Marcyism

[Roach]

What's that?

[Wanted Man]

Is there really such a thing, except as a kind of slur by opponents? Anyway, it comes from Sam Marcy of the Workers' World Party, an American group. Their origins are in the Trotskyist movement, but they've completely departed from that tradition. In 2004, there was a split in the WWP, that led to the formation of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL). There are several PSL supporters on this forum, and a couple of WWP, who may be able to tell you more.

Some of Marcy's writings: http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/

[black magick hustla]

well i mean there are certainly some marcyte concepts that do influence the WWP and the PSL, like the idea of global class war.

[Wanted Man]

well i mean there are certainly some marcyte concepts that do influence the WWP and the PSL, like the idea of global class war.

Do you know any works by Marcy that coherently explain this? Most of what I've found was references to it by others, but perhaps he has written a book or something.

Also, do you think that this idea is really that much different from how most communist parties (well, "big C" ones, really) regard it today, besides terminology? Or was it rather developed to distinguish the WWP from its Trotskyist former colleagues?

Perhaps one difference could be in how they regard non-socialist, but anti-imperialist countries. Do they consider them on the "socialist" side in the "global class war"?

[graymouser]

Do you know any works by Marcy that coherently explain this? Most of what I've found was references to it by others, but perhaps he has written a book or something.
Sam Marcy wrote a pamphlet in 1950 called "The Global Class War." He was still in the Socialist Workers Party at the time and used the next several years to build a group around his ideas in Buffalo, which was subsequently the foundation of the Workers World Party. It fundamentally drew the world into two camps, imperialist and socialist, which were completely at war with one another.


Also, do you think that this idea is really that much different from how most communist parties (well, "big C" ones, really) regard it today, besides terminology? Or was it rather developed to distinguish the WWP from its Trotskyist former colleagues?
It's different from both. Marcy considered the USSR and China to both be socialist, although not perfect, and called on the leadership of both to cooperate in the global class war. The Marcyites were initially inclined toward what was then proto-Maoism but their Trotskyist heritage caused a rather harsh rejection. This led to them finding their own way.

This link contains more details. (http://www.marxmail.org/archives/january99/wwp.htm)


Perhaps one difference could be in how they regard non-socialist, but anti-imperialist countries. Do they consider them on the "socialist" side in the "global class war"?
Essentially. Support for countries like Iran and North Korea has been drawn on the same basis as previous support for the USSR and China.

[KC]

Essentially graymouser covered it. "Marcyism," a more simple word for Global Class War Theory, was formulated by Sam Marcy in his pamphlet The Global Class War. It essentially divided the world into two camps: capitalist-imperialist and socialist. In other words, you were either in support of the USSR and its satellite states, as well as any country that called itself socialist, or you were a pro-capitalist and thus a reactionary.

In an age where socialist states no longer exist to any meaningful extent this has been reformulated around the imperialist/anti-imperialist dynamic. Either you support all actions against "imperialists" (in 99% of cases this is the United States) or you yourself are a pro-imperialist and thus a reactionary.

This has led WWP and PSL to take very bizarre stands, such as the support for the quelling of the Tianenman Square protests or (a more recent example) the support of the reactionary Iranian theocracy against a popular movement for democracy on the basis of "anti-imperialism".

This is obviously not a Marxist view and rather panders to the intellectual and theoretical backwardness of many that enter the left as some vague and unidentifiable form of "anti-imperialist".

Many of the arguments against Economism put forward around the turn of the century are applicable to Global Class War theory specifically (but also more generally to Stalinism in general).

[Proletarian Ultra]

Short answer: pro-Mao, anti-Stalin.

[graymouser]

One thing I've always been curious about, for the PSL members here and anyone who's been in either that party or Workers World: how do Marcyite groups refer to themselves? That is, do they see themselves as being "Communists," "Socialists"? "Marxists"? A local WWP member has told me outright that they don't see themselves as Stalinists, as a negative identification, but I've never really gotten a positive self-name from them.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I should know this but what was the cause of the PSL split? What is the difference in their line? As I understand WW has a large presence in lgbt struggles. Is this continued by PSL?

I have read somewhere that the WW paper originally had both Stalin and Trotsky in their masthead at the same time but then ditched both of them. They were regarded as Stalinist and Trotskyist at the same time.They tried to appeal to a breakaway faction of the CP in the 50s, but there was no interest.

