Alternatives to CPUSA

[Hammilton]

I was wondering if people could suggest alternatives to the CPUSA which isn't basically a more leftist version of the democratic party. I want to become more involved, and I guess if there was a chance of the CPUSA turning more orthodox marxist-leninist I'd be interested, but today they're just not that, despite the silly claims to the contrary.

Anyway, I don't want fights about which is better, I'm just looking for options.

[wunderbar]

This list is a bit old, but I'm sure most of these groups are still around: http://www.broadleft.org/us.htm

Read up on as many as you can, see if any organizations have branches/other members in your area, and decide which group suits you best.

[graymouser]

What are your politics? There are a few dozen alternatives, but it depends on what kind of group you want to be in.

[Chimurenga.]

http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer

The reactionary John Birch Society has called us a "political party that has come to replace the Communist Party USA as the most active communist party in the country." (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6159-us-socialists-and-communists-exploiting-events-in-egypt)

and we are Marxist-Leninists.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The radical left in the US today is unfortunately tiny but it is growing.There are a zillion different groups in the radical left.Each one has their own theoretical take and organizational tradition.

As I understand the one's with the most visibility and presence are

ISO - Trotskyist "Third Campist". Believe the USSR was state capitalist.Big presence on college campuses.


Socialist Action Trotskyist, US affiliate of the Fourth International

Socialist Alternative Trotskyist, in political solidarity with the Committee For A a Workers International

Socialist Equality Party, SEP. Trotskyist, Lambertist tadition Puts out the World Socialist website, a useful resource for socialists of many tendencies

Spartacus League Trotskyist, considered to be ultra-leftist and somewhat crazy but their literature is interesting.

RCP- Revolutionary Communist Party Maoist, they've become a cult group based around their leader Bob Avakian

Progressive Labor Party semi-Maoist, don't know much about them

Worker's World "Marcyite", as I understand eclectic Marxist-Leninist, appear to be very Third Worldist. Support Achmanijad, Mugabe, etc.Big presence in lgbt activism.

Party for Socialism and Liberation split from WW. They took ANSWER with them in the split. Same politics as WW

Solidarity "eclectic Trotskyist" They have a large labor presence

Freedom Road semi-Maoist, often hide their politics in their activism

Freedom Socialist Party feminist Trotskyist

Socialist Party multi-tendency organization. They have been criticized for being theoretically weak but they have some good people.

IWW anarchist

There are a lot of other organizations but these seem to be the ones most people encounter. Keep an open mind, read up and talk to people in these groups, learn as much as you can and see which oranization appeals to you.

A good way of looking at it is actually in terms of your own development. Which organization can you learn the most from? Which organization can best train you to be an effective activist? Which seems most democratic?

[Q]

In addition to the lists of Wunderbar and Lenina, I'll add this more up to date one: http://eng.anarchopedia.org/List_of_Left-Wing_Parties_in_the_United_States

[Kassad]

The Party for Socialism and Liberation: all day, every day.

If you're looking for a Marxist-Leninist party, check out the links proletarianrevolution posted above. We are easily one of the most active and by far the fast growing communist party in the United States with branches across the country. Definitely check out our website, www.PSLweb.org and if you want to get in touch or if you have any questions, feel free to ask. :)

[wunderbar]

IWW anarchist


Not quite, but there are anarchists in the IWW, and they might make up the majority of membership. They're also not a party, so it's not uncommon for Wobblies to be in an actual "party" as well.

[Gorilla]

RCP- Revolutionary Communist Party Maoist, they've become a cult group based around their leader Bob Avakian

STAY AWAY.


Progressive Labor Party semi-Maoist, don't know much about them

PLP sided with China in the Sino-Soviet split because they thought Kruschev was a revisionist dope and Stalin was awesome - they weren't ever really Maoist though. They still like Stalin a lot but they now "fight directly for communism" - like after the revolution you go right to abolishing money and to each according to his needs. They're a weird group.


