Which FRSO do you support and why?

[The Hong Se Sun]

Like the title says; FRSO/OSCL or FRSO fight back? Which one do you like/support more and why?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Neither.

[Soviet dude]

FRSO/OSCL is a social-democratic group that primarily does activity around electing black democrats. FRSO is a Marxist-Leninist group that primarily works in unions and the student movement.

It should be a no-brainer.

[The Vegan Marxist]

FRSO Fight Back no doubt. The OSCL group, like Soviet Dude stated, is nothing more than a social-democratic group. Just another CPUSA if you ask me.

[Soviet dude]

FRSO Fight Back no doubt. The OSCL group, like Soviet Dude stated, is nothing more than a social-democratic group. Just another CPUSA if you ask me.

The primary difference is, the CPUSA has a twisted understanding of Marxism-Leninism that justifies the crap they do, and there is a Left-wing of their party who is basically good. FRSO/OSCL basically is willing to reject everything about Marxism to justify what they do, and they try to leach people from other groups with their shitastic "Left Refoundation" line. The "Left" of their party is composed of a bunch of Kasama people. I would guess CPUSA is about 4 times larger as well.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I think I like fight back more because they don't seem to support the democratic party like the other one

[KC]

OSCL are social-democrats and FRSO are batshit insane. It's a no brainer...

[Soviet dude]

I could see Trotskyists preferring social-democrats to Marxist-Leninists. My experience is that most Trotskyist groups are filled with social-democratic types to begin with.

[The Hong Se Sun]

OSCL are social-democrats and FRSO are batshit insane. It's a no brainer...

So why do you think they are bat shit crazy?

[Kassad]

Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!) does some really solid union and student activist work. They have a political line that I find correct on almost all issues, though from discussions with some of their members, I think they have a couple of key flaws on their position on China and I don't really understand their unconditional reverence of Joseph Stalin. I think they fail to see that isolated revolutions cannot survive without collaboration between socialist states and especially the spread of socialist revolution to first-world countries.

Aside from that, which I see as pretty minor political differences, they are a really good group to work with and their members are committed and frankly, they aren't assholes like a lot of Trotskyists are when it comes to real-life struggle. I consider FRSO (Fight Back!) to be probably one of my closest political allies in the struggle when it comes to party work.

As for diet-FRSO, as I like to call them, they are nothing but disenfranchised and worn-out socialists who have basically given up on any actual chance of revolution in the United States. Their group is microscopic, especially on the streets. I've never managed to get them to respond to some of my questions I've e-mailed to them, whereas the Marxist-Leninist FRSO has always answered my questions punctually. They deserve to be grouped in with groups like Solidarity that focus so much on left unity that they have no fucking idea what struggle is. It appears they've given up on Leninism for the most part, which is why they don't tend to stand in real political solidarity with oppressed nations calling for social and political revolution.

All in all, the difference between the two groups is simple. One calls for revolution and upholds the banner of Marx and Lenin, whereas one has given up on struggle.

[weill]

FRSO/OSCL also does some great union work, and a lot of other decidedly non 'social-democratic' work as well. And saying that they're all 'worn-out socialists' is simply not true.

[Soviet dude]

Some of FRSO/OSCL's "great union work" included their leader Bill Fletcher Jr. getting paid $160,000 dollars a year by John Sweeney to stifle union democracy by taking control of some unions via trusteeship.

http://www.labornet.org/news/0804/uswdmeet.htm

I don't know why some Left groups think being the pawns of union bureaucrats counts as "union work." It most certainly does not. Any shit-organizer can get a job with the union. I've been offered several of them, and I don't plan on taking them anytime soon.

[weill]

You must be in the other FRSO.

Bill Fletcher Jr. is not the beginning and end of the organization. I know members of FRSO/OSCL do great rank & file work.

Why not holster your arrogance and address real enemies instead of shit-talking another socialist organization whose relative influence on US politics is the same size as your own? This kind of attack doesn't display the least bit of discipline or principle.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You must be in the other FRSO.

Bill Fletcher Jr. is not the beginning and end of the organization. I know members of FRSO/OSCL do great rank & file work.

Why not holster your arrogance and address real enemies instead of shit-talking another socialist organization whose relative influence on US politics is the same size as your own? This kind of attack doesn't display the least bit of discipline or principle.

Well, it's nice & all to know Bill Fletcher is "not the beginning and end of the organization", but how he does his business & operates the OSCL, it could bring the group down & essentially dismantle it "unintentionally". So really, he is a threat that we must address if we want the OSCL to progress out of its social-democratic stance.

[weill]

I'm not a member of OSCL and don't claim to represent them in any way. I just know what I've seen and who I've met, and there are some very smart, dedicated revolutionaries in that organization. It's not my business to discuss their internal struggles here.

[Soviet dude]

Bill Fletcher Jr. is not the beginning and end of the organization.

This is basically false. Fletcher became embarrassed about FRSO, especially after the 1997 Congress, and forced the split in the organization to begin with. He most definitely is the "beginning" of FRSO/OSCL's open path toward opportunism, and is the pseudo-Maoist equivalent of Sam Webb, leading the organization right back into the Democratic Party.


Why not holster your arrogance and address real enemies instead of shit-talking another socialist organization whose relative influence on US politics is the same size as your own? This kind of attack doesn't display the least bit of discipline or principle

There is nothing unprincipled in attacking opportunism. In fact, to not criticize is liberalism of the worst sort.

[Soviet dude]

Jim Weill is a Solidarity member, hence his stance towards FRSO/OSCL. FRSO/OSCL and Solidarity want to merge, but basically, FRSO/OSCL is too opportunist even for Solidarity, as Solidarity doesn't want anything to do with supporting the Democratic Party.

[weill]

That's oversimplifying things quite a bit.

[Soviet dude]

That's oversimplifying things quite a bit.

*shrugs*

It's the same analysis a lot of people have, including Mike Ely.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/kasama-frso-oscl-t140114/index.html

When two organizations basically let anyone who isn't a serious revolutionary join (Solidarity lets people join who think revolution is going to be voted into being in America, and people who explicitly reject Marx and everything.), the only thing that could be stopping them is basically the leadership is trying to do two different things. Solidarity wants to build some sort of third party alternative. FRSO/OSCL works with Democrats. It is a hard contradiction (and probably the only one), between two organizations that couldn't give less of a shit about Marx and Lenin.

