PSL campaign wins thousands of votes for socialist platform in Long Beach

[Raightning]

Bit surprised not to see this yet with so many comrades on here in the PSL.

On Tuesday, April 13, thousands of people in Long Beach went to the polls and voted for an openly socialist candidate for mayor. Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate Stevie Danielle Merino got 5,057 votes—16 percent of all ballots cast—against a highly funded, corporate-backed incumbent. Merino is a 21-year-old retail worker, community college student and member of the PSL.

This Long Beach election was the first in that city in which the PSL fielded a candidate. Despite a shoestring budget and no paid campaign staff, the outcome was a significant manifestation of support for a platform that prioritized people’s needs, not corporate profits.

PSL members and campaign volunteers worked hard for three months to promote Merino’s campaign. The campaign scored great successes along the way. It received local press and campus coverage, talked to thousands of people on the streets of Long Beach, built relations with local grassroots organizations, and held numerous political forums.

The campaign brought those who are most alienated from the political process to the forefront of local politics—working-class people. It talked about the issues that really matter to workers, students and poor people—jobs, education, health care and housing. Most importantly, the campaign raised the banner of socialism throughout Long Beach, a multinational city of over 600,000 people.

The campaign did all of these things, while also exposing the so-called electoral process for what it truly is—a corporate-sponsored illusion where corrupt candidates are bought to do the bidding of big business.

Getting the message out
The campaign focused on delivering a socialist message to local communities within Long Beach, going door to door, and doing street outreach. It also went to local schools, such as Long Beach City College and Cal State University, Long Beach. Dozens of volunteers worked each week to promote the PSL campaign.

The campaign fought for apartment residents who deal with a notorious slumlord, Ned Basin, who is hated throughout the downtown community.

Community members attended a campaign street meeting outside of one of the units owned by Basin to express their distaste for the corrupt government in Long Beach that handed Basin $10,000 to repair the complex, of which he only spent $1,500 on a paint job. Meanwhile, the complex is infested with fleas, roaches and rats; there are plumbing problems making some residents unable to get proper running water; and at least one resident has a hot water heater within inches of their bathtub. Despite countless complaints to the Housing Authority, and even lawsuits, slumlords like Basin continue to profit from the misery of working people and the corrupt city government.

The campaign built relations with the Gray Panthers, the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs, and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The IAM is the largest union of city workers who have faced drastic pay cuts thanks to the incumbent mayor, Bob Foster.

The Long Beach Green Party endorsed Stevie Merino for mayor, saying that “Stevie is articulate and has the right priorities for the city.” The Peace and Freedom Party State Central Committee and local community organizations, such as AF3IRM/GABNet, KmB Pro-People Youth, and Students Fight Back also endorsed the PSL campaign.

Local small business owners supported the PSL’s campaign. Rene, the owner of a Pan-African bookstore, told Liberation: “We need Stevie for so many reasons: to deal with parking issues, and permit fees for business owners. But mostly, our community needs her to help us create jobs for people.”

Fighting back
The priorities of the campaign included cutting the budget of the racist Long Beach Police Department and implementing community control over the police, as well as funding education, taxing big oil and corporations, a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures, issuing same-sex marriage licenses, and job placement and training for youth and the more than 15 percent of workers in Long Beach who are currently unemployed.

In this system, when a candidate places the working class first, they have no chance to garner the financial support that corporate-bought candidates like Bob Foster can muster. Foster raised over $300,000 for the campaign. The PSL Stevie Merino campaign—which has been a real people’s campaign—raised and spent less than $1,000 altogether. This is the most obvious way in which the reality of “democracy” under capitalism is exposed.

While the campaign fought hard within the electoral process itself, it also brought social issues into the streets. The campaign called for the firing of CSULB Prof. Kevin MacDonald, and demanded that Foster go on record speaking against him. MacDonald is a psychology professor, and the leader of a white-supremacist political party called the American Third Position. Foster, however, refused to speak out against fascism. The Stevie Merino campaign also openly supported the efforts of student activists from Students Fight Back to oust MacDonald.

The campaign continued to fight against bigots, participating in the mass counter-demonstration at Wilson High School against the Westboro Baptist Church, a right-wing religious cult. The PSL campaign raised proudly the banner of full LGBT equality. Thousands gathered with signs reading, “Hate is not welcome at our school,” chanting “Go home now” as activists from the campaign distributed leaflets and explained that, if elected, Stevie Merino would immediately begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples regardless of the bigoted Prop. 8.

The campaign participated in the March 4 Strike and Day of Action to Defend Public Education at CSULB and Wilson High School, where thousands of people gathered to demand an end to cuts and fee hikes. The campaign raised the demand that education should be free from pre-school through university, and pledged to prevent the mass firing of over 800 teachers in Long Beach Unified School District.

Candidate Merino marched shoulder to shoulder with anti-war demonstrators on March 20 in Los Angeles on the seventh anniversary of the war in Iraq. She was there to demand that money be spent on jobs and education instead of the war machine. Merino spoke on behalf of Students Fight Back, calling for an end to U.S. imperialism and the military-industrial complex.

The campaign also joined the more than 50,000 people who marched for immigrant rights on March 27, calling for full legalization and immediate comprehensive immigration reform. The campaign has not wavered on this issue. It demanded that the city of Long Beach become a sanctuary city with an end to all racist raids and deportations. No one should be considered “illegal.”

Building a movement
The overwhelming majority of people who came into contact with the campaign became supporters. On numerous occasions, working-class people shared stories of intense hardship, exploitation and police violence. No one has been left unaffected by the economic crisis in Long Beach. People have lost their jobs, cannot pay their bills, are being kicked out of their homes, have no child care for their children who have had all of their after-school programs cut, cannot afford their medication or hospital visits, and have had their homes barged into. In one instance, a young man even shared with us the details of how his brother was shot, execution style, by the Long Beach Police Department.

The campaign was covered widely in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, the Long Beach Post and all other local media outlets. Excellent articles outlined the political demands and program of the PSL’s openly socialist campaign.
Some cynical media “bigwigs” reacted to the campaign within the confines of bourgeois thinking. They questioned much of the program, somewhat hysterically, saying “It’s not possible! How can you call for such things?”
Before the election, the editorial board of the Press-Telegram endorsed Foster for mayor, predicting that Merino would not even get “one percent” of the vote. They were dead wrong: she got 16 percent! After the election, the Press-Telegram had to backtrack. It ended up honoring the PSL campaign, naming Stevie Merino as winner of the symbolic “David and Goliath” award for daring to face off against the corporate-backed and funded mayor.

What the PSL campaign fought for makes sense. It makes sense that same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. It makes sense that an all-elected community control board should be able to fire police officers and jail them when they murder members of the community. It makes sense that where there is work to be done, jobs should be created. It makes sense to fund public education when it is the children of Long Beach who are facing larger class sizes and overworked teachers. It makes sense to outlaw foreclosures and evictions when it is the ruling capitalist class that created this economic downturn—not the workers being kicked out of their homes. It makes sense to fund women’s clinics, homeless services, HIV programs, substance abuse programs, battered women’s shelters, after-school programs, and countless other services when working people are suffering most.

The only thing that does not make sense is the current system. The PSL campaign fought to change this. The campaign’s primary goal was to build a movement that can fight back, truly serving the interests of workers, the poor and students in Long Beach.

The campaign made a major impression in Long Beach. In fact, it made history. It isn’t every day that a worker finds an openly socialist 21-year-old woman of color on the ballot. As a matter of fact, few people in the country have ever seen that. The PSL campaign succeeded in challenging the electoral process, bringing forth working-class issues, and raising the banner of revolutionary socialism.

The PSL will not disappear now that the election is over. It is continuing to organize in Long Beach and the surrounding South Bay area. The PSL will continue to fight against capitalism and the ruling class on every level, local and national, while continuing to build the movement for socialism.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13925&news_iv_ctrl=1261

[Chimurenga.]

Hell yes.

[Robocommie]

Rock on PSL. :thumbup1:

It's exciting to see socialism begin to make a real showing - dare I say a comeback?

[x371322]

This is fantastic news. Congratulations to Mr. Merino and the PSL. :thumbup1:

[A Revolutionary Tool]

It's this type of thing which makes me want to join the PSL.

[scarletghoul]

Woop, go PSL !

:: in before ultra-leftist "BLAAARGH ELECTIONS ARE BOURGEOIS YOU ARE ALL REFORMIST" ::

[Leo]

well, before that perhaps it is important to note that the PSL candidate was the only opponent of the winner of the election, who got 84% of the vote.

celebrating something like this is rather pathetic really. then again, most of what the left does is to celebrate over slight improvements they get in bourgeois elections.

[scarletghoul]

:rolleyes:


celebrating something like this is rather pathetic really. then again, most of what the left does is to celebrate over slight improvements they get in bourgeois elections.
you dont find it at all significant that 16 % of people voted for a revolutionary socialist party ? Sure the elections are part of the bourgeois system but that doesnt mean we shouldnt use them as a platform to get our ideas accross. Clearly doing that was very successful in this instance, as there is a visible alternative to capitalism that the people can see

[Martin Blank]

you dont find it at all significant that 16 % of people voted for a revolutionary socialist party ? Sure the elections are part of the bourgeois system but that doesnt mean we shouldnt use them as a platform to get our ideas accross. Clearly doing that was very successful in this instance, as there is a visible alternative to capitalism that the people can see

Honestly, much of it is what's called a "vacuum vote": people voting for the "other guy" because they don't like the incumbent. In an election cycle like we're in now, where anti-incumbent sentiment is higher than normal, that can account for up to 15 percent of the voting population. You do the math.

I can understand that people are going to want to get excited about this. But we should be honest among ourselves about this kind of electoral showing. I mean, it's not like she got 30 or 40 percent of the votes, or over 15,000 votes, in a local race.

[The Vegan Marxist]

well, before that perhaps it is important to note that the PSL candidate was the only opponent of the winner of the election, who got 84% of the vote.

celebrating something like this is rather pathetic really. then again, most of what the left does is to celebrate over slight improvements they get in bourgeois elections.

This is coming out of the U.S., one of the most anti-Communist countries in the world. To gain what the PSL gained is a great advancement for our beliefs. So yes, I will celebrate. Congrats to the PSL. Next, the world!

Red Love & Salutes!

[Zeus the Moose]

This is fantastic news. Congratulations to Mr. Merino and the PSL. :thumbup1:

Ms. Merino, comrade.

Leo does make a good point- this was 16% of the vote in a two candidate race. In two candidate races where a socialist candidate is running, getting somewhere between 10-25% of the vote is fairly common, where in most cases this goes down to less than 1% in a multiple candidate race (particularly if both major parties are running a candidate.) It was also a non-partisan election, so Stevie Merino wasn't listed as "Party for Socialism and Liberation" or such on the ballot, which means that at least a few people may have voted for her without knowing she was in fact a socialist candidate.

Still, this isn't to diminish what the PSL accomplished in terms of hopefully building their party and the socialist movement generally in Long Beach. Ultimately the results of the election don't matter that much, but rather the connections that can be made during the campaign and the number of people that are exposed to socialist ideas (with hopefully some of them getting involved with socialist politics.) From the press release, it sounds like PSL is doing that, and for that reason, rather than the vote total, they should be commended.

[x371322]

Ms. Merino, comrade.


Oops. My bad. My apologies to Ms. Merino.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Honestly, much of it is what's called a "vacuum vote": people voting for the "other guy" because they don't like the incumbent. In an election cycle like we're in now, where anti-incumbent sentiment is higher than normal, that can account for up to 15 percent of the voting population. You do the math.

I can understand that people are going to want to get excited about this. But we should be honest among ourselves about this kind of electoral showing. I mean, it's not like she got 30 or 40 percent of the votes, or over 15,000 votes, in a local race.

This goes to show that political support /= electoral support. Participation in spoiled ballot campaigns can be part of the former, while meaningless protest votes are part of the latter.

[Crux]

Why would a spoiled ballot be more conscious than a protest vote?

[Kassad]

I do love the ultra-leftist responses that didn't take too long to show their ugly heads. I can't believe left communists want to talk about "gains" in the international communist movement. They love to attack Marxism-Leninism as a science and as the most widespread communist ideology, all the while having no real political relevance whatsoever.

For your information, Leo, the incumbet Bob Foster is absurdly popular in Long Beach. He is a corporate candidate and he was able to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporate interests to run his campaign. Stevie Merino, on the other hand, ran a grassroots electoral campaign that fought on a platform of revolutionary socialism. She provided a socialist alternative to corporate politicians and had a great showing in the booth.

Political criticism like this gets kind of old. You're actually going to come in and attack the fact that a socialist is fighting in an important area of capitalist society to promote socialism? I'm not surprised, really, but morely disappointed that people like yourself are considered to be communists as well. The campaign was a huge success, recruited many people to our movement and is one of many electoral campaigns the PSL is launching to promote revolutionary socialism as the alternative to capitalist exploitation.

[Jeoh]

16.2% of the 14.7% who voted. Although I applaud your efforts and the platform this campaign created, calling this a success is a bit of a stretch. It's a good start though.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Although some have pointed out that this was a two candidate race, and thus, only a minor victory, I think there is something to celebrate here, and that is the fact that of the people who cared enough to vote, 16% would rather have a communist than a capitalist for mayor, that's a lot, and if you think otherwise please post back with the results next time YOUR organisation stands a candidate in the heartland of imperialism and polls over 2.5%

[Leo]

you dont find it at all significant that 16 % of people voted for a revolutionary socialist party ?

Not at all even in general, and certainly not under these circumstances.


To gain what the PSL gained is a great advancement for our beliefs.

Yes, the next step is to vigilantly watch for anywhere where there is a single candidate running.


Next, the world!

Yes, socialism via bourgeois parliamentarianism!!!


For your information, Leo, the incumbet Bob Foster is absurdly popular in Long Beach.

Yes, as it is obvious from the 84% he got.


You're actually going to come in and attack the fact that a socialist is fighting in an important area of capitalist society to promote socialism?

Yes, because elections are so important that they change mode of productions.

Don't let the facts bother the elections party though, have fun congratulating...

[Robocommie]

Always good to know there's never an advance that Leftists can make that won't be torn down or diminished by some other segment of the Left.

[Communist]

.
Well since the party name wasn't on the ballot...does this mean anything insofar as future elections in the county and/or state (ie, is ballot access guaranteed, will there be any public funding)?
.

[manic expression]

Definitely great news, something very positive to build on in the coming days, weeks, months and years.


Yes, because elections are so important that they change mode of productions.
This is the most ridiculous part of your argument. Essentially, you're saying that anything less than a change in the mode of production is not worthwhile, which simply translates into a childish excuse for not doing anything at all: you say, "sure, ultra-lefts like myself have no support, no visibility, no participation in working-class struggles, no relevance and no ideas...but none of those things change the means of production in and of themselves, so what's the big deal, anyway?" I suppose Marx shouldn't have written all those books, since they didn't "change mode of productions" [sic] at all. :rolleyes:

It has been stated countless times and will doubtlessly be stated further that elections, for revolutionaries, are a means to an end. Bourgeois elections act as platforms for our movement. Political discussion and consciousness are both heightened during elections, and the many people are far more open to new ideas and new solutions. That is a great time to reach workers with revolutionary politics. But of course, if you don't want to reach workers, then the ultra-left line is most fitting.

[KC]

I think this thread is a good summary of the detachment from reality that most leftists have, on both "sides" of the "argument".

[Rusty Shackleford]

So what if it is not an election victory. PSLers in Long Beach now have some pretty good practical experience and i would not doubt a mild morale boost.


im guessing Stevie ran on the PFP ticket which is actually running Carlos Alvarez of the PSL for CA governor. I will not doubt that Carlos Alvarez wont win but that does not mean we cannot campaign for him. every bit of exposure for candidates or for the party count.

[Robocommie]

I suppose Marx shouldn't have written all those books, since they didn't "change mode of productions" [sic] at all. :rolleyes:

Publishing books is extremely bourgeoisie.

I would like to say though on a totally tangential note, that Comrade Merino strikes me as quite a remarkable young woman. 21 years old and making this kind of a showing in politics? That's fantastic. When I was 21 years old I wasn't a god-damn bit of use to anyone. :D

[Leo]

This is the most ridiculous part of your argument. Essentially, you're saying that anything less than a change in the mode of production is not worthwhileNope, I'm mocking the idea that elections are an important area of capitalist society.

Of course changing the mode of production is not something a single act can accomplish, but where daily workers struggles are fundamentally a part of that process, elections are not.


which simply translates into a childish excuse for not doing anything at allSurely, you monitor all that I or my organization does.


you say, "sure, ultra-lefts like myself have no support, no visibility, no participation in working-class struggles, no relevance and no ideas...but none of those things change the means of production in and of themselves, so what's the big deal, anyway?" I suppose Marx shouldn't have written all those books, since they didn't "change mode of productions" [sic] at all. The funny part is that this election "victory" boosts your confidence on your group having support, visibility, participation in class struggle, ideas and so forth.

The Lenin mummy has been turning in his display case for ever having opposed abstentionism because of you folks.


It has been stated countless times and will doubtlessly be stated further that elections, for revolutionaries, are a means to an end. Bourgeois elections act as platforms for our movement. Yes, well done on this one. You fellas should try to find more politicians running without opponents.


So what if it is not an election victory. PSLers in Long Beach now have some pretty good practical experience Of what, electoral masturbation?


I would like to say though on a totally tangential note, that Comrade Merino strikes me as quite a remarkable young womanI am sure she is. Doesn't make this election result and celebration over it any less pathetic.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I genuinely think that most of this criticism which is coming out of ultra lefts regarding the (massive) activities of Leninist parties recently amounts to one thing: pure bitter jealousy. Just give it up folks, I've not read one remotely positive or optimistic post from the ultra lefts in far too long.

[Muzk]

this thread... is sectarian

[flobdob]

Great work, as has already been pointed out. Hope more successes come the way of the PSL, they're some solid people. Best of luck with future campaigns, and don't let the petty defeatists get you down!:thumbup1:

[Wanted Man]

I vehemently denounce the PSL for having the nerve to try and climb out of the left-wing crab bucket.

[Muzk]

As great as this is; I think you should be a bit more modest. Save the champagne for later.

[Robocommie]

I am sure she is. Doesn't make this election result and celebration over it any less pathetic.

And what exactly have you brought lately?

[gorillafuck]

If the Party was listed on the ballot I'd say this is a good success, but if the PSL's name wasn't even on the ballot then how do we know how many of the people voting knew that this person represented socialism and how many voted for her because she was "the other candidate"?

[spiltteeth]

Unlike most other leftist organizations, PSL can actually list recent accomplishments.
They're actually doing something visible and positive for the cause.

Of course its not some major blow to capitalism, but a great beginning - all major revolutionary movements have started out this way - from Mao sitting in a library with a couple guys discussing Marx to Lenin's motley group of dreamers.

In this corrupt capitalist empire EVERY little victory COUNTS.

THE most important thing is to keep the momentum and enthusiasm going - revolution is a marathon race, not a sprint.

Congrats PSL!

[Robocommie]

Indeed, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

[Martin Blank]

Although some have pointed out that this was a two candidate race, and thus, only a minor victory, I think there is something to celebrate here, and that is the fact that of the people who cared enough to vote, 16% would rather have a communist than a capitalist for mayor, that's a lot, and if you think otherwise please post back with the results next time YOUR organisation stands a candidate in the heartland of imperialism and polls over 2.5%

I'll have a "next time" for you later this year. For now, how about a "last time":...

November 2005 - Detroit, Michigan

- Lisa Weltman, candidate of the Detroit Working People's Association (a predecessor to the Workers Party in America)
- Ran for Detroit Board of Education on a platform of workers' control of the school system and defense of public education
- Endorsed by all of the school workers' unions
- First self-described communist to make it through the non-partisan primaries here since the early 1970s
- Featured in interviews in local television media
- Ran campaign ads on radio

Officially, she won about 42 percent of the vote -- 12,918 votes -- in a district that is one-seventh of Detroit.

I say "officially" because there are longstanding allegations of ballot fraud by those who "won" those elections; a preliminary report by the federal Justice Department, who seized all the ballot boxes and ballots following the election, tends to confirm this. So, in our view, it is entirely possible that she actually won, but had it stolen from her.

When I get critical about how others run elections, this is why.

[Zeus the Moose]

I'll have a "next time" for you later this year.

Is the Workers Party planning on running some candidates this year?

Edit: Detroit local elections are also non-partisan, yes? This seems to be the case in a lot of major cities (with New York and Philadelphia being the primary exceptions that I know of), and especially with school board elections.

[Martin Blank]

Is the Workers Party planning on running some candidates this year?

Edit: Detroit local elections are also non-partisan, yes? This seems to be the case in a lot of major cities (with New York and Philadelphia being the primary exceptions that I know of), and especially with school board elections.

At least one candidate for now. When I can release specifics, I will. I think people might be a little surprised at who it is, though. :cool:

ON EDIT: Yes, most local elections in the U.S. are non-partisan. It seems it was done as a sort of "consolation prize" for smaller parties that could not or could no longer compete on a federal or even state level.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

:rolleyes:


you dont find it at all significant that 16 % of people voted for a revolutionary socialist party ? Sure the elections are part of the bourgeois system but that doesnt mean we shouldnt use them as a platform to get our ideas accross. Clearly doing that was very successful in this instance, as there is a visible alternative to capitalism that the people can see

First off, your second point is obviously something left communists have heard thousands of times on this forum alone - and there are numerous threads where they have responded to that as best they can, I just don't see why you have to trot out that line again?

And secondly, as there were only two candidates running, a vote for a socialist candidate can't be counted as a vote for socialism in so much as it is a vote for "anyone else" aside from the incumbent. Consider the French elections were the last two choices were between Le Pen and Chirac - Chirac won with around 80 percent..but nobody in their right mind would suggest that geninue support for Chirac or his ideology was anything near that. I was rather happy about this report, and it seemed the PSL were decent chaps..but then i found out that appernetly there were only two candidates, and the PSL didn't see fit to tell the people who support it by reading its paper the whole truth, but just some lie of emission. Which is pretty bad, and is slightly embarrassing that they find it nessacary to but some propagandizing spin on something like this. To be honest, I think this article lends far more support to the left communist position on elections than your own, considering how it highlights just how similar the "electoral"" policies socialist parties engage are to bourgeois parties.

In before standard armchair revolutionary accusations.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Definitely great news, something very positive to build on in the coming days, weeks, months and years.


This is the most ridiculous part of your argument. Essentially, you're saying that anything less than a change in the mode of production is not worthwhile, which simply translates into a childish excuse for not doing anything at all: you say, "sure, ultra-lefts like myself have no support, no visibility, no participation in working-class struggles, no relevance and no ideas...but none of those things change the means of production in and of themselves, so what's the big deal, anyway?" I suppose Marx shouldn't have written all those books, since they didn't "change mode of productions" [sic] at all. :rolleyes:

It has been stated countless times and will doubtlessly be stated further that elections, for revolutionaries, are a means to an end. Bourgeois elections act as platforms for our movement. Political discussion and consciousness are both heightened during elections, and the many people are far more open to new ideas and new solutions. That is a great time to reach workers with revolutionary politics. But of course, if you don't want to reach workers, then the ultra-left line is most fitting.

Jesus, I don't want to like, seem offensive here, but this is just bollocks.

That everything is pointless without changing a mode of production is obviously not a left communist position, and neither is that we should do nothing to mantain some insane revolutionary purity or something.

Unlike your argument here, they actually elaborate concreate reasons why time is better not spent on electioneering, and so on. Surely you know this? You're post count is high enough? So presuming that you do, why the hell do you feel the need to utterly strawman them in your posts?

[manic expression]

Nope, I'm mocking the idea that elections are an important area of capitalist society.
Every inch of capitalism must be opposed and fought by revolutionaries. Every communist knows this. You don't.


Of course changing the mode of production is not something a single act can accomplish, but where daily workers struggles are fundamentally a part of that process, elections are not.Presenting a revolutionary platform to countless workers in an electoral campaign is part of the struggle of the working class. It represents a key part of the political struggle against capital (why else would Marx have cared about extending the franchise to universal suffrage?). And who is doing it daily? The communists who carry that important activity out. Thus, it is a "daily workers struggle".


Surely, you monitor all that I or my organization does.Well, it's difficult to monitor that which does not exist.


The funny part is that this election "victory" boosts your confidence on your group having support, visibility, participation in class struggle, ideas and so forth.It shows us that we're reaching workers with the politics of revolution every day. That's the fact, and it's exactly the point of such campaigns, and many others that are being carried out as well.


Yes, well done on this one. You fellas should try to find more politicians running without opponents.We are their opponents. Get used to it.

And if you meant "without capitalist opponents" (there you go, taking your rhetorical cues from the bourgeoisie), then google "Frances Villar" and learn what thousands of workers in NYC already know.

[manic expression]

but then i found out that appernetly there were only two candidates, and the PSL didn't see fit to tell the people who support it by reading its paper the whole truth, but just some lie of emission.
The vast majority of contested electoral races in the US are between two candidates. Most Americans regard two-candidate races as an inherent part of elections themselves. It's hardly a lie of omission to anyone who's vaguely familiar with the US electoral system.


That everything is pointless without changing a mode of production is obviously not a left communist position, and neither is that we should do nothing to mantain some insane revolutionary purity or something.
I heartily encourage you to try to convince Leo of this, because it was clearly his position.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The vast majority of contested electoral races in the US are between two candidates. Most Americans regard two-candidate races as an inherent part of elections themselves. It's hardly a lie of omission to anyone who's vaguely familiar with the US electoral system.


I heartily encourage you to try to convince Leo of this, because it was clearly his position.

Ahhh! Ok, I didn't realize, I assumed cause it was a council election and there was a socialist party being featured it'd have lots of candidates.

So I retract that comment then.

And I think Leo would disagree here.

[Leo]

Every inch of capitalism must be opposed and fought by revolutionaries.

If this is your idea of fighting parliamentarianism, I suppose you will try to become company executives next in order to fight corporations.


why else would Marx have cared about extending the franchise to universal suffrage

The nature of the parliaments are among the stuff that changed since his day.


Well, it's difficult to monitor nothing.

At least you openly admit that you have no idea what our activities are.


It shows us that we're reaching workers with the politics of revolution every day

All this shows, aside from how deep the illusions of yourself and your party is in parliamentarianism and its importance, is that your candidate was the only opponent of the winner of the election, and not much of an opponent either.


We are their opponents. Get used to it.

I am sure they are terrified even now of the day you fellas will beat them in the elections :rolleyes:


then google "Frances Villar" and learn what thousands of workers in NYC already know.

I am aware of the campaign, and also that Frances Villar only got 0.2% of the votes.

Surely a glorious achievement for socialism.

[Leo]

I heartily encourage you to try to convince Leo of this, because it was clearly his position.

You really do have a problem with your reading skills don't you:



This is the most ridiculous part of your argument. Essentially, you're saying that anything less than a change in the mode of production is not worthwhile Nope, I'm mocking the idea that elections are an important area of capitalist society.

Of course changing the mode of production is not something a single act can accomplish, but where daily workers struggles are fundamentally a part of that process, elections are not.

