PSL and/or ICC Comrades [Archive]

Leo

4th February 2011, 17:41

Because the PSL and all other so called "communist" or "socialist" organizations other than the ICC are the "left of capital" Actually, the ICC considers other left communist organizations such as the International Communist Tendency, various Bordigist organizations using the name the International Communist Party, the councilists, the segment of anarchism which are internationalist (ie the anarchists who are opposed to all bourgeois wars, nation states and nationalist ideologies) as well as non-left communist but marxist organizations such as OPOP in Brazil, the Marxist-Humanists, the Luxemburgists, the De Leonists and so on to be genuine revolutionaries and comrades. It is not about our organization and other organizations. What we consider to be revolutionary positions and above all internationalism is what actually matters to us.

Are you sure you're left communists and not a Leninist in the 'What is To Be Done' "vanguardist" sense of the word? Left communists are, as is the ICC, critical of several aspects of What is to be done, specifically the influence of Kautsky on the point that it is the petty-bourgeoisie bringing consciousness to the working class. However we do agree with the main organizational conception the Bolsheviks put forward against the Mensheviks, and are not in favor of a mass party controlled by a few leaders but in favor of a narrow party which is a body of active and conscious militants. Of course, the left communist current historically got its name from being the left wing in the Communist International, and had been one with the Bolsheviks during its formation. The points of departure for the left communists from the Comintern was not a democratic criticism of the Bolshevik understanding of organization, but questions such as participation in the parliaments and the trade-unions.

If you are actually interested in our position on What is to be done: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2

Because that sounds awfully elitist, awfully professional intellectual revolutionary type, awfully introverted and hardly connected to the working class.Incidentally, there was no mention of anything about professionals or intellectuals in what I wrote. We don't agree with having as a principle professional revolutionaries, ie full-timers. Funnily enough, an overwhelming majority of our militants are workers.

Should I read from your comment that you think ordinary workers can't reach political and theoretical clarity?

Why? Well, because they aren't genuinely part of the working class and the ICC is! How do you know? Well, because...the ICC says so!We consider organizations like the PSL, and other Stalinists and Trotskysts to be a left wing of capital because of their political positions. They are defenders of national states in imperialist wars, in effect cheerleading for the proletarians in those countries to sacrifice themselves for the interests of the nation and they reinforce parliamentary, trade-unionist and democratic illusions among the working class. I am sure, of course, that a good deal of them are actually well intentioned students and some of them are either well intentioned part-time workers or even full-time workers. The class-composition of their membership does not determine the nature of their political positions, however.

All forms of non-working class politics, whether the PSL or the Democrats or the Tea Party or Italian Fascists are also just as badNo, of course not. Lets support the PSL against the Democrats, the Democrats against the Tea Party and the Tea Party against the Italian Fascists. This way we will be supporting everything within capitalism against the other. Makes perfect sense, this is the way to oppose capitalism. (sarcasm)

Blackscare

4th February 2011, 17:54

we will not stop discussing with them on other matters if they wish to continue discussing with us.

Incidentally, that's exactly what happened to me via email with the ICC.

Blackscare

4th February 2011, 18:04

the organizations of the bourgeois left such as the PSL will recruit some people - and we can't aim to steal their recruits as we need an infinitely deeper conviction of action and clarity on the theoretical positions than groups like the PSL.

Also, I'd like to add how incredibly elitist this is. Not only is the PSL part of the "bourgeois left", but people interested in it wouldn't even have the "conviction of action and clarity" to be cadre in the ICC if they decided to join! I like some elements of the Left-Communist tradition, but I have to say that after interacting a bit with people off this site and reading the stuff you're saying Leo, I really can't see it as anything other than a divisive political dead-end.

Also it was more than a bit condescending to say that "I'm sure you have a bunch of well-intentioned students, even a few workers", as if the ICC is so much more authentically proletarian.

gorillafuck

4th February 2011, 20:03

[sarcasm]Because the PSL and all other so called "communist" or "socialist" organizations other than the ICC are the "left of capital" and cannot be genuine representatives of the workers. Neither can the unions, that are, you know, composed of workers. You see, whenever anyone tries to advance working class interests, or socialism, they aren't really part of the working class, they're part of the bourgeois left, unless they're the ICC, then, for complex deep theoretical reasons, they are truly of the working class in a fundamentally different way.

TC has got it right in her own hyperbolic sarcastic little way (I guess she wants to ban calling someone a dumbass, but not ban being sarcastic as fuck, how funny). The reason is because the ICC opposes the PSL's politics outright as bourgeois, therefore if you agree with the ICC you wouldn't have any interest in joining the PSL.

L.A.P.

4th February 2011, 20:43

What is the PSL doing in Florida?

I know it is quite a demoralizing and self-consuming experience, being an "activist" of a Stalinist or a Trotskyist party. I wouldn't suggest it to any human being.

I couldn't imagine being an activist for a Luxemburgist party would be any better if not worse.:p

Kassad

4th February 2011, 20:48

What is the PSL doing in Florida?

We actually have several branches there. If you'd like to get in touch with them, let me know.

I couldn't imagine being an activist for a Luxemburgist party would be any better if not worse.:p

Let alone one that could probably hold its international convention in my closet.

4th February 2011, 21:00

Actually, the ICC considers other left communist organizations such as the International Communist Tendency, various Bordigist organizations using the name the International Communist Party, the councilists, the segment of anarchism which are internationalist (ie the anarchists who are opposed to all bourgeois wars, nation states and nationalist ideologies) as well as non-left communist but marxist organizations such as OPOP in Brazil, the Marxist-Humanists, the Luxemburgists, the De Leonists and so on to be genuine revolutionaries and comrades. It is not about our organization and other organizations. What we consider to be revolutionary positions and above all internationalism is what actually matters to us.

Fair enough.

Left communists are, as is the ICC, critical of several aspects of What is to be done, specifically the influence of Kautsky on the point that it is the petty-bourgeoisie bringing consciousness to the working class. However we do agree with the main organizational conception the Bolsheviks put forward against the Mensheviks, and are not in favor of a mass party controlled by a few leaders but in favor of a narrow party which is a body of active and conscious militants. Of course, the left communist current historically got its name from being the left wing in the Communist International, and had been one with the Bolsheviks during its formation. The points of departure for the left communists from the Comintern was not a democratic criticism of the Bolshevik understanding of organization, but questions such as participation in the parliaments and the trade-unions.

Its very strange then that anarchists and left-communists seem to express affinity for one another when really, the (correct, in my opinion) anarchist criticism of 'what is to be done' leninism applies equally to left-communists. Anyways I knew that the "left-communists" that broke with Lenin did so over trade unions and parliaments (as thats in "Left Communism an Infintile Disorder") but I wasn't sure that that was actually the same tradition as the ICC is in today.

Incidentally, there was no mention of anything about professionals or intellectuals in what I wrote. We don't agree with having as a principle professional revolutionaries, ie full-timers. Funnily enough, an overwhelming majority of our militants are workers.

Should I read from your comment that you think ordinary workers can't reach political and theoretical clarity?

Should I read from your comment that you think ordinary workers can't be intellectual?

I think the belief that "theoretical clarity" is a necessity for self-emancipation, for political and class consciousness, adopts a bourgeois elitist attitude that values certain specific types of highly refined political awareness while discounting the type of political awareness that more frequently enables self-emancipation: the practical experiential awareness from one's own alienation that leads one to make practical demands. You don't need "theoretical clarity" and you don't need to have everything worked out to recognize the facts on the ground and what has to change. You might need a special theoretical position to come to a really academic and politically marginal position though.

We consider organizations like the PSL, and other Stalinists and Trotskysts to be a left wing of capital because of their political positions. They are defenders of national states in imperialist wars, in effect cheerleading for the proletarians in those countries to sacrifice themselves for the interests of the nation

Not at all, the PSL and other Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists, from the Cliffites psudo-Trotskyists to the anti-revisionists, are relatively disinterested in nations - they are interested in people resisting the super-exploitation and bodily destruction brought on by imperialist invasion/occupations and proxy-dictatorships.

When I say I support resistance to imperialism its not because I give a damn about any national identity but because 1. I would rather see people resist than submit, and if they're being attacked, to fight back 2. the local and historic consequences of imperialist superexploitation is greater in most cases than national bourgeois exploitation because it is more intense and strategically harder to defeat (its better armed and its headquartered thousands of miles away).

and they reinforce parliamentary, trade-unionist and democratic illusions among the working class.

I don't see how you can claim to support working class struggle while abandoning the working class's principle 'peace time' vehicle of class struggle, unionization - one of the only means by which workers have to resist greater degrees of exploitation, short of armed revolt which they are unprepared and illequipt for and unwilling to attempt. Without unions things would be even worse than they are now and only a position outside of the working classes can sustain a notion that todays workers should be worse off for theoretical gains tomorrow.

The class-composition of their membership does not determine the nature of their political positions, however.

I agree with you on this point as it applies to both the PSL and the ICC and every other organization and I appreciate very much that you make it. It is good to see that you are on the right side of this crucial point since there is at least one group active on revleft that promotes a mystical/metaphysical belief in the connection between class composition and politics.

No, of course not. Lets support the PSL against the Democrats, the Democrats against the Tea Party and the Tea Party against the Italian Fascists. This way we will be supporting everything within capitalism against the other. Makes perfect sense, this is the way to oppose capitalism. (sarcasm)

Sorry to be dense, but sarcasm aside - do you actually support the PSL against the democrats etc - or not. Since, while I don't think the PSL is within capitalism, even if I did, divide to conquer seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy when it can be executed successfully.

gorillafuck

4th February 2011, 21:35

Its very strange then that anarchists and left-communists seem to express affinity for one another when really, the (correct, in my opinion) anarchist criticism of 'what is to be done' leninism applies equally to left-communists.
I also find that weird, especially since anarchists and left-coms are completely different on centralization, democracy, and "the party" (at least Bordiga type left-coms, dunno about others).

Sorry to be dense, but sarcasm aside - do you actually support the PSL against the democrats etc - or not. Since, while I don't think the PSL is within capitalism, even if I did, divide to conquer seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy when it can be executed successfully.
What actual weight would be behind supporting the PSL against the dems? Especially considering that there isn't even a conflict between them.

black magick hustla

4th February 2011, 21:40

I think the belief that "theoretical clarity" is a necessity for self-emancipation, for political and class consciousness, adopts a bourgeois elitist attitude that values certain specific types of highly refined political awareness while discounting the type of political awareness that more frequently enables self-emancipation: the practical experiential awareness from one's own alienation that leads one to make practical demands. You don't need "theoretical clarity" and you don't need to have everything worked out to recognize the facts on the ground and what has to change. You might need a special theoretical position to come to a really academic and politically marginal position though.

i think there is a problem of communication here. first, the working class self-emancipates itself. this is not just some theoretical gimmick from the annals of ancient, arcane councilist knowledge but on the contrary the "theories" behind that statement where written in the revolutionary waves ofthe early 20th century when it was evident that workers in times of struggle adopt their own para-state organs. first it might be the general assemblies, then the worker councils, which sprung in places like russia, germany, and iran. what this means is in more vulgar and maldoror terms is that when you have a fucking boot in your face and you realize your condition you organize out of almost necessity. a fascist worker can strike a longside a communist worker in lieu of their positions as the productive class. so in a sense, "communist theoretical clarity" is not the engine that pushes folks to struggle against this world. communists are a minority within the class and their destiny is tied to the historical situation of the class. so i don't see how this is "elitist". you won't get laid more, you won't become cooler, you won't get any benefits from joining a left communist organization. we acknowledge our own insignificance before history. the whole point of centralism in left communist organizations is not so much the creation of an enlightened guard but the idea that militants in an organization need to participate in its life. a lot of organizations are all about having mindless footsoldiers that have not thought about the positions and their leaders just order them to do shit and they do not participate in the decisions of the organization. this is not only an ailment of the "leninist" left but even anarchist groups sometimes have macho loud nerds arising as defacto leaders and they are unaccountable.

L.A.P.

5th February 2011, 04:26

We actually have several branches there. If you'd like to get in touch with them, let me know.

I applied online but I don't know how well that's going to work out so it would be great if I could get to the nearest branch. I would imagine that it would still be a bit far away since not only do I live in a small city but one that is economically controlled by billionaire's with second homes here and the working class are apolitical so it's a very right-wing place.

Let alone one that could probably hold its international convention in my closet.

I never got why they always refer to themselves as "international" when in reality it's not the International Communist Current but more like "Barely Local Communist Current".

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th February 2011, 07:46

I never got why they always refer to themselves as "international"

Probably because they have members and supporters in several different countries.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

5th February 2011, 07:49

On a personal level, I would argue against anyone joining the PSL, and had a personal friend of mine, for instance, been thinking about it I would indeed try to dissuade him or her from doing so - I know it is quite a demoralizing and self-consuming experience, being an "activist" of a Stalinist or a Trotskyist party. I wouldn't suggest it to any human being.

This bears repeating in my opinion.

Blackscare, the reason people felt the need to point out the differences between groups like the ICC and PSL and the apparent contradiction of considering involving yourself in one or the other is because there are profound political differences.

The most central to the question you've posed is how they relate to activism, intervention and practical activity in general.

The PSL is an activist group and prides itself on it's activism. In this respect it is no different to so many left groups, the only difference being the size and skope of their activity.

Communists (including groups like the ICC), on the other hand, have a very profound criticism of activism, one that defines their existence and activity.

Of course, faced with the barbaity of capitalism, it is natural to feel the urge to 'do something', no matter what. To sell newspapers, to give out pamphlets, to organise marches and demonstrations outside embassies, etc. etc.

As maldoror notes though, the destiny of revolutionaries, ie. their immediate, practical role and the potentiality of meaningful intervention is tied to the historic situation of the class struggle.

You can hold all the marches and rallies against the war, against military aid to this or that nation, against inaction on environmental issues, in support of gay marriage, in support of abortion rights, etc. etc. But you will never, by propoganda and demonstrations, win over the class and recruit them one-by-one. Of course this kind of activity, which is essentially oriented towards recruitment offers a kind of immediate satisfaction, of growing numbers, of 'doing something', hell, maybe even being lambasted by right-wing media demogogues. But at the end of the day, it is a complete dead end, and the mass of ex-activists who've been recruited starry-eyed, self-sacrificed for the cause and wound up worn-out and demoralised stands as testament to this.

My personal advice to you would be to try and grapple with these issues, being as they are so fundamental to any sort of political activity. Of course, this can't just be done on an individual level, it needs a collective framework. Correspondance with groups like the ICC and (god-forbid!) the PSL, discussion groups and online forums like revleft offer a space where you can do this.

Nic.

robbo203

5th February 2011, 08:45

This bears repeating in my opinion.

You can hold all the marches and rallies against the war, against military aid to this or that nation, against inaction on environmental issues, in support of gay marriage, in support of abortion rights, etc. etc. But you will never, by propoganda and demonstrations, win over the class and recruit them one-by-one. Of course this kind of activity, which is essentially oriented towards recruitment offers a kind of immediate satisfaction, of growing numbers, of 'doing something', hell, maybe even being lambasted by right-wing media demogogues. But at the end of the day, it is a complete dead end, and the mass of ex-activists who've been recruited starry-eyed, self-sacrificed for the cause and wound up worn-out and demoralised stands as testament to this..

This is so true and accounts for the compartively high turnover of such organisations. My problem with them is the complete disconnect between their "activism" and the innumerable campaigns they engage in for this or that reform, on the one hand, and the revolutiuonary socialist objective of tranforming the economic basis of society, of overthrowing the wages system lock stock and barrel. These people call themselves socialists but in reality "socialism" to them is just a pretty label to stick onto a myriad of essentally opportunistic ventures to recruit members in the pretence that this is somehow radicalising the working class. It is as you say a complete dead end. Its just another way in which capitalism is able to coopt the frustrations of workers, and divide the working class into a hotch potch of separate "social movements" each intent upon plugging their own particular cause at the expense of the rest, however much they might deny this. The sheer logistics of struggle means you have to allocate your time and effort to one cause rather than another so that the latter will indeed to be abandoned in the clamour of for popular attention

This is a treadmill going nowhere. As soon as one reform is achieved this simply leads on to campaigning for some other reform and in the meantime the original refrom may simply be rolled back, ignoired and negated should capitalism, for example enter a period of recession. These leftist organisations can only ever offer a vision of endless struggle in search of some capitalist holy grail - trying to make capitalism operate in the interests of the workers which is impossible. In the meanwhile they work to massively divert attention and energy away from the only really worthwhile goal - the abolition of the wages system - which is the hallmark of the revolutionary socialist outlook

southernmissfan

5th February 2011, 09:01

This bears repeating in my opinion.

You can hold all the marches and rallies against the war, against military aid to this or that nation, against inaction on environmental issues, in support of gay marriage, in support of abortion rights, etc. etc. But you will never, by propoganda and demonstrations, win over the class and recruit them one-by-one. Of course this kind of activity, which is essentially oriented towards recruitment offers a kind of immediate satisfaction, of growing numbers, of 'doing something', hell, maybe even being lambasted by right-wing media demogogues. But at the end of the day, it is a complete dead end, and the mass of ex-activists who've been recruited starry-eyed, self-sacrificed for the cause and wound up worn-out and demoralised stands as testament to this.

Nic.

I think you make an excellent point. Political activism (and you could probably include "community organizing" as well) can be and often is a dead end strategy. You go into it with a lot of passion, energy and the desire to "do something". And as you note, it usually ends with disillusioned ex-activists.

I think pretty much everyone on this forum would agree to some extent, even those who are very involved in activism. The question the becomes, if that's a dead end strategy, what isn't? Maybe I'm overlooking it (or maybe I'm just a bit dense!), but what exactly do left communists advocate we do? Read and write, trying to advance theory? Well essentially that's what we all do to some extent everyday when we post on RevLeft.

Not to sound too deterministic but I'm aware that there is very little we can do an individual or small group that will change anything. Past socialist/communist movements and experiments have taught us a lot of things, perhaps most importantly that sheer will cannot compensate for material conditions. But that still leaves us with the question of what, as revolutionary leftists, should we be doing?

Blackscare, I rather like your idea. You are open to working with various groups and utilizing various strategies and forms of action. I imagine this will be valuable when it comes to networking and making connections with fellow workers and revolutionary leftists. Also, you will probably gain valuable experience which will help form your own ideas regarding both theory and practice. I think more "non-aligned" or "pan-leftist" work would be useful. While I understand that there are often serious theoretical positions behind forms of action, I think it results in a rigidity where one picks a tendency and is then pigeonholed into a certain form of practice. For example, if you run a candidate for local office, you can't work with unions. If you work with unions, you can't hold protests or rallies. Why? Why not have a broad, revolutionary left coalition of some sorts where as many leftists as possible are conducting as many types of actions as possible?

Property Is Robbery

5th February 2011, 09:05

The ICC and the PSL aren't similar, I can't imagine why you'd want to do work with both. It's basically a one or the other situation, if you sympathize with the ICC's politics more then there's no reason to do activity within the PSL.
I'm a left communist/libertarian socialist and I'm involved in the PSL, the main reason being their high level of activity. I told this to the guy who talked to me about my candidacy and he had no problem with it. It's not like PSL is M-L's only (although they're the majority)

robbo203

5th February 2011, 09:29

I think you make an excellent point. Political activism (and you could probably include "community organizing" as well) can be and often is a dead end strategy. You go into it with a lot of passion, energy and the desire to "do something". And as you note, it usually ends with disillusioned ex-activists.

I think pretty much everyone on this forum would agree to some extent, even those who are very involved in activism. The question the becomes, if that's a dead end strategy, what isn't? Maybe I'm overlooking it (or maybe I'm just a bit dense!), but what exactly do left communists advocate we do? Read and write, trying to advance theory? Well essentially that's what we all do to some extent everyday when we post on RevLeft.

The key surely is start with a clear conception of what do you want to do. Your goal. Everything else follows from this. Revolutionary socialists take the position that the goal should be the complete abolution of the wages system - aka capitalism. Whetever helps to promote that is of value

Left wing reformist activists do not have as this as their goal. If anything they shy away from it completely . In the end they seek to reform capitalism, not overthow it. I dont agree with your claim that pretty much everyone on this forum would agree to some extent, that political activism of the kind that Nic was ciriticising is a dead end. Truthfully I think most people on this forum hold the illusion that the way to go is through some kind of reformist activism or agitation

You suggest that the question of what is a dead-end strategy is a matter of indifference since "what isnt?" Well no - its not a matter of indifference. In choosing one kind of broad strategy you are choosing to overlook another. You are also making a kind unacceptable assumption that all strategies somehow lead ultimately to the same destination. No they dont. It is the end that defines the means not the other way round and your starting point in the quest for a strategy to become "involved in" should be the end you desire

RedTrackWorker

5th February 2011, 09:30

You can hold all the marches and rallies against the war, against military aid to this or that nation, against inaction on environmental issues, in support of gay marriage, in support of abortion rights, etc. etc. [snip] But at the end of the day, it is a complete dead end

This is sick. The struggles in Tunisia and Egypt did not just erupt from history, but from people sacrificing and struggling, often over very small issues. The current Tunisian struggle started with a young man's family protesting his treatment by the police which lead to him setting himself on fire. The Black liberation movement here in the U.S. inspired people across the world. To refer to all of that kind of thing as a "complete dead end" is just disgusting.
Sure, several groups keep their "base" in a state of constant activism while grooming some for leadership positions and such nonsense like that, but to critique marches against the war? All those interested in socialism have a moral duty to participate in such actions to the extent that they can.
My organization very consciously takes "burn out" into consideration, but in times like these or when Israel was bombing Lebanon and Gaza or the Stella D'oro factory was being shut down, we have turned out at protests in often greater relative and sometimes in absolute numbers than organizations many times our size and I am fucking proud of that. I still remember marching across the Brooklyn Bridge to protest Israel bombing Lebanon and Gaza. I remember Union Sq. May Day 2006 packed with people protesting for the rights of immigrants and I am fucking proud of it.
The idea that this can be dismissed as a "complete dead end"--well, for whatever organization that thinks that way, apply that phrase to yourself.

manic expression

5th February 2011, 09:33

The PSL is an activist group and prides itself on it's activism. In this respect it is no different to so many left groups, the only difference being the size and skope of their activity.

Communists (including groups like the ICC), on the other hand, have a very profound criticism of activism, one that defines their existence and activity.
No, the ICC has a very "profound criticism" of activity.

You may talk ill of "activism" all you will (even though you refuse to define it), but what you fail to comprehend is that the PSL's "activism" fights for the struggles of the working class today. When we organize, speak, march against police brutality (for instance), that is the class struggle of the workers. Unless you think workers should stay silent, fold their hands and do nothing as pigs brutalize and murder their friends and community members, then such activity is necessary to the cause of the workers. If workers are to be organized for class conflict and stronger for future battles, they must be vocal and visible...that is when so-called "activism" is called for.

The task of revolutionaries is to organize and lead the struggle against capitalism, and sitting around talking ill of pamphlets doesn't exactly fall into that category. Getting workers to confront the crimes committed against them by the ruling class does. You should think about that in your free time...you're evidently not occupied with political activity.

But at the end of the day, it is a complete dead end, and the mass of ex-activists who've been recruited starry-eyed, self-sacrificed for the cause and wound up worn-out and demoralised stands as testament to this.How confident a prognosis...have you ever met a PSL member in your life or are you making this up as you go along (unless, of course, knowing what you're talking about is "activism")?

robbo203

5th February 2011, 10:25

This is sick. The struggles in Tunisia and Egypt did not just erupt from history, but from people sacrificing and struggling, often over very small issues. The current Tunisian struggle started with a young man's family protesting his treatment by the police which lead to him setting himself on fire. The Black liberation movement here in the U.S. inspired people across the world. To refer to all of that kind of thing as a "complete dead end" is just disgusting.
Sure, several groups keep their "base" in a state of constant activism while grooming some for leadership positions and such nonsense like that, but to critique marches against the war? All those interested in socialism have a moral duty to participate in such actions to the extent that they can.
My organization very consciously takes "burn out" into consideration, but in times like these or when Israel was bombing Lebanon and Gaza or the Stella D'oro factory was being shut down, we have turned out at protests in often greater relative and sometimes in absolute numbers than organizations many times our size and I am fucking proud of that. I still remember marching across the Brooklyn Bridge to protest Israel bombing Lebanon and Gaza. I remember Union Sq. May Day 2006 packed with people protesting for the rights of immigrants and I am fucking proud of it.
The idea that this can be dismissed as a "complete dead end"--well, for whatever organization that thinks that way, apply that phrase to yourself.

This is way over the top , a classic example of not seeing the wood for the trees and allowing your heart to rule in place of your head.

Look, no one is decrying participating in anti-war protests, for example. Ive done it myself often enough. The point about mere protests and campaigns of variuous sorts being a "dead end" is that they do not address the basic cause of the problems against which such protests are directed. So they are doomed to repeat themselves over and over and over again. An endless vision of struggle stretching indefinitely into the future. This is what makes such activism a "dead end"

Left wing reformists sometimes claim they relate the problems they are protesting about to "capitalism" but actually no they are not. This is the point. They may talk about "capitalism" giving rise to war but what do they actually propose to end the problem of war? Certainly not the abolution of capitalism. Most of them entertain a very vague idea of what consititutes "capitalism" in the first place equating it simply with free enterprise capitalism. Predictably, such people think of "socialism" as meaning some degree of state ownership of the economy. Their view of socialism equates with how the Right wing view "socialism"

Revolutionary socialists on other hand equate capitalism with the wages system itself. We dont dismiss or disregard the struggles you talk of but instead clearly and unequivocally link them wth the need to overthrow capitalism or the wage system. For the refromists however these struggles become an end in themsleves and lets be frank here, often as not a pretext for opportunistically recruiting members for all your talk of "moral duty"

So please lets have less of this pious talk along the lines that "All those interested in socialism have a moral duty to participate in such actions to the extent that they can." Lets have more clarity about what exactly is meant by socialism. Becuase if you dont have clarity about that then you offer no re=al alternative to capitalism. And if you offer no real alternative to capitalism that means you are stuck with capitalism and hence the cause of the very problems you are doomed constantly to protest against. These problems will crop up time and again like musrooms out of a dung heap. It is that I suggest what makes what you are doing a complete dead end, not "protest" per se.

RedTrackWorker

5th February 2011, 10:51

Look, no one is decrying participating in anti-war protests

Niccolò Rossi referred to anti-war protests as a "complete dead end." I fail to see how that is something other than "decrying participating" in them unless you think participating in things that are "complete dead ends" is a good idea every now and then. I don't. If I think something is a "complete dead end"--like say, trusting in the military during a revolution, I don't do it. An anti-war protest is a rather limited action in the big picture, sure--but I participate in limited actions--not dead ends.

The point about mere protests and campaigns of variuous sorts being a "dead end" is that they do not address the basic cause of the problems against which such protests are directed.

Straw man. No one here was arguing "mere" protests are enough. And while I have lots of criticisms of the PSL, I do not think they say that.

So please lets have less of this pious talk [snip] Lets have more clarity about what exactly is meant by socialism. [snip] It is that I suggest what makes what you are doing a complete dead end, not "protest" per se.

You talk about clarity when you refer to someone calling something a "complete dead end" not "decrying"?
And then you say what I'm doing is a "complete dead end" because I don't have clarity about what is meant by socialism? Please explain what you mean--what clarity on socialism is it that you know that I am lacking?

gorillafuck

5th February 2011, 15:58

I'm a left communist/libertarian socialist and I'm involved in the PSL, the main reason being their high level of activity. I told this to the guy who talked to me about my candidacy and he had no problem with it. It's not like PSL is M-L's only (although they're the majority)
So you're a left communist who works with an organization that you consider to be a capitalist party (seeing as how left-coms consider the PSL capitalist)?

That seems odd.

5th February 2011, 17:01

So you're a left communist who works with an organization that you consider to be a capitalist party (seeing as how left-coms consider the PSL capitalist)?

:rolleyes: maybe the ICC does not have a monopoly on the term "left-communist."

All of these terms, whether "left communist" or "marxist-leninist" or "leninist" or "trotskyist" or "maoist" or "anarchist" are contested and used by people and organizations with a range of different contending political positions

gorillafuck

5th February 2011, 17:08

:rolleyes: maybe the ICC does not have a monopoly on the term "left-communist."

All of these terms, whether "left communist" or "marxist-leninist" or "leninist" or "trotskyist" or "maoist" or "anarchist" are contested and used by people and organizations with a range of different contending political positions
It's the left-com position, not just the ICC.

ZeroNowhere

5th February 2011, 17:22

I'm a left communist/libertarian socialist
That slash seems to indicate what the problem is here.

