Progressive Labor Party

[Property Is Robbery]

They are a revolutionary communist party but they do not advocate socialism.. Am I wrong or are they Anarcho-Communists? They want to move straight from Capitalism to a stateless, classless society but call themselves Maoists. What are they?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Idiots.

[Property Is Robbery]

I agree. Doesn't answer my question though :p

[Die Rote Fahne]

I agree. Doesn't answer my question though :p

I wouldn't call them anarcho-communist. I see nothing about total abolition of the state.

They want to seize state power and then abolish money and the wage system. They believe the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to be in the form of a "Red Army" and an armed populace. They believe that achieving abundance is not a necessity and that winning the working class to communist ideolog and practice is most important. They are supporters of Stalin's purges, and support him because he defeated fascism. They, similarly to the holocaust deniers denial of the death toll of holocaust victims, deny the recorded numbers of those killed by Stalin's purges and policies.

They are basically deviating from Marx as much as possible.

I still call them idiots, because it seems the party has no comprehension of history (they believe that China and the USSR, etc. all had worker control of government and the means of production), and no comprehension of the term multi-tasking (let's not create an abundance AND muster support for communism, cause people won't support communism). Their ideology is plagued with contradictions (anti-nationalists, who keep a positive view of the uber-nationalistic Stalin).

The Progressive Labor Party are a bunch of eejits.

[khad]

Year Zero, anyone?

[Kassad]

The Progressive Labor Party is a very interesting group. When people call them "Anarcho-Communists" or "Anarcho-Stalinists", it's usually as a joke. They're called that because they think it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to communism without any transitionary stage, or as Lenin put it, a dictatorship of the proletariat. Personally, I think anarchists feel the same general way; that the bourgeois state can just be toppled and replaced by a glorious workers' paradise. History shows that doesn't happen.

The PLP is also in a state of desperation. They were a pretty powerful activist force in the 60's and 70's. They were prevalent during a time where people really thought the revolution was right around the corner. Thus, when it didn't happen and their membership plummeted, PLP was pretty much up shit creek without a paddle. Their tactics had failed and now they are isolated to larger cities where they tend to scream at workers (and this is from personal experience in Washington D.C. and Chicago) that "they need communist revolution now". In case you didn't know, that tends to alienate your every-day union worker or anti-war activist who is demonstrating.

You need to reach people about how we need socialism. The only way to do that is to show people why socialism will be a far better system for all of the working class. A direct jump to communism is anti-Marxist and it's just opposed to reality. That's why I think the PLP is another one of those organizations that really doesn't even realize the situation we're in today in regards to class struggle.

[Raubleaux]

They believe that achieving abundance is not a necessity and that winning the working class to communist ideolog and practice is most important.

Where do you get the "they don't believe that achieving abundance is a necessity" from?


They are supporters of Stalin's purges, and support him because he defeated fascism. They, similarly to the holocaust deniers denial of the death toll of holocaust victims, deny the recorded numbers of those killed by Stalin's purges and policies.

This is silly. They support Stalin because they are Marxist-Leninists. However....


They are basically deviating from Marx as much as possible.

Yeah, it seems to me that they do abandon a lot of central ideas about Marxism. They have that whole "fighting directly for communism" line. And they don't like the idea of a vanguard party, saying instead that party members should join mass organizations and build a base in the working class and that I guess one day the whole working class will win communism.

In my conversations with PL people they make a big deal out of their analysis of "inter-imperialist rivalry" between the United States and China. They think there will be a Third World War between the U.S. and China and that this will provide the impetus for new communist revolutions. They like to brag that they are the only party that realizes this analysis of geopolitics.


I still call them idiots, because it seems the party has no comprehension of history (they believe that China and the USSR, etc. all had worker control of government and the means of production)

I have heard PL members describe the USSR after Stalin and China after Mao as being "state capitalist" and "imperialist"...


and no comprehension of the term multi-tasking (let's not create an abundance AND muster support for communism, cause people won't support communism). Their ideology is plagued with contradictions (anti-nationalists, who keep a positive view of the uber-nationalistic Stalin).