[manic expression]

You really do have a problem with your reading skills don't you:
No, you just have a problem backtracking when you're obviously wrong:


Yes, because elections are so important that they change mode of productions.
You sure said it right there: elections don't change the mode of production in and of themselves, therefore they aren't worth our time. Have fun dancing around your own words. :lol:

[manic expression]

If this is your idea of fighting parliamentarianism, I suppose you will try to become company executives next in order to fight corporations.
Obviously you missed the point, because you don't understand what every communist grasps. Every inch of capitalism must be fought, and thus every political struggle against the bourgeoisie is worthwhile, constructive and important. The electoral arena is no different. If you concede that political struggle to the capitalist class without a fight, then you have no business calling yourself a communist. Further, you're still ignoring the reason why the PSL launched the campaign in the first place. It was to win wider support for the socialist cause, which has been duly accomplished.


The nature of the parliaments are among the stuff that changed since his day.
Ah, but here's the onion: those demands of Marx have been met, and they have NOT changed the mode of production. So according to you, Marx was guilty of everything you are accusing the PSL of. Looks like the PSL is doing something right if anti-Marxists such as yourself are railing against them.


At least you openly admit that you have no idea what our activities are.
Everyone admits that.


All this shows, aside from how deep the illusions of yourself and your party is in parliamentarianism and its importance, is that your candidate was the only opponent of the winner of the election, and not much of an opponent either.
First, that's how it works in a two-candidate race. Second, you're moving the goalposts again because you don't have an argument: the PSL launched the campaign to REACH WORKERS. The PSL has accomplished this, as seen by a large amount of votes for a revolutionary socialist candidate against a well-backed, well-known favorite.


I am sure they are terrified even now of the day you fellas will beat them in the elections :rolleyes:
How nice of you to look out for the capitalists first and foremost.


I am aware of the campaign, and also that Frances Villar only got 0.2% of the votes.
Which equals a LOT of workers introduced to revolutionary politics, to the platform of socialism, to the struggle of the working class. That's exactly what we want to do. That's exactly what you want to oppose, and so your position on this is quite suitable.

[Leo]

You sure said it right there: elections don't change the mode of production in and of themselves therefore they aren't worth our time.

What I said is that elections don't have anything to do with the process of changing the mode of production. Lets clarify further: They aren't a part of workers' struggles. They don't bring any improvements in the lives of working class people. They are tools of ideological manipulation solely at the hands of the ruling class.

Do go on making straw man arguements though.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

No, you just have a problem backtracking when you're obviously wrong:


You sure said it right there: elections don't change the mode of production in and of themselves, therefore they aren't worth our time. Have fun dancing around your own words. :lol:

Well Leo has already clarified his position, but since he's the only one who knows his position...I don't exactly see the point in insisting he thinks elections are pointless because they don't automatically bring about socialism when he that he opposes partpating in them them because they are of no use to us as a movement at all?

I mean, fine if this is just a case of misinterpretation, but please don't keep on insisting that he believes X when he says otherwise himself?

Edit; And for Christs sake, I really, really doubt he opposes informing workers about communism. Stuff like this just confuses me, what the hell is the point in making these obvious, obvious strawmen. I get that mabye you dislike his organisation (while presumably joining in the anti sectarian bandwagon), but can't you express that by arguing against their actual positions rather than just blandly accusing him of thinking stupid things which you know, and everyone else knows he doesn't think?

[manic expression]

What I said is that elections don't have anything to do with the process of changing the mode of production.
And the dancing continues. First, you won't justify that claim precisely because you can't. Why do electoral campaigns have nothing to do with it when publishing a book (or complaining on the internet) does? Second, communists engage in activities that draw workers to the politics of revolution. If this is done through an electoral campaign, does it change the basic purpose of it (and, using your words, the "process" it is a part of)? Third, Marx engaged in all sorts of activities that had as much (if not less) to do with that (unspecified) process as the PSL's electoral campaign. Will you extend your condemnation to Marx? Will you extend it to The Communist Manifesto? If not, then you're being hypocritical.


Lets clarify further: They aren't a part of workers' struggles. They don't bring any improvements in the lives of working class people. They are tools of ideological manipulation solely at the hands of the ruling class.
So the political and rhetorical struggle against capitalism isn't a workers' struggle? So presenting a revolutionary platform to the working class isn't a workers' struggle? So challenging every inch of capitalist society isn't a workers' struggle? Answer the questions or be held as intellectually dishonest and politically bankrupt.


Do go on making straw man arguements though.
The quandary I face is that your argument was in fact made of straw when I found it.

[manic expression]

Well Leo has already clarified his position,
Clarification and backtracking are two very different things. Until he disowns the words I quoted (and, by extension, withdraws his arguments on those points), he will be guilty of neglecting his own position. He's trying to run away from his own plain statements, and that is inexplicable.

[Leo]

Obviously you missed the point, because you don't understand what every communist grasps. Perhaps you should read a bit into history and stuff before claiming every communist is a parliamentarianist.


Which equals a LOT of workers introduced to revolutionary politics, to the platform of socialism, to the struggle of the working class.Actually, it equals to less than two thousand. Yes, such a glorious accomplishment indeed.


Ah, but here's the onion: those demands of Marx have been met, and they have NOT changed the mode of production. So according to you, Marx was guilty of everything you are accusing the PSL of. Looks like the PSL is doing something right if anti-Marxists such as yourself are railing against them.As low as this argument itself is (we are right because Marx said so!), I do feel obliged to clarify the position regardless of yourself for the sake of other posters who might be interested.

It is indeed true that Marx was for parliamentary participation of socialist parties at some parts of his life, as was many other socialists at the time. What we see as the reason for this is that a world-wide communist revolution was not possible at the time since capitalism had not managed to dominate the whole planet yet. There was an expanding and ascending capitalism, rather than the decaying capitalism we had throughout the last century. Obviously the alternative posed by the historical epoch was not one of "socialism or barbarism". Quite the contrary, considering other modes of production and social forces that still existed at the time, which were naturally quite reactionary, capitalism often emerged (and was certainly seen by Marx) as a progressive force. While the economic expansion and ascendancy of capitalism made it possible for some reforms to be permanent (most of those dealing with workers' living and work conditions were to be taken back the following century), the existence of different social forces and modes of production made the parliament an area of confrontation between classes although the parliaments were bourgeois in essence (the bourgeoisie was confident that it could face older social forces in there), where the workers' representatives too could join the battle, albeit mostly as minor forces. As the process of the change from one epoch of capitalism to another took place, the nature of the bourgeois parliament quickly evolved as well. By 1914, all of the democratic parliaments in Europe were completely integrated into their respective imperialist state machineries, along with those who entered the parliaments as socialists or workers' representatives. While there was always a healthy opposition to the reformist tendency within the marxist movement, abstentionism really developed after this point.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Leo, what do left coms actually do? This isn't a troll post, I am sincerely interested and ask only in good faith.

[Leo]

Leo, what do left coms actually do?

We try to intervene in class struggles, engage with political elements in discussion and have an internal political life.

On a more practical level, we publish papers, magazines, do leaflets, posters, organize public meetings, organize or participate in discussion groups and all, talk to our fellow workers, participate in class struggles (even if we don't work in the particular place the struggle is taking place), again talk to fellow workers especially about how to move the struggle forward etc.

[Rusty Shackleford]

We try to intervene in class struggles, engage with political elements in discussion and have an internal political life.

On a more practical level, we publish papers, magazines, do leaflets, posters, organize public meetings, organize or participate in discussion groups and all, talk to our fellow workers, participate in class struggles (even if we don't work in the particular place the struggle is taking place), again talk to fellow workers especially about how to move the struggle forward etc.

dont all communists do this? The only difference i see between left coms and MLs is the question of parliamentarianism. the ultimate objective with MLs and parliament is not a parliamentarian revolution but an actual revolution in which that parliament where they may sit gets cast away.

[zimmerwald1915]

And the dancing continues. First, you won't justify that claim precisely because you can't. Why do electoral campaigns have nothing to do with it when publishing a book (or complaining on the internet) does?
Okay, this is getting slightly ridiculous. I have my suspicions that Leo's assuming everyone speaks in his categories, knows the assumptions and logical steps behind his argument, and thus does not require him to spell it all out. Clearly this isn't the case, so here goes. According to Leo, the form of the state, and thus how revolutionaries must relate to it, has changed dramatically since the heydays of the mass Social Democratic parties. The legislatures, under the pressures first of two world imperialist wars and then under the pressure of the eternal low-level wars - regulated first by the framework of imperialist blocs and then by nothing - and the deepening endemic crisis have progressively lost power to the executive bureaucracy in all capitalist states. National legislatures as well as local governments have been forced by events to cede power to the executive bureaucracy as that is the only organ of the capitalist state centralized enough to manage both eternal war and the endemic crisis, such as it can. Really, this is common knowledge to the bourgeoisie, which puts it, in different terms, in Government textbooks. This means that revolutionaries can no longer use legislatures, or local administrative positions, as weapons of opposition to the capitalist state, as they have little real power to impinge on the will of the national executive bureaucracy. Even managing to capture the position of, say, mayor of Long Beach, would be an empty accomplishment in terms of the actual power that position is able to weild in opposition to the rest of the capitalist state. In this sense, running a candidate is a waste of time, energy and resources.


Second, communists engage in activities that draw workers to the politics of revolution. If this is done through an electoral campaign, does it change the basic purpose of it (and, using your words, the "process" it is a part of)?
But you don't really care about the actual power whatever position a candidate is running for holds, or the terrible trade you're making by sacrificing time, money, and energy for that powerless position. You believe that the time, money, and energy will be recouped by the large number of people you're reaching with a socialist message by participating in electoral campaigns. These folks will, presumably, join up, or at least have some further contact with the PSL or whatever group. And so it's worth it. Trouble is, as has been demonstrated on this thread, that that's not really the case. Very very few of the people who voted for this candidate actually know or care about the PSL, and very very few of those will have any meaningful contact with that or any other organization now that the election is over. Workers don't come to communist positions because some candidate tells them to do so (if any candidate in the "most anti-communist country in the world can do so): they come to communist positions because they can see, in active moments of class struggle, that communists are on their side in all their fights and can see clearly what must be done to gain the most from these fights. Once again, electoral politics appears as a waste, a diversion, and something which communists really shouldn't spend time on.


Third, Marx engaged in all sorts of activities that had as much (if not less) to do with that (unspecified) process as the PSL's electoral campaign. Will you extend your condemnation to Marx? Will you extend it to The Communist Manifesto? If not, then you're being hypocritical.
Anyone can see this is a weak argument. First of all, we are discussing organizational activities: Marx spending months cooped up writing Capital cannot be judged on the same terms as, say, the IWA. The first is an individual contributing to the workers' movement on an individual basis. The second is an organization that, in its time, incarnated much of the workers' movement.


So the political and rhetorical struggle against capitalism isn't a workers' struggle? So presenting a revolutionary platform to the working class isn't a workers' struggle? So challenging every inch of capitalist society isn't a workers' struggle? Answer the questions or be held as intellectually dishonest and politically bankrupt.
Electoral politics does not struggle against capitalism. If one loses, nothing has changed except that one has made one's organization poorer and more exhausted. If one wins, then one's organization has not emerged with much more power to resist the capitalist state than it had before, if any at all. Not even an inch has been gained, and many yards may be lost. Neither is an electoral campaign the best place to present revolutionary politics to the working class: that place is in on the scene of active class struggle.

[zimmerwald1915]

dont all communists do this? The only difference i see between left coms and MLs is the question of parliamentarianism. the ultimate objective with MLs and parliament is not a parliamentarian revolution but an actual revolution in which that parliament where they may sit gets cast away.
There are other differences as well, but another discussion for another thread, eh? As I outlined before, parliament in the capitalist state as it exists today has already been sidelined by the executive bureaucracy, and has been made superfluous as a seat of power by the bourgeoie before the workers today begin to dream of revolution. It remains useful to the bourgeoisie only as a tool to mystify, engage, and mislead workers and self-proclaimed revolutionaries. It is a trap, a black hole into which self-proclaimed revolutionaries pour money, time, and effort while the bourgeoisie laughs.

[manic expression]

Perhaps you should read a bit into history and stuff before claiming every communist is a parliamentarianist.
So I take you're still going to ignore the very plain positions of Karl Marx on the issue of suffrage. Makes sense, since you're an anti-Marxist.


Actually, it equals to less than two thousand. Yes, such a glorious accomplishment indeed.
So reaching "less than two thousand" workers with a revolutionary platform, getting them to vote for a revolutionary candidate is...what, exactly? Keep it up with the sarcasm, Leo, since you haven't been able to formulate an argument as of yet.


As low as this argument itself is (we are right because Marx said so!), I do feel obliged to clarify the position regardless of yourself for the sake of other posters who might be interested.
So you see carrying on the struggle of Marx as "low". How many ways are you going to childishly insult Marxism, Leo?

On your historical revisionism: First, abstentionism did NOT develop in the 20th Century and if you knew the first thing about history you'd agree. The First International was full of abstentionists, most notably the anarchists, whose anti-Marxist political legacy you carry on. Second, you have been unable to address the entire purpose of the PSL's campaign, likely because you don't get what every communist understands (see previous posts if you're still clueless). Third, you uphold the October Revolution, do you not? That was very much connected to the electoral campaigns of the Bolsheviks, who thusly won more working-class support for revolutionary politics before smashing the capitalist state. Have fun dancing around history once more.

Address those points instead of dodging them again and again. You call my arguments "low", and yet you have abandoned entire arguments after being pressed on them.


We try to intervene in class struggles, engage with political elements in discussion and have an internal political life.
:lol::lol::lol: Yes, "trying" (and failing) to be relevant, having political conversations and holding internal meetings no one cares about is so much better than winning thousands of workers to a revolutionary socialist platform. Stay classy, Leo.


On a more practical level, we publish papers, magazines, do leaflets, posters, organize public meetings, organize or participate in discussion groups and all, talk to our fellow workers, participate in class struggles (even if we don't work in the particular place the struggle is taking place), again talk to fellow workers especially about how to move the struggle forward etc.
But wait, none of these things, in and of themselves, change the mode of production. According to you, you're bourgeois. Ultra-leftist nonsense has now come full circle.

[manic expression]

Even managing to capture the position of, say, mayor of Long Beach, would be an empty accomplishment in terms of the actual power that position is able to weild in opposition to the rest of the capitalist state. In this sense, running a candidate is a waste of time, energy and resources.
Try to bear with me: the PSL did not launch the campaign in order to win. The PSL does not care about winning bourgeois elections here. The whole point was to reach workers with a revolutionary platform, and win working-class support for revolutionary politics. That was what the PSL accomplished here.

Sure, if the PSL had won the election (by the biggest electoral miracle in US history), it would have opened plenty of new opportunities to reach the workers, to increase organization for revolution, to challenge capitalism and so on, but that wasn't going to happen, and the PSL knew it. They created the campaign with the full knowledge that they weren't going to win. And that's precisely why it was a success.


But you don't really care about the actual power whatever position a candidate is running for holds, or the terrible trade you're making by sacrificing time, money, and energy for that powerless position. You believe that the time, money, and energy will be recouped by the large number of people you're reaching with a socialist message by participating in electoral campaigns. These folks will, presumably, join up, or at least have some further contact with the PSL or whatever group. And so it's worth it. Trouble is, as has been demonstrated on this thread, that that's not really the case. Very very few of the people who voted for this candidate actually know or care about the PSL, and very very few of those will have any meaningful contact with that or any other organization now that the election is over. Workers don't come to communist positions because some candidate tells them to do so (if any candidate in the "most anti-communist country in the world can do so): they come to communist positions because they can see, in active moments of class struggle, that communists are on their side in all their fights and can see clearly what must be done to gain the most from these fights. Once again, electoral politics appears as a waste, a diversion, and something which communists really shouldn't spend time on.
:lol: How the hell are you remotely justifying these statements? Have you talked to voters in Long Beach and asked them their reasons for voting for the PSL's candidate? Are you aware of the PSL's daily activities in that area? How would you ever be able to judge the "costs" of the campaign? I can tell you from personal experience in such an effort that interest in the PSL was greatly increased during the Frances Villar campaign. Yes, we worked our asses off, but there were lots and lots of new faces at our events all the time, and the results continue to pay off almost a year later. We entered the campaign knowing it would be a failure as far as elections go (the meeting before the first petition teams went out was about exactly this, discussing the strategic failure of the Moncada Attacks on the anniversary of that great event). The point was to challenge capitalism and to reach workers with revolution. We did that there, and we did that here. If you don't like challenging capitalism and reaching workers, then I think your position makes sense for your ends.

On the "discouragement" and "waste of energy" you keep blabbering about with no actual clue whatsoever: As a disciplined communist party, the energy of my comrades is not going away anytime soon...you can bet your mortgage on that.

By the way, electoral campaigns are part of the workers' struggle. Marx knew this. You deny it.


Anyone can see this is a weak argument. First of all, we are discussing organizational activities: Marx spending months cooped up writing Capital cannot be judged on the same terms as, say, the IWA. The first is an individual contributing to the workers' movement on an individual basis. The second is an organization that, in its time, incarnated much of the workers' movement.
The IWA wrote a letter to Abe Lincoln, supporting the Civil War. I await your ultra-leftist indignation against the First International.


Electoral politics does not struggle against capitalism. If one loses, nothing has changed except that one has made one's organization poorer and more exhausted. If one wins, then one's organization has not emerged with much more power to resist the capitalist state than it had before, if any at all. Not even an inch has been gained, and many yards may be lost. Neither is an electoral campaign the best place to present revolutionary politics to the working class: that place is in on the scene of active class struggle.
Electoral politics do struggle against capitalism. They win workers to a revolutionary platform. They combat capitalist propaganda in the public realm when interest in politics is heightened. They energize and encourage parties to continue on the path to revolution. You, of course, oppose all that, so it's fitting you'd hold such an ultra-leftist line.

The PSL is not poorer and more exhausted because of our electoral campaigns. You're obviously pulling this from where the sun don't shine. I know for a FACT that the NYC PSL is better supported and more encouraged thanks to the successes of the Frances Villar campaign. I am sure the same holds true in this case as well. Don't talk about things you have no experience with, like the actual practice of winning workers to socialism.

[zimmerwald1915]

So I take you're still going to ignore the very plain positions of Karl Marx on the issue of suffrage. Makes sense, since you're an anti-Marxist.
And because Karl Marx said it, it must be true. It makes sense that you would say such things, since you give yourself the same authority as yourself. What you fail to take into account is the intervening years of development, of the capitalist economy from progressive and expansive to self-cannibalistic, and of the capitalist state from parliamentary to bureaucratic. But by all means, if you ever manage to develop time travel, do bring the 1840s back with you when you visit.


So reaching "less than two thousand" workers with a revolutionary platform, getting them to vote for a revolutionary candidate is...what, exactly? Keep it up with the sarcasm, Leo, since you haven't been able to formulate an argument as of yet.
There are three pages of thread explaining how "less than two thousand workers" were in fact voting for "the other gal" rather than for "a revolutionary socialist". Unless, of course, you want to set aside all that in the name of claiming a propaganda victory in the name of boosting the PSL's morale.


So you see carrying on the struggle of Marx as "low". How many ways are you going to childishly insult Marxism, Leo?
I seem to recall somewhere one or many Marxists saying Marxism had "abolished individuality" as an important factor in the workers' movement. I also seem to recall someone in this thread saying we are talking about the politics of organizations, not what individuals do as individuals.


On your historical revisionism: First, abstentionism did NOT develop in the 20th Century and if you knew the first thing about history you'd agree. The First International was full of abstentionists, most notably the anarchists, whose anti-Marxist political legacy you carry on.
Actually reading what he wrote suggests that he meant "Marxist abstentionism", meaning "abstentionism within the Marxist movement, supported by Marxist methodology and argumentation." Both anarchists and MLs like to claim that the abstentionism of what became left communism was derived from anarchism, anarchists so they can claim left communism as part of their tradition, MLs so they can banish it from the Marxist tradition. Whatever the motive, it is not true: it is a fact that there were abstentionist Marxists, and that they were a considerable, though by no means dominant, force within the Marxist movement. Go back and look at the votes of the Comintern's Second Congress on the question of parliamentarianism (I believe the theses for and against participation were presented by Bukharin and Bordiga, respectively).


Third, you uphold the October Revolution, do you not? That was very much connected to the electoral campaigns of the Bolsheviks, who thusly won more working-class support for revolutionary politics before smashing the capitalist state. Have fun dancing around history once more.
You're talking about the revolution which saw the Bolshevik Deputies walk out of the Duma and proclaim it useless, which saw the Bolsheviks focus their attention on winning a majority of the Soviets, and which saw the Bolsheviks suppress the bourgeois Constituent Assembly rather than participate in it, right? The Bolshevik Deputies did not speak from within the Duma during the revolution: they denounced the institution and left it, and did not return. Before that they were not much of a force within it, either of opposition or disruption, and the Duma had little power anyway. So you're left with the one single assertion that the Bolsheviks' influence in the working class was due to their election campaigns pre-revolution. But it wasn't. Pre-revolution, and even in February, their influence was small, even amongst workers. Otherwise it wouldn't have made sense for Lenin to proclaim in April that the masses would eventually come to their line. It was the Bolsheviks' conduct during the revolution that won them their support, and these actions often took the form of denouncing bourgeois democracy and the Provisional Government. If anything, the Russian Revolution validates our line, that it is revolutionaries' conduct during moments of class struggle that bring workers around to communist positions, rather than yours, that it is being stumped at that brings workers around to communist positions.



Yes, "trying" (and failing) to be relevant, having political conversations and holding internal meetings no one cares about is so much better than winning thousands of workers to a revolutionary socialist platform. Stay classy, Leo.
You keep saying this. And yet you continue to ignore the three pages of thread saying that winning votes does not mean you've won people to your positions. You make yourself ridiculous.

[zimmerwald1915]

Try to bear with me: the PSL did not launch the campaign in order to win. The PSL does not care about winning bourgeois elections here. The whole point was to reach workers with a revolutionary platform, and win working-class support for revolutionary politics. That was what the PSL accomplished here.

Sure, if the PSL had won the election (by the biggest electoral miracle in US history), it would have opened plenty of new opportunities to reach the workers, to increase organization for revolution, to challenge capitalism and so on, but that wasn't going to happen, and the PSL knew it. They created the campaign with the full knowledge that they weren't going to win. And that's precisely why it was a success.
I and you know that the PSL was never going to win. It's good that we have some common ground. As I explained in my post, I was going over as much of the Marxist abstentionist argument as I could, since nobody else was going to do so. Part of that argument is that elected positions don't actually hold all that much power to disrupt the functioning of the capitalist state, and that possession of them does not benefit a revolutionary organization. It may not be the most germane part of the argument, but I was going for completeness.

Ignoring the voters' thought process for a moment, what did they actually do. What actions were taken. Now, I don't know how they vote in Long Beach, provincial East Coaster that I am, but I suspect it involves going into a booth or cubicle, partitioned off from the rest of the world by plywood or canvas, and making a mark on something indicating a choice of candidate. It involved, on the part of the voter, the effort of walking, driving, cycling, etc. to the polling station, pulling out a registration card, walking into the plywood cubicle, and moving their wrist around in a circle a couple times. Dirty little secret? I've voted, and it's an activity that isolates the voter. One's contact is with polling station attendants, and is strictly formal. If there's a line, that's annoying and isolating. If there isn't...well, there isn't anyone else there. And of course you're alone in the booth. It's an atomizing process that has nothing to do with acting as part of a class. It does not lead to feelings of solidarity with others, as you have no guarantee that anybody made the same choice as you. And even if you ask, well, you're only talking to your circle of friends anyway, with whom you already share a bond.

It is the working class, acting as a class, on its own terms and with its own demands, that challenges capitalism. I have already established, anecdotally I'll admit, that a voter relates to the capitalist state as an individual. The process of voting is designed to reproduce this relation. It is precisely this reason that "ultra-leftists" get excited about the mass assemblies that come out of fargoing struggles: they encourage, and depend on for their life, the open participation of as many people as possible. The working class in struggle is the real challenger of capitalism, not your organization, not my organization, not a bunch of atomized voters.


How the hell are you remotely justifying these statements? Have you talked to voters in Long Beach and asked them their reasons for voting for the PSL's candidate? Are you aware of the PSL's daily activities in that area? How would you ever be able to judge the "costs" of the campaign? I can tell you from personal experience in such an effort that interest in the PSL was greatly increased during the Frances Villar campaign. Yes, we worked our asses off, but there were lots and lots of new faces at our events all the time, and the results continue to pay off almost a year later. We entered the campaign knowing it would be a failure as far as elections go (the meeting before the first petition teams went out was about exactly this, discussing the strategic failure of the Moncada Attacks on the anniversary of that great event). The point was to challenge capitalism and to reach workers with revolution. We did that there, and we did that here. If you don't like challenging capitalism and reaching workers, then I think your position makes sense for your ends.
Come come, I'm a poor student in Maryland, with time-consuming classes and no money to travel even if I wanted to. Surely you won't hold that against me. I'll freely admit that my skepticism that the PSL's result actually reflects real support for their politics among all the people who voted for them comes from evidence presented in this thread by other revlefters who I've never met and probably never will. But it seems infinitely more likely to me, as a number of people have said, that voters in Long Beach voted for "that other gal" than for "that revolutionary socialist". After all, as you yourself said, even the PSL didn't expect this high a return, particularly in the "most anti-communist country in the world". As for how much you spent, and the other "costs", well, I'm not exactly privy to that sort of information, am I, not being a PSLer and all?


On the "discouragement" and "waste of energy" you keep blabbering about with no actual clue whatsoever: As a disciplined communist party, the energy of my comrades is not going away anytime soon...you can bet your mortgage on that.
What mortgage? I haven't an apartment, much less a mortgage. But just as I cannot know how much the PSL spent on this campaign, so can you not predict the future. Besides, I was talking in terms of actual joules of energy spent. It is a fact that there was energy spent by members of the PSL on attaining this result. It is also a fact that this energy could have been spent doing something else. It is my contention that this energy could have been better spent doing something else: it was not my contention that election campaigns always and inevitably lead to burnout, though they often do.


The IWA wrote a letter to Abe Lincoln, supporting the Civil War. I await your ultra-leftist indignation against the First International.
The First International is dead, and while it deserves critique just as much as any organization, I make it a practice to get indignant only at the practices of living organizations. As for that letter, writing it took up orders of magnitude less time and energy than the PSL's electoral campaign. It was also a letter of congratulations, published in a newspaper after the election was over, not participation in the campaign itself.


Electoral politics do struggle against capitalism. They win workers to a revolutionary platform. They combat capitalist propaganda in the public realm when interest in politics is heightened. They energize and encourage parties to continue on the path to revolution. You, of course, oppose all that, so it's fitting you'd hold such an ultra-leftist line.
You choose to confront bourgeois propaganda when it's strongest, on its own terms, in its own arena. You choose to related to people as citizens, as voters. Us poor deluded ultra-leftists choose to relate to workers as workers, when they're thinking about struggle, beginning to struggle, or are in the act of struggle. We confront bourgeois propaganda when the workers have begun, in their actions, to question it, and push them to question it further. You're a lone voice in the capitalist wilderness. We're a part of the working class. And we like it here.