Alf

5th February 2011, 17:47

I agree with the comrades who have pointed out that there is no common ground between the ICC and the PSL, but people do have to find that out through their own experience.
Obviously I don't agree that our critique of activism is a critique of activity. We have no illusions about our impact, given our small size, but we certainly do participate in what we see as real expressions of the class struggle - recent examples include the Tekel workers' strike in Turkey, the French movement against pension 'reforms' and the student revolt in the UK. We were involved in the marches, general assemblies, and groups of militant workers, trying to encourage tendencies towards the self-organisation and extension of the struggle.

robbo203

5th February 2011, 18:00

Niccolò Rossi referred to anti-war protests as a "complete dead end." I fail to see how that is something other than "decrying participating" in them unless you think participating in things that are "complete dead ends" is a good idea every now and then. I don't. If I think something is a "complete dead end"--like say, trusting in the military during a revolution, I don't do it. An anti-war protest is a rather limited action in the big picture, sure--but I participate in limited actions--not dead ends.

I obviously cannot speak for Nic but my gloss on the matter is that he is quite right to describe all such protests against this or that problem thrown up by capitalism as a "dead-end" insofar as the capitalist basis of such problems remains unchallenged and unaddressed. It is a "dead end" precisely because it will get nowhere for this reason. The problems will occur again and again and again because they are of a systemic nature

Straw man. No one here was arguing "mere" protests are enough. And while I have lots of criticisms of the PSL, I do not think they say that.

You think so? I doubt it personally. It is quite possible to vacuously assert that protests are not enough and yet to preoccupy yourself wholly in nothing but protests. I cant say Im that familiar with the PSL but experience tells me that as with most other leftist organisation they are most unlikely to be concerned with putting forward the revolutionary alternative to capitalism - the abolition of the wages system - but rather with tinkering around instead with the administration or the insititutional architecture of capitalism and the particular policies of particular governments. Insofar as they even pay lip service to genuine socialism, such organisations almost always say this is something that has to be indefinitely deferred while they busy themselves with pressing governments to do this or not to that. In effect the bulk of the Left, in my view, serves as a massive distraction from the socialist cause. It claims that struggles and protests lead to workers becoming socialist or radicalised. They dont. All it really leads to is workers engaging in yet more protests and reformist campaigns perhaps until the point of "burnt out" is achieved when the erstwhile starry eyed campaigner/protestor is fully coopted into the system, settles down to a mortgage and a 2.1 child family, throughly convinced by now that you cant change the system and you might as well accept it. Such cynical caving in to the apparently immovable reality of capitalism has firm roots in the naive illusions about the potential efficacy of reformist campaigning which is precisely what Nic was, I think, quite rightly attacking.

You talk about clarity when you refer to someone calling something a "complete dead end" not "decrying"?
And then you say what I'm doing is a "complete dead end" because I don't have clarity about what is meant by socialism? Please explain what you mean--what clarity on socialism is it that you know that I am lacking?

My comments weren't addressed at you personally - I dont know anything about you or your political position anyway - but rather your general observations about protests and your somewhat over-the-top emotional outburst against what Nic had to say. My point is simply that you need to have a clearly thought out alternative to capitalism otherwise you are stuck with capitalism and just protesting against the effects of capitalism - which is what most of the Left do - is simply condemning yourself to a reformist treadmill that is not going to take you anywhere - however momentarily popular the cause might be

black magick hustla

5th February 2011, 20:31

:rolleyes: maybe the ICC does not have a monopoly on the term "left-communist."

the icc doesnt but the whole tendency that constitutes itself as "left communist" including the bordigists does. to be honest i sometimes hate labels because thereis something souless about calling yourself something like that but fuck, would it make sense if i called myself a fucking maoist. ofcourse not.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

6th February 2011, 06:29

I think pretty much everyone on this forum would agree to some extent, even those who are very involved in activism. The question the becomes, if that's a dead end strategy, what isn't? Maybe I'm overlooking it (or maybe I'm just a bit dense!), but what exactly do left communists advocate we do? Read and write, trying to advance theory? Well essentially that's what we all do to some extent everyday when we post on RevLeft.

Not to sound too deterministic but I'm aware that there is very little we can do an individual or small group that will change anything. Past socialist/communist movements and experiments have taught us a lot of things, perhaps most importantly that sheer will cannot compensate for material conditions. But that still leaves us with the question of what, as revolutionary leftists, should we be doing?

Fuck, just lost all of my original post, I'll try again.

Thanks for the question, southernmissfan. I think it's a very serious issue and appreciate you tryinging to bring it up.

This question is part of a much larger one, what is the role of revolutionaries in general, what is consciousness and how does it develop, etc.

I think when we try to grapple with what advocates of revolution (call them revolutionaries, or 'pro-revolutionists' or whatever) can do in an immediate practical sense, we have to look at where the class is. As Maldoror said in another thread on here recently, the destiny [fate] of revolutionaries is tied to that of the class. In other words, the role of the revolutionaries (the potentiality for meaningful intervention etc.) isn't something that can be discussed in the abstract, it is intimately linked with the state of the class struggle. For example, in times of class defeat or of relative class peace, revolutionaries do not have the same avenues for intervention, much less of an echo within the class, than at the pitch of a wave of struggle. This is why for example, Bilan (literally balance sheet in French) took it's name. It saw it's role as the drawing of the lessons of the defeat of the Russian revolution and the ushering in of an international counter-revolution.

Sometimes the best 'pro-revolutionists' can do is to discuss, clarify, analysis, etc. hold on to and carry forth the lessons of past struggle, as the collective memory of the class. This kind of activity is of course much less fullfilling in an immediate sense and can be very frustrating, but it is no less important, in fact it is absolutely essential.

I hope these brief comments can help as the starting point of a larger examination of the question.

Nic.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

6th February 2011, 06:30

No, the ICC has a very "profound criticism" of activity.

You're boring.

You may talk ill of "activism" all you will (even though you refuse to define it), but what you fail to comprehend is that the PSL's "activism" fights for the struggles of the working class today. When we organize, speak, march against police brutality (for instance), that is the class struggle of the workers.

No, when the PSL organises speaches, marches, etc. this is the PSL organising speaches, marches etc.

The PSL is not the class. The PSL's activism is not the class struggle. What this is is substitutionism (in fact you admit it yourself - "the PSL's "activism" fights for the struggles of the working class today" - the working class doesn't struggle, the PSL does it for them!).

And before you say it, of course, the fact that the PSL has members who happen to be workers (which undoutably represents a moment in the development of consciousness), it's not the point that I'm making.

Unless you think workers should stay silent, fold their hands and do nothing as pigs brutalize and murder their friends and community members, then such activity is necessary to the cause of the workers.

Obviously that's not what I think, you can do better than this kind of dishonest straw man.

But to deal with the point being made, no I don't think the PSL's brand of activism is 'necessary to the cause of the workers'. One does not follow from the other.

If workers are to be organized for class conflict and stronger for future battles, they must be vocal and visible...that is when so-called "activism" is called for.

To be honest I'm not even sure what this means. Vocal? Visible?

Is this meant to imply the PSL is a school a kind of school for workers? A factory of worker-militants to be deployed in battle (class struggle)?

Of course the history of the class tells us nothing of this sort. The working class does not need the PSL to teach it how to struggle.

The task of revolutionaries is to organize and lead the struggle against capitalism

I don't agree revolutionaries organise the class. Either way, I think the two of us understand quite different things by this statement.

Getting workers to confront the crimes committed against them by the ruling class does.

Again, I don't think the role of revolutionaries has anything to do with 'getting workers' to do anything. This is I think what alot of the discussion boils down to.

You should think about that in your free time...you're evidently not occupied with political activity.

Don't fucking go there. When you working a 70-hr week you have the right to say that to me.

And for the record, I am a member of the Internationalist Communist Affiliate Network.

Beside, my political activity or lack thereof has no relation to this discussion at all. Keep your imagination to yourself in future, yeah?

How confident a prognosis...have you ever met a PSL member in your life or are you making this up as you go along (unless, of course, knowing what you're talking about is "activism")?

My comment was not directed at the PSL in particular but at activist politics in general. I don't see what me knowing PSL members on a personal basis has to do with this either way...

Nic.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

6th February 2011, 06:46

This is sick.

Would you get off your bloody high horse. To be honest, you are one of the Trots I like on here, I have a soft spot for the LRP (I think they have a political spine and their analysis is very sophisticated). If you shit me enough I might just change my mind.

but to critique marches against the war? All those interested in socialism have a moral duty to participate in such actions to the extent that they can.You can dress it up in whatever flowery language you like to make it sound important. The fact of the matter is, there is a very real difference between workers resisting the march to war in the ranks of the army, in factories and on the streets and the spectacle of dozens (or even hundreds!) of leftists marching around the block, chanting slogans and waving placards.

well, for whatever organization that thinks that way, apply that phrase to yourself.To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what this means.

Nic.

RedTrackWorker

6th February 2011, 13:06

You can dress it up in whatever flowery language you like to make it sound important. The fact of the matter is, there is a very real difference between workers resisting the march to war in the ranks of the army, in factories and on the streets and the spectacle of dozens (or even hundreds!) of leftists marching around the block, chanting slogans and waving placards.

Nic, I often respect your contributions on this forum, and so maybe I should've given you more benefit of the doubt. I still disagree 100% with saying marches are a "complete dead end", but I agree 100% with there being "a very real difference" between working-class anti-war action in the army or the factory or streets and "leftists" marching. In fact, I think that the 2005 transit strike, which on the face of it had nothing to do with the Iraq war, was for the ruling class a potential bigger threat to its war than the biggest anti-war marches in DC.
I also think that even tiny leftist-only marches (and most aren't leftist-only) can be important or at least necessary. We just organized a march for some South Korean trade unionists and Trotskyists who are in court now there facing long prison terms. It made the news there, possibly may affect the sentencing but definitely gave them some moral support that I know I would want.
But less pragmatically, I don't know how you can draw a hard and fast distinction between workers marching and leftists marching, and even if you think you can, to not see that leftists marching when workers aren't for whatever reason can play a role in bringing the working class onto the scene. There was a certainly an element of that in Tunisia and Egypt it seems to me in the build-up to these outbreaks.

Devrim

6th February 2011, 13:25

We just organized a march for some South Korean trade unionists and Trotskyists who are in court now there facing long prison terms.

Just as a clarification, they are actually left communists. I met some of them at the ICC international congress.

Devrim

Android

6th February 2011, 13:26

We just organized a march for some South Korean trade unionists and Trotskyists who are in court now there facing long prison terms. It made the news there, possibly may affect the sentencing but definitely gave them some moral support that I know I would want.

I'm taking it this is the march that youse (LRP) organised with Insurgent Notes.

But is it accurate to say that the comrades in question in South Korea are "trade-unionists" and "Trotskyists", my understanding was that the comrades were members of Socialist Workers Alliance (a left-communist group as far I'm aware), that Loren Goldner circulated an appeal for.

Edit - posted at the same time as Devrim.

gorillafuck

6th February 2011, 16:26

It saw it's role as the drawing of the lessons of the defeat of the Russian revolution and the ushering in of an international counter-revolution.If reformism cannot change the economic mode of production (according to the ICC) then how was there a counter revolution in the Soviet Union?

manic expression

6th February 2011, 16:31

You're boring.
When I have to keep repeating the obvious, this is to be expected.

No, when the PSL organises speaches, marches, etc. this is the PSL organising speaches, marches etc.

The PSL is not the class. The PSL's activism is not the class struggle. What this is is substitutionism (in fact you admit it yourself - "the PSL's "activism" fights for the struggles of the working class today" - the working class doesn't struggle, the PSL does it for them!).

And before you say it, of course, the fact that the PSL has members who happen to be workers (which undoutably represents a moment in the development of consciousness), it's not the point that I'm making.So when a worker joins a revolutionary party and helps organize marches and speeches...their class position no longer matters? They aren't workers anymore, but rather bourgeois "activists" who happen to be workers? Pure, utter nonsense.

If you were at all honest with this issue, you would see that the PSL's activity is class struggle. Not all of it, not even all of it in the US, but certainly part of it, and an important part of it. When the PSL confronts police brutality, its members and their supporters are, vastly, workers confronting police brutality. That's what class struggle looks like in the real world: workers and their allies fighting the oppression of capitalism.

The arithmetic is quite simple: the PSL is part of the working class. It is a militant, revolutionary party of the workers. This isn't really all that hard to understand, but you seem to be stubborn about it, so expect me to repeat myself in the future.

Obviously that's not what I think, you can do better than this kind of dishonest straw man.It is, however, the point you effectively made. Precisely what you think is hardly within my capacity to discern.

But to deal with the point being made, no I don't think the PSL's brand of activism is 'necessary to the cause of the workers'. One does not follow from the other.If you don't think fighting police brutality, imperialist slaughter, racist gentrification, anti-immigrant bigotry and other capitalist crimes is "necessary to the cause of the workers", you have no place calling yourself a revolutionary. One (being a revolutionary) does follow from the other (action).

To be honest I'm not even sure what this means. Vocal? Visible?That's exactly my point: you don't know what it means.

Is this meant to imply the PSL is a school a kind of school for workers? A factory of worker-militants to be deployed in battle (class struggle)?

Of course the history of the class tells us nothing of this sort. The working class does not need the PSL to teach it how to struggle.History does teach us quite clearly that the working class does require militant, experienced leadership if it is to be successful in its fight. Every successful revolution shows us this.

I don't agree revolutionaries organise the class. Either way, I think the two of us understand quite different things by this statement.Yes, I would agree. I understand the statement as pushing forward and organizing the struggles of the proletariat. You, from what we can tell, think sitting on your hands is the best part of revolutionary struggle.

Again, I don't think the role of revolutionaries has anything to do with 'getting workers' to do anything. This is I think what alot of the discussion boils down to.So let me get this straight...you don't want to influence the consciousness and actions of workers?

Don't fucking go there. When you working a 70-hr week you have the right to say that to me.

And for the record, I am a member of the Internationalist Communist Affiliate Network.

Beside, my political activity or lack thereof has no relation to this discussion at all. Keep your imagination to yourself in future, yeah?If you insist on bad-mouthing the activity of the PSL, you should expect to have your own activity (or, as you said yourself, lack thereof) to be brought into question. Here's an old working class saying: "If you can't do it better, then keep it to yourself." So, I will ask you directly: what does your organization actually do?

Oh, and speaking of imagination...

My comment was not directed at the PSL in particular but at activist politics in general. I don't see what me knowing PSL members on a personal basis has to do with this either way...So you know that PSL members are wide-eyed idealists who will give up on revolutionary politics in no time...even though you have no idea what you're talking about. Interesting. Again, have you ever met a PSL member in your life?

Lyev

6th February 2011, 17:50

I try to stay clear of these messy debates between tendencies, but (not meaning to be ad hominem), you sound quite obnoxious, manic expression. Class struggle is not some abstract dogma that any group can just take as their watchword, then declare themselves leaders of the oppressed. No-one on here thinks that 'sitting on [their] hands' is a coherent or meaningful strategy for militants to negate capital. 'Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.'

Blackscare

6th February 2011, 19:25

Nothing Human Is Alien

6th February 2011, 20:37

From viewing your posts I wonder what it is that you admire, since it seems you haven't really read (or understood) most of what left communists have to say.

Most left communists explicitly reject abstract concepts of "conscious raising."

You said you were interested in the ICC but became disappointed. What have their members wrote here that is different from what you expected from going over their materials?

Have you reviewed their ideas on questions like consciousness and activity (eg. Class Consciousness and the Role of Revolutionaries (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2559))?

I'm not here to push the ICC, but I have to wonder.

Nothing Human Is Alien

6th February 2011, 20:41

If you were at all honest with this issue, you would see that the PSL's activity is class struggle.

Exactly! How can you deny that what the Marcyites do is class struggle; from running candidates for the position of top cop (http://www.revleft.com/vb/send-leftist-cop-t149488/index.html?t=149488) to having dinner with the President of Iran (http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/9/23/us-progressives-meet-iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad).

Lyev

6th February 2011, 20:53

I don't see how you can call Manic obnoxious when you have condescending do-nothings calling the struggle the PSL takes part in capitalist, denying even the revolutionary intent of it's members. It's extremely easy to critique everything and declare yourself free from any sort of revolutionary "sin" when you do nothing, and doing nothing is in fact your ideology.

Honestly, I'm glad I started this thread, because as much as I may admire this or that Left-Com thinker, it seems that Left-Coms today are so absolutely paralyzed by theoretical nonsense that they cannot formulate a real plan of action to raise consciousness amongst workers. If Left-Com members here could at least list something they do that they think helps build the basis of revolution, or even a plan of action on how to spread the communist message at the spontaneous moment of revolution, seemingly from scratch, that's one thing.

But all of this sectarian sniping is the worst I've seen so far on the left. What a bunch of snide, ivory-tower elitists.I'm not part of the communist left at all. I'm a member of the CWI which is a Trotskyist international. I have heard SP members condemn left-communists as 'ultra-left', and likewise, I am sure they have a whole host of criticism against the methods of the CWI. I find this a bit silly ('paralyzed by theoretical nonsense') though. The abolition of class society and forming a new one from the old based upon the free association of all is pretty important and the revolution won't happen tomorrow - I think we have time to debate 'theoretical nonsense' for a while. The stakes are high and we don't want to get it wrong.

Blackscare

6th February 2011, 21:01

Meh, to be honest, I've read more Luxemburg and Pannekoek in terms of Left Communism, I like the emphasis on worker's councils (what Leninists would call soviets, I suppose), the more broad libertarian character, etc. I think there is a place for revolutionary spontaneity, and I'm still interested in how exactly such an historic momentum would be brought into a communist direction. I know more about Leninism than Left-Communism, admittedly, but as I said in the beginning I was interested in checking out the ICC to familiarize myself more with what they do and stand for.

I was more interested in linking up with communists of different tendencies and working with a broad swath of the left, as I think that there's valid points in probably all of them. It was my mistake to think that Left-Communists could tolerate any sort of plurality of Left-wing strategy or even concede that Leninists were sincere revolutionaries at all. It was also my mistake to think that the Left-Communists do anything short of exchanging emails that I could take part in.

Blackscare

6th February 2011, 21:09

I'm not here to push the ICC, but I have to wonder.

Also, how dare I attempt to approach an organization somewhat naive and try to learn about them, or maybe help to spread their message (along with those of other groups) where I can, in the interest of Left-wing plurality.

Nothing Human Is Alien

6th February 2011, 21:38

Seems more like you are attacking them than trying to learn about them.

And I don't think they're interested in "left-wing plurality" since they consider the PSL to be the left wing of capital.

Nothing Human Is Alien

6th February 2011, 21:40

It was also my mistake to think that the Left-Communists do anything short of exchanging emails that I could take part in.

And it's clear they do, since the very first response to your post contained pictures of such activity.

Whether not you and the ICC can work together is up to you and them. I'd imagine exchanging emails in advance of meeting would be a part of trying to figure that out.

Os Cangaceiros

6th February 2011, 21:41

This doesn't have much to do with the conversation at hand, but are new chapters of the ICC ever formed? There's always talk about how the USA's chapter is miniscule-bordering-on-non-existant, and based entirely in NYC or whatever, but I would think there's a fair pool of people in a nation of 300 million to have a substantial branch here.

Nothing Human Is Alien

6th February 2011, 21:52

are new chapters of the ICC ever formed?

Welcome to the ICC’s new sections in Turkey and the Philippines (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/philippines-turkey)

Os Cangaceiros

6th February 2011, 21:58

I guess that answers me question.

I can sympathize with the people who want to do something, because I've often felt the same way. I do largely agree with the leftcom position (and, to a slightly lesser extent, the position put forth in "Nihilist Communism") in regards to real-world activity, though. I don't see why left-communists don't try to make their presence known more in "the milieu", though...even if it's not working towards proletarian revolt, I don't know why more left-communists would be a negative thing. (Speaking strictly about the USA, here...I'm admittedly not familiar with their activities outside the USA)

RedTrackWorker

6th February 2011, 21:58

I'm taking it this is the march that youse (LRP) organised with Insurgent Notes.

But is it accurate to say that the comrades in question in South Korea are "trade-unionists" and "Trotskyists", my understanding was that the comrades were members of Socialist Workers Alliance (a left-communist group as far I'm aware), that Loren Goldner circulated an appeal for.

Edit - posted at the same time as Devrim.

Just as a clarification, they are actually left communists. I met some of them at the ICC international congress.

Devrim

You're both right. I got carried away with the alliteration I think as I knew about the Insurgent Notes/Loren Goldner connection and initiation of the event and some about the group, which translated part of our book.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

7th February 2011, 10:02

If you were at all honest with this issue, you would see that the PSL's activity is class struggle.

If you care to re-read my post, I did say: "...the fact that the PSL has members who happen to be workers (which undoutably represents a moment in the development of consciousness)..." (my emphasis added).

But again, I think we mean different things by this, as is obvious when you go on:

Not all of it, not even all of it in the US, but certainly part of it, and an important part of it. When the PSL confronts police brutality, its members and their supporters are, vastly, workers confronting police brutality. That's what class struggle looks like in the real world: workers and their allies fighting the oppression of capitalism.

I think it boils down to a very different understanding of what a revolution is.

Of course, workers joining and being involved in PSL campaigns is a manifestation of struggle, a moment in the development of consciousness. However this is very different to saying it is ideal or highest form of struggle, it is not.

It also needs to be kept in mind, and the Stalinists seem conveniently forget this, that a struggle does not become progressive or revolution or a workers' struggle merely because workers are involved in it. For example, workers struggle as declasse citizens, workers struggle as women, workers struggle as immigrants, etc. I would argue that when workers join the PSL and participate in their activist campaigns they are struggling as activists. Workers struggling as workers means self-organisation on a class basis.

It is, however, the point you effectively made. Precisely what you think is hardly within my capacity to discern.

No it wasn't the point I 'effectively made' at all.

In fact, you saying this is quite reveiling you are unable to concieve of class struggle outside of activist campaigns.

History does teach us quite clearly that the working class does require militant, experienced leadership if it is to be successful in its fight. Every successful revolution shows us this.

I think history does provide us with lessons regarding the importance of militants, but I think it offers us a qhole range of lessons you wouldn't see as compatible with this. Besides, I think we have a very different idea of what a successful revolution is and have been.

Yes, I would agree. I understand the statement as pushing forward and organizing the struggles of the proletariat. You, from what we can tell, think sitting on your hands is the best part of revolutionary struggle.

This is no more clear. Again, I agree militants have a role in pushing forward the struggle, but again I think we would find much room to disagree. Also, 'organising the struggles of the proletariat' doesn't clarify the matter at all.

So let me get this straight...you don't want to influence the consciousness and actions of workers?

This is saying something very different to 'getting workers' to do this or that. And once again (again!) I think we have very different understanding of what we mean by this.

So, I will ask you directly: what does your organization actually do?

We are a network of internationalist communists who seek to clarify on both an individual and collective basis through discussion and debate. This is the extent of our activity in the present.

Oh, and speaking of imagination...

I don't know what this means.

So you know that PSL members are wide-eyed idealists who will give up on revolutionary politics in no time...even though you have no idea what you're talking about. Interesting. Again, have you ever met a PSL member in your life?

You can do better than this, really, or atleast you should be able to.

No, I have not personally been aquainted with any member of the PSL previously. Of course, living in a continent where the PSL has no section or affiliates make this somewhat difficult I hope you would agree.

The question still begs though, what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

Sorry for the brief replies. I'm hurrying here. Have to be up early tommorow, being sent off to a different job site.

Nic.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

7th February 2011, 10:03

If reformism cannot change the economic mode of production (according to the ICC) then how was there a counter revolution in the Soviet Union?

Maybe this is a question best given the justice it deserves in another thread? I'm not sure what I'd have to contribute, but it's a worthwhile discussion I think.

Nic.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

7th February 2011, 10:04

RedTrackWorker and others, will try and get back to you tommorow. Maybe.

Nic.

ZeroNowhere

7th February 2011, 10:17

If Left-Com members here could at least list something they do that they think helps build the basis of revolution, or even a plan of action on how to spread the communist message at the spontaneous moment of revolution, seemingly from scratch, that's one thing.The 'thing' in question being an amusing sense of leftist self-importance which has been rightfully rejected by the left communists here. Really, the whole formulation of this supposed problem is saturated by voluntarism.

manic expression

7th February 2011, 10:19

Exactly! How can you deny that what the Marcyites do is class struggle; from running candidates for the position of top cop (http://www.revleft.com/vb/send-leftist-cop-t149488/index.html?t=149488) to having dinner with the President of Iran (http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/9/23/us-progressives-meet-iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad).
YEAH! The first wasn't even the PSL...and even still the whole campaign was about exposing the criminality of the pigs! The second was to promote solidarity with peoples in the crosshairs of imperialism! You don't care about either! Out-of-context hyperlinks make your idiotic arguments more interesting! :lol:

When you put as much effort into criticizing capitalism as you do revolutionaries, let me know.

manic expression

7th February 2011, 10:41

If you care to re-read my post, I did say: "...the fact that the PSL has members who happen to be workers (which undoutably represents a moment in the development of consciousness)..." (my emphasis added).
Again, you should take notice of your own wording. "The PSL has members who happen to be workers"...why don't you admit the clear fact that the PSL is part of the working class? It would be much easier for all of us instead of having to endure this tap-dancing around the facts.

I think it boils down to a very different understanding of what a revolution is.
No, it comes down to a very different understanding of how revolution happens. You think it falls out of the sky, apparently.

Of course, workers joining and being involved in PSL campaigns is a manifestation of struggle, a moment in the development of consciousness. However this is very different to saying it is ideal or highest form of struggle, it is not.
I never said it was the "highest form of struggle". My point is that PSL campaigns are class struggle. Unless you don't care about workers being murdered by the capitalist state, you should have no problem with this.

It also needs to be kept in mind, and the Stalinists seem conveniently forget this, that a struggle does not become progressive or revolution or a workers' struggle merely because workers are involved in it. For example, workers struggle as declasse citizens, workers struggle as women, workers struggle as immigrants, etc. I would argue that when workers join the PSL and participate in their activist campaigns they are struggling as activists. Workers struggling as workers means self-organisation on a class basis.
Like I said, you think workers who fight capitalist oppression cease to count as workers...because you said so. Ridiculous.

No it wasn't the point I 'effectively made' at all.

In fact, you saying this is quite reveiling you are unable to concieve of class struggle outside of activist campaigns.
We've been over this. Workers confronting capitalist oppression is not just "activist campaigns" (something you haven't cared to define, but instead you use whenever you feel like it), it's class struggle. Unfortunately, I am sure I will have to repeat this.

I think history does provide us with lessons regarding the importance of militants, but I think it offers us a qhole range of lessons you wouldn't see as compatible with this. Besides, I think we have a very different idea of what a successful revolution is and have been.
Probably not, no. Your irrational spurning of working-class revolutions of the past is likely equal to your bad-mouthing of working-class revolutionaries of the present.

This is no more clear. Again, I agree militants have a role in pushing forward the struggle, but again I think we would find much room to disagree. Also, 'organising the struggles of the proletariat' doesn't clarify the matter at all.
It doesn't clarify the matter to you because you haven't the slightest frame of reference to it.

This is saying something very different to 'getting workers' to do this or that. And once again (again!) I think we have very different understanding of what we mean by this.
You can split hairs all you like, it doesn't strengthen your position.

We are a network of internationalist communists who seek to clarify on both an individual and collective basis through discussion and debate. This is the extent of our activity in the present.
:laugh: Precisely as I thought. A talking shop.

I don't know what this means.
It means you're talking about the PSL's membership through your imagination, not through any actual knowledge.

No, I have not personally been aquainted with any member of the PSL previously.
Thanks for finally admitting it. Now, you can apologize for questioning the character of PSL members when you haven't met one in your life.

7th February 2011, 11:00

:laugh: Precisely as I thought. A talking shop.

This is a form of class struggle...

...for the chattering classes. :rolleyes:

Devrim

7th February 2011, 11:27

I never got why they always refer to themselves as "international" when in reality it's not the International Communist Current but more like "Barely Local Communist Current".

It is partly because of the way that it sees itself as an international organisation, but also connected to the fact that it has members in 16 countries (UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Turkey, USA, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, India, and the Philippines).

The PSL on the other hand is a peculiarly national current which only exists in one country with politics which reflects that. This explains two of the points raised on here.

So you know that PSL members are wide-eyed idealists who will give up on revolutionary politics in no time...even though you have no idea what you're talking about. Interesting. Again, have you ever met a PSL member in your life?

No, because it only exists in one country on another continent.

Exactly! How can you deny that what the Marcyites do is class struggle; from running candidates for the position of top cop (http://www.revleft.com/vb/send-leftist-cop-t149488/index.html?t=149488) to having dinner with the President of Iran (http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/9/23/us-progressives-meet-iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad).
The second was to promote solidarity with peoples in the crosshairs of imperialism!

This is the sort of thing, dining with the ruling class, that certainly wouldn't wash with communists in Iran.

