WSWS and Trotskyists

[homo sapien]

In the last thread I started, someone mentioned that they were a Trotskyist and that they thought the World Socialist Web Site is not a good representative of Trotskyists.

I really like this web site, and it's a big part of the reason why I am here and interested in socialism. As some people pointed out in the last thread, I really don't know a lot about what that actually means yet, which is why I'm here in learning. The WSWS has really been the "in" for me which has me looking for something beyond the profit system and outside the Democratic Party machine.

But when I googled the Socialist Equality party I found some things on message boards by some angry sounding leftists about how their owner is some kind of paper industry titan who hates unions because he doesn't want his workers unionized?? :confused: Then someone said the point of the organization that evolved into the SEP used to be to sell the names of communists to the government for prosecution :( Then I found a blog by a dude called "The Partisan" who said the organization was socialist in name only because they apparently still want there to be money printed in a socialist society (which was surprising to me, because I sort of assumed some kind of currency would be a part of any modern society). What's the deal with these accusations? True or false and how do you know?

I also have e-mailed the Socialist Equality Party in the past with questions about their party and about joining them, and never get any kind of response.

So what's the deal with the SEP/WSWS?? Is the stuff about the paper factory owner true (and does it matter if it is true? Can a business owner be a socialist)? Why do some people say they aren't really a good representatoin of what Trotskyists actually believe? Do they actually have a ground game or are they not really a functional party (which might explain why they don't have anyone on staff to reply to my e-mails... or maybe they just don't like me for some reason)?

And really the important questions for me:

1. If I like most of what I read there, is there a viable party that actually exists outside an internet zine that has a similar ideology?

2. Coming off the comment from the Trotskyist in the previous thread, and again citing my general ignorance about the Left beyond social democrats, is there some big reason why I shouldn't like most of what I read on the WSWS, in your various opinions?

[Kléber]

But when I googled the Socialist Equality party I found some things on message boards by some angry sounding leftists about how their owner is some kind of paper industry titan who hates unions because he doesn't want his workers unionized?? :confused:
Those attacks were made by Spartacists, the craziest sectarians ever, known for doing nothing other than making up conspiracies about other leftist groups. There is also the fact, although I'm not saying the government is involved in this smear campaign, that it was once standard practice for the FBI to attempt character assassination of revolutionary activists by spreading around items of personal information.

Grand River Printing & Imaging is not a "titanic" business, it's mid-sized at best and has been recognized as one of the best places to work in Detroit. Many Marxist organizations have or have set up a print shop to make propaganda and then used it for business purposes, and throughout history mass workers' parties have often made money through small commercial ventures.


Then someone said the point of the organization that evolved into the SEP used to be to sell the names of communists to the government for prosecution :( By the end of its political devolution, the WRP leadership was taking money from the Libyan and Iraqi governments in return for printing translations of their propaganda and feeding them intelligence on Libyan and Iraqi dissidents in the UK. The traitorous clique around Gerry Healy was exposed by comrades who founded the SEP, not some internet personalities who openly support Gaddafi and Hussein and their repression of opponents.

http://www.wsws.org/IML/fi_vol13_no1/fi_vol13_no1_index.shtml


Then I found a blog by a dude called "The Partisan" who said the organization was socialist in name only because they apparently still want there to be money printed in a socialist society (which was surprising to me, because I sort of assumed some kind of currency would be a part of any modern society).This is him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5s_Sew3hpI

The Maoist-Stalinist raptor pack are not worth your time, and they don't know that money was in fact still used in China under Mao Zedong.


I also have e-mailed the Socialist Equality Party in the past with questions about their party and about joining them, and never get any kind of response.
...
(which might explain why they don't have anyone on staff to reply to my e-mails... or maybe they just don't like me for some reason)The SEP gets a lot of traffic, receives a lot of emails, and doesn't have a corporate army of paid staffers. The WSWS might have publicly responded to your questions, as they often publish letters from readers and replies from the editors. If the letter was received at a busy time, it could have been overlooked, forgotten and/or lost with the change to the new website setup. I'd write them again.


Do they actually have a ground game or are they not really a functional party?Unlike the bloggers who attack it, the SEP is politically active, particularly among workers in the Detroit area.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/detr-a17.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt_DSetCmKk
http://www.socialequality.com/caus

[homo sapien]

Thank you for such an informative post! I'm glad to be able to talk to someone involved with the SEP....

On Spartacists: Who are they? Why are there so many people on the left whose only purpose seems to be to tear other people down? Isn't the whole point of being a leftist to create a more cooperative society?:confused:

That is one more criticism that I've heard of the SEP, that they are too sectarian because for example they bash the ISO and unions. I remember reading articles by the WSWS about how the ISO was basically just another democratic party affiliate group like the WFP and the Green party often are, and that there was a lot of back and forth between the democrats and the ISO among members. However, I was on the main ISO site yesterday, and like the WSWS they have articles about how there is basically only one real party in America, and how Obama's trip to Asia is really about aggressive containment of China etc. They don't seem like the kind of Obama cheerleaders to me that the WSWS made them out to be in their investigative report on their general assembly. Have they simply changed their tune since that report came out or is the WSWS being unnecessarily sectarian? Or to put it simply, how interested is the SEP in building alliances with other groups and working with people?