Worker's World "Marcyite", as I understand eclectic Marxist-Leninist, appear to be very Third Worldist. Support Achmanijad, Mugabe, etc.Big presence in lgbt activism.

Party for Socialism and Liberation split from WW. They took ANSWER with them in the split. Same politics as WW

Used to be Trots but they've drifted more ML over the years, to the point where PSL now take part in Ludo Martens' seminar with CPGB-ML etc. Offhand I'd say PSL is the second largest/most active organization in the country after ISO.


Solidarity "eclectic Trotskyist" They have a large labor presence

Freedom Road semi-Maoist, often hide their politics in their activism

There are two FRSO's. FRSO-Fight Back is more orthodox ML. FRSO/OSCL is 'Left Refoundationist' and basically indistinguishable from Solidarity except for being less white. They're both effectively social-democratic in practical politics though; both orgs went in big for Obama, and then Obama went and FBI raided Fight Back's headquarters.

[Chimurenga.]

Used to be Trots but they've drifted more ML over the years, to the point where PSL now take part in Ludo Martens' seminar with CPGB-ML etc.

WWP and FRSO (FB) participates in that conference as well. In fact, most ML organizations in the West do.


Offhand I'd say PSL is the second largest/most active organization in the country after ISO.

That's debatable.

[Chimurenga.]

Third Worldist.

I've got to be honest, this is the first time I've heard of WW and PSL being called Third Worldist and I'm a little confused.

[Nolan]

There's also the American Party of Labor (http://americanpartyoflabor.org/).

It's a young party started from scratch a couple of years ago and is still getting it's stuff together. It's an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist party that takes the line of the Party of Labor of Albania of Enver Hoxha.

Their blog (http://theredphoenixapl.org/) is worth checking out.

[graymouser]

Socialist Action Trotskyist, US affiliate of the Fourth International
Like the SWP that we look to as our forerunner, we're pretty much on the pro-Cuba side of the Trots, as opposed to most of the other Trotskyist groups (i.e. we don't think it was a deformed workers state).


Socialist Equality Party, SEP. Trotskyist, Lambertist tadition Puts out the World Socialist website, a useful resource for socialists of many tendencies
This is incorrect. The Lambertiste group in the US is Socialist Organizer, a small split-off from Socialist Action. SEP comes from the Healyite tradition, although they've gone on their own road which considers labor unions outmoded in the era of globalization. They still stand behind the Healyite slanders of Trotskyists like Joseph Hansen that lied and claimed that people close to Trotsky were in the employ of the GPU and/or FBI.


Spartacus League Trotskyist, considered to be ultra-leftist and somewhat crazy but their literature is interesting.
Yeah, they're batshit loons.


Worker's World "Marcyite", as I understand eclectic Marxist-Leninist, appear to be very Third Worldist. Support Achmanijad, Mugabe, etc.Big presence in lgbt activism.

Party for Socialism and Liberation split from WW. They took ANSWER with them in the split. Same politics as WW
Marcyism is predicated around the theory of "Global Class War," which isn't third worldism. They do believe in a socialist revolution in the United States, but they view it as a question of class camps. During the Cold War this was all the socialist states (USSR, China, Eastern European states, DPRK, Vietnam, Cuba) versus the imperialist states. Today it's a looser version knitting together "anti-imperialist" states, which means they wind up supporting regimes like Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, Gaddafi etc.


Solidarity "eclectic Trotskyist" They have a large labor presence
The labor presence is extremely economistic - that is, they don't raise politics and view everything in terms of on the job issues. Which of course is not how people radicalize, but that's not what Solidarity's literature tells you. At least it ain't a cult.


Freedom Road semi-Maoist, often hide their politics in their activism
There are two Freedom Road Socialist Organizations. One is sort of left social democratic, does deep mass line work, is active in unions particularly in New York, and is committed to "left refoundation" which has meant almost a decade of playing footsie with Solidarity, and not much else. The other is more hardline anti-revisionist communist, has been very active in Students for a Democratic Society, had several activists who were raided by the FBI last year, and publishes a newspaper called "Fight Back." An anti-rev Stalinist would probably want to go into the Fight Back group but the other Freedom Road (freedomroad.org) not so much.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I've got to be honest, this is the first time I've heard of WW and PSL being called Third Worldist and I'm a little confused.