They are critical of many things about Stalin and Mao, such as the personality cult. They also believe that Stalin and Mao relied too much on "capitalist" methods of organization and motivating workers, such as wage differentials and building contests, etc. They always talk about how in a communist society we should not try to "out-capitalist the capitalists" or whatever.


The Progressive Labor Party are a bunch of eejits.

Does anybody else have any opinions? I would really be interested in exploring this topic.

[Raubleaux]

The Progressive Labor Party is a very interesting group. When people call them "Anarcho-Communists" or "Anarcho-Stalinists", it's usually as a joke. They're called that because they think it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to communism without any transitionary stage, or as Lenin put it, a dictatorship of the proletariat. Personally, I think anarchists feel the same general way; that the bourgeois state can just be toppled and replaced by a glorious workers' paradise. History shows that doesn't happen.

I agree with this..


Their tactics had failed and now they are isolated to larger cities

I think you are wrong here.. number of members in these parties is hard to ascertain but I bet PL is still one of the biggest.


where they tend to scream at workers (and this is from personal experience in Washington D.C. and Chicago) that "they need communist revolution now". In case you didn't know, that tends to alienate your every-day union worker or anti-war activist who is demonstrating.

Interesting


You need to reach people about how we need socialism. The only way to do that is to show people why socialism will be a far better system for all of the working class. A direct jump to communism is anti-Marxist and it's just opposed to reality. That's why I think the PLP is another one of those organizations that really doesn't even realize the situation we're in today in regards to class struggle.

This is my main problem with them. The idea of fighting directly for communism just seems really revisionist and ahistorical to me.

I can say though that PL is really proud of their analysis of the world situation, they always point to it as something that distinguishes them from the other parties. They think workers are in a state of severe repression now, communists are on the run the bosses are winning, etc. But there is also a looming World War Three which may lead to radical change. Or something.

[mosfeld]

They're not Maoist. Two central anti-Maoist documents are "The GPCR and the Reversal of Workers' Power in China (http://www.plp.org/pl-magazine/selections/gpcr.html)" and "Peru's Tarnished Path (http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20081127012841/http://www.plp.org/communist/sp.html)", where they slander the Peruvian PPW.

In my opinion they reek of weird blend of Amerikan chauvinism, Trotskyism and Anarchism. Despite all of their talk and praise of Stalin and Lenin, their "tactic", if you can call it that, is basically to build one worldwide Party, make world revolution and to jump to communism (no DOTP).

In their article "The PLP vs. the People (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/bpp/bpp020869_p9.htm)", the BPP accused them of "align[ing] with the pigs", since the PLP went to an anti-fascist meeting organized by the BPP and started to disrupt the meeting, yelling at people to walk out, etc. Here's an anti-Panther article by the PLP called "Panthers Unite with CP Hacks (http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/1960-1970/plponpanthers.htm)". Note that this is definitely a good article, and their criticism of the BPP is legit but that does not mean you should go to their meetings and start doing pig work.

They also make no distinction between different forms of nationalism -- it's all the same to them, oppressor nationalism (white) or oppressed nationalism (black).

[Gorilla]

They are basically left-coms who revere Stalin for purely historical/nostalgic reasons.

I kind of like them.

[Zanthorus]

They are basically left-coms

No.

[mosfeld]

No. In practice, they pretty much are actually, or maybe anarchists.. But, rhetorically, they are definitely "Stalinists". You should take a look at their "Road to Revolution IV (http://www.plp.org/pl-magazine/selections/rr4.html)".

EDIT: I noticed that two of these links do not work (China and Road). Go to the frontpage of their website (http://www.plp.org/) if you want to take a look, both are there.

[Zanthorus]

From their 'What We Fight For':


Only the dictatorship of the working class — communism — can provide a lasting solution to the disaster that is today’s world for billions of people. This cannot be done through electoral politics, but requires a revolutionary movement and a mass Red Army led by PLP.

So to reiterate:


No.