Although if that stuff about Gerry Healy and Gadaffi and Hussein is true, it certainly explains why the SEP might be a little extra prickly about "purity" in the ranks... there certainly seem to be some creepy people who can end up in leadership positions in some leftist groups... do you have a theory for why this is and how it should be prevented?


That "Red Nick" guy is pretty darn weird... apparently he thinks he needs to hide his face and modulate his voice because he thinks the CIA is after him:confused:

Thanks for your explanation about why the SEP might not respond. I'll try contacting them again.

Good links! Do you know if Collier was able to get onto the ballot?

[Sand Castle]

The Partisan never said that WSWS/SEP was bad because they want to print money. You misinterpreted what it said. It only criticized their program on bourgeois governments being used to nationalize banks, and its relation to reformism. That is all. It had nothing to do with the continued printing of money post-revolution.

[Sand Castle]

And if you get on YouTube and start talking about controversial politics you should hide your identity because if you don't, it could mess with your chances of holding employment. Not many managers in my area would hire a red. Plus, the FBI is still after us subversives, they just seem to concentrate more on other groups now.

[chegitz guevara]

The criticisms of the SEP are all true, except them being titanic.

Kleber is being a little bit untruthful when he mentions that many parties set up print shops. It's true, they do, but they are typically owned by the Party, rather than the leader of the Party. Comrades of the SEP who work at Grand River are their leader's employees, his workers. He makes a profit off their labor. Any socialist who cannot see, at least, a fundamental conflict of interest with this, let alone just how fucking sick it is, has no business calling themselves a socialist.

Nor did the old WL uncover their British masters crimes. That came out in the English Party, and the WL, and Healy's crony North (the cult leader in America), only came out against this after the fact. I'm sure they would have if they'd known, but they act as if they exposed this and fought their way out, as opposed to being shocked and splitting in confusion.

Finally, one of the more serious problems that the WL used to cause was undermining other socialist groups, claiming they were CIA or FBI fronts, sending in spies to those organizations to expose them, etc.

The truth is, they are nothing but a sick little cult who only have any influence at all because of wsws.org. They have no influence beyond their cult and their internet groupies.

That said, wsws.org actually has very good articles much of the time, if you can get past their sectarian attacks on everyone that isn't following them.

If, after the revolution, it was decided they needed to be lined up against a wall and shot, I wouldn't object.

[graymouser]

The Northites have terrible politics. A lot of the time their internet site isn't bad, but their major deviation in recent years is their line on the trade unions. Effectively they've claimed, just as their leader happens to be the owner of a significant non-union business, that the trade unions in the current period are totally corrupt and Marxists should not attempt to work in or around them. I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, it's simple facts. The orientation is to fantastical "workers' committees" rather than trying to reclaim the unions as organs of class struggle.

Overall, their politics are still quite Healyite. They have a terrible line on most questions of special oppression, attacking any specific concern for black liberation or women's rights (for instance) as petty-bourgeois rather than recognizing that these struggles need to become class struggles and be joined to the fight for socialism. They still suffer from all the catastrophism of Healy, and during their time as the Workers League developed a well-deserved reputation for being hyperactive, ultra-sectarian and slandering leftists by calling them FBI or CIA agents.

Genuine Trotskyism has nothing to do with Healyism, despite its claim to be "orthodox." Healy invented deep and unprincipled entry into Labour in the early 1950s before Grant could perfect it in Militant. The ICFI split from the FI was entirely unprincipled as well and in no way represents "continuity" as the ICFI and Spartacists claim.

[Amphictyonis]

if you can get past their sectarian attacks on everyone that isn't following them.

If, after the revolution, it was decided they needed to be lined up against a wall and shot, I wouldn't object.

And here we see one of the problems facing the left. :) For a bunch of people who preach solidarity we sure do.....what? are you CIA? (jk)

[blake 3:17]

It seems like a silly cyber-group.

Most of their political lines are just a very mechanical version of Trotskyism. Some of their commentary takes a certain kind of Marxism to its logical end, which can be useful to think about. I've never heard of them actually doing anything or participating in any movement politics. It's easy to stay pure when you don't get your hands dirty.


I've encountered their members or supporters a couple of times at large demonstrations. I've told this story on revleft before, but it still cracks me up.

A couple of weeks into a very large strike of municipal workers (my unit had actually been locked out but the local didn't want to admit that -- ugh), there was a mass rally for strikers and supporters. A quite pleasant young dude, who was handing out WSWS literature, told me and a friend "You're the vanguard of the working class!" We agreed and kept moving.

