WWP vs. PSL

[Red Brigade]

This thread is for discussion about the Workers World Party and Party For Socialism and Liberation. Here are a few questions why exactly did the parties split, if there is any ideological difference between the parties what is it, and is there any hope for them reuniting in the future to help represent the working class?

[Property Is Robbery]

I don't think to many people know the answer to this. In my opinion though the PSL seems a lot more active.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Their lines are very similar but PSL seem to be a lot better on the organisational front. Don't know why they split, you'd probably have to ask a member but I believe several entire branches either left or got expelled?

[TC]

My understanding is that the west coast branches centered around San Fransisco led by Gloria LaRiva and the Washington DC branch led by Brian Becker broke away from the WWP - since the PSL wing of the WWP included the cadre organizing ANSWER, ANSWER became a PSL open front rather than a WWP quasi-covert front. A lesser known consequence is that the PSL took their National Lawyers Guild affiliated cadre and have a significant presence in the NLG (as does the CPUSA) whereas the WWP does not appear to. Ramsey Clark initially continued to act as a close WWP fellow traveler but he now seems to work closely with the PSL. The WWP also has a youth group called FIST (fight racism stand together) though from everything I can tell it is tiny or defunct - the PSL does not have a youth group though some of its members are quiet young (college students). The PSL is also very active in the iraq/afghan war vets movement and has March Forward as a front for ex-service members, with a good deal of overlap in membership with the IVAW.

Neither party have official statements on the split and their members seem not to like to talk about it. From everything that I've gathered (having been a close associate of one of the branches that left for the PSL, but never a member) the split happened for entirely internal tactical reasons - the two groups wanted to pursue different strategies with the PSL taking a more open engagement route (operating ANSWER openly rather than covertly as the WWP did, running electoral candidates). As far as I can tell they still have identical politics and theory.

[chegitz guevara]

From what I understand, the split was over who would succeed Sam Marcy in the leadership of the Party. The faction around La Riva felt they were getting cheated, so they split.

A comrade in WWP is always talking shit about PSL, and he has some valid points (which I won't raise here). He claims PSL isn't even Marcyite anymore, but from all my interactions with PSL comrades, he just doesn't know what he's talking about. He claims the two organizations have totally different lines now, but from where I sit, they seem identical, except that PSL ran an independent socialist campaign, while WWP supported the Green Party candidate.

[The Douche]

The PSL is also very active in the iraq/afghan war vets movement and has March Forward as a front for ex-service members, with a good deal of overlap in membership with the IVAW.

I am an inactive IVAW member, and I "joined" march forward, and nobody ever contacted me, I just get an email from them and ANSWER every now and then reporting on actions.:confused:

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

According to one of my comrades who formerly belonged to the PSL, the split was, as chegitz described it, over the question of internal democracy. As he has explained it to me (because I asked him this same question), the people who went on to form the PSL felt that the WWP was or had become too authoritarian in terms of its internal workings.

[bricolage]

From what I understand, the split was over who would succeed Sam Marcy in the leadership of the Party. The faction around La Riva felt they were getting cheated, so they split.
Sounds more religious than political.

[Conscript]

Sounds more religious than political.

Religious?

[bricolage]

Religious?
Shia/Sunni is the first example that comes to mind.

[Soviet dude]

Well, the "internal democracy" thing is usually phrased by PSL people as an issue of democratic centralism.

Basically, the WWP was not a democratic centralist organization. I think the last congress they had while Marcy was alive was in the 60s, and even then there were no voting on anything. Marcy was the leader of the party, and there was a loyal clique of people around him, most of older ones are now in WWP, though a few went with PSL.

When Marcy died, obviously the traditions of that party left some big shoes to fill. Who would replace Marcy's role? The PSL people wanted to become a democratic centralist group, while the WWP people wanted to find someone who could fulfill the role Marcy did. That, anyway, is how the PSL people tell it.

In addition, there was the whole issue of ANSWER as a catalyst. Basically, the WWP faction wanted to unite the Anti-War movement under one banner, which meant unity with UFPJ. The PSL people were, apparently, vehemently opposed to this. WWP denied to my face that this was their intention, but the PSL people now see the recent National Peace Congress in Albany as a vindication of their views. I tend to accept PSL's position on the ANSWER question (that is, WWP didn't tell the truth about their intentions).

WWP say their splitting was unprincipled, that they never really tried to hash this issue out internally. They literally say they just up and took shit from their offices one day, and announced ANSWER was no longer affiliated with WWP. Given the emotional nature of this question in practically every WWP person's I've spoke to about it, my gut tells me they are correct, and the PSL split was pretty unprincipled. My guess it had to do with some serious personality conflicts as well that are left unspoken by both sides.

I have even heard the National Question plays somewhere in all this, regarding the selection of the new Marcy, but I can't really confirm that is true.

In any case, there are some pretty clear difference. While I like both groups, PSL definitely has a more in-your-face approach to things. They don't play as well with others as they could, and present an ultra-red appearance to the public, complete with pictures of Che on their signs. I chalk most of this up to the age-gap difference between the two groups.

Both groups I find to be filled with great people. I haven't met anyone from PSL or WWP that I disliked. They both still have a lot of ideological confusions from their heritage as a Trotskyist organization. There are really pro-Stalin people in the WWP, and I've heard rumors whole chapters of PSL are more almost completely traditionally Maoist. Both groups have sent people to the International Communist Seminar, and both groups have said Trotskyism is counter-revolutionary in the past.

I think there could be some interesting developments for Marxism-Leninism in the US. Out of any of the tendencies, including the 'tendencies' that promote everyone getting together in the same party for some social-democratic project, it seems to me the Marxist-Leninist tendency (FRSO, WWP, PSL, Ray O. Light, USMLO, Left-wing of the CPUSA, etc) have the least amount of contradictions between them, the only notable exception to this being PSL and WWP, with most of the hostility directed toward WWP from PSL.

[bricolage]

man american left politics seems even stranger than british left politics

[Soviet dude]

Well, the United National Antiwar Committee includes UFPJ, doesn't it? In fact, it includes everyone but ANSWER, and picks dates for the major actions which are separate from the traditional ANSWER dates...

It certainly is a step-closer toward co-ordinating efforts, which I don't personally think is a bad thing. It just tends to confirm to me what PSL said was the case.

As far as whether or not WWP was democratic centralist while Marcy was alive, I would have to ask you, if you know, when was the last congress WWP had before Marcy died...I think the answer to that question basically answers the question. Democratic centralism is not the 10 people with the highest positions voting on things for 30 years. You have to have periodic congresses that include the majority of the cadre of an organization.

[Kassad]

I really love these threads. Just saying.

[gorillafuck]

Sounds more religious than political.
Shia/Sunni is the first example that comes to mind.
That's really absurd.

[Lucretia]

Aren't they both Stalinist sects with membership less than 100? Not to be offensive, but who cares?

[Rusty Shackleford]

both parties have well over 100 members each. i can say that with confidence for the PSL at least.


Stalinist... lol.

[Kassad]

Aren't they both Stalinist sects with membership less than 100? Not to be offensive, but who cares?

Do you even know what is being discussed in this topic? It's pretty apparent that you're absolutely clueless.

[Lucretia]

Do you even know what is being discussed in this topic? It's pretty apparent that you're absolutely clueless.