[mosfeld]

Probably right. The reason why I reiterate that they're left-coms or anarchists is because they refuse to work with feminists, black nationalists, etc, and take an exclusively "workerist" road. Whatever they are, they are at least not Marxist-Leninist.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

on a side note i just wanna say that it gets really boring hearing stalinists say that anarchists think communism can be achieved straight away. anarchists will build communism from the bottom up rather than top down. workers will build the struggle, not centralised states. obviously there will be a transition, we just wont take a state and put it in the hands of dear leaders, the community and the workers will begin to organise their communities and workforces communaly and federally - this process will be transitional until liberty, autonomy, communism and mutual aid are achieved. i just thought that needed to be said as the stalinist in the thread who said that has an elementary understanding of anarchism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Where do you get the "they don't believe that achieving abundance is a necessity" from?

Who is to say what "abundance" really is? Many working-class people in the U.S. probably live at a higher standard of living than Marx might have predicted -- better health care, longer life span, shorter workday, indoor plumbing, electricity, cars, etc. All of those material things constitute "abundance" on one level, yet we know that it is not enough, because we know of the potential for a better world. We also know that most of the world doesn't even have a fraction of what many U.S. workers have. But even if the whole world lived at this relatively "abundant" level, we would still be fighting to smash the system. The "abundance" by itself does not, and cannot, eliminate selfishness and class divisions. – Communist Economics, Communist Power (1982)The article is no longer on their webpage, so I don't know what else to tell you.



This is silly. They support Stalin because they are Marxist-Leninists. However....

I know Marxist-Leninists who don't support Stalin, *cough* Trotskyists *cough*.



I have heard PL members describe the USSR after Stalin and China after Mao as being "state capitalist" and "imperialist"...



They are critical of many things about Stalin and Mao, such as the personality cult. They also believe that Stalin and Mao relied too much on "capitalist" methods of organization and motivating workers, such as wage differentials and building contests, etc. They always talk about how in a communist society we should not try to "out-capitalist the capitalists" or whatever.

Doesn't Excuse their positive view of him, and their support of the idea that the numbers of dead as a result of his policies and purges are exaggerated.

[RED DAVE]

n my opinion they reek of weird blend of Amerikan chauvinism, Trotskyism and Anarchism.Well one out of three ain't bad.

PL was a thuggish bunch of Maoists in the 60s, whose main contrbution to history was aiding in the destruction of SDS. As the US drifted to the right and China drifted towards standard capitalism, PL had no place to go. As to why they went in the crypto-anarchist way they went, this would require a close analysis of their theoretical development and their experience.

Frankly, I'd rather watch paint dry.

RED DAVE

[Kassad]

I think you are wrong here.. number of members in these parties is hard to ascertain but I bet PL is still one of the biggest.

I've travelled across the country and I only see PLP in big cities like Chicago and Los Angeles. Unless a revolutionary party can expand to smaller cities, they won't ever be relevant.

[Os Cangaceiros]

on a side note i just wanna say that it gets really boring hearing stalinists say that anarchists think communism can be achieved straight away. anarchists will build communism from the bottom up rather than top down. workers will build the struggle, not centralised states. obviously there will be a transition, we just wont take a state and put it in the hands of dear leaders, the community and the workers will begin to organise their communities and workforces communaly and federally - this process will be transitional until liberty, autonomy, communism and mutual aid are achieved. i just thought that needed to be said as the stalinist in the thread who said that has an elementary understanding of anarchism.

Well, I've always thought that the jury is still out on what exactly the lead up to communism entails or looks like, seeing as how communism has never been achieved and all. That certainly limits the use of historical examples in whatever narrative one chooses to adopt.

As far as the PLP goes, I've never encountered them in real life, but they seem like a pack of clowns from what I've read on this site.

[Gorilla]

From their 'What We Fight For':


Only the dictatorship of the working class — communism — can provide a lasting solution to the disaster that is today’s world for billions of people. This cannot be done through electoral politics, but requires a revolutionary movement and a mass Red Army led by PLP.


So to reiterate:


No.


