party in the USA would reflect the politics of the current labor bureaucracy, that is, it would be class collaborationist. in reality the "partnership" ideology of the labor bureaucracy would lead them to oppose this proposal. but even if they did form such a party, we can get an idea of its politics by looking at the social democratic unions in Europe and the neo-liberal orientation of many of these parties, such as the German social-dems, the Spanish PSOE, etc.

why not focus instead on a social movement alliance at the base? Why not focus on direct forms of rank and file participation, such as marches, direct alliances between unions within and across borders, etc.

[LeninistKing]

My friend, in nations like USA where the workers are too individualists, socialism from bellow doesn't work. In nations like USA where workers are too divided, not unionized and not politically informed, the only solution is Socialism from Above, Chavez, Rafael Correa and Evo Morales style of revolutionary-change by stages, with the help of the nationalist-bourgeoise, Mao and Stalinist style. I am a realist, and impatient. Why wait for anarcho-communism which might be 400 years from today, when we could have a United People's Party in America composed of progressive-democrats, independent americans, libertarians, social-democrats, apolitical americans, poor americans, oppressed nationalities and conspiracy theory movements altogether into 1 front to fight the lies and satanic oppression of the Monster Zionist Machine of Democrats-Republican Siamese satanic fascist monster.

Face it my friends, wake up, we won't defeat the satanic monster of Democrats-Republicans which is a 2 headed evil monster without Unity. Divided into libertarians, progressive-democrats, marxist-leninist, maoists, anarchist-syndicalists, feminists etc. we will always have Fascist Zionist Government in USA for ever and we will never have a humanist republic without wars and bailing out crooked bankers.

:)



oh sure, workers can liberate themselves by electing politicians to head the hierarchical state. fat chance.

any labor party in the USA would reflect the politics of the current labor bureaucracy, that is, it would be class collaborationist. in reality the "partnership" ideology of the labor bureaucracy would lead them to oppose this proposal. but even if they did form such a party, we can get an idea of its politics by looking at the social democratic unions in Europe and the neo-liberal orientation of many of these parties, such as the German social-dems, the Spanish PSOE, etc.

why not focus instead on a social movement alliance at the base? Why not focus on direct forms of rank and file participation, such as marches, direct alliances between unions within and across borders, etc.

[KC]

Edit

[Kassad]

A mass workers party isn't going to come into play until a revolutionary situation is in place. Meaning that until a revolution is actually possible and more of the proletariat becomes class conscious, revolutionary parties cannot really do much besides plan, prepare and organize for this opportunity. Building a 'united socialist party' without any potential for revolution is just foolish.

[LeninistKing]

Kassad: You are very right !! There is not an objective revolutionary situation in the good old USA of Wal-Marts, Mcdonalds and the happy christmas. Most americans can still find bread on their table 2 to 3 times a day, people are still eating their burgers, can still do their groceries (even though cheap foods) but most people, even the poorest sectors in U.S.A. can still get food either from food-banks, food-stamps and/or from charities.

And we gotta be realist, as long as american's stomachs is full we won't see a revolutionary situation yet. Only when poverty levels increase to the level of americans not being able to eat, we might see a rise in anger, because only anger caused by hunger can lead us to a real change we can believe in.

:)



A mass workers party isn't going to come into play until a revolutionary situation is in place. Meaning that until a revolution is actually possible and more of the proletariat becomes class conscious, revolutionary parties cannot really do much besides plan, prepare and organize for this opportunity. Building a 'united socialist party' without any potential for revolution is just foolish.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Kassad: You are very right !! There is not an objective revolutionary situation in the good old USA of Wal-Marts, Mcdonalds and the happy christmas. Most americans can still find bread on their table 2 to 3 times a day, people are still eating their burgers, can still do their groceries (even though cheap foods) but most people, even the poorest sectors in U.S.A. can still get food either from food-banks, food-stamps and/or from charities.

And we gotta be realist, as long as american's stomachs is full we won't see a revolutionary situation yet. Only when poverty levels increase to the level of americans not being able to eat, we might see a rise in anger, because only anger caused by hunger can lead us to a real change we can believe in.

This is not true at all. With such an atrocious anti-worker outlook, I wonder how you can call yourself a socialist. I happen to be one of those [Australians] with bread on their table and a full stomach. The idea that I have to go hungry before I can engage in class struggle is a suicidal and condesending mentality. If this is your position, that workers have to starve before they can overthrow the bourgeoisie, why don't you support the most barbaric factions of the bourgeoisie and the most extreme austerity measures? Afterall, poverty and hunger produce revolutionary potential, why don't you help speed up the process.

Obviously you've never worked a day in your life if you think that the class struggle in America (or the entire first world) does not exist or that the working class does not suffer from real poverty (albeit not widespread hunger). I would truly love to know where you live, where you work, what you eat, what you wear, etc. I think we all know how ironic it would be.

No, we don't need widespread starvation. No, we don't need a united 'socialist' electoral front.

[LeninistKing]

And with your sectarian mentality, like most dogmatic-marxists, the USA will sink under the tyranny of hardcore full police-fascist state. With your perfectionist world view, waiting for Wal Mart workers to overthrow the capitalist system we are doomed. With your lack of knowledge about how the world really works, we are doomed. And yes we do need a United Leftist Front in the Opposition.

But i'd like to hear your alternative to the electoral system. How will you change USA outside of elections? Thru a revolution coup de etat by yourself? or by workers? hahaha

in the year 3000 maybe, or in your anarchist mentality, but not in this reality.

Get real, US workers alone without a United Front are real weak and WILL never overthrow capitalism and the imperialist fascist US corporate government, without a big third political party as an option to Democrats and Republicans.