[weill]

C'mon man... liberalism?

"To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type."

Just sayin'

And your characterization of both orgs is really, really off. There *are* other contradictions between the two organizations. I'm not going to go into them here. And to say that these orgs "don't give a shit about Marx and Lenin" is factually incorrect. Perhaps they don't emphasize them publicly as much as you would like, but that's not the same thing.

[Soviet dude]

For one, Combat Liberalism is mostly about inter-party relations, and not one with external groups. But the very first thing Mao mentions is this:



But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.
Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.



To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or oldsubordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism

[weill]

Yes, I know. I have it right here :rolleyes:

What you're engaging in isn't principled argument for the sake of furthering any future unity, developing mass consciousness, or anything else--it's just a minor form of defamation. Do you think folks in FRSO/OSCL aren't aware of these issues? Of course they are. Let them figure it out.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yes, I know. I have it right here :rolleyes:

What you're engaging in isn't principled argument for the sake of furthering any future unity, developing mass consciousness, or anything else--it's just a minor form of defamation. Do you think folks in FRSO/OSCL aren't aware of these issues? Of course they are. Let them figure it out.

Were we saying we're going to overthrow the OSCL to try & help them? No. Just stating the problems, which inevitably you ended up agreeing of said problem's existence. So out of this whole back-n-forth debate, the answer was as what it always was, the OSCL have democratic problems, & out of the two, the FRSO Fight Back! is the best.

[Soviet dude]

And your characterization of both orgs is really, really off. There *are* other contradictions between the two organizations. I'm not going to go into them here. And to say that these orgs "don't give a shit about Marx and Lenin" is factually incorrect. Perhaps they don't emphasize them publicly as much as you would like, but that's not the same thing.

I know people recruited by Solidarity who say they don't accept anything written by Marx after 1844, and reject everyone else, and several others who think socialism in the US will come about by non-violent means via the ballot box. That Solidarity recruits people like this shows they don't actually give a shit about Marx and Lenin, even if some of them claim otherwise.

Solidarity itself is basically a social-democratic grouping seeking to build a third electoral party to challenge the Democrats. They primarily leech people from ISO, via their paid organizer [deleted] (who recruited you, I believe) which is composed mostly of social-democratic types. The whole purpose of the "Left Regroupment" and "Left Refoundation" line is basically aimed at other groups, and appealing to ideologically weaker cadre of groups who don't understand how stupid this idea is.

[weill]

If you're part of most revolutionary organizations, even those that aren't DC, you know that a *lot* goes on in private and doesn't even reach the internet rumor mills. Being in one of the organizations whose name has come up a lot recently, I know how incomplete and uninformed your perception of this organization is. And I'm sure it's the same with FRSO/OSCL.

Arguing about a group's stated positions is one thing. That's fine. Critique electoralism all you want. I myself am not a big proponent of electoral politics. But don't publicly smear organizations on the basis of hearsay or information that is incredibly incomplete. Reserve your barbed criticisms for your own organizations, because I know they have their faults and contradictions too.

[Soviet dude]

Yes, I know. I have it right here :rolleyes:

This is a public forum, so quoting it was to show other people what the text says who may not be familiar.


What you're engaging in isn't principled argument for the sake of furthering any future unityI don't want unity with Trotskyists and social-democrats, and they certainly don't want unity with me.


developing mass consciousnessNothing that could be said on this forum would ever have anything to do with developing mass consciousness by definition. This forum is for people who are already basically hardened Leftists, and only a small subset of that group at that. Of course nothing I write here will ever help develop mass consciousness. Nothing you write will either.

It will, however, hopefully clarify to interested Leftists the nature of FRSO/OSCL, because they do try somewhat to hide their views on the Democrats online.


it's just a minor form of defamation.I've just told the truth.


Do you think folks in FRSO/OSCL aren't aware of these issues? Of course they are. Let them figure it out.FRSO/OSCL isn't going to figure anything out. They're on the fast-track to the Democratic Party and nothing is gonna stop it, just like nothing will stop CPUSA from complete liquidation. People who are interested in revolution should know this.

[Soviet dude]

If you're part of most revolutionary organizations, even those that aren't DC, you know that a *lot* goes on in private and doesn't even reach the internet rumor mills. Being in one of the organizations whose name has come up a lot recently, I know how incomplete and uninformed your perception of this organization is. And I'm sure it's the same with FRSO/OSCL.

Arguing about a group's stated positions is one thing. That's fine. Critique electoralism all you want. I myself am not a big proponent of electoral politics. But don't publicly smear organizations on the basis of hearsay or information that is incredibly incomplete. Reserve your barbed criticisms for your own organizations, because I know they have their faults and contradictions too.

There are much worse things I could say about Solidarity, based on the accounts of former members and my knowledge of who is in the group, but they aren't as political as what I have already said. Saying Solidarity lets people join their organization who fundamentally don't accept Marxism is a principled criticism, because it basically shows Solidarity has no interest in upholding Marxism or Leninism. I don't even think this is very controversial, given the nature of the 12 principles of unity the organization has, which doesn't even mention Marxism.

[weill]

A long, long time ago, when the internet was young, and I had just become an avowed atheist, I would get into ridiculous arguments with Christian fundamentalists. Unfortunately, this reminds me very much of that.

[Soviet dude]

A long, long time ago, when the internet was young, and I had just become an avowed atheist, I would get into ridiculous arguments with Christian fundamentalists. Unfortunately, this reminds me very much of that.

This is mostly a meaningless insult, and an overused one at that. I used to spend a great deal of time arguing with Christians online, and then I discovered atheism is mostly about making insecure people feel good that they figured out God doesn't exist. As my political consciousness developed, I discovered modern atheism is basically a form of identify politics that seeks to capitulate to the ruling class, first by completely erasing the radical-Leftism from the 'offcial' history of atheism, and second by giving ideological cover to murder Muslims. Hitchens is probably the most disgusting example of this, but basically all the major atheist groups do this to one degree or another.

