SEP's "Identity Politics" -- Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay Bigotry

[Obrero Rebelde]

An activist with Socialist Equality Party/SEP stated as follows in answer to being questioned why it does not take up the struggles against racism in the U.S. --

"The SEP avoids identity politics as it clouds the issue that these problems are PRIMARILY class-based. Fighting on ethnic lines divides us really quickly, and being conversant with Marxism, it is difficult for me to imagine we could solve the race question without (or before) solving the class question.

Marxists are in general a highly principled lot. They bring up issues and expand on them on principles and not emotions. This can seem repulsive (soul-less) to some but the outwardly dry method of analysis carries an inner fire so strong it burns, it lights, it is able to shine clarity to issues with such precision that one has to be conversant at a personal level with a Marxist to see this duality.

I believe we should try to build the largest possible working class movement. Getting most middle class (white?) americans to simply say "I am working class" would be a huge step. I'm not sure how helpful it is to bring up the race issue when the problem we need to solve is PRIMARILY one of class and we need people of all other differences to start seeing this PRIMARY difference.

Also, Marxists believe that the subjective conditions of the world (including racism, educated snobbery etc) are PRIMARILY a result of objective economic conditions of the society people live in. That is why Marxist literature ruthlessly attacks the class basis of society and does not take tangential paths on race."
__________________________________________________ ___

Marxist-Leninist Response:

"With all due respect, Comrade _____ , the SEP's line of "identity politics", as you present it above, smacks of racism, sexism, anti-queer bigotry, and reveals itself, from a scientific Marxist perspective, to be utterly bankrupt as a "revolutionary left" party.

Racism, sexism, anti-gay bigotry -- all of these are actual manifestations of the class contradiction which revolutionaries are bound by political principle to combat against. How else do you intend to defeat capitalism? By pretending it away, for gawdsakes?

I had not heard of your group before, and, I might add, now that I know your politics, I can see why you are all so very unknown to the masses of the people, which is perhaps fortunate for the general revolutionary left movement in this country.

I doubt that the SEP's incompetence at Marxism is necessarily due to its origins or political tendency. I know of a number of Trotskyist formations which ARE anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic -- such as, the Workers World Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation -- and I regard them as serious revolutionaries who belong within the revolutionary left fold. As for the SEP?

I must conclude that I cannot see the SEP as having any kind of significance in the U.S. revolutionary movement in the 21st Century and that your party's line on racism, sexism, and anti-gay bigotry (which you conveniently and unscientifically refer to as "identity politics" and refuse to recognize as essential parts of the class contradiction that must be eradicated from society) renders it purposeless in the United States, except, perhaps, to sew anti-Marxism and confusion into our movement.

Being "conversant" in Marxism necessarily requires U.S. Marxists to be conversant in racism, sexism and queer oppression. Short of that, one cannot be truly Marxist in this revolutionary theater."
__________________________________________________ ____

I would be interested in hearing others' views on this absurd concept of "identity politics". It doesn't sound even vaguely Marxist. Where did it come from?

Obrero Rebelde

[Crux]

Beyond running a website for compiling their secterian attacks (and occasionally interesting analysis) does the SEP take up any struggle at all?

The perspective the person you spoke to put forward is extremely mechanic and unmarxist, I would think that is obvious to anyone.

[Communist]

.
So this ML person said Workers World Party is Trotskyist? Most say Marxist-Leninist, especially Trotskyists. Ah well.
It's damn right though that the vast majority of communists no matter what tendency oppose racism, sexism and homophobia. As far as I *know*, since the RCP repudiated their homophobic views, all the established parties do.
.