Stop watching V. For Vendetta and Sci Fi movies.

Instead watch the real world. Watch the Venezuelan process, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in Bolivia. They are changing the world, electorally and utopianly like you want

:laugh:





No, we don't need widespread starvation. No, we don't need a united 'socialist' electoral front.

[LeninistKing]

By the way you don't talk like a real socialist at all. A real socialist is humble and compassionate. Instead of bashing my points of view, you should respect them. Nobody has absolute truths, your opinion is just an opinion not a fact, and even if were a fact, i am entitled to say what the hell i want to say. You can't force something on me. besides when did i say that we have to wait to hungry. How dumb you are, i just said that the worse you are economically the more revolutionary you are. So don't tell me socialists are rich now. If all people were rich and economically stable there wouldn't be a need for socialism. If i was rich i wouldn't be socialist.

.


This is not true at all. With such an atrocious anti-worker outlook, I wonder how you can call yourself a socialist. I happen to be one of those [Australians] with bread on their table and a full stomach. The idea that I have to go hungry before I can engage in class struggle is a suicidal and condesending mentality. If this is your position, that workers have to starve before they can overthrow the bourgeoisie, why don't you support the most barbaric factions of the bourgeoisie and the most extreme austerity measures? Afterall, poverty and hunger produce revolutionary potential, why don't you help speed up the process.

Obviously you've never worked a day in your life if you think that the class struggle in America (or the entire first world) does not exist or that the working class does not suffer from real poverty (albeit not widespread hunger). I would truly love to know where you live, where you work, what you eat, what you wear, etc. I think we all know how ironic it would be.

No, we don't need widespread starvation. No, we don't need a united 'socialist' electoral front.

[Rusty Shackleford]

dude calm down leninistking. from what i have been able to understand there are 3 ways to overthrow capitalism.

1)Politically with parties and elections
2)Politically and economically. Parties working the electoral front and unions physically crippling capitalism through strikes and other measures
3)Economically. Unions banding together and ultimately extorting the means of production from the capitalists by striking occupying and defying orders.


Starvation causes social unrest but it is nothing to strive for. lack of anythign causes unrest personally and if its a big problem, socially. Theredson's thread on cigarettes was a bit funny but had some truth to it. say all cigarettes were banned in the US. a LARGE portion of the nation would be angry beyond their imagination. smoking is not on class lines but many workers do smoke to help cope with working conditions and the stress of american life. the bourgeoisie smokes as well but you wont see them taking up arms with the workers because the for the bourgeoisie, their wealth and politics allows them to bypass laws with greater ease than the working class. it may be a spark but is not the sole cause of revolutionary sentiment. and i dont think in my lifetime i will ever see that kind of law passed.

Now, take into consideration the second amendment. the right are terrified of having their guns taken away. some guy on the east coast killed 3 cops because he thought they were coming for his guns. when guns are threatened you have the right taking up arms in defense. the 'left'(democrats and the general american liberal) though would see it as a victory to ban guns but they are fools. it neuters the working class and allows for more state repression.

as for a mass workers party, kassad hit the nail on the head. there may be minor revolutionary parties in existence today but they wont be in the spotlight until revolutionary sentiment is actually large.

for a while i used to think that if some reactionary or hardcore right wing party took control of a country that the people would rise up. doesnt work like that and one should not hope for that. look at Europe in the 30s it was the hayday for fascism in the world but the only major opposition was in the spanish civil war. only when the soviet union was invaded did it tackle fascism head on.

[Q]

And with your sectarian mentality, like most dogmatic-marxists, the USA will sink under the tyranny of hardcore full police-fascist state. With your perfectionist world view, waiting for Wal Mart workers to overthrow the capitalist system we are doomed. With your lack of knowledge about how the world really works, we are doomed. And yes we do need a United Leftist Front in the Opposition.

But i'd like to hear your alternative to the electoral system. How will you change USA outside of elections? Thru a revolution coup de etat by yourself? or by workers? hahaha

in the year 3000 maybe, or in your anarchist mentality, but not in this reality.

Get real, US workers alone without a United Front are real weak and WILL never overthrow capitalism and the imperialist fascist US corporate government, without a big third political party as an option to Democrats and Republicans.

Stop watching V. For Vendetta and Sci Fi movies.

Instead watch the real world. Watch the Venezuelan process, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in Bolivia. They are changing the world, electorally and utopianly like you want

:laugh:


By the way you don't talk like a real socialist at all. A real socialist is humble and compassionate. Instead of bashing my points of view, you should respect them. Nobody has absolute truths, your opinion is just an opinion not a fact, and even if were a fact, i am entitled to say what the hell i want to say. You can't force something on me. besides when did i say that we have to wait to hungry. How dumb you are, i just said that the worse you are economically the more revolutionary you are. So don't tell me socialists are rich now. If all people were rich and economically stable there wouldn't be a need for socialism. If i was rich i wouldn't be socialist.

.

Get that misplaced smug off your face.

NR made a very good point. "Verelendung" isn't at all what is driving class struggle and to argue such that if the working class starve, revolution will occur is not only stupid and wrong, but in fact a very reactionary stance.

Marxists always support the fight for better conditions, be it wage, rights, whatever. Because through this fight the awareness of "together we stand strong", or class consciousness, is elevated. And it is only by supporting and forging the working class as a class that we can carry out our historic tasks in replacing this system.

Secondly, referring to your earlier posts on "voting in socialism" and "socialism from above". Again, you're quite wrong. The very fact that Chavez, after having been 10 years in power, is still heading a capitalist country, should be enough to point out that "radical" reformism is a dead road.