In any case, nothing I said resembles anything a Christian Fundamentalist would say to an atheist. It would even be a bit of a stretch to compare it with religious people talking to each other about Christian doctrines and Church histories, though at least I could understand that. Maybe Marxism-Leninism is Catholicism, and Refo-ism is "Spiritual" eclectic Christianity of some nutty new-agers, but even this doesn't actually capture what we're talking about in any real sense.

[hardlinecommunist]

Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!) does some really solid union and student activist work. They have a political line that I find correct on almost all issues, though from discussions with some of their members, I think they have a couple of key flaws on their position on China and I don't really understand their unconditional reverence of Joseph Stalin. I think they fail to see that isolated revolutions cannot survive without collaboration between socialist states and especially the spread of socialist revolution to first-world countries.

Aside from that, which I see as pretty minor political differences, they are a really good group to work with and their members are committed and frankly, they aren't assholes like a lot of Trotskyists are when it comes to real-life struggle. I consider FRSO (Fight Back!) to be probably one of my closest political allies in the struggle when it comes to party work.

As for diet-FRSO, as I like to call them, they are nothing but disenfranchised and worn-out socialists who have basically given up on any actual chance of revolution in the United States. Their group is microscopic, especially on the streets. I've never managed to get them to respond to some of my questions I've e-mailed to them, whereas the Marxist-Leninist FRSO has always answered my questions punctually. They deserve to be grouped in with groups like Solidarity that focus so much on left unity that they have no fucking idea what struggle is. It appears they've given up on Leninism for the most part, which is why they don't tend to stand in real political solidarity with oppressed nations calling for social and political revolution.

All in all, the difference between the two groups is simple. One calls for revolution and upholds the banner of Marx and Lenin, whereas one has given up on struggle. What is FRSO Fight Back postion on China.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What is FRSO Fight Back postion on China.

I may be wrong, but I think they're similar to the stance by the PSL when it comes to China. They support China against imperialism, but denounce the capitalist road it's heading towards. They also notice the socialist-like stances that is still present in several sections of China, which is what's needing to be defended. Either way, the stance where China must go back to support of Socialism & the opposition against Capitalism.

[Soviet dude]

The most extensive statements made by FRSO on modern China are contained in this document:

http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2009/looking-back-at-tiananmen-square.htm

[KC]

FRSO thinks that Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea and Laos are socialist countries "where the working people rule society".

They also cheer the destruction of working class movements in the name of "anti-imperialism" everywhere. It's a very insane position that has been shown to be a complete failure historically and has led to the destruction of movements and the deaths of millions of communists, unionists, etc... the world over.

At least the social-democrats are open about their reactionary views.

[Crux]

FRSO thinks that Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea and Laos are socialist countries "where the working people rule society".

They also cheer the destruction of working class movements in the name of "anti-imperialism" everywhere. It's a very insane position that has been shown to be a complete failure historically and has led to the destruction of movements and the deaths of millions of communists, unionists, etc... the world over.

At least the social-democrats are open about their reactionary views.
Not to make a fine point but..uhm yeah.

[Homo Songun]

Hmm... if folks in the CWI think the Fightback group are bad for their failed ideology of anti-imperialism they can't be half bad. :D

What would that be called? 'blessing with faint damnations'? :cool:

[KC]

ZOMG yer sew kewal!!!~ <3

[redasheville]

They deserve to be grouped in with groups like Solidarity that focus so much on left unity that they have no fucking idea what struggle is.


It seems you have a habit of being pretty presumptuous about how other left groups work and what kind of work they do. In what way does Solidarity have "no fucking idea" what struggle is? I mean, being instrumental in forming Labor Notes and Teamsters for a Democratic Union (i.e. they have formed organizations that have been critical to the ACTUAL working class movement in this country in a real way....most left groups in the US couldn't take credit for anything close) it would seem to me they have plenty of experience and therefore probably have some "fucking idea what struggle is".

Incidentally, when I was in Solidarity (I quit because Solidarity does have plenty of political problems, none of which you seem to have a grasp on) I was close to several members of the Fight Back! group and from what they told me their strategy in unions is partially based on the strategy that Solidarity originally formulated. They participate in the labor orgs. that Solidarity started such as the two mentioned above.

[Crux]

Hmm... if folks in the CWI think the Fightback group are bad for their failed ideology of anti-imperialism they can't be half bad. :D

What would that be called? 'blessing with faint damnations'? :cool:
It's failed anti-imperialism not failed ideology of anti-imperialism.

[Homo Songun]

Oh! You mean "failed anti-Imperialism" like the CWI position on the Malvinas war. Got it.:laugh:

[Coggeh]

I could see Trotskyists preferring social-democrats to Marxist-Leninists. My experience is that most Trotskyist groups are filled with social-democratic types to begin with.
Lord how I envy the M-L's of having your profound anaylsis.

[Coggeh]

Oh! You mean "failed anti-Imperialism" like the CWI position on the Malvinas war. Got it.:laugh:
Oh christ, with this again. Yes "CRITICAL SUPPORT FOR THE FASCIST DICTATORSHIP IN ARGENTINA! 3RD WORLDISM YAYYYYYYY!

The Militant position was that if a Socialist Labour government got into power they should oppose the invasion of the Neo-Liberal Junta Dictatorship Argentinian govt in the Falklands/Malvina's.

[Crux]

Oh! You mean "failed anti-Imperialism" like the CWI position on the Malvinas war. Got it.:laugh:
Ah, how unintentionally humorously said of you. :laugh: indeed.

[Shokaract]

Honestly, neither. I really want to like FRSO-FB, but its position that revisionist China, Vietnam, and North Korea are currently socialist countries bothers me.

I don't really agree with FRSO-FB's analysis of the Tiananmen protests as something other than revisionist capitalist roaders vs. a disorganized movement with a liberal democratic current (stronger than its socialist undercurrent).

I disagree with its evaluation of the Cultural Revolution.

If I had to choose, it'd be FRSO-FB over FRSO/OSCL.

[Revy]

Reformism is the beating heart of Stalinism. With a brutal cold exterior.

Look at all those regimes, the great 5 year plans, the lifelong dictators. Instead of the working class ruling and making sweeping changes, they are ruled over with reforms in their name. Except at least some reformists maintain a commitment to democracy....if you criticize Dear Leader, you're in danger.