Devrim

gorillafuck

7th February 2011, 12:03

But all of this sectarian sniping is the worst I've seen so far on the left. What a bunch of snide, ivory-tower elitists.Is this because the ICC opposes the PSL?

Because c'mon, there's no way you didn't already know that....

Zanthorus

7th February 2011, 18:25

Yeah, I am sort of stunned how this whole thread came to exist in the first place. You'd think that anyone who'd read even the ICC's Basic Positions document would realise that they were an organisation whose politics were incompatible with those of the PSL. If it was the ICC and one of the more 'ultra-left' Trotskyist organisations I might understand but you really couldn't choose two organisations with more different political stances without going outside the realm of those who call themselves communists or revolutionary socialists.

manic expression

7th February 2011, 23:25

No, because it only exists in one country on another continent.
Then it's a pretty good idea to not question the character of PSL members and claim that they're wide-eyed idealists who aren't actually committed to struggle.

This is the sort of thing, dining with the ruling class, that certainly wouldn't wash with communists in Iran.
Marx sent a letter of support to Lincoln...I await your condemnation of Marx. More to the point, though, revolutionary defeatism is at work; I hope all communists will understand the immediacy of this principle when it comes to fighting imperialism.

gorillafuck

7th February 2011, 23:50

Marx sent a letter of support to Lincoln...I await your condemnation of Marx.How is that comparable?

Devrim

7th February 2011, 23:59

Then it's a pretty good idea to not question the character of PSL members and claim that they're wide-eyed idealists who aren't actually committed to struggle.

I don't think that I have ever questioned the 'character' of individual PSL members. I am sure lots of them are honest deeply committed people who sincerely believe in socialism. I still believe though that an organisation such as the PSL, whose leaders cavort with the leaders of the Iranian is deeply anti-working class.

Marx sent a letter of support to Lincoln...I await your condemnation of Marx.

Personally I think that marx was wrong on this. Others in the ICC don't. What is clear though is that it was a period when capitalism was still capable of developing the productive forces. Marx saw the victory of US capitalism as an intrinsic party of that. He and Engles also supported the US in its war against Mexico and seizure of California. I don't think anybody in America today who took a similar attitude could be considered a socialist in any way.

More to the point, though, revolutionary defeatism is at work; I hope all communists will understand the immediacy of this principle when it comes to fighting imperialism.

Revolutionary defeatism as formulated by Lenin called for the defeat of the ruling class of all nations. He said the main enemy is at home, but that didn't mean that he supported foreign states. There is a distinct difference between 'wishing for the defeat of your own state' and hobnobbing with the President of other states. Lenin never went for dinner with the German high command.

Surely communist politics are international and internationalist. If the PSL had a section in Iran, which rest assured with politics like that it never will, would you expect it to take the same line, which would effectively mean support of their own ruling class.

The reason that the PSL can take lines like this is because it is a purely national organisation if it had an Iranian section that took the same line, it would be an openly chauvinist organisation.

Devrim

manic expression

8th February 2011, 00:01

How is that comparable?
If eating food in the presence of Ahmedinejad is worth condemnation, then a letter of clear support to Lincoln should be as well, no? Really, this isn't about any form of moral superiority but rather an ill-conceived attempt to criticize a revolutionary party without understanding the larger situation involved.

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 00:05

If eating food in the presence of Ahmedinejad is worth condemnation, then a letter of clear support to Lincoln should be as well, no? Really, this isn't about any form of moral superiority but rather an ill-conceived attempt to criticize a revolutionary party without understanding the larger situation involved.Because Lincoln fought slavery and the Union army emancipated the slaves from the bondage of the slave system whereas Iran is a reactionary theocracy?

The reason that the PSL can take lines like this is because it is a purely national organisation if it had an Iranian section that took the same line, it would be an openly chauvinist organisation.
Indeed, their line confirms their eurocentrism in regards to the struggle against capitalism.

I've said it before, the PSL only cares about American and west European socialists.

Zanthorus

8th February 2011, 00:09

Marx sent a letter of support to Lincoln...I await your condemnation of Marx.

Yes, Marx sent a letter to Lincoln on behalf of the IWMA congratulating the North for ending slavery, since ending the slavery of black workers was regarded as a precondition for the creation of an independent movement of the class in the United States. Would you care to explain to us where exactly Ahmedinejad's regime has eradicated a mode of production based on personal domination or in any way advanced the struggle for an independent working-class movement in Iran?

manic expression

8th February 2011, 00:29

I don't think that I have ever questioned the 'character' of individual PSL members.
Good. You need not answer for those who have (and have failed to justify themselves).

I still believe though that an organisation such as the PSL, whose leaders cavort with the leaders of the Iranian is deeply anti-working class.
"Cavort", you say? You are reading far too much into this. It was an opportunity to discuss with a figure who is a known opponent of imperialism on the world stage. Your lack of perspective is

Personally I think that marx was wrong on this. Others in the ICC don't. What is clear though is that it was a period when capitalism was still capable of developing the productive forces. Marx saw the victory of US capitalism as an intrinsic party of that. He and Engles also supported the US in its war against Mexico and seizure of California. I don't think anybody in America today who took a similar attitude could be considered a socialist in any way.
It is not a direct comparison, but one of principle, which is what you and NHIA have invoked. Marx didn't just eat food in the vicinity of a capitalist, he openly supported one.

Revolutionary defeatism as formulated by lenin called for the defeat of the ruling class of all nations. He said the main enemy is at home, but that didn't mean that he supported foreign states. There is a distinct difference between 'wishing for the defeat of your own state' and hobnobbing with the President of other states. Lenin never went for dinner with the German high command.
You forget your history. Lenin never went for dinner with the German high command, but Lenin did, however, accept aid from that same high command in order to get to Russia.

So Lenin took a ride from the bourgeoisie, and Marx sent a message of support to the bourgeoisie, and yet the PSL is to be condemned because representatives attended an event that Ahmedinejad also attended? Your argument is cheap and petty slander; nothing more.

Oh, and just so we're clear: our main enemy is at home, just as Lenin said. We, therefore, hope to impede and fight that enemy. That is entirely at work here.

Surely communist politics are international and internationalist. If the PSL had a section in Iran, which rest assured with politics like that it never will, would you expect it to take the same line, which would effectively mean support of their own ruling class.
Ah, so if a party opposes the re-colonialization of the middle east, it automatically supports the ruling class of all those states in question. I guess if you opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, you now love the Taliban. Isn't insipid non-logic fun?

Back in reality, the PSL says "Hands Off Iran!", which does not support the Iranian state any further than stopping imperialism from crushing the workers of Iran under its iron thumb. Perhaps you do not care, perhaps you think if Iran were to be colonized nothing would change; however, revolutionaries see a difference.

The reason that the PSL can take lines like this is because it is a purely national organisation if it had an Iranian section that took the same line, it would be an openly chauvinist organisation.
The reason the PSL can take lines like this is because it sees the world with Marxist eyes. You might believe that all capitalists are exactly the same, but Marx, Lenin and history teach us otherwise. Perhaps you can learn from all three.

manic expression

8th February 2011, 00:40

Because Lincoln fought slavery and the Union army emancipated the slaves from the bondage of the slave system whereas Iran is a reactionary theocracy?
Iran was under the domination of imperialism, and now it is not. This measure of progress for the workers of Iran should not be surrendered one bit.

Indeed, their line confirms their eurocentrism in regards to the struggle against capitalism.

I've said it before, the PSL only cares about American and west European socialists.
Yes...which is why the PSL looks especially to revolutionary struggles in Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa, Bolivia, Egypt, Colombia, India, El Salvador, Korea and elsewhere. :rolleyes: Honestly, if you took the time to read the headlines on the front page of PSLweb.org, you'd see that such an accusation is beyond ludicrous.

Zanthorus: The Iranian state exists as an obstacle to imperialism. It represents a step away from imperialist domination and toward self-determination. In this, the workers of Iran have made progress; it is not hard to see when you look across its western border.

But I see you missed the main point. NHIA and Devrim have evoked a moral argument against the PSL for having representatives attend a dinner that Ahmedinejad was also at. The moral question is really the point here, and that is not of my making.

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 00:40

The reason the PSL can take lines like this is because it sees the world with Marxist eyes. You might believe that all capitalists are exactly the same, but Marx, Lenin and history teach us otherwise. Perhaps you can learn from all three.What do you advocate for workers in Iran to do?

manic expression

8th February 2011, 00:44

What do you advocate for workers in Iran to do?
Overthrow capitalism and establish a worker state.

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 00:51

Overthrow capitalism and establish a worker state.Then revolutionary workers in Iran would probably be pretty fuckin' offended if they found out about socialists dining with the head of their bourgeois state, if they do not know already. It's actually chauvinistic as fuck.

Broletariat

8th February 2011, 00:56

Yea, I'm just trying to imagine like if I was there how I'd feel about that kind of stuff, or how you'd feel about maybe an Iran commie group meeting with Obama (I know the second examples fails to reach the depths of the former, but it's easier to imagine).

Bro

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 01:02

South Africa,
Doesn't the PSL like the ANC? Who's state keeps blacks and workers as a whole in bondage and half living under 2 bucks a day?

Bolivia,
Are you referring to MAS?

Colombia,
FARC outright massacre completely innocent poor peasants. They've admitted to it. Awesome.

El Salvador,
FMLN?

Though I'll retract the statement, though. The position on Iran is nonetheless chauvinistic and eurocentric.

Os Cangaceiros

8th February 2011, 01:11

I don't see why ICCites and PSListas even argue...this exchange about the merits of defending Iran's regime just confirms that. The worldviews are just so fundamentally different.

manic expression

8th February 2011, 01:11

Then revolutionary workers in Iran would probably be pretty fuckin' offended if they found out about socialists dining with the head of their bourgeois state, if they do not know already. It's actually chauvinistic as fuck.
What, if they heard that PSL members representing ANSWER went to an event that Ahmedinejad also attended? Yes, they'd be as mad as the German workers were at Lenin for accepting aid from the Kaiser! Oh, wait...

But then again, it seems your understanding of this matter is as coarse and vulgar as your last post. Whatever the case, it bears noting that this is no longer a question of morality (as it was when NHIA first brought it up and then skulked off), but one of "chauvinism". It is no surprise that the weak justifications for this absurd argument are being changed quite quickly.

manic expression

8th February 2011, 01:22

Doesn't the PSL like the ANC? Who's state keeps blacks and workers as a whole in bondage and half living under 2 bucks a day?
The PSL "likes" the ANC? This isn't middle-school dating, so stop simplifying things. Try reading "The contradictions of class struggle in South Africa" for the PSL's actual position on the issue (I can't copy and paste links for some reason so just google the article). It's far more nuanced than "liking" the ANC, it identifies reactionary and progressive tendencies in the Tripartite Alliance and its political and social relationship to South African workers.

Are you referring to MAS?
Not just MAS but the class struggle that preceded Morales' election and continues today. Morales and MAS is helping to lead much of the progress that is being made by the workers of Bolivia. Read "Bolivia's advancing class struggle" if you want more info.

FARC outright massacre completely innocent poor peasants. They've admitted to it. Awesome.
What are you talking about? FARC has admitted to making tragic mistakes in its warfare against the Colombian fascistic state, but it does not "massacre completely innocent poor peasant".

FMLN?
Not just FMLN, but the historic struggles there.

Though I'll retract the statement, though. The position on Iran is nonetheless chauvinistic and eurocentric.
Yes, and Lenin was such a slavophile for engaging in revolutionary defeatism as well. :rolleyes:

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 01:25

What, if they heard that PSL members representing ANSWER went to an event that Ahmedinejad also attended? Yes, they'd be as mad as the German workers were at Lenin for accepting aid from the Kaiser! Oh, wait...
And how has the PSL benefited as Lenin did when he took aid? I sincerely doubt you're getting aid from Iran.

But then again, it seems your understanding of this matter is as coarse and vulgar as your last post. Whatever the case, it bears noting that this is no longer a question of morality (as it was when NHIA first brought it up and then skulked off), but one of "chauvinism". It is no surprise that the weak justifications for this absurd argument are being changed quite quickly.
The "morality" issue is that chauvinism should be opposed.

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 01:44

The PSL "likes" the ANC? This isn't middle-school dating, so stop simplifying things.
Well, I ain't no fancy big city lawyer type.....

Try reading "The contradictions of class struggle in South Africa" for the PSL's actual position on the issue (I can't copy and paste links for some reason so just google the article). It's far more nuanced than "liking" the ANC, it identifies reactionary and progressive tendencies in the Tripartite Alliance and its political and social relationship to South African workers.
It's a bourgeois alliance who's government literally attacks striking workers. It is an enemy of the working class, that should be incredibly obvious.

What are you talkin about? FARC has admitted to making tragic mistakes in its warfare against the Colombian fascistic state, but it does not "massacre completely innocent poor peasant".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nari%C3%B1o_massacres

They've admitted that they have.

Not just FMLN, but the historic struggles there.
FMLN is a capitalist party, even if they used to not be.

Yes, and Lenin was such a slavophile for engaging in revolutionary defeatism as well. :rolleyes:Except that Lenin never dined with capitalists out of solidarity with them.

manic expression

8th February 2011, 10:37

And how has the PSL benefited as Lenin did when he took aid? I sincerely doubt you're getting aid from Iran.
Ah, so IF the PSL took aid from the Iranian state...you'd be A-OK with it. However, attending an event that its head of state also attended is eeeeeevil! :laugh: Nice stand on principle there; too bad you've undermined your entire rationale.

The "morality" issue is that chauvinism should be opposed.As should baseless slander.

Well, I ain't no fancy big city lawyer type....So not oversimplifying a complex social situation is too much to ask of you.

It's a bourgeois alliance who's government literally attacks striking workers. It is an enemy of the working class, that should be incredibly obvious.So you're not going to read the article? Try seeing what the PSL actually says on the issue, then open your mouth when it comes to our position. Thanks.

They've admitted that they have.I see no admission from the FARC provided in that article. I'll wait for you to provide something significant.

FMLN is a capitalist party, even if they used to not be.I see you didn't understand what I wrote earlier. Go back and try again until you've comprehended the sentence.

But by discussing these issues, you've shown that the PSL isn't eurocentric, and that it does look to struggles in Latin America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Well done, it's impressive how fast you've poked holes in your own position.

Except that Lenin never dined with capitalists out of solidarity with them.So accepting capitalist aid is OK, but eating food in their vicinity is not. Great logic. :lol:

Oh, and on edit, Nothing Human Is Alien, I see you can neg rep my posts but you evidently can't respond to them. It's alright, criticizing others from the sidelines is fitting to your ultra-leftist politics. However, if you do somehow summon the wherewithal to defend your baseless position, perhaps we can discuss it. Until then, try to enjoy the innocence of impotence that you have so richly earned.

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 13:17

Ah, so IF the PSL took aid from the Iranian state...you'd be A-OK with it. However, attending an event that its head of state also attended is eeeeeevil! :laugh: Nice stand on principle there; too bad you've undermined your entire rationale.
If you can't tell the difference between getting aid in a revolutionary situation, like Lenin did, and dining with the head of a capitalist state out of solidarity in a non-revolutionary situation, then I feel bad for you and your over-inflated ego.

As should baseless slander.
Agreed, if I was doing that I'd hope a level headed comrade would tell me to stop.

So not oversimplifying a complex social situation is too much to ask of you.Good luck talking to normal people. If you're fluent in English yet are incapable of understanding language like the language I use then you're a moron.

So you're not going to read the article? Try seeing what the PSL actually says on the issue, then open your mouth when it comes to our position. Thanks.I will after school. If it turns out that you think the ANC or it's anti-worker alliance is deserving of support I'm going to laugh at you for being indignant about this.

I see no admission from the FARC provided in that article. I'll wait for you to provide something significant.I will after I get home from school. I've seen it before so it'll be pretty easy.

I see you didn't understand what I wrote earlier. Go back and try again until you've comprehended the sentence.
Jesus christ, you should clarify things instead of act like such a little snot. What matters is your position today. What is your parties position on the modern capitalist party that is the FMLN? Answer in a clear way. Simple question.

But by discussing these issues, you've shown that the PSL isn't eurocentric, and that it does look to struggles in Latin America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Well done, it's impressive how fast you've poked holes in your own position.
I actually retracted that statement earlier, I was wrong and admitted it. but it's amusing to see that you still cling to that as a way of attacking me.

So accepting capitalist aid is OK, but eating food in their vicinity is not. Great logic. :lol:Yes because one materially aids you in an easy way in a revolutionary situation like Lenin did, and one expresses solidarity at no charge. You can't understand that?:laugh:

khad

8th February 2011, 15:30

Seems more like you are attacking them than trying to learn about them.
I've spoken to Blackscare at length about these matters, and believe me, he was in no way biased against leftcoms. This thread, has, however, probably turned him away from leftcom organizations forever. And you have no one to thank but yourselves.

http://jeremiasx.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/mission-accomplished.jpg

Chimurenga.

8th February 2011, 16:15

Don't people on this forum have any better critiques other than "the PSL ate dinner with Ahmadinejad!!!1"? Seriously, it's not a big deal. Some members of ANSWER got an invitation as well as other progressive groups/people to have a discussion with Ahmadeinjad. That's it. I've seen video from the meeting and that was the extent of it. And I swear, the majority of the board would be fine with Iran going back to US domination. Pathetic.

I will after school. If it turns out that you think the ANC or it's anti-worker alliance is deserving of support I'm going to laugh at you for being indignant about this.

We take no specific stance on the African National Congress. Here is the article manic expression was referring to (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/09-12-20-contradictions-class-struggle-in.html).

Jesus christ, you should clarify things instead of act like such a little snot. What matters is your position today. What is your parties position on the modern capitalist party that is the FMLN? Answer in a clear way. Simple question.

Since you cannot be bothered to search for yourself, here you go (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/09-03-19-fmln-defeats-decades-rightwing-r.html).

Devrim

8th February 2011, 18:16

I don't see why ICCites and PSListas even argue...this exchange about the merits of defending Iran's regime just confirms that. The worldviews are just so fundamentally different.

Yes, I can see your point. Personally I don't get into long drawn out debates with them as I think it is pretty fruitless. It is a thread asking about the ICC though and I think that it is reasonable that we comment, and explain our ideas. This is only the seventh post on it, from over one hundred, by a member of the ICC.

Don't people on this forum have any better critiques other than "the PSL ate dinner with Ahmadinejad!!!1"? Seriously, it's not a big deal. Some members of ANSWER got an invitation as well as other progressive groups/people to have a discussion with Ahmadeinjad. That's it. I've seen video from the meeting and that was the extent of it. And I swear, the majority of the board would be fine with Iran going back to US domination. Pathetic.

Of course there is a deeper analysis of it. For us the PSL supports what we consider to be capitalists states and imperialist wars. We wouldn't consider that there is anything even vaguely socialist about it.

The thing about Iran is, to my mind, just a particularly repulsive expression of that. I don't see much point in having a long running argument about it. Some people may think it is an OK think to do. Others will find the PSL's explanations of it as odious as the event itself.

Incidentally, we have a lot of contacts with socialists in Iran as it is next door to us. When these happened, it was reported in the Iranian press, and about half a dozen people wrote to me asking "Who are these bastards*?" referring to ANSWER. I think it is quite clear that Iranian socialists would be appalled by your antics.

I've spoken to Blackscare at length about these matters, and believe me, he was in no way biased against leftcoms. This thread, has, however, probably turned him away from leftcom organizations forever. And you have no one to thank but yourselves.

I'm not sure what we have done, whether it is what we have said or how we have said it. If it is how we have said it, obviously we need to reflect on how we come across. I'd be thankful if Blackscare could tell us what the problems are. If it is what we have said, then ı don't really have a problem with it. I am sure he isn't the only person who doesn't like our politics.

Devrim

*This was the most polite expression used.

manic expression

8th February 2011, 19:11

If you can't tell the difference between getting aid in a revolutionary situation, like Lenin did, and dining with the head of a capitalist state out of solidarity in a non-revolutionary situation, then I feel bad for you and your over-inflated ego.
Ah, so this is about tactical considerations, not principle. First it's a moral thing, then it's chauvinism and now it's timing. What inconsistent blather.

Agreed, if I was doing that I'd hope a level headed comrade would tell me to stop.
I'm doing my best.

Good luck talking to normal people. If you're fluent in English yet are incapable of understanding language like the language I use then you're a moron.
When "normal people" start espousing your political line, then yeah, I'm sure I'll run into some difficulty.

Jesus christ, you should clarify things instead of act like such a little snot. What matters is your position today. What is your parties position on the modern capitalist party that is the FMLN? Answer in a clear way. Simple question.
Check out "FMLN defeats decades of rightwing rule" on pslweb.org...it'll provide the PSL line on the issue. Further, calling the FMLN "capitalist and leaving it at that is both greatly oversimplified and out-of-touch with the political situation in Latin America.

I actually retracted that statement earlier, I was wrong and admitted it. but it's amusing to see that you still cling to that as a way of attacking me.
You retain the charge when it comes to our position on Iran. In light of these wide-ranging issues we analyze in depth and look to, that needs to be retracted as well. Further still, our position on Iran is in line with revolutionary defeatism, and this has been explained.

Yes because one materially aids you in an easy way in a revolutionary situation like Lenin did, and one expresses solidarity at no charge. You can't understand that?:laugh:
According to you, if there's a revolutionary situation in the US and socialists accept Iranian aid, you'd be fine with it...but attending an event that Ahmedinejad also attended is somehow the real problem. Iranian aid during instability is great, but eating a meal within 800 yards of its head of state is wrong!

Listen, it's best you take a step back and figure out what you're actually denouncing us for. You can't seem to decide whether it's about moral principle, "chauvinism" or mere timing. For all your talk of dinner, your list of abandoned justifications for this is beginning to resemble an ultra-left buffet.

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 19:59

Ah, so this is about tactical considerations, not principle. First it's a moral thing, then it's chauvinism and now it's timing. What inconsistent blather.
No, you are so thick. Like, this is actually absurd how clueless you seem to be on this.

I never raised it to a morality issue, and I always said it's a chauvinism issue. The thing is, it would not be chauvinism if you were getting aid from Iran to aid revolution, like when Lenin accepted aid. But it is, because your party was dining with a bourgeois leader out of solidarity with an anti-worker government for no benefit to advancing any revolution, merely out of solidarity, nothing in it to aid the workers or to advance socialism. This is why Lenins pragmatic acceptance of aid to aid the Russian revolution is different from your solidarity with Ahmidinejad which was done merely out of showing solidarity to a reactionary, and no purpose beyond that. Can you comprehend this?

I'm doing my best.
I wish that actually went over your head, it would have been funny.

When "normal people" start espousing your political line, then yeah, I'm sure I'll run into some difficulty.No, normal people are not far left, normal people in the US are generally democrats or republicans. I am much more inclined towards the PSL than most people in the US.

Jesus Christ, you must be terrible at talking to people.:laugh:

You retain the charge when it comes to our position on Iran. In light of these wide-ranging issues we analyze in depth and look to, that needs to be retracted as well. Further still, our position on Iran is in line with revolutionary defeatism, and this has been explained.Well, look at what Devrim said.

According to you, if there's a revolutionary situation in the US and socialists accept Iranian aid, you'd be fine with it...but attending an event that Ahmedinejad also attended is somehow the real problem. Iranian aid during instability is great, but eating a meal within 800 yards of its head of state is wrong!This is comical. Are you willfully ignorant

Tell me, what revolution was aided when you dined with someone who butchers workers? Did it aid revolution or did it merely express solidarity with the Iranian govt? I can tell you what revolution was aided when Lenin accepted aid.

Stop comparing your actions to those that Lenin took, it's hilariously stupid.

Listen, it's best you take a step back and figure out what you're actually denouncing us for. You can't seem to decide whether it's about moral principle, "chauvinism" or mere timing. For all your talk of dinner, your list of abandoned justifications for this is beginning to resemble an ultra-left buffet.You have trouble reading, yes?

RedTrackWorker

8th February 2011, 21:45

We take no specific stance on the African National Congress. Here is the article manic expression was referring to (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/09-12-20-contradictions-class-struggle-in.html).

The article gets one thing perfectly right:
"South Africa will be one of the central battlegrounds of the worldwide struggle against capitalism".
Which raises the question of how the PSL can get around taking a specific stance on the party that rules that country?
I would say: because it's too similar to populist/popular front governments like Chavez that they support, but not as popular so they don't want to go "all in".
Compare our article (http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/southafrica80.html), which notes for instance:

To advance the strike it was necessary to spread the struggle without concern for legality by calling a general strike. Indeed, calls for solidarity strikes were rising among other sectors of workers, particularly the powerful miners’ and metalworkers’ unions. But the dominant leadership of the trade unions belongs to the Communist Party, and it was desperate to avoid an all-out confrontation with the government. The SACP is, after all, in alliance with the ruling ANC and has no alternative to its pro-capitalist policies. So the union bureaucracy resorted to a series of tricks to deceive workers.
The kind of confusion the PSL displays in Venezuela and in South Africa politics, for example, reflects that they're looking to forces other than the working class, which in this world, boils down to looking to a "leftist" bourgeois force. This idea that "elements of the state" (see article) in Venezuela are part of the workers' revolution is a terrible, terrible guide to working-class political independence. It's on a continuum with the sort of thinking that lead two different parts of the Stalinist movement to support the Ben Ali dictatorship in Tunisia. The PSL is not in that part of the continuum by far, but the logic of looking to bourgeois forces rather than working class self-organization and self-consciousness is the same.

manic expression

8th February 2011, 21:49

No, you are so thick. Like, this is actually absurd how clueless you seem to be on this.

I never raised it to a morality issue, and I always said it's a chauvinism issue. The thing is, it would not be chauvinism if you were getting aid from Iran to aid revolution, like when Lenin accepted aid. But it is, because your party was dining with a bourgeois leader out of solidarity with an anti-worker government for no benefit to advancing any revolution, merely out of solidarity, nothing in it to aid the workers or to advance socialism. This is why Lenins pragmatic acceptance of aid to aid the Russian revolution is different from your solidarity with Ahmidinejad which was done merely out of showing solidarity to a reactionary, and no purpose beyond that. Can you comprehend this?
Those who have raised the issue in the first place put it in terms of morality. You, for your part, felt that opposing this phantom "chauvinism" is, in fact, an opposition of morality (your words, not mine). If you want to retract that as well, do so, maybe you can pretend to be consistent.

But again, your opposition is actually about timing? If socialists wait until there's instability and then accept aid from Iran, you're OK with it? Answer the questions, it's not the first time I've asked them (not that I expect you to notice). Regardless, the unevenness of your condemnation speaks to a fundamental bankruptcy in your position that has already been exposed.

I wish that actually went over your head, it would have been funny.
Not nearly as funny as your baseless slander, I trust.

No, normal people are not far left, normal people in the US are generally democrats or republicans. I am much more inclined towards the PSL than most people in the US.
Normal people are, by and large, more friendly to socialist politics than you are. That should tell you where you stand.

Jesus Christ, you must be terrible at talking to people.:laugh:
So politics isn't the only area in which you make unfounded, illogical assumptions. :lol:

Well, look at what Devrim said.
Sure.

This is comical. Are you willfully ignorant

Tell me, what revolution was aided when you dined with someone who butchers workers? Did it aid revolution or did it merely express solidarity with the Iranian govt? I can tell you what revolution was aided when Lenin accepted aid.

Stop comparing your actions to those that Lenin took, it's hilariously stupid.
Your problem is that it "expressed solidarity" with Iran by having representatives at an event that Ahmedinejad also attended. While this "solidarity" is purely in your imagination and based on nothing but superficial slander...if we use your rubric, did Lenin not similarly "express solidarity" with the German Empire? Especially when Lenin was essentially furthering the immediate goals of the German Empire (getting Russia out of the war) in accepting that aid during a time of instability in Russia? Still, timing does not diminish the moral content of aid and accepting aid, so you are once again being inconsistent. And you are being inconsistent because this is not about some superior morality, or about "chauvinism", or even about tactics and timing...it is about making a petty, slanderous cheap shot against a revolutionary party.

You have trouble reading, yes?
This, coming from the person who's refused to comment on the PSL's articles on multiple subjects.

Chimurenga.

8th February 2011, 22:14

Of course there is a deeper analysis of it. For us the PSL supports what we consider to be capitalists states and imperialist wars. We wouldn't consider that there is anything even vaguely socialist about it.

The thing about Iran is, to my mind, just a particularly repulsive expression of that. I don't see much point in having a long running argument about it. Some people may think it is an OK think to do. Others will find the PSL's explanations of it as odious as the event itself.

Incidentally, we have a lot of contacts with socialists in Iran as it is next door to us. When these happened, it was reported in the Iranian press, and about half a dozen people wrote to me asking "Who are these bastards*?" referring to ANSWER. I think it is quite clear that Iranian socialists would be appalled by your antics.

