ISO challenges WWP and PSL on Libya

[OriginalGumby]

http://socialistworker.org/2011/02/28/taking-sides-about-libya

In case you did not know

[Rusty Shackleford]

why not, what else is there to do?


its all fine and dandy that your party critiques the WWP and the PSL but isnt it rather divisive especially since the March 19th Coalition includes both the PSL and the ISO? (SF March 19th event at least)




Of course things are developing rapidly and it's difficult to have the best analysis at this point. This is why we should be critical of the way the ISO has written on it. Their recent polemic against the PSL and WWP criticized them for urging caution on supporting the opposition (the PSL, for example cited how we don't yet know the political makeup of it, and warned of US intervention). The ISO ended up ignoring the potential for US intervention and accused groups like the PSL of being "Gaddafi apologists"

[Os Cangaceiros]

who cares.

Sorry to be a troll about it, but seriously. "Oooooh! Your little leftie sect has a disagreement with our little leftie sect about a development in another country that neither of our little leftie sects really know much about at all! En garde!"

Ok I'll stop now. :sleep:

[Niccolò Rossi]

who cares.

Sorry to be a troll about it, but seriously. "Oooooh! Your little leftie sect has a disagreement with our little leftie sect about a development in another country that neither of our little leftie sects really know much about at all! En garde!"

Ok I'll stop now. :sleep:

Is it significant? No, not at all. Does that mean it's illegimite? Equally, no.

Obviously I don't have any stake in this particular debate. My objection is with brushing off all kinds of inter-organisational (even intra-organisational! - it's a very slippery slope after all) debate.

If all debate is just an irrelevant talking-shop, what is the hope for any form of criticism and clarification?

Again, obviously the audience for this kind of thing is tiny. More importantly, the outcome is very limited and certainly insignificant in-so-far as the class struggle in concerned. This could be applied to any and all communist organisations and activity at the present moment. Do we simply cease to exist?

At the end of the day, we can talk about the value of this particular debate, but this doesn't rule out inter-organisational debate as a principle.

Nic.

[Kassad]

This is the same dude who took a swipe at us in SocialistWorker regarding China. It's no surprise here that the same laughable analysis is put into practice once again. US warships and troops move into Libya and the ISO still won's put forth a class analysis. Does siding with imperialism ever get tiring for you?

[khad]

Can this sectarian tripe finally get updated in light of more recent events?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/africa/02libya.html

"BENGHAZI, Libya — In a sign of mounting frustration among rebel leaders over Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/q/muammar_el_qaddafi/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s diminished but unyielding grip on power, rebel leaders here are debating whether to ask for Western airstrikes under the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) banner, according to four people with knowledge of the deliberations. "

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23426

"Islamabad—The United States, Britain and France have sent several hundred “defence advisors” to train and support the anti-Gadhafi forces in oil-rich Eastern Libya where “rebels armed groups” have apparently taken over. "

Thank you, and...

Stance?

[redasheville]

This is the same dude who took a swipe at us in SocialistWorker regarding China. It's no surprise here that the same laughable analysis is put into practice once again. US warships and troops move into Libya and the ISO still won's put forth a class analysis. Does siding with imperialism ever get tiring for you?

We have never sided with imperialism, get over yourself. Is this really how PSL is training it's new members?

[gorillafuck]

Is the ISO associated with the SWP in the UK?

Because the SWP also supports capitalist anti-imperialist governments/movements like Iran and Hezbollah so if the ISO has the same positions then I don't see why there's such a feud over imperialism between the ISO and Marcy types.

[redasheville]

Can this sectarian tripe finally get updated in light of more recent events?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/africa/02libya.html

"BENGHAZI, Libya — In a sign of mounting frustration among rebel leaders over Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/q/muammar_el_qaddafi/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s diminished but unyielding grip on power, rebel leaders here are debating whether to ask for Western airstrikes under the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) banner, according to four people with knowledge of the deliberations. "

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23426

"Islamabad—The United States, Britain and France have sent several hundred “defence advisors” to train and support the anti-Gadhafi forces in oil-rich Eastern Libya where “rebels armed groups” have apparently taken over. "

Thank you, and...

Stance?

There is a debate (that is probably understating it) in Libya about the issue of foreign intervention. I could find just as many sources of protestors opposing any intervention, as the Iraq war hangs like a nightmare on the minds of many Libyans. The ISO has never supported NATO/UN/US intervention anywhere, and we challenged those who considered that option at the Libyan solidarity rally in SF.

The debate is not over whether to support imperialist intervention or about the possibility of imperialist intervention. The debate is about the necessity of supporting the just demands of the masses of Libyan people.

[redasheville]

Is the ISO associated with the SWP in the UK?

Because the SWP also supports capitalist anti-imperialist governments/movements like Iran and Hezbollah so if the ISO has the same positions then I don't see why there's such a feud over imperialism between the ISO and Marcy types.

The ISO and the SWP are allies. We do not agree on everything. Though I would say we agree on this (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24047) and This (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24090)

[blake 3:17]

The debate is not over whether to support imperialist intervention or about the possibility of imperialist intervention. The debate is about the necessity of supporting the just demands of the masses of Libyan people.

That's a nice wish, but the decisive political issue in the short term is how to respond to imperial intervention.

[redasheville]

That's a nice wish, but the decisive political issue in the short term is how to respond to imperial intervention.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, as I wasn't really wishing for anything.

[RedTrackWorker]

This discussion on the part of some "Marxist-Leninists" and Marcyites, plus the "ISO, pro-imperialism and stupid" thread and other threads on Libya is a disgrace to the workers' movement. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the kind of political thinking they engage in is of a type with the kind that lead two different Stalinist parties to join Ben Ali's dictatorship.
Opposing imperialist intervention in Libya is a real concern. But so is opposing massacres by a dictator against a revolutionary uprising.
Kassad asks the ISO: "Does siding with imperialism ever get tiring for you?" I have lots of criticisms of the ISO and think their politics compromise the fight against imperialism and they have adapted to it at times (like campaigning for the pro-imperialist Nader), but in terms of calling for or defending a U.S.-invasion at a time like this? That's not something I can say they've ever done to my knowledge and it shows a pathetic lack of honesty that such charges can be thrown about so much by these anti-worker revolutionaries.
And this comes from political tendencies that support the worst kinds of bourgeois repression and then try to climb on a moral high horse. They seem to be practically gloating that there might be an imperialist intervention!
Kassad talks about the ISO not having a "class analysis" of Libya and describes their other article on his organization as a "swipe". Again, as a strong political opponent of the ISO, I can say they have do a theory. I cannot say that for Kassad's organization which cannot even explain why it exists as a separate organization (other than to talk about how big it's grown...which is not exactly a theory in my book).
Remember: this self-proclaimed revolutionary workers' tendency was founded based on the support of the bloody repression of a potential workers' revolution (WWP split from the SWP in support of the Russian's imperialist invasion of Hungary to suppress the revolution) and the WWP/PSL have the gall to slander the ISO over supposedly supporting imperialism intervention in Libya.

These attacks on the ISO are so disgusting I almost don't want to say an unkind word about them in this thread, but I will point out that while they will publish polemics against the WWP/PSL on easy issues (like not supporting bloody repression of workers' struggles), they steadfastly ignore debate in their press with theoretically serious political opponents and often suppress at their public meetings interventions from political opponents (well, from far left political opponents, I've never seen them suppress a liberal's intervention).

[OriginalGumby]

We definitely argue with liberals most recently at the Wisconsin capital occupation where Dems are trying to get people out of the building recently and trying to get people to accept economic concessions. You and I might have differences about what time to raise which arguments with liberals and other things but we can agree this attack is baseless.

Anyways here we are 'supporting' imperialism
http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/03/threat-of-intervention-in-libya

[khad]

You still have not addressed the requests for Western military intervention put forward by the leaders of the opposition movement.

[RedTrackWorker]

We definitely argue with liberals most recently at the Wisconsin capital occupation where Dems are trying to get people out of the building recently and trying to get people to accept economic concessions. You and I might have differences about what time to raise which arguments with liberals and other things but we can agree this attack is baseless.

I didn't say you didn't argue with liberals but that I haven't seen the ISO suppress liberal interventions at ISO meetings (which they shouldn't) but they have suppressed far left opponents (me personally more than once along with a number of other people and instances, and not just from my organization).

[Lucretia]

We definitely argue with liberals most recently at the Wisconsin capital occupation where Dems are trying to get people out of the building recently and trying to get people to accept economic concessions. You and I might have differences about what time to raise which arguments with liberals and other things but we can agree this attack is baseless.

Anyways here we are 'supporting' imperialism
http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/03/threat-of-intervention-in-libya


I don't think his point was that you don't argue with liberals. If I understood his point correctly, he was saying that the ISO does in fact debate with liberals, allowing them to engage at meetings and so on, while completely shutting out other socialists, except in highly controlled contexts (the online newspaper) and with groups that are, to put it bluntly, easy to pick on.

[RedTrackWorker]

You still have not addressed the requests for Western military intervention put forward by the leaders of the opposition movement.

Those calls are terrible and must be opposed, but they do not change the nature of the uprising by themselves. The Irish nationalists got weapons from the German imperialists during WW1 (not just asked for them, got them) as part of their 1916 rebellion. Did that make the Irish rebellion a fight between rival imperialisms? No. The Bolsheviks after 1917 took weapons and advice from some imperialists as well as part of their war against Germany. Did that mean they were therefor subordinating Russia to imperialism? No, not in and of itself, which the imperialist invasion later should certainly make clear. The Popular Front in Spain took arms from imperialists, was imperialist and wanted more intervention from imperialism, was it therefor incorrect to military defend it from Franco? No.

[Property Is Robbery]

why not, what else is there to do?


its all fine and dandy that your party critiques the WWP and the PSL but isnt it rather divisive especially since the March 19th Coalition includes both the PSL and the ISO? (SF March 19th event at least)
Same with LA and SD for the 19th.


http://socialistworker.org/2011/02/28/taking-sides-about-libya


I have several comrades in the ISO. No need to shit talk.

[redasheville]

You still have not addressed the requests for Western military intervention put forward by the leaders of the opposition movement.

I did.

The movement in Libya is not a monolithic bloc. Many of the so called "leaders" are self appointed, much like al-Baradei. The lack of a coherent left wing opposition to take the lead is no doubt the result of the repression under the Gaddafi regime. We oppose any imperial intervention, and there are significant forces in Libya that do the same.

[Rusty Shackleford]

These attacks on the ISO are so disgusting I almost don't want to say an unkind word about them in this thread


When a party calls another party faux socialists, there will be counter attacks. "but oh, the attacks are disgusting even though i dont recognize that they publicly attacked another organization":rolleyes:

[redasheville]

Same with LA and SD. I have several comrades in the ISO. No need to shit talk.

1) The ISO is not involved in the organizing of March 19th, at least in SF. We are a part of UNAC which is organizing the demo in April (which was called first), which ANSWER was invited on to the steering committee. We endorse both demos, however and will be at both.

2) Who's talking shit?

[redasheville]

When a party calls another party faux socialists, there will be counter attacks. "but oh, the attacks are disgusting even though i dont recognize that they publicly attacked another organization":rolleyes:

We have principled differences with the PSL. Those differences are in stark relief relating to Libya, and we feel it is important to discuss those differences. If you have a problem with the critique, you should respond in a principled way.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Comment deleted. shitstorm iminent

[Property Is Robbery]

2) Who's talking shit?