[homo sapien]

The Partisan never said that WSWS/SEP was bad because they want to print money. You misinterpreted what it said. It only criticized their program on bourgeois governments being used to nationalize banks, and its relation to reformism. That is all. It had nothing to do with the continued printing of money post-revolution.

Oh, ok I apologize to the Partisan that I messed that up. I was really just talking stream of consciousness about all the things I've thought or read about the WSWS and the SEP over the last several months. :blushing:


And if you get on YouTube and start talking about controversial politics you should hide your identity because if you don't, it could mess with your chances of holding employment. Not many managers in my area would hire a red. Plus, the FBI is still after us subversives, they just seem to concentrate more on other groups now.
I suppose that makes sense. Still, he does look kind of funny :unsure: Looking at his youtube channel more, I see he has a lot of text based w/music videos, which I personally prefer to the whole masked avenger thing, but to each his own I guess...


The criticisms of the SEP are all true, except them being titanic.

Kleber is being a little bit untruthful when he mentions that many parties set up print shops. It's true, they do, but they are typically owned by the Party, rather than the leader of the Party. Comrades of the SEP who work at Grand River are their leader's employees, his workers. He makes a profit off their labor. Any socialist who cannot see, at least, a fundamental conflict of interest with this, let alone just how fucking sick it is, has no business calling themselves a socialist.

Nor did the old WL uncover their British masters crimes. That came out in the English Party, and the WL, and Healy's crony North (the cult leader in America), only came out against this after the fact. I'm sure they would have if they'd known, but they act as if they exposed this and fought their way out, as opposed to being shocked and splitting in confusion.

Finally, one of the more serious problems that the WL used to cause was undermining other socialist groups, claiming they were CIA or FBI fronts, sending in spies to those organizations to expose them, etc.

The truth is, they are nothing but a sick little cult who only have any influence at all because of wsws.org. They have no influence beyond their cult and their internet groupies.

That said, wsws.org actually has very good articles much of the time, if you can get past their sectarian attacks on everyone that isn't following them.

If, after the revolution, it was decided they needed to be lined up against a wall and shot, I wouldn't object.

Hmmm your version of things sounds kind of like the way a lot of modern historians talk about Trotsky... he would have been a dictator too, it's just that he got screwed out of the job so he came out against authoritarianism after the fact... I have absolutely no idea who to believe in either case, I hope to spend some time reading up on the soviet union sometime soon to at least make an informed opinion about how bad Trotsky really was or wasn't... what I would be interested in knowing is if the SEP still does stuff like that today or if they genuinely are different.

I do think it's kind of weird that someone who is such a hard core socialist would run a business like a capitalist instead of as a co-op or somesuch...

...and I certainly hope you are joking about the last part about shooting people you don't like... :thumbdown:


The Northites have terrible politics. A lot of the time their internet site isn't bad, but their major deviation in recent years is their line on the trade unions. Effectively they've claimed, just as their leader happens to be the owner of a significant non-union business, that the trade unions in the current period are totally corrupt and Marxists should not attempt to work in or around them. I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, it's simple facts. The orientation is to fantastical "workers' committees" rather than trying to reclaim the unions as organs of class struggle.

Overall, their politics are still quite Healyite. They have a terrible line on most questions of special oppression, attacking any specific concern for black liberation or women's rights (for instance) as petty-bourgeois rather than recognizing that these struggles need to become class struggles and be joined to the fight for socialism. They still suffer from all the catastrophism of Healy, and during their time as the Workers League developed a well-deserved reputation for being hyperactive, ultra-sectarian and slandering leftists by calling them FBI or CIA agents.

Genuine Trotskyism has nothing to do with Healyism, despite its claim to be "orthodox." Healy invented deep and unprincipled entry into Labour in the early 1950s before Grant could perfect it in Militant. The ICFI split from the FI was entirely unprincipled as well and in no way represents "continuity" as the ICFI and Spartacists claim.

Unfortunately I don't understand enough about modern Trotskyism to understand everything you're talking about, but I will agree that the union thing is something that does bother me about them. I happen to be a big fan of labor unions. However, I do see the SEP point about how often times the unions can mostly exist to enrich a beaurocratic class of labor leaders. But I also don't think "labor councils" would be anything other than just new unions, as far as I can tell...

I think that minority struggles are good, and some of the SEP rhetoric on this is rather strange as well. It's a historical fact that the racism and xenophobia of many Americans was a big part of the reason the labor and socialist movements never got any further in America than they did, and so any minority struggle that makes people more equal or eliminates racism seems like it should be celebrated by the Left whether it has any kind of socialist leanings to it or not. And I also think that gender and race struggles often go hand in hand with economic struggles. It's hard to commit yourself to fighting for an oppressed people group and not form solidarity with other oppressed people groups. I think about the film Milk where Harvey Milk starts out as a fairly conservative economically individual, but as he fights for gay rights he ends up heavily involved in labor and community service issues as well.