What I meant by this is that they enthusiastically support almost anyone whom the US opposes. They support Achmanijad and any other leader who is perceived as anti-US.

WW originally split from the Trotskyist US SWP over the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, which they supported.

[Kassad]

What I meant by this is that they enthusiastically support almost anyone whom the US opposes. They support Achmanijad and any other leader who is perceived as anti-US.

WW originally split from the Trotskyist US SWP over the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, which they supported.

That's not Third-Worldism. That's unconditionally opposing imperialism in the interests of allowing people the right to self-determination.

[Thirsty Crow]

That's not Third-Worldism. That's unconditionally opposing imperialism in the interests of allowing people the right to self-determination.
I'd rather say that this is an unconditional lack of understanding of what imperialism is and how it functions (the Achmedinejad case).

[graymouser]

That's not Third-Worldism. That's unconditionally opposing imperialism in the interests of allowing people the right to self-determination.
Well, it's less anti-imperialism than trying to divide the nation-states of the world between "imperialist" and "anti-imperialist", which gets you into hot water when there is a situation like Iran in 2009 or Libya today when an "anti-imperialist" government has a pro-democracy movement.

But Kassad's correct, Marcyism is not third worldism. Correctly understood, third worldism locates the revolutionary impulse uniquely in the third world and considers the role of first world workers to be mainly solidarity with the third world revolutionaries. While there are crucial similarities between Marcyism and Third Worldism, they are not identical as Marcyites do attempt to organize a revolutionary party in the US and solidarize with parties that do the same in Europe etc.

What's more puzzling to me is how many people here have equated Marcyism with anti-revisionist trends in Marxism-Leninism (i.e. Stalinism). While Marcy and WWP was what the French called Maoisant - pro-Mao but not Maoist in any strict sense - intellectually Marcyism is really something of a variant on the Pabloite strain of Trotskyism that looked heavily to the Stalinist states during the 1950s. It's certainly not anti-revisionist in the sense that anti-revs tended to draw a hard line against the USSR and other "revisionist" states while Marcy was essentially arguing that the Sino-Soviet split should be reversed. He did try to grapple with "anti-revisionism" a couple of times in his writings but it never really stuck.

[Kassad]

I'd rather say that this is an unconditional lack of understanding of what imperialism is and how it functions (the Achmedinejad case).

I think the situation in Libya should make people think twice before they criticize legitimate anti-imperialists. When you hop on bandwagons that appear to be "people's movements" with little to no class analysis, you wind up supporting movements that tend to be either racist or in support of imperialist intervention. There's a reason a lot of other socialist newspapers have stopped talking about Libya entirely. The situation could be just the same in Iran, yet pseudo-socialists will continue to cheerlead.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Instead of joining a "party", why not get together with a group of friends - people you know, trust, and have concrete relationships with - and set out to accomplish something immediate and concrete?
Surely, you're not so politically incapable that you need directives from a central committee in order to set priorities and carry out practical tasks.

[graymouser]

Instead of joining a "party", why not get together with a group of friends - people you know, trust, and have concrete relationships with - and set out to accomplish something immediate and concrete?
Surely, you're not so politically incapable that you need directives from a central committee in order to set priorities and carry out practical tasks.
I think you just made a very strong case for joining a party: if you have in mind something other than immediate and concrete accomplishments, beyond today's practical tasks, then you should join a party. If your horizon is what you and your group of friends can do today, before half of them leave and the rest get burnt out, then of course there's no reason to join a party. If you want to run for the length of the course, that's what a party is for.

[Imposter Marxist]

I've got to be honest, this is the first time I've heard of WW and PSL being called Third Worldist and I'm a little confused.


Yeah, the WWP and PSL are not third-worldist just because they support the third-world.