The author of the article and the person who posted it.

[redasheville]

The author of the article and the person who posted it.

Well I'm sorry you feel like debate on the left is "talking shit".

[Property Is Robbery]

No I think posting unfounded trash that is obviously going to start pointless bickering is starting shit.

[Sam_b]

Is the ISO associated with the SWP in the UK?

Not really. The ISO used to be part of the International Socialist Tendency but was kicked out several years ago now. However the ISO still maintain much of the politics of our tradition. Bridges are being built, but it isn't something you could consider as 'allying' per se.

[RedTrackWorker]

No I think posting unfounded trash that is obviously going to start pointless bickering is starting shit.

1. The ISO article is not "unfounded trash." It's definitely not "unfounded." It carefully cites its claims, often quoting the WWP/PSL. How is that "unfounded"? What more could provide a foundation for its claims? The WWP/PSL don't even deny most of those claims--they interpret their significance differently.
Second, if citing political stances on significant events in the class struggle is "trash," then what possible topics are left for a political party to talk about?

2. The ISO article is not "pointless bickering." This is revleft, a forum for revolutionaries. If you think analyzing a group's past stance on revolutions is "pointless" and "bickering," then I think you're in the wrong forum. You're definitely in the wrong movement as the workers' need clarity in order to come to power in society. Such clarity will not come from dismissing a well-reasoned, well-cited, calmly argued article.
As against the PSL and WWP, I solidarize with their political argument in it.

3. In the united front method, as worked out by the Comintern, a precondition for it was freedom to criticize. Yet, the PSL supporters in this thread seem to think being in a united front means obligation to not criticize. That is indeed the Stalinist distortion of which tradition they are a part of (despite their formal organization origins in Trotskyism). Again, workers need clarity in understanding society and how to change it in order to come to power. The idea that debate should be suppressed because of a practical agreement over one issue shows how little the WWP/PSL (plus FRSO-fight back and others) have to offer the working class. (Note, as already mentioned, I think the ISO has a tradition of violating the norms of workers' democracy, but it's not the same kind of corruption that these tendencies show in distorting reality and avoiding debate.)

[OriginalGumby]

http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/04/no-intervention-in-libya
I'll come back later after work

[Derb]

http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/04/no-intervention-in-libya
I'll come back later after work

This article is even more disgusting than the last. It is basically the ISO crying about how Western military intervention is making the 'heroic revolutionaries' look bad.

Your organization is a disgusting, pro-imperialist outfit, with millions of dollars coming from stock in Phillip Morris and Oracle.

[Kassad]

ISO: No US military intervention in Libya!

Real Marxists: You know some of the demonstrators are calling for US/UN troops to invade Libya, right? You also know that US troops are on their way as you side with the opposition that is obviously calling for imperialist intervention, right?

ISO: ...Stalinists!

And to RedTrackWorker that has made a habit of making laughable and baseless assertions about the PSL, you're standing in defense of the same people that hailed the fall of the Eastern bloc as a victory for revolutionaries everywhere. Almost two decades later, the people of those countries want socialist construction back as they live in poverty, illiteracy, alcoholism and disease. The ISO is cheerleading the opposition in Libya regardless of the consequences, just as they've hailed counterrevolutionary and pro-imperialist forces for decades. That's not a class analysis. It's certainly not a Marxist analysis.

But I'll tell you what it sounds a lot like: an analysis that comes from FOX News. Coincidence? You decide.

[gorillafuck]

This is a feud between a group that supports bourgeois democratic movements versus a group that supports ("against imperialism", aka supports) every movement or government against the US.

pardon me while I shit myself laughing.

[Kassad]

You're pardoned. Meanwhile, the Libyan opposition executes black immigrants: http://somalilandpress.com/libya-rebels-execute-black-immigrants-while-forces-kidnap-others-20586

[gorillafuck]

You're pardoned. Meanwhile, the Libyan opposition executes black immigrants: http://somalilandpress.com/libya-rebels-execute-black-immigrants-while-forces-kidnap-others-20586If that's directed at me (can't tell) then reads my posts here http://www.revleft.com/vb/black-africans-libya-t151058/index.html

[bcbm]

Again, obviously the audience for this kind of thing is tiny. More importantly, the outcome is very limited and certainly insignificant in-so-far as the class struggle in concerned. This could be applied to any and all communist organisations and activity at the present moment. Do we simply cease to exist?

it might be a good start


Meanwhile, the Libyan opposition executes black immigrants

so is supporting the fucked up pro-imperialist rebels or the fucked up pro-imperialist government the proper marxist position here?

[Kassad]

so is supporting the fucked up pro-imperialist rebels or the fucked up pro-imperialist government the proper marxist position here?

The proper position is to demand no US/UN intervention in Libya while also providing a class analysis of the protestors. If the opposition victory is not going to do anything beneficial for the people of Libya, why would we support it? Especially if its character appears to be pro-imperialist. Some people on here want to paint the issue as black and white, which I'm not going to do.

[Jimmie Higgins]

ISO: No US military intervention in Libya!

Real Marxists: You know some of the demonstrators are calling for US/UN troops to invade Libya, right? You also know that US troops are on their way as you side with the opposition that is obviously calling for imperialist intervention, right?

ISO: ...Stalinists!

And to RedTrackWorker that has made a habit of making laughable and baseless assertions about the PSL, you're standing in defense of the same people that hailed the fall of the Eastern bloc as a victory for revolutionaries everywhere. Almost two decades later, the people of those countries want socialist construction back as they live in poverty, illiteracy, alcoholism and disease. The ISO is cheerleading the opposition in Libya regardless of the consequences, just as they've hailed counterrevolutionary and pro-imperialist forces for decades. That's not a class analysis. It's certainly not a Marxist analysis.

But I'll tell you what it sounds a lot like: an analysis that comes from FOX News. Coincidence? You decide.

What crap. Do you know who IS asking for US intervention? Gadhafi!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41931757/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/41930253


Tripoli is the main stronghold of LibyanleaderMoammarGadhafihttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_11pxw.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41931757/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/41930253#), who said in a French newspaper interview released on Sunday that he was embroiled in a fight against terrorism and expressed dismay at the absence of support from abroad.

"I am surprised that nobody understands that this is a fight against terrorism," the longtime autocrat of the North African oil-producing state told the Journal du Dimanche in excerpts of an interview due to be published later on Sunday.

"Our security services cooperate. We have helped you a lot these past few years. So why is it that when we are in a fight against terrorism here in Libya no one helps us in return?"


Wow, what a paragon of Anti-imperialism. I'm sorry I have lost patience with this debate because the bankruptcy of the Stalinist position on this is so blatantly wrong.

How can you say that supporting Gadhafi, who is claiming he is fighting "terrorism" and "Al Quieda" which is the ideological pillar of the recent imperialist attacks in this region be an "anti-imperialist" stance!

Meanwhile while Gadhafi was asking for intervention and complaining about how his buddies in the security forces of the west have abandoned him... it's the PROTESTERS who actually detained UK special forces and a diplomat on the grounds that they don't want European/American interference!

Of course there isn't clarity among the opposition, there isn't a lot of independent organizing that has been available to people and so there are some confused calls etc, but it's just embarrassing for some people on the left to be using that to support this regime - especially since the opposition is similarly confused in places like Tunisia.

This position by some of these groups is just indefensible, and I think that is why other threads say "The ISO is Imperialist and Stupid" and people are trying to make these claims to discredit any position that counters their own bullshit position. We have a indefensible position - we better attack our critics and try and discredit them... hmm, that sounds a little more like FOX News to me.

There's nothing bad about being wrong on developing events, the only real mistake is to stick with being wrong to try and save face rather than adjusting and moving forward.

[Kassad]

So because we can't understand the composition of the opposition, we immediately go all in to support them? That's pretty laughable, if you ask me. Anti-imperialism and class analysis are not "indefensible." What is indefensible is your same old tactic of hitching the wagon to anything that looks like a mass movement, regardless of whether it is bourgeois or counterrevolutionary, and just going where it does.

What you also wind up doing is realizing that your analysis had about as much substance as dog shit and then you try to rationalize it. There is a lot hanging in the balance here and for you to suggest that you are merely "wrong on developing events" is hilarious. If you took a Marxist analysis in the first place, you wouldn't have to worry about such things.

[RedTrackWorker]

So because we can't understand the composition of the opposition, we immediately go all in to support them?

Kassad's and others' attempt to muddy the waters on this is sad. Instead of engaging with any real argument, they'll try to throw sand in anyone's eyes as soon as something comes up that they can't deal with and then run to look for a weak formulation somewhere. That's why I'm sure he read my citation of Lenin on the Irish 1916 rebellion which answers his question above, but is hoping other people don't notice.

Here is the key snippet again:

To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.-to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We are for imperialism”, and that will he a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a “putsch”.
Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.
The Russian Revolution of 1905 was a bourgeois-democratic revolution. It consisted of a series of battles in which all the discontented classes, groups and elements of the population participated. Among these there were masses imbued with the crudest prejudices, with the vaguest slid most fantastic aims of struggle; there were small groups which accepted Japanese money, there were speculators and adventurers, etc. But objectively, the mass movement was breaking the hack of tsarism and paving the way for democracy; for this reason the class-conscious workers led it. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/x01.htm
This is clearly a revolt by "the petty bourgeois with all its prejudices" and "the non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses" that has split the ruling class itself so that much of the bourgeoisie (represented mainly by the generals) support the rebellion. This is a great danger, but it no more changes the character of the revolution than the support of some of the bourgeoisie for any other revolution did. The mass movement is breaking the back of a vile dictatorship, awakening the Libyan workers and poor to political life like never before.


And to RedTrackWorker that has made a habit of making laughable and baseless assertions about the PSL

And yet you've been unable to produce a single piece of evidence, not even proof, but just evidence that I make "baseless assertions", so who's laughable? The one that claims the fact a group is growing in size means a split was good? The one who stands in a tradition of calling on all kinds of bloody repression of workers' uprisings? No, it's me, for pointing that out! You throw out words like "baseless" as if they have no meaning, as if truth has no value to you. Is it "baseless" to claim the WWP split to defend the crushing of the Hungarian revolution? That the PSL has never accounted for its split politically and explained to the workers' movement why it exists as a separate organization? You show contempt for anyone reading this forum and thinking critically by tossing around truly baseless charges like that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There is a lot hanging in the balance here and for you to suggest that you are merely "wrong on developing events" is hilarious. If you took a Marxist analysis in the first place, you wouldn't have to worry about such things.No, I'm saying YOU are wrong on developing events by excusing a collaborator with US imperialism, Gadhafi (who's bombing people in the face of a mass uprising) on the basis of "anti-imperialism".

You talk about "clear class analysis" but support dictators getting bank from the US for supporting their wars in the last 10 years? What do you care about "class analysis" when state nationalization means socialism rather than worker's power?

You ask why should we support an opposition if maybe that opposition will not result in something better? Well most of these questions that you raise about the Libyan opposition can be asked of the Egyptian protesters and even moreso with the Tunisian protesters... so what they underlying difference for those who are equivocating on the Libyan protests? Not the "class analysis" but a stalinist-based politics of supporting dictators opposed the the US on the basis of "anti-imperialism". This is completely bankrupt. Libyans will have much more of a chance to fight imperialism without a repressive regime that has already opened the door to US UK and the Italians.