Anyway thank you everyone this is certainly helping me clarify my thinking a bit... and apologies again to Red Nick... I certainly wouldn't want anyone to do anything that would cause them to lose their job :unsure: I shouldn't have called him weird for trying to protect himself

[blake 3:17]

...and I certainly hope you are joking about the last part about shooting people you don't like... :thumbdown:

There's been a lot of talk like that on here, which disturbs me. Not helpful.


Unfortunately I don't understand enough about modern Trotskyism to understand everything you're talking about, but I will agree that the union thing is something that does bother me about them. I happen to be a big fan of labor unions. However, I do see the SEP point about how often times the unions can mostly exist to enrich a beaurocratic class of labor leaders. But I also don't think "labor councils" would be anything other than just new unions, as far as I can tell...


I don't think there's a one size fits all answer to socialists should participate in unions. It depends on the union and depends on the socialists in the unions. I've participated in actions with Flying Squads (basically mobile collections of union activists participating in broader social struggles or playing militant roles within a union). In other cases there are Left caucuses that can be supported, or rank-and-file committees to be involved in. I'd generally recommend being involved in the most activist oriented of them. They're usually the most democratic and effective. There are times when it may make more sense to support a slightly more bureaucratic Left caucus. Most of my efforts in locals I've been in have been to let people know they were members of the local, that they were covered by a collective agreement and if the collective agreement was not being honoured they could grieve their issue. As a frequent part timer, my ability to steward was very limited.

Whether you're in a union or not, often there are opportunities to show support for folks on strike or who've been locked out. I spent a few minutes today with some Sears warehouse workers who've been locked out and got to hear their stories and got some of their leaflets which I shared with folks I knew would be sympathetic.

A lot of work in the unions needs to be aimed at doing pretty basic trade unionism. I'm happy when unions embrace a social union position and take on bigger fights. But if you can't do right for your members, it gets dicey.

Proposals for workers councils outside unions only make sense in particular circumstances.

The best coverage of unions in the US from a Left point of view is Labor Notes: http://www.labornotes.org/ If you're interested I could find you some of the more theoretical/historical writing that informs the Labor Notes project.


I think that minority struggles are good, and some of the SEP rhetoric on this is rather strange as well. It's a historical fact that the racism and xenophobia of many Americans was a big part of the reason the labor and socialist movements never got any further in America than they did, and so any minority struggle that makes people more equal or eliminates racism seems like it should be celebrated by the Left whether it has any kind of socialist leanings to it or not. And I also think that gender and race struggles often go hand in hand with economic struggles. It's hard to commit yourself to fighting for an oppressed people group and not form solidarity with other oppressed people groups. I think about the film Milk where Harvey Milk starts out as a fairly conservative economically individual, but as he fights for gay rights he ends up heavily involved in labor and community service issues as well.


Did Milk build a queer alliance with some Teamsters? It was a boycott of a beer, right?

The class reductionism ain't so on. Within the movements we should push for workers leadership, oppose reliance on the capitalist parties, and build grass roots alliances of people oppressed in different ways. Here in Toronto, there've been some small but significant links between different social justice organizations -- Palestine solidarity activists did a fantastic job raising funds and awareness for a native reserve under attack by a mining company, anti-poverty groups have done strike solidairty actions, queer groups have pushed for Palestinian rights, and so on. Without socialists or social anarchists, these things wouldn't have happened but they have been beneficial for all involved.

People with quite different politics have come together to deal with the post-G20 nitemare.

Some schisms in the movements are unavoidable. It can be best to agree to disagree and keep moving from there. Usually folks, if they stay principled, will end up working together after a split.

I come out of a particular wing of the Trotskyist movement and see a lot of our differences and disagreements way over emphasised. Between particularly small groups, some of the differences become absurd.

And, yeah the WSWS site does have some good material on it -- I'll be waiting for the 2nd part of the Nietzche critique.

[graymouser]

Unfortunately I don't understand enough about modern Trotskyism to understand everything you're talking about, but I will agree that the union thing is something that does bother me about them. I happen to be a big fan of labor unions. However, I do see the SEP point about how often times the unions can mostly exist to enrich a beaurocratic class of labor leaders. But I also don't think "labor councils" would be anything other than just new unions, as far as I can tell...
Well, bureaucratic misleadership in the unions is a serious and pervasive problem, particularly in the United States. But the SEP's line is to write off the unions as organs of struggle entirely rather than to fight for control of them through rank & file organizations. That means abandoning the most organized section of the working class to the tender mercies of the bureaucrats.