The PSL is not poorer and more exhausted because of our electoral campaigns. You're obviously pulling this from where the sun don't shine. I know for a FACT that the NYC PSL is better supported and more encouraged thanks to the successes of the Frances Villar campaign. I am sure the same holds true in this case as well. Don't talk about things you have no experience with, like the actual practice of winning workers to socialism.
I've addressed this point. I'm not saying the PSL's about to collapse or run out of money or burn out its members. I don't know enough to say such things, and they might or might not be true. My argument was that each of us humans, and each organization made up of humans, has an amount of energy to spend each day, each lifetime, and that we'd best allocate it where it does the most good. Allocating it in electoral campaigns amounts to wasting it. It's interesting that you bring up the exact same point twice, almost as if you were defensive about it.

[manic expression]

And because Karl Marx said it, it must be true.
No, but because every ounce of experience since the founding of the communist movement has confirmed the value of electoral activity, so it probably has something to it after all. For all your denial, you can only dance around the concrete experiences of Marxism throughout history. Better get those dancing shoes on.


There are three pages of thread explaining how "less than two thousand workers" were in fact voting for "the other gal" rather than for "a revolutionary socialist". Unless, of course, you want to set aside all that in the name of claiming a propaganda victory in the name of boosting the PSL's morale.That comment ("less than two thousand...") referred to the Villar campaign. I personally talked to dozens of workers who said they like the PSL platform and were very interested in our activities, but that they wanted to vote against Bloomberg's most prominent opponent to get him out. The people who voted for us in that race represent only a portion of the workers we reached and drew to revolutionary socialism.


I seem to recall somewhere one or many Marxists saying Marxism had "abolished individuality" as an important factor in the workers' movement. I also seem to recall someone in this thread saying we are talking about the politics of organizations, not what individuals do as individuals.Marx was laying out the correct line of struggle for the workers, which included electoral activities. Keep dancing.


Actually reading what he wrote suggests that he meant "Marxist abstentionism", meaning "abstentionism within the Marxist movement, supported by Marxist methodology and argumentation."An oxymoron, made evident by the anti-Marxism of Leo and yourself. Carry on.


Both anarchists and MLs like to claim that the abstentionism of what became left communism was derived from anarchism, anarchists so they can claim left communism as part of their tradition, MLs so they can banish it from the Marxist tradition. Whatever the motive, it is not true: it is a fact that there were abstentionist Marxists, and that they were a considerable, though by no means dominant, force within the Marxist movement. Go back and look at the votes of the Comintern's Second Congress on the question of parliamentarianism (I believe the theses for and against participation were presented by Bukharin and Bordiga, respectively).And the experience of the October Revolution showed us otherwise. Moreover, it doesn't change the fact that abstentionism is a legacy of the anarchists in the First International.


You're talking about the revolution which saw the Bolshevik Deputies walk out of the Duma and proclaim it useless, which saw the Bolsheviks focus their attention on winning a majority of the Soviets, and which saw the Bolsheviks suppress the bourgeois Constituent Assembly rather than participate in it, right? The Bolshevik Deputies did not speak from within the Duma during the revolution: they denounced the institution and left it, and did not return.:lol::lol::lol: You don't get into the Duma by abstaining from elections, which is your position. Good to know that even you're admitting the absurdity of your position.


You keep saying this. And yet you continue to ignore the three pages of thread saying that winning votes does not mean you've won people to your positions. You make yourself ridiculous.There are three pages of ultra-lefts trying to deny the basic mathematics that more and more workers are being drawn to the revolutionary platform of the PSL. This is being carried out partially through electoral campaigns along the lines of communist practice, and also through many other means. Ultra-lefts can hoot and holler all they like, for they oppose drawing workers to revolution. I find your position most fitting.

[manic expression]

I and you know that the PSL was never going to win.
Then your point, admittedly, is moot. Thanks.


Ignoring the voters' thought process for a moment, what did they actually do.
They endorsed and supported a revolutionary candidate against a well-funded, well-known incumbent.


It is the working class, acting as a class, on its own terms and with its own demands, that challenges capitalism.
Exactly, which means challenging every inch of capitalist society. Which means working-class parties using electoral campaigns as a platform for reaching workers with a revolutionary message.


Come come, I'm a poor student in Maryland, with time-consuming classes and no money to travel even if I wanted to. Surely you won't hold that against me.
I'm only holding you to your words. You assumed to know the effects this had on the PSL in Long Beach and on the voters who supported the PSL. If you don't know what they are, then don't try to extract conclusions. Simple as that.


I'll freely admit that my skepticism that the PSL's result actually reflects real support for their politics among all the people who voted for them comes from evidence presented in this thread by other revlefters who I've never met and probably never will. But it seems infinitely more likely to me, as a number of people have said, that voters in Long Beach voted for "that other gal" than for "that revolutionary socialist". After all, as you yourself said, even the PSL didn't expect this high a return, particularly in the "most anti-communist country in the world". As for how much you spent, and the other "costs", well, I'm not exactly privy to that sort of information, am I, not being a PSLer and all?
What evidence posted here? The fact that it was a two-candidate race? That's tangential right now: I asked you why you were so sure voters voted the way they did, and lo and behold you have absolutely no clue. So the argument can be disposed of. I then asked you why you were so sure it was a "waste" of time, energy and resources, when my personal experience contradicts this to the fullest. I have yet to get an answer. This just goes to show that the objections to the PSL's campaign are ill-conceived.


What mortgage? I haven't an apartment, much less a mortgage. But just as I cannot know how much the PSL spent on this campaign, so can you not predict the future. Besides, I was talking in terms of actual joules of energy spent. It is a fact that there was energy spent by members of the PSL on attaining this result. It is also a fact that this energy could have been spent doing something else. It is my contention that this energy could have been better spent doing something else: it was not my contention that election campaigns always and inevitably lead to burnout, though they often do.
First, there is no end to the energy of the PSL. As I said, we are a highly disciplined and motivated party, and energy is one thing we are not going to run out of.

Second, this was time well spent, as I can tell you from intimate experience that electoral campaigns contribute directly to greater interest in revolutionary politics. The experiences of the Bolsheviks bear this out for us as well.


The First International is dead, and while it deserves critique just as much as any organization, I make it a practice to get indignant only at the practices of living organizations. As for that letter, writing it took up orders of magnitude less time and energy than the PSL's electoral campaign. It was also a letter of congratulations, published in a newspaper after the election was over, not participation in the campaign itself.
Since we've already disposed of your fretting over the PSL's "time and energy", let's move to the core matter. Your objection to the PSL's electoral campaigns can comfortably be applied to the ISA's activities in certain regards, and yet you defend the ISA and condemn the PSL. This is a contradiction you need to come to terms with.


You choose to confront bourgeois propaganda when it's strongest, on its own terms, in its own arena. You choose to related to people as citizens, as voters. Us poor deluded ultra-leftists choose to relate to workers as workers, when they're thinking about struggle, beginning to struggle, or are in the act of struggle. We confront bourgeois propaganda when the workers have begun, in their actions, to question it, and push them to question it further. You're a lone voice in the capitalist wilderness. We're a part of the working class. And we like it here.
Wrong. The PSL confronts bourgeois propaganda everywhere, as all communists should. The PSL relates to people as workers before, during and after electoral campaigns. I know this because I worked with the Frances Villar campaign, and the rhetoric was constantly and consistently about relating to workers as workers. Don't talk about things you don't know.

I'd call you a "lone voice in the wilderness", but that would require your tendency to have something of a voice.


My argument was that each of us humans, and each organization made up of humans, has an amount of energy to spend each day, each lifetime, and that we'd best allocate it where it does the most good. Allocating it in electoral campaigns amounts to wasting it.
You have yet to justify this to the slightest. And you won't, because you can't.

[Kassad]

I love how whenever our party is being discussed, I can never really post my input, since Manic Expression always beats me to it with awesome posts. This thread also shows how naive people are when it comes to our party and revolutionary socialism in the United States in general.

Whereas opportunists attack the PSL for using the electoral arena, we realize that capitalist elections are one of the most important aspects of capitalist rule. Elections perpetuate the illusion that capitalism can be reformed, or that if you are unhappy with your politicians, you can vote them out and get better ones who will solve everything. However, when two corporate parties are involved and they control every aspect of the electoral system, workers have no choice but to vote for corporate, reactionary candidates. This is not democracy.

That is why the PSL intervenes in the elections. Zimmerwald1915 suggesting that we "knew we weren't going to win" is foolish, since we're not in this to win, and that's the same kind of argument that liberals use against supporting progressive candidates, since they're "never going to win." We use elections as a means of promoting a revolutionary socialist platform. Some people would never have managed to meet a real revolutionary socialist out of nowhere, but when we take to the streets to try to reach people and promote our ideology, we meet them head on and confront the capitalist electoral sham.

A lot of people don't seem to understand this, but at this point, I'm not too concerned. The PSL is the fastest growing Marxist party in the United States and it is the most visible and the most active. We just had our first party congress and we have branches coming up across the country. We're running many more socialists in the upcoming elections and ones in the future to promote liberation of the working class and a socialist platform. Our activity in the elections, in the streets and in every struggle that affects workers is why we have been so successful in building the struggle for an end to capitalist exploitation.

[fredbergen]

Well Kassad you certainly know how to turn on the self-congratulatory bombast. Unlike the left-communists I don't oppose running propaganda candidates. The question is what kind of propaganda? Just because something is called socialist doesn't mean it is. For example, Merino called for "community control of the police." This is a dangerous illusion and is not part of any kind of revolutionary socialist program. The police are the backbone of the capitalist state. They are not going to be "controlled" by any "community" -- they are the armed fist of capital and will be smashed by the workers revolution. In fact, history shows that "community control boards" and the like are at best toothless bureaucracies that serve to divert and co-opt mass struggle against police brutality. New York City has a civilian police review board, did you know that? Fat lot of good that does for the thousands of victims of the racist NYPD!

That's only one of the many flaws in Merino's platform. So even if the voters who voted for her knew they were voting for the PSL, it really matters very little. The campaign "succeeded" in spreading more democratic illusions about reforming the capitalist state. Revolutionary propaganda intervention in bourgeois elections is supposed to do the opposite. But to make a revolutionary intervention in bourgeois elections, first you need a revolutionary party. The PSL ain't.

[Kassad]

That's only one of the many flaws in Merino's platform. So even if the voters who voted for her knew they were voting for the PSL, it really matters very little. The campaign "succeeded" in spreading more democratic illusions about reforming the capitalist state. Revolutionary propaganda intervention in bourgeois elections is supposed to do the opposite. But to make a revolutionary intervention in bourgeois elections, first you need a revolutionary party. The PSL ain't.

Sorry, fredbergen, but to summarize it in the simplest way that I can, your revolutionary Trotskyist platform does not appeal to workers. Hell, it doesn't even appeal to class conscious workers! The Internationalist Group hasn't managed to spread their operations past New York and it remains a petty, irrelevant organization. I forget where it was, but you lost one of your international sections to the International Bolshevik Tendency and it was revealed that what you considered a "section" of your international turned out to be one person. It's a shame, since frankly, out of the Spartacist League and all of its assorted splits and expulsions, I find the League for the Fourth International to have one of the best political lines, but the fact of the matter is that you can't shove a copy of the Transitional Program down an American worker's throat. You have to work inside the proletariat struggles to turn workers to Marxism. You are failing to do that. We are not.

You can promote whatever revolutionary platform you wish, but unless it fights for the gains of workers, it is irrelevant. Right now, the bourgeois elections are very important in the eyes of the working class, thus why we agitate and organize around the electoral system to prove what a sham it is.

[fredbergen]

So is the illusion in "community control of the police" Marxism?

And are bourgeois elections "inside the proletariat"?

And is the straw-man about shoving things down "American workers" throats your best substitute for an argument?

[Kassad]

So is the illusion in "community control of the police" Marxism?

And are bourgeois elections "inside the proletariat"?

And is the straw-man about shoving things down "American workers" throats your best substitute for an argument?

Is asking questions dodging my points about how the Internationalist Group is totally irrelevant your best substitute for an argument?

Calling for community control of the police is a means of attempting to create accountability in the police department. Though under capitalism this is nearly impossible, it is a progressive step towards accountability. The best example I can give is workers unions, in which they often gain substantial reforms for workers, but at times feed the labor bureaucracy with larger unions, with many of them working to perpetuate the same illusions of capitalism. It's kind of a double-edged sword, I suppose you could say, that can only be rectified through revolution.

Feel free to explain to me how my argument about shoving things down the workers throats is a straw man, since that's all you seem to do. I'm sure plenty of workers are turned by your shouts of "Reforge the Fourth International, for a Trotskyist party for new October Revolutions!" Yeah...

[Die Neue Zeit]

So is the illusion in "community control of the police" Marxism?

Actually, yes:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm


The Commune to be master of its administration and its police.


You can promote whatever revolutionary platform you wish, but unless it fights for the gains of workers, it is irrelevant. Right now, the bourgeois elections are very important in the eyes of the working class, thus why we agitate and organize around the electoral system to prove what a sham it is.

Are you guys ever going to have a program/platform like the link above or the rival SP-USA's platform?

[The Gallant Gallstone]

When I read this thread I keep thinking of that old hip-hop slogan, "Haters Gonna Hate" There may be some genuine good-faith criticism regarding specifics on the PSL's platform, but for the most part, it sounds like envious belly-aching.

Has anyone from the League of the Fourth International ever been invited to an interview on Good Day LA?

I've been on the fence for a while (too long perhaps) but the more I read, write, think and observe, the clearer it gets. The PSL's vitality, energy and tenacity make it the "real deal."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not at all even in general, and certainly not under these circumstances.



Yes, the next step is to vigilantly watch for anywhere where there is a single candidate running.



Yes, socialism via bourgeois parliamentarianism!!!



Yes, as it is obvious from the 84% he got.



Yes, because elections are so important that they change mode of productions.

Don't let the facts bother the elections party though, have fun congratulating...

This is pathetic. Even if this is not your preferred method of achieving Socialism, you can at least recognise progress.

What is your alternative? To sit on 0.1% of electoral votes in the comfort that your ultra-leftist, intellectualist approach is still somehow 'better' than those who are out there working hard, campaigning for Socialism.

At the very least - even if you are not in support of such electoral tactics -, you could not be so openly hostile. We should always support what is advancing the Socialist movement.

[Kassad]

Are you guys ever going to have a program/platform like the link above or the rival SP-USA's platform?

Sorry, but we're a party of struggle. We have a program ratified by our party congress and we'll publish it when we do. I find a party program to be very important, but releasing it to the public so people like yourself can make criticisms for shits and giggles is not really a top priority.

[fredbergen]

I'm not sure I understand you Kassad. The PSL calls for "community control" of the police. You don't attempt to explain how this is supposed to happen. Aren't the police the capitalist state? And unless the vague term "community" means the capitalist class, you are saying that the workers should take over the existing machinery of capitalist oppression and use it for their own purposes? Isn't that a reformist illusion, and a particularly deadly one at that?

Now you say that what the PSL says isn't really what it means: the reformist demand for "community control" is meant to create "accountability." Can the capitalist state be accountable to the class it exists to oppress?

Them you say something I really don't understand, that these slogans are something like organizing a union. Is the capitalist state a union of sorts, and do you propose a different leadership and program for it? Is calling for new departments of the capitalist state ("community control" boards) at all analogous to organizing the unorganized into new locals of a union?

It all sounds very confused and reformist to me. I don't even see how it could be popular. If that's what you're after in this period, why the pretensions of Marxism?

[Kassad]

Dear fredbergen,

I addressed your points and will clarify my statements once you reply to my questions about the Internationalist Group, why your membership is isolated to New York, why your international is so minute and why after so many years, you still have literally no relevancy in the international communist movement.

Sincerely,
Kassad

[chegitz guevara]

Apparently this "Trotskyist" doesn't understand the concept of transitional demands.

[gorillafuck]

Are you guys ever going to have a program/platform like the link above or the rival SP-USA's platform?
I hope the PSL and SP-USA don't consider themselves "rivals". I personally think the SP-USA is a better party but to have both of them think they're competing with each other rather than trying to work with each would be very detrimental.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't think either organization considers the other to be a rival. We're really not on each other's radar, except in Florida, where we do a lot of work together.

[KC]

So reaching "less than two thousand" workers with a revolutionary platform, getting them to vote for a revolutionary candidate is...what, exactly? Keep it up with the sarcasm, Leo, since you haven't been able to formulate an argument as of yet.

2000 is about 0.4% of the population of Long Beach, so it's not really much to be excited about.

Also, if the point is to "reach the workers" and not to win the election then what is the purpose of parading around the election results as if it is a huge victory? Seems contradictory to me.

[Kassad]

2000 is about 0.4% of the population of Long Beach, so it's not really much to be excited about.

Also, if the point is to "reach the workers" and not to win the election then what is the purpose of parading around the election results as if it is a huge victory? Seems contradictory to me.

Because due to Stevie Merino and her volunteers going door to door, attending rallies and meetings and reaching out to working people, I'm confident that a significant amount of people supported her platform and voted for her, some of which are currently getting involved in our party after engaging in the struggle with us. Our electoral campaigns have been unbelievably helpful in recruiting new party members, so your pessimism is noted, but irrelevant, as usual.

[The Red Next Door]

Can we all get along please? That why we never get nothing done.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

Can we all get along please? That why we never get nothing done.

I think we have to accept that, to a certain extent, conflict is inevitable.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry, but we're a party of struggle. We have a program ratified by our party congress and we'll publish it when we do. I find a party program to be very important, but releasing it to the public so people like yourself can make criticisms for shits and giggles is not really a top priority.

For shits and giggles?

It appears then that Marx and Engels also critiqued the Gotha and Erfurt programs, respectively, for their own shits and giggles. :rolleyes:

[Kassad]

For shits and giggles?

It appears then that Marx and Engels also critiqued the Gotha and Erfurt programs, respectively, for their own shits and giggles. :rolleyes:

Cute, but still fallacious. You're convinced my party is less revolutionary (even than some social-democratic parties, which shows how delusional you are) because we don't have a publically published platform as of yet. Despite our consistent intervention in struggle, our unrivaled energy and our political line, you're so wrapped up in our party's program that you can't really muster an honest view of the party.

Because of this, I'm not really concerned about rushing around to make sure you get your hands on our program. It will be published, but that won't change your social-democratic leanings, nor will it change your opinion of anything.

[black magick hustla]

Dear fredbergen,

I addressed your points and will clarify my statements once you reply to my questions about the Internationalist Group, why your membership is isolated to New York, why your international is so minute and why after so many years, you still have literally no relevancy in the international communist movement.

Sincerely,
Kassad

The PSL is minute and has no relevance in the internetiuonal communist movement. In the same sense the WWP did. This discussions are silly, because its like if the two highschool loser groups in the caf resort to call each other more loser than the other because one has 5 persons in its group, and the other 2.

[Kassad]

The PSL is minute and has no relevance in the internetiuonal communist movement. In the same sense the WWP did. This discussions are silly, because its like if the two highschool loser groups in the caf resort to call each other more loser than the other because one has 5 persons in its group, and the other 2.

Coming from a left communist? Do I seriously need to address this? I rarely say 'lol' and actually 'lol,' but this time, this is a legitimate 'lol.' :laugh:

Our party is five years old, yet we've grown to be one of the largest communist parties in the United States. We're leaders of the anti-war movement and we are active in struggles across the country. Not only are we revolutionaries, but we are militant. This is displayed by members of our party kicking the living shit out of Nazis in LA a little while back and in collaboration with members of Socialist Party USA, confronting Tea Party protestors in Florida.

Sorry, but your statement has absolutely no weight to it. Feel free to return to your criticisms of third-world movements trying to fight imperialism and leave the actual communists to the struggle.

[black magick hustla]

Coming from a left communist? Do I seriously need to address this? I rarely say 'lol' and actually 'lol,' but this time, this is a legitimate 'lol.' :laugh:

Our current is insignifant. I never claimed otherwise. You missed the point though. It is completely silly that the marginal left barks at the other element of the marginal left for their size when both of them are irrelevant and nobody gives a shit about them.




Our party is five years old, yet we've grown to be one of the largest communist parties in the United States. We're leaders of the anti-war movement and we are active in struggles across the country.

You are a split of the WWP, which had about 50 years.



. Not only are we revolutionaries, but we are militant. This is displayed by members of our party kicking the living shit out of Nazis in LA a little while back and in collaboration with members of Socialist Party USA, confronting Tea Party protestors in Florida.

Thats great.




Sorry, but your statement has absolutely no weight to it. Feel free to return to your criticisms of third-world movements trying to fight imperialism and leave the actual communists to the struggle.
I am sure the 0.4 percent of Long Beach voting for the alternative because they couldnt give two shits about the election is the "actual struggle".

[Kassad]

I love how you brush off where I show proof of real struggle and than address something that is not even our primary aspect of our party's work. I can't believe I really expected better from you.

[black magick hustla]

I love how you brush off where I show proof of real struggle and than address something that is not even our primary aspect of our party's work. I can't believe I really expected better from you.

Well kassad. You see, you always comes to these threads and criticize everybody about how irrelevant everybody else and then lambast the greatness of the PSL, because its the "biggest communist group". I am sorry if I find that annoying. Because first, i ddoubt the PSL is the biggest, I would imagine CPUSA is. Atleast that is the one everybody knows about. Second, "being the biggest communist group" in the US is being the the king of the blind because you atleast have one eye. You are irrelevant and trying to make a point by claiming that everybody else is more irrelevant than you because of your size is completely dishonest.

[Kassad]

Well kassad. You see, you always comes to these threads and criticize everybody about how irrelevant everybody else and then lambast the greatness of the PSL, because its the "biggest communist group". I am sorry if I find that annoying. Because first, i ddoubt the PSL is the biggest, I would imagine CPUSA is. Atleast that is the one everybody knows about. Second, "being the biggest communist group" in the US is being the the king of the blind because you atleast have one eye. You are irrelevant and trying to make a point by claiming that everybody else is more irrelevant than you because of your size is completely dishonest.

Communist Party USA has recently applauded the fact that they are confused with the Democratic Party at times. They're not communists. The point is that in the present day, the election of Obama has led to a massive decline in struggle from progressives in almost all aspects. In a time where a lot of communist groups are practicing defeatist tactics, we aren't.

Of course no communist party is relevant right now, but very few organizations are actually putting forth a program for struggle and socialism. Some organizations are fading into obscurity, while others fail to even reach workers anymore. That's why I'm with the party I am. We manage to reach out to all different sectors of society to promote the struggle and that's why we're growing so significantly. You've chosen to let all proof of our struggle fall on deaf ears and you only focus on my statements of our size. If that's what you'd like to do, trust me. I'm not losing sleep over it.

[fredbergen]

Well, I think the PSL is relevant. Not in the sense of having won the allegiance of any significant fraction of the working class, but in terms of educating or miseducating the cadres of a future revolutionary party. In terms of teaching the workers about Marxism, or convincing potentially revolutionary workers and youth that "socialism" is just another cynical hustle.

There have been much larger, more "relevant" and ostensibly revolutionary parties that ended up being obstacles to workers revolution. The fight for programmatic clarity can't be sidestepped by recruiting ten or ten thousand more members.

[black magick hustla]

.

Of course no communist party is relevant right now, but very few organizations are actually putting forth a program for struggle and socialism. Some organizations are fading into obscurity, while others fail to even reach workers anymore. That's why I'm with the party I am. We manage to reach out to all different sectors of society to promote the struggle and that's why we're growing so significantly. You've chosen to let all proof of our struggle fall on deaf ears and you only focus on my statements of our size. If that's what you'd like to do, trust me. I'm not losing sleep over it.

I don't care about what you kids do in your playground. tbh. Ive met a few WWP members, and they seemed to have very humane qualities. The problem arises when you folks come to a discussion forum and then when someone tries to engage with your ideas and disagree with them you bully them because they are from small groups. That has no place in a message board where the only thing that stands are ideas.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Cute, but still fallacious. You're convinced my party is less revolutionary (even than some social-democratic parties, which shows how delusional you are) because we don't have a publically published platform as of yet. Despite our consistent intervention in struggle, our unrivaled energy and our political line

It's how those "interventions" are conducted that concerns me.

I want to know whether they are consistent with that program or platform (in which case the PSL is openly opportunist), or whether that program or platform is on another level (in which case your "theory-vs-practice" problem is the same as Die Linke's with its more-radical-than-expected Draft Program).

[Leo]

Communist Party USA has recently applauded the fact that they are confused with the Democratic Party at times. They're not communists.

You can't really blame anyone for thinking that the PSL are not communists either. I don't think this is in any way relevant to the point maldoror makes.

[Kassad]

You can't really blame anyone for thinking that the PSL are not communists either. I don't think this is in any way relevant to the point maldoror makes.

Unless you can come up with some kind of rationale or logic behind your statement, I'm going to ignore it.

...Wait, I usually ignore you already.

[Yehuda Stern]

Kassad, leaving the political issues aside, the attitude people describe here is indeed typical of you and in fact of many other people on the US petty-bourgeois left. Having no political method to defend their ideas, they resort to slander and name calling, mostly by using the fact that they are supposedly "very active" and "big" or "growing" while their adversaries are "insignificant" or "don't do anything". People from the CWI or CP make that claim about us all the time; but we're at all the demonstrations, while they're busy making rotten coalitions with all sorts of Zionist groups in campuses, majority Jewish demos, and trade union activities.

Bottom line - I'm not impressed by the claims you make regarding your party's size or activities. Given the sort of publicity - or lack thereof - that you get, you're probably almost as insignificant as any other American communist group, and have yet to prove yourself to be any better in the field of theory or politics.

[Robocommie]

I think we have to accept that, to a certain extent, conflict is inevitable.

Maybe it is, I mean, we're all supposed to want the same thing, if at most the thing we disagree on is how to achieve it, I don't see why we need to argue about it so much assuming one method doesn't sabotage the other.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Unless you can come up with some kind of rationale or logic behind your statement, I'm going to ignore it.

...Wait, I usually ignore you already.

All of your posts are just name calling people, and listing a few achivements, which are dubious at best...

What the hell is the point of just rattling off a list of achivements if you aren't even going to contrast them with any left communist group (aside from some comment that they are tiny, when everyone knows that the PSL is tiny as well...)

I mean seriously, wtf is the point? Can't you just disagree with these guys without resorting to pointing out that their party is small (and so is yours, but yours is marginally bigger) so they must be wrong? Its just nonsense. Mabye if you weren't so emotionally connected with your own party you might be able to see sense, like, imagine if we were talking about the CPUSA and the Workers Party? And the CPUSA kept on defending their Obama loving stance by "HERP WELL WE'RE BIGGER THAN YOU AND HAVE LOTS OF ENERGY" can't you see thats not a good argument?

[Robocommie]

Kassad, leaving the political issues aside, the attitude people describe here is indeed typical of you and in fact of many other people on the US petty-bourgeois left.

Is it any better for you to make assumptions of the class makeup of other people?

[Yehuda Stern]

I make not assumptions regarding the PSL's class makeup, but an analysis of the class forces which its politics serve.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I make not assumptions regarding the PSL's class makeup, but an analysis of the class forces which its politics serve.
And this analysis shows that the class forces which its politics serve is petty-bourgeois? Are you actually going to expand on this or are we just going to have another instance of a Trotskyist claiming something is petty-bourgeois?

