Log in

View Full Version : Workers World Party: Socialists Unite



Die Neue Zeit
29th June 2010, 03:35
http://www.workers.org/2010/us/socialists_unite_0701/



The following statement is being distributed at the U.S. Social Forum in Detroit.

Something important happened last November that did not seem to elicit the widespread interest that it should have. In a speech to a large gathering in Caracas, Venezuela, of communist, socialist and left parties, and social movements from around the region and the world, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez made a call for a new Fifth International of socialists and communists.

Chávez said the Fifth International must be “an instrument for the unification and articulation of the struggle of the peoples to save this planet.”

Set aside for the moment a discussion of what became of the earlier internationals, or what will come out of this new call for unity amongst revolutionaries. The fact that a leader as prominent on the world scene as Hugo Chávez made this call, and the sense of urgency in the motivation of this call for unity, is something that all who are dedicated to making another world possible should take heed of.

Socialists across the world need to unite. The need for such unity is all the more urgent here in the U.S., because the capitalist system here remains at the center of world imperialism. A socialist front of organizations, parties and individuals — whose agreement on fundamental questions outweighs whatever differences they might have — could greatly advance the work of revolutionaries on many levels.

The biggest capitalist global economic crisis since the 1930s, far from being over, is now moving into a deeper phase. This phase is characterized by the world’s big banks demanding sweeping austerity programs intended to deprive workers across the globe of jobs, pensions, health care, education, etc. — basically the requisites of a reasonable life. The real unemployment rate is not only at depression level and worse for young African Americans and Latinos/as, but it also represents structural or permanent unemployment. BP’s destruction of the Gulf is the latest example of how the capitalist drive for super profits is destroying the planet. We’ve come to a teachable moment.

The capitalist system has reached a historical tipping point. From now on, it is going to be increasingly harder for the ruling class — even with all of its control over what people read, hear or see — to stop the inhabitants of the world from concluding that capitalism is the number one enemy of the people, social justice, human progress, and the ecology of the planet. In fact millions of people have already come to that conclusion.

It is time to cast away all illusions. The prolongation of capitalism and imperialism constitutes an existential threat to the future of humanity and the future of the planet. It will become more and more apparent that capitalism can’t be reformed. We no longer have the luxury of viewing the end of capitalism as some abstract, distant and irrelevant concept.

Certainly, as activists and as revolutionaries we must continue the day-to-day struggle for measures of justice on many fronts and around many issues. However, the understanding must be engendered and fought for that the number one imperative on the historical agenda must be the abolishment of capitalism and its replacement with socialism. Moreover, this understanding must influence how we fight the day-to-day battles.

What might be some of the fundamental points that could serve as the basis for a new socialist unity?

• No reliance on the Democratic Party

Amongst such points would certainly be an understanding that the strategy of trying to build a left pole within the Democratic Party has, time after time, only served to tie the left to the prevailing position of the Democratic Party leaders. And their position is to defend and promote capitalist and imperialist interests.

Many of us appreciate the enormous historical significance of the election of the first African-American president, Barack Obama. Moreover, we are mindful of how important this development is to the African-American people. We are also aware that right-wing, neo-fascistic groups like the Tea Party are waging a dangerous, racist campaign against Obama that activists cannot be indifferent nor neutral about and must be on guard to distance themselves from.

The fact, however, remains that Obama represents U.S. imperialism. Part of the ruling class support for Obama’s presidency is their calculation that he can keep a lid on the working class and the poor, and either stop or restrain the ability of the people to take to the streets and defend themselves against unemployment, cutbacks and all of the other attacks that are intensifying. This aspect of Obama’s presidency is the most problematic for the working class movement.

If there is no strong fightback from the working class, especially during a capitalist crisis, racist and neo-fascist elements will seek to fill the vacuum — diverting what should be a rising class struggle into a campaign against immigrant workers, the poor, oppressed youth, women and lesbian, gay, bi, transgender and queer people.

• Solidarity with oppressed peoples — support the right to self-determination

For this reason, the central principle of socialist unity must be real solidarity with Black people, Latinos/as, Asians, Arabs, Muslims and Native Indigenous people, and their right to self-determination. Without such solidarity, no united movement is possible. This principle must be extended to women and the LGBTQ community.

• Anti-imperialism & internationalism

These should be high on the list of unifying principles. U.S. imperialism does not wage some bad wars and some good wars. All imperialist wars and occupations are for imperialist interests. The greater this understanding, the stronger the movement will be.