Then, please O wise one, do me the great honor of educating me. Or feel free to continue being an ass. Whichever you think will bring the revolution sooner.

[28350]

The split was over the issue of leadership. Becker didn't really appreciate Holmes being in the position that he was in (sort of understandably so- my interactions with Holmes have lead me to feel that he's not totally genuine). At the same time, he didn't appreciate how important it was to have a Black man in the secretariat.
It's quite possibly the stupidest split.

[Kassad]

The split was over the issue of leadership. Becker didn't really appreciate Holmes being in the position that he was in (sort of understandably so- my interactions with Holmes have lead me to feel that he's not totally genuine). At the same time, he didn't appreciate how important it was to have a Black man in the secretariat.
It's quite possibly the stupidest split.

I've never heard a WWP or a PSL member/leader give this as reasoning for the split.

[Devrim]

Stalinist... lol.

It might not be a label that you would use yourself, but that is how most people would understand it.


both parties have well over 100 members each. i can say that with confidence for the PSL at least.

I'd imagine not that many more.

Devrim

[Kassad]

I'd imagine not that many more.

Devrim

Our National Conference on Socialism last month pulled nearly 600 people. Also factor in that a decent amount of our membership could not just up and fly to Los Angeles for a whole weekend.

I'm not saying that an organization with 600 members has the resources to lead the working class to revolution, but we have branches in over 20 states and are leaders in an assortment of movements across the country. Ask anyone involved in the socialist movement here and they'll say we are one of the most active and one of the fastest growing organizations there is. We have a lot more than 100 members and we're doing more in regards to activism than the ICC will probably do during the course of its existence.

I'm really enjoying people talking about the PSL when they have no actual experience with them at all. Anyone who does have experience working with us would speak quite to the contrary of what a lot of people are suggesting.

[Soviet dude]

I've never heard a WWP or a PSL member/leader give this as reasoning for the split.

I've heard something similar, but without Becker's name mentioned.

[Kassad]

I've heard something similar, but without Becker's name mentioned.

As have I, with no actual substance behind it.

[Devrim]

I'm really enjoying people talking about the PSL when they have no actual experience with them at all. Anyone who does have experience working with us would speak quite to the contrary of what a lot of people are suggesting.

I don't have any experience of the PSL, nor have I even ever met one of their members. The point that was made was.


Aren't they both Stalinist sects with membership less than 100? Not to be offensive, but who cares?

To which you replied:


Do you even know what is being discussed in this topic? It's pretty apparent that you're absolutely clueless.

I think that it is a pretty accurate comment even if the number might be slightly out.

Most people on the left see those who support what used to be called 'real existing socialism' as Stalinists. You would qualify under this.

As for the membership numbers leftist groups are notorious for exaggerating them.


Our National Conference on Socialism last month pulled nearly 600 people. Also factor in that a decent amount of our membership could not just up and fly to Los Angeles for a whole weekend.


I presume that as you were advertising it before hand in public that it wasn't only your members who would have been there.

I'd be very very surprised if you actually had six hundred members, but even if you did, it wouldn't make you a party in any real sense of the word.


we're doing more in regards to activism than the ICC will probably do during the course of its existence.

We don't really do activism. We have a very different conception of what class struggle is than you.

Nor do we feel the need to exaggerate our membership figures. The ICC in the US is an absolutely miniscule organisation. It is our smallest section and has barely a handful of members and a few dozen supporters. However, our failings don't make you anymore right.

Actually I think this has been quite an interesting and informative thread. One of the most interesting points was this:


Neither party have official statements on the split and their members seem not to like to talk about it.

In my personal opinion, we have made the mistake in the past of talking too much about our splits. However, to avoid talking about it suggests that there is something to 'hide'.

Devrim

[Kassad]

I just think it's funny that you'd "be surprised." I'm not here to exaggerate. I'm here to lay statistics out and say that even a basic analysis shows our membership is above 600 people, but like I said, the socialist movement is fragmented and working towards building class consciousness. Go back and read my post.

You can call me whatever you want. I'd advise you to talk to people with experience working with us before you make idiotic claims that have no real basis.

[Devrim]

You can call me whatever you want.

I didn't actually call you anything. I said that many people would typify your organisation as Stalinist.


I'd advise you to talk to people with experience working with us before you make idiotic claims that have no real basis.

I only made two claims. The first was that that leftist parties 'are notorious for exaggerating their membership numbers. All my experience of being active as a communist in four decades points to this. I don't think it is in any way 'idiotic', merely true. I didn't even state that the PSL were, but I would suspect that they are.

The second was that I would be surprised. Yes, I would be.


I'm here to lay statistics out and say that even a basic analysis shows our membership is above 600 people,

You didn't lay any statistics out that show that at all. What you did was show that at an advertised rally, you can draw in 600 people. Are you claiming they were all members.? I would imagine that a lot, but not all of them were.

Personally I have seen groups of forty people draw in 400 to meetings like this.


but like I said, the socialist movement is fragmented and working towards building class consciousness

Personally, I don't think the PSL have much to do with socialism or class consciousness in any way but that it another issue.

It is poignant, however, that you had no comment to make about why "their members seem not to like to talk about it".

Devrim

[RedTrackWorker]

You can call me whatever you want. I'd advise you to talk to people with experience working with us before you make idiotic claims that have no real basis.

Here's a claim that has basis:
Threads like this wouldn't exist if either group put out a clear statement had been put out on the split (not just the WWP statement quoted above, "Some people left.") Further, it is the responsibility of a working-class organization that seeks to lead a revolution to do such a thing. To put a fine point on it: both organizations tell on themselves and tell what they think of workers and the need for working-class unity by not taking such a thing seriously.

[JimFar]

It's absolutely amazing that six years after the fact, we still have no clear reasons why the split between WWP and PSL ever occurred in the first place!! I cannot think of a precedent for this.

[manic expression]

I didn't actually call you anything. I said that many people would typify your organisation as Stalinist.
"Many people" would put you in the exact same pot.


I only made two claims. The first was that that leftist parties 'are notorious for exaggerating their membership numbers. All my experience of being active as a communist in four decades points to this. I don't think it is in any way 'idiotic', merely true. I didn't even state that the PSL were, but I would suspect that they are.

The second was that I would be surprised. Yes, I would be.I second Kassad's advice: talk with people who have worked with us and then address your "suspicions". I think you'd be in for a surprise.


Personally, I don't think the PSL have much to do with socialism or class consciousness in any way but that it another issue.

It is poignant, however, that you had no comment to make about why "their members seem not to like to talk about it".Probably because PSL members are more interested in promoting the cause of the working class than fretting about what people think of their membership rolls. Poignant, no?


Threads like this wouldn't exist if either group put out a clear statement had been put out on the split (not just the WWP statement quoted above, "Some people left.") Further, it is the responsibility of a working-class organization that seeks to lead a revolution to do such a thing. To put a fine point on it: both organizations tell on themselves and tell what they think of workers and the need for working-class unity by not taking such a thing seriously.OK, but there is something to be said for the fact that putting out statements on the split would only divert energy into inter-party disputes instead of the important matter of organizing workers into a viable revolutionary vanguard. I think it's quite a refreshing change from the usual "it's all their fault!" polemic that we see all too often on the left.

[Crux]

Or just pretty fucking shifty.

[Lucretia]

"Many people" would put you in the exact same pot.