I think that minority struggles are good, and some of the SEP rhetoric on this is rather strange as well. It's a historical fact that the racism and xenophobia of many Americans was a big part of the reason the labor and socialist movements never got any further in America than they did, and so any minority struggle that makes people more equal or eliminates racism seems like it should be celebrated by the Left whether it has any kind of socialist leanings to it or not. And I also think that gender and race struggles often go hand in hand with economic struggles. It's hard to commit yourself to fighting for an oppressed people group and not form solidarity with other oppressed people groups. I think about the film Milk where Harvey Milk starts out as a fairly conservative economically individual, but as he fights for gay rights he ends up heavily involved in labor and community service issues as well.
That's all pretty much correct - and the SEP really takes a hard class reductionist line on such questions. Particularly in the US, we have to look at the black liberation struggle as a key issue - although I do not think that means support for black nationalism, it does mean taking on racial oppression head-on. SEP's politics do not take up this challenge, and I think that is a major step backward from what most other Trotskyist groups do.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The Northites have terrible politics. A lot of the time their internet site isn't bad, but their major deviation in recent years is their line on the trade unions. Effectively they've claimed, just as their leader happens to be the owner of a significant non-union business, that the trade unions in the current period are totally corrupt and Marxists should not attempt to work in or around them.

This isn't true at all. The SEP upholds the views of Lenin and Trotsky on the necessity of agitating within the unions and freeing the proletariat from the grips of the corrupt union bureaucracy.


Overall, their politics are still quite Healyite. They have a terrible line on most questions of special oppression, attacking any specific concern for black liberation or women's rights (for instance) as petty-bourgeois rather than recognizing that these struggles need to become class struggles and be joined to the fight for socialism.The whole thrust of their argument on such issues is that they "need to become class struggles and be joined to the fight for socialism." How about giving us a concrete example of their terrible lines in relation to this?


They still suffer from all the catastrophism of Healy
Examples?

[chegitz guevara]

Hmmm your version of things sounds kind of like the way a lot of modern historians talk about Trotsky... he would have been a dictator too, it's just that he got screwed out of the job so he came out against authoritarianism after the fact... I have absolutely no idea who to believe in either case, I hope to spend some time reading up on the soviet union sometime soon to at least make an informed opinion about how bad Trotsky really was or wasn't... what I would be interested in knowing is if the SEP still does stuff like that today or if they genuinely are different.

I do think it's kind of weird that someone who is such a hard core socialist would run a business like a capitalist instead of as a co-op or somesuch...

...and I certainly hope you are joking about the last part about shooting people you don't like... :thumbdown:

Oh, the SEP wouldn't be happy in a socialist revolution they didn't lead and would be denouncing it constantly. If we shot them it would make them think they were right and they could go to their deaths being happily smug, shouting, "We told you so, all glory to David North!"

It's a joke, but it's mean to point out something deeper. These fucks are a cult, and should not be considered comrades. Such organizations destroy people's lives and discredit the movement.

As for Trotsky, look at how he ran the various organizations he was in charge of, in including his post-Soviet groups. One can fairly exclude the Red Army, because the military should be organized in such a way, but Trotsky was rather authoritarian. We cannot say with certainty what kind of leader of the USSR he might have been, but we can make educated guesses. None of which, however, undermines his excellent analyses of fascism, Stalinism, etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

With all this sectarianism no wonder Trotskyism is one of the most unsuccessful tendencies in Marxism.:(

And I say that as a Trotskyist.

[blake 3:17]

Some of the hair splitting is just insane. It seems like complete wackiness from the outside, and is often fairly wacky in the middle. Small group socialism so often resemble weird religious sects. We can do better.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I don't really think most socialists would consider differences over issues like the trade union question, national question, etc to be "hair splitting."

As far as Chegitz, he basically considers any party that isn't some broad based formation like SPUSA a cult. Any attempt at any sort of party organized around theoretical agreement is inevitably a cult and hence any evidence of what their internal structure is really like isn't necessary. All I can really suggest is try to get involved with the party, and if you don't like the party atmosphere then just leave.

[graymouser]

This isn't true at all. The SEP upholds the views of Lenin and Trotsky on the necessity of agitating within the unions and freeing the proletariat from the grips of the corrupt union bureaucracy.

The whole thrust of their argument on such issues is that they "need to become class struggles and be joined to the fight for socialism." How about giving us a concrete example of their terrible lines in relation to this?

Examples?
http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/unions/unions.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/prin-s25.shtml

From the latter document...