[Obrero Rebelde]

Wikipedia:
"Ideologically, the WWP is orthodox Marxist-Leninist. The Party's Trotskyist origins are reflected in much of Sam Marcy's early literature. However, Marcy also continued to uphold the USSR as a socialist state until the very end. When the Provisional Organizing Committee to Reconstitute a Marxist-Leninist Communist Party was formed, the WWP included a friendly headline directed to them, "Welcome, Comrades!" in Workers World newspaper. The Provisional Organizing Committee replied by telling them, "Trotskyism is Counter-Revolution and Nothing Else!". Following this, "virtually all mention of Trotsky vanished forever from its pages."[2] These things led some individuals and organizations to accuse both Marcy and the party of being "Stalinist," though Marcy was always critical of Stalin's leadership and the Party remains largely Trotskyist in many areas.
The Party was also not simply a "pro-Soviet" organization (i.e. simply following the line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). Marcy firmly criticized Khrushchev for starting the Sino-Soviet split and called for the unity of all of the socialist states at the time (i.e. the Warsaw Pact countries, China, Yugoslavia, Albania and the DPRK).[2] This notion of supporting all of the socialist states and calling for a united socialist bloc, rather than simply following the line of one of the large, ruling Communist parties (e.g. Chinese or Soviet), was what made the WWP unique during the Cold War era, and independence remains a defining trait of Workers World Party.
________________________________

Party for Socialism & Liberation/PSL, which many say is now Marxist-Leninist, grew from a somewhat recent split with the Workers World Party/WWP, from what I understand. But most of the WWP comrades I know identify as Trotskyists.

Obrero Rebelde

[cb9's_unity]

Anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, and anti-racism all allow woman, the LGBTQ community, and racial minority's to find a home in the communist movement. We may alienate some conservative white males but we are certainly more likely to draw in intelligent women, gays, and 'minority's' who know that we will not judge them the same way bourgeois society does.

Those at the center of 'identity politics' are far more likely to know what oppression feels like. And those who feel oppressed are those who will be more open to progressive politics.

However the M-L response goes a bit too far. I don't agree with the SEP tactics but I would gather that they were racist, homophobic, sexist or even anti-Marxist for taking a stringent class based approach. I may be wrong (and someone correct me if I am), but to my knowledge Marx didn't regularly propagate feminism because he believe that it would only truly be through socialism that women would be equal. So its hard to call the SEP anti-Marxist when their position is probably quite close to Marx's.

[Kassad]

I don't think the people inside Party for Socialism and Liberation or Workers World Party identify as Trotskyists or else we would join a Trotskyist party. This ideological labeling that is almost always from people outside the parties is getting pretty annoying. I doubt this person from the Socialist Equality Party has read one word of Sam Marcy's works, or else they would know better than to make such a baseless assertion.

[Homo Songun]

Well, let us examine the evidence.

What I consider to the Marcyite trend's "ur" document, "The Global Class War and the Destiny of American Labor", was printed in 1953 in the internal bulletin of the Socialist Workers Party. This is the Trotskyist party which one might characterize as the primordial ooze from which the trend originally sprang. In it, he explicitly lays out his Trotskyist bonafides, in explicit opposition to the "Stalinist bureaucracy" and "Stalinist" parties, such as the CPUSA. I'll spare people the tired rivers of blood stuff -- suffice to say, it is the usual lurid denunciations.

I want to preemptively address the usual anarchist argument that Marcy's defense of "dictators" as being evidence of his "Stalinism", by pointing out that his defense of various national liberation movements exists side by side with the previously mentioned rivers of blood even at this early date.

Now, it might be objected that this was in the beginning of the Marcyite trend's existence, and they came to a Marxist-Leninist position later on. Fair enough. Sam Marcy died in 1998. The latest work by him I have was printed in 1990. In it, he says, "Stalin propounded his unfortunate theory of socialism in one country", and "Stalin was wrong in his theoretical formulation", that he staged "frameup trials in Moscow in the 1930s", that "there is no denying" the repressive nature of the Stalin period, that aspects of socialist development "degenerated" under his watch, and so on and so forth. (Perestroika: A Marxist Critique, WW Publishers). Pretty standard Trot fare.

Anecdotally, all of the Workers World or PSL offices I've been inside of have had books by Trotsky on the shelves, albeit hidden away behind Marcy's stuff, but nothing by Mao or Stalin.

So it seems like life would be pretty sad and lonely for any ostensible Marxist Leninist who happened to find himself in the ranks of a Marcyite party, IMHO.

All that said, what evidence can be marshalled in favor of the view that the Marcyites are not Trotskyist? Lets hear all sides.