[KC]

Because due to Stevie Merino and her volunteers going door to door, attending rallies and meetings and reaching out to working people, I'm confident that a significant amount of people supported her platform and voted for her, some of which are currently getting involved in our party after engaging in the struggle with us. Our electoral campaigns have been unbelievably helpful in recruiting new party members, so your pessimism is noted, but irrelevant, as usual.

It's not pessimism; it's realism. It just looks pessimistic from your unrealistically optimistic perspective. I'm not denying the fact that it was productive to some extent, but I think that you are all blowing your "victory" completely out of proportion. In the scope of your party this might be a big deal but in the broader perspective this means pretty much nothing at all.

You call me irrelevant yet you are the one that can't accept the irrelevency of your party and of the completely marginalized position of the revolutionary left today; you're living in a fantasy world. And because of this completely distorted point of view that permeates the left in general they are never going to get anything really profound done, because they can't see how completely and utterly fucked they are.

Marmot's comment, though somewhat trollish, is correct; the PSL is completely irrelevant, as is every other socialist organization. Even if I was a member of PSL I would start from accepting this fact because it's the simple truth. Being "the largest communist party" doesn't change the fact that the PSL is completely irrelevant, due to the fact that the left in general is. In comparison to a penny a quarter is twenty-five times greater in value, but that doesn't mean you're rich if you have one.

As for my latter comment that you didn't address, I think that's something that really needs to be addressed, because it portrays a very confused view coming from the PSL on this issue. If you weren't looking to win or even come close to winning then why parade around the election results? If your point was truly to use it as a means to reach workers then how are the election results relevant at all?

And I'm not posting this just to "attack" the PSL; I've moved beyond simple sophomoric sectarian shenanigans. I do recognize the value of the work they are doing and its impact; it's just that I don't think it's very honest to exaggerate these types of things to unrealistic proportions as I feel you all have done with this. That only sets us back.

But feel free to attack me, divert attention, ignore sections of my post, call me "ultra-left" (even though I didn't even state my opinion of the campaign itself), etc... in typical Rev Left fashion. I don't really expect to get a genuine dialogue on this site anymore anyways.

[Das war einmal]

Young socialist/communist will be disheartened by types like Leo, I think its a disgrace this person is pointed out to be a admin. Is it your job to bring defeatism and fraction amongst the radical left?

[KC]

That would be a good thing; all socialists/communists should be disheartened at the pitiful state that the movement is in.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

Marmot's comment, though somewhat trollish, is correct; the PSL is completely irrelevant, as is every other socialist organization. Even if I was a member of PSL I would start from accepting this fact because it's the simple truth. Being "the largest communist party" doesn't change the fact that the PSL is completely irrelevant, due to the fact that the left in general is. In comparison to a penny a quarter is twenty-five times greater in value, but that doesn't mean you're rich if you have one.

No... it doesn't mean you're rich, but it is proof that the work and methods of the PSL are effective. A quarter isn't much, but if they continue their work, perhaps it will be half-dollar.


As for my latter comment that you didn't address, I think that's something that really needs to be addressed, because it portrays a very confused view coming from the PSL on this issue. If you weren't looking to win or even come close to winning then why parade around the election results? If your point was truly to use it as a means to reach workers then how are the election results relevant at all?

I'd say the election work (if not the results) are relevant because they bring the socialist question to the attention of people who otherwise might not have considered the option. I'm not ashamed to admit that my personal interest in socialism came about, not through rigorous study of Marx, but by seeing Carlos Alvarez being interviewed on the news. I was aware of socialism, but it was when I saw that interview when I knew that socialism had a chance, albiet an extremely narrow and small one.

People are drawn to passion and action.

[KC]

No... it doesn't mean you're rich, but it is proof that the work and methods of the PSL are effective. A quarter isn't much, but if they continue their work, perhaps it will be half-dollar.So then you agree with me that this isn't the huge victory that it is being portrayed as.


I'd say the election work (if not the results) are relevant because they bring the socialist question to the attention of people who otherwise might not have considered the option. I'm not ashamed to admit that my personal interest in socialism came about, not through rigorous study of Marx, but by seeing Carlos Alvarez being interviewed on the news. I was aware of socialism, but it was when I saw that interview when I knew that socialism had a chance, albiet an extremely narrow and small one.I'm not getting into the whole debate about whether or not electoral work is valid; I see that as a secondary issue in this case, so I have no desire to discuss the validity of the matter.

[Weezer]

Woot! Just near my county. I wish I could vote.

[Das war einmal]

That would be a good thing; all socialists/communists should be disheartened at the pitiful state that the movement is in.


Right because its a good thing that the left should be disheartened. Probably the only thing the fractured radical left is good for.

[KC]

Right because its a good thing that the left should be disheartened. Probably the only thing the fractured radical left is good for.

Well if the state of the left is disheartening, as it is, then yes it would be a good thing for us to maintain a realistic view and realized how fucked we really are so that we can act accordingly.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

So then you agree with me that this isn't the huge victory that it is being portrayed as.

I don't think anyone is portraying it as a "huge victory," but it is an accomplishment. The way I see it, if the PSL can keep up a sequence of accomplishments like this, it may one day pay off with a huge victory. Of course there is enthusiasm and that enthusiasm is awesome. Why should people in the PSL affect a feigned indifference to their own accomplishments?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Well if the state of the left is disheartening, as it is, then yes it would be a good thing for us to maintain a realistic view and realized how fucked we really are so that we can act accordingly.

Speak for yourself, Trot.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Woot! Just near my county. I wish I could vote.
Carlos Alvarez and Marylou Cabral are running on the PFP ticket (for the PSL) in the state so if you can vote, then vote for them. Carlos is running for Governor and i forget what Marylou Cabral is running at the moment. If you cant vote, get the word out to get a stronger support base.

[Robocommie]

Marmot's comment, though somewhat trollish, is correct; the PSL is completely irrelevant, as is every other socialist organization. Even if I was a member of PSL I would start from accepting this fact because it's the simple truth. Being "the largest communist party" doesn't change the fact that the PSL is completely irrelevant, due to the fact that the left in general is. In comparison to a penny a quarter is twenty-five times greater in value, but that doesn't mean you're rich if you have one.


Gallstone said this already, but it's true. A quarter isn't much more than a penny. But find three more quarters and it's a dollar. 36 more after that, 10 dollars.

I don't enjoy feeling like the embattled loser of the ideological world, do you? Because even if I'm only getting excited or cheered up or inspired by finding a quarter, I'd fucking rather take that than say, "Doesn't matter, I'm still poor."

Not allowing yourself to enjoy your little successes, even if they are little, I personally feel it's a safe route to losing heart and giving up the struggle completely, or even worse, giving in to despair, depression, maybe even self-harm.

[Robocommie]

I make not assumptions regarding the PSL's class makeup, but an analysis of the class forces which its politics serve.

I know that a lot of Trots and MLs think that this pissing contest that has been going on since the fucking '30s is the most important thing, but speaking as an independent socialist, it's really just becoming increasingly trite and petty with each passing decade.

Maybe it'd be nice to call a truce on this eye-gouging shit until we are actually looking at a revolution in the US, because in the meantime, we are literally squabbling over a sandbox.

[Kassad]

Carlos Alvarez and Marylou Cabral are running on the PFP ticket (for the PSL) in the state so if you can vote, then vote for them. Carlos is running for Governor and i forget what Marylou Cabral is running at the moment. If you cant vote, get the word out to get a stronger support base.

Marylou is running for California Secretary of State. Gloria La Riva is also running for Congress in District 8 (Nancy Pelosi's seat).

[black magick hustla]

Speak for yourself, Trot.

yes, i am sure a "moscow triadist", member of the "authoritarian socialist" group and with a sig "long live stalin" is doin fine well in the auspices of the brit empire

[Rusty Shackleford]

Marylou is running for California Secretary of State. Gloria La Riva is also running for Congress in District 8 (Nancy Pelosi's seat).


i didnt mention Gloria La Riva only because her campaign is not state-wide.

[the last donut of the night]

Actually, it equals to less than two thousand. Yes, such a glorious accomplishment indeed.

I'm not sure where you live, but here in the US even one more communist worker is a blessing. We live in the heartland of imperialism, the belly of the beast, as Guevara said, and we are immeasurably weak. The left has neutered itself numerous times and it has been beaten to a pulp numerous times, and this is especially here in the US. So even a few less than 2,000 workers in NYC turned to socialism is a huge accomplishment, because that means that these people can now talk to their friends and families, and soon we'll have more communist workers. And that's thanks to the hard work of the people of the PSL, who went out campaigning on real issues and real problems to the workers themselves. Villar is a single mother, goes to college, and still ran against a billionaire. I've met her once, and she's a great person. So now we've got more class consciousness, which the US proletariat is in dire need of. But of course, theory and sect-pride are too much for you and others to recognize this, so you turn to empty and hollow arguments on parliamentarism. This isn't parliemantarism. The US political spectrum is so fucked up that elections are a few ways we have to speak to the working class. It's a necessity, and it's not like we're the fucking DSA here. What this campaign accomplished was increased class consciousness and a more aware and demanding working class (something the ICC, as I recall, can't really show on their part, which is interesting, seeing that you believe yourselves to be the only authentic communist organization in the entire world but can't manage to grow past a few hundred members worldwide).

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm not sure where you live, but here in the US even one more communist worker is a blessing.
Except that there is no connection whatsoever between ticking a box next to a candidate's name and becoming a "communist worker". You have yet to show such, even though this assumption's been called into question several times in this and other threads.

[Crux]

Except that there is no connection whatsoever between ticking a box next to a candidate's name and becoming a "communist worker". You have yet to show such, even though this assumption's been called into question several times in this and other threads.
I am not sure if you've heard about this, but there is a thing called "campaigning" that usually happens around elections. That's when you actually, you know, talk to people, get your program out, and best case scenario get new allies and recruits. Now, I may have my criticism of PSL, but I still think it is great that they've managed to get the word out there and get into contact with workers and community organizations. Because that's the thing right there, not whetever you get the seat or not.

[zimmerwald1915]

I am not sure if you've heard about this, but there is a thing called "campaigning" that usually happens around elections. That's when you actually, you know, talk to people, get your program out, and best case scenario get new allies and recruits.
None of this reaching out needs to be done in the context of an election, when the organization is relating to voters as voters and not to workers as part of the working class. Indeed, for a communist organization, it is better by far to speak to workers as workers as part of the working class than to speak to them as individuals.

[DaringMehring]

There are two sides to the issue. The people who argue for abstention from elections really don't have much of a case, if they're trying to base themselves in Marxism rather than some kind of anarchism. Classical Marxism views elections as a good way to raise consciousness and spread ideas (not as a road to power in themselves). Trotskyists, take a look, for instance, at how the vibrant and militant French LO Trotskyists handle elections --- it's not by abstaining.

On the other hand, there are pitfalls in participating in bourgeois politics. For instance, when one limits their demands to things that are conceivably achievable under capitalism. This reduces socialism to a kind of grotesque "socialism that can be made under capitalism".

And really, unless one thinks that bourgeois elections are winnable and a genuine road to power, then why bother to only make demands that can be realized under capitalism? Spend your time exposing and attacking the whole rotten system, like the Bolshevik deputies did.

There's also some danger in platformism, where the group comes up with demands that are not really working class demands, but instead the demands of some group that thinks its acting for the working class. So they're talking about Mumia abu Jamal all the time and the workers, who couldn't care less, get turned off. Even if they generally agree, they see the Party as apart from the actual working class, more like an ally than its representative.

It sounds like the PSL managed to avoid too much of this in focusing on some local, concrete problems like the slumlord.

In the end, electoral work can only supplement direct work in industry and communities. Getting one worker on board through discussion, involvement in struggles, etc. is worth getting thousands to tick a ballot. This is hard work in my experience but ultimately more rewarding in terms of organization building. If a group loses this focus, workplace organizing, which is the heart of Marxism, and ends up spending its time mainly on electioneering, it won't be able to build up and execute a challenge to capitalism. I don't know if the PSL has fallen for this - I don't know much about them - but I hope not...

My two cents, thanks for reading...

[manic expression]

Kassad, leaving the political issues aside, the attitude people describe here is indeed typical of you and in fact of many other people on the US petty-bourgeois left. Having no political method to defend their ideas, they resort to slander and name calling, mostly by using the fact that they are supposedly "very active" and "big" or "growing" while their adversaries are "insignificant" or "don't do anything".
If you review this thread from start to finish, you'll undoubtedly find that the arguments in support of the PSL are far, far, far more substantial than "we're active/growing/big". Sure, it matters that the PSL has a level of activity and visibility that exceeds every other communist organization in the US, but that was not the primary argument for the PSL's efforts here.


It's not pessimism; it's realism.
This quote is deliciously pertinent:

Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle.

If you want to wallow in your sorrow instead of getting out there and helping to build our movement, that's your choice. But don't try to drag down the revolutionaries who are actually furthering the struggle toward final victory.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Not that this is entirely irrelevant or anything, but even candidates from the Socialist Workers Party(!) frequently manage to get more votes than this, and in campaigns where it can't be attributed to a protest vote. It's no major achievement.

[Yehuda Stern]

Robocommie, can you explain why I should care that something seems trite and petty to you? The rivalry between Trotskyism and Stalinism is the rivalry between revolutionary Marxism and counterrevolutionary reformism, and if that doesn't interest you, then what interests you does not interest me.

manic expression, it may very well be that there were other arguments; I was referring to the quite common method of PSLers and other members of left wing parties, who avoid political debate by referring to the fact that they are bigger than some other group.

Someone asked why I say the PSL's politics are petty-bourgeois. I would refer to their position on Stalinism, which reflects their attitude towards the working class, as being the chief reason for this. However, the "we're bigger so we don't need to answer criticism" attitude doesn't detract from that impression.

[manic expression]

manic expression, it may very well be that there were other arguments; I was referring to the quite common method of PSLers and other members of left wing parties, who avoid political debate by referring to the fact that they are bigger than some other group.

Someone asked why I say the PSL's politics are petty-bourgeois. I would refer to their position on Stalinism, which reflects their attitude towards the working class, as being the chief reason for this. However, the "we're bigger so we don't need to answer criticism" attitude doesn't detract from that impression.
But that attitude is nowhere to be seen on this thread, because the various objections to the PSL's campaign have been answered, and resoundingly so. Criticism has been answered, so why do you insist that it hasn't been?

[KC]

This quote is deliciously pertinent:

Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle.

If you want to wallow in your sorrow instead of getting out there and helping to build our movement, that's your choice. But don't try to drag down the revolutionaries who are actually furthering the struggle toward final victory.

It has nothing to do with "wallowing in sorrow"; it has to do with not being delusional and completely divorced from reality. You're completely delusional and entirely divorced from reality if you think that PSL has any impact whatsoever on American politics in general, even if they are "the biggest party" (whatever that means). Feel free to respond; I know you love getting the last word in and then declaring victory. But so far, unlike your delusional belief, none of the objections raised in this thread were "addressed". Calling someone ultra-leftist, reminding everyone that your party is "the biggest" and declaring victory isn't addressing those points. Perhaps if you had an ounce of integrity we could have a productive discussion on this; but you're not interested in that. So why are you here?

[manic expression]

It has nothing to do with "wallowing in sorrow"; it has to do with not being delusional and completely divorced from reality. You're completely delusional and entirely divorced from reality if you think that PSL has any impact whatsoever on American politics in general, even if they are "the biggest party" (whatever that means). Feel free to respond; I know you love getting the last word in and then declaring victory.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157623547774567/show/


But so far, unlike your delusional belief, none of the objections raised in this thread were "addressed". Calling someone ultra-leftist, reminding everyone that your party is "the biggest" and declaring victory isn't addressing those points. Perhaps if you had an ounce of integrity we could have a productive discussion on this; but you're not interested in that. So why are you here?http://www.revleft.com/vb/psl-campaign-wins-t133330/index.html

[KC]

I'm not sure how linking to a photo stream on Flickr and linking to the OP is a response to my post...

[manic expression]

It's quite self-explanatory. You said the PSL has no relevance, and I responded with pictures of the most important anti-war demonstration in the US, in which the PSL takes a leading role. You said I hadn't directly addressed any objections to the PSL's campaign, and I linked you to a thread in which I addressed the objections of multiple posters in turn. All that without seeking the "last word".

[Robocommie]

Robocommie, can you explain why I should care that something seems trite and petty to you? The rivalry between Trotskyism and Stalinism is the rivalry between revolutionary Marxism and counterrevolutionary reformism, and if that doesn't interest you, then what interests you does not interest me.

Well, thanks for revealing to me that it's not just the authoritarian Stalin-fanboys who can act like total dicks.

This internal conflict within socialism is completely self-defeating, because rather than merely needing the manpower to promote socialism, we are also required to gather the manpower to promote our own brands of socialism AND defeat each other. It's moronic.

I'm proud to say I've made friends among both Trotskyists and MLists, recognized strengths of argumentation among both, and consequently, held respect for both positions. I think it's worth nothing that the capitalists consider the both of you to be just different shades of the same color; I believe it was Ben Franklin who said something about hanging together, or hanging separately.

[Yehuda Stern]

manic, the attitude has been prominent in Kassad's answers to various people writing in this thread (check out page 4). It has also been prominent in posts by him and you in other threads. If you think it's wrong, then change it; but don't say things and then claim that you didn't, especially not in the same thread, because it just makes you look dishonest.

Robocommie, again, if you're too intellectually lazy to try and see if there's something more to the Stalinist / Trotskyist debate than people acting like "total dicks" I don't see why anyone here should waste his time on you. Stalinism is responsible for countless counter-revolutions and defeats of the working class. That you don't care for that shows your contempt for that class.

Also, one might note that although in times of peace some capitalists see the Stalinists and Trotskyists as the same, in times of revolution they always prefer the Stalinists because they know they will be effective in suppressing the revolution. In Israel, the state knew very well how to distinguish between pro-Zionist Stalinism and the anti-Zionist Trotskyists. And so did the Stalinists themselves.

[Kassad]

I've stated that I think elitist and opportunistic comments from communist groups and people that have literally no connection to the working class and have been totally unable to rally any support are nothing but harmful to the movement for revolutionary socialism. Since my party was attacked on a number of levels, I addressed those attacks and showed how we are a growing party that I believe is adapting to the current political situation better than others. I don't understand what's wrong with an analysis of the historical and present situations. Honestly, it blows my mind that you're making such ridiculous assertions.

[fredbergen]

Apparently this "Trotskyist" doesn't understand the concept of transitional demands.

First of all, "community control of the police" is not in the Transitional Program. I suggest that folks actually read it, since a whole slew of pseudo-Trotskyists have gotten in the habit of annointing any and every reformist illusion and opportunist tactic as "transitional."

The Transitional Program is a program for action for the working class that serves as a bridge from the workers' present needs and struggles to the construction of workers' soviets and the organization of the revolution.

It is not, as the pseudo-trotskyists would have it, a program of lying to the workers and pandering to their democratic illusions, like the PSL's slogan for "community control" of the cops, i.e. "community control" of the capitalist state. The Transitional Program calls for rank and file strike committees and militant mass pickets as a tactic for winning strikes, and as the basis of more permanent organs of workers self-defense. Trotskyists have called for such measures and have urged that they be particularly focused on linking with the oppressed black and immigrant communities to defend them against predatory police and deportation raids, and against the fascist menace.

The Internationalist (http://www.internationalist.org/int28toc.html) no. 28 (http://www.internationalist.org/int28toc.html) discussed some of these issues in depth in an exchange on transitional demands (http://www.internationalist.org/nobailout0809.html#transdemands) with a proponent of the fake-Trotskyist concept of the transitional demand being a marxistic-sounding label for the practice of misleading the workers. We particularly highlighted an earlier PSL campaign that exemplified this opportunist practice: when the big bank failures and bailouts started to hit Wall Street in the fall of 2008, the PSL started a website "votenobailout.org" where you could "click to send your letter to Congress" asking for lots of nice amendments to the war budget.

Again -- and I know this is all irrelevant since the LFI has supporters in Oaxaca, Mexico but not Ohio, U.S.A. -- does a hundred more members campaigning, or a thousand more voters voting, for "vote no bailout" or "jobs not war" bring us any closer to building a revolutionary, Leninist-Trotskyist workers party? I don't think so.

[chegitz guevara]

In response to Fred Bergen, who cowardly refuses to support the right of people to kill racist cops in self-defense:

You've had plenty of opportunity to prove your theory in practice, Fred. Your perfect program doesn't attract workers anymore than it attracts anyone else.

Whatever political differences I may have with PSL, they are promoting a militant, revolutionary Marxism that is attracting hundreds of people throughout the United States. Unlike many other organizations, I have never seen PSL water down their rhetoric. They are openly Marxist, communist, and revolutionary. And they are growing like weeds. Even though I am not a member of their organization, I am proud of their accomplishments. They show that it can be done.

[fredbergen]

Stating the truth that Mumia is innocent, as any genuine revolutionary would do, is not denying anyone the right to self defense.

But claiming that Mumia killed policeman Daniel Faulkner when he did not, and retailing the phony "evidence" of the frame-up lynching campaign, as you do, helps the racist legal lynchers, and harms the defense of this class-war prisoner.

[Robocommie]

Robocommie, again, if you're too intellectually lazy to try and see if there's something more to the Stalinist / Trotskyist debate than people acting like "total dicks" I don't see why anyone here should waste his time on you. Stalinism is responsible for countless counter-revolutions and defeats of the working class. That you don't care for that shows your contempt for that class.

I have plenty of criticism for Stalin as a leader and as a Marxist, and as a person. I also have plenty of criticism for Soviet policy.

I think it's funny though that if I were to cave in and agree with everything you would have me believe, some other faction would insist I was counter-revolutionary and held contempt for the working class. I don't work from theory and build my way from there, I work from a desire to see true democracy and social justice and I build my theoretical principles from that. That's why I try not to identify with any tendency. Every attempt I have ever made to identify with any single tendency has left me dissatisfied.

Anyway Stern, I don't care if you don't think I'm worth wasting time on, and I don't care if you think I hate the working class. I know who I am and what I value, and I know what self-righteous chest-beating on the internet looks like.

[Kassad]

Again -- and I know this is all irrelevant since the LFI has supporters in Oaxaca, Mexico but not Ohio, U.S.A. -- does a hundred more members campaigning, or a thousand more voters voting, for "vote no bailout" or "jobs not war" bring us any closer to building a revolutionary, Leninist-Trotskyist workers party? I don't think so.

Actually, you don't appear to have any members in the United States besides New York. You and the other 100 or so Trotskyist internationals are splintered, divided and minute. Like I said, we struggle for reforms to bring benefits to the working class while also acknowledging that revolution is needed to overcome capitalism's contradictions. It's not really difficult.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This is promising progress in the USA. It's quite hard to tell how many of these votes translate into support for working class revolution but nonetheless it is interesting.

[fredbergen]

Is sending email messages to Congress "struggle" now?

And can the police be "reformed"? Can the capitalist budget be "reformed" to serve the needs of the "people" instead of the needs of imperialist capital? Or are these illusions?

There is a program for struggle against the economic crisis and the war. It's called the Transitional Program. And in the Transitional Program, Trotsky writes that the task of revolutionaries is:


"To face reality squarely; not to seek the line of least resistance; to call things by their right names; to speak the truth to the masses, no matter how bitter it may be; not to fear obstacles; to be true in little things as in big ones; to base one’s program on the logic of the class struggle; to be bold when the hour for action arrives – these are the rules of the Fourth International."
So is it the truth that the police can be controlled by the "community"?

Is it the truth that you can "vote" against the bank bailouts by sending an email to Congress?

And does the answer depend on which borough I'm presently writing this from? (Hint: Not Staten Island!)

[Kassad]

Must I remind you once again that I'm not a Trotskyist, thus Trotsky Transitional Program is not something I look to for practical theory. However, it's people like yourself who would say that the Civil War that abolished slavery in the United States was bad because it wasn't a socialist revolution, or the winning of the eight-hour work day was not progressive because it wasn't socialist revolution, or women gaining their right to vote was not good because it wasn't a socialist revolution. It's all or nothing for you, despite the fact that revolution is not possible at this time with the current level of class consciousness in the United States.

[fredbergen]

Now come on Kassad, you're grasping at straws now, so badly that you can't even fashion them into a convincing straw-man for you to attack!

So you're not a Trotskyist (I didn't think you were anyway!) Are you saying that only Trotskyists are concerned with telling the truth to the workers, but to a PSL'er like yourself this is not a big deal?

Please show me where the Trotskyists said the Civil War was "bad." And allow me to cite one out of innumerable counter-examples. From The Internationalist no. 10 (http://www.internationalist.org/int10toc.html), "Defend the Charleston Five! (http://www.internationalist.org/charlestonfive0601.html)":


http://www.internationalist.org/Int10front_large.jpg



Labor Must Champion the Fight for Black Freedom


Charleston vividly shows the intimate connection between the fight for black liberation and the working-class struggle against the capitalist owners who rule this country. Underlining the need for the entire working class to fight for black freedom, Karl Marx wrote of chattel slavery in America that “Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded” (Capital). Like every ruling class in history, the Southern slave owners were unmoved by “moral suasion”: slavery was abolished only through the “second American revolution,” the Civil War, whose first shots were fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. Armed and enrolled in the Union army, former slaves played a key role in turning the tide to defeat the Confederacy:
“In Charleston, proud Charleston, where the slaveholders had begun their war...the famous Fifty-Fourth, the Negro regiment from Massachusetts, marched past the stately mansions singing John Brown’s Body, while in their wake came thousands of Negroes, terrible in their joy and strength at being free. They surged into the mansions and slave pens shouting ‘Liberty!’ They burned the auction blocks, destroyed whips and branding irons, wrecked the stocks which had held them, shattered the many specialized tools of torture with which they had been cut, maimed, twisted, and flogged for more than two hundred and fifty years.”
–Boyer and Morais, Labor’s Untold Story (1955)After the war, South Carolina was home to a Radical Reconstruction government known as the “Black Parliament,” and in 1867 Charleston dockers founded the Longshoremen’s Protective Union Association, the first union of black workers. Yet the promise of Reconstruction was sold down the river by the Northern capitalists with their infamous Compromise of 1877 with the Southern Democratic heirs to the slavocracy after the stalemate of the 1876 presidential election (see “1876,” The Internationalist (http://www.internationalist.org/int9toc.html) No. 9 (http://www.internationalist.org/int9toc.html), January-February 2001). Waving the Confederate rag of the slaveholders’ rebellion, Ku Klux Klan night-riders were called out to terrorize and disenfranchise the former slaves and their descendants – and to keep the deep South “free” of unions.

Labor cannot unionize the South unless it sets its sights on rooting out the bloody legacy of the Confederacy, and that is a revolutionary struggle in the most literal sense. At the same time the need for workers internationalism is highlighted by the growing presence of immigrant workers, many of them “undocumented,” in Southern industries and businesses. The Kluxers’ brand of nativist fascism has always fed off “America-firstism” and xenophobia; the same lynch-rope terrorists who target black people and unionists go after immigrant workers with a vengeance. Labor must fight for full citizenship rights for all immigrants, who from one coast to the other have played a dynamic role in recent union drives among the most exploited sections of the U.S. proletariat, many of them women workers.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

Please show me where the Trotskyists said the Civil War was "bad."