Insulated from and indifferent to the hardships suffered by their membership, and protected by the “dues check-off” and labor laws from rank-and-file protests, the unions are tied by a thousand threads to the corporations and the capitalist state, including its intelligence agencies. The Socialist Equality Party calls for a rebellion against and break with these corrupt organizations, which do not represent the working class. This does not mean that the SEP abstains from working inside such organizations, to the extent that such activity is required to gain access to and assist the workers jointly oppressed by their employers and the union functionaries. But the SEP conducts such work on the basis of a revolutionary perspective, encouraging at every point the formation of new independent organizations - such as factory and workplace committees - that truly represent the interests of the rank-and-file workers and are subject to democratic control.
This is qualitatively different from the transitional demand that the unions be won from their bureaucratic leaders, and transformed into organs of struggle against the bosses. The SEP calls for a "break with" the trade unions instead of demanding rank and file (and ultimately communist) leadership of these unions. This is a sharp contrast with the rank and file strategy for reclaiming the unions that has been put forward by the League for the Fifth International - which is based on real rank-and-file movements that have appeared within the trade union movement and which do not have any perspective of breaking with the unions. The SEP counterposes fantastical "factory and workplace committees" to the unions, and in so doing it retreats into the territory long occupied by groups like the Socialist Labor Party.

The second article also points up their sharp weaknesses on special oppression questions (dismissed as "identity politics") and particularly, by their absence, the failure of the SEP to even consider questions of women's liberation. This has not just been an isolated incident or two, but a consistent part of their politics: the ICFI and SEP have always defined themselves by tweaking other leftists on such questions.

[blake 3:17]

I don't really think most socialists would consider differences over issues like the trade union question, national question, etc to be "hair splitting."

Most socialists don't. And there are appropraite avenues to have these debates, and if folks have to disagree virulently then splits can't be avoided. My back gets a little up when I read the nasty stuff on Mandel on WSWS. I don't see any of the movements holding their breath for some resolution of the Mandel/Cliff debate.

I am less and less convinced by proper true political lines that have no relevance to the real world.

As I said before, I do actually quite like some WSWS site content. Groups like the SEP and the Sparts actually hold together a fair bit of left history that others don't bother to preserve.

Does the SEP do anything? Or, rather, do SEP members do anything?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

This is qualitatively different from the transitional demand that the unions be won from their bureaucratic leaders, and transformed into organs of struggle against the bosses. The SEP calls for a "break with" the trade unions instead of demanding rank and file (and ultimately communist) leadership of these unions. This is a sharp contrast with the rank and file strategy for reclaiming the unions that has been put forward by the League for the Fifth International - which is based on real rank-and-file movements that have appeared within the trade union movement and which do not have any perspective of breaking with the unions.

Organs of struggle? What kind of struggle? For Marxists the goal is to show the working class the necessity of going beyond economic to political struggles. How does your parties slogans help this process? They simply encourage illusions in the union bureaucracy:


In this fight we will find at best half-hearted leadership
from the union presidents of the mega–unions and their federations,
i.e., the AFL-CIO and Change to Win.

And this is in relation to democratizing the unions. In other words, if we're lucky the union bureaucracy will provide leadership in our struggle to...get rid of the union bureacracy.


The SEP counterposes fantastical "factory and workplace committees" to the unions, and in so doing it retreats into the territory long occupied by groups like the Socialist Labor Party.Fantastical? Even your parties program for recapturing the unions takes as its basis the formation of action committees:


We need to rebuild local representative bodies, build new labor-movement assemblies, or committees of action. These bodies must be capable of mobilizing action in solidarity withany section of workers that decides to take on the struggle, debating the immediate concerns and other practical and political matters we face on the road to defeating the bosses plans.In this way, we not only strengthen our struggles from below,we start to build up an alternative center of power in society:real centers of working-class planning and organization.

There is nothing wrong with this. Further, since the majority of workers aren't unionized, these are the kinds or organizations we put forward in our slogans to non-unionized workers ala the transitional program. Is it fantastical in relation to them? Or only to unionized workers?

The Socialist Labor Party created alternative unions and then refused to work within the reactionary unions. The SEP agrees with the necessity of working within the unions.



The second article also points up their sharp weaknesses on special oppression questions (dismissed as "identity politics") and particularly, by their absence, the failure of the SEP to even consider questions of women's liberation.How? What exactly in that article do you disagree with? You aren't even offering up any criticisms of anything concrete.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Does the SEP do anything? Or, rather, do SEP members do anything?

Just look at their site...most of what they do is posted on there. They have a student movement which does various activities, they hold meetings, participate in elections, are leading a campaign in Detroit against utility shutoffs, they were instrumental in the formation of the Indianapolis stamping plant rank and file committee...

[graymouser]

Fantastical? Even your parties program for recapturing the unions takes as its basis the formation of action committees:
Yes, but action committees that see as their goal the reformation of the unions. This actually exists in some places; probably the most famous, although hampered by the economism that pervades the US rank & file movement, is Teamsters for a Democratic Union. The committees envisioned in the SEP program, on the other hand, are effectively dual unions.


How? What exactly in that article do you disagree with? You aren't even offering up any criticisms of anything concrete.
There is a lacuna in the principles where there should be a concrete critique of women's liberation (and also of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois feminism). If you don't understand why this is an issue, you've got quite a bit to learn.