[Ramon Mercador]

funny how the WWP try to cover up for their own ugly Trotskyite stinkiness.

sounds like SEPticare a bunch of anti struggling bourgeois pricks. i agree with them that class is the #1 issue but if they are Trotskyites then they must be corrupted Revisionists.

Long live Stalin

[Bolshevism1917]

All that said, what evidence can be marshalled in favor of the view that the Marcyites are not Trotskyist? Lets hear all sides.

The most important thing is that organizations like the PSL look to the ruling bureaucracies in deformed/degenerated workers states to fight the restoration of capitalism and deny any independent role for the working class - that's why they defend the butchers of Tiananmen, for example. In taking this stance they position themselves in complete opposition to Trotsky's analysis of bureaucratic degeneration in the Soviet Union because a central part of Trotsky's analysis is his recognition that the bureaucracy finds itself constrained under conditions of bureaucratic deformation due to not being able to transmit property as inheritance and not having an independent property base (which is what makes the bureaucracy a caste rather than a new ruling class) and that there are therefore only two possibilities as far as the future development of deformed/degenerated workers states is concerned - either the restoration of capitalism at the hands of the bureuacracy or the destruction of the bureaucracy through a political revolution under the leadership of the working class. It's also significant that the PSL and others reject other important aspects of Trotsky's thought as well - for example, they evidently reject the theory of permanent revolution and subscribe to the Stalinist theory of socialism in one country because they think Cuba is socialist.

[Ramon Mercador]

AHAHahaha like anyone is every going to read that Trotzkyite wall of text shit.

Long live STALIN!

[Voloshinov]

I think you should read it in the context of a country where the election of a black president is seen as a step forward in the struggle against racism. Just like Thatcher was a step forward in the struggle for women's rights. The struggle against racism isn't a case of identity politics, but anti-racism without a class perspective is. For minorities, being politically and/or economically oppressed by individuals of their own group is hardly a step forward in their collective emancipation.

[BOZG]

Beyond running a website for compiling their secterian attacks (and occasionally interesting analysis) does the SEP take up any struggle at all?

No. They've an article attacking us in Ireland over the Aer Lingus dispute on the basis that we haven't an article on the website about it recently.

[Kassad]

I've waited almost all morning to respond to some of the allegations in this thread because I wanted to make sure my response was posted with my undivided attention. Some of the things being said here are mind-blowingly exaggerated and frankly, incorrect. As a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, I find some of the accusations laughable, but that makes it all the more fun to see how delusional some of the revolutionary left is.

To start off, I want to make a really clear statement: I absolutely love when people use the terms "Marcyite", "Marcyism" and other assorted terms that reference Sam Marcy's theoretical influence. Not only do I see it as amusing that some people choose to use it, since it isn't what supporters of Marcy's theories label ourselves, but it shows that Marcy's works are becoming so influential and relevant that they require a new term to describe them.

On Wang Ji's statements, where do I start? This is the same regurgiated criticism by anti-revisionists of Sam Marcy and the parties that are influenced by him. My party does not denounce our Trotskyist origins that stem from the Socialist Workers Party. However, we found that the party began moving towards anti-communism veiled in anti-Stalinism. Since Marcy was one of the founders of Workers World Party, I sincerely doubt that if he was so anti-Stalin he would have repudiated the Socialist Workers Party's line. In fact, Marcy made many legitimate criticisms of Stalin, as do the parties that are influenced by them today. It isn't going to appear as an insult to us that we use historical materialist methods of self-criticism to analyze the international communist movement. Marcy was correct in his criticisms of hyper-Stalinism, but also in the right when criticizing Trotskyist groups for their anti-communism.