The only thing I agree with you on is the urgency to oppose any US intervention.However, not supporting popular movements against repression and dictatorships is a hindrance to building domestic solidarity with people in North Africa. It's almost like the US line about Arabs "not being ready for (or understanding) democracy" but from the opposite side of the cold war.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/libya/no_foreign_intervention-Al_Jazeera.jpg

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/jpg/ClintonQaddafi86088884.jpg

Which side should the left put its hopes for anti-imperialism in?

[The Red Next Door]

Not really. The ISO used to be part of the International Socialist Tendency but was kicked out several years ago now. However the ISO still maintain much of the politics of our tradition. Bridges are being built, but it isn't something you could consider as 'allying' per se.


Why?

[manic expression]

Kassad's and others' attempt to muddy the waters on this is sad. Instead of engaging with any real argument, they'll try to throw sand in anyone's eyes as soon as something comes up that they can't deal with and then run to look for a weak formulation somewhere. That's why I'm sure he read my citation of Lenin on the Irish 1916 rebellion which answers his question above, but is hoping other people don't notice.

Here is the key snippet again:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/x01.htm
This is clearly a revolt by "the petty bourgeois with all its prejudices" and "the non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses" that has split the ruling class itself so that much of the bourgeoisie (represented mainly by the generals) support the rebellion. This is a great danger, but it no more changes the character of the revolution than the support of some of the bourgeoisie for any other revolution did. The mass movement is breaking the back of a vile dictatorship, awakening the Libyan workers and poor to political life like never before.
I like it when people use "clearly" and yet they don't demonstrate what they're claiming. Lots of assertions in there, but no facts. I'll wait while you try to remedy that.


evidence that I make "baseless assertions"
Wait for it...


The one who stands in a tradition of calling on all kinds of bloody repression of workers' uprisings?
There it is. Thanks for playing. :laugh:

[Sam_b]

Why?

Because I think 'allying' is a simplistic word used and does not reflect that there still some organisational differences. I'm happy to work with the ISO, and think they do some really good stuff, but too many times 'allying' can mean full support of the IST.

[Chimurenga.]

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/libya/no_foreign_intervention-Al_Jazeera.jpg



"We are waiting for a no-fly zone," he said.

In the meantime, "we are fixing a lot of weapons and machine guns, but it is going to take time. We can defeat him, but it is going to take time."

In Benghazi, there were also hope that a no-fly zone would be imposed. Tellingly, a large "No Foreign Intervention" sign that hung over the courthouse in the early days of liberation had been taken down.

Essam Gherani, a volunteer and spokesman for the newly formed provincial council responsible for the east, said he now would welcome precision strikes at Gadhafi and his forces.

"If these bastions were hit, this would be done in 24 hours," Gherani said. "The will (of the rebel forces) is there, but the means is something else."http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/04/2098596_p2/massive-blast-rips-arms-depot.html

Keep dreaming that this is still the case in Libya.

[Kassad]

The people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine continue to oppose occupations in their country. They demand an end to foreign intervention, but that doesn't mean that the threat of imperialist intervention is any less real. Imperialism stifled self-determination. I don't see why that is so difficult to grasp.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zeekloid:


Because the SWP also supports capitalist anti-imperialist governments/movements like Iran and Hezbollah so if the ISO has the same positions then I don't see why there's such a feud over imperialism between the ISO and Marcy types.

I'm sorry, but where do the SWP 'support' capitalist regimes?

[bcbm]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/04/2098596_p2/massive-blast-rips-arms-depot.html

Keep dreaming that this is still the case in Libya.

as far as i can tell they've realized gaddafi isn't going to be so easy to remove and they would prefer to let some other countries bomb him to hell than wage a bloody civil war for weeks or months with lots of untrained fighters against well armed and trained pro-gaddafi forces.

[Rusty Shackleford]

as far as i can tell they've realized gaddafi isn't going to be so easy to remove and they would prefer to let some other countries bomb him to hell than wage a bloody civil war for weeks or months with lots of untrained fighters against well armed and trained pro-gaddafi forces.
so letting NATO take the reigns of the rebellion is a good thing?

[Chimurenga.]

they would prefer to let some other countries bomb him to hell than wage a bloody civil war for weeks or months with lots of untrained fighters against well armed and trained pro-gaddafi forces.

Any swinging dick that can look at the examples of Yugoslavia, Panama, and Iraq, will realize that NATO and the West don't just go after areas where a leader may or may not be but they also target civilian areas and "soft targets". The country will be in ruins and thousands dead, at least.

The opposition forces, that once called for No US Intervention, the forces that the ISO and like-minded liberal groups ranted and raved about, are now doing just the opposite and unequivocally supporting direct intervention.

[bcbm]

so letting NATO take the reigns of the rebellion is a good thing?

i think asking for a no-fly zone and precision strikes is not the same thing as asking nato to take the reigns. the capture and detention of sas operatives suggests that the rebels are being cautious.


Any swinging dick that can look at the examples of Yugoslavia, Panama, and Iraq, will realize that NATO and the West don't just go after areas where a leader may or may not be but they also target civilian areas and "soft targets". The country will be in ruins and thousands dead, at least.

i'm not saying nato is a good thing or i trust them, but i am willing to give the rebels the benefit of the doubt here in believing they actually want precision strikes against gaddafi and not to see the country (more) in ruins (which gaddafi is threatening to do anyway...) and thousands dead (once again...).


The opposition forces, that once called for No US Intervention, the forces that the ISO and like-minded liberal groups ranted and raved about, are now doing just the opposite and unequivocally supporting direct intervention.

they opposed it when they thought they could do it themselves. now they're facing a prolonged civil war and a bloodbath and see a way to avoid that.

[The Grey Blur]

as i'm reading beevor's history of the spanish civil war i might as well draw the analogy that comes to mind; throughout the war the spanish workers and peasants in the republic looked naively to the allied powers for aid (perhaps not direct military invention, it's an imperfect analogy, just throwing it out) and the government (with as much belief in it being inevitable, if less naivety) did the same. were these forces imperialist stooges? (and we're talking a situation where real actually-existing-socialism was a serious political alternative) - are we confusing political naivety with sinister machinations?

here's another example: progressives and anti-imperialists in ireland (during the war of independence and later during the troubles) routinely looked to foreign aid, opinion or intervention (whether physical or via embargoes, diplomacy etc) as a solution to oppression (whether by british or unionist states) in their naivety. in the late 60s when the british soldiers came back on the streets they were actually welcomed by catholics (if not republicans) - again ireland (although really this is a description of the anti-imperialist struggle in many many places during the early 20th century such as india etc...the US was once looked to as a beacon of self-determination due to wilson's platitudes) is not a perfect analogy but i think it illustrates (probably over-states the case in fact) that calls for foreign or 'western' intervention aren't always politically thought-out slogans but a desperate expression of repression and suffering (and the libyan people are suffering...we all saw qaddafi's tactics of bombing protestors, women and children etc).

i don't think that the following reasoning: "the libyan opposition is making calls for US/NATO intervention, ergo the libyan opposition are western-directed stooges", (apparently, i hadn't even heard that before reading this thread) is logically sound. there will obviously be political divisions within the opposition bloc (a reflection of class...remember that marxism stuff we used to use?), one expression of which is the varying levels of enthusiasm for NATO intervention against qaddafi- illustrated by the photo above (and their arrest of the SAS men). it's clear that at least some of the anti-qaddafi forces are rightly cynical of NATO intervention and motives in libya.

finally, let's be frank here: qaddafi is the horse that the west backed in the region; they supplied him with weapons and ignored various rights abuses and massive corruption when it suited them. whatever his mixture of arab nationalism (which was, yes, broadly progressive in the historical context) and vague anti-imperialist rhetoric in the 70s and 80s, since the 90s onwards he has opened up libya to western oil companies and become a neo-liberal shill in the mubarak mould. he's also been directly implicated in the murder of socialists in neighbouring african countries. neither sides anti-imperialist credentials are pristine...the PSL (or marcyites, whatever) approach is admirable in a sense (that they actually acknowledge the continued existence of imperialism and national oppression) but they (or, if you're a member of these parties, you) seem to take an awful absolutist approach to regimes like libya and iran, in effect totally eliminating the independent political forces of the working class (or the potential for these to develop) of these nations from their analysis.

[RedTrackWorker]

I like it when people use "clearly" and yet they don't demonstrate what they're claiming. Lots of assertions in there, but no facts. I'll wait while you try to remedy that. He claims it's a baseless assertion that his group's tradition of calling on bloody repression for workers' uprisings.

The PSL article (http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6117&news_iv_ctrl=1322) admits "Thousands of people, including wide sections of the working class in Budapest and other cities, were in the streets."

They do not argue it wasn't a workers' uprising, but that without a revolutionary leadership, it was mislead and therefor had to be repressed: "In all cases, legitimate grievances on the part of the working classes were exploited and channeled into counterrevolutionary movements. Absent a clear anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist leadership, such a degeneration is inevitable in a world dominated by imperialism."

The PSL does not claim the workers' soviets in Hungary were fake or unimportant but that without a real Bolshevik leadership, they went the wrong way and had to be repressed.

The article claims that "socialism" in Hungary depended upon the repression and oppression by a foreign army: "Capitalism was abolished primarily due to the Soviet Red Army." and "Under the circumstances, were it not for the intervention of Soviet troops, counterrevolution would surely have been the outcome. This was, in fact, the outcome some twenty-five years later, after Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew Soviet troops."

Instead of the working class liberating itself and therefor all of humanity, we have the "Soviet Red Army" constantly needing to crush workers rising up, because even though it's "socialism," the society they live in is so fucked up they will rise up in mass in the face of bloody repression to try to change society. "Why can't those workers understand they have it so good?!" Or as the Spartacist League said of the Polish workers: "the strikers are demanding the biggest free lunch the world has ever seen."

Such contempt for the working class.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

i'm not saying nato is a good thing or i trust them, but i am willing to give the rebels the benefit of the doubt here in believing they actually want precision strikes against gaddafi and not to see the country (more) in ruins (which gaddafi is threatening to do anyway...) and thousands dead (once again...).

Unfortunately, you don't get to decide how and why imperialism pursues its interests. Capital serves capital. If and when the U.S. or European powers decide to intervene in Libya, it will be because they think it will serve their interests. It will not because they want to help "the people," and it will be not be done in accordance with the wishes of people in Libya requesting assistance.

What's missing in both sides of this long distance fan fest (what does it mean to "support" or oppose this or that side of a war in Africa from behind your computer screen in North America anyway, and how does it differ from choosing a team in the World Cup?) is the question of class, as is usual for the left.

The only real way forward out of this bloodbath and into something of use for humanity is for the working class to pursue its own interests, independent of all bourgeoisie factions, inside and outside of Libya. That's what proletarian militants would argue and fight for, to the best of their capabilities.

[The Grey Blur]

no need to get sanctimonious, i think bcbm understands that well. it's only the ISO and marcyite headcases who think their "support" of either libyan faction means anything in real terms. but these issues are worth discussing since they expose the inability of certain left groups to make any sort of class analysis or (as you said) to consider the independent political self-activity of the working classes in pursuit of their interests.