We're not talking about discursive determinism here, where if somebody calls you a "stalinist" you are necessarily a Stalinist. I have very little knowledge of the PSL, but what I do know is that it thinks that the USSR under Stalin was a socialist society and therefore deserved support. Sounds like Stalinism to me.


I second Kassad's advice: talk with people who have worked with us and then address your "suspicions". I think you'd be in for a surprise.

How can membership numbers be verified by simply talking to isolated members who in any even might have every reason to want to inflate those numbers?


Probably because PSL members are more interested in promoting the cause of the working class than fretting about what people think of their membership rolls. Poignant, no?

Or posting on Internet fora? Spare me the more-radical-than-thou tone.


OK, but there is something to be said for the fact that putting out statements on the split would only divert energy into inter-party disputes instead of the important matter of organizing workers into a viable revolutionary vanguard. I think it's quite a refreshing change from the usual "it's all their fault!" polemic that we see all too often on the left.

I think the overall point being made is that not putting out the statement is diverting more energy than just being open and honest in order to be done with it.

[Devrim]

Most people on the left see those who support what used to be called 'real existing socialism' as Stalinists. You would qualify under this."Many people" would put you in the exact same pot.

Please give an example of where we supported 'real existing socialism'.


Probably because PSL members are more interested in promoting the cause of the working class than fretting about what people think of their membership rolls. Poignant, no?

Possibly reading the thread would help here. The comment wasn't about membership roles, but the split.

Devrim

[Unclebananahead]

We're not talking about discursive determinism here, where if somebody calls you a "stalinist" you are necessarily a Stalinist. I have very little knowledge of the PSL, but what I do know is that it thinks that the USSR under Stalin was a socialist society and therefore deserved support. Sounds like Stalinism to me.

Trotsky argued for the defense of the existence of the USSR even under the autocracy of Stalin. Does that make him a Stalinist? Your claim is absurd.

I would however like very much to know precisely what position the PSL takes on the Stalin question. Perhaps Kassad or someone else could assist me in this.

Also, some definitive explanation from the PSL as to why they split from the WWP would be enlightening. So far, I have no real idea as to why this occurred, and would like to be educated on this subject.

[RedTrackWorker]

OK, but there is something to be said for the fact that putting out statements on the split would only divert energy into inter-party disputes instead of the important matter of organizing workers into a viable revolutionary vanguard. I think it's quite a refreshing change from the usual "it's all their fault!" polemic that we see all too often on the left.

Key part: "divert energy into inter-party disputes instead of the important matter of organizing workers into a viable revolutionary vanguard".

So you think workers can be organized into a vanguard by avoiding "inter-party disuptes"? If so, then you should be in the same party.
In other words, if the workers can be organized in a group to overthrow capitalism without understanding thing X, then thing X should not be the basis of separate organizations and it is sectarianism to do so.
Insofar as WWP and the PSL lead separate organizational lives, they must justify to the workers' movement why they are separate. If your response boils down to "it's not important", then any worker has the right to say to you: "why should I join a group that puts such a low price on unity in the workers' movement?"

[The Vegan Marxist]

Why didn't this thread end after Soviet Dude's or Kassad's response? Those of the parties, or those closer to the party than anyone else here have made their statements. That's where it should end, not continue to pretend like you know what you're talking about. (This doesn't go to any specific poster on thread)

[Rusty Shackleford]

Had the PSL leadership published a statement explaining why they left, Workers World would likely have published a response. As it stands, the PSL leadership has never offered any explanation of their actions toward WWP.



i have no comment or care for why the PSL split from the WWP. it is the past, and i was not a part of it. i am very pleased with the workings of the PSL and have no intention of leaving, and there is no second guessing. i have no experience with the WWP so i cannot comment, and i will not because i see no need to. but had this statement issuing happened, it would have been a waste of time.

everyone complains about tendency infighting. well, it seems there is no fighting. the parties split. both parties dont waste ink bickering with each other.

[RedTrackWorker]

To "The Vegan Marxist": are you serious? It didn't end after their responses because they didn't post anything approximating an explanation of the split. Kassad in particular just talked about how big the PSL was or how fast it's growing. It wasn't even an attempt at an explanation, much less a bad one.


RedTrackWorker: Workers World Party prioritizes building principled unity in the working class movement. That's one of the many reasons I support WWP.

It isn't incumbent upon Workers World to explain the actions of those who left. WWP didn't expel anyone. Those who left the Workers World did so on their own. It's up to them to give a political explanation for their splitting activities.

You're right insofar as the PSL--it being the grouping that took the initiative--is in some sense more responsible for explaining its actions before the workers' movement. But on the WWP's part, I still say the thing you quoted earlier is far from adequate. If a portion of the leaders of my organization left to form a new organization, I would expect a serious explanation, an analysis, of why they left and what direction they were going in now and why the difference is important to the workers' movement. If an individual or small grouping just quits the movement, in a period like this, that doesn't require much explanation. But if a grouping, especially of long-time leaders, starts a new organization, that requires a political response. If the split itself is unprincipled (which clearly it was, seeing as the PSL didn't even attempt to argue in public that principles behind it), just saying that it's unprincipled isn't enough in my opinion and I wouldn't tolerate that from my organization. I doubt one can find an instance of Marx, Lenin or Trotsky letting a similar instance pass by without comment.
Further, the WWP should be actively fighting for working-class unity, which would mean in this case: demanding the PSL rejoin the WWP or account for their differences through political debate. That is, if the WWP leaders were thinking from the standpoint of the workers' movement and not from preserving their organizational control, that would be the obvious campaign to launch regarding the PSL.

[RED DAVE]

The split was over the issue of leadership. Becker didn't really appreciate Holmes being in the position that he was in (sort of understandably so- my interactions with Holmes have lead me to feel that he's not totally genuine). At the same time, he didn't appreciate how important it was to have a Black man in the secretariat.
It's quite possibly the stupidest split.If Becker didn't like Holmes, what about Watson?

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Further, the WWP should be actively fighting for working-class unity, which would mean in this case: demanding the PSL rejoin the WWP or account for their differences through political debate. That is, if the WWP leaders were thinking from the standpoint of the workers' movement and not from preserving their organizational control, that would be the obvious campaign to launch regarding the PSL.And partridge in a pear tree.

RED DAVE

[Rusty Shackleford]

deleted.

[Unclebananahead]

The fact that there's so much ambiguity as to why this happened suggests that they (as in the PSL) haven't made themselves particularly clear as to why they split from the WWP. If it was over the perceived lack of adherence to democratic centralism in the WWP, why didn't they issue a statement indicating that to be the case?

I reiterate my request for any sort of position or stance from the PSL on the subject of Stalin. I would really appreciate it if somebody from the PSL would kindly enlighten me on this.

Also, what's the UPFJ? Or was it UFPJ?

[Devrim]

Why didn't this thread end after Soviet Dude's or Kassad's response? Those of the parties, or those closer to the party than anyone else here have made their statements. That's where it should end, not continue to pretend like you know what you're talking about. (This doesn't go to any specific poster on thread)

Wow! You do, I presume, know that this is a discussion board. What is actually wrong with people discussing things beyond what Kassad has to say in his usual 'the PSL is great bluster'?*

Devrim

*This isn't a rhetorical question. I am really interested to know why you think the discussion should have been ended.