The problem with people like Wang Ji is that they are so obsessed with ideological labels, such as describing the Workers World Party/Party for Socialism and Liberation as Trotskyist for merely making criticisms of bureaucratic deformity under Stalin, that they fail to make any type of scientific analysis. Since we don't completely align with some of Trotsky's theories, especially during the period of his exile, we don't align as Trotskyists. It's nice to see you've been to our branches, since most people make baseless assertions about my party, but you have to realize something: we don't uphold all of Mao's theoretical contributions, notably the theories of "state capitalism" and "social imperialism." Thus, why have a bunch of books about Mao laying around that we don't agree with? Mao was, as I'd say, much better in practice than he was in theory. On Stalin, I think his theoretical contributions, especially after Lenin's death, are for shit. Again, not agreeing with Stalin's line 100% does not infer that my party is Trotskyist. That's the most unscientific statement you could make at this point.

However, seeing that the Party for Socialism and Liberation is the fastest growing communist party in the United States, and is also one of the most energetic and active parties out there, if not the most energetic and active, your statement about us being "sad" and "lonely" in our "Marcyite" party fall on deaf ears, because trust me. Your opinion does not matter to us whatsoever. We're revolutionaries and frankly, I don't live or die by the criticisms of unconditional Stalin supporting fanatics.

To Bolshevism1917, your analysis is really skewed and irrational, but that's not what the thread is about, so make another thread if you'd like. However, on the topic of permanent revolution, that is a theory of Trotsky that we do, in fact, uphold. However, Trotsky's stances after his exile became wild and irrational and his demands would have likely lead to the destruction of the Soviet Union, its gains and possibly even led to a victory for fascism in Europe. Upholding Cuba as socialist does not contradict the theory of permanent revolution, as why should the Cuban people and the Cuban state be blamed for the fact that international revolution has yet to occur? The anti-communist shit in this thread is mind-boggling.

That basically clears up the outlandish and absurd assertions made about Sam Marcy and the Party for Socialism and Liberation in this thread. I'd leave it to my friend communist_usa to clarify any concerns I may have missed regarding Workers World Party, but besides that, hopefully that will clear up some of the irrationality in this thread.

[Communist]

That's about covered it Kassad. Thanks.

WWP and thus PSL are called just about everything by those outside the parties. It's interesting how two parties can be called both Stalinist and Trotskyist and be believed by those saying it. Call WWP whatever you wish to, you're free to do so. In a nod to something one of our founders, Vince Copeland, said in 1973, Workers World Party generally won't run out and refute what someone says about us, whether we're called Stalinist or Trotskyist; not because of the nature of the ideologies, but because of the nature of those saying it. There are important things to do here and this isn't among them.

And anyway this thread is supposed to be about SEP.

.

[Bolshevism1917]

To Bolshevism1917, your analysis is really skewed and irrationalIf you believe I've made a factual error in my description of Trotsky's analysis of the Soviet Union, then please mention it. The reason I brought it up is that I've often seen you claim that contemporary Trotskyists who argue that the Soviet Union was state capitalist under Stalin have very little to do with Trotsky and that Trotsky would probably be rejected as an apologist for Stalinism by people such as myself if he suddenly emerged from the grave, and yet the point that you seem to be missing is that in spite of having what I and others see as a mistaken analysis when it came to the Soviet Union we are still in complete agreement with Trotsky when it comes to a crucial point that is rooted in the Marxist principle that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself - namely we recognize that if progressive change and the reversal of bureaucratic degeneration was going to occur in countries such as the Soviet Union it would have come from the action of the working class against the ruling bureaucracy and not from the ranks of the bureaucracy itself. This is why even the most orthodox Trotskyists supported the workers during the events of Hungary 1956, Prague 1968, and Tiananmen 1989. Now: did the PSL or its antecedents call for the overthrow of the bureaucracy during any of those events or at any point during the existence of the Soviet bloc? did they ever argue that the Tiananmen was a horrific crime that deserved to be condemned by all socialists or did they stand by and shrug their shoulders whilst claiming that there was still something of value in China and that a faction of the bureaucratic could be expected to act on behalf of Chinese workers? did they ever pose a means of defending the gains of the Russian Revolution that did not involve looking to the bureaucracy and hoping that progressive change would come from above? how does the PSL think that progressive change is going to come about in countries like the DPRK today?