Funny because we have Iranian comrades FROM IRAN in our party who completely support our line and write about Iran for our newspaper. So this argument is null and void.

What you have just posted here and throughout this thread is one of "Left Communism's" key mistakes in not recognizing the absolute importance of national liberation and anti-imperialist struggles. This can also factor into why Left Communism has never been an actual working revolutionary strategy for the working class and the poor. Instead it actually deviates into an Ultra-left position that is extremely harmful for the working class.

And if I recall correctly, a number of Communist parties in Iran as well as opportunist psuedo-Left parties in the US sided with imperialism over the 2009 protests and the election.

This, coming from the person who's refused to comment on the PSL's articles on multiple subjects.

And who still hasn't sourced his claims on the FARC.

black magick hustla

8th February 2011, 22:20

And if I recall correctly, a number of Communist parties in Iran as well as opportunist psuedo-Left parties in the US sided with imperialism over the 2009 protests and the election.

prolly all the "communist parties" in iran did this. when your comrades were murdered and exiled by the clerical vermin i imagine there isn't much love for defending white reaction from "imperialists". including having dinner parties with them

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 22:26

Those who have raised the issue in the first place put it in terms of morality. You, for your part, felt that opposing this phantom "chauvinism" is, in fact, an opposition of morality (your words, not mine). If you want to retract that as well, do so, maybe you can pretend to be consistent.
I said that chauvinism is immoral/unethical. It is, but that doesn't make it be the main focus. The main focus has been your parties chauvinistic line.

Also, "those who raised the issue..."

Please tell me where I said this was the main issue. Am I NHIA?

Well I just double checked the top of my post and as of now it seems that I'm not.

But again, your opposition is actually about timing? If socialists wait until there's instability and then accept aid from Iran, you're OK with it? Answer the questions, it's not the first time I've asked them (not that I expect you to notice). Regardless, the unevenness of your condemnation speaks to a fundamental bankruptcy in your position that has already been exposed.If you were Lenin and the Russian revolution was going on then accept aid from whoever the fuck you can. Native Americans accepted aid from the Brits to fight the American colonizers, I won't criticize them. That's different from dining with a bourgeois leader simply for the sake of it.

......how do you not see?

Not nearly as funny as your baseless slander, I trust.
Not as clever as you hoped that would sound.

Normal people are, by and large, more friendly to socialist politics than you are. That should tell you where you stand.Um, no.

Actually what I've said is actually not even incompatible with Marxist-Leninism for fucks sake. You do realize that solidarity with the Iranian govt isn't even a position that has to be held by Marxist-Leninists? It was only held by PSL and WWP during the Iranian protests, ffs. Are all other ML parties anti-socialist to you?

I'm not even in the ICC. Based on my posts in this thread you probably wouldn't even be able to tell my political orientation outside of that I oppose capitalist political parties, going by the Marxist-Leninist definition of capitalism.

Sure.
Yay you did it.

Your problem is that it "expressed solidarity" with Iran by having representatives at an event that Ahmedinejad also attended. While this "solidarity" is purely in your imagination and based on nothing but superficial slander...if we use your rubric, did Lenin not similarly "express solidarity" with the German Empire? Especially when Lenin was essentially furthering the immediate goals of the German Empire (getting Russia out of the war) in accepting that aid during a time of instability in Russia? Still, timing does not diminish the moral content of aid and accepting aid, so you are once again being inconsistent. And you are being inconsistent because this is not about some superior morality, or about "chauvinism", or even about tactics and timing...Pragmatically, yes it does. Expressed solidarity through dining with someone for purely solidarity purposes is different from advancing revolution through pragmatic means. If you can't grasp this, I'm done here.

it is about making a petty, slanderous cheap shot against a revolutionary party.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm setting out to do, you really nailed it.

This, coming from the person who's refused to comment on the PSL's articles on multiple subjects.The ANC article's encouragement of working in a bourgeois alliance that has gotten nowhere provides no good evidence that it's a good idea, and the FMLN article was happy about a social democratic party. That's my insight.

If you are so thick that you can't see why what you did was offensive to Iranian socialists, and not like what Lenin did, I'm not responding to this anymore. this is an exercise in futility. But please, for the love of god, stop comparing your parties actions to Lenin.

You can keep putting your hands over your ears and screaming "you're a hypocrite 'cause Lenin had to accept aid from Germany, so we can dine with whatever leader we want" if you'd like.

manic expression

8th February 2011, 22:33

Of course there is a deeper analysis of it. For us the PSL supports what we consider to be capitalists states and imperialist wars. We wouldn't consider that there is anything even vaguely socialist about it.
This displays a lack of understanding of what the PSL says. When the PSL says "Hands Off Iran!", we demand that imperialism not violate the self-determination of the Iranian people. However, that does not translate into support for the Iranian state beyond that. It does translate into revolutionary defeatism, something that has been explained already.

Incidentally, we have a lot of contacts with socialists in Iran as it is next door to us. When these happened, it was reported in the Iranian press, and about half a dozen people wrote to me asking "Who are these bastards*?" referring to ANSWER. I think it is quite clear that Iranian socialists would be appalled by your antics.
So six people and yourself represent the opinions of the whole of Iranian socialism? It's not disagreement that's an issue for me (especially with a subject so charged), it's that the PSL's position is being misrepresented by its opponents. Trying to turn a revolutionary defeatist position aimed to obstruct and challenge imperialist interests into some full-on support for the Iranian state is simply erroneous.

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 22:44

Wait, just out of curiosity, how do you think it will help the US be defeated by your party dining with Ahmidinejad?:confused:

I'm not trying to be provocative or anything, that actually confuses me how that conclusion could be arrived at.

manic expression

8th February 2011, 23:09

I said that chauvinism is immoral/unethical. It is, but that doesn't make it be the main focus. The main focus has been your parties chauvinistic line.
The main focus has been your failure to show how the PSL line (which you don't actually understand) is "chauvinist". Your attempt to insert some sort of imagined superior morality into the issue only helps underline the absurdity of your argument.

Also, "those who raised the issue..."

Please tell me where I said this was the main issue. Am I NHIA?

Well I just double checked the top of my post and as of now it seems that I'm not.Too bad you can't double check your own posts. You put your own arguments in a moral light a few posts back.

If you were Lenin and the Russian revolution was going on then accept aid from whoever the fuck you can. Native Americans accepted aid from the Brits to fight the American colonizers, I won't criticize them. That's different from dining with a bourgeois leader simply for the sake of it.

......how do you not see?:laugh: You're still dealing with the image in your head, not what actually happened. It wasn't "dining...simply for the sake of it", it was an event that discussed the situation in the region that had a head of state part of it. Again, you can't figure out whether it's the timing or "chauvinism" or morality. Tell me, since I'm curious, if a Native American has a discussion with a British official when they're not at war with the US, are you going to condemn the Iroquois Nation? Have fun with consistency.

Not as clever as you hoped that would sound.If your sense of humor is as sharp as your political instincts, I should think so.

Um, no.

Actually what I've said is actually not even incompatible with Marxist-Leninism for fucks sake. You do realize that solidarity with the Iranian govt isn't even a position that has to be held by Marxist-Leninists? It was only held by PSL and WWP during the Iranian protests, ffs. Are all other ML parties anti-socialist to you?And here I thought we were talking about how you're not "normal people". Now we're looking at a litmus test of Marxism-Leninism. But since you brought it up, first of all it's only "solidarity" so far as we want US imperialism out of the middle east and central Asia; second the position on the Iranian protests was based on the understanding that it was a move to the right of the Iranian government, which is true (hey, how's it feel showing solidarity with the richest man in Iran?); third, it's revolutionary defeatism, a basic principle of Marxism-Leninism.

I'm not even in the ICC.Where did I assert that you were?

Pragmatically, yes it does. Expressed solidarity through dining with someone for purely solidarity purposes is different from advancing revolution through pragmatic means. If you can't grasp this, I'm done here.:lol: It wasn't "purely for solidarity purposes". Get your head out of wherever it is and look at reality for a change.

The ANC article's encouragement of working in a bourgeois alliance that has gotten nowhere provides no good evidence that it's a good idea, and the FMLN article was happy about a social democratic party. That's my insight.Then your "insight" is not only ill-informed, not only naive, not only in defiance of what the PSL actually said but oversimplified even within those limits. The Tripartite Alliance has not "gotten nowhere", it freed the people of South Africa from apartheid terror, and further it will be a central focus in the battle between reactionary and progressive forces in the country; abandoning it just because you want to be morally pure is beyond idiotic. The recent history of struggle in Latin America has shown that executives can act as anchors for working-class struggle and victories; that is why we must look at the FMLN's recent gains in the light of those present conditions, as Marxists do.

If you are so thick that you can't see why what you did was offensive to Iranian socialists, and not like what Lenin did, I'm not responding to this anymore. this is an exercise in futility. But please, for the love of god, stop comparing your parties actions to Lenin.

You can keep putting your hands over your ears and screaming "you're a hypocrite 'cause Lenin had to accept aid from Germany, so we can dine with whatever leader we want" if you'd like.In other words, you're still unable to illustrate what's so horrifyingly wrong with the PSL having representatives attend an event that a capitalist head of state also attends. Nothing we didn't know.

And on edit to answer your newest post, it was the purpose of the event to discuss issues of the region in relation to US imperialist threats. This, again, is in line with revolutionary defeatism.

Chimurenga.

8th February 2011, 23:23

Actually what I've said is actually not even incompatible with Marxist-Leninism for fucks sake. You do realize that solidarity with the Iranian govt isn't even a position that has to be held by Marxist-Leninists? It was only held by PSL and WWP during the Iranian protests, ffs.

Actually, that is completely false and testament to the fact that you have no idea of what you're talking about. In this country, FRSO (Fight Back) adopted the same line. As did the CPGB ML and I'm pretty sure the Workers Party of Belgium did as well, off the top of my head.

I guess all these parties are "chauvinist" as well. :lol:

Kassad

8th February 2011, 23:33

I really wanted to stay out of this thread, as it initially started with someone looking to get involved with revolutionary organizing. Despite the obvious fact that he chose two organizations that view socialist revolution in two fundamentally different ways, there was really nothing wrong with wanting to get involved with an active socialist organization, despite the fact that only one of them can really be considered active. However, it's about time this issue was put to rest.

Vladimir Lenin called imperialism the highest stage of capitalism. Despite the fact that the International Communist Current (ICC) is clearly anti-Leninist, it appears that those defending it come to the same conclusion. That being said, defining imperialism is novice in the international socialist movement. Opposing it on all fronts is truly revolutionary, which is something that a sizable amount of ostensible revolutionaries do not do. Imperialism, to date, has been by far the largest impediment to socialist construction in history. Whenever the working class rises up in a country, whether it be Russia, China, Korea, Cuba and many other examples, imperialism acts quite swiftly to strike down the gains of the proletariat. When the bourgeoisie is thrown out of power, the ruling class of highly developed imperialist countries acts swiftly to either place it back on its seat of power or replace it with a puppet regime of the imperialist power itself. Where do our two organizations stand on this issue?

The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) combats imperialism unconditionally. When imperialist countries rise to prey on oppressed nations, we fight it in print and in action. We stand with nations fighting for self-determination. Take Iran for example. The people of Iran rose up against a U.S.-backed puppet and claimed the resources and land of the country for themselves. However, this was not a socialist revolution by any means. The bourgeoisie was not overthrown. The proletariat was not placed in power. However, this revolution opposed imperialist control of Iran, making it an anti-imperialist revolution. Organizations like the ICC love to fetishize "the people", but when the masses truly rise up in the interest of their own self-determination, the ICC condemns it. Pretty twisted if you ask me, even for an ostensibly anti-imperialist organization like the ICC.

Despite the fact that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a popular uprising that consisted of the vast majority of the Iranian people coming out in support of it, opportunists consistently attack this. This is where the ICC comes in. The ICC attempts to be a champion of socialism and the cause of the working class, yet when the people fight imperialism, they are scolded. Every socialist would have loved to see a proletarian revolution in Iran in 1979, but the material conditions for that kind of event were not there. So fast forward to the present day, what do we have?

We have a country still waging an ongoing struggle against imperialism. This country's neighbors are invaded and ravaged. The country is sanctioned, threatened and scolded by imperialist powers. Decades later, where does the ICC stand? It continues to stand resolutely on the side of imperialism! While the people of Iran still vehemently defend their revolution, the ICC stands boldly beside the corporate media and foreign ruling classes that supported the color revolution instigated by Mousavi and his petty-bourgeois supporters. Once on the side of imperialism, always on the side of imperialism.

Leaders of the ANSWER Coalition sat down to dinner with President Ahmadinejad, the democratically elected president of Iran, who stands as a resolute anti-imperialist in the international community. You want to get me to condemn that? Not a chance. Also, for those of you being laughable elitists and criticizing us stating that we would never gain support of the Iranian people in our movement, we have members of our party from Iran... who support our stance on Iran... who visited Iran during the protests after the election... and still uphold our stance. First-hand accounts tend to be necessary in this context. Using the same talking points as FOX News to support the Iranian petty-bourgeois forces doesn't exactly make you look revolutionary.

The PSL organizes in the United States because it is the largest military and economic superpower in history. It is the largest threat to sovereign and oppressed countries across the globe. It stands as the largest impediment to international revolution that anyone could ever imagine. We may not have members in other countries, but we are a growing force in the United States fighting to build for a revolution in the belly of the imperialist beast in the interest of the global proletarian movement. Also, we have more international ties and fraternal relations than I have time to list right now, so I'm not really concerned about our international standing in that regard. As I stated somewhere before this, we packed in one of the largest halls on one of the United States' largest campuses last year with our members from across the country (not all of them by far), our friends and supporters from the international community. If the ICC attempted to hold such an event, I'm sure they would have less people show up than could fill the bus on my nightly commute to work.

Anti-imperialism is now revolutionary defeatism? That mere suggestion kept me laughing for a long enough period that I almost couldn't type this response out coherently. The PSL was recently called the most active communist party in existence since the days of Communist Party USA's widespread influence. We've also been recently mentioned on the largest media channel in the country (FOX News) several times for our active role in building and mobilizing for struggle. The coalitions we have built have organized some of the largest demonstrations in the history of the United States. We may not be in a revolutionary situation today, but we're one of the few building for it. The ICC cannot say the same.

What is depressing is that, like stated at the beginning of my post, this thread was started by someone looking to get involved in revolutionary organizing. It takes about thirteen seconds of reading this thread to see who's organizing and who's hanging their heads in defeat.

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 23:42

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 23:49

Also, if I were one of you PSL members I'd be asking about the ICC's stance on Lenin accepting aid because that is a legitimate question to ask the ICC on, like does that make Lenin not internationalist? I wouldn't be comparing it to your own party though....

Lyev

8th February 2011, 23:55

Some of the problems with the anti-imperialism that many socialists uphold is that it abandons class politics - which is what fundamentally underlies Marxism in theory and practice - in favour of organisation of working people along national lines. The proletariat is an international class. You say you stand with nations - i.e. one homogeneous mass of people, examined regardless of class divides - 'fighting for self-determination'. Self-determination cannot happen within the limits of capitalism's social relations. What happened to standing with the working class fighting for political independence? I object this silly 'us or them' rhetoric, too. Just because you don't support one tendency's brand of 'anti-imperialism' does not mean you have somehow appeared in imperialism's camp.

Kassad

9th February 2011, 00:33

So you decided Iran wasn't ready for socialism?

That's called Menshevism.

That's called reality. There was a revolutionary situation in Iran, but the Islamic forces there too control of that situation. It's not so much that Iran wasn't "ready" for socialism (I didn't say that, but nice try), but that the leftist forces did not come out on top.

Nothing Human Is Alien

9th February 2011, 00:55

the leftist forces did not come out on top.

No, they came out on the bottom.. six feet underground. Where Khomeini and Co. put them.

StalinFanboy

9th February 2011, 01:36

Am I the only one finding it weird that the ICC and LeftComs are getting shit on for being "elitist" yet some people are comparing the PSL to Lenin and the Bolsheviks?

gorillafuck

9th February 2011, 02:25

That's called reality. There was a revolutionary situation in Iran, but the Islamic forces there too control of that situation. It's not so much that Iran wasn't "ready" for socialism (I didn't say that, but nice try), but that the leftist forces did not come out on top.So we should completely oppose the forces that defeated the socialists, since we want socialism.

also,

Every socialist would have loved to see a proletarian revolution in Iran in 1979, but the material conditions for that kind of event were not there.How is that different from saying Iran is not ready for socialism? "The material conditions were not there". oh c'mon. There was a very revolutionary situation and the Shah was toppled, that's the best conditions you'll ever get.

Chimurenga.

9th February 2011, 04:14

How is that different from saying Iran is not ready for socialism? "The material conditions were not there". oh c'mon. There was a very revolutionary situation and the Shah was toppled, that's the best conditions you'll ever get.

How could they have had a Socialist revolution with not a strong enough Socialist presence in Iran at the time? The main Communist party, the Tudeh Party of Iran, had already been through several crackdowns and was nowhere near as strong as the pro-Khomeini forces. This is like calling for a Socialist revolution in Egypt right now. It's absurd. It would/would've been great but that is not where either country is right now.

Also, we're still waiting on your source regarding FARC....

HEAD ICE

9th February 2011, 05:33

Kassad's post is actually pretty good and I agree with it, he definitely points out the differences between the PSL and the ICC (and the communist left because none of the points are specific to the ICC).

Instead of seeing imperialism as a tendency of capitalism (which is shared by all nation-states, such as Iran and Venezuela, and the behavior of both countries, being capitalist states, prove that), imperialism instead is reduced to a game of Risk. Imperialism is removed of any class basis and it is merely the reflection of a single country's foreign policy.

To the PSL, the USA is imperialist, not because the mode of production within it is based on private ownership of industry and commodity exchange, but because of foreign policy decisions of its leaders. The PSL may object to this, but this is merely the yang to the yin of what the PSL considers anti-imperialism. As Kassad says, Iran became "anti-imperialist" because of a change in leaders.

"The bourgeoisie was not overthrown. The proletariat was not placed in power. However, this revolution opposed imperialist control of Iran, making it an anti-imperialist revolution."

There you have it, depending on what faction of the bourgeoisie is wielding the baton, that is what makes your country either imperialist or non-imperialist. Capitalism, which the PSL agrees exists in Iran and is represented by the Iranian state against American capital, plays no role.

I haven't seen the ICC or any left communist fetishize "the people", the opposite actually. I make it a point, as well as the ICC and other left communist groupings, to explicitly combat any calls of unity towards "the people." The only concern of communists is the liberation of the working class, and the liberation of the working class means the liberation of all of humanity.

Kassad says that the ICC took the side of "imperialism" and that they supported Mousavi. I am not aware of any calls of solidarity and statements of support for Mousavi made by the ICC. I do remember the ICC writing a good article stating how Mousavi took the initiative in massacreing communists (this is ok though, why support class politics if the "material conditions aren't there") and that he is as much of a dog and a tool of imperialism and capitalism as Ahmadinejad.

What Kassad and the PSL means by supporting imperialism is not supporting a certain capitalist leader.

Going back to "fetishizing 'the people'", what in the world does this curious statement mean: "President Ahmadinejad, the democratically elected president of Iran." What difference does it make if some head of state is democratically elected? Instead of attacking the fraud that is bourgeois democracy, the PSL is defending it. The only way I can interpret that statement is that because Ahmadinejad was democratically elected (whether there was fraud or not is irrelevant and wouldn't change its nature in any way), he is the true representative of the working class in Iran and he represents their interests. It can be safe to say that the ICC and other left communists completely and totally reject this type of idealism.

The United States "is the largest threat to sovereign and oppressed countries across the globe."

A "sovereign" country? "Sovereign" to what? It can't be the capitalist mode of production. "Sovereign countries" is the type of idealist liberalism that has no place in marxism.

Kassad explains the final difference between the ICC and the PSL. The PSL views themselves as a successful organization because of the number of people they have on their membership rolls. The ICC and other left communists are not concerned with this.

Thank you to Kassad for making the best post yet on the differences between the PSL and the ICC.

StalinFanboy

9th February 2011, 09:16

kassad's post is actually pretty good and i agree with it, he definitely points out the differences between the psl and the icc (and the communist left because none of the points are specific to the icc).

Instead of seeing imperialism as a tendency of capitalism (which is shared by all nation-states, such as iran and venezuela, and the behavior of both countries, being capitalist states, prove that), imperialism instead is reduced to a game of risk. Imperialism is removed of any class basis and it is merely the reflection of a single country's foreign policy.

To the psl, the usa is imperialist, not because the mode of production within it is based on private ownership of industry and commodity exchange, but because of foreign policy decisions of its leaders. The psl may object to this, but this is merely the yang to the yin of what the psl considers anti-imperialism. As kassad says, iran became "anti-imperialist" because of a change in leaders.

"the bourgeoisie was not overthrown. The proletariat was not placed in power. However, this revolution opposed imperialist control of iran, making it an anti-imperialist revolution."

there you have it, depending on what faction of the bourgeoisie is wielding the baton, that is what makes your country either imperialist or non-imperialist. Capitalism, which the psl agrees exists in iran and is represented by the iranian state against american capital, plays no role.

I haven't seen the icc or any left communist fetishize "the people", the opposite actually. I make it a point, as well as the icc and other left communist groupings, to explicitly combat any calls of unity towards "the people." the only concern of communists is the liberation of the working class, and the liberation of the working class means the liberation of all of humanity.

Kassad says that the icc took the side of "imperialism" and that they supported mousavi. I am not aware of any calls of solidarity and statements of support for mousavi made by the icc. I do remember the icc writing a good article stating how mousavi took the initiative in massacreing communists (this is ok though, why support class politics if the "material conditions aren't there") and that he is as much of a dog and a tool of imperialism and capitalism as ahmadinejad.

What kassad and the psl means by supporting imperialism is not supporting a certain capitalist leader.

Going back to "fetishizing 'the people'", what in the world does this curious statement mean: "president ahmadinejad, the democratically elected president of iran." what difference does it make if some head of state is democratically elected? Instead of attacking the fraud that is bourgeois democracy, the psl is defending it. The only way i can interpret that statement is that because ahmadinejad was democratically elected (whether there was fraud or not is irrelevant and wouldn't change its nature in any way), he is the true representative of the working class in iran and he represents their interests. It can be safe to say that the icc and other left communists completely and totally reject this type of idealism.

The united states "is the largest threat to sovereign and oppressed countries across the globe."

a "sovereign" country? "sovereign" to what? It can't be the capitalist mode of production. "sovereign countries" is the type of idealist liberalism that has no place in marxism.

Kassad explains the final difference between the icc and the psl. The psl views themselves as a successful organization because of the number of people they have on their membership rolls. The icc and other left communists are not concerned with this.

Thank you to kassad for making the best post yet on the differences between the psl and the icc.

boom

NiccolÃ² Rossi

9th February 2011, 09:32

I still disagree 100% with saying marches are a "complete dead end", but I agree 100% with there being "a very real difference" between working-class anti-war action in the army or the factory or streets and "leftists" marching.

With regard to the former statement, just to clarify the issue, we can't talk about marches in the abstract - as a form devoid of content. I'm not sure if you are just using short hand or whether I have not conveyed my point well on this matter.

The question of whether demonstrations and marches called by groups of revolutions is a viable means of struggle, this is a larger question, one that hinges on the state of the struggle. In the current context however, I do think that demonstrations called by leftists around single issues are a political dead end.

I also think that even tiny leftist-only marches (and most aren't leftist-only) can be important or at least necessary. We just organized a march for some South Korean trade unionists and Trotskyists who are in court now there facing long prison terms. It made the news there, possibly may affect the sentencing but definitely gave them some moral support that I know I would want.

I think there is a difference between making it in the news or providing moral support and the actual political significance of such demonstrations though.

But less pragmatically, I don't know how you can draw a hard and fast distinction between workers marching and leftists marching, and even if you think you can, to not see that leftists marching when workers aren't for whatever reason can play a role in bringing the working class onto the scene. There was a certainly an element of that in Tunisia and Egypt it seems to me in the build-up to these outbreaks.

This, I think is actually a very good point. Thanks for making it. I think some of what I've said may have lacked nuance on this point. Again though, this is in no way an endorsement of the politics of activism as typified by the PSL.

Nic.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

9th February 2011, 10:20

No, it comes down to a very different understanding of how revolution happens.

Well yes, this is true.

You think it falls out of the sky, apparently.

By now I think most people are bright enough to have worked out your method of debate. Basically it just boils down to stating opinions as fact, petty insults and most of all misrepresentation.

Funnily enough, no I don't think revolution is 'spontaneos' or "falls from the sky". Once again this reflects poorly on only yourself. You are completely unable to concieve of working class self-organisation or revolution as the work of workers themselves.

:laugh: Precisely as I thought. A talking shop.

Not at all. In fact in our written documents and discussions we have warned against the group becoming any kind of acedemic 'talking shop'. I suppose if you have such a distain for the role of theory in struggle and workers attempting to discuss political concepts and collectively clarify this would be natural.

It means you're talking about the PSL's membership through your imagination, not through any actual knowledge.

Not that I think it's important, but it's pretty amusing you seem think I have to be personally aquainted with members of the PSL to have any 'actual knowledge' much less make any kind of political critique. The slippery slope this presents is pretty obvious I think.

Thanks for finally admitting it. Now, you can apologize for questioning the character of PSL members when you haven't met one in your life.

I never questioned the character of any PSL member anywhere in this thread. Don't let that stop you claiming that I did though. If you sling enough mud some of it will have to stick eventually, right?

Really you haven't given me alot to respond to. So you get what you deserve.

Nic.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

9th February 2011, 10:24

This is a form of class struggle...

...for the chattering classes. :rolleyes:

Yes, because theoretical clarification has no place in the workers movement afterall, right?

Or, speaking of chattering classes, should I say - quoth the law student.

Nic.

gorillafuck

9th February 2011, 12:08

Kassad

9th February 2011, 14:48

I find it pretty comical that I get a decent response claiming that Left Communists and the ICC, who are apparently the only "real communists" in the building, are working towards the emancipation of humanity, yet they don't care about the size of their cadre or membership. It's obvious why you don't care: because Left Communism doesn't appeal to the working class of the world one bit. It's easy to brush off claims that you consist of a minuscule number of activists by stating you just don't care, but let's be honest here. Without having roots in the working class and support from within the proletariat, you aren't getting far. Not that Left Communists have ever had a chance to go far organizationally in the first place.

That pretty much settles the differences between the PSL and the ICC (along with the other assortment of Left Communists sects). Hell, I take classes at my university that probably have twice the amount of supporters of the ICC. I'll give you a glaring difference: I've been in the streets since I was in my early teens building the struggle. I've been all across the country organizing and building a fight back movement, but to date, I have never come across the ICC or any real organized Left Communists. Why is that? It's simple: because Left Communism is not a program of struggle. It's a program of idealism, which makes it easy to criticize countries fighting for self-determination in front of a fucking computer screen. That's where our differences lie.

ZeroNowhere

9th February 2011, 15:02

It's simple: because Left Communism is not a program of struggle. It's a program of idealismIt's somewhat ironic to bring this up after the consciousness raising tirade. One would think that more 'idealist' left communists would indeed look to expand their membership as their primary goal, and be far more concerned about it than they actually are, something along the lines of the SPGB. If left communism were not a program of struggle, they wouldn't hold the 'left wing of capital' analysis, which people seem to find hard to understand ('they have the same ends, stop being so sectarian!') precisely because a program of struggle, based on the rejection of revisionism (this seems to have been Luxemburg's influence on the ICC, and is largely an asset), is quite rare.

Though really, the slur which you people are supposed to use here is 'mechanistic' and 'dogmatic', not 'idealist'.

Without having roots in the working class and support from within the proletariat, you aren't getting farWhich doesn't matter much, so long as they are.

HEAD ICE

9th February 2011, 16:36

The ICC and the ICT are not Jehova's Marxists. We don't believe the avenue for struggle is trying to get as much people within our groups as possible. Really, that kind of thinking borders on Bordigism. Our small groups don't claim to be the class. According to you, the PSL is the class.

Thinking that your group is more representative of the working class because it has more members, that is idealism. There are far more members in the Republican party who are from the working class than the PSL, the ICC, the ICT combined. The GOP has far more "support from within the proletariat" than our tiny organizations (yours included).

Your post is basically the same old story - "what do left communists do??" You say you have been around the country organizing. Well, while you guys do your organizing, in South Korea right now 8 militants of the communist left are awaiting their fate from a politically motivated show trial. In Italy, the ICT are in the streets with students and workers everyday, advocating the politics of the working class and the need to expand the scope of the struggle beyond the university. In Turkey, militants of the communist left agitated everyday in the Tekel strike, advocating communist politics. This is merely the recent history. It was left communists who agitated in WWII against supporting any imperialist faction, along with bringing to light the horrors of the Holocaust to working people. Fausto Atti agitated to partisans in Italy, advocating autonomous proletarian struggle. When he was successful, Togliatti had him killed. Onorato Damen was in prison and in exile longer than Gramsci and was even involved in firefights with fascists. Togliatti tried having him assassinated along with militants of the communist left. In Russia, Stalin's purges included people deemed "Trotskyist-Bordigist", and many non-political ethnic Italians were murdered as well.