[Kassad]

Another article that slowly tears away at the credibility of the ISO: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html


Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi.

Any questions? Also, The Grey Blur: Despite how much trouble the socialist movement in the United States has had in mobilizing a significant amount of the left towards building proletarian revolution, that doesn't mean we don't spend every day preparing for it. If we don't have some form of ideological clarity or a correct political line, we're never going to be able to lead the working class to the final goal of a world without classes. The working class does act in its own interest, but that doesn't mean that imperialism doesn't as well.

[manic expression]

He claims it's a baseless assertion that his group's tradition of calling on bloody repression for workers' uprisings.

The PSL article (http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6117&news_iv_ctrl=1322) admits "Thousands of people, including wide sections of the working class in Budapest and other cities, were in the streets."

They do not argue it wasn't a workers' uprising, but that without a revolutionary leadership, it was mislead and therefor had to be repressed: "In all cases, legitimate grievances on the part of the working classes were exploited and channeled into counterrevolutionary movements. Absent a clear anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist leadership, such a degeneration is inevitable in a world dominated by imperialism."

The PSL does not claim the workers' soviets in Hungary were fake or unimportant but that without a real Bolshevik leadership, they went the wrong way and had to be repressed.

The article claims that "socialism" in Hungary depended upon the repression and oppression by a foreign army: "Capitalism was abolished primarily due to the Soviet Red Army." and "Under the circumstances, were it not for the intervention of Soviet troops, counterrevolution would surely have been the outcome. This was, in fact, the outcome some twenty-five years later, after Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew Soviet troops."

Instead of the working class liberating itself and therefor all of humanity, we have the "Soviet Red Army" constantly needing to crush workers rising up, because even though it's "socialism," the society they live in is so fucked up they will rise up in mass in the face of bloody repression to try to change society. "Why can't those workers understand they have it so good?!" Or as the Spartacist League said of the Polish workers: "the strikers are demanding the biggest free lunch the world has ever seen."
The Soviet intervention was the working class liberating itself. Just because it was a worker state re-liberating the workers of Hungary from reactionary oppression doesn't change that basic arithmetic. The Hungarian revolt was not pro-worker, as evidenced by its willful collaboration with western (read: NATO) agents, by its murder of socialists, by its objectives and aims.

But to you, petty jingoism is more important than the interests of the workers. To you, merely because the Soviet soldiers lacked Hungarian blood, their actions were illegitimate. "The Russians" were foreign, and therefore bad. Such is the tortured logic of counterrevolution.

And to you, military intervention in order to defend the interests of the workers is OK as long as you say so. Unless, of course, you wish to denounce the Red Army for liberating wide swathes of the nascent Soviet Union from the Whites. Go ahead, be consistent and denounce the Red Army under Trotsky's leadership.


Such contempt for the working class.
Such contempt that you hold for socialists, that you would defend the mob that lynched them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This thread makes me a very sad panda.

Anyway, one of Anarkismo's Syrian affiliates said this about the nature of the "government" in Benghazi:


Still there are no clear State institutions as such in the liberated areas. There are some trying to install their elite leadership, but until this very moment, not successfully yet.

Just recently, American and pro-American Arab press started talking about an interim council in Benghazi headed by an ex-minister of Qaddafi’s cabinet, just to highlight their welcoming position of a possible US intervention. Aside for this so called interim council, no other force or group in the liberated areas accepts or calls for such an intervention.

It seems to me that the future is still unwritten as to exactly what the nature of the opposition movement will be. The up-and-coming elite (which will undoubtedly have influences from the old elite, as that excerpt mentions) wants the regime gone ASAP so they can start creating their own state, and may be willing to accept help in order to accomplish this task, while I'm sure that many Libyans in the opposition want nothing to do with NATO or the United States.

[RedTrackWorker]

Another article that slowly tears away at the credibility of the ISO: [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebe

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE7260B820110307
"Libya plays a vital role in regional peace and world peace," he said in an interview with the France 24 television station. "We are an important partner in fighting al Qaeda."

"There are millions of blacks who could come to the Mediterranean to cross to France and Italy, and Libya plays a role in security in the Mediterranean," he said, speaking through an interpreter.

Kassad and his comrades still refuse to address any serious analytical questions, like how if the Irish rebels took arms from the imperialists (as did the ANC, as did just about any other bourgeois national liberation movement and others besides), that articles like the ones he cites are some kind of "proof", whereas who knows what kind of excuse he'll come up with to cover for the article I'm citing here. I'm not saying the article I'm citing definitely proves "defend the rebels against the government," but it certainly should make one hesitate to make a public appeal to the imperialists the only evidence one tries to palm off as "class analysis."

As for manic expression's reply to my post on the Hungarian revolution, I see he has studied at the Stalinist school of falsification well--saying things I doubt he really means in order to score debater's points, mixing up the Red Army fighting the Whites versus the Red Army putting down a workers' rebellion, reducing the whole movement to the actions of some parts of it (see again the Lenin quote on such pedantry). No one joins the workers' movement planning to be so corrupt. It's sad.

[manic expression]

As for manic expression's reply to my post on the Hungarian revolution, I see he has studied at the Stalinist school of falsification well--saying things I doubt he really means in order to score debater's points, mixing up the Red Army fighting the Whites versus the Red Army putting down a workers' rebellion, reducing the whole movement to the actions of some parts of it (see again the Lenin quote on such pedantry). No one joins the workers' movement planning to be so corrupt. It's sad.
Just as I thought, when faced with facts you retreat into unproven, useless platitudes. You say the Hungarian revolt was a "workers' rebellion", and yet you cannot even vaguely pretend to support this assertion. You say collaboration with western agents was "some parts of it", when western agents reported that they were welcomed by the "revolutionaries" with open arms:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/CSH_Hungarian_Revolution_Vol1.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB206/CSH_Hungarian_Revolution_Vol1.pdf)
(see page 86)

Once again, we see that running away from facts is necessary when you want to run away from revolutionary politics.

[gorillafuck]

I'm curious what the ISO wishes for Libyan radical workers to do, and I am also interested in what the PSL wants Libyan radical workers to do.

[Kassad]

I'm curious what the ISO wishes for Libyan radical workers to do, and I am also interested in what the PSL wants Libyan radical workers to do.

Build the socialist movement and oppose imperialism unconditionally. I think any revolutionary in Libya realizes that imperialist intervention and occupation is the worst possible scenario, which is why we oppose said intervention unconditionally. Hell, even if the Libyan opposition does succeed in toppling Gaddafi, unless there are transitional demands that are going to benefit the working class of Libya (much like how the people in Egypt are combating unemployment and poverty), nothing good is going to come out of this uprising.

[The Red Next Door]

Any swinging dick that can look at the examples of Yugoslavia, Panama, and Iraq, will realize that NATO and the West don't just go after areas where a leader may or may not be but they also target civilian areas and "soft targets". The country will be in ruins and thousands dead, at least.

The opposition forces, that once called for No US Intervention, the forces that the ISO and like-minded liberal groups ranted and raved about, are now doing just the opposite and unequivocally supporting direct intervention.

its ILO, not ISO. international liberal organization.

[The Grey Blur]

unless there are transitional demands that are going to benefit the working class of Libya (much like how the people in Egypt are combating unemployment and poverty), nothing good is going to come out of this uprising.
it's not up to socialists (especially not those half a world away) to dictate to others when they're ready for revolution, even if at best the outcome might be bourgeois democracy. back in the day at least the stalinists were capable of differentiating between the quantitative difference between (and benefits of) formal bourgeois democracy and an autocracy which restricts freedoms of political organisation etc. you don't seem to make the obvious connection that the same socio-economic pressures that provoked the egyptian uprising are common throughout the arab world including libya - unemployment, poverty, corruption, and suppression of dissent. and these conditions are of course a product of the 'anti-imperialist' qadaffi regime wholeheartedly collaborating with neo-liberal and neo-imperialist forces in the region.

http://www.dominic-brown.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/blair_gadaffi.jpg

[The Red Next Door]

it's not up to socialists (especially not those half a world away) to dictate to others when they're ready for revolution, even if at best the outcome might be bourgeois democracy. back in the day at least the stalinists were capable of differentiating between the quantitative difference between (and benefits of) formal bourgeois democracy and an autocracy which restricts freedoms of political organisation etc. you don't seem to make the obvious connection that the same socio-economic pressures that provoked the egyptian uprising are common throughout the arab world including libya - unemployment, poverty, corruption, and suppression of dissent. and these conditions are of course a product of the 'anti-imperialist' qadaffi regime wholeheartedly collaborating with neo-liberal and neo-imperialist forces in the region.

http://www.dominic-brown.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/blair_gadaffi.jpg

That really do not mean shit, I said this 100 times. Just because imperialists are friends with another country, does not mean they will fuck them over, the only reason, they are funding the rebel, because they hope to get more oil from them or as a matter of fact, the whole fucking thing.

Imperialist and bourgeoise, will stab each other in the back like socialists and marxist like some hohxaists and liberalskyist.

[gorillafuck]

its ILO, not ISO. international liberal organization.I don't think I could take what you say on ISO liberalism seriously, being that you're a member of the Party For Sour Lollipops.


Build the socialist movement and oppose imperialism unconditionally.I assume that that means reject any association or affiliation with both the opposition as well as with Qaddafi?

[28350]

Global class war was so much cleaner when the majority of anti-imperialist forces were communist.

[Sasha]

If that's your definition of communism I'm glad those times are history.

[Kassad]

What most people aren't getting is that the best outcome is not "bourgeois democracy." At the moment, it is looking like Libya could soon be occupied by imperialist forces, which the opposition is cheerleading. So you can live in our fantasy world where imperialism doesn't exist and the United States respect self-determination and I'll continue to live in reality.

[The Red Next Door]

What most people aren't getting is that the best outcome is not "bourgeois democracy." At the moment, it is looking like Libya could soon be occupied by imperialist forces, which the opposition is cheerleading. So you can live in our fantasy world where imperialism doesn't exist and the United States respect self-determination and I'll continue to live in reality.

May say the opposition love to have a picknannies

[bcbm]

If we don't have some form of ideological clarity or a correct political line, we're never going to be able to lead the working class to the final goal of a world without classes.

self important fantasy

[gorillafuck]

May say the opposition love to have a picknanniesUmm, what?


I assume that that means reject any association or affiliation with both the opposition as well as with Qaddafi?I'll repost this in case you didn't notice it Kassad, I'm curious.

[Kassad]

self important fantasy

Just because you have a pessimistic view of the working class potential for revolution doesn't mean that we all do. I'll continue being a communist. You can go play in the sandbox.

[bcbm]

Just because you have a pessimistic view of the working class potential for revolution doesn't mean that we all do. I'll continue being a communist. You can go play in the sandbox.

you're right i'm sure the working class will be trawling through back issues of "socialist workers vanguard" or whatever to make sure the correct line on libya was presented before they consent to be led to a world with out classes by your party. all the same i'll keep my little life in the sandbox over jerking myself off about how much my little life and my little group of other little lives will mean for the future of communism

[The Red Next Door]

Umm, what?

I'll repost this in case you didn't notice it Kassad, I'm curious.


they love to hang niggers like me. if you have not been reading.

[gorillafuck]

yeah the opposition forces are very racist.

[Kassad]

yeah the opposition forces are very racist.