More importantly, as Marx pointed out all those years ago the "liberation of the working class can only be an act of the working class itself", this remains correct today. The "socialism from above" approach achieves nothing more than to put the task of emancipation away from the working class into the hands of "great leaders", which subsequently use their power for their own ends. A very anti-Marxist position indeed.

Because the emancipation of the working class can only be an act of itself, as a collective, we as revolutionaries should aid this process in every way possible. The socialist revolution in itself is nothing more than the highest expression of the self-emancipation of the working class, by consciously taking over power in society and taking life into their own hands. For this we need a revolutionary party, not a broad reformist one with merely a revolutionary entryist current.

[LeninistKing]

Well, because i am a realist, not a utopian. I work with reality, not by what books say. Marx, Engels, Trotsky, just gave us the guidelines, and it would real nice if all workers today were awaken and open minded to Marxist Literature. But the reality is another one.

You can't use Marx, Lenin and Trotsky's views as a dogmatic-recipe for USA. Europe, and Russia are not USA nor Venezuela. In fact Karl Marx even insulted, Simon Bolivar, the great liberator of Venezuela.

And by the way i am not a dogmatic Marxist, nor Leninist, nor Trotskist, I am a synthetic socialist. There is no law forcing you to follow Marx dogma 100%, we don't have to abide by what Marx, Lenin or anybody wrote.

You can't apply Marx and Lenin literature in USA. USA is a complicated society, full of brainwashing from CNN, FOX news, and libertarian conspiracy theory propaganda.

The US exploited majority of people are influenced by libertarian ideology, by non-marxist ideology and only a very few are open minded to Socialism.

You cannot expect and wait for the US workers to become socialists and to let them overthrow the US capitalist system by themselves.

Get real, wake up, it just won't happen in USA.

The real solution for USA is a United Socialist Front, or US workers endorsing The Green Party with Ralph Nader, Cynthia Mckinney as candidates for President, and Vice-President.

,

Get that misplaced smug off your face.

NR made a very good point. "Verelendung" isn't at all what is driving class struggle and to argue such that if the working class starve, revolution will occur is not only stupid and wrong, but in fact a very reactionary stance.

Marxists always support the fight for better conditions, be it wage, rights, whatever. Because through this fight the awareness of "together we stand strong", or class consciousness, is elevated. And it is only by supporting and forging the working class as a class that we can carry out our historic tasks in replacing this system.

Secondly, referring to your earlier posts on "voting in socialism" and "socialism from above". Again, you're quite wrong. The very fact that Chavez, after having been 10 years in power, is still heading a capitalist country, should be enough to point out that "radical" reformism is a dead road.

More importantly, as Marx pointed out all those years ago the "liberation of the working class can only be an act of the working class itself", this remains correct today. The "socialism from above" approach achieves nothing more than to put the task of emancipation away from the working class into the hands of "great leaders", which subsequently use their power for their own ends. A very anti-Marxist position indeed.

Because the emancipation of the working class can only be an act of itself, as a collective, we as revolutionaries should aid this process in every way possible. The socialist revolution in itself is nothing more than the highest expression of the self-emancipation of the working class, by consciously taking over power in society and taking life into their own hands. For this we need a revolutionary party, not a broad reformist one with merely a revolutionary entryist current.

[Q]

US workers WILL NOT OVERTHROW THE US CAPITALIST SYSTEM !!
So, why do you call yourself a socialist again?

And please don't double-post.

[Sam_b]

This thread is hilarious, my favourite point being

By the way you don't talk like a real socialist at all. A real socialist is humble and compassionate

But anyway...

The main problem with this united 'party' view is a layered and complex one, the most obvious error being the parallels between a united workers party and the Democrats/Republicans or other ruling parties in their specific countries. The whole point of a workers party is fundamentally not to be an attempt to gain territory over the same ground as established parties of the ruling class, as we know reformism simply does not work. What this thread sounds like to me is certain people advocating that we create a workers party in order for the persuit of political or state power through the bouregois democratic channels available. No. Socialists should of course spurn ultra-leftism in my view and stand for elections, but only of course for agitatory roles.

I would like to reiterate the point made in the post above, namely:
Marxists always support the fight for better conditions, be it wage, rights, whatever. Because through this fight the awareness of "together we stand strong", or class consciousness, is elevated. And it is only by supporting and forging the working class as a class that we can carry out our historic tasks in replacing this system.
The emphasis on this sentence is important. It is not through fully caving to bourgeois electoral politics that we somehow build a socialist world: it is entirely the fault of this system that politics has been so far removed from the working class, the majority who should be making decisions, that there is apathy and control of the system by the ruling class. We fundamentally do not challenge the system by being a part of the system itself, but working from a grassroots level to build an alternative of our own. A party does not necessarily equate to a united front, what we need is grassroots agitators of all leftist stripes from below, organising in our communities, trade unions, workplaces and schools, in order to develop class consciousness and begin to regenerate the confidence that the class had in taking on the capitalist and authoritarian system that it did in 1917. It will be a slow and arduous process, but as Lenin said we must 'patiently explain', develop our theory, and be active where and when we can to help build the collective consciousness of our class. A united party will not change this overnight, and by the notion of your arguments for it it would probably splinter and fracture in a matter of minutes.

By the way, look up your definitions of fascism. Actually, look up your Leninism if you're going to be a 'LeninistKing', whatever that is.

[Intelligitimate]

I hate to burst your bubble, LK, but If you put every single member of a Leftist organization into one party, it would have a membership around 3,000-5,000. The CPUSA at its height had over 100,000 dues paying members, and it was far more radical than this amalgamation of Trots, anarchists, "Left" communists, and Marxist-Leninists would be. It didn't start the revolution.