I think he's criticizing what he perceives to be a perfectionist, "all or nothing" mindset on your part; not any doctrinal or theoretical position taken by any particular faction.

[Kassad]

Is this literally what the Spartacist-types have resorted to? Literally ignoring every word you say and morphing it into a convenient statement? I said that I don't really look to Trotsky for historical and political theory, so that means I lie to the proletariat? That's an interesting claim to make.

Also, I'm fully aware you don't really think the Civil War was not progressive, but you act like any and all reforms are 100% reformist inherently, which means that fighting for reforms that benefit workers is useless. However, without the fight for reforms, a significant amount of progressive gains would never have been obtained, such as the abolition of slavery and women's right to vote. Though this doesn't cure the contradictions of capitalism, it is a progressive step for workers and we fight for these reforms while putting forth socialist revolution as the only solution to ending these contradictions. Again, this isn't difficult.

[Lolshevik]

Congratulations to the PSL on this very impressive showing. My disagreements with the PSL aside, this kind of result is really inspiring and should serve as an example to all socialists of how a window is being opened up for our politics. I'd be curious to know if there were any recruits made out of the election campaign.

Also, sorry my post wasn't more controversial. I'll accuse someone of reformism next time, I promise. :P

[manic expression]

manic, the attitude has been prominent in Kassad's answers to various people writing in this thread (check out page 4). It has also been prominent in posts by him and you in other threads. If you think it's wrong, then change it; but don't say things and then claim that you didn't, especially not in the same thread, because it just makes you look dishonest.
What, exactly, is dishonest about asking you to review the thread in full? Page 4, don't forget, came after more than a few substantial responses to anti-PSL posters. Those posts have far, far, far more to them than what you're asserting, and that's the fact of the matter. Kassad clearly stated that he would have made the arguments I did, but that I had made them already. At that point, after the objections to electoral efforts had been disposed of, it was more than reasonable to touch on the utter lethargy of the PSL's opponents in this instance.

[fredbergen]

This just gets confusinger and confusinger. Now Kassad says I accuse all reforms of being reformist. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. What is a reformist illusion, I think, is that the "community" should, could, "control" the police. Going back to the slavery question, do you think Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman or John Brown would have called for "community control" of the overseers and slave-catchers as a way to improve the lives of the slaves? No, they didn't have the illusions in the slavocracy that the PSL promotes today in American capitalist Democracy.

Marxism isn't about "all or nothing." It's about organizing those who have nothing so they can get it all. Trotskyists say this requires telling the truth to the masses. You say that even though you are not a Trotskyist, you agree with this. So:

Is it true that the community can control the police?

Is it true that the workers can "vote" to change the nature of the capitalist war budget by means of emails to Congress?

[KC]

What is the membership of PSL anyways, and how is it determined? How many branches/circles/locals/whatever-you-call-them's and where are they located?

Also fredbergen where are you getting this idea that PSL supports "community control" of the police? Could you link me to your source please?

[Yehuda Stern]

Robocommie,
There's no chest beating - I just don't think you're really that serious about politics. First the question of Stalinism and Trotskyism isn't important enough (I never said you hate workers, but this sort of attitude does reflect a condescending approach to them); now you complain that if you would join some tendency then another would condemn you. Who cares? Do you base your political decisions on what other people will think of them? Because I'll let you in on a little secret, a lot of people would condemn you for whatever left-wing ideology or ideas you hold today.

Do I need to take seriously your comment about starting from theory? Theory and practice are both important, theory without practice is meaningless and practice without theory cannot achieve anything. I never argued anything else and frankly it seems like just a way for you to avoid the real questions.

Kassad and maniac, answering political criticism is just fine; I don't, however, say why at any point it had to turn into a "mine is bigger than yours" thing. Even if it was just an appendix rather than the main argument. Frankly, one could always ask if the PSL is so big, why there hasn't been a revolution yet, or why isn't it a mass party yet. Silly questions, yes, but then so are yours on this topic.

KC, don't be silly, no left wing group should have to disclose its membership numbers and structure, let alone on a police-monitored internet forum.

[KC]

KC, don't be silly, no left wing group should have to disclose its membership numbers and structure, let alone on a police-monitored internet forum.

I've never experienced an American group not willing to divulge at least some of this information. Obviously I'd respect any privacy issues but I don't see what the harm is in asking. I'm just wondering what the true size of PSL is, considering the fact that they keep on bringing all discussions of the organization back to that fact. If they're so quick to bring up its size then why not provide some numbers as proof?

[manic expression]

fredbergen, reformism is not the same as struggling for reforms in order to further the cause of the working class. Reformism holds that reforms and only reforms can and/or should be the way to progress. That's reformism, not the idea that workers should fight for improvements to their lives whenever possible. Marx, for example, was a revolutionary, not a reformist, and yet he strongly advocated for reforms. Will you condemn him as a reformist?

Let's take your position to its logical conclusion: if reforms make no difference, then their elimination would likewise make no difference. If reforms are not worth fighting for, then surely they are hardly worth defending. Thus, your position would raise no objection to the liquidation of social welfare systems, the wiping out of child labor laws, the erasing of unionization rights, the restriction of voting rights to the wealthy classes and so on and so forth. Now how do you square your argument with this implication?

[manic expression]

What is the membership of PSL anyways, and how is it determined? How many branches/circles/locals/whatever-you-call-them's and where are they located?
You should direct those questions to the party itself.

But I'm not sure why this has come down to numbers. I've always pointed out the visibility, energy, effectiveness and relevance of the PSL, not the mere length of the membership rolls. In fact, PSL membership policy is far, far less liberal than most other communist organizations I'm familiar with, so only looking at membership numbers wouldn't make much sense anyway.

[Robocommie]

Robocommie,
There's no chest beating - I just don't think you're really that serious about politics.

Well you're absolutely entitled to believe whatever you wish. I think it's rather silly of you to make such a broad assumption about me, but it's your prerogative.


First the question of Stalinism and Trotskyism isn't important enough (I never said you hate workers, but this sort of attitude does reflect a condescending approach to them); now you complain that if you would join some tendency then another would condemn you. Who cares? Do you base your political decisions on what other people will think of them?

Hah, no, I just thought it was funny, because of course you will insist that the other side are the heretics, whereas your side is the most righteous and correct interpretation. Your mere insistence doesn't mean much to me.



Do I need to take seriously your comment about starting from theory? Theory and practice are both important, theory without practice is meaningless and practice without theory cannot achieve anything. I never argued anything else and frankly it seems like just a way for you to avoid the real questions.

I'm not really sure you have any real questions, or anything real to say, other than that I'm silly and not worth wasting time on. Which, you know, you apparently don't actually think, because you're still talking to me.

[fredbergen]

Let's take your position to its logical conclusion: if reforms make no difference, then their elimination would likewise make no difference. If reforms are not worth fighting for, then surely they are hardly worth defending. Thus, your position would raise no objection to the liquidation of social welfare systems, the wiping out of child labor laws, the erasing of unionization rights, the restriction of voting rights to the wealthy classes and so on and so forth. Now how do you square your argument with this implication?

The problem is, that's not my position. You're good at arguing with opponents you invent. You should try an actual debate. It would be more, ya know, relevant. Believe it or not, the Trotskyists support struggles for reforms, and all partial, defensive struggles of the workers and oppressed.

But, we have some conditions:

* We are for class struggle: those methods that increase the consciousness, organization and independence of the working class by relying on the social power of the workers.

* We don't mislead the workers. We don't tell them to struggle for "reforms" that are simply impossible short of socialist revolution. Want to end police brutality? End capitalism, because you can't have police without brutality, and you can't have capitalism without cops.

This is what we advocate. These are the basic principles with which we seek to imbue the struggle.

So, is electioneering class struggle? No, it's propaganda. Voting doesn't change anything. And is "community control" of the police a reform? No, it's an illusion. The state is not controlled by, or accountable to any community. It is the repressive organ of the ruling class. At least that's what Lenin thought.

So I'm sorry but the PSL's election campaign for "community control of the police" is not a struggle for reforms, it's propaganda for illusions. And is clicking to send an email to Congress class struggle now? I don't think so.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The rivalry between Trotskyism and Stalinism is the rivalry between revolutionary Marxism and counterrevolutionary reformism.

It's a rivalry between a diluted deviant of Bakuninism-Sorelianism on the one hand and a perverted deviant of Lassalleanism on the other.

[Robocommie]

It's a rivalry between a diluted deviant of Bakuninism-Sorelianism on the one hand and a perverted deviant of Lassalleanism on the other.

Hah, now that's esoteric. :D

[manic expression]

The problem is, that's not my position.
Then don't claim that the PSL is reformist. Simple as that.


* We don't mislead the workers. We don't tell them to struggle for "reforms" that are simply impossible short of socialist revolution. Want to end police brutality? End capitalism, because you can't have police without brutality, and you can't have capitalism without cops.
This is a weak argument from a simplistic conception of struggle. So when parents express concerns that their kids are going to school hungry, you only tell them to "end capitalism"; when construction workers and miners demand greater safety on the job, all you can say to them is "end capitalism"; when residents clamor for accountability from their landlords, you simply say "end capitalism"; when a Black Panther is sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit, you say....


So, is electioneering class struggle? No, it's propaganda. Voting doesn't change anything. And is "community control" of the police a reform? No, it's an illusion. The state is not controlled by, or accountable to any community. It is the repressive organ of the ruling class. At least that's what Lenin thought.
:lol: Lenin engaged in electoral campaigns, and you're trying to tell me that it's the line of Leninism to abstain? Lenin specifically said the last Bolshevik boycott of elections was a grave mistake. But more importantly, electoral campaigns are part of the class struggle, yes: revolutionaries reaching out to workers to draw them to the cause of socialism is class struggle. Winning greater support from workers, as well as directly challenging capitalist rhetoric, is class struggle. That's what the PSL has done here, and that's what you can't stand.


So I'm sorry but the PSL's election campaign for "community control of the police" is not a struggle for reforms, it's propaganda for illusions. And is clicking to send an email to Congress class struggle now? I don't think so.
You can be sorry all you like, it doesn't change the pure pedantry of your position. If you don't like it when communists demand that the police be under the control of the communities they supposedly protect, then you have no business calling yourself a communist. If you don't like it when communists lead demonstrations and struggles for justice after murders like that of Kenny Lazo, then you have no business calling yourself a communist. If you don't like it when communists berate Congress for their imperialist crimes, in the form of demonstrations and petitions and more, then you have no business calling yourself a communist.

Don't tell me you're sorry, tell that to the workers you don't fight for.

[syndicat]

well, I would want to know if this candidate is linked in in some way to struggles and community or labor organizations there in Long Beach. How did she link her campaign to the local struggles there?

in San Francisco I live in a supervisorial district where the current sitting supervisor is a former member of Revolutionaries for a New America (the former Communist Labor Party), tho nowadays he calls himself a "democratic socialist" and is not associated with any particular Left political grouping. He was also re-elected twice despite his confrontational stands against landlords and being attacked constantly week after week by the corporate media. moreover, even tho I normally don't get involved at all in electoral politics, I supported him because he was running with the backing of various working class community and tenant organizations and because he won a number of gains for working class tenants and workers....such as obtaining a settlemment against one of the city's most notorious landlords who was trying to demolish a building with over 300 rent-controlled apartments.

he also won his re-election bids against liberals who were given hundreds of thousands of dollars by major capitalists in San Francisco.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hah, now that's esoteric. :D

I was serious about the origins behind their respective political strategies.

Mass strike action subject to manipulation by an invisible minority (hence tiny minority "vanguards") based primarily on bland economic demands and so-called "transitional" reform demands is the political strategy common to Bakuninism-Sorelianism and Trotskyism.

Nationalism, heavy-handed bureaucratic centralism are what bind Lassalleanism and Stalinism together. The only difference between the two is that the former emphasized class independence from the bourgeoisie and liberalism (albeit by shaking hands discretely with Bismarck and other socially conservative right-authoritarians with an economically "social" heart), while the latter emphasized popular fronts with the bourgeoisie and liberalism.

[But the latter is worse.]

[syndicat]

Mass strike action subject to manipulation by an invisible minority (hence tiny minority "vanguards") based primarily on bland economic demands and so-called "transitional" reform demands is the political strategy common to Bakuninism-Sorelianism and Trotskyism.


A sectarian comment on your part. Mass strike that seized the means of production in Barcelona in 1936 not based on "bland economic demands." "Sorelianism" is a figment of your imagination. Sorel had no connection with syndicalism.

[fredbergen]

More "arguments" from Manic against his imaginary opponent...


So when parents express concerns that their kids are going to school hungry, you only tell them to "end capitalism";

Actually, not. In fact, the League for the Fourth International has been active in struggles against starvation-inducing policies. Now I know it's irrelevant, because it's in Mexico and not the U.S.A., but you might want to check out the translation of this leaflet that we used in our interventions in massive demonstrations against skyrocketing tortilla prices: "Mexico's Tortilla Crisis: Product of Capitalism (http://www.internationalist.org/tortillazo0701.html)." We put forward a transitional program for class struggle to resist the starvation-producing food price inflation.


when construction workers and miners demand greater safety on the job, all you can say to them is "end capitalism";

Well, actually, no. For example, the LFI organized a union convoy that brought truckloads of supplies to embattled miners striking against deadly safety conditions. (http://www.internationalist.org/cananeastrike0802.html)


when residents clamor for accountability from their landlords, you simply say "end capitalism";

Whaddya know, you're wrong again. We propose a transitional program of class struggle that links these problems to the fight for workers revolution to end capitalism. For example, we wrote:


At the same time, black people are among the hardest-hit by the capitalist crisis, and therefore will be in the forefront of class struggle against the effects of that crisis. We demand an immediate moratorium on all foreclosures and call for the workers movement to mobilize to block evictions as it did during the 1930s. And as hundreds of thousands of black workers are fired we call for plant occupations and broader strike action against layoffs, to impose a shorter workweek with no loss in pay.

-- "Barack Obama vs. Black Liberation (http://www.internationalist.org/obamavsblackliberation0902.html)", The Internationalist no. 28 (http://www.internationalist.org/int28toc.html) (March-April 2009)


when a Black Panther is sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit, you say....

Now this is something we are actually famous for. (Have you seen my profile icon?) The League for the Fourth International has initiated and led numerous workers strikes and student demonstrations to free Mumia. Check out the Internationalist Group's Mumia webpage (http://www.internationalist.org/mumiatoc.html) to get an idea of some of what we call for and what we do.

Some of these are examples of partial, defensive struggles that the Trotskyists participate in, other are examples of campaigns for certain democratic reforms. But the common denominator is that we link these struggles to the need to bring down capitalist rule, and we call on the workers to use their power, not to click a computer mouse or demand some illogical "community control" of the police. Because that's what it will take to win any of these gains or defend any positions that are still held by the workers -- actual class struggle. And it's also the truth that police brutality is not going to be reformed out of the system, even under massive pressure. To abolish police brutality will take abolishing the police, and that will take revolution. That's a truth that we tell the workers. We have confidence that our class will make the revolution.


Lenin engaged in electoral campaigns, and you're trying to tell me that it's the line of Leninism to abstain?

Uh, no again. All I'm saying is that propaganda election campaigns should spread revolutionary propaganda, not reformist illusions.

Now the rest of your message is just hyperventilating bombast, a PSL specialty it seems. Doesn't merit any response. Tell me, do PSL unionists ever call for workers strikes against the war? Or workers action to free Mumia? Or any kind of actual class struggle against capitalist repression and barbarity (no, click-to-emails and votes don't count). The main PSL activity I see is peace rallies that provide audiences for Ramsey Clark ... talk about police brutality, wasn't he the guy who as Lyndon Johnson's attorney general authorized and oversaw the FBI COINTELPRO campaign that left scores of Panthers dead and hundreds in prison?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ syndicat: I'll respond in the other thread for consistency.

[manic expression]

Actually, not. In fact, the League for the Fourth International has been active in struggles against starvation-inducing policies.

Well, actually, no. For example, the LFI organized a union convoy that brought truckloads of supplies to embattled miners striking against deadly safety conditions. (http://www.internationalist.org/cananeastrike0802.html)

Whaddya know, you're wrong again. We propose a transitional program of class struggle that links these problems to the fight for workers revolution to end capitalism. For example, we wrote:
Now this is something we are actually famous for. (Have you seen my profile icon?) The League for the Fourth International has initiated and led numerous workers strikes and student demonstrations to free Mumia. Check out the Internationalist Group's Mumia webpage (http://www.internationalist.org/mumiatoc.html) to get an idea of some of what we call for and what we do.Exactly, and therefore you're guilty of precisely what you condemn others for. Thanks for admitting that you're a blatant hypocrite. :lol: Either retract your claims against the PSL or be held as the bankrupt hypocrite that you are. Your choice.


To abolish police brutality will take abolishing the police, and that will take revolution. That's a truth that we tell the workers. We have confidence that our class will make the revolution.And where's your evidence that the PSL doesn't advocate for revolution in order to fulfill this goal? Oh, right, you made it up, as usual.


Uh, no again. All I'm saying is that propaganda election campaigns should spread revolutionary propaganda, not reformist illusions.That's all you're saying? Then your argument holds no water. Revolutionary socialism is put forth at every turn in PSL electoral campaigns. This was true in NYC and it is true here:

The PSL will continue to fight against capitalism and the ruling class on every level, local and national, while continuing to build the movement for socialism.
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13925&news_iv_ctrl=1261

So "all you're saying" is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Noted.


Now the rest of your message is just hyperventilating bombast, a PSL specialty it seems. Doesn't merit any response. Tell me, do PSL unionists ever call for workers strikes against the war?http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13845&news_iv_ctrl=1261


Or workers action to free Mumia?Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Imagine Mumia free. That must be our aim. The ongoing mobilizations and emergency protests in New York; San Francisco; San Jose; Seattle; Portland, OR; and Los Angeles are all important actions in the struggle to free Mumia. As a next step, Mumia’s attorney Robert Bryan will file an appeal to the full panel of the Third Circuit.
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8875


Or any kind of actual class struggle against capitalist repression and barbarity (no, click-to-emails and votes don't count).Oh, I see, so you disregard Lenin's line on electoral efforts because you're an anti-Leninist after all. Good to know. But aside from that, there are plenty of examples throughout this thread, but I hardly expect an obsessive hater of working-class movements like yourself to care all that much.

I'll wait for you to put a shred of consistency into your contradictory arguments. Have fun talking out of both sides of your mouth, even if you prefer the right side.

[fredbergen]

Despite Manic's best efforts to avoid this debate with such an endearing blend of obtuseness, bombast and internet tough guy posturing, some key political points of difference have been revealed. I will summarize them:

The PSL calls for "community control of the police." It launched "votenobailout.org" where people can "vote" against the bank bailouts by sending an automatic email to Congress. It organizes peace parades featuring bourgeois politicians like America's former top cop, Ramsey Clark, who oversaw the government's war against the Black Panther Party. At these peace parades, the PSL raises social-patriotic slogans like "money for jobs, not for war" instead of calling for the defeat of U.S. imperialism. The PSL does not call for workers strikes against the war, nor for any program of class struggle to free Mumia. These are a program of reformist illusions and class collaboration, whether or not you tack on some words about "socialism."

When this is pointed out, Manic's response is to accuse the Internationalists of abstract sloganeering unrelated to present-day struggles. I show that this is not true, so Manic's response is to call this hypocrisy, doing the same things that I accuse the PSL of doing.

This also is false. There is a key political difference. Those who read the contrasting articles will see that the Trotskyists call on the workers to mobilize their own class power and oppose all class-collaborationist alliances. We don't promote democratic illusions, and we warn the workers against those who do. Thus our advocacy for socialist revolution is the necessary conclusion that flows from the program of struggle we propose. The PSL's words about "socialism" are tacked on to a program and practice of democratic illusions and class collaboration. One might call it hypocrisy.

[chegitz guevara]

Now I know it's irrelevant, because it's in Mexico and not the U.S.A., but you might want to check out the translation of this leaflet that we used in our interventions in massive demonstrations against skyrocketing tortilla prices:

Are you seriously trying to claim that handing out a leaflet is substantive?

[Robocommie]

I was serious about the origins behind their respective political strategies.


Oh, I wasn't trying to imply you were being cheeky, I merely thought it striking how far back into Marxist theoretical history you were reaching - if anything I was impressed.

[manic expression]

The PSL calls for "community control of the police." It launched "votenobailout.org" where people can "vote" against the bank bailouts by sending an automatic email to Congress. It organizes peace parades featuring bourgeois politicians like America's former top cop, Ramsey Clark, who oversaw the government's war against the Black Panther Party. At these peace parades, the PSL raises social-patriotic slogans like "money for jobs, not for war" instead of calling for the defeat of U.S. imperialism. The PSL does not call for workers strikes against the war, nor for any program of class struggle to free Mumia. These are a program of reformist illusions and class collaboration, whether or not you tack on some words about "socialism."
Let's get to the bottom of this. Your contention is that the PSL calls for greater community control over the police, which does not necessitate a revolution and will never be fully completed until a revolution, and therefore the PSL is reformist. However, you openly call for the freeing of Mumia, in spite of the fact that this would not necessitate a revolution and will not change the racist, repressive and anti-worker nature of the capitalist state.

You have yet to square this blatant show of hypocrisy. Do so or be held as a hypocrite. For future reference: stomping your feet and calling me names doesn't cut it. Better luck next time.


Those who read the contrasting articles will see that the Trotskyists call on the workers to mobilize their own class power and oppose all class-collaborationist alliances.Yes, you write articles about such mobilizations, we all know that much. But talk is cheap. The trouble is you're not doing anything significant in the real world. And after all that, your talk is clearly based on nothing but slanderous hypocrisy and immature frustration. Sectarians talk, communists walk. The PSL is way ahead of you, and you're not catching up anytime soon.

[Obrero Rebelde]

No matter how big or how small a victory, I bid congratulations to Comrade Merino and to the PSL. At a time in history when U.S. commies are accomplishing so conspicuously little to win over the masses to socialism, this event has significance, no matter how big or how small.

Oh, I know -- Amurcan cultcha has turned us all into hopeless size queens, so we need to relearn appreciation for the smaller things in life, too, huh? ;)

[fredbergen]

Your contention is that the PSL calls for greater community control over the police, which does not necessitate a revolution and will never be fully completed until a revolution, and therefore the PSL is reformist. However, you openly call for the freeing of Mumia, in spite of the fact that this would not necessitate a revolution and will not change the racist, repressive and anti-worker nature of the capitalist state.

You have yet to square this blatant show of hypocrisy. Do so or be held as a hypocrite.

Marxists fight to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, and we don't call for "community control over the police." That's not hypocrisy, it's Marxism, and basic intellectual honesty, too.

The police are the core of the capitalist state. They are the special body of armed men that enforces the rule of the capitalist class over the workers. A defining aspect of that rule in the U.S. is the oppression of black people at the most degraded, exploited layer of the working class.

The police, i.e. the state, are created by the capitalists, sustained by them, controlled by, accountable to them. It is a reformist, anti-Marxist democratic illusion to believe that the state can be "controlled" to a "greater" or lesser extent, by anything other than the ruling class. Not before the revolution, when it is the task of revolutionaries to organize the workers independently to defend themselves against this state and its violence. And not after the revolution, either. The police will not be "fully" "controlled" by any "community" after the revolution. They will be smashed, and replaced by the organs of workers power, or there will be no revolution.

Now if the working class is to do this smashing, if the working class is to take the power, if the working class is to progress along the road of preparation for this by building its revolutionary party, this truth must be told. When the PSL tells the opposite of this truth, it promotes dangerous democratic illusions.

Now on the other hand, if the workers mobilize their power, they can free Mumia Abu-Jamal and other class-war prisoners. And the Trotskyists of the League for the Fourth International have done our darndest to make this happen. Has it been enough? No, we need more activists and militants to join the campaign to mobilize the power of the working class to free our brother Mumia. Instead, the rest of the left including the PSL has decided to go on the fool's errand of begging the U.S. Attorney General (the country's top cop and prosecutor!) to "speak out" for this innocent victim of racist police and prosecutorial persecution! This belies, again, some deadly illusions in capitalist "democracy." But contrary to Manic's fatuous bombast, when we Trotskyists call for workers strikes to free Mumia, we talk the talk and walk the walk. Does the PSL call for, seek to organize, workers strike actions to free Mumia? Or are you still waiting for the Attorney General's office to get back to you about that petition?

Let's go back to the analogy I made to the radical abolitionists and their tasks as concerned a key part of the state power of the slavocracy -- the overseers and slave-catchers (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1725364&postcount=145). A revolution -- the Civil War and Reconstruction -- stands between us and the time of slavery, shattering democratic/reformist myths in the nature of the slave-master's whip-hand. Unfortunately, it seems that similar illusions about the nature of the modern capitalist state still cloud the perception of some "socialists" today.

I ask again: would Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman or John Brown have called for "community control" of the overseers and slave-catchers? No. They were at once too practical and too revolutionary for that kind of silliness, that passes for "socialist" agitation today.

But, would the radical abolitionists have struggled to free individual slaves, to smuggle them along the Underground Railroad, to thwart slave-catchers, to spark and spread slave revolts? We don't have to speculate -- they did! Were they hypocrites? Did these struggles that they waged negate, or render hypocritical, their insistence on total, unconditional and revolutionary abolition?

So am I "held as a hypocrite" Manic? Golly gosh, I hope not!

[Rusty Shackleford]

The police are the core of the capitalist state. They are the special body of armed men that enforces the rule of the capitalist class over the workers. A defining aspect of that rule in the U.S. is the oppression of black people at the most degraded, exploited layer of the working class.



Police exist in socialist states as well. if the community controls the police, they become socialist in character. if the police are controlled by the state, and the state is bourgeois, they are a tool of capitalism. if they are controlled by the state and the state is proletarian, they are a tool of socialism.

the cop may remain bourgeois or capitalist in mentality just like an american can be proletarian and communist in mentality. but the function of the officer is altered by who controls them. they are agents of enforcing law. who controls them dictates the law they enforce.

a socialist state will exist until there is no need, meaning bourgeois states no longer exist. thus the transformation from a state society to a stateless society can begin. while the state exists, counter-revolutionaries must be kept in check and foreign agents must be suppressed. that is the function of the state to defend the worker's revolution and state. the bourgeois state does the same thing, but in a different manner and with different class interests.

laws will still exist in a socialist society. its not going to be some utopian peaceful society. therefore community controlled police or workers' state controlled police(with community representation and say) will be necessary. since in the US there is no socialist state, the only other demand that can be made is for the community control of police.

[fredbergen]

the cop may remain bourgeois or capitalist in mentality just like an american can be proletarian and communist in mentality. but the function of the officer is altered by who controls them. they are agents of enforcing law. who controls them dictates the law they enforce.

Yeah, okaaay Vacant. You just go ahead and walk right into the local police precinct station after the workers seize power, and inform the cops that they will continue to serve as cops, but for the workers. The same cops who spent their whole careers, and especially the immediate revolutionary period, beating up, gunning down, spying on, and jailing workers and revolutionaries!

No. Karl Marx summed up one of the key lessons of the Paris Commune when he wrote: "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (The Civil War in France, 1871) The workers government, if it is to survive, must smash the old order and build its own state, building on the same organs of workers defense that made the revolution. Bourgeois cops will not be, can not be "controlled" by the "community" or by the workers. They will either be smashed by the revolution, or they will smash the revolution in the service of capitalist reaction!