A new socialist unity must strengthen internationalism. Workers, the oppressed and poor people everywhere must know that they have steadfast class allies in the U.S. Internationalism means the defense of revolutionary governments like Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It also means support for national liberation struggles, such as the Palestinian people, and all who are fighting imperialism — from Haiti to Venezuela and Bolivia; from Iraq to Afghanistan, Iran, Africa to the Philippines.

• Centrality of the working class

Socialist unity needs to be centered in the struggle of the working class. Ultimately it is the advancement of the multinational working class, no matter where workers reside or what their immigration status is. This includes the unemployed in the communities, schools and prison; those in the workplace; the organized, unorganized and undocumented of all abilities.

The times oblige serious revolutionaries to find the basis for concentrating their forces on a higher level.

The larger the steps taken in that direction, the brighter the prospects for revitalizing the social forces that are essential to making the social revolution that makes the new world possible.

-----
Articles copyright 1995-2010 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Die Neue Zeit
29th June 2010, 03:44
^^^ I don't agree with the North Korea mention, btw.

dutch master
29th June 2010, 04:07
I talked to some of the top leadership of WWP at the US Social Forum about this. In my opinion, it is basically just to stick a thumb in the eye of the people who support "Left Refoundation" and "Left Regroupment" shit (Solidairty, FRSO/OSCL, RWIOT, etc). They know social democrats, Trotskyites, anarchists, and assorted scum would never defend the DPRK, and they don't want unity with people who would not.

Jimmie Higgins
29th June 2010, 04:07
^^^ I don't agree with the North Korea mention, btw.Yeah it seems to undermine the "general points of unity" idea to specifically call Cuba and N. Korea "revolutionary". It seems like the actual point of Left-wing unity on this issue is just the opposition to imperial meddling in Cuba and N. Korea as well as with other countries like Iran and Venusuela.

Adi Shankara
29th June 2010, 04:15
^^^ I don't agree with the North Korea mention, btw.


Meh, sometimes you have to tolerate realpolitik...while it's ideal that they don't show solidarity with such a state, if they have to for support, then I support the decision if it lets communism grow at home.

I strongly applaud the decision to break off reliance with the democrats; for many years, I heard CPUSA actually recommended a democrat to vote for that would best work for "the interests of the people"?

is that true? WTF? :confused:

A Revolutionary Tool
29th June 2010, 06:07
Meh, sometimes you have to tolerate realpolitik...while it's ideal that they don't show solidarity with such a state, if they have to for support, then I support the decision if it lets communism grow at home.

I strongly applaud the decision to break off reliance with the democrats; for many years, I heard CPUSA actually recommended a democrat to vote for that would best work for "the interests of the people"?

is that true? WTF? :confused:
Yes that's true and for all we know they haven't changed much since then. The party that put this out is the Worker's World Party, not the CPUSA. Two different parties.

Lacrimi de Chiciură
29th June 2010, 14:58
The North Korea plug-in is just totally unnecessary. This article reads like a bad joke, calling for socialist unity and bringing up defense of corrupt states. There would be nothing to "defend" the DPRK from if we abolished the military-industrial complex here in the US. Looks like whoever wrote this article was just being a troll or is just out of touch with reality and doesn't realize that there are a million better ways to convince people that we need to end imperialism.

Also, why bring up DPRK but not China, considering that it is much larger, has more ties with the US, and has a growing labor movement that could actually benefit from socialist solidarity?

gorillafuck
29th June 2010, 15:15
They know social democrats, Trotskyites, anarchists, and assorted scum would never defend the DPRK, and they don't want unity with people who would not.
Didn't the WWP endorse Cynthia Mckinney?

pranabjyoti
29th June 2010, 17:12
What about the armed revolutionary struggles going on around the world? Is there any place for revolutionaries who believe in armed struggle?
I think in my opinion, this kind of forums and organizations can be helpful is by shifting their field of activities. Instead of concentrating on socioeconomic issues, which are very hard to coup up with, rather concentrate on scientific and technological issues. I propose to make a group for discuss and advancements of new scientific and technological ideas which can be helpful of new revolutionary states.

Fietsketting
29th June 2010, 23:11
I assume we aren't invited? :(

Zanthorus
29th June 2010, 23:15
I assume we aren't invited? :(

If by "we" you mean anyone who disagrees with forming a new international on an opportunist basis with petit-bourgeois demagogues running the place left right and centre then I would assume that yes, we're not invited. Good thing too.