What "activism" is the PSL doing to help the political prisoners in South Korea? Struggle exists outside of the USA you know.

Of all the things I said, I am disappointed but not surprised that the one thing you took most offense too was my comment about membership. You are correct. That is where our differences lie.

Chimurenga.

9th February 2011, 16:40

The khomeini forces victory actually weakened the socialists.

Except not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party_of_Iran#Crackdown_following_coup

And there was also a crackdown prior to this in 1949. None of these had to do with pro-Khomeini forces.

Chimurenga.

9th February 2011, 17:01

What "activism" is the PSL doing to help the political prisoners in South Korea? Struggle exists outside of the USA you know.

What are Left Communists doing in the US period besides being all members of this message board?

You don't have to tell us "struggle exists outside of the USA you know" when we do work to free the Cuban Five who also were incarcerated in a politically motivated show trial and we have comrades who go to Palestine annually to do work there, build ties and their reports go in our newspaper which is distributed all over the country. What group organized a delegation with members coming from Washington DC, New York City, San Francisco, Arizona, and Texas to El Paso, Texas (where his trial is still underway) to expose the truth about the international terrorist, Louis Posada Carriles? We've sent comrades to Venezuela and to Belgium to build ties with other international Communist parties. When the flotilla attacks on the humanitarian aid ships headed to Gaza happened last May, we were out immediately in every major city demonstrating, handing out leaflets and talking to working and poor people directly about what was going on. The exact same can be said when the US's provocation of the Korean Peninsula was underway back in November.

EDIT: And now that I remember it, we actually have a comrade who is in Egypt at this very moment.

Meanwhile, where was the International Communist Current, International Communist Tendency, Internationalist Workers Group or any other Left-com organization in the US? Nowhere to be found.

ZeroNowhere's 'political statement' in his profile sums up Left Communism perfectly: "A De Leonite for the creation of a more perfect union. Stop recruiting, start theorizing."

Thirsty Crow

9th February 2011, 17:13

Instead of seeing imperialism as a tendency of capitalism (which is shared by all nation-states, such as Iran and Venezuela, and the behavior of both countries, being capitalist states, prove that), imperialism instead is reduced to a game of Risk. Imperialism is removed of any class basis and it is merely the reflection of a single country's foreign policy.

My thoughts exactly.
It's very ironic that people holding such views (the head of a bourgeois state as "an opponent of imperialism"; mind you, imperialism as such, and not the current dominance of a single bourgeois state) shoud chide a group which dedicates itself to theoretical clarification which results in intervention in class struggle.

It seems that much clarification is desperately needed in the case of such groups.

ZeroNowhere

9th February 2011, 17:14

ZeroNowhere's 'political statement' in his profile sums up Left Communism perfectly: "A De Leonite for the creation of a more perfect union. Stop recruiting, start theorizing."That's a good point, actually. The latter sentence was added later, and doesn't really link up with the former; as such, I've deleted the former. Your vigilance is appreciated.

We don't believe the avenue for struggle is trying to get as much people within our groups as possible. Really, that kind of thinking borders on Bordigism.I don't think that this is really fair to Bordiga.

HEAD ICE

9th February 2011, 17:17

I don't think that this is really fair to Bordiga.

You are right. That was a poorly placed statement. What I meant by that was that the PSL views itself as the class.

Blackscare

9th February 2011, 17:27

As a serious question though, because I really don't know the answer (incidentally, lets all try to cool our shit here, we don't need to get into a dick-swinging contest about who had the best martyrs, as Stagger seems to have started up with, likewise we don't need to totally shit on groups like the ICC); how do the Left Communists advocate transitioning their highly developed theory into action when the time of revolutionary spontaneity happens? How are workers supposed to even be aware of this theory?

Now, I understand the problem you have with "recruitment" and the like, but I think that especially in a place like the USA where there is so much anti-communist sentiment embedded within "americanism" itself, that communists must work to "thaw" the anti-communist sentiment before one can even begin to hope that the US proletariat will make the "right" choice when the system falls and chaos ensues. Frankly, if such a thing did happen, I don't think many people, almost all of which unaccustomed with proletarian politics, would take the time to fully read and contemplate a nuanced communist political program rather than simply going with some strong-arm law and order fascist. I just don't see any hope for the left-communist ideal in that situation, even if such hopes would be extremely dim for the PSL at this juncture. I mean, you'd at least need sufficient numbers to embed yourselves within (assumed) spontaneous worker's revolt in order to propagandize and agitate, but I think the ICC de-emphasizes membership to such an extent that that wouldn't even be a practical option.

Does the ICC concern itself with any kind of strategy as to how it should spread a proletarian message when "the time is right" without any organizational preparation? Or is it merely about understanding the dynamics of revolution, without participating?

Thirsty Crow

9th February 2011, 17:35

...that communists must work to "thaw" the anti-communist sentiment before one can even begin to hope that the US proletariat will make the "right" choice when the system falls and chaos ensues.
First of all, I think that you raise valid questions which deserve a cool headed, intelligent debate.
But it seems to me that the bolded part marks one of your assumptions which simply does not hold.
Why do you think that the system will definitely fall, meaning that the accumulation process will simply come to a halt due to internal pressures?
To clarify, I don't think it's operative in any way, to subscribe to such an assumption, when it comes to tryin to understand actual, concrete possibilities for a successful participation in class struggle (on behalf of the revolutionaries).

Blackscare

9th February 2011, 17:39

First of all, I think that you raise valid questions which deserve a cool headed, intelligent debate.
But it seems to me that the bolded part marks one of your assumptions which simply does not hold.
Why do you think that the system will definitely fall, meaning that the accumulation process will simply come to a halt due to internal pressures?
To clarify, I don't think it's operative in any way, to subscribe to such an assumption, when it comes to tryin to understand actual, concrete possibilities for a successful participation in class struggle (on behalf of the revolutionaries).

Well, this stems from my misunderstanding of Left-Communism, then, because I certainly don't think that capitalism will just "fall". Setting aside that, how do you think that the masses, in a time of revolutionary upheaval or massive labor struggle, or whatever it is Left-Com wet dreams consist of (:p), will gravitate towards the political line of perhaps the least visible group on the radical left?

HEAD ICE

9th February 2011, 17:40

I did not start anything about who has the best martyrs, rather it is a response to the "LOL WHAT Y'ALL DO????"

Surprisingly, left communist groups happen to "do more" where they have more members. In Italy the ICT has even formed workers factory groups.

The strategy of left communists groups is to intervene in struggles of the class, and to put forward the positions of socialism. Not to recruit or to try to concoct class consciousness.

Kotze

9th February 2011, 17:41

Instead of seeing imperialism as a tendency of capitalism (which is shared by all nation-states, such as Iran and Venezuela, and the behavior of both countries, being capitalist states, prove that), imperialism instead is reduced to a game of Risk.Does Venezuela have a military budget similar to that of the USA and a similar presence with military bases all around the world? Does Iran have a military budget similar to that of the USA and a similar presence with military bases all around the world? Do maybe Iran and Venezuela combined have a military budget similar to that of the USA and a similar presence with military bases all around the world? May I interest you in some green bars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)?
Thank you to Kassad for making the best post yet on the differences between the PSL and the ICC.Sarcasm works better when you know what you're talking about, bub :P

HEAD ICE

9th February 2011, 17:45

Does Venezuela have a military budget similar to that of the USA and a similar presence with military bases all around the world? Does Iran have a military budget similar to that of the USA and a similar presence with military bases all around the world? Do maybe Iran and Venezuela combined have a military budget similar to that of the USA and a similar presence with military bases all around the world? May I interest you in some green bars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)?Sarcas m works better when you know what you're talking about, bub :P

Yes because imperialism is all about military policy. For what it's worth I suggest you read up on Chavez' plans for an oil pipeline across South America pumping Venezuelan oil up and down the continent. Chavez is working on behalf of bettering the position of Venezuelan capital. He isn't doing so because he is an evil person. That is how capitalism works.

Blackscare

9th February 2011, 17:51

Surprisingly, left communist groups happen to "do more" where they have more members. In Italy the ICT has even formed workers factory groups.

The strategy of left communists groups is to intervene in struggles of the class, and to put forward the positions of socialism. Not to recruit or to try to concoct class consciousness.

Surely there are labor struggles in the US that the ICC could involve itself with, no? I just wonder if the ICC is so inactive in this country because it is so small, or it is so small because it is inactive, because surely even if they weren't trying to recruit anyone but merely "intervening", some people within the working class would be attracted to it and seek to be involved as members (assuming that the ICC is saying something that people like).

HEAD ICE

9th February 2011, 17:54

Surely there are labor struggles in the US that the ICC could involve itself with, no? I just wonder if the ICC is so inactive in this country because it is so small, or it is so small because it is inactive, because surely even if they weren't trying to recruit anyone but merely "intervening", some people within the working class would be attracted to it and seek to be involved as members (assuming that the ICC is saying something that people like).

From my understanding the ICC is basically non-existant in the USA. Their section pretty much collapsed when Jerry Grevin died. I don't know for sure but the French, Mexican, UK, and Turkish sections are the largest and most active.

manic expression

9th February 2011, 18:05

Stagger Lee, if your argument is that imperialism has nothing to do with military policy, then I suggest you review the history of imperialism from its origins to today. Imperialism immediately manifested itself in military policy; Lenin, IIRC, identified the Spanish-American War as the first imperialist war in history. But no, you say, military policy is completely different! It's possible to be a pacifist imperialist! Oil facilities make a society imperialist...their class composition be damned! This, though, flies against all the character and essence of imperialism. It is an argument that fundamentally depends on a severe misunderstanding of what imperialism is.

The most ridiculous part of your position is that it equivocates the United States bourgeoisie and Hugo Chavez. The former, of course, is the most powerful imperialist force on the face of the planet; the latter, a progressive executive acting as an anchor for working-class struggles in Venezuela and by extension Latin America. Chavez is fighting against the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, and yet you say he's fighting for them. This, too, flies in the face of reality and history.

But what more can we expect from someone whose analysis is so hamfisted and devoid of nuance that the defeat of imperialism's allies in Iran in 1979 is portrayed as nothing but a "change in leaders"? What more can we expect from someone who refuses to see that the right of nations to self-determination is in opposition to imperialism, but instead calls it "idealism" (which echoes the arguments of the bourgeoisie)? Truly, what more can we expect from someone who is too naive to see that the protests they supported in Iran were promoted by the richest man in Iran?

We expect so little from this tendency precisely because it does even less. When questioned on actual activity, we get an allusion to the Republican party, a two-bit non-history lesson about the "lefts" in the 1930's, a citation of supposed "left communists" on trial in Korea (no word on any membership in a left communist organization, mind you) and the vague idea that the ICT is "on the streets" in Italy (what they are actually doing "in the streets", however, remains a mystery). But there you have it...ultra-lefts evidently put more time into defending their utter inactivity than reaching workers and promoting the struggle of the proletariat.

By now I think most people are bright enough to have worked out your method of debate. Basically it just boils down to stating opinions as fact, petty insults and most of all misrepresentation.

Funnily enough, no I don't think revolution is 'spontaneos' or "falls from the sky". Once again this reflects poorly on only yourself. You are completely unable to concieve of working class self-organisation or revolution as the work of workers themselves.
When you say that communists shouldn't use pamphlets or newspapers or speeches or marches...then yes, you're effectively saying that revolution should just happen without any agency from revolutionaries. Of course, you could clarify your position, but I suspect that you aren't going to because it would underline the lack of struggle in your tendency.

Not at all. In fact in our written documents and discussions we have warned against the group becoming any kind of acedemic 'talking shop'.
:laugh: Oh, the irony is so very rich.

Not that I think it's important, but it's pretty amusing you seem think I have to be personally aquainted with members of the PSL to have any 'actual knowledge' much less make any kind of political critique. The slippery slope this presents is pretty obvious I think.
Saying that PSL members are "starry-eyed" idealists and that they will burn out of revolutionary politics in no time is not a political critique at all.

I never questioned the character of any PSL member anywhere in this thread. Don't let that stop you claiming that I did though. If you sling enough mud some of it will have to stick eventually, right?
See post #33. Thanks.

gorillafuck

9th February 2011, 18:23

Except not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party_of_Iran#Crackdown_following_coup

And there was also a crackdown prior to this in 1949. None of these had to do with pro-Khomeini forces.
None of the mass executions of leftists and socialists in Iran had to do with the supreme leader in Iran?

Are you serious?

Yes it did. I know that being a socialist was also illegal pre-Islamic Republic, but when a revolution happens and the new govt has mass executions of socialists in the country, it's a blow to socialists. Pretty clear.

and manic: I'll still go with narino massacres.

Wanted Man

9th February 2011, 18:29

Actually, that is completely false and testament to the fact that you have no idea of what you're talking about. In this country, FRSO (Fight Back) adopted the same line. As did the CPGB ML and I'm pretty sure the Workers Party of Belgium did as well, off the top of my head.

I guess all these parties are "chauvinist" as well. :lol:

I doubt that last bit, but I couldn't find any statements just now, just news articles in the press. Like almost all communist parties, they pointed out that undesirable elements played their part in the background to create a regime change favourable to the US.

But the PSL, WWP, FRSO and CPGB-ML were the only communist parties that I know of that consistently stated that the protests were 100% reactionary and US-supported, claimed that Ahmedinejad was both the "legitimately elected president of Iran" (whatever that means) and "progressive", and who apparently did not have much to say about the working-class people being murdered on the streets by Freikorps-style paramilitaries.

An utterly wrong position, and the source of it appears to be nothing but "anti-imperialist" paranoia, as if striking workers in Iran were somehow paving the way for the US invasion of Iran (an event that these people predict on an annual basis). They are entitled to their suspicions, but why couldn't they even do the most basic thing of declaring solidarity with the Iranian workers? Maybe I've missed that somewhere along the way? :confused: Luckily, the vast majority of the international communist movement took a better stand.

That's called reality. There was a revolutionary situation in Iran, but the Islamic forces there too control of that situation. It's not so much that Iran wasn't "ready" for socialism (I didn't say that, but nice try), but that the leftist forces did not come out on top.

More precisely, they made the conscious political decision to strangle the working-class movement in its cradle and establish a theocracy. If we should accept this state of affairs as "progressive", then surely we might as well give up.

The PSL are awesome for 99% (and the other parties to slightly less degrees), but their line on Iran was utterly and completely fucked up.

Nothing Human Is Alien

9th February 2011, 18:45

The PSL are awesome for 99% (and the other parties to slightly less degrees), but their line on Iran was utterly and completely fucked up.

But their line on Iran isn't unique from their overall approach. It's a direct application of Marcy's "Global Class War" to a concrete situation.

Nothing Human Is Alien

9th February 2011, 18:48

Surely there are labor struggles in the US that the ICC could involve itself with, no?

I think they do. Jerry had plenty of stories about being on picket lines, for instance.

HEAD ICE

9th February 2011, 19:27

This message is hidden because manic expression is on your ignore list (http://www.revleft.com/vb/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

manic expression

9th February 2011, 19:32

The ICT is hidden because it's on everyone's ignore list.

Zanthorus

9th February 2011, 19:36

how do the Left Communists advocate transitioning their highly developed theory into action when the time of revolutionary spontaneity happens?

We don't, revolutionary theory is not supposed to be a set of 'sectarian principles' by which to shape and mold the movement of the class, but merely the expression of the movement of the class itself. The class can abolish capitalism through it's own capacity for collective organisation during the struggle against the bourgeoisie without being endlessly propagandised at by ostensibly revolutionary groups prior to the event.

gorillafuck

9th February 2011, 19:40

This message is hidden because manic expression is on your ignore list (http://www.revleft.com/vb/profile.php?do=ignorelist).
The ICT is hidden because it's on everyone's ignore list.Mods, isn't there a rule that you need to be at least 13 to join this site?:confused:

We don't, revolutionary theory is not supposed to be a set of 'sectarian principles' by which to shape and mold the movement of the class, but merely the expression of the movement of the class itself. The class can abolish capitalism through it's own capacity for collective organisation during the struggle against the bourgeoisie without being endlessly propagandised at by ostensibly revolutionary groups prior to the event.
How can a revolutionary situation result in socialism without the spread of socialist ideas and a viable leadership? Ideological struggles play part in revolution. And in all examples that those who oppose party leadership use as success stories, their success stories are examples of revolutions that actually did not sustain for long at all (Spain, France, Paris Commune, etc.)

Also, denying the usefulness of ideological propaganda is like denying the impact that Uncle Toms Cabin or abolitionist advocates had on northern mentality in the American civil war.

Devrim

9th February 2011, 19:48

a citation of supposed "left communists" on trial in Korea (no word on any membership in a left communist organization, mind you)

The people on trail in South Korea are members of The Socialist Workers’ League of Korea” (Sanoryun), which is a left communist organisation. They were present at the last two international congresses of the ICC, at one of which I personally met some of the people who are on trail now.

Devrim

Devrim

9th February 2011, 20:04

How could they have had a Socialist revolution with not a strong enough Socialist presence in Iran at the time? The main Communist party, the Tudeh Party of Iran, had already been through several crackdowns and was nowhere near as strong as the pro-Khomeini forces. This is like calling for a Socialist revolution in Egypt right now. It's absurd. It would/would've been great but that is not where either country is right now.

There was a mass strike and there were Soviets during the events of 1979 in Iran. It was during a period of massive working cşass struggles, the winter of discontent in the UK (the second biggest mass strike in history), and the Polish mass strike of 1980-1. I don't think it is unrealistic to suggest that there was potential in Iran in 1979. Nor do ı think that the strength of the Tudeh Party is a very relevant point. The situation itself created mass politicization, and all sorts of new revolutionary organisations.

And if I recall correctly, a number of Communist parties in Iran as well as opportunist psuedo-Left parties in the US sided with imperialism over the 2009 protests and the election.

What does sided with imperialism actually mean here? If you are claiming that all of these groups 'sided with imperialism', I don't think it would be any stretch to claim that the PSL sided with the Iranian state.

prolly all the "communist parties" in iran did this. when your comrades were murdered and exiled by the clerical vermin i imagine there isn't much love for defending white reaction from "imperialists". including having dinner parties with them

I don't think that any communist groups supported Mousavi or the green movement in general. I can completely understand people abhorrence at supporting a state which massacred tens if not hundreds of thousands of communists though.

Funny because we have Iranian comrades FROM IRAN in our party who completely support our line and write about Iran for our newspaper. So this argument is null and void.

I am not quite sure you write 'FROM IRAN' in block capitals as if it was something strange. I live in a country next door to Iran, and meet people 'FROM IRAN' all the time, probably like people in Seattle run into Canadians.

I am very surprised that you have people 'FROM IRAN' in your party who follow your line. I can only assume that they weren't people who had been through the revolution and the 1980s.

Devrim

gorillafuck

9th February 2011, 20:10

And if I recall correctly, a number of Communist parties in Iran as well as opportunist psuedo-Left parties in the US sided with imperialism over the 2009 protests and the election.If by a number of, you mean every communist party in the world (regardless of specific ideology) except WWP, PSL, and CPGB-ML.

Zanthorus

9th February 2011, 20:21

How can a revolutionary situation result in socialism without the spread of socialist ideas and a viable leadership?

First of all I never said anything about 'leadership', as for the second (Or rather first) question, would you like to inform us of any revolution which has occured historically because some socialist group or another managed to carry out a large enough amount of propaganda work that they recruited 50%+1 of the working-class over to their course and kicked things off voluntaristically? The Russian revolution was not over socialism initially, but over peace, land and bread. However, in crisis situations seemingly 'reformist' demands put forward by workers necessarily point beyond the existing system.

And in all examples that those who oppose party leadership use as success stories,

Again, I never said anything about parties or 'leadership'. I do not, however, think that existing left groups can just put themselves in the position of leaders of the class movement. When the class begins to move and create organs of struggle, the 'leadership' will be chosen and appointed by the class itself. The attempts of existing 'revolutionary' groups to appoint themselves as leaders of the class can only end in them bureaucratically stifling the real movement when it arises.

Also, denying the usefulness of ideological propaganda is like denying the impact that Uncle Toms Cabin or abolitionist advocates had on northern mentality in the American civil war.

Asserting the usefulness of ideological propaganda ignores the fact that communism is not an ideal to which reality will have to conform, but arises from the conditions of life of the working-class, which must organise collectively in order to defend it's own interests. It is Utopian Socialism, not Marxism.

Devrim

9th February 2011, 20:22

From my understanding the ICC is basically non-existant in the USA. Their section pretty much collapsed when Jerry Grevin died. I don't know for sure but the French, Mexican, UK, and Turkish sections are the largest and most active.

Yes, the section of the ICC almost collapsed and is absolutely tiny. It is just a handful of people with a couple of dozen sympathizers.

The French and the Mexican sections are the biggest by far. The Turkish section is small, but very active. It has members and sympathizers involved in three different workers groups, one of various manual workers in Istanbul, one of office workers, and one of teachers, and of course has been involved actively in various strikes particularly the TEKEL struggle in Ankara last year.

Devrim

gorillafuck

9th February 2011, 20:29

First of all I never said anything about 'leadership', as for the second (Or rather first) question, would you like to inform us of any revolution which has occured historically because some socialist group or another managed to carry out a large enough amount of propaganda work that they recruited 50%+1 of the working-class over to their course and kicked things off voluntaristically?
I didn't say that, but I mean, had socialists in Iran been more prominent then perhaps they could have defeated the Islamists?

The Russian revolution was not over socialism initially, but over peace, land and bread. However, in crisis situations seemingly 'reformist' demands put forward by workers necessarily point beyond the existing system.Yeah, and it became a communist revolution because of Bolshevik organizing and agitation in the initial revolution over peace, land, and bread.

Again, I never said anything about parties or 'leadership'. I do not, however, think that existing left groups can just put themselves in the position of leaders of the class movement. When the class begins to move and create organs of struggle, the 'leadership' will be chosen and appointed by the class itself. The attempts of existing 'revolutionary' groups to appoint themselves as leaders of the class can only end in them bureaucratically stifling the real movement when it arises.That's probably true.

Asserting the usefulness of ideological propaganda ignores the fact that communism is not an ideal to which reality will have to conform, but arises from the conditions of life of the working-class, which must organise collectively in order to defend it's own interests. It is Utopian Socialism, not Marxism.It arises from the conditions of the working class, but as I said earlier, the Bolshevik revolution would not have become a communist revolution without the Bolshevik agitation and organizing. Conditions create revolt, it's up to communist revolutionaries, the class conscious workers, to direct revolt in a communist way. I don't see why agitating and organizing beforehand would make this anything but easier, and communist parties are a way to do that.

manic expression

9th February 2011, 21:06

We don't, revolutionary theory is not supposed to be a set of 'sectarian principles' by which to shape and mold the movement of the class, but merely the expression of the movement of the class itself. The class can abolish capitalism through it's own capacity for collective organisation during the struggle against the bourgeoisie without being endlessly propagandised at by ostensibly revolutionary groups prior to the event.
This is economism. Class struggle is at its core a political struggle, and as such the political interests of the proletariat must be articulated through various means if they are to reach workers and contribute to a greater revolutionary consciousness.

When you try to push this necessary process into the abstract ("the expression of the movement of the class itself"), it robs it of any political currency, and with it any currency in class struggle.

What does sided with imperialism mean here?
It means that those who endorsed the pro-Mousavi demonstrations were, one way or another, supporting a move to the right within Iranian capitalism. As for the PSL supposedly siding with the Iranian state, that is a false oversimplification...the PSL reiterated its position of "Hands Off Iran!" and refused to endorse a campaign that hoped to make Iran more friendly to imperialism. That is hardly support for the Iranian state, that is opposition to imperialism.

I am very surprised that you have people 'FROM IRAN' in your party who follow your line.
Why be surprised? Not every Iranian supported the pro-Mousavi protests as your tendency did.

As for the people on trial, thank you for providing us with specifics. I hope that they are cleared of all false charges. Can you tell us what activity this "Sanoryun" is involved with and what sort of influence they have within the workers of Korea?

If by number of, you mean every communist party in the world (regardless of ideology) except PSL, WWP, and CPGB-ML.
I believe you have forgotten the FRSO, which means that the three arguably most active communist parties in the US all refused to endorse the pro-Mousavi protests.

And on those supposed FARC massacres, you still haven't given any source anyone can take seriously.

Zanthorus

9th February 2011, 21:21

I didn't say that, but I mean, had socialists in Iran been more prominent then perhaps they could have defeated the Islamists?

I'm not at all familiar with Iranian history, so I'm unable to engage you on this point.

Yeah, and it became a communist revolution because of Bolshevik organizing and agitation in the initial revolution over peace, land, and bread.

The Bolsheviks did not organise at the time over communism, their propaganda did not mention the destruction of capitalism, it pointed out the inability of the Kerensky government to fufill the demands of the Russian workers and peasants.

This is economism.

Probably, but I don't base my positions on struggles which Lenin had with a long-dead current in the Russian workers' movement. Anyway, Lenin himself became an 'economist' after 1917.

Class struggle is at its core a political struggle,

Class struggle is a struggle between classes. Since the proletariat cannot win on the terrain of 'freedom, equality, property and Bentham' it must take political action of necessity, but workers do not require the propaganda of ostensibly revolutionary groups to take political action.

Lyev

9th February 2011, 21:24

This is economism. Class struggle is at its core a political struggle, and as such the political interests of the proletariat must be articulated through various means if they are to reach workers and contribute to a greater revolutionary consciousness.Economism? I do believe he was paraphrasing the section of the Manifesto of the Communist Party on 'Proletarians and Communists';
[Communists] do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

[...]

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

manic expression

9th February 2011, 21:34

Probably, but I don't base my positions on struggles which Lenin had with a long-dead current in the Russian workers' movement. Anyway, Lenin himself became an 'economist' after 1917.
On the contrary, Lenin continued to hold that the political nature of class struggle was to be recognized. This is one of the reasons that "after 1917" refers to revolution is because the Bolsheviks rejected economism.

Class struggle is a struggle between classes. Since the proletariat cannot win on the terrain of 'freedom, equality, property and Bentham' it must take political action of necessity, but workers do not require the propaganda of ostensibly revolutionary groups to take political action.And the struggle between classes is political. Therefore class struggle requires political activity and political organization. In the age of imperialism, workers have only succeeded in overthrowing the capitalist class with the leadership of a revolutionary working-class vanguard party. Dismissing political organization and leadership as "propaganda of ostensibly revolutionary groups" misses the point entirely, and history shows as much.

Lyev, the Manifesto of the Communist Party, in this passage, is not telling us that communists aren't supposed to engage in revolutionary propaganda (which the Manifesto was) or neglect the necessities of political organization and leadership (which the Manifesto of the Communist Party endorses in its very title).

gorillafuck

9th February 2011, 21:39

I'm not at all familiar with Iranian history, so I'm unable to engage you on this point.Fair enough.

The Bolsheviks did not organise at the time over communism, their propaganda did not mention the destruction of capitalism, it pointed out the inability of the Kerensky government to fufill the demands of the Russian workers and peasants.That does not mean they were not a communist party organizing and agitating. They had socialism as their goal of their propaganda.

I believe you have forgotten the FRSO, which means that the three arguably most active communist parties in the US all refused to endorse the pro-Mousavi protests.
Alright. Every non-American communist party in the world. Happy?

Also, most active CP in the US isn't saying a whole lot, communists are much more numerous and more active in most other countries. PSL is probably most active in the US, but WWP does not seem very active and FRSO doesn't seem particularly more active than socialist alternative, ISO, etc.

And on those supposed FARC massacres, you still haven't given any source anyone can take seriously.http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/indian-country-today-seeking-justice-latin-indigenous-leaders-come-to-testify/

14th paragraph, there was other stuff on it but this is the first obviously left wing viewpoint I found that mentions it.

Devrim

9th February 2011, 22:04

Why be surprised? Not every Iranian supported the pro-Mousavi protests as your tendency did.

I don't think that our tendency was in any way pro-Mousavi. We published two ICC articles in English on the events, both from the Turkish paper. One of which was entitled 'Iran: Mousavi is not a friend of the workers' (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/1/iran). The other can be found here (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/6/iran).

Why was I surprised? It was because I have met a lot of Iranian socialists in my time, and I would certainly imagine a lot more than you have (considering I must be at least twice your age, and live in an neighboring country, and also lived in London during the 80s when it was full of refuges from the Iranian revolution, and I have never met a single one that would take a line like that.