However, on the topic of permanent revolution, that is a theory of Trotsky that we do, in fact, upholdI don't think so. Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution always seeks to analyze capitalism as a world-system and not by looking at the level of capitalist development within individual countries which is precisely why Trotsky recognized that imperialist penetration destroys the ability of the bourgeoisie to play a progressive role in underdeveloped states and allows for socialist revolutions to break out in the most backwards countries of the world - and why Trotsky also recognized that during the imperialist epoch the world is an integrated economic unit and socialism can only be built on an international scale. By saying that Cuba is socialist you are saying that socialism is possible in one country which is incompatible with the basic premises of permanent revolution. In fact it's precisely for that reason that the American SWP used a socialist revolution taking place in Cuba and socialism being successfully constructed (in their eyes - obviously other organizations and Trotskyists such as myself did not believe that there had been a socialist revolution in Cuba or anywhere else in the world after the Russian Revolution because in none of the events commonly branded revolutions did the working class play a leading role or create its own organs of democratic power) as a reason to reject Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution and break with the Trotskyist tradition.

Also, I find it hard to see how you can claim adherence to the theory of permanent revolution whilst also arguing that Trotsky became irrational after his exile from the Soviet Union given that he consistently sought to apply the theory whilst in exile and produced what I see as some of his most impressive analysis during that part of his life - his writings on the Chinese Revolution, for example.


the destruction of the Soviet UnionThe destruction of the Soviet Union has occurred though and the gains of the Chinese Revolution are being destroyed as we speak. Our solution is the overthrow of the bureaucracy by the working class because we believe that the working class has to be the agent of its own emancipation and that socialism will only come about from the struggles of working people - what do you propose given that you don't think workers should take action against their bureaucratic rulers on the grounds that this supposedly opens up the possibility of capitalist restoration at the hands of imperialism?

[Kassad]

I feel like I'm debating with someone from the International Bolshevik Tendency or something; with someone just typing out massive paragraphs on Trotsky making it seem like because he said it, it must be unconditional truth. I clarified the points of Sam Marcy's theories which state that counterrevolution in socialist states usually does not lead to increased workers control. On the contrary, as seen in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, it leads to devastating living standards and destruction. Imperialism is the main impediment to progress in modern workers states. If the workers have an opportunity to take control from the bureaucracy, I wish them luck, because under the current state of affairs with American imperialism assaulting all attempts at socialist construction, this doesn't seem likely. That's why we call for revolution in the heart of imperialism.

[Bolshevism1917]

I feel like I'm debating with someone from the International Bolshevik Tendency or something; with someone just typing out massive paragraphs on Trotsky making it seem like because he said it, it must be unconditional truth

Not really, in case I didn't make this clear in my previous posts, I think that the Soviet Union suffered the restoration of capitalism in 1928 and that countries such as China were never workers states at any point in time because they did not come into being as a result of socialist revolutions. I therefore most certainly not agree with all of Trotsky's positions or the main bulk of the postwar Trotskyist tradition and yet still consider myself a Trotskyist and as part of the same political tendency as even the most orthodox Trotskyist organizations because what unites us is that we all recognize that whatever the class nature of societies like the Soviet Union it was the job of revolutionaries to support the struggles of the working class and call for the overthrow of the bureaucracy - we did not think that the bureaucracy could be trusted to safeguard the gains of historic revolutions and act on behalf of the working class.


I clarified the points of Sam Marcy's theories which state that counterrevolution in socialist states usually does not lead to increased workers control.

I hardly think this is a theory. The more important questions seems to be whether there was meaningful workers control in the so-called socialist states and what kinds of workers control exist in countries such as China and the DPRK today.


If the workers have an opportunity to take control from the bureaucracy, I wish them luck

But you don't. Your organization and its antecedents took the side of the bureaucracy during Hungary 1956, Prague 1968, and Tiananmen 1989 whereas all Trotskyist organizations recognized that those events were incipient revolutions against the bureaucracy and called for revolutionaries to intervene in order to minimize the influence of reactionary forces and direct the energies of working people against the state. We recognized and continue to recognize when analyzing countries such as Iran that when working people do take radical action there is always the possibility that imperialist powers and domestic reactionaries will seek to take advantage of the situation in order to further their own interests and that if workers do not succeed in establishing themselves as the rulers of society during the course of struggle the effect may even be to destroy whatever progressive gains they may have had to begin with, but the fact remains that where capitalist restoration has occurred (and I speak from the viewpoint of the orthodox Trotskyist tradition here - although the same argument is also relevant for heterodox Trotskyists when we are speaking in terms of progressive advances and gains rather than a change in the mode of production) it has been the result of collusion between the ruling bureaucracy and imperialism, and bureaucrats cannot be trusted to defend any of the revolutionary gains that Trotskyists want to see maintained and expanded, in the same way that capitalists cannot be expected to overthrow capitalism.