[chegitz guevara]

You know you're successful when the Sparts or Spart fragment starts attacking you.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

Yeah, okaaay Vacant. You just go ahead and walk right into the local police precinct station after the workers seize power, and inform the cops that they will continue to serve as cops, but for the workers. The same cops who spent their whole careers, and especially the immediate revolutionary period, beating up, gunning down, spying on, and jailing workers and revolutionaries!

No. Karl Marx summed up one of the key lessons of the Paris Commune when he wrote: "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (The Civil War in France, 1871) The workers government, if it is to survive, must smash the old order and build its own state, building on the same organs of workers defense that made the revolution. Bourgeois cops will not be, can not be "controlled" by the "community" or by the workers. They will either be smashed by the revolution, or they will smash the revolution in the service of capitalist reaction!

The issue of police in a socialist state sounds like it could be an interesting thread in its own right.

I support any action that can make the public question and doubt the integrity of the police forces. Despite the stereotypes and donut-shop jokes, there is still a pervasive respect for the police in this country.

I believe the PSL's tactics do a better job of it; at least as far as my circle of acquaintances are concerned. The best I have been able to do with my people is to convince them that, based on widespread police corruption, Mumia might not be guilty.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yeah, okaaay Vacant. You just go ahead and walk right into the local police precinct station after the workers seize power, and inform the cops that they will continue to serve as cops, but for the workers. The same cops who spent their whole careers, and especially the immediate revolutionary period, beating up, gunning down, spying on, and jailing workers and revolutionaries!

No. Karl Marx summed up one of the key lessons of the Paris Commune when he wrote: "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (The Civil War in France, 1871) The workers government, if it is to survive, must smash the old order and build its own state, building on the same organs of workers defense that made the revolution. Bourgeois cops will not be, can not be "controlled" by the "community" or by the workers. They will either be smashed by the revolution, or they will smash the revolution in the service of capitalist reaction!


Ofcourse you cant expect the bourgeois organs of state to work in the interests of the proletariat even if the proletariat is at the helm. that is obvious. but you can work them so far before it ultimately has to be replaced in a second revolution which involves totally etting rid of the bourgeois state and replacing it. (assuming the proletariat gains power democratically)

if a community takes control of the police in the us in a period like now, of course they wont all work in the interest of the working class, but the working class is at the helm of their pay and jurisdiction. the community is in control. now if the community that controls the police are class-conscious, theyre more than likely going to fire those who are not "friendly" so to say. but now im going into the area of "what if."

also, what about the hundreds of thousands of bolsheviks in the imperialist army that ended up being the KEY to the revolution? they were once workers of imperialism but became the fundamental source of revolutionary might capable of fighting in war, as they were trained to do so. the masses supported them but the masses(for the most part, and i have to say, kudos to the CNT-FAI and so on) dont instantly know how to fire a rifle or operate a maxim machine gun or one of those cool tachanka buggies in a period of revolution. what im getting at is that even though they may work for the bourgeois state, they are inbetween the the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. they can go either way in a revolutionary period. like the soldiers in the tsarist army in 1917, or the sailors in 1905.

simply going out and smashing them is not a good idea because not all soldiers, not all cops, are reactionaries and capitalists. cops are more likely to be reactionaries though.

[fredbergen]

The Tsarist army was mostly made of conscripted peasants and some workers. Armies in general, outside of the officer corps, are made up of conscripts and workers who join up expecting to do a couple of years and get out. Cops are career oppressors.

The Bolsheviks did influence big sections of the rank and file of the Tsarist army. And this was crucial to the success of the revolution. But even then, the Red Army that had to fight the ensuing civil war was not created with a few personnel changes to the old Tsarist armies. These had collapsed, and a new workers state had to be built, even if out of the old human material. And in any case there was no such infiltration and fraternization with the police. Trotsky wrote about how the revolutionary crowds in February 1917 perceived this difference in his History of the Russian Revolution:


The police are fierce, implacable, hated and hating foes. To win them over is out of the question. Beat them up and kill them. It is different with the soldiers: the crowd makes every effort to avoid hostile encounters with them; on the contrary, seeks ways to dispose them in its favor, convince, attract, fraternize, merge them in itself.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The Tsarist army was mostly made of conscripted peasants and some workers. Armies in general, outside of the officer corps, are made up of conscripts and workers who join up expecting to do a couple of years and get out. Cops are career oppressors.

The Bolsheviks did influence big sections of the rank and file of the Tsarist army. And this was crucial to the success of the revolution. But even then, the Red Army that had to fight the ensuing civil war was not created with a few personnel changes to the old Tsarist armies. These had collapsed, and a new workers state had to be built, even if out of the old human material. And in any case there was no such infiltration and fraternization with the police. Trotsky wrote about how the revolutionary crowds in February 1917 perceived this difference in his History of the Russian Revolution:


i guess we can agree that the lower ranks of the military are more likely to support revolution than paramilitary/police organizations that exist in the bourgeois state.

the thing is though, community control of the police will make them held accountable to the police. they will be in check by the community. if the commit some sort of bigoted crime; the community, not the police department in question, will decide how the officer is treated.

its not a solution to bourgeois police violence. its jsut a fix to make lives more bearable for those on the receiving end of bourgeois police terror. the question of proletarian state police comes later after the bourgeois state is dismantled.

[fredbergen]

community control of the police will make them held accountable to the police. they will be in check by the community. if the commit some sort of bigoted crime; the community, not the police department in question, will decide how the officer is treated.

its not a solution to bourgeois police violence. its jsut a fix to make lives more bearable for those on the receiving end of bourgeois police terror. the question of proletarian state police comes later after the bourgeois state is dismantled.

But Vacant, this is a reformist illusion. The sort of thing you're proposing is just impossible. Hey, it would make all our lives more bearable if we could wave our magic wands and turn predator drones into candy canes, too. But where "community control" or "police accountability" laws have been passed, cops still keep on being cops -- brutal, racist enforcers of capitalism. It's no fix, it doesn't make anyone's life more bearable. The hard truth is that the police cannot be reformed, because racist, anti-working class violence is their reason for being and the capitalist class needs them to be that way. The capitalist state is accountable to capital. We need to build organizations of workers power, independent of the capitalist state and its parties, "accountable" to the workers, that can defend the workers and oppressed against the onslaught of the capitalists, and which will be the basis of the revolution and the workers power.

[Rusty Shackleford]

But Vacant, this is a reformist illusion. The sort of thing you're proposing is just impossible. Hey, it would make all our lives more bearable if we could wave our magic wands and turn predator drones into candy canes, too. But where "community control" or "police accountability" laws have been passed, cops still keep on being cops -- brutal, racist enforcers of capitalism. It's no fix, it doesn't make anyone's life more bearable. The hard truth is that the police cannot be reformed, because racist, anti-working class violence is their reason for being and the capitalist class needs them to be that way. The capitalist state is accountable to capital. We need to build organizations of workers power, independent of the capitalist state and its parties, "accountable" to the workers, that can defend the workers and oppressed against the onslaught of the capitalists, and which will be the basis of the revolution and the workers power.


do you think that i think that reforming capitalism is good? no, its better than other forms of capitalism but ultimately capitalism must be done away with. sooner rather than later.

police are not inherently racist or anti-working class. it is the system in which they work that does this. even with community control of police departments there is no huge change in the police officers function. but! like i said before, they are now accountable to where they work at a local level.

personally, i think its better to try to reduce the amount of racist and anti-working class violence committed by police sooner than to leave it all for a distant revolutionary period. but, while working to do so, one must not forget about working towards revolution.

[Communist]

police are not inherently racist or anti-working class. it is the system in which they work that does this.

I'm sure there are people who want to be cops that aren't racist. But the ones I've known were. And *what* would inspire a working class person to look at that kind of a career anyway? Power is usually the answer.

.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm sure there are people who want to be cops that aren't racist. But the ones I've known weren't. And *what* would inspire a working class person to look at that kind of a career anyway? Power is usually the answer.

.

using a personal argument but a relative of mine was a cop. that person was not racist and not bourgeois. this caused problems with other officers who were corrupt.

i also have a friend who has working class origins and is not racist, but wants to be a cop. the police institution that exists in the US is a very corrupting force for any new officer. ust like in the US military, racism comes from the top and infects the lower ranks. sure, white supremacists join, but some good hearted people join because they need the money. the military culture corrupts them.

wasnt it mike prysner that spoke about racism in the military? who ever gave a speech like this i have confirmed by talking to a few vets. racism comes from the institution which right now, is bourgeois.

[manic expression]

Marxists fight to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, and we don't call for "community control over the police." That's not hypocrisy, it's Marxism, and basic intellectual honesty, too.

The police are the core of the capitalist state. They are the special body of armed men that enforces the rule of the capitalist class over the workers. A defining aspect of that rule in the U.S. is the oppression of black people at the most degraded, exploited layer of the working class.
So you're saying that the police are the core of the capitalist state and therefore cannot be held to greater accountability by working-class communities without a revolution, but that the suppression and imprisonment of Black revolutionaries is not part of the core of the capitalist state and can be ended without a revolution. In short, you're refusing to deal with the fact that your argument is illogical and incoherent at best. Good to know you're still swimming in your own contradictions. Better luck next time.

[Endomorphian]

I can understand some of the criticism. Around election time when I was campaigning for a spot on the city council, I was told by the city manager that some people vote just for names.

That said I don't think it's fair to discount the party's organizational skills.

[Endomorphian]

I'm sure there are people who want to be cops that aren't racist. But the ones I've known were. And *what* would inspire a working class person to look at that kind of a career anyway? Power is usually the answer.

.

Good benefits, pay, job stability, and a sense of justice, even if it's warped. I believe it was Jessie Jackson who said that the color blue is racist. You can have minority police officers who become 'racist against their own kind' in the process.

[Robocommie]

Good benefits, pay, job stability, and a sense of justice, even if it's warped. I believe it was Jessie Jackson who said that the color blue is racist. You can have minority police officers who become 'racist against their own kind' in the process.

I know a guy who became a cop, in that I knew him before he became one, and I knew him after, he was actually the best man at my brother's wedding. He's a pretty good guy when all is said and done. But as his career advanced, I had heard certain things about his work that made me understand the insidious nature of police corruption. In order to get hired as a sheriff's deputy, he was required to spend some time employed as a prison guard in the nearby state prison. While there, he learned that a lot of guards who work there long term will do things like take bribes from prisoners, so that those prisoners will be allowed to rape new inmates. It was common knowledge that this kind of shit happened, but nobody did anything about it because nobody wanted to rat out other guards, especially when you rely on them to not get shanked in the back.

I also remember once listening to him talk about work, and he said how this one inmate had it pretty rough and he felt sympathy for him until he found out the guy was in for possession of crack cocaine - and then he thought to himself, "Well, I'm not going to feel sorry for you anymore." Like I said, my friend's not a bad guy, but he found a way to justify the dehumanization of an inmate based simply on his connection to crack.

So, even before he had become a cop, he had been forced to be acclimated to that kind of vile corruption, and just learn to "look the other way." He was also finding ways to dehumanize certain folks, and I figure that was probably out of psychological self-defense. If you're a prison guard, I can't imagine it's bearable, emotionally, to continue to relate to prison inmates as human beings on a daily basis, because you're required by your work to run a system which is utterly dehumanizing and humiliating by it's very nature.

Given this context, I think it's actually quite understandable why cops can become totally passe to corruption or brutality, if they don't actually become viciously corrupt themselves. Mind you, I'm not saying this to defend it, I'm merely saying this to indict the system, instead of the individuals who make up the police, because I don't think it's just about the people themselves who become cops. The best-intentioned person cannot change what cops are because of this.

[fredbergen]

So you're saying that the police are the core of the capitalist state and therefore cannot be held to greater accountability by working-class communities without a revolution, but that the suppression and imprisonment of Black revolutionaries is not part of the core of the capitalist state and can be ended without a revolution. In short, you're refusing to deal with the fact that your argument is illogical and incoherent at best. Good to know you're still swimming in your own contradictions. Better luck next time.

It seems like Manic's goal here is to win over the illiterate, logic-impaired demographic.

Did I write that "the suppression and imprisonment of Black revolutionaries is not part of the core of the capitalist state and can be ended without a revolution"? No. In fact, I wrote:


The police are the core of the capitalist state. They are the special body of armed men that enforces the rule of the capitalist class over the workers. A defining aspect of that rule in the U.S. is the oppression of black people at the most degraded, exploited layer of the working class.

(And, in fact, you quoted that very paragraph, and then immediately proceeded to claim that my position is that "the suppression and imprisonment of Black revolutionaries is not part of the core of the capitalist state and can be ended without a revolution". Here's a tip: next time you try to misrepresent your opponent in a debate, don't quote your opponent saying the opposite of what you accuse him or her of saying.)

What I do claim is that although the capitalist state can not be made "accountable" to the workers, the workers do have the power to free a prisoner, defeat a union-busting attack, stop an execution, organize a union, even defeat their own bourgeoisie in an imperialist war. This is a contradiction of the capitalist system, not of my politics.

Let's look at history a little bit. Did mass mobilization, including major union-centered protests, free the Scottsboro Nine? Yes! Did this kind of class struggle (not emails or votes!), short of a revolution, establish any "accountability" of the cops and courts to the black population? Could it? Millions behind bars today would say, "no." Am I "swimming in [my] own contradictions," or am I just stating the facts that would be obvious to anyone not blinded by reformist illusions in the capitalist state?

[Kassad]

Let's look at history a little bit. Did mass mobilization, including major union-centered protests, free the Scottsboro Nine? Yes! Did this kind of class struggle (not emails or votes!), short of a revolution, establish any "accountability" of the cops and courts to the black population? Could it? Millions behind bars today would say, "no." Am I "swimming in [my] own contradictions," or am I just stating the facts that would be obvious to anyone not blinded by reformist illusions in the capitalist state?

This is ridiculous. The PSL joined with massive mobilizations to oppose the corporate and banker bailout. You merely present the information that's convenient for your argument and frankly, it gets old.

[Obrero Rebelde]

The role of the police in a revolutionary socialist society will be qualitatively different from the role of the police in U.S. Imperial society. Doesn't that go without saying? It would be a good topic for group treatment.

The concept of "community control over the police" as a working class tool for the protection and preservation of working class neighborhoods (the lives of ourselves, our families, friends and coworkers) is in many cases a tool for fighting racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and anti-elder and anti-disabled hate and bigotry. Another good topic for the group to share in discussion.

[fredbergen]

Obrero, how is "community control of the police," a slogan for something that does not exist, never existed and can not exist, a "tool"? What does this tool do except mislead the workers and oppressed about the fundamental nature of the system that oppresses them? What class does it serve -- whose "tool" is this anyway?

[gorillafuck]

Kassad, leaving the political issues aside, the attitude people describe here is indeed typical of you and in fact of many other people on the US petty-bourgeois left.
How are they petty-bourgeois?


People from the CWI or CP make that claim about us all the time; but we're at all the demonstrations, while they're busy making rotten coalitions with all sorts of Zionist groups in campuses, majority Jewish demos, and trade union activities.What is wrong with majority Jewish demos?:confused: Does there need to be a higher percentage of non-Jews to Jews to make a demo okay to be at?

Either I misunderstand that or you just said something incredibly anti-semetic.

[manic expression]

Did I write that "the suppression and imprisonment of Black revolutionaries is not part of the core of the capitalist state and can be ended without a revolution"? No. In fact, I wrote:
But that is precisely what your argument implies. Did you not imply that greater community control over the police was un-revolutionary because it is unrealistic under capitalist society? How, then, do you think it fundamentally different to demand greater justice for Black revolutionaries when suppression of Blacks is part of the capitalist state? You have refused to answer this question because you have no answer.

You may protest my characterizations all you like, but your clarifications only re-clarify the contradictions that drown you.


What I do claim is that although the capitalist state can not be made "accountable" to the workers, the workers do have the power to free a prisoner, defeat a union-busting attack, stop an execution, organize a union, even defeat their own bourgeoisie in an imperialist war. This is a contradiction of the capitalist system, not of my politics.
This does not follow. Freeing a prisoner who has been wrongly accused and sentenced to death is making the state more accountable to workers. Would you say that if Mumia is freed, accountability would have nothing to do with the matter? Of course it does, and thus it is a question of accountability after all. So, your argument flies in the face of your argument, making you a hypocrite.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that workers shouldn't force the capitalist state to be accountable, and just let Mumia be executed. At least then you would have the luxury of being consistent. Your choice.

[Lyev]

Can we all just kiss and make up? This isn't a victory, but it's certainly progress. A fellow socialist has done (reasonably) well in an election, all things considered. Maybe the reason why we won't get more than 13% or however much PSL got is because we're always arguing between each other. Left-coms vs. Trots vs. Stalinists vs. Maoists vs. MLs etc etc....

[fredbergen]

Did you not imply that greater community control over the police was un-revolutionary because it is unrealistic under capitalist society? How, then, do you think it fundamentally different to demand greater justice for Black revolutionaries when suppression of Blacks is part of the capitalist state? You have refused to answer this question because you have no answer.

2 mg Haloperidol IM Stat for Manic; here's my answer: because history has shown that the class struggle of the workers is sometimes able to rescue class war prisoners, but history confirms the theory of Marx and Lenin that it is impossible for the professional repressive forces of the ruling class to be controlled by, or accountable to, anyone but the ruling class. And by the way, freeing Mumia would not be "justice." Not even close. We'll only see justice when the whole machinery of lynching is torn down and that, comrade, will require workers revolution.


Freeing a prisoner who has been wrongly accused and sentenced to death is making the state more accountable to workers.

And now that the Manic's favorite tactic of inventing arguments for his opponents has proven insufficient, he moves on to inventing new definitions for words. No, if the workers manage to save Mumia, the state is no less "accountable" to or "controlled" by the capitalist ruling class than it is now. Who pays the cops, the judges and the jailers? What class writes their laws, appoints their leaders, furnishes them arms, and also, appoints the functionaries who sit on the "police accountability" and "civilian review" boards?

Suppose there are two wrestlers grappling. Mr. Bourgeois State in one corner, facing off against Ms. Proletariat in the other. In one round of a long, long match, Proletariat catches Bourgeois State off balance and gains a momentary advantage. Is Bourgeois State "accountable to," "controlled by" Proletariat? Woe unto Proletariat if she thinks so! No, Bourgeois State still consciously directs all his muscles, all his violent force toward the goal of keeping Proletariat down. And here we must rise above the world of this analogy and realize that if Proletariat is to be victorious, she must not have the illusory goal of "controlling" Mr. Bourgeois State: instead, he must be decapitated.

The class struggle is a real struggle. It deserves a language and a method, a science and an honesty that correspond to, help us understand and harness the real forces involved. Maybe Manic thinks it is "professional wrestling" instead.

[KC]

It's all or nothing for you, despite the fact that revolution is not possible at this time with the current level of class consciousness in the United States.

What is the difference between this and Economism?

"In dissociating itself completely from the ’Economists’, Iskra loses sight of the fact that their activity prepared the ground for the workers’ participation in the February and March events, upon which Iskra lays so much stress and, to all appearances, greatly exaggerates. While criticising adversely the activity of the Social-Democrats of the late nineties, Iskra ignores the fact that at that time the conditions were lacking for any work other than the struggle for minor demands, and ignores also the enormous educational significance of that struggle."

Emphasis mine.

[chegitz guevara]

Why does anyone treat Fred seriously?

[chegitz guevara]

What is the difference between this and Economism?

Economism is declaring that the workers have no material interest in politics, merely in bread and butter issues, and that revolutionaries are merely using the workers for their own purposes. Economism is not recognizing the low level of consciousness and adapting.

Economism tries to hold the workers back. Ultra-leftists run on without the workers. Revolutionaries go to where the workers are, and try to move them forward.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What is the difference between this and Economism?

"In dissociating itself completely from the ’Economists’, Iskra loses sight of the fact that their activity prepared the ground for the workers’ participation in the February and March events, upon which Iskra lays so much stress and, to all appearances, greatly exaggerates. While criticising adversely the activity of the Social-Democrats of the late nineties, Iskra ignores the fact that at that time the conditions were lacking for any work other than the struggle for minor demands, and ignores also the enormous educational significance of that struggle."

Emphasis mine.

I see you have started to open your perspectives to the Kautsky Revival, otherwise you would not have put quotation marks around the word "economist."


Economism is declaring that the workers have no material interest in politics, merely in bread and butter issues, and that revolutionaries are merely using the workers for their own purposes. Economism is not recognizing the low level of consciousness and adapting.

Economism tries to hold the workers back. Ultra-leftists run on without the workers. Revolutionaries go to where the workers are, and try to move them forward.

Not quite. The first sentence is problematic, because the "struggle for socialism" is economic and not political. Failure to recognize this leads all the way to broad economism. More narrow economism of left and right varieties says that workers have no material interest in politics. On the right, they say that workers also have no interest in even higher forms of economic struggle (a.k.a the "struggle for socialism"). Ultra-left "spontaneous strike" fetishes are a form of economism.

So we have:

1) Broad economists: Most Trotskyists, non-syndicalist ultra-lefts, and huge swaths of the far left in general (including Maoists and "Anti-Revisionists")
2) Full-spectrum economism: syndicalist ultra-lefts like Bakunin and Sorel
2) Narrow Right economism: the obvious.

[KC]

I see you have started to open your perspectives to the Kautsky Revival, otherwise you would not have put quotation marks around the word "economist."

You of all people should know that I was quoting the Credo.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I'm just going to throw this out there, that in a non-presidential year 5,000 votes in a city of 600k is 16%.

I am going on a limb here saying that many of the people who did show up and vote didn't do it so they could vote for someone they've never heard of to protest the incumbent.

Good news, great to hear of a party doing something. Just too bad the longshoremen aren't on strike, it's possible they're feeling a slight pinch due to lowered traffic levels, though I doubt their union would even consider a non-corporate candidate in the slightest.

[Communist]

.
>>Why does anyone treat Fred seriously?

Although I'm of the same basic tendency as PSL, I have found this a very interesting debate. Whether or not I agree with this thing or that thing is not what makes a good discussion. Fred is addressing each point and explaining his tendencies' views on them very well. That's what this place is for, I think. It gets boring fast to just talk in agreement and I hate stupidity and/or attacks, which this hasn't degenerated into, really, at least not anywhere near the degree of many threads.
I'm a shit debater myself. But I know I want to hear all sides and learn from them, and if I hadn't had that attitude, I wouldn't be a socialist to begin with.

.
.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You of all people should know that I was quoting the Credo.

The reason I stated the above (dunno why you "Thank"ed me) is that Lars Lih tried to clear things up in his work.

I have stated that Trotsky's Transitional Program is *very* similar to Boris Krichevskii's transitory action platform method of agitation (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-program-updated-t99491/index.html), but Lars Lih uses quotation marks for the tendency around Rabocheye Delo. He thinks they weren't Economist in any sense.

Of course, I'm thinking outside the box a little bit when defining the parameters of avoiding all forms of economism ("pro-socialist" but acknowledging that it is an economic and not political struggle like say the political DOTP), which is why I use the term broad economism:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=194 (first time used, but with authoritative sources for my case)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/broad-economism-before-t126591/index.html (critiquing Marx before the Paris Commune)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/broad-economism-and-t133392/index.html (revisiting the mass strike strategy)

[KC]

I thanked you because I agreed with you, aside from the "Trotskyist" thing. And, as usual, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about in that last post, and don't really care.

[Sendo]

Jesus! A comunity college, worker, WOMAN got 16% of the vote

And she is not just Bernie Sanders socialist.

She is on a paltform of revolutionary communism. A party that supports the PRC, Chavez, Nepal, Cuba, Morales.

In America. With no money. GOD DAMN YES!

Vacuum vote? I think that many would abstain and give a much higher re-election %. I'm sure htat happened. I'm sure many didn't vote because they didn't like the incumbent. Americans WILL NOT vote for communists out of boredom with the incumbent. We're dumb, but we're not so dumb as to not realize that there is a huge leap in voting for a communist.

EDIT: Just noticed the part where Communist USA says the party wasn't on the ballot.

EDIT: Nevermind, this thread is totally derailed.

[which doctor]

She is on a paltform of revolutionary communism. A party that supports the PRC, Chavez, Nepal, Cuba, Morales.

Don't kid yourself. It was hardly a platform of revolutionary communism.


-A job is a right. Free job training for youth and the unemployed.
-Housing is a right. A moratorium on evictions and foreclosures.
-Education is a right. Make pre-school through CSU and LBCC free.
-Health care is a right. Free health care for all, including abortion on demand.
-Community control over the police. Stop racist police brutality and violence.
-Full rights for immigrants. Make Long Beach a sanctuary city.
-Tax the rich! Raise taxes on oil companies and big corporations in Long Beach.
-Repeal Prop. 8! Legalize same sex marriage and ensure LGBT equality.
-Stop environmental destruction. Make the big polluters pay!
-Long Beach should be run to meet peoples needs! Not make the rich richer!

[manic expression]

2 mg Haloperidol IM Stat for Manic; here's my answer: because history has shown that the class struggle of the workers is sometimes able to rescue class war prisoners, but history confirms the theory of Marx and Lenin that it is impossible for the professional repressive forces of the ruling class to be controlled by, or accountable to, anyone but the ruling class. And by the way, freeing Mumia would not be "justice." Not even close. We'll only see justice when the whole machinery of lynching is torn down and that, comrade, will require workers revolution.
This shows you to be utterly clueless as to history. Do you think civilian complaint boards have always existed? Are you really that thick as to think there have been no concessions won by workers to make the police more accountable? Decades ago, if you had a complaint against the NYPD, you went to the NYPD. Today, there are other organs through which to make complaints. That is a concession that the workers should push as far as they possibly can during the march toward revolution.

The PSL's position is that workers can and should challenge the police in every arena, and that means demanding concessions, and whether or not those concessions are won, strengthening the experience and confidence of the workers for revolution.

But you don't care about things like that, you'd rather let workers get beaten and murdered by pigs. Some revolutionary you are. No wonder no one takes you seriously. :lol:


And now that the Manic's favorite tactic of inventing arguments for his opponents has proven insufficient, he moves on to inventing new definitions for words. No, if the workers manage to save Mumia, the state is no less "accountable" to
And why not? Saving an innocent man from execution, forcing the capitalist state to recognize his innocence, is making the state accountable. Accountability means just that: responding to the demands of workers and the facts at hand. Freeing Mumia without a revolution is about accountability. As much as you stomp your feet, you can't get around this basic truth.


Suppose there are two wrestlers grappling. Mr. Bourgeois State in one corner, facing off against Ms. Proletariat in the other. In one round of a long, long match, Proletariat catches Bourgeois State off balance and gains a momentary advantage. Is Bourgeois State "accountable to," "controlled by" Proletariat?
Putting someone off balance is controlling them, yes. If someone loses their balance due to the actions of an opponent, then they are most assuredly under the control of that opponent for that time. Obviously you don't know how to fight, in more ways than one.

Your naivete leads us to believe that the workers do not exercise power or influence over the ruling class at all, even if a political prisoner is freed. How does that not affect that balance of power? How does that not have to do with control?