[Devrim]

This is qualitatively different from the transitional demand that the unions be won from their bureaucratic leaders, and transformed into organs of struggle against the bosses.

Is transforming the unions into 'organs of struggle' a transitional demand, i.e. something which can't be achieved within capitalism?

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

As far as Chegitz, he basically considers any party that isn't some broad based formation like SPUSA a cult. Any attempt at any sort of party organized around theoretical agreement is inevitably a cult and hence any evidence of what their internal structure is really like isn't necessary. All I can really suggest is try to get involved with the party, and if you don't like the party atmosphere then just leave.

Yes, we all know you're drinking the Flavor-ade. I hope you realize your mistake and get away from them before you waste too much of your life making David North's life better.

There are groups that are the way you describe SEPtic: PSL, WWP, ISO, etc. Then there are organizations that exist merely to deify some non-entity, like David North, Bob Avakian, Jack Barnes, Marlene Dixon, etc. The gullible get fooled, because these cults often have a militant stance and decent politics.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'm not a member of the SEP, and I don't see where you get the idea that there is some cult of personality around David North. If you honestly think that the SEP is comparable to the RCP and former DWP, and also think that these groups had decent politics, I think it shows how absurd and worthless your posts in this thread are.

[KC]

WSWS is the best socialist media site on the internet. I can't comment on the SEP, but WSWS is incredible. They're the only ones I've really seen put any indepth analysis into current events.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

It's also the most widely read socialist publication on the internet.

[Blackscare]

I tried leaving this on that youtube guy's comment thing:


Why does every youtube leftist have to look like a fucking fool?


"We Communists do not hide our faces or furl our flags" - Leon Trotsky

But he requires comment approval of course LOL

[chegitz guevara]

I'm not a member of the SEP, and I don't see where you get the idea that there is some cult of personality around David North. If you honestly think that the SEP is comparable to the RCP and former DWP, and also think that these groups had decent politics, I think it shows how absurd and worthless your posts in this thread are.

Well, at least Bob and Marlene don't/didn't have their cadre work for them in their own business and profit off their labor while denouncing unions.

[blake 3:17]

Well, at least Bob and Marlene don't/didn't have their cadre work for them in their own business and profit off their labor while denouncing unions.

Do you sources for that. I read something on them in one of the sectarian papers, can't recall which one.

[Kiev Communard]

While I personally like reading the WSWS rather informative articles, I can't stand their extremely sectarian and conspirology stance on ALL the other left-wing groups - from NPA to ISO, and beyond. That is extremely weird and counter-productive in any case.

[ckaihatsu]

While I personally like reading the WSWS rather informative articles, I can't stand their extremely sectarian and conspirology stance on ALL the other left-wing groups - from NPA to ISO, and beyond. That is extremely weird and counter-productive in any case.


It occurs to me that, in an actual bourgeois-progressive era -- say the "golden" late 18th and early 19th centuries that libertarians wish they could time-travel back to -- the forward motion of that economic class is united and any sectarianism would be seen as trivial and quite possibly absurd. As long as an overall forward momentum prevailed the watchword of 'business positivism' could be readily invoked to cut against any retrograde or internecine tensions.

But as soon as things wobbled and faltered the trajectory and plans for forthcoming returns became questionable and sectarianism resulted as the basic set of political understandings splintered into a number of competing and divergent, though similar, directions -- note the controversies over monetary policy, especially in past decades, between competing camps of capital, between deficit spending (Keynesianism) or currency strengthening (monetarism), in newly downsloped, "uncertain" times. In such an environment the oft-reliable 'business positivism' became muddled and annoyingly complicated, but such are the breaks of capitalism for the capitalists....

Now, as people worldwide become increasingly certain with their developing class consciousness, we should, likewise, invoke a watchword of 'political positivism' (going forward), and not get too hung-up on some boisterous differences of organizational history or sectarianism competitiveness. I really think it indicates the developmental stage of the period we're going through -- one of a growing *aggregation* of disparate, but strengthening, strands of class struggle all over the world. We're seeing a *globalizing* -- though not neoliberal 'globalization', of course -- of revolutionary Marxist / socialist areas of struggle, each generalizing and increasingly overlapping with others, each from their own pasts and locales. (Arguably this has been going on for several decades now.) Inter-organizational competition is going to be inevitable in this period, but the *substance* of these sectarian distinctions in relation to a general Marxist outlook and program, is rather insignificant, no matter how identity-prone and heated some organizations may get about their own histories of organizational struggles.

Add in that "industry"-internal inter-organizational politics among the various groups may be both sensitive and difficult to report on, and we arrive at the "nose-cone" of our revolutionary politics in practice, in forward motion....

[chegitz guevara]

Do you sources for that. I read something on them in one of the sectarian papers, can't recall which one.