[Zeus the Moose]

This "labor party" issue pushed by the CWI and IMT sections (splits of each other) in the US is merely a way of excusing their support for the Greens and Nader. They do not want to engage with the socialist parties. So their drop-in-the-bucket support, critically meaningless, is added to these political campaigns which are not about socialism.

I am sure that the IMT would prefer to spend decades writing about their dream of a reformist "labor party" than spending time in the present to help build a mass revolutionary party. This is what the IMT does in Britain, believing that socialists can reclaim the Labour Party, instead of trying to build an alternative.

It has less to do with unity, more to do with conforming things to their own poorly formulated political perspective. The IMT, of all groups, is NOT interested in a "united socialist front", even when we are talking about their US section. Though I can't say that for any party here. But the IMT is the least likely to do so with the politics they have now. They want to see a Labor Party created (it's more important to them that the party be created by labor unions than by revolutionary working people), in which they will act as an entryist group.


Agreed, though I think there's something more going on here as well, which you've alluded to with the comment about how the IMT does things in Britain. The IMT is a very British organisation, despite the seemingly large followings that it's been able to gather in Spain, Mexico, and Venezuela, and this focus on "mass parties of labour" flow from that Britain-centric view (and a rather rosy view of the history of such parties, I'd say). The introduction to the WIL pamphlet Prospects for a Labor Party, for example, says this: "[t]hroughout the English-speaking world: in Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand[,] and Canada, mass parties of labor exist." To the credit of the writer, he does acknowledge complexities that would take into account other 19th century socialist parties, but the indication given by this paragraph is that the way in which the parties in the English-speaking world are the model to follow when creating any sort of mass workers party in the US. This, I would argue, requires a fairly large dose of over-optimism (or perhaps denial) about the political potential of the Labour Party UK from the beginning, not to mention its various twists and turns over the decades.

It seems like Chapter 8 of Mike Macnair's book (onoz, I've become one of them!) gives some good explanations as to why the IMT does this, but this might need to be something to be developed further. More and more, though, it seems that the strategy of "Kautskyism" may be more relevant that thought for the past nine decades.

EDIT: This is more to the point of the OP, but hopefully this helps tease out the ideas that a Labor Party != a united socialist party, and barring a resurgence of a democratic and militant union movement, the theoretical former would almost certainly be to the right of the theoretical latter.

However, this isn't to say that simply grouping all (or most, or some, or whatever) of the groups that currently exist today would result in something lasting or positive, either. In the immediate future, I could see some sort of non-competition pact for the 2010 elections as being a decent, albeit very small, step forward. Obviously there are still going to be contests in some areas; the PFP gubernatorial nomination is a fairly good example of this, where SP-USA member Stewart Alexander is running for the nomination against PSL member Carlos Alvarez. While I personally hope Stewart gets the nomination, I'd be perfectly happy to support Carlos if he does end up getting the nomination (not that it particularly matters since I don't live in California.) But the point is the unification of the socialist movement isn't something that's going to happen overnight, and if it did, it would probably end up pleasing no one. However, partial efforts are certainly to be welcomed, assuming they don't come at the condition of merely papering over political differences.

[Niccolò Rossi]

And with your sectarian mentality, like most dogmatic-marxists, the USA will sink under the tyranny of hardcore full police-fascist state.

What is 'sectarian' about my mentality?


With your perfectionist world view, waiting for Wal Mart workers to overthrow the capitalist system we are doomed.

You are a condescending middle class moron. Again, I ask, have you ever worked a day in your life?

Also, I have never advocated that we 'wait for Wal Mart workers to otherthrow capitalism'. Stop trying to beat up a strawman


With your lack of knowledge about how the world really works, we are doomed.

"By the way you don't talk like a real socialist at all. A real socialist is humble and compassionate. Instead of bashing my points of view, you should respect them. Nobody has absolute truths, your opinion is just an opinion not a fact, and even if were a fact, i am entitled to say what the hell i want to say. You can't force something on me."

Sam is right. This is a classic.


But i'd like to hear your alternative to the electoral system. How will you change USA outside of elections? Thru a revolution coup de etat by yourself? or by workers? hahaha

A revolution made by the working class, yes. I don't see what's funny about it.


in the year 3000 maybe, or in your anarchist mentality, but not in this reality.

What exactly nmakes my mentality 'anarchist'?


Get real, US workers alone without a United Front are real weak and WILL never overthrow capitalism and the imperialist fascist US corporate government, without a big third political party as an option to Democrats and Republicans.

You put the cart before the horse. Political organisations don't create class struggle, the class struggle creates political organisations.


Instead watch the real world. Watch the Venezuelan process, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Evo Morales in Bolivia.

I have been. There is nothing revolutionary about them.


Instead of bashing my points of view, you should respect them. Nobody has absolute truths, your opinion is just an opinion not a fact, and even if were a fact, i am entitled to say what the hell i want to say.

Don't be rediculous. I suppose the ideology of the ruling class must also be respected as a different point of view? Our politics is just an opinion, they have a right to theirs aswell, right?

Yes, I have an opinion. Yes, you have an opinion. I think my opinion is right, thus, I'm going to bloody well argue that it is. If you disagree, counter it. Stop whining about it and start defending your argument.


How dumb you are

Again: By the way you don't talk like a real socialist at all. A real socialist is humble and compassionate. Instead of bashing my points of view, you should respect them.


i just said that the worse you are economically the more revolutionary you are

Sure, but your still wrong. This argument actually directly contradicts your condescending attitude toward Wal-Mart workers.


So don't tell me socialists are rich now.

I didn't.


You can't apply Marx and Lenin literature in USA. USA is a complicated society, full of brainwashing from CNN, FOX news, and libertarian conspiracy theory propaganda

For a complicated society, you sure make it simple.