Devrim

[Rusty Shackleford]

Childish posts are being sent in an apparent effort to drown out serious political discussion on the topic of this thread.

Two who entered this thread have stated they have no interest in its topic. Why are they here?

There are others who have repeatedly tried to hijack the discussion thread with irrelevant posts.

Here is the topic of this thread, which was created by RevLeft member Red Brigade. It is crystal clear:

"This thread is for discussion about the Workers World Party and Party For Socialism and Liberation. Here are a few questions why exactly did the parties split, if there is any ideological difference between the parties what is it, and is there any hope for them reuniting in the future to help represent the working class?"
__________________

you want a serious post? i dont know why the party split. am i hostile to the WWP? no. have i noticed any hostility to the WWP in the party? no.

i dont even know why i started posting in here. i wasnt here to debate WWP members. im not here to clarify the issue. and i dont have the answers to all the questions.

its been 6 years. a demand for the PSL to "explain itself" is ridiculous. demanding either party to do something about this issue, especially from an internet messaging board is ridiculous. its like me demanding the CPGB and the CPGB-ML to reconcile some political difference.


also the UFPJ was "United for Peace and Justice" a liberal anti-war coalition.


i will say this though. its interesting hearing all the points about the issue. they have not changed my views but im not here to try to stop the debate.

[Unclebananahead]

Why didn't this thread end after Soviet Dude's or Kassad's response? Those of the parties, or those closer to the party than anyone else here have made their statements. That's where it should end, not continue to pretend like you know what you're talking about. (This doesn't go to any specific poster on thread)

Their responses weren't at all definitive. Soviet Dude gave some speculation, and Kassad didn't directly address the subject at all as far as I know.

[Lucretia]

Trotsky argued for the defense of the existence of the USSR even under the autocracy of Stalin. Does that make him a Stalinist? Your claim is absurd.

I would however like very much to know precisely what position the PSL takes on the Stalin question. Perhaps Kassad or someone else could assist me in this.

Also, some definitive explanation from the PSL as to why they split from the WWP would be enlightening. So far, I have no real idea as to why this occurred, and would like to be educated on this subject.

When I say defense of the Soviet Union as a socialist society, I don't mean "critical support" for it as a "degenerated workers' state." I mean defense of it as actual socialism in one country. That sounds an awful lot like Stalinism to me.

[RedScare]

I'm just glad they're not wasting time writing polemics about each other.

[Devrim]

its been 6 years. a demand for the PSL to "explain itself" is ridiculous. demanding either party to do something about this issue, especially from an internet messaging board is ridiculous. its like me demanding the CPGB and the CPGB-ML to reconcile some political difference.

I don't think that he seriously expects you to give an explanation. I assume it is a rhetorical device aimed at showing the nature of the organisations involved.

Devrim

[Unclebananahead]

When I say defense of the Soviet Union as a socialist society, I don't mean "critical support" for it as a "degenerated workers' state." I mean defense of it as actual socialism in one country. That sounds an awful lot like Stalinism to me.

Is that their actual stance? I asked Kassad or perhaps someone else to assist me in gaining a clearer understanding of just where the PSL stands on precisely this subject. Understandably, many members are with their families during this period of time, but it would be nice to get a serious response when they become available.

[RedTrackWorker]

its been 6 years. a demand for the PSL to "explain itself" is ridiculous. demanding either party to do something about this issue, especially from an internet messaging board is ridiculous.

I believe that revolution requires the greatest possible organization unity on the part of the working class. Length of time (6 years) or place of request (message board) has nothing to do with the content of what we're talking about, which is justifying to the workers' movement why you exist in separate organizations.

[RedTrackWorker]

I'm just glad they're not wasting time writing polemics about each other.

So you think it's good or at least acceptable for revolutionary workers to be divided between different organizations for no apparent reason?

[RedScare]

So you think it's good or at least acceptable for revolutionary workers to be divided between different organizations for no apparent reason?
If they were going to split anyways, I'd rather they split with no fuss and wasting time attacking each other.

[Rusty Shackleford]

the reality is, both parties to not have mass support. no revolutionary party in the US does. so, the revolutionary workers being divided? sure, its unfortunate. but as RedScare said, if it was going to happen, it would happen. its better to get things out of the way early on than to keep problems around for years.

and the rhetorical device i was criticizing seems to happen a lot on here. also, i didnt claim that the WWP was demanding an explanation.

the split happened. if there were a re-merger*, i would hope everyone on both sides would be as comradely as possible.

*hypothetical

[TC]

They PSL split for organizational reasons rather than ideological reasons. Normally this would be a bad thing because it divides their forces. But as it turned out, the PSL seems to have made the right call because it expanded rapidly and is now clearly a much larger, better organized, more active and better funded operation than the WWP was prior to the split. So rather than dividing their forces, the PSL expanded them. So I guess the WWP leadership was holding them back and the PSL was right to leave them for strategic gain. This was then an example of a split for the right reasons.

[28350]

I've never heard a WWP or a PSL member/leader give this as reasoning for the split.

This is what I've been told by higher-ups in the NYC branch of WWP. It may very well may not be the case, but it seems at least plausible given the remarkable similarity of the two parties' lines.

[Lucretia]

the reality is, both parties to not have mass support. no revolutionary party in the US does. so, the revolutionary workers being divided? sure, its unfortunate. but as RedScare said, if it was going to happen, it would happen. its better to get things out of the way early on than to keep problems around for years.

If it was going to happen, it would happen? So the split was inevitable, perhaps predestined by some supernatural force controlling people's decisions?

[Chimurenga.]

Because this thread is garbage and most of the posters in here have clearly never had a single interaction with the PSL or WWP, I'll post the PSL's side to this.

Axxm3JHgPPw

At around 1:10 touches on the split from our side. It was six years ago and we have moved on. The subject is no longer relevant. Clearly, our leadership was correct and that shows by our numbers and our presence in just about every relevant struggle there is. Since I've joined, I have never heard an unkind word about Workers World or any member of that party.

[Lucretia]

Because this thread is garbage and most of the posters in here have clearly never had a single interaction with the PSL or WWP, I'll post the PSL's side to this.

Garbage? What I see are a bunch of unanswered questions, which isn't surprising in light of how, as you state, "most of the posters in here have clearly never had a single interaction with the PSL or WWP."

With the kinds of attitudes being exhibited in this thread by people claiming affiliation with them, it's no wonder most people here haven't had a single interaction with them. Who would want to subject themselves to such constant threat of ridicule and abuse?

[Kassad]

I'm going to end with this.

To the person who is a WWP supporter, I've personally met with WWP activists to discuss the split before my membership. These are people who were there during the split and who have first-hand experience with it. I have also discussed it with PSL members, leaders and other activists. Basically, it came down to the fact that those who split did not believe the leadership of WWP was headed in the right direction. The PSL is now a lot larger and a lot more active than WWP. All in all, the split was a very good thing for the Marxist-Leninist movement because out of it emerged one of the largest and most active Marxist groups in the country.

To the dude from the League for the Revolutionary Party, we don't owe you a single thing. We are building an organization to struggle for socialism. We have had a lot of organizational success and a lot of growth. Your organization, on the other hand, has floundered around like a fish on fire for decades. As our members and leaders have said, it was unnecessary to ruthlessly attack WWP with our grievances because at the end of the day, we have succeeded in building a constantly growing organization that is having more success in the struggle than a lot of the socialist movement before it. You can gripe to me all day about what you want to know, but we don't really mind. We're going to keep building for revolution.