I have it from a former comrade in the Party. It is why he quit, and then why he stopped being a socialist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are groups that are the way you describe SEPtic: PSL, WWP, ISO, etc. Then there are organizations that exist merely to deify some non-entity, like David North, Bob Avakian, Jack Barnes, Marlene Dixon, etc. The gullible get fooled, because these cults often have a militant stance and decent politics.

Only one cult was relatively successful in the history of the worker-class movement: the ADAV of Ferdinand Lassalle.

[Amphictyonis]

It seems like a silly cyber-group.



So what if they are? Exposure to socialism/communist ideals is exposure and they seem to be doing a good job of reporting on current events from a socialist perspective.

Are there better sites out there for more advanced (or non-sectarian) socialists? Sure but we should celebrate any anarchist/ socialist/ Marxist site that manages to get the amount of exposure they do. Socialism isn't necessarily on the tongues of western workers at the moment.

[Terminator X]

I recently contributed some work for the WSWS and I can honestly say I want to run as far as I can from the SEP and its members, never to return. They seriously creeped me out and I'm not sure how anyone would willingly spend any amount of time with this unseemly group of characters. They are paranoid (using several different aliases in the course of one email conversation), extremely sectarian (almost laughably so, if it weren't so damned irritating), and mentally unstable when it comes to any form of communication. I swear, Joe Kishore sounds like a man in the depths of an ether binge when you speak to him on the phone. And he represents the leadership of the party?!?! (At least as the sockpuppet of David North/Green). They are also one of the most humorless, dogmatic, and downright boring set of people I've ever come across in my 33 years on this planet. I see now why people dislike Trotskyists (and I consider myself one).

Cannot recommend in any way, shape, or form.

[Jose Gracchus]

This thread is like an answer to a FAQ on Trot sectarianism and general dysfunction. :lol:

[black magick hustla]

i just wanted to say that "anti-union" and "anti-identity poltics" lines were not made up by the sep or whatever, because i and plenty of comrades hold em. people are pointing to those lines as like a product of "healyism" or whatever and this makes me suspect whether the slander is true or just some cooked up spart thing

[Terminator X]

No, the SEP is "anti-union" to the point that they censored the wording in my articles because it was too favorable to union leadership. They wouldn't let me write "union leaders," instead forcing me to change it to "union officials."

They also wouldn't let me quote a student who spoke at a rally because he was a member of SDS.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No, the SEP is "anti-union" to the point that they censored the wording in my articles because it was too favorable to union leadership. They wouldn't let me write "union leaders," instead forcing me to change it to "union officials."

How is "union leader" favorable to union leadership as opposed to "union officials"? That really doesn't make sense, considering that the term is used quite commonly on their site, such as today: "the union leaders from the start declared their acceptance of Walkers’ demands."

[Terminator X]

How is "union leader" favorable to union leadership as opposed to "union officials"? That really doesn't make sense, considering that the term is used quite commonly on their site, such as today: "the union leaders from the start declared their acceptance of Walkers’ demands."

The guy I worked with must not have liked that term, as he basically scolded me for using it. And yeah, I've seen "union leaders" used before and after on the WSWS, so I'm pretty confused about what his point was.

They also wouldn't let me use info that I found on a website exposing the six-figure salary of the IAFF president, dismissing the info as from a "right-wing" source. So, is the SEP anti-union bureaucracy or not? Or is it only when they can concoct their own figures?

[Niccolò Rossi]

They are paranoid (using several different aliases in the course of one email conversation)

Yeah dude, cos Niccolo Rossi is soooo my real name.

But then again I'm just a paranoid, tin-foil hat wearing loonie.

Nic.

[Le Socialiste]

The WSWS produces some great articles, many of which I have read. I consider their coverage of the struggles in Wisconsin to be informative and well written. That said, their constant use of said articles as a means of tearing down other socialist organizations (arguing that theirs is the only viable option) puts one off a bit. I'm no Trotskyist - not by any means - so I don't know what the party/organization is like. I only know what I've read on their site. I have heard from numerous comrades about their sectarian outlooks and propaganda, but since I've yet to meet anyone from the party I won't draw any conclusions just yet. If you feel that their program meets your own goals and beliefs, then by all means - join them. If not, consider moving on.

[Terminator X]

Yeah dude, cos Niccolo Rossi is soooo my real name.

But then again I'm just a paranoid, tin-foil hat wearing loonie.

Nic.

Right, because message board handles were EXACTLY what I was referring to in my original post. When I'm working professionally with someone, I don't want to have to guess who the hell I'm actually talking to, three times over the course of one email conversation. Aliases are fun for college clubs and playing pretend revolutionary, but when you are actually trying to get something done, it's fucking annoying.

And if that's acceptable to you, then your self-professed label does indeed apply.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Aliases are fun for college clubs and playing pretend revolutionary, but when you are actually trying to get something done, it's fucking annoying.

That's cute. Meanwhile, I prefer to not have to face political discrimination from potential employers.

Nic.