The US exploited majority of people are influenced by libertarian ideology, by non-marxist ideology and only a very few are open minded to Socialism.

I think its rediculous to asser that the majority of US workers are 'influenced by libertarian ideology'. the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. There is nothing surprising or unique about the fact that in the US 'non-marxist ideology' is dominant, quite the contrary.


The real solution for USA is a United Socialist Front, or US workers endorsing The Green Party with Ralph Nader, Cynthia Mckinney as candidates for President, and Vice-President.

If this is was a United Socialist Front amounts to, I'm affraid there is nothing 'socialist' about it.

[chegitz guevara]

Any attempt to force a marriage of American socialism (or any socialism for that matter) will be doomed to failure. We need to learn to walk before we can run, let alone dance. Before we can even talk about a united front, we have to start talking to each other, participating in joint actions. We have to let go of the idea that our group alone has the answers, and that we are only working with other groups to try and win them over. We need to put socialism first, and our parties and organizations second.

I engage with other comrades because I don't have the answers. I have some answers, but I certainly don't have all of them, or even any of the most important ones. Maybe by engaging with comrades I'll learn something valuable. True, a lot of them don't have the answers either, but they all have some of the answers. The more we come together, the more we can piece together the rights ones and toss out all the bad ones we all hold.

[Antiks72]

This is not true at all. With such an atrocious anti-worker outlook, I wonder how you can call yourself a socialist. I happen to be one of those [Australians] with bread on their table and a full stomach. The idea that I have to go hungry before I can engage in class struggle is a suicidal and condesending mentality. If this is your position, that workers have to starve before they can overthrow the bourgeoisie, why don't you support the most barbaric factions of the bourgeoisie and the most extreme austerity measures? Afterall, poverty and hunger produce revolutionary potential, why don't you help speed up the process.

Obviously you've never worked a day in your life if you think that the class struggle in America (or the entire first world) does not exist or that the working class does not suffer from real poverty (albeit not widespread hunger). I would truly love to know where you live, where you work, what you eat, what you wear, etc. I think we all know how ironic it would be.

No, we don't need widespread starvation. No, we don't need a united 'socialist' electoral front.


If you look at the situation in Russia 1917, and the Paris Commune, the situation was dire. Life is still too good for the masses right now. Doesn't mean we shouldn't propagandize though.

[Kassad]

The real solution for USA is a United Socialist Front, or US workers endorsing The Green Party with Ralph Nader, Cynthia Mckinney as candidates for President, and Vice-President.

How the fuck are you calling yourself a Leninist, or even a revolutionary? These are bourgeois, capitalist candidates. Ralph Nader's anti-immigrant and falls in line with the media's demonization of China for the most part. Neither he nor McKinney support workers revolution or anything of the sort. Electoral campaigns are not going to bring revolution. They haven't in any of the revolutions that we respect (to different extents) today. What's needed is a proletarian movement and that doesn't come out of elections, nor does it spring out of nowhere. It requires mobilization of the working class and the intervention of revolutionary vanguards.

[vulemdal]

Great reply and contribution to the thread, unlike some of the other posts. The basic idea behind calling for a united front is valid (completely irregardless of how likely one or more people think it is): the left would further leftist goals best by working together. And the idea of focusing efforts in existing mass organizations... where the actual workers are (!) is also valid. This is the goal of the IMT as well as other groups: you cannot not have real progress without the workers (the majority) taking a primary role. Another point is that these and other goals can be important to whatever organization, but that doesn't mean they are the only issues that organization focuses time and resources toward.

It is always easier to find differences in opinion or actions than it is to find common areas where there is agreement. Unfortunately, modes of communication such as this forum lends itself to shooting down opposing or wrong (perhaps wrongly perceived?) ideas rather than identifying common causes.


Any attempt to force a marriage of American socialism (or any socialism for that matter) will be doomed to failure. We need to learn to walk before we can run, let alone dance. Before we can even talk about a united front, we have to start talking to each other, participating in joint actions. We have to let go of the idea that our group alone has the answers, and that we are only working with other groups to try and win them over. We need to put socialism first, and our parties and organizations second.

I engage with other comrades because I don't have the answers. I have some answers, but I certainly don't have all of them, or even any of the most important ones. Maybe by engaging with comrades I'll learn something valuable. True, a lot of them don't have the answers either, but they all have some of the answers. The more we come together, the more we can piece together the rights ones and toss out all the bad ones we all hold.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm not sure that focusing efforts on existing mass organizations where the "workers actually are" is valid. The AFL-CIO has 70 years experience of dealing with idealistic young comrades attempting entryism into the union. When asked in the 1930s about the use of Communists as organizers for the then independent CIO, John Lweis replied, "Who gets the bird, the hunter or the dog?" They are perfectly willing to use us for their own ends, but we never get the bird.

The vast majority of the worker class is outside the unions. Union membership only accounts for 12.4% of the work force in America, including the government. When you account only for the private workforce, that number drops to around 7%. Granted, the French worker class does a lot with a similarly organized 7%, but American unions aren't as militant.

We need to look at that other 93% of the worker class.

Let's face it, we failed in the 20th Century, badly. Epic fail. We need to start over from scratch, reexamine all of our deeply held beliefs and test them, see if they are wanting, if they still hold true. We need to approach the situation scientifically, not dogmatically. Just because Lenin said it doesn't mean it applies to us. Maybe it does, but we have to prove it. It's not good enough to just believe it.

This is one of the reasons we need to start working together. We lack the mass to be able to test any of our hypotheses in reality. Until we test them, we don't have theories, just guesses. We can't make a revolution based entirely on guesses.