[graymouser]

I should know this but what was the cause of the PSL split? What is the difference in their line? As I understand WW has a large presence in lgbt struggles. Is this continued by PSL?
The split is one of the murkier issues in the recent history of the Left. Both groups have similar politics and neither has issued an official reason for the split. From what I can gather it was really a difference between the broader Workers World leadership (Holmes, Moorehead etc.) post-Marcy and Brian and Richard Becker, with the latter two wanting to lead and feeling frustrated. PSL was mostly a split of branches, with the crucial ANSWER branches in DC and LA leaving literally overnight and keeping the keys to the offices. There is some intimation that the role of ANSWER itself was probably part of it. I really think it comes down to the question of who would lead.


I have read somewhere that the WW paper originally had both Stalin and Trotsky in their masthead at the same time but then ditched both of them. They were regarded as Stalinist and Trotskyist at the same time.They tried to appeal to a breakaway faction of the CP in the 50s, but there was no interest.
It had Lenin and Trotsky but got rid of the figures in the masthead very rapidly. They've never regarded themselves as Stalinist per se, although the accusation has certainly been levelled.

[Kassad]

I've really been meaning to get to this, as there's a lot of plainly incorrect assertions being made right now, along with others that need addressing. I'll be sure to answer some questions before the end of the night.

[Honggweilo]

Short answer: pro-Mao, anti-Stalin.
not true

[Fietsketting]

My first thought was Marcy from Married with Children. :blushing:

[Bright Banana Beard]

Either you support all actions against "imperialists" (in 99% of cases this is the United States) or you yourself are a pro-imperialist and thus a reactionary.

You are either:anti-imperialists, pan-socialists or reactionary, pro-imperialists, ultra-leftists

This is basically one of the PSL's position.

[28350]

I should know this but what was the cause of the PSL split?

Honestly, it was pretty much just personal. Which is really sad.

[Kassad]

Either you support all actions against "imperialists" (in 99% of cases this is the United States) or you yourself are a pro-imperialist and thus a reactionary.

You are either:anti-imperialists, pan-socialists or reactionary, pro-imperialists, ultra-leftists

This is basically one of the PSL's position.

Because a country cannot be socialist until it has its first 500 bunkers in place, right? Marcy's theories put forth a view of the world that views classes as something international. He built on Marx's belief that feudalism must be replaced with capitalism and then a socialist revolution will defeat the bourgeoisie. Meaning, he viewed an anti-imperialist country, meaning one that has driven out imperialist influence and control of their resources, is much more progressive than one completely dominated by imperialists. These anti-imperialist countries are still capitalist for the most part, but it is at this point that workers can make progress towards fighting for revolution. Have you even read anything from Marcy before?


Honestly, it was pretty much just personal. Which is really sad.

No, it wasn't. Like I said, when I find some time between work where I'm not just skimming this website relatively quickly, I'll respond to all the questions that have been asked. Don't make completely baseless comments that you don't have any clue about.

[28350]

No, it wasn't.
Yes, it was.


Don't make completely baseless comments that you don't have any clue about.
I don't. And I know plenty about the WWP-PSL split.

[Chimurenga.]

One thing I've always been curious about, for the PSL members here and anyone who's been in either that party or Workers World: how do Marcyite groups refer to themselves? That is, do they see themselves as being "Communists," "Socialists"? "Marxists"? A local WWP member has told me outright that they don't see themselves as Stalinists, as a negative identification, but I've never really gotten a positive self-name from them.

Our party is built around the ideas of Marx-Engels-Lenin. We call ourselves Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The PSL is a multi-tendency organization, like a more leftist version of the SP?

[Honggweilo]

some folks dig Trotsky

Never met one of those before, except for Marcy in the early years :lol:. I mean, the PSL publicly denounced trotskyism at the ICS last year :rolleyes:

[graymouser]

Because a country cannot be socialist until it has its first 500 bunkers in place, right? Marcy's theories put forth a view of the world that views classes as something international. He built on Marx's belief that feudalism must be replaced with capitalism and then a socialist revolution will defeat the bourgeoisie. Meaning, he viewed an anti-imperialist country, meaning one that has driven out imperialist influence and control of their resources, is much more progressive than one completely dominated by imperialists. These anti-imperialist countries are still capitalist for the most part, but it is at this point that workers can make progress towards fighting for revolution. Have you even read anything from Marcy before?
Dude, I just want to be on the level with you: I've gone through periods of interest in WWP and PSL, and I've read three books by Sam Marcy (The Bolsheviks and War, High Tech Low Pay, and Perestroika). While I've gathered what you wrote above from the general line of both groups, the three books I've read, which frankly were the only easy ones to find, didn't present these ideas systematically. I would assume they exist in some form in the Global Class War pamphlet but I have never found a copy of it in print or online, and nothing elaborating the post-USSR version with the heavier emphasis on anti-imperialist countries. (Credit where it's due: Marcy's High Tech Low Pay is actually a very good book. And Vince Copeland's Market Elections contained some interesting historical analysis, even if it was a bit deterministic from the base-to-superstructure picture.)