I'll reaffirm my question in the last post - what do you think workers in the Soviet Union should have done to resist the restoration of capitalism and what do you propose for workers in countries like China and the DPRK today?


That's why we call for revolution in the heart of imperialism.

So basically what it boils down to is a rather vile brand of first-world chauvinism - you don't think that workers in oppressed nations or bureaucratized workers states should struggle against their own ruling classes because they can't be trusted to defend themselves against imperialism and prevent their struggles from being infiltrated by reactionary forces and instead they have to wait until workers overthrow capitalism in the most advanced capitalist countries before seeking to improve their own interests, even whilst the gains of revolutions in countries like China are being constantly attacked by the bureaucracy, and even when opportunities for revolution present themselves.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

It's amazing that such a racist, sexist party has had black and female members in some of it's highest positions. How does stressing the class divide over racial, gender and sexual differences amount to discrimination of these groups?

[Kassad]

It's amazing that such a racist, sexist party has had black and female members in some of it's highest positions. How does stressing the class divide over racial, gender and sexual differences amount to discrimination of these groups?

Who are you even referring to?

[Revy]

The only noteworthy thing about SEP has always been its news website, WSWS.

They're not that active, although they sometimes run candidates, but in 2008 I don't think that they ran a Presidential candidate at all.

I think a lot of people have left that party due to its cult like sectarian nature (they tend to be vicious in their attacks on all kinds of left parties) and the many questions revolving around the printing company apparently owned by David North, the party's leader.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Who are you even referring to?

He's sarcastically referring to the SEP.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The only noteworthy thing about SEP has always been its news website, WSWS.

They're not that active, although they sometimes run candidates, but in 2008 I don't think that they ran a Presidential candidate at all.

I think a lot of people have left that party due to its cult like sectarian nature (they tend to be vicious in their attacks on all kinds of left parties) and the many questions revolving around the printing company apparently owned by David North, the party's leader.If you're complimenting WSWS, then I'm assuming you've been to the site, in which case it would be hard to miss the bar on the right where they announce many of their meetings. Ever since I've been following the SEP they've been organizing numerous public meetings, so I don't see how you can say they aren't that active, especially considering the state of much of the US left. A quick visit to WSWS shows that they're currently organizing a national meeting on the economic crisis and war, just held a citizens inquiry into the social crisis in Detroit where they invited workers to provide testimony about the conditions there, etc etc.

GhyBfwdFIGw

[Obrero Rebelde]

Anyone know more about the SEP? What would Marx have said about communists waging struggle against racism and sexism? The SEP member I spoke of initially in this thread says that the questions of racism and sexism are not Marxist.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

32. Another form of opportunism, which has played a significant role in undermining the struggle for the unity of the working class and lowering class consciousness, is the promotion of innumerable forms of “identity” politics - based on the elevation of national, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, gender, and sexual distinctions above class position. This shift from class to identity has been at the expense of an understanding of the real causes, rooted in the capitalist system, of the hardships that confront all working people. At its worst, it has promoted a competition among different “identities” for access to educational institutions, jobs and other “opportunities” which, in a socialist society, would be freely available to all people without such demeaning, dehumanizing and arbitrary distinctions. Affirmative action programs have benefited, for the most part, a relatively small layer of the middle class. The demand for legal and social equality, which dominated the historic civil rights movement of the African-American masses during the 1950s and 1960s, was undermined by a class shift in political focus, which replaced the fight against mass poverty with the securing of preferential treatment and privileges for a few. This shift, promoted by the Democratic Party and its allies among the advocates of petty-bourgeois identity politics, has had a devastating impact on the conditions of life for the broad mass of minority workers. The SEP demands full equality for all people, and defends unequivocally their democratic rights. All forms of discrimination based on national, ethnic, racial, religious, or linguistic heritage, or on gender or sexual orientation, must be abolished. The SEP advances this essential democratic component of its program within the context of the fight for socialism, based on the political unification of all sections of the working class.