[manic expression]

Reformism is the beating heart of Stalinism. With a brutal cold exterior.
By "reformism", you obviously mean taking a leading role in every notable revolutionary movement since the end of the 1930's.


Look at all those regimes, the great 5 year plans, the lifelong dictators. Instead of the working class ruling and making sweeping changes, they are ruled over with reforms in their name. Except at least some reformists maintain a commitment to democracy....if you criticize Dear Leader, you're in danger.Yes, because revolutionary workers organizing themselves into a political party, taking state power and building socialism is reformism. If only workers could take power without doing it in real life, where you need leadership and suppression and economic development...you would be able to get behind revolution. But then again, without those things, revolution is impossible. This is quite a quandary you've made for yourself.

[Crux]

By "reformism", you obviously mean taking a leading role in every notable revolutionary movement since the end of the 1930's.

Yes, because revolutionary workers organizing themselves into a political party, taking state power and building socialism is reformism. If only workers could take power without doing it in real life, where you need leadership and suppression and economic development...you would be able to get behind revolution. But then again, without those things, revolution is impossible. This is quite a quandary you've made for yourself.
That is quite an impressive strawman you've got there. By the way who denies reformists ever achieved anything? But let's not forget the absolutly disastorous effects the stalinist political line has had, from 30's and onward. I could name literally thousands upon thousands of examples.

[Bright Banana Beard]

That is quite an impressive strawman you've got there. By the way who denies reformists ever achieved anything? But let's not forget the absolutly disastorous effects the stalinist political line has had, from 30's and onward. I could name literally thousands upon thousands of examples.
I could also explain the disastrous effects the trotskyists had done too, even Trotsky will be shocked about what his followers have become.

[Kassad]

ZOMG yer sew kewal!!!~ <3

Please don't spam. Consider this a verbal warning.

Also, I'll respond to some questions aimed at me after work.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Fightback's line is very close to my own, but I have a problem with them labeling the GPCR an "error" in the Tien An Men document.

I also think one of the groups needs to be the bigger man and find a new name.

[Crux]

I could also explain the disastrous effects the trotskyists had done too, even Trotsky will be shocked about what his followers have become.
You could? Then go ahead, shock Trotsky. I am sure it will at least have comedic value.

[Saorsa]

The Militant position was that if a Socialist Labour government got into power

Which is, of course, impossible. Capitalism can't be reformed away by passing an enabling act, whatever the social-democrats in the CWI like to think.

And of course by the time of the Malvinas War the British Labour Party was completely dominated and controlled by open supporters of capitalism. The Militant's entryism was an opportunistic attempt to recruit in large numbers on the basis of flawed and weak politics. You didn't break your members links with reformism, and as a result when you left the Labour Party most of your members/supporters/fellow travellers didn't leave with you.


they should oppose the invasion of the Neo-Liberal Junta Dictatorship Argentinian govt in the Falklands/Malvina's.

Basically, if Labour win the election it's ok for murderous imperialist squaddie conquistadors to charge into Latin America in defense of British imperial interests.

You're social-democrats. Admit it.

[Bright Banana Beard]

You could? Then go ahead, shock Trotsky. I am sure it will at least have comedic value.
Splinter, too many fourth international, sectarian, state-capitalism, Posadism, entryism, and etc. even calling everything Stalinism just because trotskyists isn't in charge.

Hell, look at the history, all you get that Stalinism is still rampanting and are still alive even after the collapse of Stalinism states of Eastern Europe and USSR, but why? Does the material condition calls for change, or the theory calls for change?
Gran Rojo

[Proletarian Ultra]

Capitalism can't be reformed away by passing an enabling act, whatever the social-democrats in the CWI like to think.

But isn't that what happened in Czechoslovakia after WWII, basically?

An enabling act, a state of emergency, suspension of the constitution, what have you, is a declaration of legalized civil war.

(Not that this has anything to do with the Falklands, however).

[Homo Songun]

Basically, if Labour win the election it's ok for murderous imperialist squaddie conquistadors to charge into Latin America in defense of British imperial interests.

You're social-democrats. Admit it.

Yep. This is exactly the attitude -- so-called socialists supporting "their" bourgeoisie -- which infamously facilitated the wholesale butchery of the working class in World War 1. This is why the Bolsheviks and Luxemburg had to leave the rotten Second International. Of course, nearly a century later, everyone knows who Lenin is, but hardly anybody knows or cares about the traitors he split from.

[Mather]

Neither.

[Chimurenga.]

Fight Back for obvious reasons.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Getting rid of Stalinism is a good start

Yeah, because what this world needs is another Khrushchev. :rolleyes:

[Communist]

.

Fight Back! obviously as I'm a Leninist. FRSO does great work with labor of course, but I also like how they're working with the new SDA. There's been some very impressive actions and great activists coming up in SDA and the help and support from FRSO is certainly a part of that.

.

[bailey_187]

But isn't that what happened in Czechoslovakia after WWII, basically?

An enabling act, a state of emergency, suspension of the constitution, what have you, is a declaration of legalized civil war.

(Not that this has anything to do with the Falklands, however).

Sort of, but IIRC the Communists were in charge of security forces etc. AFAIK, the Militant never controlled the Met or MI5 etc

[Crux]

Splinter, too many fourth international, sectarian, state-capitalism, Posadism, entryism, and etc. even calling everything Stalinism just because trotskyists isn't in charge.

Hell, look at the history, all you get that Stalinism is still rampanting and are still alive even after the collapse of Stalinism states of Eastern Europe and USSR, but why? Does the material condition calls for change, or the theory calls for change?
Gran Rojo
Splinters? That's pretty rich coming from a Hoxhaist. And correct me if I am wrong, but state capitalism as a theory isn't that an offical stance of both Hoxhaist and Maoist parties vis a vis several states? That you don't even grasp was stalinism is can't really be blamed on trotskyism, sorry.

Stalinism exists? That's your argument? Fascinating. You know social democracy still exists too and massively so. I suppose that would be an argument for social democracy? :laugh:

[Homo Songun]

Has the CWI ever done internal debate or self-criticism about their line on the Malvinas war? I was told they lost a bunch of Latinos over it in the States a few years ago.

[Crux]

Which is, of course, impossible. Capitalism can't be reformed away by passing an enabling act, whatever the social-democrats in the CWI like to think.
Pathetic. Or do you seriously think anyone with any knowledge of our positions would take your "oh noes socialdemocrat enabling act" nonsense seriously?