[The Idler]

World Socialist Party (US) | (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wspus.org%2F&ei=uT-bTeaGBobDhAf_oqi8Bg&usg=AFQjCNEvDK4x8RZC-p3-PkZXGY52fZ9uow&sig2=e02k06AYnCyhwjjA47in3w)

[graymouser]

World Socialist Party (US) | (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wspus.org%2F&ei=uT-bTeaGBobDhAf_oqi8Bg&usg=AFQjCNEvDK4x8RZC-p3-PkZXGY52fZ9uow&sig2=e02k06AYnCyhwjjA47in3w)
I have never seen the WSP outside of the context of its web site, even though it claims to have contact people in Philadelphia and New York, and I've been up and down the northeast over the last seven years. What does the WSP actually do?

[Salyut]

I have never seen the WSP outside of the context of its web site, even though it claims to have contact people in Philadelphia and New York, and I've been up and down the northeast over the last seven years. What does the WSP actually do?

Its a very small group. Most of the WSM membership is concentrated in the UK with the SPGB - the Canadian section is the second largest I think.

Participation in anything is really limited owing to ideological stuff and the size of the organization. I know we (SPC) pamphleteered at the G20 in Toronto but I have heard nothing out of the US.

[Hammilton]

I think you just made a very strong case for joining a party: if you have in mind something other than immediate and concrete accomplishments, beyond today's practical tasks, then you should join a party. If your horizon is what you and your group of friends can do today, before half of them leave and the rest get burnt out, then of course there's no reason to join a party. If you want to run for the length of the course, that's what a party is for.

That's more or less how I feel. I'd like to join a party I can really be a part of, hopefully at some point become involved in leadership.

[Ms. Max]

I recommend the Revolutionary Communist Party. Check 'em out at revcom.us.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

You could also look up "RCP" by using the search function of RevLeft and see what you come up with.

[Kassad]

You could also look up "RCP" by using the search function of RevLeft and see what you come up with.

I found this.

http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/7057754/LEAD-REVOLUTION-WHILE-CHILLIN-IN-FRANCE.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Blob-Avakian

[Bandito]

Aside from having made some mistakes (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/07-12-14-why-us-backs-kosovo-independe.html) when it comes to foreign politics analysis, if you're a Marxist-Leninist, I strongly advise Party for Socialism and Liberation.

They are the only ones with capacity to turn into a mass organization if they keep up this pace, and they are actual activists and not just an internet organization. But if there is no branch in your area, no biggie, form a cell with a couple of supporters, work with progressive political options, agitate for unionizing, the results will come.

Sitting on your ass raging at the system hardly contributes the liberation of the working class.

[Ms. Max]

You could also look up "RCP" by using the search function of RevLeft and see what you come up with.

That's only partly helpful, as the RCP is pretty much a straight up revolutionary Marxist Leninist vanguard type party that puts forward its leaders, which makes the some of the more petty bourgeois Revleft kids a little nervous about "cults". But check actual websites out, read the actual party manifestos you find. It's good you are looking. Good luck.

revcom.us

[RED DAVE]

That's only partly helpful, as the RCP is pretty much a straight up revolutionary Marxist Leninist vanguard type party that puts forward its leaders, which makes the some of the more petty bourgeois Revleft kids a little nervous about "cults". But check actual websites out, read the actual party manifestos you find. It's good you are looking. Good luck.

revcom.usIt's a cult: one of the few on the Left in the US.

RED DAVE

[A Revolutionary Tool]

That's only partly helpful, as the RCP is pretty much a straight up revolutionary Marxist Leninist vanguard type party that puts forward its leaders, which makes the some of the more petty bourgeois Revleft kids a little nervous about "cults". But check actual websites out, read the actual party manifestos you find. It's good you are looking. Good luck.

revcom.us
Well maybe if Bob Avakian wasn't mentioned in every article I've ever read from them I could believe it's just petty-bourgeois kids being nervous about a cult. I check out the website and see Bob Avakian basically advertised everywhere.