There are reports of the opposition detaining and executing black immigrants. Care to try again?

[gorillafuck]

wait how did that contradict what I said? I said the opposition is an overall very racist group of rebels. What you just said affirms what I said.....

[Kassad]

I thought you were being sarcastic. Apologies.

[The Red Next Door]

wait how did that contradict what I said? I said the opposition is an overall very racist group of rebels. What you just said affirms what I said.....


we thought you were being sarcastic.

[gorillafuck]

why did I just get negrepped as "typical white" for saying that the opposition is racist by TRND?

what the hell is going on here? is this a weird joke on me where if I say that a group is racist than I'll get accused of not being anti-racist?

Edit: oh.

[The Red Next Door]

why did I just get negrepped as "typical white" for saying that the opposition is racist by TRND?

what the hell is going on here? is this a weird joke on me where if I say that a group is racist than I'll get accused of not being anti-racist?

Edit: oh.

no, i thought you were being sarcastic. sorry, i get your points back.

[gorillafuck]

I don't care about points. I was just confused as hell. thanks though.

[Reznov]

why not, what else is there to do?



Good point, its not like any of them are actually doing anything productive other then selling books/pamphlets.

[28350]

If that's your definition of communism I'm glad those times are history.

Yeah, I'm not surprised you prefer no revolutionary movements to the times of impure "stalinism" and "national liberation"

[Kassad]

Good point, its not like any of them are actually doing anything productive other then selling books/pamphlets.

That's cute. Ironically, it was just announced that the Unite Here! union in San Francisco that was boycotting hotels in the area due to anti-worker practices reached an agreement with the management. This was due to consistent protests and boycotts, many if which were organized and supported by the ANSWER Coalition. Almost all recent anti-war protests in San Francisco have been tied in to the struggle for workers rights, these protests being organized by the ANSWER Coalition. Books and pamphlets, huh?

In Columbus, Ohio where I live, the PSL is the only socialist group in the area. When 25,000 workers demonstrated at the Statehouse last week, we were there distributing leaflets and petitions. We also got thousands of the special issue of Liberation Newspaper to workers and students there, which brought about many lively discussions which resulted in many leaving with expressed interest in the PSL. Books and pamphlets, huh?

In Wisconsin, we have joined with thousands of workers in mobilizing against the anti-union crusade. Not only did we receive thousands of signatures on a petition that demanded "Stop the war against unions; tax the rich!", but we also distributed signs and leaflets that were seen everywhere. We have built many union contacts because of some of these demonstrations which further our roots in the working class. Books and pamphlets, huh?

All of this has happened in the last two weeks. You obviously aren't aware of the dozens of struggles we are involved in every day, across the country, whether they be national or local issues. Pay attention. There will be a test.

[bcbm]

In Wisconsin, we have joined with thousands of workers in mobilizing against the anti-union crusade. Not only did we receive thousands of signatures on a petition that demanded "Stop the war against unions; tax the rich!", but we also distributed signs and leaflets that were seen everywhere. We have built many union contacts because of some of these demonstrations which further our roots in the working class. Books and pamphlets, huh?

signs and leaflets, books and pamphlets... and a petition. where are these "roots" leading? all of this so far is just "we're doing stuff!" but i don't see how any of this has any real impact on working peoples or their struggles at this point. its kind of depressing that "we got people to sign shit and we passed out some crap" is some kind of major accomplishment at this point. is there even a psl branch in madison?

[Rusty Shackleford]

signs and leaflets, books and pamphlets... and a petition. where are these "roots" leading? all of this so far is just "we're doing stuff!" but i don't see how any of this has any real impact on working peoples or their struggles at this point. its kind of depressing that "we got people to sign shit and we passed out some crap" is some kind of major accomplishment at this point. is there even a psl branch in madison?



were doing stuff also includes talking to people on an almost daily basis about politics and economics, and also organizing or assisting in organizing events like March 19th.

there was also a MUNI struggle we very actively participated in in SF.

[bcbm]

were doing stuff also includes talking to people on an almost daily basis about politics and economics, and also organizing or assisting in organizing events like March 19th.

so you passed out crap and talked to some people. what is the real impact on working people and their struggles?


there was also a MUNI struggle we very actively participated in in SF.

"actively participated in" meaning?

[RED DAVE]

To bring some reality into the situation, according to a buddy of mine, a resident of Madison, the only two groups that have had a consistent present there, from the beginning, including having some union people, are Solidarity and the ISO. Other groups have, slowly, begun to show up.

RED DAVE

[Chimurenga.]

is there even a psl branch in madison?

We have comrades in Madison, Wisconsin but we don't have a formal branch yet.

As for your "doing stuff" comment, we assisted the hotel workers in their struggles in SF which (as Kassad has mentioned) has won some concessions. In SF and Boston we work close with union bus drivers. In DC we've won a court case which will prohibit police checkpoints in predominately african american neighborhoods. In CT and DC we are fighting back against hikes in heating and electricity in working and poor neighborhoods. In NYC we have been fighting back against bars that have been discriminating on race and sexuality and we've won. In LA and Long Beach, we are working closely with families whose loved ones have been victims of police brutality and police killings. This is just to name a few.

This is all documented on our website. Our party is more than our newspaper, it's more than our books, and its more than any leaflet. We're constantly in working class struggles and that is how you build a movement. It shows in how fast we are growing and where we are getting new contacts.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

so you passed out crap and talked to some people. what is the real impact on working people and their struggles?

When there is one at all it serves only to confuse, distract and derail genuine proletarian militancy.

[Kassad]

To bring some reality into the situation, according to a buddy of mine, a resident of Madison, the only two groups that have had a consistent present there, from the beginning, including having some union people, are Solidarity and the ISO. Other groups have, slowly, begun to show up.

RED DAVE

...We've had live Twitter reports and articles coming out since the beginning of the demonstrations, so that pretty much refutes that.

[Kassad]

signs and leaflets, books and pamphlets... and a petition. where are these "roots" leading? all of this so far is just "we're doing stuff!" but i don't see how any of this has any real impact on working peoples or their struggles at this point. its kind of depressing that "we got people to sign shit and we passed out some crap" is some kind of major accomplishment at this point. is there even a psl branch in madison?

I don't know, maybe promoting class consciousness? Feel free to let me know how you magically plan on reinvigorating the workers movement and preparing it for revolution without building an organization that has roots in the working class.

[Imposter Marxist]

I know for a fact the WWP has had members from out of state there throughout the entire struggle. I've also seen members of the PLP, PSL, ISO, FRSO, and a few solidarity members.

[Kassad]

I know for a fact the WWP has had members from out of state there throughout the entire struggle. I've also seen members of the PLP, PSL, ISO, FRSO, and a few solidarity members.

Yeah, to be honest, I'm pretty sure every organization with any decent base of support tried to get their members there. It is a massive workers struggle that will have a sizable effect on the future of the workers movement.

[Crux]

they love to hang niggers like me. if you have not been reading.
When you say "like me" are you referring to Qadaffis mercenaries? That would be apt. And yes, no doubt the fact that Qadaffi has lost most support of the army and has had to resort to foreign mercenaries has sadly created a racist backlash.

[bcbm]

I don't know, maybe promoting class consciousness?

good luck...

walker et al seem to be doing a better job


Feel free to let me know how you magically plan on reinvigorating the workers movement and preparing it for revolution without building an organization that has roots in the working class.

i don't

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm curious what the ISO wishes for Libyan radical workers to do, and I am also interested in what the PSL wants Libyan radical workers to do.There's not much we can influence, why this debate matters though is that it does have ramifications on any US solidarity movement and an opposition to intervention especially when the PSL is a major part of the US anti-war movement through ANSWER. It will not help us build a movement that has solidarity with the people in the middle east and north africa if some in the movement pick and choose which dictators are OK and which are not OK to rebel against based on positions about world politics leftover from the cold-war.

Neither of the big anti-war groups around here endorsed the Libyan solidarity protests, which is a shame since it was a lot of immigrants and would have been an opportunity to make the case why US intervention will not help and lay some groundwork for networking with people who would want to organize protests in case the US or EU does take action.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Neither of "the big anti-war groups" are anything more than reformist pressure organizations that do nothing but advise the ruling class how to administer capitalism and make participants feel good. They certainly won't "stop the wars."

There are a few things that can prevent or stop wars:

1. Defeats in battle.
2. Mass mutinies.
3. Strikes and sabotage.
4. A combination of some/all of the above.

"In the Vietnam War, for example, the picture most people had was of middle-class radicals, the New Left, fighting against the war and the hard-hats supporting it and beating up the antiwar students. Yet more war production was stopped by workers carrying on ordinary strikes in the course of their lives in the plants than by the whole antiwar movement put together. There were strikes at Olin-Matheson, which made munitions, at McDonnell-Douglas, which made fighter planes, on the Missouri Pacific railroad, which transported war materials for shipment from the Pacific coast. In a few instances, strikes lasted a couple of weeks, and the shortage of planes and war material reached the point where the Johnson administration was getting ready to take over the plants to stop the strikes." - Martin Glaberman

All the big anti-war marches have been allowed to go on since the invasion of Afghanistan. No problem.. It's a great "pressure release" and it supports the myth of democracy -- that you can voice your opinion and influence the government. But when the workers at the Goodyear factory, which made tires for military vehicles, went on strike in 2006, the US Army threatened to break it.

"The US Army is considering measures to force striking workers back to their jobs at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Kansas in the face of a looming shortage of tyres for Humvee trucks and other military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan." - http://www.socialoracle.com/files/US%20Army%20might%20break%20Goodyear%20strike%20-%20Financial%20Times%20-%20MSNBC.com.pdf

[RED DAVE]

To bring some reality into the situation, according to a buddy of mine, a resident of Madison, the only two groups that have had a consistent present there, from the beginning, including having some union people, are Solidarity and the ISO. Other groups have, slowly, begun to show up.
...We've had live Twitter reports and articles coming out since the beginning of the demonstrations, so that pretty much refutes that.If you call twittering "consistent presence," you and I speak different languages.

I'm talking about groups that have maintained an active public presence, participated in caucuses and debates and actually have local members who belong to unions in the area.

RED DAVE

[Kassad]

What I meant by that is the fact that we're not just sitting here in Columbus or Chicago in our apartments tweeting about what's going on. We have people there doing eyewitness reporting. We've had members there for at least a couple of weeks now on a constant basis. You can read live feeds from ANSWERCoalition.org. We have been doing outreach there the entire time. Though we are a rapidly growing organization, we don't have a branch in Madison at the current time, but then again, neither does pretty much anyone else besides the ISO. If that is your definition of what gives an organization legitimacy, I'll try to refrain from laughing as I respond next time.

[The Red Next Door]

When you say "like me" are you referring to Qadaffis mercenaries? That would be apt. And yes, no doubt the fact that Qadaffi has lost most support of the army and has had to resort to foreign mercenaries has sadly created a racist backlash.

The victims as been innocent workers from southern and west African countries. I am referring to the innocent workers and i won't be surprise, if they lynch a black reporter.

[gorillafuck]

I know for a fact the WWP has had members from out of state there throughout the entire struggle. I've also seen members of the PLP, PSL, ISO, FRSO, and a few solidarity members.Who?:confused:

[Kassad]

Who?:confused:

Progressive Labor Party. www.PLP.org

[Jimmie Higgins]

Neither of "the big anti-war groups" are anything more than reformist pressure organizations that do nothing but advise the ruling class how to administer capitalism and make participants feel good. They certainly won't "stop the wars."