[vulemdal]

You have a point... trade unions by anyone's measurement are not near as powerful nor popular as they were in the past. But when I say 'existing mass organizations' I'm not only referring to trade unions. Our two major political parties dominate every aspect and level of government, and they also capture the majority of the public's votes, political action, and monetary contributions. These organizations have an irrefutable stranglehold on the majority, and I don't believe it is because the average American feels that either party does a good job at reflecting their ideals or of running the government: their chosen party (Democrat or Republican) just does better than the alternative in their mind. In other words, it is the lesser of two evils. Since the majority of people do the majority of their political action through these existing mass organizations, I think it is important for us to make a connection with those people within this two-party system who may be fed up with the two options but don't see or haven't sufficiently looked for an alternative. This connection can be made within and without the two-party system, and I like the idea of covering both fronts.

My idea of connecting to sympathetic people within the two-party system is mainly focused on having face-to-face discussions with the activist Democrats while working towards common goals, since 1) this is what I think is the most civil and convincing way talk politically and 2) the activists within the Democrat party are more open and more interested in furthering many similar goals to the general leftist movement. This method also doesn't blindly throw support behind the two-party system, which I think would undermine more than help the leftist movement. Right now, I think this method is very important and useful since there are plenty of cynical progressive activists who jumped on the Obama bandwagon and found out it was going the wrong way. Now they are jumping off, and they will either become apolitical or become active in a way that is actually consistent with the goals they thought they were furthering from the beginning.

I'm not one to believe that the leftist path was laid out in detail to us by Lenin or anyone else for that matter. There were many important people in the past who had some amazing ideas that can be applied in some way to our current situation, and Lenin was one of these figures. But our present situation is different in some major ways, and the application of those ideas as well as potentially finding new ideas is something we'll have to come up with together. This doesn't mean starting from scratch... it just means that we need to be open to new ideas as well as new application of the old ideas.

I'm not sure that focusing efforts on existing mass organizations where the "workers actually are" is valid. The AFL-CIO has 70 years experience of dealing with idealistic young comrades attempting entryism into the union. When asked in the 1930s about the use of Communists as organizers for the then independent CIO, John Lweis replied, "Who gets the bird, the hunter or the dog?" They are perfectly willing to use us for their own ends, but we never get the bird.

The vast majority of the worker class is outside the unions. Union membership only accounts for 12.4% of the work force in America, including the government. When you account only for the private workforce, that number drops to around 7%. Granted, the French worker class does a lot with a similarly organized 7%, but American unions aren't as militant.

We need to look at that other 93% of the worker class.

Let's face it, we failed in the 20th Century, badly. Epic fail. We need to start over from scratch, reexamine all of our deeply held beliefs and test them, see if they are wanting, if they still hold true. We need to approach the situation scientifically, not dogmatically. Just because Lenin said it doesn't mean it applies to us. Maybe it does, but we have to prove it. It's not good enough to just believe it.

This is one of the reasons we need to start working together. We lack the mass to be able to test any of our hypotheses in reality. Until we test them, we don't have theories, just guesses. We can't make a revolution based entirely on guesses.

[fredbergen]

Excerpt from "On the Labor Party Question in America"
Leon Trotsky, 1932

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/xx/lp.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/xx/lp.htm)

3. A long period of confusion in the Comintern led many people to forget a very simple but absolutely irrevocable principle that a Marxist, a proletarian revolutionist, cannot present himself before the working class with two banners. He cannot say at a workers meeting: I have tickets for a first class party and other tickets cheaper for the stupid ones. If I am a Communist I must fight for the Communist Party. [...]

7. Must we join that “Labor Party” or remain outside? This is no more a question of principle, but of circumstances and possibilities. The question itself has arisen from the experience of the British Communists and the “Labor Party”, and that experience has served far more the “Labor Party” than the Communists. It is evident that the possibility of participating in and of utilizing a “Labor Party” movement would be greater in the period of its inception, that is, in the period when the part is not a party but an amorphic politic mass movement. That we must participate in it at that time and with the greatest energy is without question, but not to help form a “Labor Party”, which will exclude us and fight against us but to push the progressive elements of the movement more and more to the left by our activity and propaganda. I know this seems too simple for the new great school which searches in every way for a method to jump over its feeble head.

8. To consider a “Labor Party” as an integrated series of united fronts signifies a misunderstanding of the notions, both of united fronts and of the party. The united front is determined by concrete circumstances and for concrete aims. The Party is permanent. By a united front, we reserve for ourselves a free hand to break with our temporary allies. In a common party with these allies, we are bound by discipline and even by the fact of the party itself. The experience of the Kuomintang and of the Anglo-Russian Committee must be well understood. The strategic line dictated by the lack of spirit of independence of the Communist Party and by the desire to enter into the “big” party (Kuomintang, “Labor Party”) produced inevitably all the consequences of opportunistic adaptation to the will of the allies and through them to the enemies. We must educate our comrades in the belief in the invincibility of the Communist idea and in the future of the Communist Party. The parallel struggle for another party produces inevitably in their minds a duality and drives them on the road of opportunism.

9. The policy of the united front has not only its great disadvantages but its limits and its dangers. The united front even in the form of temporary blocs often impels one to opportunistic deviations frequently fatal as for example Brandler in 1923. That danger becomes absolutely overwhelming in a situation when the so-called Communist Party becomes a part of a “Labor Party” created by the grace of the propaganda and action of the Communist Party itself.

10. That the Labor Party can become an arena of our successful struggle and that the Labor Party created as a barrier to Communism can, under certain circumstances, strengthen the Communist Party is true, but only under the condition that we consider the Labor Party not as “our” party, but as an arena in which we are acting as an absolutely independent Communist Party.