Are you members people who went through the revolution or young people who grew up in America?

It means that those who endorsed the pro-Mousavi demonstrations were, one way or another, supporting a move to the right within Iranian capitalism. As for the PSL supposedly siding with the Iranian state, that is a false oversimplification...the PSL reiterated its position of "Hands Off Iran!" and refused to endorse a campaign that hoped to make Iran more friendly to imperialism. That is hardly support for the Iranian state, that is opposition to imperialism.

By the same logic as you say we were pro-Mousavi, which we clearly were not, if you read the articles, I don't think it is at all unfair to say that you were pro-state, certainly a lot more so that we were pro-Mousavi.

As for the people on trial, thank you for providing us with specifics. I hope that they are cleared of all false charges. Can you tell us what activity this "Sanoryun" is involved with and what sort of influence they have within the workers of Korea?

Not really, no. The ICC international congress is, unlike some people on here would like to imagine, a reasonably big event, with delegates from its sixteen sections and also from fraternal organisations, amounting to people from communist organisations in overt twenty countries. I didn't get a chance to talk to them in depth.

I know they were involved in the struggles around Ssangyong, but that is about it. I would presume that they have very little influence within the working class, like all communist organisations today that are honest enough to admit it, but I don't know.

Devrim

manic expression

9th February 2011, 22:24

I don't think that our tendency was in any way pro-Mousavi. We published two ICC articles in English on the events, both from the Turkish paper. One of which was entitled 'Iran: Mousavi is not a friend of the workers' (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/1/iran). The other can be found here (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/6/iran).
It is contradictory to support pro-Mousavi demonstrations, which represented a move to the right within Iranian capitalism, and to then say that you're not in any way pro-Mousavi.

Why was I surprised? It was because I have met a lot of Iranian socialists in my time, and I would certainly imagine a lot more than you have (considering I must be at least twice your age, and live in an neighboring country, and also lived in London during the 80s when it was full of refuges from the Iranian revolution, and I have never met a single one that would take a line like that.Now you've heard of one who does.

Are you members people who went through the revolution or young people who grew up in America?From those I know (two chapters out of many), people of all ages that grew up not only in the US but Puerto Rico, DR and other countries. Mostly countries in the Americas, from what I can tell.

By the same logic as you say we were pro-Mousavi, which we clearly were not, if you read the articles, I don't think it is at all unfair to say that you were pro-state, certainly a lot more so that we were pro-Mousavi.Hardly. Refusing to support pro-Mousavi demonstrations does not extend to support for the Iranian state. The only way that logic holds is if you think a move to the right is the only alternative to the present government. I don't, and so your line of logic is false.

Zeekloid, you said FARC admitted to the massacre. I see no evidence for anything of the sort in that link. Also, most active communist party in the US does mean quite a bit, if nothing else because it represents a foundation that is being built upon as we type. It means, most importantly, which communist party is reaching workers and promoting the cause of revolution. An ounce of action and all that jazz.

Nothing Human Is Alien

9th February 2011, 22:42

Economism? I do believe he was paraphrasing the section of the Manifesto of the Communist Party on 'Proletarians and Communists'You have to keep in mind that these folks have very little to do with what that represented; but of course you are correct.

“Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

"But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.” - Engels

"We cannot, therefore, go along with people who openly claim that the workers are too ignorant to emancipate themselves..." - Marx & Engels

gorillafuck

9th February 2011, 22:59

Zeekloid, you said FARC admitted to the massacre. I see no evidence for anything of the sort in that link.
I was thinking of the shining path admitting to a massacre when I wrote that, my apologies. I don't have any sources where FARC admits to the narino massacres. However, I trust leftist indigenous leaders. I trust them on what's going on where they live and they claim it was FARC doing, especially indigenous leaders who make reference to the FARC doing the narino massacre while at the same time condemning the Colombian government.

Hardly. Refusing to support pro-Mousavi demonstrations does not extend to support for the Iranian state. The only way that logic holds is if you think a move to the right is the only alternative to the present government. I don't, and so your line of logic is false.Communists take advantage of revolts against their ruling classes.

Also, most active communist party in the US does mean quite a bit, if nothing else because it represents a foundation that is being built upon as we type. It means, most importantly, which communist party is reaching workers and promoting the cause of revolution. An ounce of action and all that jazz.Fair enough. But still, the PSL has very little influence among the working class. But I hardly think I can be described as anti-socialist for holding a viewpoint that every non-American communist party, be it Trotskyist, Marxist-Leninist, or whatever ideology, hold.

Also, the size of the membership doesn't determine whether the position was correct. And the position on Iran was ridiculous, and Wanted Man put it much better than I did in regards to the PSL on Iran.

Also (not for manic), this claim that ideology doesn't effect revolutionary situations doesn't make sense. If there is no spread of socialist ideas, then how will the most class conscious workers direct revolutionary situations?

Kassad

9th February 2011, 23:05

It's simplistic to say the PSL has "very little influence among the working class." The ideology of socialism as a whole doesn't have any material influence over the working class, despite the fact that it is in the best interest of the proletariat as a whole. However, out of all the socialist groups in the United States, we are growing the fastest, as many have attested to. This also coincides with the fact that we are building ties with an assortment of unions across the country. So in that light, we are doing a lot more than most. We're doing all that we can with our resources.

If we were an organization with members in every city across the country and we still were not influencing labor, that would be a concern. However, we are only six years old and that we are still in the stages of building growth in many areas. That fact pretty much negates the necessity of any statement that we "have no influence in the working class."

manic expression

9th February 2011, 23:37

I was thinking of the shining path admitting to a massacre when I wrote that, my apologies. I don't have any sources where FARC admits to the narino massacres. However, I trust leftist indigenous leaders. I trust them on what's going on where they live and they claim it was FARC doing, especially indigenous leaders who make reference to the FARC doing the narino massacre while at the same time condemning the Colombian government.
OK, I didn't see that. That aside, I think the fog of war is such that I can't say too much. The BBC reported the same year ("Gang kills 12 Colombian Indians", August 27, 2009) of the massacres you mention that "hooded men in uniforms" killed 12 Indians, including children, in the same region. Their identities and allegiances apparently weren't discovered. I'm skeptical that anyone is so sure FARC massacred civilian Indians in such a climate. Honestly, I wouldn't put it past the right-wing lunatics in Colombia to dress their paramilitary goons up as FARC soldiers and then murder civilians. We already know they've done similar things in the past ("false positives").

Communists take advantage of revolts against their ruling classes.I agree, but they must also recognize the nature of demonstrations as they stand. During the protests, I wrote here that I fully understood and applauded Iranian communists who were agitating within the demonstrations. At the same time, I don't think that changes the protests at large from being pro-Mousavi, and thus to the right of Ahmedinejad.

Fair enough. But still, the PSL has very little influence among the working class. But I hardly think I can be described as anti-socialist for holding a viewpoint that every non-American communist party, be it Trotskyist, Marxist-Leninist, or whatever ideology, hold.True.

Also, the size of the membership doesn't determine whether the position was correct. And the position on Iran was ridiculous, and Wanted Man put it much better than I did in regards to the PSL on Iran.Agreed on the first point, but I wasn't trying to assert that membership equals being right. However, when something like revolutionary defeatism is taken into account (which means that communists are to focus on stopping the imperialist ambitions of their own governments), and three among the most active communist parties in the US agree on an issue that very much involves US imperialism in the middle east/central Asia, the PSL is not so alone in its conclusion.

NHIA: Nice quotes, but unfortunately they don't at all prove the point you're trying to make.

gorillafuck

9th February 2011, 23:49

Agreed on the first point, but I wasn't trying to assert that membership equals being right. However, when something like revolutionary defeatism is taken into account (which means that communists are to focus on stopping the imperialist ambitions of their own governments), and three among the most active communist parties in the US agree on an issue that very much involves US imperialism in the middle east/central Asia,You're not going to get a perfect revolt in Iran. That's just not something you can expect to happen. The US will try to influence any revolt in the middle east, and revolts that start out like what happened in Iran can snowball into larger events with different motivations from when it started. With this in mind, that the US will try to influence any revolt (I assume you agree with that?), does this mean that the ruling classes of anti-American governments are alright to crack down in threats to it's power?

the PSL is not so alone in its conclusion.In the United States it is not, but on the world scale it is quite alone. We can agree on that.

But not that that's really what determines the issue. The issue, to me, is how communists in Iran should react. Should they have agitated during the protests, or should they have sided with those putting down the protests?

To me, the clear communist perspective should have been for revolutionary workers to agitate for class war and socialism.

Blackscare

10th February 2011, 03:23

Blackscare

10th February 2011, 03:38

Also, I'd like to say that any revolutionary, or potentially revolutionary, situation that has happen at least in Europe at the time relevant to the formation of the various marxist tendencies being discussed here, was preceded by either a mass-party like socialist movement or some form of other political foment (narodniks killing the Czar, workers marching with Father Gapon to the winter palace, etc) over the period of years. To cling to Left-com theory to the letter without realizing that they came out of a larger movement that had "raised awareness" and were essentially attracting an already (at least somewhat) radicalized population is pure foolishness. It doesn't seem that, on it's own tabula rasa, the Left-Coms can find any suitable solution to struggle. People didn't drift from total a-political or even reactionary tendencies towards a left-com style political grouping, past success was intertwined with the more general success of the left.

Not to say that the only success of the Lefts was due to "leaching" from a broader movement, or that I even regard it as leaching or wrong despite how it might sound, but I think that Left-Com theory is probably mostly effective when operating in some sort of country with some sort of existing conciousness, hence it's almost total invisibility to the US working class (even relative to the rest of the left).

RedTrackWorker

10th February 2011, 05:07

The most ridiculous part of your position is that it equivocates the United States bourgeoisie and Hugo Chavez. The former, of course, is the most powerful imperialist force on the face of the planet; the latter, a progressive executive acting as an anchor for working-class struggles in Venezuela and by extension Latin America. Chavez is fighting against the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, and yet you say he's fighting for them. This, too, flies in the face of reality and history.

I think the PSL position flies in the face of reality and of history...to be polite. When in the history of capitalism have elements of the state been "anchors" for working-class struggles? How can the state--the mechanism for class dictatorship--support both classes, the workers and the capitalists? Paper will take anything written on it, and this is certainly one of those cases. Chavez is fighting sections of the bourgeois, as is and as has every other bourgeois leader throughout history--from Napeleon to Stalin to FDR to Chavez to...Mubarak and Ben Ali. The American CP has essentially dissolved itself into the Democrat Party, and now part of it wants to change the name to match, but it's been supporting the Democrats since 1936 (using various similar kinds of excuses: high road capitalists fighting low road capitalists, whatever). As I noted before, two different Stalinist parties supported the Ben Ali dictatorship.
The tailing of Chavez and the PSUV in Venezuela is, again, what happens when you look to forces outside the working-class: it is a disaster in the making. The blood shed by the working class due to popular fronts--from Spain to Chile and beyond--is wasted on such political leaders as the PSL that continue to point to class collaboration. For more on Chavez, see:
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/venezuela83.html.
And as for theory, it makes a joke of Marxist theory from Capital on down to claim that a part of a capitalist state, especially the executive, could be a leader for working-class struggle. I'll take that eagle of Marxism any day:

The sole method with the aid of which we can attain the realization of socialism is the class struggle. We can and we must penetrate all the institutions of bourgeois society, and put to use all the events that occur there and that permit us to carry on the class struggle. It’s from this point of view that the participation by Socialists was imposed as a measure of preservation. But it’s precisely from this same point of view that participation in bourgeois power seems counter-indicated, for the very nature of bourgeois government excludes the possibility of socialist class struggle. It’s not that we fear for socialists the dangers and the difficulties of ministerial activity; we must not back away from any danger or difficulty attached to the post in which we are placed by the interests of the proletariat. But a ministry is not, in general, a field of action for a party of the struggle of the proletarian classes. The character of a bourgeois government isn’t determined by the personal character of its members, but by its organic function in bourgeois society. The government of the modern state is essentially an organization of class domination, the regular functioning of which is one of the conditions of existence of the class state. With the entry of a socialist into the government, and class domination continuing to exist, the bourgeois government doesn’t transform itself into a socialist government, but a socialist transforms himself into a bourgeois minister. The social reforms that a minister who is a friend of the workers can realize have nothing, in themselves, of socialist; they are socialist only insofar as they are obtained through class struggle. But coming from a minister, social reforms can’t have the character of the proletarian class, but solely the character of the bourgeois class, for the minister, by the post he occupies, attaches himself to that class by all the functions of a bourgeois, militarist government. While in parliament, or on the municipal council, we obtain useful reforms by combating the bourgeois government, while occupying a ministerial post we arrive at the same reforms by supporting the bourgeois state. The entry of a socialist into a bourgeois government is not, as it is thought, a partial conquest of the bourgeois state by the socialists, but a partial conquest of the socialist party by the bourgeois state.

Nothing Human Is Alien

10th February 2011, 05:45

Yea, it totally flies in the face of discoveries made by the class almost a century and a half ago...

"The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." - Karl Marx, 1871.

But what is there to be surprised about?

Die Neue Zeit

10th February 2011, 06:01

The internal and external extent of working-class Party citizenship is the best basis for political support from the working class. As Blackscare noted, the ICC downplays the role of participative voting membership too much.

My criticism of the PSL is that, from the look of things, there isn't enough in the way of programmatic education for its candidate and voting members.

zimmerwald1915

10th February 2011, 06:20

Rusty Shackleford

10th February 2011, 07:36

The criticism that the PSL doesnt do working class struggle is bullshit.

besides the struggle against racism, sexism, war, anti-LGBTQ bigotry and so on(which all of these "fields" of activism happen to include workers) we also fight against capitalism.

from my own experience we do a whole shitload of work. we work with MUNI workers, the ILWU, Unite Here! and so on (what i can think of off the top of my head, and this really only includes San Francisco.)

Part of being a party member is working to organize your own work place, or if a union already exists, you must join it.

activism is not an end, it is a means.

standing on a street corner giving people flyers is a damn good way to strike up a conversation about socialism. and chances are, you wont be talking to a ceo or a business owner.

Devrim

10th February 2011, 10:03

From those I know (two chapters out of many), people of all ages that grew up not only in the US but Puerto Rico, DR and other countries. Mostly countries in the Americas, from what I can tell.

Maybe I expressed myself badly. The question was not asking about your membership in general, but the member(s) from Iran who support your line.

Now you've heard of one who does.

Yes, and I am still very, very surprised even though it is only one. I can only presume that it is somebody with no experience within the working class movement in Iran, who probably grew up in the US.

It is contradictory to support pro-Mousavi demonstrations, which represented a move to the right within Iranian capitalism, and to then say that you're not in any way pro-Mousavi.

We don't have the same view of the world as the PSL where we 'support' this or that struggle like somebody in Utah might support the New York Yankees. We recognised that the demonstrations were happening, and whatever grounds they were held on they represented mass anger within the Iranian working class at the state. We also recognised that there was deep anger against the state within the working class, which was represented by the strike at Khodro, the biggest factory in Iran, against the repression. The statements made by the workers at Khodro as were statements made by other workers including Tehran bus workers made it clear that they didn't see anything progressive about Mousavi, but were against the state repression.

I think the idea that Mousavi represented 'a move to the right within Iranian capitalism' is almost meaningless, but certainly as communists we don't support any factions within the Iranian state.

Hardly. Refusing to support pro-Mousavi demonstrations does not extend to support for the Iranian state. The only way that logic holds is if you think a move to the right is the only alternative to the present government. I don't, and so your line of logic is false.

The only alternative for the working class is class struggle. To me your arguments at the time clearly did extend to support for the Iranian state.

Devrim

Blackscare

10th February 2011, 14:11

My criticism of the PSL is that, from the look of things, there isn't enough in the way of programmatic education for its candidate and voting members.

Interestingly, local branches hold "socialism classes" as well as classes related specifically to the party program itself. I'll be attending, so expect me to make a thread regarding this issue. I actually really like that they hold these kinds of classes, it tells me that they're interested in more than just gaining "foot soldiers" with no real understanding of their politics.

Blackscare

10th February 2011, 14:18

Interestingly enough, what you just said is precisely what the left communists in this thread have given as their conception of how revolution develops: it is prepared by the pre-revolutionary and then proto-revolutionary movements of the working class (discounting the times when this movement is crushed or derailed, since we're talking about how revolution develops).

So what's the beef with the PSL? If you regard them as not "true revolutionaries" or what have you, but rather a party that is left-of-capital, do they still not serve as a "proto-revolutionary" current working towards a higher level of class consciousness?

Are they only bad because they present themselves sincerely as revolutionaries? Is "consciousness raising" only an empty gesture if it's done by a revolutionary party? What would make, say, the SPUSA better in that regard? If the PSL, through it's activity, is objectively preparing for the development of revolution in some way, even if you think that they're misguided or deluded, why the harsh denunciation? Isn't it enough to pursue different methods and leave it at that?

Die Neue Zeit

10th February 2011, 14:58

First of all I never said anything about 'leadership', as for the second (Or rather first) question, would you like to inform us of any revolution which has occured historically because some socialist group or another managed to carry out a large enough amount of propaganda work that they recruited 50%+1 of the working-class over to their course and kicked things off voluntaristically? The Russian revolution was not over socialism initially, but over peace, land and bread. However, in crisis situations seemingly 'reformist' demands put forward by workers necessarily point beyond the existing system.

The Bolsheviks did not organise at the time over communism, their propaganda did not mention the destruction of capitalism, it pointed out the inability of the Kerensky government to fufill the demands of the Russian workers and peasants.

Probably, but I don't base my positions on struggles which Lenin had with a long-dead current in the Russian workers' movement. Anyway, Lenin himself became an 'economist' after 1917.

Class struggle is a struggle between classes. Since the proletariat cannot win on the terrain of 'freedom, equality, property and Bentham' it must take political action of necessity, but workers do not require the propaganda of ostensibly revolutionary groups to take political action.

This broad economism is a very slippery slope, assuming you have read Trotsky's Transitional Program already. The Bolsheviks already commanded significant working-class support since before the war, when they propagated socialism and agitated the "democratic republic," land reform and the eight-hour day.

Why not advocate less-than-maximum demands that cannot be fulfilled even outside of crises instead (http://www.revleft.com/vb/abolish-exploitation-t131948/index.html), because they have an educative function as well as an agitational function?

Die Neue Zeit

10th February 2011, 15:02

Interestingly, local branches hold "socialism classes" as well as classes related specifically to the party program itself. I'll be attending, so expect me to make a thread regarding this issue. I actually really like that they hold these kinds of classes, it tells me that they're interested in more than just gaining "foot soldiers" with no real understanding of their politics.

Months ago, Kassad refused to disclose the party program to the public for an equally public critique. That tells me one of two things: either they are as programmatically deficient as the SWP, or they as programmatically "epic" as the Mandelites (overly long programs).

What would make, say, the SPUSA better in that regard?

Their reform platform (http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/) is extensive but not too long. The WPA's got a good platform, too.

Kassad

10th February 2011, 15:33

Blackscare

10th February 2011, 15:33

Months ago, Kassad refused to disclose the party program to the public for an equally public critique. That tells me one of two things: either they are as programmatically deficient as the SWP, or they as programmatically "epic" as the Mandelites (overly long programs).

Well, I can't speak for that, although I'd hazard a guess that they probably don't want the specifics of such a document available on the internet, not necessarily that they refuse to talk about it in public. What with the right in the media trying to foment another red scare, they don't need Beck doing a black-and-white segment with spooky music doing a segment on their outline of a revolutionary government in the USA, for instance. You have my email, and unless I'm specifically told otherwise I'll be happy to discuss my impressions with you in private when it arrives and I have the time to give it a good read through. As for being overly long, I'm not sure what your standards are for such a thing but I believe it is 57 pages long.

Their reform platform is extensive but not too long. The WPA's got a good platform, too.

What I was getting at is that, if both organizations (one being oriented towards more of a mass party format, with the other being of course revolutionary in nature) serve to foster a greater proletarian consciousness that is required for building the "pre-revolutionary" basis of revolution, does it objectively matter if one group regards itself as an actual vehicle for revolution? You may disagree with the approach, or think that it's just futile, but the idea of opposing such a thing as staunchly as some seem to doesn't make sense to me. Certainly we're not near a revolution at this point, and the "authoritarian" tendencies are no direct threat to the Left-Coms, so I see no principled reason to oppose them.

Blackscare

10th February 2011, 15:34

Nevermind the first bit, Kassad seems to have answered DNZ's question.

ZeroNowhere

10th February 2011, 15:46

Why not advocate less-than-maximum demands that cannot be fulfilled even outside of crises instead, because they have an educative function as well as an agitational function?Because the whole point is demands which can be fulfilled, most prominently in crises. "They are possible, despite all the difficulties and disadvantages which are alleged against them by economists, because these very difficulties and disadvantages will compel the proletariat to go further and further until private property has been completely abolished, in order not to lose again what it has already won. They are possible as preparatory steps, temporary transitional stages towards the abolition of private property, but not in any other way."

They are worthwhile, that is, not because they are 'impossible' in any sense, but rather because they are entirely possible. They are possible, but the basis of capitalism is the rate of profit, and it is the inevitable fall in this that leads to crises, and it is in the interests of the proletariat, especially during crises, to lower it, whereas the crisis takes place precisely, "in order to restore the correct relation between necessary and surplus labour, on which, in the last analysis, everything rests." I'll leave it to you to persuade the working class to fight for castles in the sky rather than their concrete interests, though. I'm sure they'll be very grateful to people who try to deceive them into doing such during crises, at least when they're not too busy starving to death and that.

Ultimately, though, the whole 'demands' phraseology can be misleading (or just amusing, especially with the SPUSA). 'The socialist cares nothing for forms', merely the working class movement; as socialists, we demand nothing. Revolution is the end, and this is a result of independent proletarian political action and class struggle, which forms a means. We do not simply support working class struggle due to some abstract affection for 'underclasses', nor because it 'makes lives better' (a crisis without much of a workers' movement can be Hell), but because the dictatorship of the proletariat is its end, and the end of this is the abolition of class society. The program of revolution is revolution.

Devrim

10th February 2011, 19:18

So what's the beef with the PSL? If you regard them as not "true revolutionaries" or what have you, but rather a party that is left-of-capital, do they still not serve as a "proto-revolutionary" current working towards a higher level of class consciousness?

Are they only bad because they present themselves sincerely as revolutionaries? Is "consciousness raising" only an empty gesture if it's done by a revolutionary party? What would make, say, the SPUSA better in that regard? If the PSL, through it's activity, is objectively preparing for the development of revolution in some way, even if you think that they're misguided or deluded, why the harsh denunciation? Isn't it enough to pursue different methods and leave it at that?

We don't think what the PSL does is in any way 'preparing for the development of revolution', nor do we think that it 'serves as a "proto-revolutionary" current working towards a higher level of class consciousness'.

We think that their politics are openly in support of capitalist states and bourgeois. While they may have members who are people who consider themselves to be socialists we think that their politics and activity plays a negative role on the development of class consciousness if only in that it attracts some people who are questioning capitalist society, and diverts them into what in our opinion is not in any way socialist activity.

"Why the harsh denunciation?" It is a discussion board and we are discussing. We have never denounced them in our press as, to be frank, we don't think that despite all of their bluster about how big they are and how much they are growing that they are a particularly important current.

Devrim

gorillafuck

10th February 2011, 20:11

standing on a street corner giving people flyers is a damn good way to strike up a conversation about socialism. and chances are, you wont be talking to a ceo or a business owner.What's hilarious is that a lot of the anti-activity crowd here (not the ICC, they do do activity) sympathize with the ICC, despite that the ICC sell papers and all that jazz.

Os Cangaceiros

10th February 2011, 20:28

What's hilarious is that a lot of the anti-activity crowd here (not the ICC, they do do activity) sympathize with the ICC, despite that the ICC sell papers and all that jazz.

Who is anti-activity on this site? I don't think that I've ever come across anyone who's anti-activity in principle.

manic expression

10th February 2011, 20:38

Maybe I expressed myself badly. The question was not asking about your membership in general, but the member(s) from Iran who support your line.
I don't know her/him, so you shouldn't be asking me.

Yes, and I am still very, very surprised even though it is only one. I can only presume that it is somebody with no experience within the working class movement in Iran, who probably grew up in the US.You can presume all you wish.

We don't have the same view of the world as the PSL where we 'support' this or that struggle like somebody in Utah might support the New York Yankees. We recognised that the demonstrations were happening, and whatever grounds they were held on they represented mass anger within the Iranian working class at the state. We also recognised that there was deep anger against the state within the working class, which was represented by the strike at Khodro, the biggest factory in Iran, against the repression. The statements made by the workers at Khodro as were statements made by other workers including Tehran bus workers made it clear that they didn't see anything progressive about Mousavi, but were against the state repression.

I think the idea that Mousavi represented 'a move to the right within Iranian capitalism' is almost meaningless, but certainly as communists we don't support any factions within the Iranian state.But it is important to recognize who owns the Yankees, who funds them, who sponsors them and so on. On Iran, you are refusing to deal with the class character of the cause of the protests: Mousavi was and is to the right of Ahmedinejad, and did not represent anything but a pro-imperialist tendency within Iranian capital. That is hardly meaningless, it defines the origins and leadership of the demonstrations. Closing your eyes and pretending the demonstrations were anything but is willful denial of fact.

The only alternative for the working class is class struggle. To me your arguments at the time clearly did extend to support for the Iranian state.And protesting for Mousavi is not working-class struggle. That is what you support. The PSL refused to endorse such a move to the right, and for this you make all sorts of presumptions that only underline the self-defeating nature of your line. You want to pretend as though Mousavi had nothing to do with anything, when the facts tell us otherwise.

We think that their politics are openly in support of capitalist states and bourgeois.Unfortunately for you, this is a cheap lie, and only has currency in your imagination. Perhaps if you learned about the PSL's positions with more honesty and care, you wouldn't make such slanderous statements. But again, your tendency is built on habitual fallacy, so it's easy to expect such a disingenuous attitude.

The PSL refused to support Mousavi, a pro-imperialist capitalist who wanted to improve relations with the US capitalist class. You, on the other hand, supported the demonstrations in favor of that step backward. You refuse to deal with that and instead make comparisons to the Yankees because the facts disprove your paper-thin accusations.

We have never denounced them in our press as, to be frank, we don't think that despite all of their bluster about how big they are and how much they are growing that they are a particularly important current.:lol: Perhaps if you had more than 3 or 4 members in the US, you would have a basis with which to judge this wishful thinking of yours. As it stands, when it comes to working-class struggle in the US, the PSL is a very important organization (if not the most) and its importance only grows. You may scorn relevancy and bask in the innocence inherent in impotence, but revolutionaries would rather build a revolutionary party.

NHIA, nice quote yet again, but as before it doesn't at all prove the point you're trying to make.

Zeekloid, you bring up important issues, and I think it is true that imperialism will try to sway protests to its benefit (we see this in Egypt). However, the reaction from imperialism was quite different than with the progressive working-class struggle in Egypt. Obama, when it came to Egypt, waffled and tried to play both sides of the fence. Did he do this with the Iranian protests? No, the imperialists put on their pom-poms and were cheerleaders for the situation. This disparity cannot be ignored.

Events can snowball, to be sure, but is there any example in history of a movement openly supported by imperialism turning into a revolutionary movement?

I agree on the place of Iranian communists in the protests. I said it before and I'll say it again, I applauded that Iranian communists were agitating within the demonstrations. Lenin told us that revolutionaries must go where the workers are, and I do not wish to say that I was against the application of this principle by our comrades in Iran. That being said, their positive presence in the demonstrations do not change what the demonstrations were, and that was what the PSL dealt with first and foremost. In other words, the PSL analyzed the demonstrations as they were, not as they could have been.

RedTrackWorker, I think there are a few examples. First, Allende was a progressive force in Chile, and did act as a promoter of working-class struggles while part of a capitalist state. Second, Thomas Sankara did much the same in Burkina Faso during his time in power.

While these examples are relatively few and far between, and the above ones ended in defeat through imperialist meddling, they speak to the ability of executives to act as such anchors for working-class struggle. I would say that the need for imperialism to turn its attention to the middle east and away from Latin America has enabled this phenomenon of progressive pro-worker executives (Chavez, Morales...). Whatever the case, the cause of the workers of Latin America is being pushed forward in part by these executives, and it would be silly to not recognize this.

I partially agree with that passage...a government is very much determined by the class dynamics of a society. If we apply this to Venezuela, it is plain that the bourgeoisie of that country (and Colombia, for that matter) has been trying to undermine and destroy Chavez as much as possible. This speaks for itself: Chavez is fighting the bourgeoisie of Venezuela.

My apologies for the format of my posts...my browser still can't copy-and-paste.

black magick hustla

10th February 2011, 21:23

We have never denounced them in our press as, to be frank, we don't think that despite all of their bluster about how big they are and how much they are growing that they are a particularly important current.