There are a few things that can prevent or stop wars:

1. Defeats in battle.
2. Mass mutinies.
3. Strikes and sabotage.
4. A combination of some/all of the above.
How do you propose that organizing for these things can happen? Would there have been a groups like the IVAW? Would there have been anti-war resolutions passed in unions without a anti-war movement? Those were the modest seeds of more potentially militant actions for later.

A rebuilt anti-war movement that put solidarity with Arabs and Muslims at the center (something that has been missing, among other things) could have a huge and real impact right now.

First it could more concretely connect the war abroad with the war at home due to the crisis: "money for jobs and not for war" is no longer just a propagandistic slogan for millions of Americans. It could build on a multi-racial basis by joining with Arab and Muslim people in America in fighting against the profiling and entrapment by law-enforcement and bigotry from the right with the "Ground Zero" protests and Koran-burnings. If there was a decent anti-war movement today we could have rallies against potential US "peacekeeping" in Libya or mobilize anti-war groups to join the workers in Wisconsin with slogans like: "Don't Send Troops Into the Middle East or the Mid-West". A broad anti-war movement right now could be organizing for the release of that soldier that gave info to Wikileaks.


All the big anti-war marches have been allowed to go on since the invasion of Afghanistan. No problem.. It's a great "pressure release" and it supports the myth of democracy -- that you can voice your opinion and influence the government. But when the workers at the Goodyear factory, which made tires for military vehicles, went on strike in 2006, the US Army threatened to break it.

"The US Army is considering measures to force striking workers back to their jobs at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Kansas in the face of a looming shortage of tyres for Humvee trucks and other military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan." - http://www.socialoracle.com/files/US%20Army%20might%20break%20Goodyear%20strike%20-%20Financial%20Times%20-%20MSNBC.com.pdfYour argument is that the anti-war movement was not very solely decisive and you are right - your argument that the last wave of the anti-war movent was not very effective, and i agree with that too. You are wrong in saying that it does not matter and that there is no way it could have made any impact.

The broad anti-war movement in the 1960s provided the infrastructure for soldiers to resist or go AWOL - they build coffehouses for soldiers to get off base and build solidarity with eachother against the officers - resisting soliders weren't left to hang out there alone, there were civilian forces able to assist them - the anti-war movement countered the racism being used to promote war and build solidarity at home with people being bombed.

Even as weak as the earlier anti-war movement was last decade, if it wasn't for the movement, we'd still be hearing about WMDs, everyone would still believe that Mom's of soldiers cry their eyes bloody when they hear criticism of the war and that all US soldiers are rabidly in favor of the wars and the Presidents.

Yes, the movement lacked internationalist solidarity, was dis-unified, weak on "patriotism", run top-down by various liberal or even radical groups, low on strategy and action, etc but I'm not convinced this is the only kind of movement that can be built. I think we could see a movement that both you and me would want to see: grounded in clearer class-consciousness due to the recession; more multi-racial than before due to fights against Islamophobia; a clearer sense of anti-imperialism now that the US Empire and their "pro-democracy" bullshit is much more popularly exposed.

[gorillafuck]

Thanks Kassad. I actually have heard of them I didn't recognize the acronym though.

and just something from their site that caught my eye.


Capitalism inevitably leads to wars. PLP organizes workers, students and soldiers to turn these wars into a revolution for communism -- the dictatorship of the proletariat. This fight requires a mass Red Army led by the communist PLP.Ummm, that's absurd no matter what tendency you are.

[RED DAVE]

ISO (International Socialist Organization) homepage
(http://www.internationalsocialist.org/)
Socialist Worker (ISO publication) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialistworker.org/)

Socialist Worker article on Wisconsin (http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/08/breath-fresh-wisconsin-airhttp://)

and to round it out

Solidarity (http://www.solidarity-us.org/current/)

Labor Notes (http://www.labornotes.org/)

RED DAVE

[Kassad]

ISO (International Socialist Organization) homepage
(http://www.internationalsocialist.org/)
Socialist Worker (ISO publication) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialistworker.org/)

Socialist Worker article on Wisconsin (http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/08/breath-fresh-wisconsin-airhttp://)

and to round it out

Solidarity (http://www.solidarity-us.org/current/)

Labor Notes (http://www.labornotes.org/)

RED DAVE

What's your point? I said the ISO was there.

[S.Artesian]

Can this sectarian tripe finally get updated in light of more recent events?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/africa/02libya.html

"BENGHAZI, Libya — In a sign of mounting frustration among rebel leaders over Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/q/muammar_el_qaddafi/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s diminished but unyielding grip on power, rebel leaders here are debating whether to ask for Western airstrikes under the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) banner, according to four people with knowledge of the deliberations. "

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23426

"Islamabad—The United States, Britain and France have sent several hundred “defence advisors” to train and support the anti-Gadhafi forces in oil-rich Eastern Libya where “rebels armed groups” have apparently taken over. "

Thank you, and...

Stance?

How's this:

No UN, US, UK, EU, Russian, Israeli, Georgian, Iranian, Turkish, Japanese, Chinese, etc etc intervention in Libya.

This includes arms shipments by or from these countries to any group in the Middle East.

No transit of personnel from African countries to perform mercenary work for Qaddafi.

No support for Qaddafi.

Seizure of the the oil and gas fields by the workers.

Equal rights for women in all areas of society.

Socialization of agriculture.

etc etc etc.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

How do you propose that organizing for these things can happen?

Workers have to fight for their own interests. The most often cause of that is that the bourgeoisie attacks them in the process of accumulating profits. That's what's happening now in Wisconsin, for example. Workers didn't flood the capital because they agreed with something they read in "Socialist Rag Weekly." They did it to protect their lives.


Would there have been a groups like the IVAW?

These kinds of groups arise periodically. I think that kind of thing is going to happen. I don't think IVAW is going to end the wars.


Would there have been anti-war resolutions passed in unions without a anti-war movement?

I don't think that means much. So the union bureaucrats are against the war in Iraq in words. Obama said he was against it too. It's part of playing politics. Did the union tops do anything to stop the wars? Did they call any strikes against it? Did they call for war materiel to be hot cargoed? Of course not.

And how many of these resolutions were pushed through by leftists who outlast everyone else and pass motions with the remaining people in a meeting in the middle of the night?


Those were the modest seeds of more potentially militant actions for later.

Again, I don't think proletarian militancy comes out of leftist organizations or literature. I think it comes out of conditions of life.


A rebuilt anti-war movement that put solidarity with Arabs and Muslims at the center (something that has been missing, among other things) could have a huge and real impact right now.

I don't know what that has to do with the proletarian struggle. There are many "Arabs and Muslims." Some of them are capitalists, some of them are bureaucrats, some of them are mullahs, some of them serve in reactionary states or religious bands, etc. The working class has no nation, and no nationality.

It's the interests of the working class to oppose racism and nationalism because it is a weapon against it (used to divide the working class against itself, drive down wages, break strikes, justify war, etc). But that's something else.

And solidarity is not a word or a belief, but a concrete action by people with shared interests. Aircraft mechanics joining a picket line of flight attendants because they realize that a loss for them could very easily lead to the bosses coming after them next would be a good example of solidarity. Truckers refusing to haul ammunition that was going to be used by armed forces to attack a general strike would be another.

As Debs put it: “Solidarity is not a matter of sentiment but a fact, cold and impassive as the granite foundations of a skyscraper. If the basic elements, identity of interest, clarity of vision, honesty of intent, and oneness of purpose, or any of these is lacking, all sentimental pleas for solidarity, and all other efforts to achieve it will be barren of results.”


First it could more concretely connect the war abroad with the war at home due to the crisis: 'money for jobs and not for war' is no longer just a propagandistic slogan for millions of Americans.

"Money for jobs and not for war" is an outright reformist slogan. I'm not interested in advising the capitalist state on how to best spend its revenues, and I realize that I can't even if I wanted to. Leftist groups on the other hand promote illusions that such things can happen, that "boots on the ground" will "influence Washington," that the state funnels money into the military instead of into schools because of "bad choices," etc. They suck authentic proletarian militancy and awakening workers into their muck, where it dies.

Imperialist war is a product of capitalism. It comes out of the workings of this system. The only way to bring it to an end is to eliminate its source. That means proletarian revolution.

Members of many classes oppose specific wars for whatever reason. Some bourgeois politicians complained that resources used in the invasion of Iraq could have been "better used" to invade Iran, or for other strategic reasons. Middle class liberals opposed the war in Iraq but praised the "good war" in Afghanistan. Some opposed both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and then turned around to call for "troops in" to Sudan. These are the people you want to link militant workers with (which in reality means bringing them in line under the leadership of these forces).

The international working class is the only real force that can eliminate this sort of bloodshed once and for all. It can do that by pursuing its own interests. By fighting for its life, for its independence, and for its freedom in its day to day conditions, it can actually bring the whole thing tumbling down.


It could build on a multi-racial basis by joining with Arab and Muslim people in America in fighting against the profiling and entrapment by law-enforcement and bigotry from the right with the "Ground Zero" protests and Koran-burnings. If there was a decent anti-war movement today we could have rallies against potential US "peacekeeping" in Libya or mobilize anti-war groups to join the workers in Wisconsin with slogans like: "Don't Send Troops Into the Middle East or the Mid-West". A broad anti-war movement right now could be organizing for the release of that soldier that gave info to Wikileaks.

And what effect would all of that have? Why would it be more effective than years of huge rallies and popular opinion?


Even as weak as the earlier anti-war movement was last decade, if it wasn't for the movement, we'd still be hearing about WMDs, everyone would still believe that Mom's of soldiers cry their eyes bloody when they hear criticism of the war and that all US soldiers are rabidly in favor of the wars and the Presidents.

I don't think protests are what changes peoples opinions on things like this. That's not what happened during the war in Viet Nam or more recently during the "War on Terror." The real results of these kinds of drawn out wars -- massacres and dead bodies piling up, friends and family being sent off to fight and die, threats to break strikes in 'vital industries', billions given to war contractors, etc. -- are what does.

Secondly, I don't think it all boils down to popular opinion. And that's precisely the point. The majority of people have opposed the war in Iraq for years, and hundreds of thousands have worn the soles off their shoes in protest. What has it accomplished? Nothing. You can't "influence" imperialism, least of all by begging the government.

Capital serves capital. These wars came out of the workings of the capitalist system. They weren't simply "bad ideas" by this or that politician. The capitalist state pursues the interests of the capitalist system. States don't enter or exit wars based on popular opinion. They may create public opinion in favor of war to assist with the effort, but they certainly don't withdraw troops on the advice of people walking around in circles on the National Lawn.

What harms war efforts more than anything? Besides defeats in battle, it's the actions of everyday workers just trying to make it through life: strikes for better wages and conditions; mutinies, refusal and departures of soldiers who wanted to live, and didn't want to kill for capital.


Yes, the movement lacked internationalist solidarity, was dis-unified, weak on "patriotism", run top-down by various liberal or even radical groups, low on strategy and action, etc but I'm not convinced this is the only kind of movement that can be built. I think we could see a movement that both you and me would want to see: grounded in clearer class-consciousness due to the recession; more multi-racial than before due to fights against Islamophobia; a clearer sense of anti-imperialism now that the US Empire and their "pro-democracy" bullshit is much more popularly exposed.