11. All the resolutions about the British Labor Party must be taken into consideration not as they were written before the experiences of the Comintern and the British Communist Party in that regard, but in the light of that experience. The attempt mechanically to apply them now in 1932 to the American conditions is characteristic of the epigones’ mind and has nothing to do with Marxism and Leninism.

[LeninistKing]

And who gives you the fucking right to tell me how to think. Besides with your fucking negative mentality we are fucking doomed. Don't be so sectarian and perfectionist. You think like most ultra-leftists who prefer fascism (Bush and Obama) over Green Party and Nader.





How the fuck are you calling yourself a Leninist, or even a revolutionary? These are bourgeois, capitalist candidates. Ralph Nader's anti-immigrant and falls in line with the media's demonization of China for the most part. Neither he nor McKinney support workers revolution or anything of the sort. Electoral campaigns are not going to bring revolution. They haven't in any of the revolutions that we respect (to different extents) today. What's needed is a proletarian movement and that doesn't come out of elections, nor does it spring out of nowhere. It requires mobilization of the working class and the intervention of revolutionary vanguards.

[LeninistKing]

I don't have to do what Trotsky, Marx and Lenin wrote. What we need is a solution for USA and the best solution i see for USA is a United Socialist Front. Lenin, Trotsky nor Marx were americans nor they knew any thing about the psychology and sociology of this complicated society.

Learn that being dogmatic and perfection is counter productive, be realist not dogmatic and perfectionist.

.




Excerpt from "On the Labor Party Question in America"

Leon Trotsky, 1932


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/xx/lp.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/xx/lp.htm)

3. A long period of confusion in the Comintern led many people to forget a very simple but absolutely irrevocable principle that a Marxist, a proletarian revolutionist, cannot present himself before the working class with two banners. He cannot say at a workers meeting: I have tickets for a first class party and other tickets cheaper for the stupid ones. If I am a Communist I must fight for the Communist Party. [...]

7. Must we join that “Labor Party” or remain outside? This is no more a question of principle, but of circumstances and possibilities. The question itself has arisen from the experience of the British Communists and the “Labor Party”, and that experience has served far more the “Labor Party” than the Communists. It is evident that the possibility of participating in and of utilizing a “Labor Party” movement would be greater in the period of its inception, that is, in the period when the part is not a party but an amorphic politic mass movement. That we must participate in it at that time and with the greatest energy is without question, but not to help form a “Labor Party”, which will exclude us and fight against us but to push the progressive elements of the movement more and more to the left by our activity and propaganda. I know this seems too simple for the new great school which searches in every way for a method to jump over its feeble head.

8. To consider a “Labor Party” as an integrated series of united fronts signifies a misunderstanding of the notions, both of united fronts and of the party. The united front is determined by concrete circumstances and for concrete aims. The Party is permanent. By a united front, we reserve for ourselves a free hand to break with our temporary allies. In a common party with these allies, we are bound by discipline and even by the fact of the party itself. The experience of the Kuomintang and of the Anglo-Russian Committee must be well understood. The strategic line dictated by the lack of spirit of independence of the Communist Party and by the desire to enter into the “big” party (Kuomintang, “Labor Party”) produced inevitably all the consequences of opportunistic adaptation to the will of the allies and through them to the enemies. We must educate our comrades in the belief in the invincibility of the Communist idea and in the future of the Communist Party. The parallel struggle for another party produces inevitably in their minds a duality and drives them on the road of opportunism.

9. The policy of the united front has not only its great disadvantages but its limits and its dangers. The united front even in the form of temporary blocs often impels one to opportunistic deviations frequently fatal as for example Brandler in 1923. That danger becomes absolutely overwhelming in a situation when the so-called Communist Party becomes a part of a “Labor Party” created by the grace of the propaganda and action of the Communist Party itself.

10. That the Labor Party can become an arena of our successful struggle and that the Labor Party created as a barrier to Communism can, under certain circumstances, strengthen the Communist Party is true, but only under the condition that we consider the Labor Party not as “our” party, but as an arena in which we are acting as an absolutely independent Communist Party.

11. All the resolutions about the British Labor Party must be taken into consideration not as they were written before the experiences of the Comintern and the British Communist Party in that regard, but in the light of that experience. The attempt mechanically to apply them now in 1932 to the American conditions is characteristic of the epigones’ mind and has nothing to do with Marxism and Leninism.

[LeninistKing]

Most people in this site are too dogmatic and perfectionists. And they even hate Hugo Chavez, FARC rebels. They think that we have to wait to Wal Mart workers to overthrow capitalism by themselves.

They prefer Obama and Sarah Palin, than unite into a United Front with other people who don't think like them. How dumb and utopians they are

.



You have a point... trade unions by anyone's measurement are not near as powerful nor popular as they were in the past. But when I say 'existing mass organizations' I'm not only referring to trade unions. Our two major political parties dominate every aspect and level of government, and they also capture the majority of the public's votes, political action, and monetary contributions. These organizations have an irrefutable stranglehold on the majority, and I don't believe it is because the average American feels that either party does a good job at reflecting their ideals or of running the government: their chosen party (Democrat or Republican) just does better than the alternative in their mind. In other words, it is the lesser of two evils. Since the majority of people do the majority of their political action through these existing mass organizations, I think it is important for us to make a connection with those people within this two-party system who may be fed up with the two options but don't see or haven't sufficiently looked for an alternative. This connection can be made within and without the two-party system, and I like the idea of covering both fronts.