To Lucretia, you have literally embarrassed yourself. You came into this thread not knowing a single thing about either party and after a few days of discussion, you want to act well-versed in our line and our history? Go do some research and find out what you're talking about. The reason a lot of people haven't interacted with us is because they live in different countries. In the United States, the vast majority of the socialist movement has interacted with us because they have to -- we're becoming one of the most powerful forces on the left. We are not ridiculing or abusing anyone, despite your ridiculous claims.

I know as a PSL member that I am on the right side of the issue. I am in an organization that does not cling to outdated and failed methods and that's why we are growing every year. Hell, we're six years old and we're already much larger than organizations that have been around for decades. So you can slander, attack and say whatever you'd like. If you have any questions, PM me. I will not answer any further posts in this thread.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

From what I understand, the split was over who would succeed Sam Marcy in the leadership of the Party. The faction around La Riva felt they were getting cheated, so they split.

A comrade in WWP is always talking shit about PSL, and he has some valid points (which I won't raise here). He claims PSL isn't even Marcyite anymore, but from all my interactions with PSL comrades, he just doesn't know what he's talking about. He claims the two organizations have totally different lines now, but from where I sit, they seem identical, except that PSL ran an independent socialist campaign, while WWP supported the Green Party candidate.

It's pathetic, isn't it? Splitting over leadership succession? They should abolish leadership election and have the members elected to the highest organ of the party take a role of 'Chair' or 'Spokesperson' on a revolving basis.

Thanks for the info though, comrade. Insightful and helpful as ever.

[TC]

It's pathetic, isn't it? Splitting over leadership succession? They should abolish leadership election and have the members elected to the highest organ of the party take a role of 'Chair' or 'Spokesperson' on a revolving basis.

Thanks for the info though, comrade. Insightful and helpful as ever.


If you had read this thread in its entirety you'd realize that neither the PSL nor the WWP have a leadership election or any formal leader or chair at all - both are led by a group of members elected to a coordinating committee. This was true even before Sam Marcy died - he was a theoretical leader not at least at the time of his death, a general secretary or party chair or president - at least as I understand it.

[Lucretia]

I'm going to end with this.
To the person who is a WWP supporter, I've personally met with WWP activists to discuss the split before my membership. These are people who were there during the split and who have first-hand experience with it. I have also discussed it with PSL members, leaders and other activists. Basically, it came down to the fact that those who split did not believe the leadership of WWP was headed in the right direction.

So your answer is basically: the split happened because people weren't happy. How revealing.


To Lucretia, you have literally embarrassed yourself. You came into this thread not knowing a single thing about either party and after a few days of discussion, you want to act well-versed in our line and our history? Go do some research and find out what you're talking about. The reason a lot of people haven't interacted with us is because they live in different countries. In the United States, the vast majority of the socialist movement has interacted with us because they have to -- we're becoming one of the most powerful forces on the left. We are not ridiculing or abusing anyone, despite your ridiculous claims.

I don't feel the slightest bit embarrassed. I didn't come into this thread acting like a knew a lot about the party. On the contrary, I asked what was basically a simple question: aren't the WWP and the PSL relatively small Stalinist sects?

In response all I have seen is immature more-radical-than-thou braggadocio and petty hostility, which is why I personally would never have anything to do with PSL even if there were a branch organized right down the road. You really should learn to understand that when you brag to people that you're a member of an organization, you represent that organization. And all the attitudes you cop and questions you evade reflect on your organization as much as they reflect on you. If you're fine with that, okay. But understand that that's the case.

[∞]

You know, I may be an Anarchist but I actually like what the PSL is doing. I don't know much about the WWP.

[KurtFF8]

Damn, I was just about to post that video from the RSU that touches on the subject briefly. I suggest everyone who is interested in the PSL watch that talk by Richard Becker though. The split isn't quite explained but touched on, and the PSL's position on Stalin and actually existing socialism is explained a bit.

Any who, as to the subject of the split. It seems that it's lose lose. If the PSL had gone on a long polemic (or 6 years later decided to) against the WWP over the split, it would simply be accused by others on the Left of engaging in yet another cliche sectarian fight. "Oh look, 2 'small M-L parties' fighting each other/The working class doesn't care about this insignificant inter-fighting!" etc etc.

I think that if anything, reducing the split to the explanation of "there were clear organizational differences, and look at the results," kind of line is a nice break from that tradition of silly sectarian fighting amongst Communist parties in the United States.

I'm sick of the relationship of parties too often being to go to each others' conferences and yelling at others via silly one liners where nothing productive comes from it. That kind of stuff only hurts the Left, and that's perhaps one of the reasons that the PSL has done such a good job over the past 6 years at growing. It's this image of not being another typical "well our historical Communist leader [insert name here] held this position on this subject so we shall!" that has helped it seem more rational.


You know, I may be an Anarchist but I actually like what the PSL is doing. I don't know much about the WWP.

I know a few other Anarchists who feel the same way

[Raúl Duke]

I always like these threads because it's almost like part thriller, part conspiracy theorizing, and part gossip. Like, we all want to find out something "exciting" (perhaps for some leftists, idk)that might have been related to the split

In truth, does it matter anymore?
I'm not saying this to stop your discussion, by all means go ahead.
But in the end of the day, the split happened. Perhaps there's an ugly truth behind it but why dwell on the past if it seemingly has no bearing for the future of the PSL?
The PSL is growing/larger, or at least has a more wider presence, then the WWP and for all intents and purposes are "successful" as a US socialist party. The WWP however seems left in the dust.

Basically, I agree with this:


The PSL split for [what seems to be] organizational reasons rather than ideological reasons. Normally this would be a bad thing because it divides their forces. But as it turned out, the PSL seems to have made the right call because it expanded rapidly and is now clearly a much larger, better organized, more active and better funded operation than the WWP was prior to the split. So rather than dividing their forces, the PSL expanded them. So I guess the WWP leadership was holding them back and the PSL was right to leave them for strategic gain. This was then an example of a split for the right reasons.

[HEAD ICE]

I always like these threads because it's almost like part thriller, part conspiracy theorizing, and part gossip. Like, we all want to find out something "exciting" (perhaps for some leftists, idk)that might have been related to the split

You should get yourself acquainted with the splits from the ICC. It could be a damn movie. Theft, betrayal, double-cross, government spies, late night home invasions, "parasitism", and treacherous Free Masonry.

[Chimurenga.]

Garbage?

Who would want to subject themselves to such constant threat of ridicule and abuse?

Yes, garbage. It's among gossip and second or third hand accounts. None of this is based on experience but it is based on something someone heard one time.


What I see are a bunch of unanswered questions

It's funny. The video I posted actually answers a lot of questions in this thread.

[RedTrackWorker]

To the dude from the League for the Revolutionary Party, we don't owe you a single thing. We are building an organization to struggle for socialism. We have had a lot of organizational success and a lot of growth. Your organization, on the other hand, has floundered around like a fish on fire for decades.