I think this reflects the differences I was trying to point out earlier. Your answer is more or "stronger" protests, or better tactics to build "the movement."

But my point is that "the movement" is nothing more than a reformist cross-class front that spins its wheels .

[RED DAVE]

ISO (International Socialist Organization) homepage
(http://www.internationalsocialist.org/)
Socialist Worker (ISO publication) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialistworker.org/)

Socialist Worker article on Wisconsin (http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/08/breath-fresh-wisconsin-airhttp://)

and to round it out

Solidarity (http://www.solidarity-us.org/current/)

Labor Notes (http://www.labornotes.org/)
What's your point? I said the ISO was there.That confirms it then because if you hadn't said they were there, they wouldn't have been there. :D

On the other hand, comrades might like an introduction to the ISO, Solidarity and the work they do.

RED DAVE

[manic expression]

Secondly, I don't think it all boils down to popular opinion. And that's precisely the point. The majority of people have opposed the war in Iraq for years, and hundreds of thousands have worn the soles off their shoes in protest. What has it accomplished? Nothing. You can't "influence" imperialism, least of all by begging the government.
You think communists in the US are "begging the government"? Talk about projection.

But then again, maybe you're right. The imperialists haven't ended the war in Iraq, so let's just take our ball and go home. Quite a plan you have there. Oh, and when workers do become more militant, I wonder how much they're going to listen to you, seeing how you've shown such daring and strong leadership against capitalist crimes in the past (and by that I mean taking your ball and going home).

But this is what I've come to expect from someone whose organization might as well be on the back of a milk carton (anyone remember the smashing success that was FPM?). If one has no relevance to working-class struggles, it's only natural that they'd put a great deal of their energy into disparaging the very relevance they so obviously lack.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You think communists in the US are "begging the government"? Talk about projection."Troops out now!" Who is that directed at? Who can withdraw the troops with a wave of the pen?

"Money for jobs, not for war!" Who is that directed at? Who decides how the revenues of the state are spent?

Neither of these are directed at the working class or rank and file soldiers. They're certainly not directed at the general population, which already opposes the wars in great numbers. Neither mention anything about real methods to end the wars. And that's precisely the point, and why these sorts of parades are allowed to go on. Because as the 2006 Goodyear Strike showed, if any of this had any real effect on the war effort, the state would try to smash it immediately. Instead, the leftists play the role of propping up the democratic system.


But then again, maybe you're right. The imperialists haven't ended the war in Iraq, so let's just take our ball and go home. Quite a plan you have there.You have got to be one of the most abrasively idiotic posters in the history of this forum. Every post you make is oozing with utter hog shit. If you took the straw men out of your posts alone, probably half of what you write would disappear.

Anyone can scroll back in this thread and see that I already wrote on the wars and how to stop them. The point is that there are certain forces that can stop these wars in particular, and one class that can stop these kinds of wars in general. Reformist-led parades won't do it.


Oh, and when workers do become more militant, I wonder how much they're going to listen to you, seeing how you've shown such daring and strong leadership against capitalist crimes in the past (and by that I mean taking your ball and going home).The difference between you and I is that I'm not interested becoming some kind of Iron Leadership that leads "The masses" into battle. I struggle as much as I can for the emancipation of the proletariat because capitalism has ruined my life, and the lives of my family and friends. I don't want to create a new Party State run by bureaucrats, where we are all still wage slaves. I want free conditions where we can be real human beings. Those can only come out of an authentic and independent movement of the working class.

If any workers do listen to what I have to say it will be because I back up my arguments with fact and have a history of pointing out pitfalls, and that what I'm saying makes sense to them.


But this is what I've come to expect from someone whose organization might as well be on the back of a milk carton (anyone remember the smashing success that was FPM?).The FPM reorganized into PoWR years ago, and PoWR disbanded in 2009. We had a regular press, members and sections in several countries, supporters, offices, events, etc., but we were honest with ourselves enough to realize that we were largely irrelevant to the international working class as a whole and that what we were doing wasn't going to lead to proletarian liberation. So we decided to end the group.

It was a learning experience that brought us in contact with people all over the world and exposed us to the ins and outs of the left. It was productive in those respects. Those of us who have stayed in contact have been drawing out the lessons from those years since the beginning of 2010.

It's nothing to be embarrassed about. I'm glad that we were able to snap out of the self-perpetuating cycle so we could get down to really trying to figure out a way forward. Compare that to socialist groups that have repeat the same strategies and tactics of their hero Lenin, nearly a century later, despite having no successes to show for it. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.


If one has no relevance to working-class struggles, it's only natural that they'd put a great deal of their energy into disparaging the very relevance they so obviously lack. The difference here is that we don't have to join a group to have relevance to "working-class struggles," because we live them every day. Unlike a party, we can't resign from needed to put food on our tables, raising rents, unemployment, and economic enslavement.

And I would mention that, although we were very tiny and unable to reach the majority of working people around the world, we had members and supporters in mines, mills, power plants and food industries at the time we disbanded... to whatever extent that matters.

I'm sure now you'll come back with a post that addresses nothing above but distorts everything. Since that's your modus operandi, you shouldn't wait for a reply back. It's probably not going to come.

[manic expression]

"Troops out now!" Who is that directed at? Who can withdraw the troops with a wave of the pen?

"Money for jobs, not for war!" Who is that directed at? Who decides how the revenues of the state are spent?

Neither of these are directed at the working class or rank and file soldiers. They're certainly not directed at the general population, which already opposes the wars in great numbers. Neither mention anything about real methods to end the wars. And that's precisely the point, and why these sorts of parades are allowed to go on. Because as the 2006 Goodyear Strike showed, if any of this had any real effect on the war effort, the state would try to smash it immediately. Instead, the leftists play the role of propping up the democratic system.
Such demands do not prop up any capitalist system, but instead voice the interests of the working class, expose the reality of capitalist oppression and reach working-class people through struggle. Such working-class campaigns against capitalist oppression help accomplish those tasks.


You have got to be one of the most abrasively idiotic posters in the history of this forum. Every post you make is oozing with utter hog shit. If you took the straw men out of your posts alone, probably half of what you write would disappear.I seem to have touched a nerve.


Anyone can scroll back in this thread and see that I already wrote on the wars and how to stop them. The point is that there are certain forces that can stop these wars in particular, and one class that can stop these kinds of wars in general. Reformist-led parades won't do it.

The difference between you and I is that I'm not interested becoming some kind of Iron Leadership that leads "The masses" into battle. I struggle as much as I can for the emancipation of the proletariat because capitalism has ruined my life, and the lives of my family and friends. I don't want to create a new Party State run by bureaucrats, where we are all still wage slaves. I want free conditions where we can be real human beings. Those can only come out of an authentic and independent movement of the working class.And I told you exactly what your "disinterest" for revolutionary politics is: the frustration of someone who's irrelevant. You oppose political leadership because you failed in that role yourself. You oppose so-called "reformist-led parades" only because you can't organize one. You oppose so-called "bureaucrats" because they succeed where you didn't.

"I want free conditions where we can be real human beings." Oh, really now? How idyllic. Here's some news for you: political struggle is not about "free conditions", it's not about frolicking naked through a field of flowers. It's about organizing militant workers into a vanguard party that's capable of fighting capitalist crimes.


If any workers do listen to what I have to say it will be because I back up my arguments with fact and have a history of pointing out pitfalls, and that what I'm saying makes sense to them.Words are cheap. Actions aren't.


The FPM reorganized into PoWR years ago, and PoWR disbanded in 2009.Precisely my point. Your organization was an abject failure. It makes sense that you'd show such a bitter attitude to communists who manage to, you know, do stuff.


We had a regular press, members and sections in several countries, supporters, offices, events, etc., but we were honest with ourselves enough to realize that we were largely irrelevant to the international working class as a whole and that what we were doing wasn't going to lead to proletarian liberation. So we decided to end the group.:laugh: Well, at least you got one thing right.


It's nothing to be embarrassed about. I'm glad that we were able to snap out of the self-perpetuating cycle so we could get down to really trying to figure out a way forward. Compare that to socialist groups that have repeat the same strategies and tactics of their hero Lenin, nearly a century later, despite having no successes to show for it. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.So basically, you got fed up with political activity in general. Neat revolutionary platform ya got there.


The difference here is that we don't have to join a group to have relevance to "working-class struggles," because we live them every day. Unlike a party, we can't resign from needed to put food on our tables, raising rents, unemployment, and economic enslavement.That doesn't mean you're relevant to the political struggle of the workers. In case you're wondering...you aren't.


And I would mention that, although we were very tiny and unable to reach the majority of working people around the world, we had members and supporters in mines, mills, power plants and food industries at the time we disbanded... to whatever extent that matters.It only matters if you engage in the political struggle of the workers. So I guess it doesn't.


I'm sure now you'll come back with a post that addresses nothing above but distorts everything. Since that's your modus operandi, you shouldn't wait for a reply back. It's probably not going to come.No, it probably won't.

[DaringMehring]

And I told you exactly what your "disinterest" for revolutionary politics is: the frustration of someone who's irrelevant. You oppose political leadership because you failed in that role yourself. You oppose so-called "reformist-led parades" only because you can't organize one. You oppose so-called "bureaucrats" because they succeed where you didn't.


I'm not a partisan in this debate, but this is not a good point at all.

Without talking about PSL, only talking about the logical content of your point --size and activity are not a counter to reformism, bureaucratism, and class collaboration.

For instance, taking the perspective biggest cross-class, reformist organization, you could just as easily say: "You're disinterest in the Democrats is the frustration of someone who's irrelevant." Followed by everything else you say.

In fact as commies I'd wager we've all heard this line.

You can answer his point based on the merits of the PSL and the fruits of its actions, whatever those are, but the response here is just bad. It's better to have five militant class-conscious workers, than thousands of ones sucked under the spell of cooperation with the bourgeoisie in reformism.

I mean come on, "you are against bureaucrats because you failed in becoming one," "you are against working with reformists because you failed in working with them," --- it's ludicrous. What would it even mean to succeed in those things, to become a cross-class bureaucrat? It just doesn't stack up.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Etc

Ok, so let me get this straight.

So you argue that workers fight-back because of the conditions of their lives and so it is useless to try and promote a point of view (so why are you on this website wasting our time?) for a plan forward. But when working people do fight back because of their own conditions and then if they join in cross-class alliances (social movements or trade-union struggles) to "pressure" our rulers and therefore their movements are not worthy of support and not radical enough for you?

It's simply a straw-man to argue that large gatherings, glorified candle-light vigils, is the ultimate achievement of any anti-war movement. Just the fact that the military is one of the largest employers in the US means that it's a working class issue - not to mention that capitalist rule depends on a well-functioning military.


For instance, taking the perspective biggest cross-class, reformist organization, you could just as easily say: "You're disinterest in the Democrats is the frustration of someone who's irrelevant." Followed by everything else you say.The Democratic party is not a cross-class "reformist" organization, it is a capitalist party designed to maintain the ruling status quo. In revolutionary times, union bureaucrats get swept to the left or pushed aside because unions are actually contradictory organizations that have to defend workers, but do not seek the end of the system. It's contradictory because it's trying to balance irreconcilable forces... that means unions struggles can swing rapidly to the left and there are lots of examples of modest union struggles ending with mass radical general strikes. Social movements are similar in that modest and reformist demands cause people to eventually become much more radicalized.