I think this is a very interesting point. i think a lot of "revolutionary" press wastes a lot of time denouncing insignificant groups (like bcbm said, nobodies denouncing nobodies). manic expression thinks that his 200 people grouplet is significant, let him think that. let them bask in their own irrelevancy. don't wanna be another clone of the sparts. if the psl was the KKE or something similar (i.e. real left wing of capital, rather than socialist college clubs with stalinist programs) then it would make sense to call them out.

more importantly, what does "particular important current" even mean? i can see the psl being known by other grouplets and nerds like me and insular ideologues and "activists" but when it comes down to being real i bet my socks that there are less than twenty people maybe in this whole state that know what the hell psl even means.

black magick hustla

10th February 2011, 21:26

but revolutionaries would rather build a revolutionary party.
good luck with that homeboy

StalinFanboy

10th February 2011, 21:27

I think this is a very interesting point. i think a lot of "revolutionary" press wastes a lot of time denouncing insignificant groups (like bcbm said, nobodies denouncing nobodies). manic expression thinks that his 200 people grouplet is significant, let him think that. let them bask in their own irrelevancy. don't wanna be another clone of the sparts. if the psl was the KKE or something similar (i.e. real left wing of capital, rather than socialist college clubs with stalinist programs) then it would make sense to call them out.

more importantly, what does "particular important current" even mean? i can see the psl being known by other grouplets and nerds like me and insular ideologues and "activists" but when it comes down to being real i bet my socks that there are less than twenty people maybe in this whole state that know what the hell psl even means.
I think that's what he's saying d00d

black magick hustla

10th February 2011, 21:29

I think that's what he's saying d00d

i know i am not pissing on devrims cornflakes just elaborating

RedTrackWorker

10th February 2011, 21:49

If the PSL, through it's activity, is objectively preparing for the development of revolution in some way, even if you think that they're misguided or deluded, why the harsh denunciation? Isn't it enough to pursue different methods and leave it at that?

Here's your answer from a PSLer:

RedTrackWorker, I think there are a few examples. First, Allende was a progressive force in Chile, and did act as a promoter of working-class struggles while part of a capitalist state.

The PSL is subjectively preparing for socialist revolution but objectively the politics they are training people in are preparing for blocking that revolution. One of the clearest ways to see that their support for "executives" of the capitalist state that say the world "socialism". Allende came to power in Chile on the back of powerful struggles of the workers and peasants. While he tried to create various reforms, most of the reforms he instituted were either 1) approved by virtually the whole bourgeoisie (his nationalization of copper was unanimously supported in parliament or 2) legal recognitions with added constraints of things the workers and peasants had already accomplished themselves (land confiscation, nationalizations of factories). But when push came to shove, he relied on the military, not the workers. When the bosses tried to create economic chaos and overthrow his regime and the workers started taking over the running of society, he told them to quit, go home and then appoint the military to key government institutions. Later, he passed a gun control law, appointed Pinochet as commander-in-chief and in response to another coup attempt, told the workers to go home, not to arm themselves and to trust the military.
So when the final coup attempt came--and Allende got on the radio again to tell the workers to stay home and trust the military, he did not just seal his own fate but that of far too many workers and their organizations. He could only seal their fate however because they were all tied to political leaders that told them to trust Allende. When Lenin got to Russia in 1917, he said: "No support to the [capitalist] provisional government!" If not for that, the workers and peasants of Russia would've been drowned in blood in a similar fashion.
Let me quote the PSL supporter again:

RedTrackWorker, I think there are a few examples. First, Allende was a progressive force in Chile, and did act as a promoter of working-class struggles while part of a capitalist state.
Such ideas prepare a graveyard for the working class.

manic expression

10th February 2011, 21:59

manic expression thinks that his 200 people grouplet is significant, let him think that.
You think the PSL has 200 members and supporters? Well, you're wrong, but you can think that if you want.

let them bask in their own irrelevancy.
You'd know a thing or two about that, wouldn't you?

more importantly, what does "particular important current" even mean?
It means being the most active communist party when it comes to opposing imperialist war, capitalist police brutality, bourgeois assaults on workers' rights, anti-immigrant chauvinism, LGBT oppression, racist and anti-worker gentrification and other crimes of capitalism in the US.

good luck with that homeboy
Irrelevant ultra-left politics...homey don't play dat.

Devrim

10th February 2011, 22:10

i know i am not pissing on devrims cornflakes just elaborating

Piss on them all you like. I was quite surprised to learn at the age of about 13 that all adults didn't put Poitín on their cornflakes (mixed in with the milk of course).

I have seen worse.

Devrim

gorillafuck

10th February 2011, 23:48

Events can snowball, to be sure, but is there any example in history of a movement openly supported by imperialism turning into a revolutionary movement?
You just mentioned earlier how Lenin received aid from the Kaiser....

manic expression

11th February 2011, 02:47

The PSL is subjectively preparing for socialist revolution but objectively the politics they are training people in are preparing for blocking that revolution.
As we will see, this is patently false.

One of the clearest ways to see that their support for "executives" of the capitalist state that say the world "socialism". Allende came to power in Chile on the back of powerful struggles of the workers and peasants. While he tried to create various reforms, most of the reforms he instituted were either 1) approved by virtually the whole bourgeoisie (his nationalization of copper was unanimously supported in parliament or 2) legal recognitions with added constraints of things the workers and peasants had already accomplished themselves (land confiscation, nationalizations of factories). But when push came to shove, he relied on the military, not the workers. When the bosses tried to create economic chaos and overthrow his regime and the workers started taking over the running of society, he told them to quit, go home and then appoint the military to key government institutions. Later, he passed a gun control law, appointed Pinochet as commander-in-chief and in response to another coup attempt, told the workers to go home, not to arm themselves and to trust the military.This is where the experiences diverge, and you would do well to recognize this. When push has come to shove in Venezuela, the workers have proven to be the force behind progress. The coup attempt in 2002 was foiled not only because some sections of the military opposed it but because the workers of Venezuela took control of the streets in defense of their gains. Chavez, then, avoided the mistakes and failures of Allende, and the cause of the workers of Venezuela has continued to be pushed forward through class struggle since that point.

Your position on this would be like saying because the Spartacus League made many mistakes in its attempt to establish a worker state in Germany, and ultimately failed in this attempt, we shouldn't try working-class revolution. Your logic would tell us that the faults and failure of an armed working-class revolution prove that such a course of action is a dead-end. Luckily, though, the militant workers of Latin America are not so naive and narrow-minded as you.

So when the final coup attempt came--and Allende got on the radio again to tell the workers to stay home and trust the military, he did not just seal his own fate but that of far too many workers and their organizations. He could only seal their fate however because they were all tied to political leaders that told them to trust Allende. When Lenin got to Russia in 1917, he said: "No support to the [capitalist] provisional government!" If not for that, the workers and peasants of Russia would've been drowned in blood in a similar fashion.Comparing Chile of 1971 to Russia of 1917? Riddle me this...exactly which world war was Chile involved in at the time?

Such ideas prepare a graveyard for the working class.Foolish. Venezuela is showing today that it is not about some set of abstract ideas but about the opportunities available for the struggle of the proletariat. While you may hee and haw about Allende's mistakes, such mistakes do not alter the material conditions we must deal with, and such past mistakes do not change the undeniable, objective progress made by the workers of Latin America in the past years.

What you are proposing is that since such leaders were deposed in the past, class struggle cannot possibly be promoted through any executive. Again, this is like saying that since the German Revolution failed, working-class revolution won't work either. It is a narrow, fallacious position borne of a narrow, fallacious worldview...not a materialist one. As Marxists, we must scientifically study the conditions before us; not insert preconceived notions of what is "good" and "not good" as you have.

Zeekloid, yes, it is true that German imperialism wanted Russia out of the war, and was willing to lend support to a revolutionary to do this, but it is more than a stretch to say that the German Empire supported the cause of the Bolsheviks. Outside of ending Russian involvement in WWI, the German Empire was not at all in favor of Bolshevism...whereas the imperialists looked kindly on the platform of Mousavi, and wished to see his "reforms" implemented in Iran. I think that is a key difference.

black magick hustla

11th February 2011, 03:02

...homey don't play dat.

ahahahahahah you fail so hard

StalinFanboy

11th February 2011, 03:03

It means being the most active communist party when it comes to opposing imperialist war, capitalist police brutality, bourgeois assaults on workers' rights, anti-immigrant chauvinism, LGBT oppression, racist and anti-worker gentrification and other crimes of capitalism in the US.

So ya'll are like a multi-issue CopWatch?

RedTrackWorker

11th February 2011, 03:37

What you are proposing is that since such leaders were deposed in the past, class struggle cannot possibly be promoted through any executive. Again, this is like saying that since the German Revolution failed, working-class revolution won't work either. It is a narrow, fallacious position borne of a narrow, fallacious worldview...not a materialist one.

No, what I proposed is that the executives were deposed because they held back the workers' struggle, while workers' leaders said the executive promoted class struggle.
And to speak of "materialism" and "scientific analysis" while promoting the idea that the mechanism of capitalist dictatorship (the capitalist state) can be used to promote and to "anchor" the workers' struggles is...sad. I guess Marx's Capital and Lenin's The State and Revolution are "born of a narrow, fallacious worldview"?

This is where the experiences diverge, and you would do well to recognize this. When push has come to shove in Venezuela, the workers have proven to be the force behind progress. The coup attempt in 2002 was foiled not only because some sections of the military opposed it but because the workers of Venezuela took control of the streets in defense of their gains. Chavez, then, avoided the mistakes and failures of Allende, and the cause of the workers of Venezuela has continued to be pushed forward through class struggle since that point.

When I wrote about Allende in the post you're replying to, I noted that the workers repelled two coup attempts. To say that the "experiences diverge" because in Venezuela the workers stopped a coup attempt is...confusing to me. The question you have to answer is: why did the workers fail to stop the second coup attempt in 73? Everyone, at least politically active workers, were talking about it. There was a failed coup earlier in the year that while it failed, clearly resolved none of the tensions in society. They supposedly had the "executive" of the state on their side. How, with all of that, did they fail? They failed because their independent organization was undermined, arms were confiscated from them (by a law Allende signed) and their political leaders fought against them becoming conscious as workers of the need for organizational and political independence from the capitalist class, the basic necessity of working-class revolution. In other words, they failed precisely because of the kinds of policies you're advocating.

Bright Banana Beard

11th February 2011, 03:48

And the above posts is the proof of infantile disorder of some left communists. I just wish they continuing debating as Devrim/Zanthrous does.

Die Neue Zeit

11th February 2011, 05:31

Because the whole point is demands which can be fulfilled, most prominently in crises. "They are possible, despite all the difficulties and disadvantages which are alleged against them by economists, because these very difficulties and disadvantages will compel the proletariat to go further and further until private property has been completely abolished, in order not to lose again what it has already won. They are possible as preparatory steps, temporary transitional stages towards the abolition of private property, but not in any other way."

They are worthwhile, that is, not because they are 'impossible' in any sense, but rather because they are entirely possible. They are possible, but the basis of capitalism is the rate of profit, and it is the inevitable fall in this that leads to crises, and it is in the interests of the proletariat, especially during crises, to lower it, whereas the crisis takes place precisely, "in order to restore the correct relation between necessary and surplus labour, on which, in the last analysis, everything rests." I'll leave it to you to persuade the working class to fight for castles in the sky rather than their concrete interests, though. I'm sure they'll be very grateful to people who try to deceive them into doing such during crises, at least when they're not too busy starving to death and that.

Ultimately, though, the whole 'demands' phraseology can be misleading (or just amusing, especially with the SPUSA). 'The socialist cares nothing for forms', merely the working class movement; as socialists, we demand nothing. Revolution is the end, and this is a result of independent proletarian political action and class struggle, which forms a means. We do not simply support working class struggle due to some abstract affection for 'underclasses', nor because it 'makes lives better' (a crisis without much of a workers' movement can be Hell), but because the dictatorship of the proletariat is its end, and the end of this is the abolition of class society. The program of revolution is revolution.

There's a huge difference between, say, a sectoral wage struggle or even minimum wage increases here and there, and something like Minsky's plan for zero structural and cyclical unemployment.

There's a huge difference between mere public health insurance and taking into public the whole health-industrial complex and every bit of workers insurance (from pensions to life insurance).

There's a huge difference between public absorption of all private-sector collective bargaining for free, universal provision and something as meek as the Employee Free Choice Act.

Kassad

11th February 2011, 13:28

This thread is pretty much just turning into a shit show, with some people trying to legitimately debate, yet dipshits like maldoror and Species Being just want to act immature. I would close the thread, but people would somehow try to factor bias into that decision, despite the fact that this thread has made the Left Communist movement as a whole appear laughable (as if it already wasn't). So on that note, please stay on topic.

Die Neue Zeit

11th February 2011, 15:04

When do you think Part 2 of the PSL program will be released online?

For starters, Page 9 on the DOTP is good (I'll save more detailed criticism later), but you guys really need to use bullet points or numbered lists.

Get rid of a few paragraphs in the actual program, add some lists, and Part 1 could stand on its own.

Kassad

11th February 2011, 17:43

Kotze

11th February 2011, 18:00

Part 1 probably refers to the PDF that is available at http://www.pslprogram.org/ (at the bottom).

Die Neue Zeit

12th February 2011, 05:17

What do you mean part 2? The program has extensive lists of transitional demands and such.

I don't see lists, and what Kotze said.

This book is comprised of two documents written by the Party for Socialism and Liberation. The first, “The Program of the Party for Socialism and Liberation,” was adopted by the First Congress of the PSL in February 2010. It is a political program that outlines what a workers’ government would do upon a revolutionary triumph in the United States.

The second, “Who We Are, What We Stand For” is the revised 2010 edition of a document adopted by the PSL in January 2005. It includes the PSL’s assessment of the current international and domestic situation and the need to build a revolutionary workers’ party in the United States.

Now, the second document is something I might have issues with. Left sectarianism usually revolves around "anti-imperialism."

gorillafuck

12th February 2011, 05:22

Zeekloid, yes, it is true that German imperialism wanted Russia out of the war, and was willing to lend support to a revolutionary to do this, but it is more than a stretch to say that the German Empire supported the cause of the Bolsheviks. Outside of ending Russian involvement in WWI, the German Empire was not at all in favor of Bolshevism...whereas the imperialists looked kindly on the platform of Mousavi, and wished to see his "reforms" implemented in Iran. I think that is a key difference.Your problem is in thinking that a movement can't change in it's character as ideological conflict and class struggle increases. A lot historically have. The events leading up to and the American revolution didn't originally start out to separate from Britain, the North in the civil war was not intending to abolish the slave system even when the actual war started out, the Russian Revolution originally didn't start as a socialist revolution.

gorillafuck

12th February 2011, 05:45

Who is anti-activity on this site? I don't think that I've ever come across anyone who's anti-activity in principle.Some really nihilistic people.

manic expression

12th February 2011, 09:45

Your problem is in thinking that a movement can't change in it's character as ideological conflict and class struggle increases. A lot historically have. The events leading up to and the American revolution didn't originally start out to separate from Britain, the North in the civil war was not intending to abolish the slave system even when the actual war started out, the Russian Revolution originally didn't start as a socialist revolution.
OK, but let's not forget that the American Revolution was a bourgeois struggle for independence from the Boston Tea Party to Yorktown. I don't think it changed in class character. The Civil War is a bit more plausible. However, are we thinking of Mousavi as someone who would suddenly oppose imperialism after making his name on being friendly to it? A step rightward usually doesn't translate into a step leftward...whereas the Russian Revolution was progressive in that it deposed the Tsar in February, I think a relevant argument is that Mousavi didn't represent a progressive step at all.

Again, the PSL analyzed the demonstrations as they were, not as they could have been. Sure, it wasn't impossible that a genuine working-class movement could have emerged from the pro-Mousavi protests...but they didn't.

RedTrackWorker, then I suppose we can both agree that Chavez is not holding back the workers' struggle, seeing as he has not been deposed (chiefly because the workers took control of the streets in 2002).

On the "mechanism of capitalist dictatorship", this is precisely what I mean when I talk of narrow-mindedness. The Bolsheviks took political office in the Duma, undoubtedly a mechanism of capitalist dictatorship, in order to promote the struggle of the workers. This is precisely what you rail against so fervently, and so I await your condemnation of the Bolsheviks.

Lenin teaches us that revolutionary struggle demands the utmost flexibility, and to be sure, your position shows none.

Very good, Allende made plenty of inexplicable mistakes, I've never denied that. However, that is not part-and-parcel to the "policies I'm advocating". To think that Allende's every move and every resulting consequence is suddenly "my policies" is nothing more than a lie. Plainly, if Chavez avoids those mistakes you mention, then your arguments lose all relevance and validity. The events of the last decade in Venezuela, suffice to say, contribute in no uncertain terms to that conclusion.

Species Being, all the issues I mentioned are inseparable from the struggle of the proletariat. For instance, LGBT oppression is used by the ruling class to divide workers against one another. In opposing that, we are pushing forth class struggle, uniting workers and exposing the crimes of capitalism.

maldoror, I see you put as much time into composing retorts as your entire tendency does into political activity.

And NHIA...once again, you can neg rep my posts but you certainly can't respond to them. Nothing but the usual sideline-sitting antics I've come to expect from ultra-left hacks like yourself. Perhaps when you're able to present the slightest degree of revolutionary politics, you'll be able to contribute something useful. Highly unlikely, though.

black magick hustla

12th February 2011, 18:52

maldoror, I see you put as much time into composing retorts as your entire tendency does into political activity.

im sorry dawg but what you posted was just a lil bit racist and i couldn't just let you go away with that. anyway this discussion is hella dumb and we are talking past each other so i think that i already said what i have to say

The Red Next Door

12th February 2011, 19:29

My understanding is that the ICC are focused on only intervening in class struggle and don't want to do anything besides that, whereas the PSL are more into anti-war organizing, promoting PSL candidates for public office, and activist coalition type groups.

We do more than anti war organizing, Here In St.Louis. We are working with MORE (Missourian for reform and empowerment) Against Home forecloses in missouri.

Also, we have been fighting against Police Brutality, Working to Free the Cuban Five, etc, etc, etc.

Zeek, When I was an anarchist, I did not care about the PSL politics, I wanted to be a part of them because they are getting out there, working to save the working class from getting crush by the bosses.

While some white Anarchists, sit on their asses. *****ing about how Anarchists should not consider the Black Pathner as an Influence, because they are authoritarian Marxists.

and I am wondering why, I am the only African-American in this thing, here in St.Louis.

The answer soon came, It because some ML, Trots, Maoists, Etc. Will not put their stupid politics aside and work for the better good of the workers.

I don't hate anarchists and trots because you are anarchists and trots, but you rather fight me or us, because of our political views.

I congratute blackscare for pushing aside is political views, for wanting to work with an organization, who is doing something instead of digging in a fucking trashcan.

It sad, really. That why most people i know, said fuck the left, because the left is not really doing shit.

The Red Next Door

12th February 2011, 19:49

Because Lincoln fought slavery and the Union army emancipated the slaves from the bondage of the slave system whereas Iran is a reactionary theocracy?

Indeed, their line confirms their eurocentrism in regards to the struggle against capitalism.

I've said it before, the PSL only cares about American and west European socialists.

That is Bullshit, No, We do not. We care about everyone, We have solidarity with comrades in the middle east, Asia, and Latin America.

You need to hush, you do not know. What you are talking about, I want proof that we do.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

12th February 2011, 21:59

Fuck this thread is long. To start where I left off...

I find it pretty comical that I get a decent response claiming that Left Communists and the ICC, who are apparently the only "real communists" in the building, are working towards the emancipation of humanity, yet they don't care about the size of their cadre or membership.

I'm not sure who this was originally directed at but I can say this is certainly not my opinion. I think there is a tendency to seperate the communist programme in the abstract from the militants which manifest it in conrete reality. This is of course correct in certain contexts, but at the same time, if every militant were to be wiped off the face of this planet, even though the communist programme would still exist in the abstract, this has no meaning in reality.

So basically, yes, I don't think the forces of communism (which includes but not limited to membership in numerical size) is completely irrelevant. It is important, but it's not the central issue.

Nic.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

12th February 2011, 22:04

Well, while you guys do your organizing, in South Korea right now 8 militants of the communist left are awaiting their fate from a politically motivated show trial. In Italy, the ICT are in the streets with students and workers everyday, advocating the politics of the working class and the need to expand the scope of the struggle beyond the university. In Turkey, militants of the communist left agitated everyday in the Tekel strike, advocating communist politics. This is merely the recent history. It was left communists who agitated in WWII against supporting any imperialist faction, along with bringing to light the horrors of the Holocaust to working people. Fausto Atti agitated to partisans in Italy, advocating autonomous proletarian struggle. When he was successful, Togliatti had him killed. Onorato Damen was in prison and in exile longer than Gramsci and was even involved in firefights with fascists. Togliatti tried having him assassinated along with militants of the communist left. In Russia, Stalin's purges included people deemed "Trotskyist-Bordigist", and many non-political ethnic Italians were murdered as well.

I'm not really a fan of this kind of argument, and it comes up more often than it should on revleft I think.

Is it factually correct, yeah sure. Is it pompous and overstated, probably.

It's basically an attempt to beat those ranting and raving about activity at their own game, which really shouldn't be the point at all.

Nic.

gorillafuck

12th February 2011, 22:06

That is Bullshit, No, We do not. We care about everyone, We have solidarity with comrades in the middle east, Asia, and Latin America.

You need to hush, you do not know. What you are talking about, I want proof that we do.I retracted that statement. But your line on Iran is chauvinist.

Just tell me, what do you/your party think Iranian workers should have done during those protests.

gorillafuck

12th February 2011, 22:13

However, are we thinking of Mousavi as someone who would suddenly oppose imperialism after making his name on being friendly to it? A step rightward usually doesn't translate into a step leftward...whereas the Russian Revolution was progressive in that it deposed the Tsar in February, I think a relevant argument is that Mousavi didn't represent a progressive step at all.
What I'm saying is apparently going over your head. Demonstrations can change their character. That does not translate to Mousavi will change character. By change character I mean move past Mousavi.

For example, the resignation of Mubarak was supported by the US and now the US-backed military is taking over Egypt. Does that mean denounce the Egyptian protests? Of course not.

RedTrackWorker

12th February 2011, 22:41

This is so very confused on every point.

On the "mechanism of capitalist dictatorship", this is precisely what I mean when I talk of narrow-mindedness. The Bolsheviks took political office in the Duma, undoubtedly a mechanism of capitalist dictatorship, in order to promote the struggle of the workers. This is precisely what you rail against so fervently, and so I await your condemnation of the Bolsheviks.

On the Duma, see Lenin's State and Revolution or Rosa Luxemburg. There's a difference between sitting in a parliamentary body and taking an executive office. Like the quote from Luxemburg earlier, in parliament, you can put forward reform measures but you don't have to support anything you don't want to, and one of the most symbolic measures of that is voting against the state budget as showing a vote of "no confidence" in the capitalist state, even if the budget includes measures you support. As an executive, you cannot work against the state because it will kick you out. You refer to Lenin, find me one quote from Lenin were he advocates taking an executive office in the capitalist state! He wouldn't take executive office under the provisional government in 1917 even if they removed all the capitalist ministers! I await your condemnation--and analysis-of the Bolsheviks for refusing to ever consider doing what you advocate!

RedTrackWorker, then I suppose we can both agree that Chavez is not holding back the workers' struggle, seeing as he has not been deposed (chiefly because the workers took control of the streets in 2002).

This is gross empiricism and pragmatism. Just because he hasn't been deposed yet doesn't mean he won't be, and further, he is not the same kind of figure as Allende was--he's much more acceptable not just to the domestic bourgeois but also to the imperialist bourgeoisie than Allende was! It's not a question of personality but Allende came to power on the back of truly massive struggles as a member of a very left-wing working-class party. It was an unstable situation that could not last. Chavez was more a manifestation of "popular" discontent and the reaction against him was partly based on sectors of the bourgeoisie that are used to getting their way 100% and hadn't realized that in a situation of weakening world imperialism, that wasn't going to happen as much and have now made their peace more or less, seeing that Chavez's "socialism" can be quite good for business.
But this idea that Chavez is an "anchor" for working-class struggle, have you actually taken the time to read any of the LRP articles I linked to? Articles that detail how in nationalized factories they lay off many workers--and the remaining workers will fight to get them re-hired and Chavez will denounce them for that? Or anything of the sort? Do you even seriously care about workers in Venezuela, have you really looked into what it means to be a worker with Chavez in charge, looked at sources that don't just tout your politics?

Very good, Allende made plenty of inexplicable mistakes, I've never denied that. However, that is not part-and-parcel to the "policies I'm advocating". To think that Allende's every move and every resulting consequence is suddenly "my policies" is nothing more than a lie.

I did not say your policies were Allende's policies. I said they are the policies of the political leaders that told the workers to support Allende.
And Allende's mistakes were not "inexplicable", there were exactly what you would expect from an executive of a capitalist state trying to fool the workers but still serve the capitalists (even despite his own personal intentions). It says something about your theory that you can't even retrospectively explain why Allende did what he did.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

12th February 2011, 22:59

When you say that communists shouldn't use pamphlets or newspapers or speeches or marches...then yes, you're effectively saying that revolution should just happen without any agency from revolutionaries. Of course, you could clarify your position, but I suspect that you aren't going to because it would underline the lack of struggle in your tendency.

But then I didn't say 'communists shouldn't use pamphlets or newspapers or speeches or marches'. This is your own invention faced with the inability to understand the point I've made.

The nature and extent of the activity engaged in by communists is contingent upon the state of the struggle. This is not a policy we've adopted for strategic reasons, all the best to poach new recruits. This is the case necessarily because communists are a product of the class itself.

We don't see struggle as something that communists can create by lauching a campaign. Of course you won't agree that this is the PSL is doing and that it is the moment for the party to organise marches and speaking tours, etc. In this regard, we will simply have to disagree.

Saying that PSL members are "starry-eyed" idealists and that they will burn out of revolutionary politics in no time is not a political critique at all.

A claim I never made.

My original comment to this effect referred to activist politics in general. If you wish to read this as a direct attack on the PSL, that's not my problem. What this thread has done above all is re-affirm how politically dishonest you are and the level you will stoop to to win an argument on an internet message board.

This will be my last post I will be making in response to you. All that needs to be said has been.

If you're not happy with that, you can go fuck yourself. I have better things to do with my day off.

Nic.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

12th February 2011, 23:39

As much as I want to address the questions raised by Blackscare in post 137, 172 and 173 sinced they have been unfortunately overlooked, I'm not sure this is the best environment to do so.

This thread is a mess and even though it has some good bits and pieces along the way, I think it would be best if all parties could just refrain from posting and let it die. I know I will be doing my part.

Nic.

manic expression

13th February 2011, 01:07

On the Duma, see Lenin's State and Revolution or Rosa Luxemburg. There's a difference between sitting in a parliamentary body and taking an executive office. Like the quote from Luxemburg earlier, in parliament, you can put forward reform measures but you don't have to support anything you don't want to, and one of the most symbolic measures of that is voting against the state budget as showing a vote of "no confidence" in the capitalist state, even if the budget includes measures you support. As an executive, you cannot work against the state because it will kick you out. You refer to Lenin, find me one quote from Lenin were he advocates taking an executive office in the capitalist state! He wouldn't take executive office under the provisional government in 1917 even if they removed all the capitalist ministers! I await your condemnation--and analysis-of the Bolsheviks for refusing to ever consider doing what you advocate!

Luxemburg voted for war credits...even though she didn't want to. Anyway, you are, of course, being determinist. As an executive, you can work against the state and the ruling class will almost undoubtedly try to kick you out, as they certainly did in Venezuela. However, because of the vital confidence gained by the Venezuelan workers, this coup attempt failed and Chavez continued to promote progress in Latin America.

Another thing you have missed is that Venezuela is not an imperialist country. Due to the dynamics of imperialism, taking executive office in one country is hardly the same as taking such office in another. In the case of Venezuela, imperialism turned its attention elsewhere, and the dynamics of Venezuela offered a situation in which Chavez could act as an anchor for working-class struggles; why should the workers of Latin America quarrel with material realities as readily as you?