I must not have been clear. I do not want to know why the WWP or PSL split for myself. You do not "owe" the LRP an explanation. You owe the workers' movement an explanation. If you do not think so or understand that, it's just another symptom of the fact that your organization is an obstacle to the workers' movement. Organizational success has zero correlation, in general, with political clarity. I can throw out examples I'm sure you know: the tiny number of organized internationalists after 1914. Rosa L. refusing to split the German SPD (but for public reasons of course). Nin merging with the Right Oppositionists--wanting "organizational success and a lot of growth" among other things. Better one against a thousand...
Yes, your organization is bigger than mine, more "dynamic," growing faster, here and there... Trotsky wrote more than once that those who judge political parties by such a standard still think like trade unionists, not revolutionists.
But perhaps I concentrated too much on a secondary point, when what we are dealing with is organizations (the WWP/PSL) that defend states using armed forces to crush workers' uprisings. Clearly such groupings are obstacles to the workers' movement, and if they're growing and more "dynamic," that just means they're growing and "dynamic" obstacles.

[Raúl Duke]

You should get yourself acquainted with the splits from the ICC. It could be a damn movie. Theft, betrayal, double-cross, government spies, late night home invasions, "parasitism", and treacherous Free Masonry.

I wish the genre of "leftist intrigue" existed

[the last donut of the night]

Aren't they both Stalinist sects with membership less than 100? Not to be offensive, but who cares?

this would be funnier if it were true. it just sounds ridiculous now

[Rusty Shackleford]

If it was going to happen, it would happen? So the split was inevitable, perhaps predestined by some supernatural force controlling people's decisions?
so i made a grammatical error. is that what you base your attacks upon me now?

[Lucretia]

this would be funnier if it were true. it just sounds ridiculous now

Which part of it isn't true? Please elaborate. I honestly would like to be informed about these two particular issues, but again, all I've gotten is sarcasm and the worst kind of smugness. It really doesn't reflect well on the party when its members refuse to answer basic questions, and act like anybody asking them is an out-of-line idiot daring to question the monarch.

[Lucretia]

so i made a grammatical error. is that what you base your attacks upon me now?

Actually, I wasn't attacking you for any grammar mistake. I expressed surprise at the content of the idea you stated. The idea being that if it was going to happen, then nothing could have stopped it, like it was some inevitable force.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Actually, I wasn't attacking you for any grammar mistake. I expressed surprise at the content of the idea you stated. The idea being that if it was going to happen, then nothing could have stopped it, like it was some inevitable force.
well i have no idea whether it was inevitable or not. but, what i am saying is that if it was going to happen, which it did, then it should just be put aside. its not that important compared to other issues at hand. but, why?

Proletarianrevolution's post answered basically everything from the PSL's side.

[Devrim]

Because this thread is garbage and most of the posters in here have clearly never had a single interaction with the PSL or WWP, I'll post the PSL's side to this.

Perhaps because both of them are small organisations with a presence in only one country.

Devrim

[The Hong Se Sun]

To clear up a few things real fast. Someone called the PSL a "Stalinist groups with less than a 100 members" this is untrue on both fronts there are more than double that number of members and many more supporters (people who vote for or help organize but do not pay dues)but the 600 people (that seems to be a way over estimate) mentioned is just how many people showed up to the conference and does not reflect the number of members.

As an ex PSL member who held a leadership role I can tell this: it was mainly over internal democracy. The people who left felt that they should continue to field candidates and felt like when they brought that up to the WWP leadership that they were ignored. There were also other minor reasons but the lack of internal democracy was the main reason I was given while I was in a leadership role and this info was given to me by Becker and someone else on the CC and both were members of the WWP during the split so there ya go.

[graymouser]

I think Bolshy is on to something here.

The main difference that I've seen is that Workers World Party has never seemed to prioritize "party-building" the way other groups do. They are willing to build mainly their front groups and strive to have better relations with activists of color by not challenging them politically or trying to recruit heavily from them. (That's not to say WWP doesn't have cadres of color, just that they have a different attitude toward the enterprise than most Trostkyist groups.) The Party for Socialism and Liberation seems to have reversed course on this, recruiting wherever and whenever they can, perhaps because ANSWER has more or less been at a standstill for influence in the anti-war movement. It's interesting to see that it's only since PSL emerged that Workers World set up a youth group, FIST, which I think is their attempt to have some engine of growth (much of their original cadre came in through Youth Against War and Fascism, the WWP youth group in the Vietnam days).

What's interesting in all this is that the impression I've gotten is that PSL recruits at a fairly low level of theoretical development and does not prioritize further learning and growth. This isn't to say that PSLers are all dullards or anything, but simply that the PSL openly prides itself on activism and cadre learning in other realms is more or less up to the individual. This is consistent with Marcyism, which has traditionally left most of the theoretical development to the layers at the top of the party. Marcy, Vince Copeland, nowadays Fred Goldstein of WWP and Richard Becker of PSL are capable of significant theoretical work, but that isn't the main thrust of the party.

I do think PSL owes the movements (antiwar and labor) that it's attempting to lead an explanation of what it thought was wrong with WWP. This is a party that has just released a program for state power. They should be able to explain to the workers why they exist as a separate tendency from WWP when you would be hard pressed to find a serious difference in line between Liberation and Workers World newspapers.

[Chimurenga.]

What's interesting in all this is that the impression I've gotten is that PSL recruits at a fairly low level of theoretical development and does not prioritize further learning and growth.

Completely false. There is a six month candidacy (in which members in candidacy are sent additional readings and books) period followed by smaller reading groups depending on if the member wants to do that or not. Members are encouraged to take part in these reading groups and members are encouraged to develop theoretically.

[Wanted Man]

Which part of it isn't true? Please elaborate. I honestly would like to be informed about these two particular issues, but again, all I've gotten is sarcasm and the worst kind of smugness. It really doesn't reflect well on the party when its members refuse to answer basic questions, and act like anybody asking them is an out-of-line idiot daring to question the monarch.

How was your question honest and open in any way? Can you really blame people for thinking that it was insincere, when it sounded like a rhetorical question with two pejoratives in it? I mean:


Aren't they both Stalinist sects with membership less than 100? Not to be offensive, but who cares?

How would you like it if someone said: "Isn't Lucretia basically a smug dickhead? Why does anyone even bother to address his questions?" Would you put on a smile and calmly give people 10 reasons why you are, in fact, neither smug nor a dickhead, or would you tell them to fuck off with their passively aggressive faux-questions?

Basically, with the phrasing and choice of words of your question, I daresay that 99% of the people who are the subjects of the question (PSL and WWP supporters in this instance) would consider it insincere, especially since you professed disinterest in it from the beginning. Which also turned out to be false, since you've kept adding "contributions" to this thread afterwards.


You should get yourself acquainted with the splits from the ICC. It could be a damn movie. Theft, betrayal, double-cross, government spies, late night home invasions, "parasitism", and treacherous Free Masonry.

Well, start a thread on it. I think it would be pretty funny. I don't know anything about the topic, so I would definitely read it.