Would you oppose the demand for integration? After-all, it was a demand of petty-bourgeois blacks and you and I know that racism can not ultimately be ended within a system that relies on competition among individual and groups of workers. But if it wasn't for people fighting for these modest demands, more radical and militant actions would not have been possible. Maybe NHIA came out of the womb shouting "no war but the class war" but most working class people, myself included, had to learn how to be radicals through a process of becoming involved in struggles and learning that what we had been taught in school about the way the world works, doesn't quite fit.

[Robocommie]

Maybe NHIA came out of the womb shouting "no war but the class war" but most working class people, myself included, had to learn how to be radicals through a process of becoming involved in struggles and learning that what we had been taught in school about the way the world works, doesn't quite fit.

True socialists aren't made, they're born - forged in dragon's fire. :cool:

[Jimmie Higgins]

True socialists aren't made, they're born - forged in dragon's fire. :cool:I pulled a copy of "Capital" from a stone in the forest, that's how I was radicalized.

[Robocommie]

I pulled a copy of "Capital" from a stone in the forest, that's how I was radicalized.

You've seen the beard on Marx. Tell me that dude isn't a fucking wizard.

[bcbm]

Maybe NHIA came out of the womb shouting "no war but the class war" but most working class people, myself included, had to learn how to be radicals through a process of becoming involved in struggles and learning that what we had been taught in school about the way the world works, doesn't quite fit.

i don't think it is so much about people coming out of the womb radical but that they will care about ending capitalism and strikes and communism when these things are actually important and demand their attention.

[manic expression]

I'm not a partisan in this debate, but this is not a good point at all.

Without talking about PSL, only talking about the logical content of your point --size and activity are not a counter to reformism, bureaucratism, and class collaboration.
I don't need to repeat the points that Jimmie Higgens already made, so I'll keep this specific to one point: this isn't just about the PSL. WWP, FRSO, ISO and other communist parties in the US are all doing important work and I am defending that work, not criticizing it.

And while we're on the subject, what was NHIA's response? A neg-rep message telling me to "get a job". Some truly revolutionary advice, no? :lol: The pathetic bitterness he displays is all that needs to be recognized, because it's all that his arguments boil down to.

[Kassad]

Not exactly a response to the ISO, but an article addressing the unconditional liberal support for the opposition without demanding no U.S. intervention: U.S. progressives must tell truth about Libya and the impact of foreign intervention: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/us-progressives-must-tell.html

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Ok, so let me get this straight.

So you argue that workers fight-back because of the conditions of their lives and so it is useless to try and promote a point of view (so why are you on this website wasting our time?) for a plan forward. But when working people do fight back because of their own conditions and then if they join in cross-class alliances (social movements or trade-union struggles) to "pressure" our rulers and therefore their movements are not worthy of support and not radical enough for you?

It's simply a straw-man to argue that large gatherings, glorified candle-light vigils, is the ultimate achievement of any anti-war movement. Just the fact that the military is one of the largest employers in the US means that it's a working class issue - not to mention that capitalist rule depends on a well-functioning military.I don't think you're really addressing what I'm saying. That seems to happen a lot here, not just with me. Sometimes it's because the people replying are doing it on purpose, but in cases like this I think it's that we're speaking about wildly different things.

I don't think it's useless to point the way forward. I have never said that. If you read my posts here over the last year, I've specifically said that that's one of the main things militants should do. It's what the Communist Manifesto said too.

But the way forward doesn't involve joining organizations external to the class or getting in line for cross-class fronts. Those are only distractions that derail and smother proletarian militancy.

The war is a working class issue, of course. But workers, as a class, have their own terrain and their own tactics. All that is lost in the faceless mobs of anti-war parades, where leaders of socialist sects join bourgeois politicians on the stage to condemn the choices of the government.

For the working class to be successful in its struggle to emancipate itself, it needs its independence. That's been key since the very beginning. Unfortunately, leftists have tried to obscure it since the very beginning as well.

"It is a strange fact. In spite of all the tall talk and all the immense literature, for the last sixty years, about Emancipation of Labour, no sooner do the working men anywhere take the subject into their own hands with a will, than uprises at once all the apologetic phraseology of the mouthpieces of present society ..." - Marx


so why are you on this website wasting our time?To make contacts with other militants and to share what I've learned, in the process (hopefully) convincing some working people looking for alternatives to avoid the leftist trap.


Would you oppose the demand for integration? After-all, it was a demand of petty-bourgeois blacks and you and I know that racism can not ultimately be ended within a system that relies on competition among individual and groups of workers. But if it wasn't for people fighting for these modest demands, more radical and militant actions would not have been possible.In that case, I think militants would (and some did) point ahead beyond what the middle class was promoting toward genuine liberation. I think they would expose the middle class civil rights movement and its leaders and point out that it was limited by their interests. I think they would point out that the only way to eliminate racism and its negative effects on the working class is proletarian revolution, and they would have tried to convince other workers to take the next step toward that in any situation.

I think that the armed groups and riots that came after the civil rights movement (along with continuing racism, declining conditions, skyrocketing unemployment, etc.) came to prove those points.


Maybe NHIA came out of the womb shouting "no war but the class war" but most working class people, myself included, had to learn how to be radicals through a process of becoming involved in struggles and learning that what we had been taught in school about the way the world works, doesn't quite fit. I knew that what I was being taught was bullshit since I was at an early age. It rarely matched up with reality, and I knew specifically that a lot of history they were teaching was bogus (from my own reading outside of school). I knew roughly about exploitation 'cause I had heard about it from family (my grandpa worked in the coal mine and his favorite song was "16 Tons," which goes "You load 16 tons, and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt;" my stepdad worked in the mine and construction and talked about things in terms of a pie, that he and the other workers were making, which was taken by the bosses, the managers, the stock traders, the accountants, etc., leaving nothing for the workers who created it), and experienced it first hand (working at places raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars while making $5 an hour). By 16 I knew that I was going to have to be a wage slave for life, and started looking for a way out. Later someone told me about Che Guevara, who was a communist. I wondered why so many people had his face on things. I dug up the Communist Manifesto in a library and read it while waiting for a train. It put together all my thoughts about wage slavery, exploitation and classes, in a much more thought out and logical way than I had done myself. After that I read all I could on communism and the workers struggle. That's my case. Others are different.

The point is that working class people come to militancy by dint of their own experiences and conditions.

A clear example is the Coal Creek War in Tennessee. White miners there were being replaced with mostly black prison laborers. The miners repeatedly freed the prisoners and burnt down the stockades they were being held in. These monumental acts, which had more effect than ten thousand vigils could, were done not because someone had convinced them that racism was morally wrong, but rather because it was in their interests to do so.

I think people who can be "converted" to socialism can also be "converted" back out of it. You'll see this a lot with college students, who become socialists for moral reasons then graduate and get jobs as managers and supervisors. In the worst cases, they become extreme rightists.

It's also a fact that there are socialisms, corresponding to different classes. This has been pointed out since the days of Marx, though ignored since middle class socialism became predominant.

For the working class, emancipation from wage slavery is really the only way forward. That's not something they can be "converted" to or "resign" from. It's the real conditions of life.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Not exactly a response to the ISO, but an article addressing the unconditional liberal support for the opposition without demanding no U.S. intervention: U.S. progressives must tell truth about Libya and the impact of foreign intervention: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/us-progressives-must-tell.html

That could have come out of any left-liberal media hole. There is literally not one mention of the working class in that entire article. An appeal to "progressives?" Who are "progressives?" If I own a sweatshop in Arizona but oppose a U.S. invasions of Libya am I a "progressive?" What shit.

And this is exactly what comes out of the reformist cross-class front that the PSL leads too. Yeah, by all means, let's get workers behind that. If they're lucky, they can get close enough to platform to hear a member of the Democrats or Greens speak!! :rolleyes:

[S.Artesian]

NHIA makes a very critical point in the above post: that there isn't a shred of material analysis locating the present upheaval in Libya in the actual relations of classes, the actual reproduction of the economy and the interconnection between that reproduction and what has been going on globally for the last 3 years.

If people don't think there are contradictions in the Libyan economy driving a revolt against the mode of accumulation... well, then we better just toss all of Karl's collected works out the window and start appealing to "progressives" to be more progressive, liberals to be more liberal, etc. etc. etc.

So the bourgeoisie, local and international, want to take advantage of that revolt for their own purposes? What a surprise that is. I am shocked and appalled.

Hey, get over it. The Germans paid for Lenin's trip back to Russia, remember? The Catholic Church was busy as could be, working hand in robe with the US, and the UK to divert the workers movement in Poland into church-capitalism. And so what?

The bourgeoisie may be incompetents, dolts, thugs, goons, and thieves, but they sure know what's at stake.

Those who line up behind Qaddafi don't have the slightest clue.

In fact, I would say we're in this predicament right now, where the imperialists think they can latch on to the rebellion is the responsibility of those very leftists who made, and perpetuated, the incredible blunder of supporting Qaddafi and his so-called green revolution as a substitute for workers' revolution to begin with.

How many times do we have to repeat the same blunders-- like supporting a Peron, or a Paz Estenssoro, or Nasser, or Assad etc etc etc. until we figure out that sooner, rather than later, history accepts no substitutes?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Etc.Ok, that's clarifying - I still disagree, but it's clearer where you're coming from.

[DiaMat86]

Thanks Kassad. I actually have heard of them I didn't recognize the acronym though.

and just something from their site that caught my eye.

Ummm, that's absurd no matter what tendency you are.


Progressive Labor Party is a communist party and has been active in Madison for many years. One of the founding members is from Madison.

[RED DAVE]

Progressive Labor Party is a communist party and has been active in Madison for many years. One of the founding members is from Madison.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Labor_Party_(United_States)

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

NHIA makes a very critical point in the above post: that there isn't a shred of material analysis locating the present upheaval in Libya in the actual relations of classes, the actual reproduction of the economy and the interconnection between that reproduction and what has been going on globally for the last 3 years.

If people don't think there are contradictions in the Libyan economy driving a revolt against the mode of accumulation... well, then we better just toss all of Karl's collected works out the window and start appealing to "progressives" to be more progressive, liberals to be more liberal, etc. etc. etc.



a good point. this is where i think the bureaucratic class is important in understanding the class systems in a number of third world countries. particularly where the main form of wealth is the state-owned oil resources. also, it helps to explain why the revolt is focused on the state, that is, the rulers, the crony system, and the various forms of state repression.

[Kassad]

Progressive Labor Party is a communist party and has been active in Madison for many years. One of the founding members is from Madison.

Yeah, okay. Come back to me when you have a strategy that isn't yelling "We need communist revolution!" into a megaphone all day at rallies. There's a reason your group hardly exists anymore.

[DiaMat86]

Revisionist accuses revisionist of revisionism, what a hoot!

[CynicalIdealist]

It seems to me that the ISO has a flawed premise regarding the Libyan uprising. Their premise is that the uprising=the masses, whereas the National Transitional Council in fact contains reactionaries from the former Libyan regime as well as pro-Western neoliberals.

I'm ideologically well to the left of WWP and PSL, but they proved right in their immediate skepticism around the uprising.