My idea of connecting to sympathetic people within the two-party system is mainly focused on having face-to-face discussions with the activist Democrats while working towards common goals, since 1) this is what I think is the most civil and convincing way talk politically and 2) the activists within the Democrat party are more open and more interested in furthering many similar goals to the general leftist movement. This method also doesn't blindly throw support behind the two-party system, which I think would undermine more than help the leftist movement. Right now, I think this method is very important and useful since there are plenty of cynical progressive activists who jumped on the Obama bandwagon and found out it was going the wrong way. Now they are jumping off, and they will either become apolitical or become active in a way that is actually consistent with the goals they thought they were furthering from the beginning.

I'm not one to believe that the leftist path was laid out in detail to us by Lenin or anyone else for that matter. There were many important people in the past who had some amazing ideas that can be applied in some way to our current situation, and Lenin was one of these figures. But our present situation is different in some major ways, and the application of those ideas as well as potentially finding new ideas is something we'll have to come up with together. This doesn't mean starting from scratch... it just means that we need to be open to new ideas as well as new application of the old ideas.

[Kassad]

And who gives you the fucking right to tell me how to think. Besides with your fucking negative mentality we are fucking doomed. Don't be so sectarian and perfectionist. You think like most ultra-leftists who prefer fascism (Bush and Obama) over Green Party and Nader.

You're a reformist and a defender of the bourgeois state. I don't give a fuck what you have to say.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't have to do what Trotsky, Marx and Lenin wrote. What we need is a solution for USA and the best solution i see for USA is a United Socialist Front. Lenin, Trotsky nor Marx were americans nor they knew any thing about the psychology and sociology of this complicated society.

Learn that being dogmatic and perfection is counter productive, be realist not dogmatic and perfectionist.

.

No offense, but the vast majority of America doesn't even understand a thing about the psychology & sociology of this complicated society. I believe we must have the workers at the front lines, for they are the importance of a socialist revolution, but I fear they may not be capable of effectively re-arranging the economic system as good as they may re-arrange the political system. Could be wrong though, but it's something I think about sometimes.

[LeninistKing]

Help us build the INTERNATIONAL MARXIST WORLD PARTY !

http://www.socialist.net/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3596&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=26


http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/books/imt-manifesto-on-crisis-part-one-thumb.png
It is not enough to lament the situation the world finds itself in. It is necessary to act! Those who say: “I am not interested in politics” should have been born at another time. Today, it is not possible to escape from politics. Just try it! You may run to your home, lock the door, and hide under the bed. But politics will come to your house and knock on the door. Politics affects every aspect of our lives. The problem is that many people identify politics with the existing political parties and their leaders. They take one look at the scenes in the parliament, the careerism, the empty speeches, the broken promises and are alienated.

The anarchists draw the conclusion that we do not need a party. This is a mistake. If my house is falling down, I do not conclude that I must sleep in the street but that I must begin urgently to repair the house. If I am dissatisfied with the present leadership of the trade unions and the worker’s parties, I must fight for an alternative leadership, with a programme and a policy that is adequate to my needs.

The International Marxist Tendency is fighting for socialism in forty countries in five continents. We stand firmly on the foundations of Marxism. We defend the basic ideas, principles, policies and traditions worked out by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. At present our voice is still weak. For a long time the Marxists were compelled to swim against the stream. The International Marxist Tendency has proved its ability to stand firm in adverse conditions. But now we are swimming with the tide of history. All our perspectives have been confirmed by the march of events. This gives us an unshakable confidence in the ideas and methods of Marxism, the working class and the socialist future of humankind.

Starting with the most advanced workers and youth, our voice will reach the mass of the workers in every factory, trade union branch, shop stewards committee, every school and college, every worker’s district. To carry out this work we need your help. We need people to write articles, sell papers, raise money, and carry on work in the trade union and Labour movement. In the struggle for socialism, no contribution is too small and everybody can play a part. We want you to play your part too. Do not think: “I can make no difference”. Together, once we are organized, we can make a fundamental difference.

The working class holds in its hands a colossal power. Without the permission of the workers, not a light bulb shines, not a wheel turns, not a telephone rings. The problem is that the workers do not realise they have this power. Our task is to make them aware of it. We will fight for every reform, every advance no matter how small, because only through the struggle for advance under capitalism will the workers acquire the necessary confidence in their strength to change society.

Everywhere the mood of the masses is changing. In Latin America there is a revolutionary ferment, which will intensify and spread to other continents. In Britain, the USA and other industrialized nations many people who previously did not question the existing social order are now asking questions. Ideas that previously were listened to by small numbers will find an echo among a far broader public. The ground is being prepared for an unprecedented upsurge of the class struggle on a world scale.
When the USSR collapsed, we were told that history had ended. On the contrary, history has not yet begun. In the space of just 20 years capitalism has shown itself to be utterly bankrupt. It is necessary to fight for a socialist alternative! Our aim is to bring about a fundamental change in society and fight for socialism nationally and internationally.
We are fighting for the most important cause: the emancipation of the working class and the establishment of a new and higher form of human society.

We demand:

Opposition to the reactionary wars waged by imperialism.
Immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
A drastic cut in wasteful arms expenditure and a massive increase in social spending.
Full civil rights for soldiers, including the right to join trade unions and the right to strike.
Defend Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia against the aggressive plans of Washington!
Against racism! Defend the rights of all oppressed and exploited people! For the unity of all workers, irrespective of colour, race, nationality or religion.
For proletarian internationalism! Workers of the world unite!

That is the only really worthwhile cause in the first decade of the 21st century.






No offense, but the vast majority of America doesn't even understand a thing about the psychology & sociology of this complicated society. I believe we must have the workers at the front lines, for they are the importance of a socialist revolution, but I fear they may not be capable of effectively re-arranging the economic system as good as they may re-arrange the political system. Could be wrong though, but it's something I think about sometimes.