[Ms. Max]

It's a cult: one of the few on the Left in the US.

RED DAVE

Probably we should define cult. I think the term is used too loosely sometimes. To me its where you drop ties to family and friends, sell your stuff and turn over the money, and go live in a compound and are isolated and exploited, etc. Your definition?

[Ms. Max]

Well maybe if Bob Avakian wasn't mentioned in every article I've ever read from them I could believe it's just petty-bourgeois kids being nervous about a cult. I check out the website and see Bob Avakian basically advertised everywhere.

They do that on purpose. I remember back in the 60's, like when someone in the Black Panthers like Bobby Seal was talking or writing, he would always at one point mention or refer back to their Chairman, Huey Newton. Malcom X would always refer to the "Honorable Elijah Mohammad", etc. Writers in China would always mention Mao. Its a stylistic thing, to emphasize the responsability of leadership. But not to infer that leadership was infallible.

I go to these other websites and they mention NO body. What's up with that? Maybe I'm just old?

[Ms. Max]

It's a cult: one of the few on the Left in the US.

RED DAVE

If its one of the few, what are the others (by your definition)?

[graymouser]

Probably we should define cult. I think the term is used too loosely sometimes. To me its where you drop ties to family and friends, sell your stuff and turn over the money, and go live in a compound and are isolated and exploited, etc. Your definition?
Personally, I tend to be very cautious about throwing around the term "cult" with regard to left-wing organizations. It's too frequently used to bypass serious political discussion around questions of program, or to accuse the left of being morally degenerate in some way.

That's not the case with the RCP. There is a deliberate cult of personality built up around Bob Avakian. FFS, your group compares him to Lenin and Mao! The guy had some modest achievements in the 60s but has led nothing and his theoretical contributions are a bizarre muddle of catch-phrases and sloppy pop political thought (his whole fascination for a period with "McWorld" for instance, or his rantings about "Christian Fascism").

This cult of personality has turned the RCP from a political organization doing on-the-ground work, into a group that promotes a person first and foremost. It also seems like a group with a deeply unhealthy internal life, as people coming out of it and posting on the Kasama site have suggested.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I have never seen the WSP outside of the context of its web site, even though it claims to have contact people in Philadelphia and New York, and I've been up and down the northeast over the last seven years. What does the WSP actually do?

I have met a woman doing tabling who runs a branch of the WSP in Somerville, Massachusetts. They do sell literature. I lost her contact info.As far as I can tell they seem to be pre-Leninist left coms, if that's an accurate description.

[graymouser]

I have met a woman doing tabling who runs a branch of the WSP in Somerville, Massachusetts. They do sell literature. I lost her contact info.As far as I can tell they seem to be pre-Leninist left coms, if that's an accurate description.
It isn't; the World Socialist Movement represents the old "impossibilist" faction in the pre-WWI socialist movement. They are hard-line maximalists, like the Deleonists, but they don't believe in union tactics like the Deleonists do. They believe that they need to convince the majority that socialism is a good idea, so they can have a bloodless electoral revolution, and they don't believe in reforms; so they basically just propagandize for socialism. Very far removed from the communist left!

[Ms. Max]

Personally, I tend to be very cautious about throwing around the term "cult" with regard to left-wing organizations. It's too frequently used to bypass serious political discussion around questions of program, or to accuse the left of being morally degenerate in some way.

That's not the case with the RCP. There is a deliberate cult of personality built up around Bob Avakian. FFS, your group compares him to Lenin and Mao! The guy had some modest achievements in the 60s but has led nothing and his theoretical contributions are a bizarre muddle of catch-phrases and sloppy pop political thought (his whole fascination for a period with "McWorld" for instance, or his rantings about "Christian Fascism").