I must not have been clear. I do not want to know why the WWP or PSL split for myself. You do not "owe" the LRP an explanation. You owe the workers' movement an explanation. If you do not think so or understand that, it's just another symptom of the fact that your organization is an obstacle to the workers' movement. Organizational success has zero correlation, in general, with political clarity. I can throw out examples I'm sure you know: the tiny number of organized internationalists after 1914. Rosa L. refusing to split the German SPD (but for public reasons of course). Nin merging with the Right Oppositionists--wanting "organizational success and a lot of growth" among other things. Better one against a thousand...
Yes, your organization is bigger than mine, more "dynamic," growing faster, here and there... Trotsky wrote more than once that those who judge political parties by such a standard still think like trade unionists, not revolutionists.
But perhaps I concentrated too much on a secondary point, when what we are dealing with is organizations (the WWP/PSL) that defend states using armed forces to crush workers' uprisings. Clearly such groupings are obstacles to the workers' movement, and if they're growing and more "dynamic," that just means they're growing and "dynamic" obstacles.

Size certainly isn't everything, but it can mean something. It seems that, unlike many left parties in the US, the PSL didn't get its current position by simply tailing radical liberals or any other class-collaborationist crap. And they also consciously decided to break out of the left-sectarian ghetto. They may not take pride into being (relatively) "big" in itself, but they may well be damn proud of the reasons for this.

So anyway, since you consider them an "obstacle", since you are in an organisation that doesn't feel the need to justify itself in terms of size; what do you have to offer the working class? Why should anyone listen to you and your opinions about other parties being obstacles? How does your shit stink any less?

I'd say these are all questions that some groups consistently fail to answer. Most often, they are actually quite proud of this fact, because at least they still have their theoretical purity. But if this theory is of no practical consequence, what is it good for? Surely in that case it's just a set of Articles of Faith.

[Kassad]

As an ex PSL member who held a leadership role I can tell this: it was mainly over internal democracy. The people who left felt that they should continue to field candidates and felt like when they brought that up to the WWP leadership that they were ignored. There were also other minor reasons but the lack of internal democracy was the main reason I was given while I was in a leadership role and this info was given to me by Becker and someone else on the CC and both were members of the WWP during the split so there ya go.

Sorry, I have to comment on this. I'm almost positive I know who you are and what kind of leadership role do you think you held because I'm quite confident you held none.

[Devrim]

So you can slander, attack and say whatever you'd like. If you have any questions, PM me. I will not answer any further posts in this thread.

A whole 22 posts later:


Sorry, I have to comment on this. I'm almost positive I know who you are and what kind of leadership role do you think you held because I'm quite confident you held none.

If you must make 'dramatic exits', not to return again, please don't make yourself look even more foolish by coming back on the next page.


How was your question honest and open in any way? Can you really blame people for thinking that it was insincere, when it sounded like a rhetorical question with two pejoratives in it? I mean:

How would you like it if someone said: "Isn't Lucretia basically a smug dickhead? Why does anyone even bother to address his questions?" Would you put on a smile and calmly give people 10 reasons why you are, in fact, neither smug nor a dickhead, or would you tell them to fuck off with their passively aggressive faux-questions?

Basically, with the phrasing and choice of words of your question, I daresay that 99% of the people who are the subjects of the question (PSL and WWP supporters in this instance) would consider it insincere, especially since you professed disinterest in it from the beginning. Which also turned out to be false, since you've kept adding "contributions" to this thread afterwards.

To be fair, and just to make it clear I have no sympathy for groups like the PSL, and consider that them and other groups who run around holding meetings with the President of Iran to be thoroughly anti-working class, some of them have behaved like spoilt children on this thread.

If I were neutral, which I make no claim at all to be, all of this bluster and bravado over a bit of very mild criticism wouldn't impress me.

Devrim

[Kassad]

It's not foolish. I'm done debating the split and issues along those lines because it's an endless debate. However, if someone comes in and poses as a former leader of my party, I'm going to say something about it. Get off the high horse, buddy.

[Devrim]

It's not foolish. I'm done debating the split and issues along those lines because it's an endless debate. However, if someone comes in and poses as a former leader of my party, I'm going to say something about it. Get off the high horse, buddy.

I thought you weren't posting on this thread anymore.
:laugh:

Devrim

[Lucretia]

How was your question honest and open in any way? Can you really blame people for thinking that it was insincere, when it sounded like a rhetorical question with two pejoratives in it? I mean:

How would you like it if someone said: "Isn't Lucretia basically a smug dickhead? Why does anyone even bother to address his questions?" Would you put on a smile and calmly give people 10 reasons why you are, in fact, neither smug nor a dickhead, or would you tell them to fuck off with their passively aggressive faux-questions?

Basically, with the phrasing and choice of words of your question, I daresay that 99% of the people who are the subjects of the question (PSL and WWP supporters in this instance) would consider it insincere, especially since you professed disinterest in it from the beginning. Which also turned out to be false, since you've kept adding "contributions" to this thread afterwards.

The fact that I posted in this thread and continued to post in it even after being treated like a persona non grata shows that I do have some interest in the questions being discussed here. If anybody had any questions about whether I intended to offend members of either party, all they had to do was read what I wrote, which was prefaced with a statement that I did not wish to offend anybody.

The rest of my remark were questions, not statements. And sorry, I don't think calling somebody a smug dickhead is the equivalent of asking whether two parties are small Stalinist sects. I know of a good number of Marxist-Leninist parties that have no problem with being labeled Stalinist. I know of no person that would accept the label "smug dickhead."

But go ahead, keep whining about my tone as an excuse not to address the content of my questions.

[Rusty Shackleford]

What's interesting in all this is that the impression I've gotten is that PSL recruits at a fairly low level of theoretical development and does not prioritize further learning and growth. This isn't to say that PSLers are all dullards or anything, but simply that the PSL openly prides itself on activism and cadre learning in other realms is more or less up to the individual. This is consistent with Marcyism, which has traditionally left most of the theoretical development to the layers at the top of the party. Marcy, Vince Copeland, nowadays Fred Goldstein of WWP and Richard Becker of PSL are capable of significant theoretical work, but that isn't the main thrust of the party.


i have to say something about this.

not everyone that joins a communist party is a well versed marxist. if the only goal was theoretical development we would collapse into a debate society. were not here to just debate but to work. i think thats what drew me mostly to the PSL. its not an overbearing theoretical debate society, but it doesnt ignore theoretical development. every meeting be it internal or public is a point of theoretical development. but the main focus is on building a movement.

to say that only the leadership is well versed though is ridiculous. many comrades of mine are very well read and at the same time are very active. this isnt to say the leadership isnt more developed. the under 30 group of the party is growing very quickly. a lot of new people who 3 years ago may have not had an interest in politics at all.

[Wanted Man]

The fact that I posted in this thread and continued to post in it even after being treated like a persona non grata shows that I do have some interest in the questions being discussed here. If anybody had any questions about whether I intended to offend members of either party, all they had to do was read what I wrote, which was prefaced with a statement that I did not wish to offend anybody.

Well yes, prefixing anything that might offend with "No offence, but..." is pretty cute, but it doesn't exactly change the content. I can still imagine why people would consider the question insincere.

I also think you're protesting a bit much about "being treated like a persona non grata". Who's whining now? One always gets some dumb responses on internet fora, but I believe most people simply countered the criticism in your "question".


The rest of my remark were questions, not statements. And sorry, I don't think calling somebody a smug dickhead is the equivalent of asking whether two parties are small Stalinist sects.

Of course it's hyperbolic, but do you understand the point about insincere and rhetorical questions?


I know of a good number of Marxist-Leninist parties that have no problem with being labeled Stalinist.

Name three.


But go ahead, keep whining about my tone as an excuse not to address the content of my questions.