The class struggle is a real struggle.
One you don't have a part in, because you're too busy telling workers to shut up and let the police beat them. Lots of hot air, definitely no revolutionary politics.

[manic expression]

Don't kid yourself. It was hardly a platform of revolutionary communism.
Of course it was:

It is clear that only a people’s movement for revolutionary change can eliminate the economic and social inequities that plague society. Capitalism is a rotten system that has perpetuated racism, sexism, homophobia and bigotry to divide working and poor people.

Under capitalism, elections generally are won by candidates selected and financially backed by the ruling class of elite capitalists. Issues taken up by these candidates are carefully selected to avoid addressing the real needs of the people.

PSL candidate Stevie Merino is not a career politician looking to score a political office. Her campaign seeks to build a movement that will fight for workers’ needs and socialism, and expose the sham of capitalist democracy. Merino’s campaign for mayor of Long Beach is a genuine working-class campaign that has already involved dozens of volunteers—but many more are needed.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=LBMAYOR_Home

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Must I remind you once again that I'm not a Trotskyist, thus Trotsky Transitional Program is not something I look to for practical theory. However, it's people like yourself who would say that the Civil War that abolished slavery in the United States was bad because it wasn't a socialist revolution, or the winning of the eight-hour work day was not progressive because it wasn't socialist revolution, or women gaining their right to vote was not good because it wasn't a socialist revolution. It's all or nothing for you, despite the fact that revolution is not possible at this time with the current level of class consciousness in the United States.

Fucks sake dude, nobody said that reforms weren't a good thing because they didn't lead to a socialist revolution.

Before you contribute futher in this thread, I suggest you;

A; Schedule an eyetest (Because of the wonderful reforms you mention, they might actually be free!)

B; Familarise yourself with left communist and/or Trotskyite theory..because I think it goes a lot deeper than "Nothing is worthwhile aside from socialist revolution"

C; Stop raging at everyone around this thread, because so far you've done nothing but divert the argument into something much more vehement, much less coherent, much more sectarian, and much less productive for the revolutionary left as a whole.

[chegitz guevara]

Gangsterio,

Kassad is engaging in a rhetorical device knowns as hyperbole, i.e., he's exaggerating for effect. You cannot take his comment out of the context, in which a particular Trotskyist, who frequently uses the term, "the Trotksyist(s)" to denote his insignificant sect (even when comparing them to other Trotskyists), compared PSL's demand for community control of police, reformist, as if community control of police could actually occur under capitalism.

[fredbergen]

This shows you to be utterly clueless as to history. Do you think civilian complaint boards have always existed? Are you really that thick as to think there have been no concessions won by workers to make the police more accountable? Decades ago, if you had a complaint against the NYPD, you went to the NYPD. Today, there are other organs through which to make complaints. That is a concession that the workers should push as far as they possibly can during the march toward revolution.

Well, Marxists just have a different political program, one based on class struggle, not illusions in capitalist governments. People can complain about police abuse -- if the cops don't kill them first -- to a government agency. They can also write letters (or emails) to their congressmen, or they can just pray to god for an easier life in the sweet bye-and-bye. All about equally as effective in stopping or even reducing police brutality. None of which is part of the "march toward revolution" because the revolution will be made by the working class that is conscious of its power and its mission to smash, rather than "control" or "hold accountable," the capitalist state. You won't march very far if you don't know where you're marching, or if you think you can "control" the army you're marching against by means of some democratic reforms.

In contrast, as I wrote earlier (not that I expect Manic to actually read what I write), Marxists have a different program with a different set of slogans and demands:


The Transitional Program calls for rank and file strike committees and militant mass pickets as a tactic for winning strikes, and as the basis of more permanent organs of workers self-defense. Trotskyists have called for such measures and have urged that they be particularly focused on linking with the oppressed black and immigrant communities to defend them against predatory police and deportation raids, and against the fascist menace.

Again, it's a fundamentally different program. Revolutionaries seek to organize the workers to resist racist police brutality using their power as a class, linked to the struggles of the oppressed. Reformists peddle illusions in "control" of the police. Then, when the hopelessness of this concept is pointed out, the reformists with some "revolutionary" or "socialist" pretensions redefine "control" as "accountability," which apparently means just about anything, except what it actually means.

Let's look at the case of undocumented immigrants. Can they "control" the migra gestapo? Can they hold the modern-day slave catchers "accountable" for their raids through some democratic "concession"? In contrast to the harmful illusions promoted by some "socialists," the Internationalist Group agitates for a program of class struggle. This is from the leaflet (http://www.internationalist.org/newhaveniceraids0706.html) that the Internationalist Group distributed at a protest against a retaliatory mass immigration raid in New Haven, Connecticut in 2007:


When news of the immigration raid hit New Haven on Monday, union activists distributed leaflets in workplaces reminding immigrants of their legal rights in the face of police questioning or arrest. While it’s important to understand and demand the few civil liberties that the cops may occasionally heed, it will take much more than exercising the right to remain silent to stop the migra raids. With serious preparation, the unions can bring out the thousands who shut down New Haven in 2003 during the powerful strikes at Yale, and run the feds’ modern-day slave catchers out of town. “Stop the Raids!” say demonstrators’ signs. Yes, but how? It will take mass mobilization of labor power: jam the streets and form union defense squads to defend immigrants when the ICE blackshirts strike; shut down whole cities with strike action against the feds’ police-state actions; use that power to defeat the imperialist war abroad and the bosses’ war on workers, immigrants and the black, Latino and Asian poor “at home.”

But the pro-capitalist union bureaucrats and their fake-socialist apologists oppose this kind of class-struggle response, precisely because it would bust up their front with DeStefano, who has his eyes on the governor’s mansion, and the Democratic Party tops. A real fight for immigrants’ rights in New Haven or any other city would instantly cause the Democratic officials to tear up their promises that local police would not participate in anti-immigrant “enforcement.” As long as the immigrants’ rights movement remains “peaceful, legal” and reformist, the hordes of federal cops are quite adequate for the job of raiding homes and workplaces, tearing parents from their children and filling the prisons with innocent victims of the imperialist terror-war. But when the working class decides to no longer remain silent, and to speak in its own voice with militant strike action, the local cops will be called to their duty as armed enforcers of racist capitalist rule, just as they were during the 2003 strikes, no matter what fine words a city council might have toyed with in the past.

Various pseudo-socialist organizations, from Socialist Action (SA) to the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) and their former comrades in Workers World Party (WWP) seek to make common cause with the small-time Democrats, portraying them as leading some kind of “resistance” to the federal government. The first issue of PSL’s new biweekly, Liberation, writes: “The capitalists – Democrats and Republicans alike – want to prevent the movement for immigrant rights from reasserting itself as a major power. They want to prevent more cities from decisively taking sides in the struggle for equality as New Haven has done.” Are the New Haven mayor and aldermen not also capitalist politicians and Democrats? Do New Haven cops not protect the capitalist class by “serving” the workers violent oppression, just like the cops in every other city?

These fake-socialist groups play a pernicious role by desperately seeking a way, after everything the national Democrats have done, to keep the workers and oppressed chained to this party of their oppressors. The program of these reformists is the permanent popular front: “the people united will never be defeated.” This is dead wrong. History shows that chaining the workers, poor and minorities to the class enemy in the name of the unity of “the people” spells defeat for the exploited and oppressed. New Haven’s history of racist anti-working-class repression should leave no doubt as to what side “the city” (government) is on. We do not forget how in May 1969 New Haven cops under Democrat mayor Richard C. Lee raided the office of the Black Panther Party, arresting BPP leaders Bobby Seale, Erika Huggins and six other Panthers on frame-up charges in cooperation with the FBI’s COINTELPRO campaign. Thirty years later, Connecticut Democrats honored Lee by having the New Haven federal courthouse renamed after him.


But you don't care about things like that, you'd rather let workers get beaten and murdered by pigs. Some revolutionary you are. No wonder no one takes you seriously. :lol: .... you're too busy telling workers to shut up and let the police beat them.

What people think about my arguments is their business. But I think I'd be rather too generous with you to take "arguments" like this gem of yours seriously.


And why not? Saving an innocent man from execution, forcing the capitalist state to recognize his innocence, is making the state accountable.

No, it's not. But diversionary word-games aside, how do we go about freeing Mumia or any other class-war prisoner? This isn't about definitions and can't be resolved by opportunistically re-defining words. It's a debate about the fundamental class content of a political program.

Can prisoners be freed by electioneering for, voting for, demonstrating for, sending emails to Congress for, "community control of the police," however one defines it? Don't bet on it. Nor will Mumia be freed by appealing for the intervention of the U.S.'s chief prosecutor, or by calling for a "new trial" in the racist capitalist courts. But these are the slogans and the methods that the PSL uses.

No, it will take hard class struggle, workers strike actions to free Mumia, something that the Trotskyists uniquely call for, and carry out when we are able. I am confident that there are those who will see through the idiotic vitriol and bombastic pettiness on display here, and will join us in this crucial struggle.

[Kassad]

Fucks sake dude, nobody said that reforms weren't a good thing because they didn't lead to a socialist revolution.

Before you contribute futher in this thread, I suggest you;

A; Schedule an eyetest (Because of the wonderful reforms you mention, they might actually be free!)

B; Familarise yourself with left communist and/or Trotskyite theory..because I think it goes a lot deeper than "Nothing is worthwhile aside from socialist revolution"

C; Stop raging at everyone around this thread, because so far you've done nothing but divert the argument into something much more vehement, much less coherent, much more sectarian, and much less productive for the revolutionary left as a whole.

What the hell are you talking about? People come into the thread with an assortment of attacks on my party and I defend my party from these attacks and I'm sectarian and incoherent? Also, you obviously don't know a single thing about the Internationalist Group, or else you would know that they basically consider fighting for any reforms as "reformist." Now, before you give me another one of your fantastic lists, please actually do some research and read through this thread.

[manic expression]

Well, Marxists just have a different political program, one based on class struggle, not illusions in capitalist governments.
Which means your "Marxism" doesn't want Mumia off death row, because it's an "illusion" that capitalist governments will ever respond to working-class demands. Thanks for playing.


Again, it's a fundamentally different program. Revolutionaries seek to organize the workers to resist racist police brutality using their power as a class, linked to the struggles of the oppressed.
Which is exactly what the PSL is doing as we speak. You're just speaking.


Let's look at the case of undocumented immigrants. Can they "control" the migra gestapo?
Can leftists "control" death row? Your contradictions go on and on and on.

On your specific question, undocumented immigrants can and have heavily impacted immigration laws. Obviously you weren't paying attention, because in 2006, countless undocumented workers took the streets and in so doing, helped defeat anti-immigrant legislation in Congress. But since you don't care about working-class demonstrations, it makes sense you'd ignore that seminal event.


What people think about my arguments is their business. But I think I'd be rather too generous with you to take "arguments" like this gem of yours seriously.
So what workers think of your arguments is no concern of yours. Noted.


No, it's not. But diversionary word-games aside, how do we go about freeing Mumia or any other class-war prisoner?
By forcing the capitalist state to free him...which holds the capitalist state accountable to not only working class power but to the truth.

But you don't want accountability, freeing Mumia is just an "illusion in capitalist governments", according to you.


Can prisoners be freed by electioneering for, voting for, demonstrating for, sending emails to Congress for, "community control of the police," however one defines it?
So workers demonstrating against police brutality is bad because...

Keep dancing.


No, it will take hard class struggle, workers strike actions to free Mumia, something that the Trotskyists uniquely call for, and carry out when we are able.
:lol: That's a good one, "when we are able". Try "never". :lol:

The PSL, on the other hand, actually works closely with unions in the working-class struggle against racist imperialism. I've already linked to clear evidence of this, but of course you hate accountability, so you wouldn't want to look at it. This, though, is the difference: the PSL is part of the struggle of the workers, while you do nothing. You can "call" all you like, but no one's answering the phone. And fittingly so.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

What the hell are you talking about? People come into the thread with an assortment of attacks on my party and I defend my party from these attacks and I'm sectarian and incoherent? Also, you obviously don't know a single thing about the Internationalist Group, or else you would know that they basically consider fighting for any reforms as "reformist." Now, before you give me another one of your fantastic lists, please actually do some research and read through this thread.

I wasn't saying you were sectarian and incoherent for defending "Your" party, I was saying your remarks in defense of your party were sectarian and incoherent. Understood?

I believe the internationalist group considers fighting for reforms as "reformist" - not that past reforms were pointless in and of themselves. They may consider fighting for reforms useless now, or unconduscive to socialist revolution, but they do not, as you accuse them, think that reforms were "worthless" in an of themselves. Ok?

" or women gaining their right to vote was not good because it wasn't a socialist revolution. It's all or nothing for you,"

I've read the thread from the beginning.

I admit I know very little about the PSL - aside from what has been written in this thread.

So now, I'm expecting you to respond to the substantial points in my posts.

Explain why;

1: left communists do in actuality, think that past reforms have been utterly pointless.

2; You raging around in this thread with, what seems to me, is basically just an exercise of beating up strawmen, has been productive for the revolutionary left to read?

[robbo203]

Don't kid yourself. It was hardly a platform of revolutionary communism.


Quote:
-A job is a right. Free job training for youth and the unemployed.
-Housing is a right. A moratorium on evictions and foreclosures.
-Education is a right. Make pre-school through CSU and LBCC free.
-Health care is a right. Free health care for all, including abortion on demand.
-Community control over the police. Stop racist police brutality and violence.
-Full rights for immigrants. Make Long Beach a sanctuary city.
-Tax the rich! Raise taxes on oil companies and big corporations in Long Beach.
-Repeal Prop. 8! Legalize same sex marriage and ensure LGBT equality.
-Stop environmental destruction. Make the big polluters pay!
-Long Beach should be run to meet peoples needs! Not make the rich richer


I agree. This has got nothing to do with "revolutionary communism". Its simply a list of left capitalist reforms

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I agree. This has got nothing to do with "revolutionary communism". Its simply a list of left capitalist reforms
And what would a revolutionary communist platform for mayor of Long Beach look like to you?

[Spawn of Stalin]

So I suppose the election platform should've looked something more like this...

We call for:
-Total abolition of state
-Total abolition of class
-Total abolition of money
-Worker control of everything

You think that would've won 16% of the vote in a country like the United States? Where the workers are not educated or class concious? I think their platform was pretty reasonable, all good demands, but still nothing too alienating. She would've got my vote in a split second

[the last donut of the night]

I agree. This has got nothing to do with "revolutionary communism". Its simply a list of left capitalist reforms

This is the problem with left communists. What should the platform of the PSL be, according to your standards?

[robbo203]

And what would a revolutionary communist platform for mayor of Long Beach look like to you?

Er, well, let me guess now ...it would say something about revolutionary communism which was conspicuously absent from that list of eminently reformist, social-democratic demands quoted earlier. But then I have to ask myself what the fuck would a revolutionary communist want to do with standing for the post of mayor in the first place

[black magick hustla]

You think that would've won 16% of the vote in a country like the United States? Where the workers are not educated or class concious? I think their platform was pretty reasonable, all good demands, but still nothing too alienating. She would've got my vote in a split second

first this is extremely opportunistic. there is a ton of parties out there more popular than the PSL that hold similar, "left capital" demands and are atleast honest about their intentions. trying to "dupe" people into liking you by flushing down the toilet your backbone is dishonest, and there is a billion social democratic parties that do that.

[robbo203]

So I suppose the election platform should've looked something more like this...

We call for:
-Total abolition of state
-Total abolition of class
-Total abolition of money
-Worker control of everything

You think that would've won 16% of the vote in a country like the United States? Where the workers are not educated or class concious? I think their platform was pretty reasonable, all good demands, but still nothing too alienating. She would've got my vote in a split second


Well if they are all pretty reasonable "good demands" like you say then Im sure you wont be feeling much need to call for revolutionary communism. The subtext of what you are saying is - lets just stick with a humanised version of capitalism.

See, you left capitalists should at least be honest. If you want some form of capitalism in preference to communism because you think that the later is unrealistic or whatever, then just say it. Spit it out. But dont fob us off with all this crap that you are standing somehow on a platform of "revolutionary communism" when there is not a dickie bird of communism in anything you publish. Forgive me, but "taxing the rich" or making the "pollluters pay" has got fuck all to do with communism. You are just playing around with words, trying to impress as really rrrrrrrrevolutionary when really your a bunch of rrrrrrreformists who aspire to nothing more than to modify capitalism and ameliorate its symptoms.

If that is what you want then, OK - go for it but dont pretend to be something you clearly are not.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Er, well, let me guess now ...it would say something about revolutionary communism which was conspicuously absent from that list of eminently reformist, social-democratic demands quoted earlier. But then I have to ask myself what the fuck would a revolutionary communist want to do with standing for the post of mayor in the first place
So your platform would be something like this:


-A job is a right. Free job training for youth and the unemployed.
-Housing is a right. A moratorium on evictions and foreclosures.
-Education is a right. Make pre-school through CSU and LBCC free.
-Health care is a right. Free health care for all, including abortion on demand.
-Community control over the police. Stop racist police brutality and violence.
-Full rights for immigrants. Make Long Beach a sanctuary city.
-Tax the rich! Raise taxes on oil companies and big corporations in Long Beach.
-Repeal Prop. 8! Legalize same sex marriage and ensure LGBT equality.
-Stop environmental destruction. Make the big polluters pay!
-Long Beach should be run to meet peoples needs! Not make the rich richer
-Revolutionary communism

What would a revolutionary communist platform be for a campaign for mayor?

[robbo203]

So your platform would be something like this:
?

No it wouldnt be something like that. What you have posted is simply a list of reforms predicated on the continuance of capitalism. What has it got to do with revolutionary communism?

As I said before, if you want to go ahead and propose such reforms, go ahead and do it but dont pretend it has anything to do with revolutionary communism

[A Revolutionary Tool]

No it wouldnt be something like that. What you have posted is simply a list of reforms predicated on the continuance of capitalism. What has it got to do with revolutionary communism?

As I said before, if you want to go ahead and propose such reforms, go ahead and do it but dont pretend it has anything to do with revolutionary communism
Again what would a revolutionary communist platform look like because it just looks like no platform would be good for anybody here against the PSL unless it stated it would automatically overthrow the state.

[Palingenisis]

See, you left capitalists should at least be honest. If you want some form of capitalism in preference to communism because you think that the later is unrealistic or whatever, then just say it. Spit it out. But dont fob us off with all this crap that you are standing somehow on a platform of "revolutionary communism" when there is not a dickie bird of communism in anything you publish. Forgive me, but "taxing the rich" or making the "pollluters pay" has got fuck all to do with communism. You are just playing around with words, trying to impress as really rrrrrrrrevolutionary when really your a bunch of rrrrrrreformists who aspire to nothing more than to modify capitalism and ameliorate its symptoms.
.

You see this right here is the problemn. The demand for communism arises out of the actual conditions of the working class and their struggles which are most of the time centred around limited demands which could easily be said to have "fuck all to do with communism". Ameliorating the symptoms of capitalism is something for a lot of people very necessary...You dont seem to understand this which makes me worry about you honestly....Than again dont you deny the parasitic relationship of the first world to the third world?

[The Gallant Gallstone]

I think the PSL detractors have a strange sense of how ordinary people become sympathetic to any given belief and how they eventually come to embrace those views.

Running for public office (even mayor) is a much more effective way of broadcasting the message than setting up yet another blog or handing out pamphlets. For those who criticize the PSL's campaign platform, I ask you to consider how ordinary Americans (not great revolutionaries or philosophers) come to embrace, or at least accept as legitimate, any given viewpoint.

The visibility provided by the PSL's electoral campaigns give that party a dynamic that no other hard-left organization in the US has today. It's that visibility that plants the seed in the minds of people. By itself, that may not do much, but when that person discusses the idea of socialism, they can associate the idea with the face and name of an accessible, living, breathing person.

Nor do I give much credence to the "left-capitalist" or "opportunist" label used by PSL detractors. The Party is operating in the United States and, if it is to be viable, it has to be mindful of its audience. To say that the PSL is dishonest because it doesn't wave the hammer and sickle flag while proclaiming a desire to instigate "revolutionary communism" is erroneous.

The PSL has to develop a core of party members devoted to the socialist idea, but if it's going to succeed, it also has to make the idea of socialism itself inoffensive to a population that has little understanding or sympathy. Organizing and getting people to fight for reforms is an excellent way of identifying potential candidates for the Party while acquainting the rest of the population with the idea of socialism.

[black magick hustla]

.

Running for public office (even mayor) is a much more effective way of broadcasting the message than setting up yet another blog or handing out pamphlets. For those who criticize the PSL's campaign platform, I ask you to consider how ordinary Americans (not great revolutionaries or philosophers) come to embrace, or at least accept as legitimate, any given viewpoint.

.

I think the issue here is that socialist revolution is just a matter of people accepting the party with the right line, therefore you have to lose the backbone and lie to them so that they trust in you because you have the correct line. I dont think it works like that. I dont think it is just a matter of people trusting the "right people". Its a matter of people trusting themselves and understading their place in history.

[Robocommie]

I think the issue here is that socialist revolution is just a matter of people accepting the party with the right line, therefore you have to lose the backbone and lie to them so that they trust in you because you have the correct line. I dont think it works like that. I dont think it is just a matter of people trusting the "right people". Its a matter of people trusting themselves and understading their place in history.

That's very true, but what does it mean on a day to day level?

[black magick hustla]

That's very true, but what does it mean on a day to day level?

"shrugs", there is a ton of organizations that are better than the PSL that do "day to day". The Church and philantropists certainly have fed more poor people than the PSL has. NGOs have build dams and given electricity to very backwood areas. I don't think a communist organization is necessarily about "day to day". A communist organization has as its platform communist revolution. Its not an immediate goal, but I do not think communist organizations are about "immediate goals".

[Barry Lyndon]

Robocommie,
There's no chest beating - I just don't think you're really that serious about politics. First the question of Stalinism and Trotskyism isn't important enough (I never said you hate workers, but this sort of attitude does reflect a condescending approach to them); now you complain that if you would join some tendency then another would condemn you. Who cares? Do you base your political decisions on what other people will think of them? Because I'll let you in on a little secret, a lot of people would condemn you for whatever left-wing ideology or ideas you hold today.

Do I need to take seriously your comment about starting from theory? Theory and practice are both important, theory without practice is meaningless and practice without theory cannot achieve anything. I never argued anything else and frankly it seems like just a way for you to avoid the real questions.

Kassad and maniac, answering political criticism is just fine; I don't, however, say why at any point it had to turn into a "mine is bigger than yours" thing. Even if it was just an appendix rather than the main argument. Frankly, one could always ask if the PSL is so big, why there hasn't been a revolution yet, or why isn't it a mass party yet. Silly questions, yes, but then so are yours on this topic.

KC, don't be silly, no left wing group should have to disclose its membership numbers and structure, let alone on a police-monitored internet forum.

Your group engages in basically zero practice and endless theorizing, writing massive polemics that comb through every objectionable thing that other group supposedly says. It's ridiculous how you relentlessly attack every other Marxist group on the planet besides your own for not adhering to ultra-left ideological purity, and smear them as 'petty-bourgeois' considering that your organization supports HAMAS, but refuses to lend any support to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Explain that one.
I doubt you know a damn thing about the PSL, and this is just your knee-jerk reaction.
And no, for the most part, the capitalists don't give a damn about which shade of red we are, for the most part. Trotskyists, Maoists, Marxist-Leninists, have all been slaughtered by the millions for challenging the capitalist system. Ask the Vietnamese if they got some sort of special treatment. Or the Koreans. Or the Chileans. Or the Nicaraguans. Or the Indonesians. Do you think it makes any difference to the Indian police who are burning villages and raping peasant women whether the insurgency their fighting is Maoist or Trotskyist? Get a grip, Stern.

[robbo203]

You see this right here is the problemn. The demand for communism arises out of the actual conditions of the working class and their struggles which are most of the time centred around limited demands which could easily be said to have "fuck all to do with communism". Ameliorating the symptoms of capitalism is something for a lot of people very necessary...You dont seem to understand this which makes me worry about you honestly....Than again dont you deny the parasitic relationship of the first world to the third world?



The demand for communism certainly arises out of the "actual conditions of the working class" but you cannot reaonably go on from that and assert that this same demand emerges from the limited dermands (i.e. capitalist reforms) to do with ameliorating the symptoms of capitalism. There is no way you can logically claim to want to end the system while also seeking to mend the system . No way at all and this is what you do not understand.

Your advocacy of capitalist reforms actually serves to undermine the case for communism. This is quite apart from the fact that left capitalist organisations like PSL while pretending to stand for communist revolution have nothing to say about communism as far as I can gather. I may be wrong about that but if I am wrong on this specific point Im not wrong when it comes to pointing that their capitalist reformism, no doubt driven by the opportunist need to recruit members, effectively excludes the possibility of communism and condemns them to a treadmill of forever advocating capitalist reforms (since capitalism can never be reformed in the interests of those they seek to gain support from - the working class)

There is nothing new about any of this. The Second International consisted of political parties like the German SDP that advocated both a maximum (revolutionary) and minimum (reformist) programme. The inherent incompatibility of this was decisively demonstarted over time when that maximum programme gradually disappeared altogether like the Cheshire cats grin and these organisations became purely capitalist.

The same fate awaits any other organisation that attempts to combine reformism and revolution

[Crux]

Can the Social-Democracy be against reforms? Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm)

In other words, you got owned on this issue over a hundred years ago.

[robbo203]

Can the Social-Democracy be against reforms? Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm)

In other words, you got owned on this issue over a hundred years ago.


The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Social Democrats of a hundred years ago linked their supposed aim of social revolution to social reforms in the way you suggest. What happened? Without exception every single one of these so called revolutionary organisations abandoned revolution completely and utterly - become purely capitalist organisations - or disappeared down the plug hole of history.

Left wing capitalist organisations who are not willing to learn from history are doomed to repeat its failures

Incidentally since the quote is from Luxemburg perhaps you should read this http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/archive/luxemburg(1939).pdf

[manic expression]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Social Democrats of a hundred years ago linked their supposed aim of social revolution to social reforms in the way you suggest. What happened? Without exception every single one of these so called revolutionary organisations abandoned revolution completely and utterly - become purely capitalist organisations - or disappeared down the plug hole of history.

Left wing capitalist organisations who are not willing to learn from history are doomed to repeat its failures
:rolleyes: That quote from Rosa Luxemburg, one of the strongest, most uncompromising voices against the reformism of the Social-Democrats, was making the case for demanding reforms as part of the struggle for revolution. If you read the quote, you'd know that Luxemburg was saying that the struggle for reforms and the struggle for revolution are not in contraposition, and that revolutionaries demand reforms as a means to an end.

[Crux]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Social Democrats of a hundred years ago linked their supposed aim of social revolution to social reforms in the way you suggest. What happened? Without exception every single one of these so called revolutionary organisations abandoned revolution completely and utterly - become purely capitalist organisations - or disappeared down the plug hole of history.