And of course by the time of the Malvinas War the British Labour Party was completely dominated and controlled by open supporters of capitalism. The Militant's entryism was an opportunistic attempt to recruit in large numbers on the basis of flawed and weak politics. You didn't break your members links with reformism, and as a result when you left the Labour Party most of your members/supporters/fellow travellers didn't leave with you.
By the time of the WW1 the leadership of the Labour party was dominated by pro-capitalist elements. This just shows your own flawed understanding of such thing's as class base.
Oh and I am sure you might be aware there was a backlash for virtually all socialist organizations post-91. But yes, you can of course blame it on "links with reformism" removing it completly from any material context in favour of your own secterianism.



Basically, if Labour win the election it's ok for murderous imperialist squaddie conquistadors to charge into Latin America in defense of British imperial interests.
No.


You're social-democrats. Admit it.
You're illiterate, admit it. Why else would you make such free fantzies as you are doing? Please do tell me what has possesed you to grab these arguments out of thin air, when what was actually said and done contradict your every statement.

[Saorsa]

By the time of the WW1 the leadership of the Labour party was dominated by pro-capitalist elements.

Yeah. Which is why post-WW1 it's ridiculous to talk of voting, let alone joing, the Labour Party. Expose it to workers as the enemy force it is.

[Coggeh]

You're social-democrats. Admit it.
Yes because were the ones telling the working class they must wait for capitalism to develop and then maybe socialism might come after.. like it did in China...? .

[Saorsa]

You were the ones telling British workers they should vote for a capitalist party and that they should support (or at least not bother to actively oppose) their ruling class imperial adventures.

[Revy]

Has the CWI ever done internal debate or self-criticism about their line on the Malvinas war? I was told they lost a bunch of Latinos over it in the States a few years ago.

They shouldn't do self-criticism about that. The Argentine junta was a right-wing military dictatorship, nobody in the left should have to feel the need to defend their irredentist claims on the Falklands. It's not about whether it belongs to Britain or not. Who here is protesting against Bermuda belonging to Britain? Shouldn't it belong to the USA since we are the closest country to it? That's where the irredentist arguments about proximity (Britain being far away from the Falklands) fail.

Unfortunately some people feel the need to throw out strawmans, like imperialism, colonialism, to describe islands which Argentina never really had (and very few Argentines live on the islands). If anyone was being a colonizing force it was Argentina. Argentina was founded on colonialism just as much as the other countries in the Americas. If you actually look at the history of Argentina you'd see how bad the indigenous peoples were treated. Because Argentina was just like the USA in that land was stolen from indigenous peoples when Argentina was part of New Spain and that continued after independence.

Galtieri led Argentines to die in a war of aggression, to distract from an economic crisis in which he was becoming unpopular. So some "revolutionary" groups in Argentina and abroad probably lined up behind it, but many such groups have done similar things through history by lining up behind the wars of the ruling class.

Revolutionaries in Britain and Argentina had neither reason to support Galtieri or Thatcher but to oppose them both. To oppose the war on both sides, and advocate socialism as the means to peace.

[Soviet dude]

Just thought I'd post this here, got it from Kasama. It is about FRSO/OSCL.



As I was reading this piece on the mass line, I couldn’t help but be struck how FRSO/OSCL’s theory diverges from its practice. I was a member of the group about a year ago and had been acquainted with members of FRSO/OSCL since March 2008.
In 2008-9, I partook in study groups on the massline and Maoist politics generally. However, I left FRSO simply because the organization didn’t practice what it preached.


Let me explain: In the piece above there is a good quote “The Mass Line is not the same thing as Populism, which is a method of collecting opinions and ideas of the people and simply following that. The problem with this method is that the masses often carry with them conservative and reactionary ideas and opinions.”
Furthermore: “Tailing is similar to populism. It means just following whatever people know or believe at a given moment.”


My experience in FRSO led me to believe that the group was definitely engaged in tailing and adapting to conservative moods. For example, all the FRSO members I met were backers of Obama and progressive Democrats (with varying degrees of criticism). One of my first assignments as an FRSO member was to promote an Obama inaugration event in Jan 2009.


Suffice to say, this assignment left me physically ill. Part of my becoming a communist was breaking with the Democratic background of my family. I hadn’t joined a left group to simply go full circle.


Furthermore, there was little Marxist criticism of Obama. I remember debates on the health care bill where members were advocating supporting something similar to the Romneycare of Massachusetts. This is not to say that some members didn’t advocate mass actions, but it always struck me as being in critical support of Obama/Democrats.


Despite this, I found the members of FRSO/OSCL whom I met to be nice people with progressive leanings. But I certainly can’t consider them Marxists or revolutionaries. I can’t speak about the experience of other Kasama posters on FRSO, but mine was decidedly negative. They write good pieces on the mass line, but don’t follow it.


http://kasamaproject.org/2010/05/27/putting-the-mass-line-into-practice/

[The Hong Se Sun]

Yeah, O really liked their article on the mass line soviet dude. But it is depressing they don't follow it.

[Saorsa]

The issue isn't whether the people on those islands identified as British or Argentine. The issue is that when our imperialist ruling class sends soldiers to fight and die in some overseas battlefield, it is our duty to oppose this.

The Militant said they would support the war if it was carried out under a Labour government. Disgraceful.

[KC]

The Militant said they would support the war if it was carried out under a Labour government. Disgraceful.

Where?

[Crux]

The issue isn't whether the people on those islands identified as British or Argentine. The issue is that when our imperialist ruling class sends soldiers to fight and die in some overseas battlefield, it is our duty to oppose this.

The Militant said they would support the war if it was carried out under a Labour government. Disgraceful.

No, we said would support a war against the junta, backing the argentine working class, by a socialist government. Learn the difference, comrade.

[Homo Songun]

No, we said would support a war against the junta, backing the argentine working class, by a socialist government.

A war prosecuted by whom?

[RadioRaheem84]

Woah, woah, woah!

Hold the phone! Can I get a little back story here? FRSO and the FRSO/OSCL, what is the difference?

Did the Kassama Project talk about FRSO or FRSO/OSCL when talking about supporting Obama?