Well surely if people are whining, they've learned it from the biggest expert in this thread. You seem like someone who A) Provokes people and then whines when called on it and B) Someone who can dish out but can't take it. Seems to me like people made the good choice in how to address you ("treat you as a persona non grata", lol). Go cry some more.

[Lucretia]

Well yes, prefixing anything that might offend with "No offence, but..." is pretty cute, but it doesn't exactly change the content. I can still imagine why people would consider the question insincere.

I also think you're protesting a bit much about "being treated like a persona non grata". Who's whining now? One always gets some dumb responses on internet fora, but I believe most people simply countered the criticism in your "question".



Of course it's hyperbolic, but do you understand the point about insincere and rhetorical questions?



Name three.



Well surely if people are whining, they've learned it from the biggest expert in this thread. You seem like someone who A) Provokes people and then whines when called on it and B) Someone who can dish out but can't take it. Seems to me like people made the good choice in how to address you ("treat you as a persona non grata", lol). Go cry some more.

So I can take from this that, no, you aren't going to address the content of my questions. I think that pretty much reveals what your purpose in this thread is. Grow up.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I wish the genre of "leftist intrigue" existed

There actually are a few books about things like this. Some of them are written by rightists though.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm really enjoying people talking about the PSL when they have no actual experience with them at all. Anyone who does have experience working with us would speak quite to the contrary of what a lot of people are suggesting.

I've had quite a few experiences with PSLers. I've been to meetings and events and met Brian and Ben Becker. I would agree with most of the criticisms leveled against the PSL and add quite a few more.


It seems that, unlike many left parties in the US, the PSL didn't get its current position by simply tailing radical liberals or any other class-collaborationist crap.

Is this a joke?

They lead A.N.S.W.E.R., which is one of the biggest multi-class popular fronts in the United States.

They share stages with all sorts of reactionaries without as much as raising a word of criticism against them.

They support the bureaucratic leaders of unions that derail struggles and states that attack the working class.

[Zanthorus]

its like me demanding the CPGB and the CPGB-ML to reconcile some political difference.

Just to clarify, this is actually a pretty bad example for your purposes, since the CPGB and the CPGB-ML are not splits from one another, and the two organisations have different lines, in particular on the question of 'actually existing socialism'. The CPGB has positions which some would regard as 'Trotskyist' whereas the CPGB-ML uncritically defends practically every regime which calls itself socialist.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Just to clarify, this is actually a pretty bad example for your purposes, since the CPGB and the CPGB-ML are not splits from one another, and the two organisations have different lines, in particular on the question of 'actually existing socialism'. The CPGB has positions which some would regard as 'Trotskyist' whereas the CPGB-ML uncritically defends practically every regime which calls itself socialist.
it wasnt an "aha!" post, i know it was bad. i dont know the relation between the two parties. i was just trying to come up with an example off the top of my head. :lol:

[graymouser]

i have to say something about this.

not everyone that joins a communist party is a well versed marxist. if the only goal was theoretical development we would collapse into a debate society. were not here to just debate but to work. i think thats what drew me mostly to the PSL. its not an overbearing theoretical debate society, but it doesnt ignore theoretical development. every meeting be it internal or public is a point of theoretical development. but the main focus is on building a movement.

to say that only the leadership is well versed though is ridiculous. many comrades of mine are very well read and at the same time are very active. this isnt to say the leadership isnt more developed. the under 30 group of the party is growing very quickly. a lot of new people who 3 years ago may have not had an interest in politics at all.
I don't want to turn this into a huge debate over theoretical development in Marcyism, but I've talked to people who left the PSL because they felt it did not have much to offer in terms of serious education and development of cadres in Marxist theory. I understand that members want to defend their party but the truth is that Marcyites pride themselves on activism and not theoretical expertise, and that's how it has always been. Like I said, serious study is something members can do but I've never had the impression that it is taken as a priority, and you pretty much confirm this with what you call the "main focus."

[The Hong Se Sun]

Sorry, I have to comment on this. I'm almost positive I know who you are and what kind of leadership role do you think you held because I'm quite confident you held none.

You do know who I am and if a head organizer of a branch (elected unanimously by 4 people at the meeting, endorsed by the midwest head organizer and approved by the three non-attending in the next meeting) is not a seat of leadership then you are right. The number (I have been told bby people on the CC) is more around 350 of members but of course that is not an exact number seeing as how it would be ignorant to keep records of all members/numbers.

[Kassad]

You do know who I am and if a head organizer of a branch (elected unanimously by 4 people at the meeting, endorsed by the midwest head organizer and approved by the three non-attending in the next meeting) is not a seat of leadership then you are right.

It isn't. You should give the Constitution a read sometime. :)

[The Hong Se Sun]

It is actually! hints the word HEAD before organizer! makes me the highest rank person in the branch :) I thought you weren't posting anymore parrot boy?

[Kassad]

Not being terribly knowledgeable on the subject, I have thus far refrained from commenting on things with which I am not immensely familiar. However, in view of the fact that you seem to be fishing for my comrade's personal information solely by virtue of the fact that he severed his relationship with your party, I feel that I must intervene to request that you not pursue this said course even one step further. There are obvious security issues at stake. He has severed his relationship with your party. That should be enough of his personal information for you.

I said I know who he is, meaning I'm aware of the scenario regarding his claims of leadership and such. I'm not asking him to reveal his personal information, nor would I ever post his name or whereabouts publicly. I know exactly who he is and that's more than enough for me. Do you ever make a post that isn't just incredibly inane?

[Devrim]

I will not answer any further posts in this thread.

Since making this clear to us, you have now made three more posts.
:laugh:

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

The CPGB has positions which some would regard as 'Trotskyist' whereas the CPGB-ML uncritically defends practically every regime which calls itself socialist.

Not quite fair. They critically defend any country that calls itself socialist and seem to place anti-imperialism over class conflict in England.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just to clarify, this is actually a pretty bad example for your purposes, since the CPGB and the CPGB-ML are not splits from one another, and the two organisations have different lines, in particular on the question of 'actually existing socialism'. The CPGB has positions which some would regard as 'Trotskyist' whereas the CPGB-ML uncritically defends practically every regime which calls itself socialist.


Not quite fair. They critically defend any country that calls itself socialist and seem to place anti-imperialism over class conflict in England.

I think what Rusty had in mind was some form of conciliation between the CPB and the CPGB-ML, though I find it hard to believe from my Google searches that the latter calls the British Road to Socialism "revisionist." Which British Road document? They don't make this clear.

[Palingenisis]

I think what Rusty had in mind was some form of conciliation between the CPB and the CPGB-ML, though I find it hard to believe from my Google searches that the latter calls the British Road to Socialism "revisionist." Which British Road document? They don't make this clear.

There was a famous document put out by the original CPGB called "The British road to Socialism" which laid out the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in Britain which started the formal split between Marxism-Leninism and Soviet revisionism in the UK....Thats the one I presume they mean. They arent a Hoxhaist or Maoist group though and as well as their support for countries calling themselves socialist they have links with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) which not only rejects the current armed struggle but is firmly social-democratic.

[Zanthorus]

There was a famous document put out by the original CPGB called "The British road to Socialism" which laid out the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in Britain which started the formal split between Marxism-Leninism and Soviet revisionism in the UK.

I will start another thread on this.