World Socialist Movement?

[Broletariat]

Could anyone tell me a bit about them, I'm more specifically interested in the USA branch. What tendency do they classify themselves as? What makes them unique from groups that also classify themselves as that tendency? etc.

[Sixiang]

It looks like they are left communist and libertarian socialist. They identify with the following political parties:

SPGB (Great Britain), WSPA (Australia), SPC (Canada), WSPI (Ireland), WSPNZ (New Zealand), WSPUS (United States)

[Broletariat]

It looks like they are left communist and libertarian socialist. They identify with the following political parties:

SPGB (Great Britain), WSPA (Australia), SPC (Canada), WSPI (Ireland), WSPNZ (New Zealand), WSPUS (United States)
I kind of figured they were left com, but I wanted to make sure. How do they compare to the ICC and the ICT?

[graymouser]

The WSM is not left communist. They are "impossibilists" - one of the early tendencies in the socialist movement that holds that any kind of intervention in the day-to-day political struggle is futile, and they want to organize to the point where they can simply win the elections and take power in that way. They are somewhat similar to the De Leonists, but differ in that De Leon stressed the "socialist industrial union" as a strategy for organization (which was attempted on a practical scale by DeLeonist participation in the early IWW, but they split in favor of their own "political" red union) whereas the WSM holds that this is a mistake and simply organizes as educational parties.

I've mostly heard about the British party, the Socialist Party of Great Britain (known pejoratively as the "Small Party of Good Boys") which is a sort of semi-hereditary sect* noteworthy for giving prospective members a test on their interpretation of socialist politics. I've never run into the American party in the real world.

* Literally - a lot of SPGB members are 3rd generation or so.

[Broletariat]

The WSM is not left communist. They are "impossibilists" - one of the early tendencies in the socialist movement that holds that any kind of intervention in the day-to-day political struggle is futile, and they want to organize to the point where they can simply win the elections and take power in that way. They are somewhat similar to the De Leonists, but differ in that De Leon stressed the "socialist industrial union" as a strategy for organization (which was attempted on a practical scale by DeLeonist participation in the early IWW, but they split in favor of their own "political" red union) whereas the WSM holds that this is a mistake and simply organizes as educational parties.

I've mostly heard about the British party, the Socialist Party of Great Britain (known pejoratively as the "Small Party of Good Boys") which is a sort of semi-hereditary sect* noteworthy for giving prospective members a test on their interpretation of socialist politics. I've never run into the American party in the real world.

* Literally - a lot of SPGB members are 3rd generation or so.
Ahh alright thanks a lot, none of this sort of stuff was on their website.

[Aesop]

In addition i don't think that the SPGB is supportive of workers direct actions such as strikes.
As greymouser says they are not left communist, in fact the SPGB think of left communist organsations like the ICC are crypto-trots(something on the lines of that).

[graymouser]

Ahh alright thanks a lot, none of this sort of stuff was on their website.
The SPGB has a blog which can be amusing from time to time.

Socialism or Your Money Back (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/)

[mikelepore]

The name "world socialist" refers to their principle that socialism can only be a worldwide system that doesn't have any national boundaries. I largely agree with them about this, but I believe it's necessary to spell out the process of establishing socialism within each country, and then having the countries merge their economic administrations, until no boundaries remain. I have never seen their literature describe that process. To fail to say it makes it sound as though they expect the revolution to occur worldwide simultaneously.