I was invited to join the FRSO and the PSL because I heard they were pretty good ML groups. I also emailed one of the writes of the ML Wordpress blog about China and he said that his position was that China was revisionist and it's road to capitalism must be opposed, but that there are socialist elements in China and that they should be defended from imperialism. This seems like a rational position.

Please tell me that the FRSO isn't the group that helps Obama?

[redasheville]

FRSO (Fight Back) called for a vote for Obama.

[RadioRaheem84]

FRSO (Fight Back) called for a vote for Obama.


NO!!!!! What is the obsession with this guy and certain members of the left and using him as a tactic?

[Chimurenga.]

FRSO (Fight Back) called for a vote for Obama.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.

[hardlinecommunist]

FRSO (Fight Back) called for a vote for Obama. They did when and where did FRSO call for a vote for Obama do you have any online links thats shows were they called for a vote for Obama

[Sam_b]

Yeah, because what this world needs is another Khrushchev

Seeing this as the polar opposite of opposition to Stalinism shows how limited your politics actually are.

[weill]

FRSO (frso.org) took a "Fight the Ultra Right" and "Defeat McCain" position during the Obama campaign.

I'm not able to post links yet, but go to the Fight Back news site and search for "student movement hails victory over mccain".

From the article:

"When election season came into full swing, some of us decided to become more directly involved, so we formed a working group in SDS and started pulling together resources. We wrote blog posts, tabled, agitated, distributed flyers and leaflets, protested McCain campaign events, and worked to create an antiwar, anti-McCain sentiment on campus..."

The article also claims that the SDS electoral work "helped build a progressive movement independent of the Democratic Party." Objectively, this didn't happen, of course and the strategy was a wash. From what I saw in my area, FRSO (ML) didn't appear to devote resources to working within the Obama apparatus. I don't know if it was the same elsewhere.

That said, I don't think any of the Marxist orgs in the US had an effective strategy for dealing with the 2008 elections.

[Lolshevik]

That said, I don't think any of the Marxist orgs in the US had an effective strategy for dealing with the 2008 elections.

Strongly disagree. The PSL ran a vibrant presidential campaign. The SWP and SP-USA, I didn't like some of the stuff from their campaigns as much, but they did well too. What else is there to do, in the absence of a mass working class party & without the immediate prospect of building one before November, than to run openly socialist candidates and agitate directly for the revolutionary organizations?

[Soviet dude]

FRSO's recent Congress documents make several statements on Obama.



The Election of Obama Sets New Conditions for the Struggle

The election of Barack Obama as the first African American President of the United States is a contradictory event. In part the election of Obama was a referendum on race in the United States, a referendum that came out surprisingly positive considering the extent to which the Republican Party utilizes racism to mobilize its own base. While the ruling class defines the debates and dictates the direction of the country, Obama’s election represents a rejection of the Bush administration policies and a desire amongst the people for a progressive agenda from the government. Immediately following his election there was a sense of optimism and a feeling that change is possible. This is a very good development after so many years of Bush. During the Bush years there was a pervasive sense that change was not possible. If hope has a downside it is a strong desire amongst the people to give Obama a chance to undo the bad deeds of Bush. This sentiment is particularly evident amongst African Americans, but it exists to varying degrees amongst all sections of the people.

The initial enthusiasm amongst the people for Barack Obama has worn off to some extent. There are a number of different dynamics, which play out more strongly amongst some demographics than others. (1) The party in power usually loses popularity in the midst of an economic crisis. (2) In order to rescue capitalism, Obama invested huge amounts money creating the largest state-dependent sector of the economy in U.S. history. This includes the unpopular and massive bailouts for the financial sector. This will lead to large deficits in the future. There is a political truism that deficits are bad. This makes a section of people nervous, though this nervousness is largely driven by the right wing. (3) The Obama administration continues to escalate an increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. (4) Many Obama supporters hoped for a more substantive health care reform program than what passed. They are disappointed and more openly critical because it didn’t go far enough. (5) There is real anger amongst immigrants, Mexicanos, Chicanos, and Central Americans in particular about Obama’s failure to support immigration reform.

Barack Obama is a step forward over George Bush. That said; Obama is a representative of the imperialist bourgeoisie. While he is not from the Black Liberation Movement his election is a source of great pride in African American communities and throughout the Black Belt South. African Americans are not alone in their joy either; other oppressed nationalities that suffer racism and discrimination - Chicanos and Mexicanos, Puerto Ricans, Native-Americans and Asian Americans are sharing the moment. Obama’s election represents a blow against racism and white chauvinism.

Obama’s election most clearly represents a shift in the strategy of the ruling class. The ruling class summed up that the unfettered rule of the free market and neo-conservative policies in general led to a disastrous financial crisis at home and the near destruction of the legitimacy of U.S. imperialism internationally. It is Obama’s task to rebuild the stature of U.S. imperialism. There are some changes. In terms of economic policy, President Obama moved from a free-market approach under Bush to a much greater role for the state. The U.S. ruling class adopted a new form of Keynesianism that emphasizes bailing out big banks and corporations, instead of bailing out the people by building up the infrastructure or putting money in the hands of working people.

The Obama administration continues to take up policies that serve the banks, insurance companies and corporations with not nearly the kind of immediate forms of relief for working people that FDR enacted to save capitalism in the 1930’s. The difference is that Roosevelt had the task of saving capitalism from itself and from the peoples movements. In the absence of a strong people’s movement like the 1930’s, capital is using working peoples money to bail itself out and giving very little help to working people.

Much of the Obama administration consists of ex-Clinton appointees. The extent to which Obama has different policies than the Clinton White House is a reflection of a change in the ruling class consensus. If there is a significant Republican victory in the midterm elections in November 2010, it is likely that Obama will shift to the right, as Clinton did in the period of the Republican win in 1992. The bourgeoisie is not monolithic; there are different forces with different interests. The center of gravity will still be moving away from unfettered free market policies.

There is a great desire by the right wing to regain their power. They carry out constant, vicious, and racist attacks on the President in the media and amongst their conservative Christian base. The neo-conservative section of the Republican Party supports the “Tea Party” movement to give an impression of a social base. They have their base convinced that they are now living in a “socialist country”. This is actually a reflection of their weakness and a last ditch attempt to regain some of their power in the next elections. There is a dangerous rise in militia type activity and we should remain vigilant to attacks and hate crimes carried out by these groups.