Not placing those struggles at the forefront of your parties activity doesn't mean ignoring them.

[Kléber]

The ICFI is much less "white" than most int'l Marxist groupings, they've got a section in Sri Lanka, they were against Prop 8, they have run an African-American woman as their presidential candidate. But why even bother to state such things? According to some comrades' logic, Lenin would be an anti-Semitic bigot for his stance on the Bund.


Beyond running a website for compiling their secterian attacks (and occasionally interesting analysis) does the SEP take up any struggle at all? They are often calling for rank-and-file committees to wage militant strikes and oppose sellouts of actions by yellow unions. Also as SocialismOrBarbarism noted they organize community-wide citizens' commissions of inquiry into disasters affecting workers like fires (http://www.socialequality.com/dexterinquiry) and deaths due to utility shutoffs that could have been prevented. The ICFI has consistently opposed bourgeois imperialist conflicts and taken part in the protest movements against them. The WSWS is always declaring its support for militant labor actions, civil rights struggles and against police brutality.


They're not that active, although they sometimes run candidates, but in 2008 I don't think that they ran a Presidential candidate at all.They did run candidates but couldn't get ballot access anywhere due to restrictive laws. More recently they also ran a comrade for mayor of Detroit (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/detr-a17.shtml).


I think a lot of people have left that party due to its cult like sectarian nature (they tend to be vicious in their attacks on all kinds of left parties) and the many questions revolving around the printing company apparently owned by David North, the party's leader.So, they are serious about politics and about funding the revolution, these were also the most common criticisms made of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Members are informed about the printing press, in spite of what some spart slander campaign online would have people believe.

[Revy]

Kleber,
That's true. they have a presence in Michigan (New York as well I believe...). I wouldn't have denied that. but I think the real issue is not their activity but their internal politics. Do you support them or are you just defending them from unwarranted attacks? Just curious if you know anything about what it's like to be a member.

[Red Flag]

Uh oh!

"No one would suggest that racism has disappeared or that the struggle against all forms of social backwardness has lost its significance, but the election of Barack Obama as president demonstrated that America is not dominated by racism. And an African American president’s implementation of an extremely right-wing program is further proof that social interests are what divide the US, not skin color." - World Socialist Web Site (http://wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/blin-m26.shtml)

[Obrero Rebelde]

Who are you even referring to?

I figure it was the SEP that was being referenced, correct? What other party is racist and sexist? They don't recognize the anti-racist and anti-sexist struggles as anti-capitalist.

[chegitz guevara]

The SEP has a very good website, and I have to say, generally a fairly excellent analysis.

I strive hard not to attack fellow socialist organizations, even when I have fundamental disagreements with them. In many cases, I even agree with things they written (such as the sliminess of the SWP around Mark Clark).

That said, if there's any one group on the white American left I think should be cast into the fiery pits of hell, it is the SEP. They are the most dogmatic, sectarian cult in the American socialist movement. The Party leader is a capitalist who's pockets are fattened by the work of his organization's members.

[which doctor]

They don't recognize the anti-racist and anti-sexist struggles as anti-capitalist.
That's because, implicitly, anti-racism and anti-sexism are not anti-capitalist struggles, because they fall complicitly and quietly into the logic of neoliberal capitalism. Of course that's not to say anti-racism and anti-sexism aren't worthy fights, but a political programme based on them alone is not revolutionary.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

So the SEP is more sectarian than the Sparts and more of a cult than them or RCP or the SWP. It is also incredibly racist, sexist, and homophobic.

Sounds credible. :rolleyes:

[Obrero Rebelde]

The SEP's founding documents are on line under wsws dot com.

I'm still reading and digesting them.