This is gross empiricism and pragmatism. Just because he hasn't been deposed yet doesn't mean he won't be, and further, he is not the same kind of figure as Allende was--he's much more acceptable not just to the domestic bourgeois but also to the imperialist bourgeoisie than Allende was! It's not a question of personality but Allende came to power on the back of truly massive struggles as a member of a very left-wing working-class party. It was an unstable situation that could not last. Chavez was more a manifestation of "popular" discontent and the reaction against him was partly based on sectors of the bourgeoisie that are used to getting their way 100% and hadn't realized that in a situation of weakening world imperialism, that wasn't going to happen as much and have now made their peace more or less, seeing that Chavez's "socialism" can be quite good for business.
And your position is all conjecture at this point. Chavez has been in his present office for the better part of a decade and survived a concerted coup attempt in 2002. Sure, he could be deposed (and he could be struck by lightning or trampled by a pack of American Bison), but your argument is that such a position should not be taken because no sustained and/or significant progress will come of it. Chavez, and more importantly the Venezuelan workers, have proven that this is an incorrect assumption. Further, you can talk of how "acceptable" to the capitalists he is all you like, the fact remains that the Venezuelan bourgeoisie is singularly opposed to his platform, and they have made this clear in quite a few forms more persuasive than your opinion on the matter. Sure, the Venezuelan bourgeoisie knows full well that US imperialism isn't coming to save the day anytime soon, but recognizing that you no longer call all the shots is different than accepting your enemy. The Venezuelan capitalists have done the former, not the latter.

But this idea that Chavez is an "anchor" for working-class struggle, have you actually taken the time to read any of the LRP articles I linked to? Articles that detail how in nationalized factories they lay off many workers--and the remaining workers will fight to get them re-hired and Chavez will denounce them for that? Or anything of the sort? Do you even seriously care about workers in Venezuela, have you really looked into what it means to be a worker with Chavez in charge, looked at sources that don't just tout your politics?
I appreciate your concern, but please rest assured that most sources I read do not "tout" my politics. I am skeptical of many of them...on this very site we had "communists" claiming that Chavez broke up strikes, when in reality he did the exact opposite and forced the management to bend to the demands of the workers. Of course, participants in this thread might be surprised at such wanton sectarianism. That aside, were it my position that Chavez is perfect, or that everything he has done is good, then perhaps then you'd have an argument. It isn't, so you don't. Therefore, I suggest you go over the basics before questioning how much I care about the issue, else you just look like a hack with an agenda to peddle, and I wouldn't want that.

I did not say your policies were Allende's policies. I said they are the policies of the political leaders that told the workers to support Allende.
And Allende's mistakes were not "inexplicable", there were exactly what you would expect from an executive of a capitalist state trying to fool the workers but still serve the capitalists (even despite his own personal intentions). It says something about your theory that you can't even retrospectively explain why Allende did what he did.
Apparently, your retrospective take is hardly worth taking seriously if you cannot square the present experience in Venezuela with your insistence that Allende's fate is fate. According to you, Chavez should already be ousted; when this is brought up, you wave it aside, claiming it to be insignificant in light of the fact that he could, possibly, feasibly be ousted. That is laughable side-stepping. It says something about your argument that you can't even comprehend that this is about Venezuela today, not Chile in the 70's...which tells us exactly how un-materialist your position really is.

Zeekloid, I understand precisely what you are proposing, but I do not agree that it applies to Iran in that sense. The protests in Iran were about Mousavi...he was the cause and the objective. The protests in Egypt were not about this or that candidate, they were about opposition to one of imperialism's strongest allies in the region. And the US only came out in support of his resignation when it was effectively a fait accompli. Much unlike the Iranian demonstrations, the protests in Egypt had no discernible figurehead or leadership, especially not one that favored strengthening ties with imperialism as we saw in Iran. That is why there is a fundamental difference between the two.

maldoror, I presume you're unacquainted with In Living Color.

RedTrackWorker

13th February 2011, 13:07

Luxemburg voted for war credits...even though she didn't want to. Anyway, you are, of course, being determinist. As an executive, you can work against the state and the ruling class will almost undoubtedly try to kick you out, as they certainly did in Venezuela. However, because of the vital confidence gained by the Venezuelan workers, this coup attempt failed and Chavez continued to promote progress in Latin America.

Another thing you have missed is that Venezuela is not an imperialist country. Due to the dynamics of imperialism, taking executive office in one country is hardly the same as taking such office in another. In the case of Venezuela, imperialism turned its attention elsewhere, and the dynamics of Venezuela offered a situation in which Chavez could act as an anchor for working-class struggles; why should the workers of Latin America quarrel with material realities as readily as you?

Let me break this down again:
I'm claiming that in the tradition of Marx and Lenin neither one of them, but especially not Lenin, would stand for the idea of a socialist taking an executive position in a capitalist state or that that executive could be an "anchor" for working class struggle.
I did not specify, but will here: that's whether the state is imperialist or not. Lenin wrote State and Revolution after he wrote Imperialism, so I think he took that into account.
So, I'll quote myself: I await your condemnation--and analysis-of the Bolsheviks for refusing to ever consider doing what you advocate!

Apparently, your retrospective take is hardly worth taking seriously if you cannot square the present experience in Venezuela with your insistence that Allende's fate is fate. According to you, Chavez should already be ousted; when this is brought up, you wave it aside, claiming it to be insignificant in light of the fact that he could, possibly, feasibly be ousted. That is laughable side-stepping. It says something about your argument that you can't even comprehend that this is about Venezuela today, not Chile in the 70's...which tells us exactly how un-materialist your position really is.

What I claimed is that your popular front politics in relation to Chavez are analogous to the popular front politics the left took toward Allende, which lead to that revolution's bloody defeat. I did not claim an analogy between Chavez and Allende in a general sense. I think Allende's fate was and will be fate for any avowed socialist that heads a popular front in a revolutionary situation: a "successful" popular front means buying time for the capitalists to regroup and attack the workers movement. It did so in China in 1927, in Spain in 1937, in Bolivia in 1952 and in Chile in 1973. Venezuela has had a high-level of class struggle, even for Latin America, but it is not near the tensions those societies reached--business is continuing and you can read the U.S. business press papers pointing out that Chavez's "socialism" is good for American business, no one said that about Allende. Further, I've said before and I think on this board, that a big difference I see between Allende and Chavez is that I think Chavez can be his own Pinochet or will certainly try to be if the tensions get that high.

But the key points I see are not the similarities and difference between Allende and Chile but that
1) Your claims violate Marx's and Lenin's theory of the state and of capitalism and you refuse to even address that claim.
2) Your claims violate the political and organizational independence of the working class as the key principle of Marxism and you refuse to even address that.

Devrim

13th February 2011, 13:47

Luxemburg voted for war credits...even though she didn't want to.

I think you are making this up. Of course Luxemborg didn't vote for war credits, nor could she have even if she had wanted to as she wasn't a member of parliament, quite possibly due to the fact that germany didn't have female suffrage until after the First World War.

Devrim

redasheville

13th February 2011, 16:47

I think you are making this up. Of course Luxemborg didn't vote for war credits, nor could she have even if she had wanted to as she wasn't a member of parliament, quite possibly due to the fact that germany didn't have female suffrage until after the First World War.

Devrim

Yea he was thinking of Karl Leibknecht.

bricolage

13th February 2011, 17:14

Yea he was thinking of Karl Leibknecht.
I was under the impression that he voted against them; http://www.marxist.com/liebknechts-protest-against-war-credits.htm

redasheville

13th February 2011, 17:30

In the August 4th 1914 vote in the Reichstag, Leibknecht voted for war credits. There were 78 SPD members in parliament. 14 members of the parliament faction voted IN THE FACTION to oppose war credits. Karl Leibknecht was one of them. However, he still voted for war credits in the parliament in order to maintain party discipline.

See Pierre Broue's authoritative study on the German Revolution.

bricolage

13th February 2011, 17:35

Ah right I see;

Failure of the Social Democracy: On August 4th, 1914, a few days after the outbreak of World War I, the vote for war credits came up before the German Reichstag. The entire Social Democratic delegation, consisting of 110 members, voted for the credits, despite the Party's anti-militarist stand up to that time. At the Party fraction meeting on August 3rd, fifteen deputies led by Karl Liebknecht, had opposed the vote, but in keeping with the discipline of the Party, they too voted for the credits the next day. Four months later, on December 2nd, Liebknecht raised a lone hand against the war budget. In Russia, only the Bolshevik Duma deputies voted against the war budget. In Italy, a year later, Socialists opposed the war budget. August 4th thus marks the collapse of the German Social Democracy and of the complete failure and betrayal of the Second International (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/e.htm#second-international).
Shameful.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/w/ww1/germany.htm

manic expression

13th February 2011, 17:36

Let me break this down again:
I'm claiming that in the tradition of Marx and Lenin neither one of them, but especially not Lenin, would stand for the idea of a socialist taking an executive position in a capitalist state or that that executive could be an "anchor" for working class struggle.
I did not specify, but will here: that's whether the state is imperialist or not. Lenin wrote State and Revolution after he wrote Imperialism, so I think he took that into account.
So, I'll quote myself: I await your condemnation--and analysis-of the Bolsheviks for refusing to ever consider doing what you advocate!
And let me break this down again: When, exactly, did Marx or Lenin do political work in a country such as Venezuela in the time period in question? Did those thinkers ever confront what the workers of Latin America are now confronting? Once again, Marx and Lenin both teach us that revolutionary struggle demands the utmost flexibility. You want the workers of Latin America to assume a decidedly inflexible approach instead.

What I claimed is that your popular front politics in relation to Chavez are analogous to the popular front politics the left took toward Allende, which lead to that revolution's bloody defeat.And this claim is wishful thinking, not only because the movement which Chavez is part of has not ended in "bloody defeat", but because you're drawing a line through all sorts of material realities. Latin America and imperialism were/are in very different situations in Allende's time and Chavez's. In one, the US was an ever-present force; in the other, it is far more concerned in dominance in the middle east.

I did not claim an analogy between Chavez and Allende in a general sense. I think Allende's fate was and will be fate for any avowed socialist that heads a popular front in a revolutionary situation: a "successful" popular front means buying time for the capitalists to regroup and attack the workers movement. It did so in China in 1927, in Spain in 1937, in Bolivia in 1952 and in Chile in 1973. Venezuela has had a high-level of class struggle, even for Latin America, but it is not near the tensions those societies reached--business is continuing and you can read the U.S. business press papers pointing out that Chavez's "socialism" is good for American business, no one said that about Allende. Further, I've said before and I think on this board, that a big difference I see between Allende and Chavez is that I think Chavez can be his own Pinochet or will certainly try to be if the tensions get that high.There are a few things here to address. First, the situation Chavez is in will be profitable for some businesses. Some firms found the Soviet Union profitable...extrapolating conclusions from this is basically useless. Second, if you think the forces in support of Chavez even vaguely resemble the popular fronts of China or Spain (or Chile, for that matter), then I wonder if you're possibly talking about the same thing I am.

But the key points I see are not the similarities and difference between Allende and Chile but that
1) Your claims violate Marx's and Lenin's theory of the state and of capitalism and you refuse to even address that claim.
2) Your claims violate the political and organizational independence of the working class as the key principle of Marxism and you refuse to even address that.1.) We are operating in different territory. Lenin's theories, in some respects, departed from Marx's, but only because the development of imperialism had brought a new analysis. Conditions changed and so theories changed along with it. Comparing Chavez to the popular front in China, on the other hand, shows no sensitivity to material conditions at all.

2.) Hardly. My claims refer to Chavez as an anchor, not as a boat. Am I saying Chavez should define the organization of the working class? No, I am not, so it makes sense I haven't addressed something that has nothing to do with my position. And this assertion of yours is made all the more absurd by what's happening in Venezuela. The PSUV, pro-Bolivarian unions and community organizations are all firmly based in the Venezuelan working-class, and they carry out political work on the national and local levels. One of the most important aspects of the Bolivarian Revolution has been the development of genuine organs of working-class power. To ignore this would be to ignore a great part of what is being accomplished.

And yes, I meant Liebknecht and also Luxemburg's tendency.

redasheville

13th February 2011, 17:42

You must have him confused with someone else.
link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-k/index.htm)

There were more than one votes taken. Note that August is before December.

Devrim

13th February 2011, 18:51

And yes, I meant Liebknecht and also Luxemburg's tendency.

Wxcept Liebknect wasn't in Luxemborg's tendency at the time. The groups 'Die Internationale' was formed after the August 4th vote on war credits, and more crucial after Liebknect had decided, alongside Otto Rühle, who also was a founder member of the International group, and who also alongside Liebknect voted against war credits. to vote against them the next time.

Luxemborg was profoundly depressed by the vote of August 4th and even contemplated suicide. I don't think that there is anything to suggest that her faction supported votes for war credits. Quite the contrary, all of the evidence points in the opposite direction.

Devrim

Devrim

13th February 2011, 18:52

You must have him confused with someone else.
link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-k/index.htm)

In August he voted for, at the next vote in December he voted against.

December

gorillafuck

13th February 2011, 19:04

Zeekloid, I understand precisely what you are proposing, but I do not agree that it applies to Iran in that sense. The protests in Iran were about Mousavi...he was the cause and the objective.The cause was perceived electoral fraud and widespread discontent with the current state of affairs in Iran. Mousavi spearheaded it, but later distanced himself from more radical aspects of it (which were undeniably there). The fact that Mousavi could spearhead it has to do with there being no obvious class oriented alternative. But why was there no working class alternative? Because they were executed by the Iranian state that your party backed in these protests. Hence why you need to have the few that remain try to influence any sort of discontent. Which is why you should not support the Iranian state shooting at protesters who are expressing their outrage at the state of affairs.

You're wanting a working class revolution but until then you back the state that kills class conscious workers. Do you see how contradictory that is?

The protests in Egypt were not about this or that candidate, they were about opposition to one of imperialism's strongest allies in the region. And the US only came out in support of his resignation when it was effectively a fait accompli.They were both fundamentally about discontent with the state of affairs. And yes the US latched on later, I know.

RedTrackWorker

13th February 2011, 21:41

DaringMehring

14th February 2011, 05:17

From this thread, its obvious how opposed the ICC & PSL are.

I for one, somewhat like the thread starter, like both organizations. ICC's historical analyses are always good, and I was at an ANSWER rally not long ago, plus have worked with a PSL person once in another context.

However, basically, big things you'd have to deal with in each org., as confirmed by this thread ---

PSL: standing up for reactionary regimes like N.Korea, Iran --- unfortunately, PSL takes it further than just "hands off, US imperialism!" Like supporting Ahmadinejad against Mousavi, you have one the one hand students, youth, & women, and on the other hand religious militias being used to suppress their demonstrations -- and they support, not Mousavi, not neither, not some hypothetical socialist alternative, but Ahmadinejad? Or N.Korea... ugh.

ICC: Unfortunately in my experience with a similar group, you get constant in-fighting about line, about who is a real revolutionary, that can be paralyzing. In other words, its not just fighting other orgs, its fighting within the org. Of course having this kind of internal debate to some degree is necessary for a healthy organization, but so much of it is just obviously debilitating in my experience.

But ... at the same time, it'll be hard to ever find what you might consider the perfect form. There's nothing to be ashamed of, in participating with some org. you don't go in to 100% agreeing with.

Devrim

15th February 2011, 07:48

From this thread, its obvious how opposed the ICC & PSL are.

Obviously so.

ICC: Unfortunately in my experience with a similar group, you get constant in-fighting about line, about who is a real revolutionary, that can be paralyzing. In other words, its not just fighting other orgs, its fighting within the org. Of course having this kind of internal debate to some degree is necessary for a healthy organization, but so much of it is just obviously debilitating in my experience.

The ICC had these sort of problems a few decades ago. I feel that it has got over them, and managed to go beyond those sort of problems. Which organisation were you in as a matter of interest.

But ... at the same time, it'll be hard to ever find what you might consider the perfect form. There's nothing to be ashamed of, in participating with some org. you don't go in to 100% agreeing with.

But at the same time it is best if you agree with the core political tenants. I disagree with the majority line on of the ICC on many issues, but agree on the core politics.

Devrim

manic expression

16th February 2011, 15:29

manic expression's expression problem, well one of them, is that he would have us believe Marxist principles and theoretical foundations can be violated with a wave of the hand. While he is right that particular situations can change principles and theory, if he wants to claim the tradition of Marx and Lenin, it is up to him to demonstrate such with analysis, not just saying: "When, exactly, did Marx or Lenin do political work in a country such as Venezuela in the time period in question?" If he could point to an article by his tendency explaining this, analyzing this, okay, but until then, it's just handwaving and I'd rather he not drag down the name of Marx and Lenin into his political and theoretical swamp
Or perhaps this is more about some unwillingness to apply the foundations of Marx and Lenin to the class struggle of Venezuela? What we're seeing is working-class fight being carried out in various arenas and an executive that supports those struggles, and when faced with this, all you can do is rant about mistakes Allende made 40 years ago. We must deal with material facts first, then with the lessons of history. In the case of the former, the line of struggle in Venezuela may be following a path that is not completely familiar, but that is only because the conditions of Venezuela are not completely familiar either; in the case of the latter, the fatal mistakes of Allende are those that Chavez has most evidently avoided. We can see all this because the cause of the workers is being carried forward bravely and ably in Latin America, arguably as much as in any other part of the world. Really, that's what matters here, and that's as much of the tradition of Marx and Lenin that ever needs to be claimed IMO.

The cause was perceived electoral fraud and widespread discontent with the current state of affairs in Iran. Mousavi spearheaded it, but later distanced himself from more radical aspects of it (which were undeniably there). The fact that Mousavi could spearhead it has to do with there being no obvious class oriented alternative. But why was there no working class alternative? Because they were executed by the Iranian state that your party backed in these protests. Hence why you need to have the few that remain try to influence any sort of discontent. Which is why you should not support the Iranian state shooting at protesters who are expressing their outrage at the state of affairs.

You're wanting a working class revolution but until then you back the state that kills class conscious workers. Do you see how contradictory that is?
I applaud the radical aspects of the demonstration, but I still recognize they were a distinct minority, and their influence was heavily outweighed by supporters of Mousavi as to make their presence worth less than a footnote in any sensible analysis.

The PSL line did not "back" the state of Iran, it merely opposed pro-imperialist demonstration leadership at a time when imperialism is biting at the bit to re-colonize Iran. Refusing to support a big step to the right is not the same as endorsing the "center" (as it were).

They were both fundamentally about discontent with the state of affairs. And yes the US latched on later, I knowTrue, but what discontent with what state of affairs? One was in opposition to a pro-imperialist puppet, the other was in protest of an anti-imperialist government and for a candidate who wanted to be friendly with the US.

And Niccolo Rossi, I didn't see your post until now. If you think I'm being "politically dishonest", that's your prerogative, but let's not forget that you've spent this thread distancing yourself from statements you plainly made very early on. If you want to agree to disagree, however, I'm fine with that.

beltov

19th February 2011, 21:10

Blackscare has raised a lot of questions, but they seem to boil down to this: what is genuine communist militancy?

- Could Left-Com members here list something they do that they think helps build the basis of revolution, or even a plan of action on how to spread the communist message at the spontaneous moment of revolution, seemingly from scratch.
- How can such an historic momentum be brought into a communist direction?
- How do the Left Communists advocate transitioning their highly developed theory into action when the time of revolutionary spontaneity happens?
- How are workers supposed to even be aware of this theory?
- Does the ICC concern itself with any kind of strategy as to how it should spread a proletarian message when "the time is right" without any organizational preparation? Or is it merely about understanding the dynamics of revolution, without participating?
- Does the ICC just exist to theorize how revolutions happen, not actually involve itself?

Rather than answer these questions with flippant 'yes' or 'no' it's important to take them seriously, because these are the kinds of questions that are posed to us on an increasingly frequent basis.

First, Blackscare seems to think that left-coms are paralysed by an obsession with spontaneity. When Rosa Luxemburg stressed the importance of spontaneity in The Mass Strike she was being critical of the vision of the union and SPD tops at the time who thought they could set the date of the revolution through the holding of a General Strike. For her, the mass strikes in Russia during 1905 demonstrated that the character of the proletariat and its struggles were beginning to change compared to the previous century. She identified several tendencies in the 1905 movement:
- the strikes were of an increasingly massive scale, not limited to certain sectors but becoming generalised
- economic struggles to take on a political character, mixing political and economic demands
- the development of soviets, the growing self-organisation of workers and control of their own struggles.

Rosa Luxemburg wasn't alone in sensing that capitalism was entering a new epoch which would fundamentally alter the conditions in which the class struggle would take place. The left fractions of the Social Democractic parties began to develop a radical critique of the accepted orthodoxies within the workers' movement which would lead them to break with social democracy and form the Communist International. With the degeneration of the Russian Revolution the majorities within the Communist Parties, and eventually Trotskyism, began to fall back into the comfort of the old orthodoxies (popular fronts, national liberation, participation in elections, parliament, unions) and new ones (defence of the 'socialist' countries, the welfare state) leaving the communist left fractions to hold onto and develop the political and theoretical high points reached by the CI. The organisations of the communist left today maintain - in one way or another - the continuity of this tradition.

So, its crucial to have the right compass, to appreciate that capitalism in its decadent epoch imposes certain conditions on the class struggle. Briefly, these are:
- the permanent nature of the economic crisis means the working class can't win long lasting improvements in its conditions. Far from it, capitalism is constantly forced to go on the attack to increase exploitation, attack working and living conditions, cut the social wage etc.
- the economic crisis forces nations into a permanent state of tension against each other, leading to the growing militarisation of society, massive spending on armaments, world wars and a plethora of local wars. Capitalism as a mode of production has become imperialist, 'from which no state can remain aloof', as Luxemburg said.
- the development of state capitalism, in its various forms, has absorbed the old bodies of 'civil society' (parliament) and even the workers' organisations (welfare organisations, political parties, unions), turning them into weapons of the bourgeoisie against the working class. The class struggle tends to become much more explosive, potentially more massive and quickly coming up against the forces of the state, thus potentially much more politicised.

For a deeper explanation of this see The proletarian struggle under decadence (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/023_proletariat_under_decadence.html)

It's within this framework that we develop our 'plan of action'. The ICC's activity has three dimensions:
1. Political and theoretical clarification of the goals and methods of the proletarian struggle, of its historic and its immediate conditions. This is done through internal discussion, through our press (especially the International Review), debates and polemics with other left-com organisations, correspondence and discussions with individuals and other groups outside of the communist left. As well as our regular press, we have a website and write and sell books and pamphlets.

2. Organised intervention, united and centralised on an international scale, in order to contribute to the process which leads to the revolutionary action of the proletariat. "Revolutionaries are those elements within the class who through this heterogeneous process are the first to obtain a clear understanding of "the line of march, the conditions and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement" (Communist Manifesto), and because in capitalist society "the dominant ideas are the ideas of the ruling class", revolutionaries necessarily constitute a minority of the working class.

As an emanation of the class, a manifestation of the process by which it becomes conscious, revolutionaries can only exist as such by becoming an active factor in this process. To accomplish this task in an indissoluble way, the revolutionary organisation:
* participates in all the struggles of the class in which its members distinguish themselves by being the most determined and combative fighters;
* intervenes in these struggles always stressing the general interests of the class and the final goals of the movement;
* as an integral part of this intervention, constantly dedicates itself to the work of theoretical clarification and reflection which alone will allow its general activity to be based on the whole past experience of the class and on the future perspectives crystallised through such theoretical work." (Point 16 of the ICC's Platform (http://en.internationalism.org/node/622))

On a daily basis we participate in discussions with work colleagues, take part in strikes, speak out during union dominated meetings, assemblies, demonstrations and picket lines. We hold public meetings and participate in discussion forums, in person and online. But our political activity isn't limited to this. Communist militancy has an organisational, collective dimension to it. As our Basic Positions (http://en.internationalism.org/basic-positions) say, "The revolutionary political organisation constitutes the vanguard of the working class and is an active factor in the generalisation of class consciousness within the proletariat. Its role is neither to ‘organise the working class’ nor to ‘take power’ in its name, but to participate actively in the movement towards the unification of struggles, towards workers taking control of them for themselves, and at the same time to draw out the revolutionary political goals of the proletariat’s combat." So, even if there are a handfull of comrades in the US, a raindrop in an ocean of 300 million people, their activity as part of an international organisation makes a valuable contribution at a whole range of levels.

3. The regroupment of revolutionaries with the aim of constituting a real world communist party, which is indispensable to the working class for the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a communist society. As well as building the ICC, we have always placed a great importance on supporting and participating in meetings and conferences whose aim is to draw together those sympathetic to internationalist positions. For example, in the US we have organised three 'Days of Discussion' over the past few years, reports on which have been published in Internationalism. We've participated in meetings and conferences throughout Latin America, Europe, Russia, Asia and the Far East.

So, to summarise so far:
- Yes, the ICC does have a strategy to build the basis of revolution: political and theoretical clarification; organised intervention; regroupment of revolutionaries. We are increasing our membership and will continue to do so.
- The struggles of the working class intrinsically go in a 'communist direction' (which is why the bourgeoisie has to use the unions to sabotage and derail them. We simply act as catalysts to speed up this process by being an active factor within it, by being actively involved in struggles, making more and more workers aware of our positions through our intervention and participation in struggles to the best of our ability, right now, not in some distant future, in practice, not in theory.

Second, a few points on class consciousness. In Blackscare's posts there is a sense of impatience with and lack of confidence in the working class. For example, he says:
- I don't think many people, almost all of which unaccustomed with proletarian politics, would take the time to fully read and contemplate a nuanced communist political program rather than simply going with some strong-arm law and order fascist.
- How will the workers spontaneously self-organize out of nowhere?
- Communists must work to "thaw" the anti-communist sentiment before one can even begin to hope that the US proletariat will make the "right" choice when the system falls and chaos ensues.
- If you don't really try to, or even think it's worth it, to try to spread some kind of proletarian consciousness, can the ICC really be considered a political group? Isn't it just philosophizing about revolution?
- How is the working class supposed to take upon itself the behemoth task of building a self-organized economic system from scratch when such ideas have scarcely ever been introduced? What is to prevent people from taking the quick, easy route of supporting some right-wing strong man in a time of economic disaster or the like?

The working class is by its very nature a revolutionary class. It doesn't need radicals to make it revolutionary, it makes revolutionaries because it is radical. Granted, we don't expect people unaccustomed to proletarian politics to pick it up right away. Sometimes we have to be more agitational and propagandist. We can do this. No problems. However, the most important things are to encourage thinking, to stimulate reflection, to challenge received truths.

As for the question "How will the workers spontaneously self-organize out of nowhere?", where were the revolutionaries during the mass strikes in Russia in 1905 and Poland in 1981? Where are the revolutionaries today in Egypt? The working class is perfectly capable of launching and taking control of its own struggles on a small and grand scale. The objective factors of the economic crisis take care of a lot of that. However, to carry through a revolution, the subjective factor, class consciousness, takes on a greater importance. The Russian Revolution would never have happened without the Bolsheviks. Lenin's pamphlets were read during the Seattle General Strike. As was said above, communists are important factors in the development of movements in a revolutionary direction, but as products of and active factors within the movement, not as importers of class consciousness from the outside.

Finally, with regards to leftism and the PSL, Blackscare asks:
- What's the beef with the PSL? If you regard them as not "true revolutionaries" or what have you, but rather a party that is left-of-capital, do they still not serve as a "proto-revolutionary" current working towards a higher level of class consciousness?
- Are they only bad because they present themselves sincerely as revolutionaries? Is "consciousness raising" only an empty gesture if it's done by a revolutionary party? What would make, say, the SPUSA better in that regard? If the PSL, through it's activity, is objectively preparing for the development of revolution in some way, even if you think that they're misguided or deluded, why the harsh denunciation? Isn't it enough to pursue different methods and leave it at that?

We characterise the nature of a political group by what they say and what they do: it's political, not personal. There are certainly many honest and genuine militants within the PSL who are committed to the working class and wish to work for its emancipation. It is the function of leftist groups for capital to soak up and neutralise the most militant and determined minorities within the working class. We do not wish to insult them. But we have to speak honestly.

What does the PSL say?
"We stand for defense of the existing workers’ states, the national liberation movements"
"The Cuban revolutionary process is an inspiration and an example of what socialist planning and revolutionary leadership can achieve"
They defend the unions created by the US bourgeoisie against "unionbusting".
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/pages/about-us.html

What vision of 'socialism' is offered in their program?
"It shall be a right of every person in the United States to have a job with guaranteed union representation and full social benefits provided by the new government, including a pension, health care, workers’ compensation, paid parental and family leave for up to one year, a minimum of one month’s paid vacation, and at least 12 paid holidays and sick days."
http://www2.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=PSLprogram_excerpts

So, after the revolution the USA will still exist as a country, it will still have a government, workers will still be in paid employment (with 'at least' a month off), will still be represented by unions, and in receipt of social benefits, presumably paid out of taxation. So they're offering... Europe.

If we recall that political positions have to be in line with the nature of the historic period, then for left-coms this simply isn't a communist program. It's a capitalist program. Any organisation actively promoting such a program within the working class cannot be characterised as being "proto-revolutionary". Counter-revolutionary would be more accurate. Should we shut our eyes and let the PSL get on with it? If someone was walking into the road without looking, would we let them get on with it? No, we'd show them some solidarity and try to point out the mistake they were making.