Revolutionaries need to maintain a balanced view of the Obama presidency, remembering what preceded it. It would be a left error to say that there is no difference between Bush and Obama. We need to criticize, and at times even attack (for example his escalation of the war in Afghanistan) Obama’s policies, without getting personal. The Tea Party movement is not just reactionary but also blatantly racist. Short, three word anti-Obama slogans do not work in this general political context, unless we want to be mistaken for “tea baggers”.

We can distinguish ourselves by responding to some of the right wing nonsense, and still being critical of Obama’s policies. We should put our politics front and center, but our approach needs to be thoughtful and clear.

It is unlikely that there will be a serious presidential candidate in the 2012 election who is not attached to the bourgeoisie. Assuming that is the case, we will work to defeat the main danger. It is likely this will mean working for the defeat of the Republican nominee and seeking to take advantage of contradictions in the ruling class.

[Soviet dude]

FRSO (frso.org) took a "Fight the Ultra Right" and "Defeat McCain" position during the Obama campaign.

I'm not able to post links yet, but go to the Fight Back news site and search for "student movement hails victory over mccain".

From the article:

"When election season came into full swing, some of us decided to become more directly involved, so we formed a working group in SDS and started pulling together resources. We wrote blog posts, tabled, agitated, distributed flyers and leaflets, protested McCain campaign events, and worked to create an antiwar, anti-McCain sentiment on campus..."

The article also claims that the SDS electoral work "helped build a progressive movement independent of the Democratic Party." Objectively, this didn't happen, of course and the strategy was a wash. From what I saw in my area, FRSO (ML) didn't appear to devote resources to working within the Obama apparatus. I don't know if it was the same elsewhere.

That said, I don't think any of the Marxist orgs in the US had an effective strategy for dealing with the 2008 elections.

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2008/11/student-movement-hails-victory-over-mccain.htm

The article is mainly referring to the huge RNC protests, which were independently organized from the Democratic Party.

FRSO basically looks at where the hopes of the masses are and what forces are at work in major electoral campaigns before making any statements on electoral contests between bourgeois candidates. "Defeat McCain" is not the same as vote Obama. For one, "defeating" McCain is a much more ambiguous thing than simply voting against him. It means different things to different people, and the slogan is meant to be one all layers of the forces in motion can rally around.

Here is an older, 2000 article, which says there is basically no meaningful difference between Gore and Bush. The primary difference between Bush vs Gore and Obama vs McCain is where the most progressive forces were at, and how Marxist-Leninists should understand and relate to them. In 2008, there were, unfortunately, largely in the Obama camp.

Shake Up Democratic and Republican Conventions (http://www.fightbacknews.org/2000summer/edconventions.html)


Today, Democrat Al Gore and Republican George Bush offer absolutely nothing to working people in this country and or anywhere in the world.

Gore is the successor to President Clinton. He supported the attacks on welfare. He's well-connected to corporate America's drive for imperialist globalization. With his stock investments in the oil industry, he personally benefits from the exploitation of hard-working people. Gore spoke out against returning Elian Gonzales to his father in Cuba. Al Gore is not acceptable as president of this country or any other.

Texas Governor Republican George Bush is no better. He is an enemy of Affirmative Action. Texas is an anti-union, "right to work state", and Bush is proud of it. Under his administration, use of the death penalty has become commonplace. This "compassionate conservative" mocked a woman appealing her death sentence: "Pleassse don't kill me,"he told his friends. He doesn't deserve public office, he deserves a public trial.

As bad as they are for people in this country, either one of these two will be terrible for the world's peoples. Both of them back the bombing of Iraq, and both will try to escalate the war in Colombia.

There are two other candidates worth mentioning. The first is another enemy of poor and working people, Pat Buchanan. He speaks for the most reactionary, racist, and national chauvinist elements in this country.

The second is Ralph Nader.

Ralph Nader's strengths are that he has championed consumer rights and civil liberties for many years. He opposed the anti-worker North American Free Trade Agreement. He fought corporate power in the health care industry, and in the election process. His voice as the only candidate supporting universal health care is head-and-shoulders above the other contenders. Yet, his limited support for the struggles of people of color in the United States, and his decision to join the new cold war against China, show a lack of political vision.I don't think they even bothered much with Bush vs Kerry in 2004, though there is a brief analysis of Kerry's defeat here:

http://www.fightbacknews.org/editorial.html

[redasheville]

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.

No I am not.

http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2008/defeatmccain.htm

[KC]

In the socialist countries where the working people rule society - Cuba, China, Vietnam, Democratic Korea and Laos...

Source - Fight Back (http://www.fightbacknews.org/2006/01/mayday2006.htm)

:(

[Chimurenga.]

No I am not.

http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2008/defeatmccain.htm

Can you read? Where do they explicitly say to vote for Obama?


The facts are plain; Obama parts ways, to a degree, with Clinton on the Iraq War, free trade agreements and racism. He has a message of hope with wide appeal. However, Obama operates well within the confines of the Democrats and their big business backers. That said, his election will create a better political climate for the anti-war, immigrant rights, labor and national movements. And no matter who is in the White House, it is important for progressives to stay active and to fight for an agenda that places the peoples needs first.

That is the closest thing, in my mind, relating to your accusation of FRSO calling for people to "vote for Obama".

[Soviet dude]

The thing people need to understand about saying anything about electoral politics is that, from a mass-line perspective, it is about engaging a broad a cross-section of people as possible. For instance, people would freak-out and misinterpret what you're doing if your burned an effigy of Obama at a DC protest. And what if you're organizing a huge protest against something like the RNC? Do you organize it around the banner of "Fuck US imperialism! Down with Capitalism, up with Marxism-Leninism/Trotskism/Anarchism/etc! Obama is Bush in Black-face!" How many people do you think are gonna come out to something like that? Do you organize an event for a few dozen hard-line Leftists, or do you engage tens of thousands of people, with huge varying degrees of political development? Picking good slogans is a very important thing.