Also, right around the time you guys launched Liberation as a biweekly newspaper, PSL was also doing a high quality theoretical journal, but AFAIK there were only ever 3 issues (China, Socialism & Democracy, Why Socialism) plus the book on Palestine. Does the PSL intend to get back to this? Will it just be books like Becker's on Palestine?

[Chimurenga.]

.

[Kassad]

Here's my long-awaited response. ;) I am just going to put user names in boldface because it would take too long to quote everyone.

Wanted Man: Marcy's international perspectives, especially those post-1959, are not summarized in any book or essay he wrote. Marcy elaborated on his views of China, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, capitalism, revolution, Bill Clinton and just about anything else in his essays written during his time as a member of Workers World Party. The Global Class War pamphlet, written as an objection to the opportunistic turns in the Socialist Workers Party, is not something I've ever come across. I'll definitely look into it though and see what I can find.

Proletarian Ultra: I'd really advise you to spend some time reading articles from my party's website. We do not take such narrow stances. We acknowledge Stalin's massive contributions, in that he modernized the Soviet economy and turned it into a world superpower. We also believe he was instrumental in defeating fascism during World War II. However, we also critique the massive bureaucracy that rose up around him, along with the fact that many progressive social gains during the time of Lenin (abortion rights, gay rights) were overturned during his time as leader.

The same goes for Mao. We recognize his immense role in the Chinese Revolution and uphold his legacy to some extent, but we believe his characterization of the Soviet Union as capitalist was without factual basis. We also think that social-imperialism is an anti-Marxist theory that has no real scientific basis either.

Graymouser: The PSL considers itself to be a Marxist-Leninist party. We are not a multi-tendency party, but we are a party that practices self-criticism and acknowledges the gains and mistakes of all revolutions and their leaders. On the topic of the split, it was really an issue of democratic centralism, where those who left were not being represented in the party's decisions (which is something I have personally had WWP members complain about to this day). Those who split saw that WWP was taking some opportunistic turns, but the leadership refused to listen to any qualms.

I also find Oscar the Grouch to be quite amusing in his assertions, since he hasn't really backed anything up with more than a "yeah, I do." Oscar, I'd love to talk to you to see what it is you think you know about the issue, so feel free to PM me.

To finish with Graymouser's most recent post, I'm glad to see someone here has actually read Marcy. To be honest, 2/3 of the books that you read are my personal favorites from him and probably the most enlightening when it comes to understanding our worldview. As for issues of our journal, which I assume you are referring to Socialism and Liberation, it used to be a monthly magazine by the same title, but we were a brand new party at that point and producing that many publications at once was not really feasible. Thus, we made Liberation bi-weekly and the magazine became a quarterly journal. The reason we haven't exactly kept up with that was because of Palestine becoming a central issue in the anti-war movement and people yearning for understanding on the issue, which is why we published Richard Becker's Palestine, Israel and the US Empire. It has, by far, exceeded all of our expectations by how well it has sold and we have been printing copies of it like crazy. Yes, we will continue writing issues of our theoretical journal, but that is taking up a lot of our resources in that field at the moment.

Are there any other questions anyone would like answered? I'm here to clear up a lot of, frankly, baseless and plain immature assertions that some people have made, as much as I am here to answer honest questions and thoughts. To finish this off, those who criticize us for our "anti-imperialism", we don't really mind your complaints. At the end of the day, when we side with the oppressed seeking liberation and those fighting imperialism, you're the ones who wind up being on the opposite side. How does it feel to call yourself a Marxist and still cheer for the same things that the imperialist media does?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I've met WW members who aggressively supported Mugabe and also supported Saddam, and Achmanijad.This strikes me as reactionary and self defeating. Is this line continued by PSL?

[Chimurenga.]

I've met WW members who aggressively supported Mugabe and also supported Saddam, and Achmanijad.This strikes me as reactionary and self defeating. Is this line continued by PSL?

Yes, this line is continued by the PSL. We actively support Zimbabwe and Iran on an anti-imperialist basis.