This cult of personality has turned the RCP from a political organization doing on-the-ground work, into a group that promotes a person first and foremost. It also seems like a group with a deeply unhealthy internal life, as people coming out of it and posting on the Kasama site have suggested. I agree with you it is used to bypass serious discussion, and I think you were kind of doing that in your previous short statement. Thanks for elaborating some, that helps, but I feel you still didn't give your actual definition of specific attributes of a "cult". It sounds like you are saying a cult is just a group who thinks a person has made good contributions but you don't think that person has made good contributions. And also that they are putting more effort into promoting that person than doing other more important effective work (which sounds like a more valid critisism).

[RED DAVE]

If its one of the few, what are the others (by your definition)?I was being kind: it's actually the one real cult. The Sparts have shown cult-like behavior in the past; who knows where they're at now.

About a year ago, I went in to the Revolution Bookstore, which is quite near where my wife and I live. The experience was a little bizarre. They didn't have what I wanted (Vol 2. of Collected M&E), so I browsed around. After a minute or so, the woman behind the counter (I was standing near her) asked me, "Have you heard of Bob Avakian?" I told her about meeting Avakian at NYU during the 60s. I got the distinct inpression that once I let her know I wasn't interested in Bobby Boy, she wasn't interested in what I had to say.

This is cultish behavior. No discussion of ideas, positions, etc., just Bobby Boy.

RED DAVE

[Olentzero]

I would, at the very least, suggest checking out the ISO's Socialist Worker website on a regular basis to see what we have to say. It's updated every weekday. Of course reading a website is no substitute for joining a party and becoming an active member, but if you're still just looking around, it's a good way to find out more about us. Also recommended: our quarterly theoretical journal, the International Socialist Review. I'd post links but apparently I don't have a high enough post count. A quick Google search will get you where you want to go.

[graymouser]

I agree with you it is used to bypass serious discussion, and I think you were kind of doing that in your previous short statement. Thanks for elaborating some, that helps, but I feel you still didn't give your actual definition of specific attributes of a "cult". It sounds like you are saying a cult is just a group who thinks a person has made good contributions but you don't think that person has made good contributions. And also that they are putting more effort into promoting that person than doing other more important effective work (which sounds like a more valid critisism).
To be clear, the problem I am speaking of in the RCP is that of a cult of personality around Avakian. This is different from the idea of a "political cult," which is a more problematic concept and is often used to slander political groups. (There are a few cults that have a political rather than religious face, but they tend to be relatively obscure - "The O," the International Workers Party, the Provisional Communist Party, to name a few.) The cult of personality is an exaggerated reverence for and devotion to a leader; many famous political leaders have had such cults built around them.

A lot of Maoist groups have problems with internal democracy; for instance the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) was organized in such an extreme top-down manner that in 1982, the leadership simply dissolved the party and the cadre simply dissipated, without even forming a rump organization. But the RCP has essentially ground out any old cadre that don't show sufficient loyalty to Avakian. This is a sign of organizational decay - my own group, Socialist Action, was formed in a manner similar to Kasama when Jack Barnes used a series of twists and turns to expel everyone in the Socialist Workers Party who didn't toe his line. What this creates is a severely dysfunctional group that is increasingly grandiose in its own eyes but cut off from the living movement. To me that's the kind of organization that young people have to be warned away from unless they want to lose a year or two of their lives to the megalomaniacal pricks who run them. Someone once called the SWP a "cadre-crushing machine," and it seems like the kind of thing the RCP is fast becoming.

In a forum like RevLeft, it's hard to hash through the various problems with Avakian's politics. But since it draws a fairly young crowd I think it is important and necessary to say that it's not a healthy political organization.

[Ms. Max]

Thanks for the good explanation, I understand better now. But I do strongly disagree with you concerning RCP and Avakian. Actually I kind of disagree concerning Jack Barnes and SWP, although I am not an expert on that situation. I think there is a factor in play where dissident organizations tend to attract dissident people, some of us tending to be critical of any situation we're in, and that's why we're always splitting up. But that is just one factor. We also split up due to real and important differences in ideology, strategy and etc. Humanity depends on one of these days, as world contradictions reach breaking point, one group proving out and people will rally to it and support the revolution.