Fietsketting
29th June 2010, 23:18
If by "we" you mean anyone who disagrees with forming a new international on an opportunist basis with petit-bourgeois demagogues running the place left right and centre then I would assume that yes, we're not invited. Good thing to.
I was refering to Anarchists but your answer is better, cheers!

dutch master
30th June 2010, 00:02
Didn't the WWP endorse Cynthia Mckinney?

Your point? You got a problem with telling people not to vote for Democrats?

Kassad
30th June 2010, 00:08
Your point? You got a problem with telling people not to vote for Democrats?

Cynthia McKinney is a capitalist, for starters. What, should we vote Libertarian now because they aren't Democrats?

dutch master
30th June 2010, 00:14
Cynthia McKinney is a capitalist, for starters. What, should we vote Libertarian now because they aren't Democrats?

What does that matter? When the masses are faced with multiple decisions at the ballot box, and the media telling them to vote for a Republican or a Democrat, telling them to do something else and giving them some reasons behind it can hopefully push their consciousness forward. Not having a line, or having a some ridiculous anti-electoral politics position, would be worse.

You could also probably appreciate why they wouldn't endorse a PSL candidate, no?

Die Neue Zeit
30th June 2010, 01:43
If by "we" you mean anyone who disagrees with forming a new international on an opportunist basis with petit-bourgeois demagogues running the place left right and centre then I would assume that yes, we're not invited. Good thing too.

As long as there is no excessive "anti-imperialism" (cuddling with Iran internally :rolleyes: ) and there is space for independent working-class activity in the new International (workers-only tendency membership policies, most notably), then I don't see much opportunism here. Chavez is a Third World "petit-bourgeois demagogue" and not that one part of the One Reactionary Mass that is the First World petit-bourgeoisie.

gorillafuck
30th June 2010, 05:16
What does that matter? When the masses are faced with multiple decisions at the ballot box, and the media telling them to vote for a Republican or a Democrat, telling them to do something else and giving them some reasons behind it can hopefully push their consciousness forward. Not having a line, or having a some ridiculous anti-electoral politics position, would be worse.

You could also probably appreciate why they wouldn't endorse a PSL candidate, no?
Well I have a "ridiculous anti-electoral politics position", but let's ignore that for now and assume that they should be endorsing a candidate. They didn't run a candidate themselves, so they endorse a capitalist. If they believe that elections should be used to put forward their program, why would they endorse an openly capitalist candidate?

Adi Shankara
30th June 2010, 21:43
I like Oliver Besancenot. while he's not exactly communist, he's strictly anti-capitalist, and that's a good start in any direction, in any sense of the idea.

Crux
30th June 2010, 22:29
Well I have a "ridiculous anti-electoral politics position", but let's ignore that for now and assume that they should be endorsing a candidate. They didn't run a candidate themselves, so they endorse a capitalist. If they believe that elections should be used to put forward their program, why would they endorse an openly capitalist candidate?
A blanket statement calling Cynthia McKinney "a capitalist" is rather crude. Reformist? Sure. But electoral politics is not always as straightforward as endorsing revolutionary candidates.

People's War
30th June 2010, 22:33
I don't see what the problem with the DPRK mention is ftr. It's one of the nearest things left to a communist country, sad as that may seem.

Adi Shankara
30th June 2010, 23:18
I don't see what the problem with the DPRK mention is ftr. It's one of the nearest things left to a communist country, sad as that may seem.

inb4 shitstorm

Martin Blank
1st July 2010, 06:28
Yeah it seems to undermine the "general points of unity" idea to specifically call Cuba and N. Korea "revolutionary". It seems like the actual point of Left-wing unity on this issue is just the opposition to imperial meddling in Cuba and N. Korea as well as with other countries like Iran and Venezuela.

The thing that strikes me, though, is that WWP's position on this is much closer to that of Chavez than the position of many of the other organizations claiming support for the FSI in the U.S. I expect that the WWP's statement will be better received in Caracas than many others ... and that would be a reflection of where it seeks to go and what it seeks to do.

Adi Shankara
1st July 2010, 19:22
The thing that strikes me, though, is that WWP's position on this is much closer to that of Chavez than the position of many of the other organizations claiming support for the FSI in the U.S. I expect that the WWP's statement will be better received in Caracas than many others ... and that would be a reflection of where it seeks to go and what it seeks to do.

I noticed that too...they seem to be an exact immitation of the Venezuelan government's position on international affairs.

I don't see how defending Iran is pro-communist in any sense of the word. women don't have choices or opportunities in Iran, and religious theocracy controls society. that is very anti-communist, but you still get alot of "communists" supporting Iran for some odd reason.