[graymouser]

Graymouser: The PSL considers itself to be a Marxist-Leninist party. We are not a multi-tendency party, but we are a party that practices self-criticism and acknowledges the gains and mistakes of all revolutions and their leaders.
That's more or less how I figured things were. I was mostly curious what the self-label was when you were describing yourselves, would you be more likely to say "I am a communist" or "I am a socialist" or "I am a Marxist" or what have you.


On the topic of the split, it was really an issue of democratic centralism, where those who left were not being represented in the party's decisions (which is something I have personally had WWP members complain about to this day). Those who split saw that WWP was taking some opportunistic turns, but the leadership refused to listen to any qualms.
That's interesting, because it's probably the most thorough explanation I've ever seen from the PSL side. I gathered from talking to WWP members that it was a leadership question, and the members I've talked to about the subject were honestly quite surprised by it. Has anyone from the PSL actually come out and elaborated what you describe as the "opportunistic turns" that WWP was making? Some of the rumblings I've gathered from online discussion connect it to ANSWER but I don't know enough clearly to say anything definite about that.


To finish with Graymouser's most recent post, I'm glad to see someone here has actually read Marcy. To be honest, 2/3 of the books that you read are my personal favorites from him and probably the most enlightening when it comes to understanding our worldview.
Marcy's books are actually not bad, although at the end of the day I don't subscribe to "Marcyism." High Tech Low Pay was really a good economic overview of technological change and how it doesn't invalidate Marxism. Global class war I see as undialectical but I appreciate that it's a straightforward tendency, if nothing else, and tries to be internally consistent.


To finish this off, those who criticize us for our "anti-imperialism", we don't really mind your complaints. At the end of the day, when we side with the oppressed seeking liberation and those fighting imperialism, you're the ones who wind up being on the opposite side. How does it feel to call yourself a Marxist and still cheer for the same things that the imperialist media does?
Well, let's take the one issue where that is really true: Iran. The problem with the Marcyite line is that the Iranian government has executed workers for Marxist thought, and has harshly repressed the workers' movement there. I understand that it is absolutely necessary to defend Iran against US aggression, and have no problem whatsoever with that line. But a movement like the one that developed in Iran could have led other than to the overthrow of the regime in favor of a puppet government - if it were led by open Marxists. What do you think? How would you respond to a movement led by communists in favor of a revolution in Iran against both the Islamic theocrats and the imperialists?

[KC]

How would you respond to a movement led by communists in favor of a revolution in Iran against both the Islamic theocrats and the imperialists?

They very obviously would say that they would support it if it was in existence. The problem comes when their support of the reactionary theocracy (due to such a movement not being in existence) actually goes against such movements developing.

One cannot side with a reactionary theocracy while actually supporting a real class movement because they are diametrically opposed to one another.

This of course gets even messier (http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/2009/06/16/a-reply-to-our-critics/) when we discuss non-marxist democratic movements such as the one that sprang up recently.

[DaringMehring]

Yes, this line is continued by the PSL. We actively support Zimbabwe and Iran on an anti-imperialist basis.

Aren't opposing imperialist attack against Zimbabwe and Iran, and supporting the regimes of those two countries, much different things? Why confuse the two.

[Barry Lyndon]

Yes, this line is continued by the PSL. We actively support Zimbabwe and Iran on an anti-imperialist basis.

Great, Saddam Hussein, who massacred thousands of Iraqi communists, including my grandfathers best friend. What a great champion of the oppressed.

It's one thing to be anti-imperialism. It's quite another to cheer on Third World despots who murder and torture leftists and trade unionists. What a terrible and self-defeating position.

[manic expression]

Great, Saddam Hussein, who massacred thousands of Iraqi communists, including my grandfathers best friend. What a great champion of the oppressed.

It's one thing to be anti-imperialism. It's quite another to cheer on Third World despots who murder and torture leftists and trade unionists. What a terrible and self-defeating position.
It has nothing to do with "cheering" Saddam. That would be like saying the Bolsheviks "cheered" the Kaiser because they wanted to see Russian imperialism fail in WWI.

In the same way, the PSL does what every other principled working-class organization does: oppose imperialist attacks against Iraq, which before 2003 was identified almost entirely with Saddam Hussein (and in fact today, pre-invasion Iraq is seen as Saddam Hussein's playpen instead of a country with millions of innocent people living within its borders). Revolutionary defeatism oftentimes means denouncing action against regimes that are clearly anti-worker (and thus "defending" them, in a sense), but the goal is to oppose and undermine imperialism in order to promote the cause of the workers internationally.