Left wing capitalist organisations who are not willing to learn from history are doomed to repeat its failures

Incidentally since the quote is from Luxemburg perhaps you should read this http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/archive/luxemburg(1939).pdf (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/archive/luxemburg%281939%29.pdf)
So you're basically accusing Luxemburg of being a reformist or at least that she is in Reform or Revolution? Or wait you seem to claim she adheres to the same impossiblist (was there ever an apter name?) nonsense as yourself. Thanks for proving your ignorance and irrelevance.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

So you're basically accusing Luxemburg of being a reformist or at least that she is in Reform or Revolution? Or wait you seem to claim she adheres to the same impossiblist (was there ever an apter name?) nonsense as yourself. Thanks for proving your ignorance and irrelevance.

Nah, I think he was just suggesting that the tactics she advocated failed.

Thats a much more simpler conclusion to draw from what he said than "Luxeumbourg was a reformist" don't ya think?

[fredbergen]

The founder of Trotskyism in America, James P. Cannon, once remarked that responding to some polemics was like cleaning a pig sty: you've got to pull on the hip-boots and pick up a shovel. So, according to Manic, the Trotskyists want Mumia on death row, want to see the workers beaten up and killed by cops, hate the workers, etc. According to Kassad, the Trotskyists think the Civil War was "bad" and that women shouldn't have gotten the right to vote. Fortunately, I guess, the Trotskyists are "irrelevant" and don't do anything.

Any honest person can easily determine that all this is slanderous hog manure. Now, in particular, when I wrote


it will take hard class struggle, workers strike actions to free Mumia, something that the Trotskyists uniquely call for, and carry out when we are able.

Manic's response was


:lol: That's a good one, "when we are able". Try "never". :lol:

The fact is that the Trotskyists of the League for the Fourth International have initiated, led and inspired a number of strikes and work stoppages in Brazil and the United States demanding freedom for Mumia. For more information and evidence see our collection of articles on Mumia on-line (http://www.internationalist.org/mumiatoc.html).

Manic also claimed


The PSL, on the other hand, actually works closely with unions in the working-class struggle against racist imperialism. I've already linked to clear evidence of this, but of course you hate accountability, so you wouldn't want to look at it. This, though, is the difference: the PSL is part of the struggle of the workers, while you do nothing. You can "call" all you like, but no one's answering the phone. And fittingly so.

Earlier, when I asked if the PSL calls for "workers strikes against the war," Manic replied with a link to an article that summarized the highlights of the March 20 peace protests organized by ANSWER (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13845&news_iv_ctrl=1261). Was this supposed to be the "clear evidence"? While the report notes some union participation, particularly in the San Francisco march where a hotel workers union official spoke, there was no mention of any agitation for class struggle against the imperialist war. And, as I have noted before, the PSL and ANSWER slogans were overwhelmingly social-patriotic, that is, rather than calling on the workers worldwide to mobilize their power to defeat "our own" imperialist war-makers, they called for amendments to the war budget. Again, as I have said many times now, this is about different programs representing different class interests. Let's compare some slogans and banners.

ANSWER/PSL:

http://www.pslweb.org/images/content/pagebuilder/62407.jpg

"Bring the Troops Home Now" "We Need Jobs and Schools, Not War" -- these are slogans meant to appeal to bourgeois liberals who support imperialism but oppose the present war policy.

Compare to the revolutionary slogans:

http://www.internationalist.org/igharlemantiwardemo141202www.jpg

For a discussion of the significance of the contrasting slogans, you might read this article from Revolution, the newspaper of the Internationalist Clubs at the City University of New York: How to End the War? Reformist Movement Leaders Have No Answer (http://www.internationalist.org/bostonantiwar0705.html). It contains a little graphic that illustrates why revolutionaries don't raise the slogan "Bring the Troops Home":

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

Now that we've cleared away some of the dirty straw, let's return to the original substance of the discussion. My initial criticism of Merino's election propaganda was that she calls for "community control of the police." Trotskyists say that this is propaganda for democratic illusions, harmful to the interests of the working class, counterposed to building a conscious multiracial revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. We stand with Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, who insisted that the workers cannot control the capitalist state, but must build their own organs of power and smash the capitalist state.

It's interesting that neither of the key PSL spokespeople here, Kassad or Manic Expression, has directly defended this aspect of their program, election propaganda calling for "community control of the police." Instead, aside from a whole lot of blustering, growling and yowling, Manic has claimed that "control" is equivalent to "accountability," and that all sorts of instances where the workers and oppressed, however temporarily or partially, succeeded in defending themselves against the attacks of capital, are equivalent to holding the repressive forces of the state "accountable."

Even if we accept Manic's idiosyncratic definitions of "control" and "accountability," the question remains, are these temporary, partial victories won by electioneering for "community control of the police"? If we want to say that freeing Mumia Abu-Jamal would be holding the prison system accountable, can he be freed by raising this slogan? By clicking a computer mouse to email Congress? By peace rallies featuring Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. Attorney General with the blood of the Black Panthers on his hands? By petitions asking the current Attorney General and the Commander-in-Chief of racist U.S. imperialism to "speak out" on behalf of this class war prisoner? And do these methods, which have never produced "accountability" however you chose to define it, increase the class consciousness, organization and independence of the working people who can defeat imperialism, free our class war prisoners, and make revolution? Or do they prop up the myths of bourgeois democracy and chain the workers and oppressed to the class that oppresses them?

Finally, Manic jumps on my most recent example, where I wrote:


Let's look at the case of undocumented immigrants. Can they "control" the migra gestapo? Can they hold the modern-day slave catchers "accountable" for their raids through some democratic "concession"?

Ah-ha! Manic reminds us of the massive May Day rallies and walkouts in 2006, which succeeded in stalling a very sinister piece of anti-immigrant legislation that was being debated in Congress.


On your specific question, undocumented immigrants can and have heavily impacted immigration laws. Obviously you weren't paying attention, because in 2006, countless undocumented workers took the streets and in so doing, helped defeat anti-immigrant legislation in Congress. But since you don't care about working-class demonstrations, it makes sense you'd ignore that seminal event.

This is an example of immigrant workers mobilizing their power and stopping one attempt to make the laws against them even more discriminatory.

But did it produce any "control" over or "accountability" of the police, the core of the capitalist state? Even temporarily? No. While the demonstrations stopped the immigration laws from getting worse, the raids, detentions, deportations and mass firings of "illegal" workers increased after May Day 2006. Did the mass protests on May Day make the ICE police "accountable" to the hundreds of immigrants they kidnapped later that year in mass raids at Swift meatpacking plants? Anyone who might have been convinced of such illusions by arguments like those posed here by Manic would be ill-equipped to resist the raids. Trotskyists agitated for a program of class struggle against these racist attacks (http://www.internationalist.org/workersactionvsiceraids0705.html):


On May 1, 2006 vast numbers of immigrants marched in the streets of cities and towns across the United States protesting immigration bills that would label them criminals, militarize the U.S.-Mexico border and set the stage for mass deportations. In many cities, including Los Angeles, they were the biggest demonstrations in history. U.S. rulers were shaken as they saw millions of people who toiled for years in the shadows show the courage and determination to fight for their rights.

Last year’s immigrant-bashing bill, H.R. 4437, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, died in Congress. But now its key components are back, in immigration “reform” proposals by Republican president George Bush and the Democratic Party majority in Congress. Meanwhile, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cops of the Homeland Security Department have unleashed nationwide raids, going after immigrant workers in particular, as “Minuteman” fascist vigilantes hunt immigrants on the border and stage anti-immigrant provocations across the U.S.

On this May Day 2007, we call on the workers movement to come out in defense of immigrants, not just in words, but in militant labor action. Today, union bureaucrats and liberal Democrats will make pro-immigrant noises from the platforms, but their vague calls for “legalization” won’t obtain legal rights and union conditions for more than 13 million undocumented workers. They say “stop the raids and deportations.” But how? By lobbying Congress? Forget it. The only way to stop the wave of anti-immigrant repression is to mobilize labor’s power against the ICE Gestapo.

The Internationalist Group says: Labor must demand full citizenship rights for all immigrants, documented or undocumented . When the migra tries to stage its raids in a union town like New York, thousands of workers should pour into the streets to block the immigrant catchers. For labor action to put a stop to Minuteman provocations! ¡La lucha obrera no tiene fronteras – Workers’ struggle has no borders!

Finally, I want to address something that the left-communist (I presume -- correct me if I am wrong) Maldoror writes:


I don't think a communist organization is necessarily about "day to day". A communist organization has as its platform communist revolution. Its not an immediate goal, but I do not think communist organizations are about "immediate goals".

Now unlike the PSL spokespeople here, I know that the left-communists do participate in the class struggle in some places around the world. Without assuming that I'd agree with all the slogans or the tactics used by these groups when they organize or take part in strikes and demonstrations, I have to ask, isn't the impetus for these class-struggle actions some immediate, "day to day" need of the workers? And isn't it the task of communists to draw the connections between these struggles and the fight for workers revolution? Isn't the "communist revolution" made by the working class, and isn't the revolution the resolution of all the class contradictions against which the workers and oppressed wage partial, defensive struggles "day to day"? I would say, therefore, that a genuine communist party would be very active "day to day," involving itself in every struggle against capitalist oppression, seeking to link these struggles to the formation of organs of workers power, conscious of their revolutionary mission. The problem with the PSL isn't that it's energetic. The problem is that the energy and enthusiasm of its supporters is wasted on promoting illusions in capitalist "democracy."

We wrote (http://www.internationalist.org/nobailout0809.html#transdemands) in The Internationalist no. 28 (http://www.internationalist.org/int28toc.html), quoting Trotsky's 1938 discussions of the Transitional Program with Max Shachtman,


“What is the sense of the transitional program?” Trotsky asks. “We can call it a program of action, but for us, for our strategic conception, it is a transitional program – it is a help to the masses in overcoming their inherited ideas, methods, and forms” to go from their present demands “to the slogan for the creation of a workers’ soviet.” To urge people to click their computer mouse to send a letter to their Congressperson is a caricature of a transitional demand. It does not lead workers in the direction of forming soviets, but in the opposite direction, of relying on the bourgeois state.

Now, I've made the points I wanted to make, often more than once, in what has turned into a long discussion. As I wrote before, "there are those who will see through the idiotic vitriol and bombastic pettiness on display here" and get to the key political disagreements that some have sought to bury under a mountain of malicious mendacity. So I'll let one of the PSL supporters have the last word here; go ahead and remind everyone that the PSL has more members than the Internationalist Group and that the Trotskyists hate workers, want to see Mumia dead, do nothing, etc.... The party you build, the members you recruit, will only be as good as your politics and your methods.

[Robocommie]

"shrugs", there is a ton of organizations that are better than the PSL that do "day to day". The Church and philantropists certainly have fed more poor people than the PSL has. NGOs have build dams and given electricity to very backwood areas. I don't think a communist organization is necessarily about "day to day". A communist organization has as its platform communist revolution. Its not an immediate goal, but I do not think communist organizations are about "immediate goals".

Except you can do both, one is not exclusive from the other.

And more what I meant, is just how is calling for communist revolution supposed to manifest in the pragmatics and brick and mortar elements of daily political, social and economic life? Because let's face it, most people don't give a fig for theory or for lofty concepts like a classless, stateless society without money - most people care about being able to feed themselves and their families. Most people care about whether or not they're going to get evicted from their homes.

[Robocommie]

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

Hah, so then by implication, we need to keep the Army fighting imperialist wars and dropping bombs and mortars on people in OTHER countries because it's better than having them all back here, NOT fighting?

This is a completely bullshit graphic, because the US always keeps at least some National Guard units at home to intervene in these kind of domestic disturbances - not bringing US Army and US Marine troops home won't change that. I mean Christ, do I need to point out the SWAT teams and the cops shown patrolling New Orleans in the first part of that picture aren't troops that will be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan at all? It has fuck all to do with bringing the troops home.

Meanwhile, what are you going to say to the parents of soldiers deployed abroad, including working class white Southerners, African-Americans and Latinos whose kids were just trying to get money for college? "We don't want your kids to come home, because that's not consistent with a message of revolutionary communism!"

The truth is, most people in this country are not Communists or even Socialists. Agitating for things that to the average American have no meaning outside of leftist circles and academic parlors - like establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian internationalism, concepts like imperialism - are all very vague terms that have nothing to do with helping people put bread on their table.

Talking about jobs and schools is not a fucking bourgeois liberal concern, it's a fucking human concern and necessary to show the workers that we actually want what they want. Being unable to talk about improving the material conditions they face on a daily basis, and instead relying on revolutionary slogans first and foremost can only alienate the average American.

[Kassad]

Compare to the revolutionary slogans:

http://www.internationalist.org/igharlemantiwardemo141202www.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2744/4464620055_93ca287168.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2750/4460799378_8f582a99fe.jpg

Can you read that? It says "socialism is the answer to capitalist plunder and exploitation." Try again.

[Robocommie]

Can you read that? It says "socialism is the answer to capitalist plunder and exploitation." Try again.

And also, the PSL website is filled with socialist, anti-capitalist rhetoric, and it has pictures of Che Guevara, Rosa Luxembourg, Lenin. The PSL is NOT hiding it's Marxism.

[Barry Lyndon]

As for the Spartacists, I can't really take a group that sings the praises of North Korea and NAMBLA, and which devoted an entire article to defending Roman Polanski's 'sexual freedom', very seriously. Sorry.

[robbo203]

So you're basically accusing Luxemburg of being a reformist or at least that she is in Reform or Revolution? Or wait you seem to claim she adheres to the same impossiblist (was there ever an apter name?) nonsense as yourself. Thanks for proving your ignorance and irrelevance.

I think Luxemburg's position is ambiguous to say the least. For example, against the quote you mention, here is another from the same publication, Reform or Revolution:

What will be the immediate result should our party change its general procedure to suit a viewpoint that wants to emphasise the practical results of our struggle, that is social reforms? As soon as “immediate results” become the principal aim of our activity, the clear-cut, irreconcilable point of view, which has meaning only in so far as it proposes to win power, will be found more and more inconvenient. The direct consequence of this will be the adoption by the party of a “policy of compensation,” a policy of political trading, and an attitude of diffident, diplomatic conciliation. But this attitude cannot be continued for a long time. Since the social reforms can only offer an empty promise, the logical consequence of such a program must necessarily be disillusionment.


You criticise the impossibilist perspective but dont seem to understand much about it. Impossibilism would agree with Luxemburg when she suggests Social democracy is not "against reforms". What impossiblists would maintain is that we should be against reformism the advocacy of reforms, not reforms as such. There is a difference!

Is Luxemburg advocating reforms? If depends how you interpet this. She talks, for example, of the daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the conditions of the the workers within the framework of the existing social order. This sounds to me more like trade union or economic struggle not reforms, stictly speaking, by which is meant legislative enactments or the implementation of state policies ostensibly directed at solving one or other social problem arising from capitalism.

If it is the latter that is what Luxemburg means by refroms then, yes, I would not hesitate to say that she has fundamentally contradicted herself. It is simply not possible to advocate reforms, in this sense. however fervantly you may want this to be harnessed to the goal of "socialist revolution", without becoming a reformist and in the process abandoning revolution as an aspiration. I defy anyone to refute this claim.


You dismiss what I said as "nonsense" but I note that you have no answer at all to the simple point I made about the fate of every single Social Democratic party within the Second International that chose to combine advocacy of reforms with a maximum programme of socialist revolution. They all ended up, without exception abandoning socialist revolution. Why do you think this was? An honest answer, not a dismissve ad hominen, would be much appreciated.

Trendy lefty capitalist outfits like the PSL are, of course, two a penny. Lets face it, they are not really going to go anywhere but will continue to fill a particular minority niche for a few workers to express their discontent and reformist apsirations in a more extreme form than is available through the mainstream capitalist parties. But thats another story.

Most leftists organisations these days dont even have a dual maximum and minimum programme like the old parties of the Second International. They are either just backward looking state-capitalist grouplets obsessing ridiculously and irrelevantly about the need to nationalise the "commanding heights of industry" or they are more straightforwardly reformist, even liberal, opportunistically cashing in on any single issue causes going in a naked bid to recruit members. For most "Socialism" or "communism" is just a vague trendy label which bears little or no relation to the original meaning of these terms. And you wonder why Im cynical

[Obrero Rebelde]

Is the PSL going to mount any sort of offensive against this racist and anti-immigrant bill in Arizona?

Many of color voted for Obama believing he would at least serve to shield us from the resurging racism and xenophobia sweeping the country. Now it seems we are face-to-face with a consolidation of racist law in Arizona. Who knows how far away we are from comparable federal legislation, or at least a copy-cat reaction in the other 49 states?

Many of color could be won over to socialism in the course of this struggle. Are all the groups present in RevLeft pro-actively fighting this Arizona bill?

Just need to know

Who's talk?
Who's action?

around here.

[manic expression]

So, according to Manic, the Trotskyists want Mumia on death row,
That's just the logical conclusion of one of your many lines of reasoning. You stand against workers making the capitalist state accountable to their demands, so obviously the struggle to free Mumia is contrary to your stated position. Don't blame me for your ineptitude at making an argument. Although that, really, is your entire argument in the first place.


The fact is that the Trotskyists of the League for the Fourth International have initiated, led and inspired a number of strikes and work stoppages in Brazil and the United States demanding freedom for Mumia. For more information and evidence see our collection of articles on Mumia on-line (http://www.internationalist.org/mumiatoc.html).
"Inspired a number of strikes"? :lol: Next you'll be saying that you "inspired" the Paris Commune. Looks like I was right, your "politics" counts for squat in real life. Have fun slandering communists, it's the very closest to relevance you'll ever get.


Earlier, when I asked if the PSL calls for "workers strikes against the war," Manic replied with a link to an article that summarized the highlights of the March 20 peace protests organized by ANSWER (http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13845&news_iv_ctrl=1261). Was this supposed to be the "clear evidence"? While the report notes some union participation, particularly in the San Francisco march where a hotel workers union official spoke, there was no mention of any agitation for class struggle against the imperialist war.
Street demonstrations are part of the class struggle. The Bolsheviks thought as much. You don't because you hate Bolshevism.


And, as I have noted before, the PSL and ANSWER slogans were overwhelmingly social-patriotic,
This is a lie, told by a liar. Kassad has debunked this piece of slander sufficiently. You'd do well to read his post, but I don't expect liars to care about facts.


It contains a little graphic that illustrates why revolutionaries don't raise the slogan "Bring the Troops Home":
So you don't want US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Typical. Noted.


My initial criticism of Merino's election propaganda was that she calls for "community control of the police." Trotskyists say that this is propaganda for democratic illusions, harmful to the interests of the working class, counterposed to building a conscious multiracial revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. We stand with Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, who insisted that the workers cannot control the capitalist state, but must build their own organs of power and smash the capitalist state.
You keep sidestepping the issue. Is calling for the freedom of a condemned revolutionary "propaganda for democratic illusions"? Taking your idiotic arguments at face value, you are a hypocrite. If we delve deeper, you are exposed as far worse: What you keep failing to understand is that the PSL calls for workers to demand control over their communities. You, apparently, disagree, and are perfectly happy to see police terrorize communities with no response. Why do you slander the struggle to stop police brutality? It seems you have no interest in the progress or empowerment of workers, as befitting your anti-Marxist politics. Whatever the case, you have shown what side you're on, and it's not with the workers.


It's interesting that neither of the key PSL spokespeople here, Kassad or Manic Expression, has directly defended this aspect of their program, election propaganda calling for "community control of the police." Instead, aside from a whole lot of blustering, growling and yowling, Manic has claimed that "control" is equivalent to "accountability," and that all sorts of instances where the workers and oppressed, however temporarily or partially, succeeded in defending themselves against the attacks of capital, are equivalent to holding the repressive forces of the state "accountable."
Your position is that workers demanding control of their communities is bad. It needs no refuting, it refutes itself.


Even if we accept Manic's idiosyncratic definitions of "control" and "accountability," the question remains, are these temporary, partial victories won by electioneering for "community control of the police"? If we want to say that freeing Mumia Abu-Jamal would be holding the prison system accountable, can he be freed by raising this slogan?
That would be a vaguely valid argument, IF the PSL only participated in electoral campaigns. It doesn't, making you, once again, completely wrong on your face. Well done. :lol:


Ah-ha! Manic reminds us of the massive May Day rallies and walkouts in 2006, which succeeded in stalling a very sinister piece of anti-immigrant legislation that was being debated in Congress.

This is an example of immigrant workers mobilizing their power and stopping one attempt to make the laws against them even more discriminatory.

But did it produce any "control" over or "accountability" of the police, the core of the capitalist state? Even temporarily? No.
It produced control over the legislative branch of the United States government. I know how you hate that so, and how you would rather see the workers do nothing as the capitalist state terrorizes them even more. Such is the path of your politics.


Now, I've made the points I wanted to make,
And you've been refuted countless times. I imagine it will be much the same the next time you try to bring a few drops of relevance to your useless and impotent politics by slandering active revolutionaries. Until then, I trust you'll thoroughly enjoy sitting on the sidelines as history passes you by.

[manic expression]

I think Luxemburg's position is ambiguous to say the least. For example, against the quote you mention, here is another from the same publication, Reform or Revolution:
:rolleyes: The reason Luxemburg wrote that work in the first place was to confirm the role of reform and of revolution in Marxism. She was criticizing Bernstein's Revisionism for abandoning the latter while recognizing the place of the former. It's not ambiguous to anyone who's read it correctly, which you certainly failed to do when you spectacularly misunderstood Luxemburg's plain words in your last post.


And you wonder why Im cynical
I wonder why you're many things, and cynical is not one of them.

[Crux]

I think Luxemburg's position is ambiguous to say the least. For example, against the quote you mention, here is another from the same publication, Reform or Revolution:

What will be the immediate result should our party change its general procedure to suit a viewpoint that wants to emphasise the practical results of our struggle, that is social reforms? As soon as “immediate results” become the principal aim of our activity, the clear-cut, irreconcilable point of view, which has meaning only in so far as it proposes to win power, will be found more and more inconvenient. The direct consequence of this will be the adoption by the party of a “policy of compensation,” a policy of political trading, and an attitude of diffident, diplomatic conciliation. But this attitude cannot be continued for a long time. Since the social reforms can only offer an empty promise, the logical consequence of such a program must necessarily be disillusionment.


You criticise the impossibilist perspective but dont seem to understand much about it. Impossibilism would agree with Luxemburg when she suggests Social democracy is not "against reforms". What impossiblists would maintain is that we should be against reformism the advocacy of reforms, not reforms as such. There is a difference!

Is Luxemburg advocating reforms? If depends how you interpet this. She talks, for example, of the daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the conditions of the the workers within the framework of the existing social order. This sounds to me more like trade union or economic struggle not reforms, stictly speaking, by which is meant legislative enactments or the implementation of state policies ostensibly directed at solving one or other social problem arising from capitalism.

If it is the latter that is what Luxemburg means by refroms then, yes, I would not hesitate to say that she has fundamentally contradicted herself. It is simply not possible to advocate reforms, in this sense. however fervantly you may want this to be harnessed to the goal of "socialist revolution", without becoming a reformist and in the process abandoning revolution as an aspiration. I defy anyone to refute this claim.


You dismiss what I said as "nonsense" but I note that you have no answer at all to the simple point I made about the fate of every single Social Democratic party within the Second International that chose to combine advocacy of reforms with a maximum programme of socialist revolution. They all ended up, without exception abandoning socialist revolution. Why do you think this was? An honest answer, not a dismissve ad hominen, would be much appreciated.

Trendy lefty capitalist outfits like the PSL are, of course, two a penny. Lets face it, they are not really going to go anywhere but will continue to fill a particular minority niche for a few workers to express their discontent and reformist apsirations in a more extreme form than is available through the mainstream capitalist parties. But thats another story.

Most leftists organisations these days dont even have a dual maximum and minimum programme like the old parties of the Second International. They are either just backward looking state-capitalist grouplets obsessing ridiculously and irrelevantly about the need to nationalise the "commanding heights of industry" or they are more straightforwardly reformist, even liberal, opportunistically cashing in on any single issue causes going in a naked bid to recruit members. For most "Socialism" or "communism" is just a vague trendy label which bears little or no relation to the original meaning of these terms. And you wonder why Im cynical
Well, given your understanding of "reformism" as "anyone but yourself" I see how you could come to that conclusion.

[robbo203]

:rolleyes: The reason Luxemburg wrote that work in the first place was to confirm the role of reform and of revolution in Marxism. She was criticizing Bernstein's Revisionism for abandoning the latter while recognizing the place of the former. It's not ambiguous to anyone who's read it correctly, which you certainly failed to do when you spectacularly misunderstood Luxemburg's plain words in your last post.
.


I think you have spectacularly misunderstood my own words which was not to question the "indissoluble tie" she asserted between reforms and revolution but to enquire as to what precisely she meant by "reforms" in this context in the first place. It is not as clear cut as you glibly assume. Is she talking about trade union struggle in the economic field or intiatives undertaken by the state as legislative palliatives? This is all important

If it is the latter then frankly I have no hesitation in saying that by advocating reforms in this sense Luxemburg would have put herself in the position of being a reformist. Her personal commitment to socialist revolution I have no doubt was sincere but, at an organisational level, the advocacy of reforms - what is meant by reformism, strictly speaking - will inevitably lead to the complete abandonment of all revolutionary aspirations. You cannot both strive to mend capitalism and end capitalism. Logically and in practical terms it has to be one or the other

This is absolutely shown to be the case by the dismal drift towards the reformism within the Second International which I referred to I note that neither you nor Mayakovsky have anything to say in response this point. Your silence is deafening. The best I can elicit from the latter is a cryptic remark: Well, given your understanding of "reformism" as "anyone but yourself" I see how you could come to that conclusion. Clearly this is the observation of a person who is understandably reluctant to engage in a debate when the facts are so obvious stacked against him or her

[Crux]

I think you have spectacularly misunderstood my own words which was not to question the "indissoluble tie" she asserted between reforms and revolution but to enquire as to what precisely she meant by "reforms" in this context in the first place. It is not as clear cut as you glibly assume. Is she talking about trade union struggle in the economic field or intiatives undertaken by the state as legislative palliatives? This is all important

If it is the latter then frankly I have no hesitation in saying that by advocating reforms in this sense Luxemburg would have put herself in the position of being a reformist. Her personal commitment to socialist revolution I have no doubt was sincere but, at an organisational level, the advocacy of reforms - what is meant by reformism, strictly speaking - will inevitably lead to the complete abandonment of all revolutionary aspirations. You cannot both strive to mend capitalism and end capitalism. Logically and in practical terms it has to be one or the other

This is absolutely shown to be the case by the dismal drift towards the reformism within the Second International which I referred to I note that neither you nor Mayakovsky have anything to say in response this point. Your silence is deafening. The best I can elicit from the latter is a cryptic remark: Well, given your understanding of "reformism" as "anyone but yourself" I see how you could come to that conclusion. Clearly this is the observation of a person who is understandably reluctant to engage in a debate when the facts are so obvious stacked against him or her
Well, no I'd be happy to debate, but I think you are wrong in that reforms mend capitalism, rather reforms are won through struggle, and if that struggle does not continue they can be taken away at any moment. I suppose this my idea of winning reforms through struggle make me a reformist? Your idea of inevitability makes me wonder if you are not an impossiblist viz a viz revolution as well.

[Barry Lyndon]

I should say, precisely because of this debate and the venom that the ultra-lefts have spewed at the PSL, I'm intrigued enough that Iv'e registered for the PSL conference in Chicago!:)