Building for a massive protest is one of the most challenging things any revolutionary in America can do. I think organizations that do this, and do it effectively, generally have a good grasp of how to do mass-line work. They understand there are a lot of forces at work, lots of people who want to be a part of it who probably won't ever join your party, etc. I'm still amazed when I talk to Leftists who seem to think protests are just spontaneous things that happen. It's as if they've never done anything in their lives.

Even if you want to interpret "Defeat McCain" as just "Vote Obama," there is nothing in the FRSO documents that states anything like that voting for Obama is actually going to change anything, beyond opening up new opportunities for the Left to step in where the Democratic Party has receded. The documents explicitly refer to Obama as a representative of the imperialist bourgeoisie, whose job is to basically make US imperialism work better. How is this being soft in any meaningful way on the Democrats?

[redasheville]

Even if you want to interpret "Defeat McCain" as just "Vote Obama," there is nothing in the FRSO documents that states anything like that voting for Obama is actually going to change anything, beyond opening up new opportunities for the Left to step in where the Democratic Party has receded. The documents explicitly refer to Obama as a representative of the imperialist bourgeoisie, whose job is to basically make US imperialism work better. How is this being soft in any meaningful way on the Democrats?

In the United States we have a two party system. Calling for a defeat of McCain, was DEFACTO a call for a vote for Obama regardless any of the tactical considerations. It is impossible to argue otherwise. The document also explicitly says that a victory for Obama would create more favorable conditions for popular movements.

In any event, as I stated before I know several folks from FRSO FB! and they definitely have no qualms with tactical votes for Democrats.

[Communist]

.

>>FRSO: Revolutionaries need to maintain a balanced view of the Obama presidency, remembering what preceded it...It would be a left error to say that there is no difference between Bush and Obama. We need to criticize, and at times even attack (for example his escalation of the war in Afghanistan) Obama’s policies, without getting personal.<<

So that's what FRSO had to say? Damnit to hell. This is the same wink-wink nudge-nudge pro-Democrat shit that's driving me away from my party. People who say these kinds of things are liberals misleading the working class. Period, end of story.

In the United States we have a two party system. Calling for a defeat of McCain, was DEFACTO a call for a vote for Obama regardless any of the tactical considerations. It is impossible to argue otherwise. The document also explicitly says that a victory for Obama would create more favorable conditions for popular movements.
In any event, as I stated before I know several folks from FRSO FB! and they definitely have no qualms with tactical votes for Democrats.
Indeed. There is no other way around it. What these types fail to see (or at least acknowledge, IF they are even bothered by it) is that not only has Obama done absolutely nothing for us, the revolutionary movements have been dealt a huge blow. How convenient for the ruling class.
What is it with this garbage? Wtf are these folks thinking?
Anyway, thanks for sharing that comrades.

.

[Kassad]

In the United States we have a two party system. Calling for a defeat of McCain, was DEFACTO a call for a vote for Obama regardless any of the tactical considerations. It is impossible to argue otherwise. The document also explicitly says that a victory for Obama would create more favorable conditions for popular movements.

In any event, as I stated before I know several folks from FRSO FB! and they definitely have no qualms with tactical votes for Democrats.

So? I met people from your organization at a Democratic election 2008 party when they announced Obama's victory. They were ecstatic. Of all the ostensibly revolutionary organizations I've ever come across, none cheered on an Obama victory more than the ISO.

Plus, don't you guys endorse Greens? Like the anti-immigrant Ralph Nader who said that the bailouts of Wall Street and banks were "socialist"? And haven't you run ISO members under the banner of capitalist parties?

Seriously. If you want to attack the FRSO, despite how much I considered the "defeat McCain" tactic to be counterproductive, you need to do some serious criticism of your organization.

[redasheville]

When did I "attack" FRSO? I simply stated that they called for a vote for Obama (however formulated), which is a fact. I only belabored the point because people are so confused about this. Jeez, you guys are sensitive!

I won't bother responding to your other comments.

[Kassad]

I won't bother responding to your other comments.

I know what you mean. Having to defend your organization's endorsement of a racist can be quite tough. Maybe you can endorse Ron Paul next time!

[redasheville]

Actually, I would be happy to discuss any and all of our political differences in a principled and comradely way. I believe honest debate to be essential to rebuilding the Left in this country. When you are prepared to do the same (and not dodge arguments with these snide pot shots), feel free to PM me.

[bricolage]

The Militant said they would support the war if it was carried out under a Labour government. Disgraceful.

No, we said would support a war against the junta, backing the argentine working class, by a socialist government. Learn the difference, comrade.
Does anyone have any evidence for either of these two claims?

[Communist]

So? I met people from your organization at a Democratic election 2008 party when they announced Obama's victory. They were ecstatic. Of all the ostensibly revolutionary organizations I've ever come across, none cheered on an Obama victory more than the ISO.
This may very well be your most bizarre post ever, comrade.

Where? What were you doing at a Democratic victory party in 2008? And you're saying there were people there identified as socialists, and even by their party? Where did FRSO rank in that applause meter, I'm wondering...

What in the world are you talking about Kassad?

Now I'm hurt that I wasn't invited to this clambake.

.

[Kassad]

This may very well be your most bizarre post ever, comrade.

Where? What were you doing at a Democratic victory party in 2008? And you're saying there were people there identified as socialists, and even by their party? Where did FRSO rank in that applause meter, I'm wondering...

What in the world are you talking about Kassad?

Now I'm hurt that I wasn't invited to this clambake.

.


Here's what I'm not going to do. Reveal the names of socialists in my area and the exact activities they take part in. I recognized and spoke to people I knew from the International Socialist Organization, as well as a couple from Solidarity. They were all pretty ecstatic about the Democratic Party victories that night.

And am I not allowed to attend meetings and rallies to see what my political opponents are up to? I don't know what kind of political line you take, but I realize that the Democratic Party is supported by unions, LGBT rights groups, women's rights groups and a hell of a lot of other progressives that are involved in the struggle. They may not be revolutionaries, but when the time comes for a revolutionary situation, we need to know who we are working with at a time when these working class forces lose faith in the capitalist system.

It appears quite strange to me that you seem so perplexed by such a simple comment.

[Communist]

^
It's cool. I was not quite serious. :rolleyes:

But yeah, as you know I'm having issues with the way Democrats are being viewed by folks I've been aligned with.
I believe some of them even cheered the Obama election. I did not.

.