I was wondering what you'd pull out to contradict me, since on abstentionism, anti-natlibbism and opposition to united fronts the PLP is perfectly in line with left-com dogma. What you've found is a quote that proves they're not council communists. Yeah, they're not. They have very little in common with the German-Dutch Left. Too bad that's not all of left communism!

Rock me, Amadeo:




The most important aspect of the political struggle in the Marxist conception is the civil war and the armed insurrection through which one class overthrows the power of the enemy ruling class and institutes its own power. This struggle cannot be successful unless it is led by the party organisation.

http://libcom.org/library/fundamental-theses-of-the-party-bordiga

Your quote actually proves the opposite of what you wanted it to prove.

[Raubleaux]

I've travelled across the country and I only see PLP in big cities like Chicago and Los Angeles. Unless a revolutionary party can expand to smaller cities, they won't ever be relevant.

Well I can tell you that they are definitely in a lot more places than that, including many places where I never see any other communist parties. A lot of PLP's membership isn't out in the open.

[Raubleaux]

Doesn't Excuse their positive view of him, and their support of the idea that the numbers of dead as a result of his policies and purges are exaggerated.

I think their position on Stalin is overly critical, if anything. But this is not a Stalin thread.

[Kassad]

Well I can tell you that they are definitely in a lot more places than that, including many places where I never see any other communist parties. A lot of PLP's membership isn't out in the open.

I can tell you this: their tactics are for shit. Issues of their newspaper littered the ground all over the place at the One Nation Working Together because "in your face" activism just doesn't work.

[caramelpence]

I was wondering what you'd pull out to contradict me, since on abstentionism, anti-natlibbism and opposition to united fronts the PLP is perfectly in line with left-com dogma

The point is that no member of the PLP would ever situate their party in the Left Communist tradition, and no Left Communist would do that either. I don't want to speak on behalf of Left Communists but I would imagine they (like myself) see their politics as forming a cohesive whole rather than being a simple check-list of positions, in which case the history of the PLP and its violent aesthetic (amongst other points) are sufficient to exclude it from any part of the Left Communist tradition.

The PLP is mainly of historic interest - they were one of the first pro-China parties to emerge anywhere in the Western world and they were also the first radical organization in the United States to organize solidarity trips to Cuba in contravention of the travel ban. They famously participated in SDS, and whilst a lot of people (e.g. people in this thread) will point to the fact that they were rejected by the BPP as chauvinists and that they eventually came to reject all national liberation struggles, having initially distinguished between progressive and reactionary nationalism, the actual context of the breakup of SDS involved them objecting to the sexism of the BPP, and they also sought to sustain SDS for some period of time after its collapse, through PLP-dominated chapters that used the SDS name. This was the period when the RYM I and RYM II were transforming into the WUO and New Communist Movement respectively.

Fun fact: famous Stalin apologist Grover Furr was (is?) a PLP member.


Issues of their newspaper littered the ground all over the place at the One Nation Working Together because "in your face" activism just doesn't work.

It's a good thing the PSL can sell communism then!

[Kassad]

Fun fact: famous Stalin apologist Grover Furr was (is?) a PLP member.

It's a good thing the PSL can sell communism then!

From what I understand, he is a supporter. And yes, we do a much better job at reaching people than the PLP does. I appreciate the compliment.

[Gorilla]

The point is that no member of the PLP would ever situate their party in the Left Communist tradition, and no Left Communist would do that either.

Yeah, I know. I was using "basically" in the sense of "Obama is basically a Republican now" or "my life is basically over because Jimmy Quigglesworth won't take me to the prom." I.e. not literally true but resembling in many important respects. It's like if you had said the PSL are basically Stalinists.

Although given some of the commonalities in PLP's theorization of The Party and immediate abolition of money, I actually do think someone in the their ideology department has been making uncredited use of Bordiga, quite clumsily, for some time now. I know redstar2000 left well before the "direct to communism" line took hold, but I wonder to what extent polemics with him and others who departed for actual left communism had an effect on those later developments.


I don't want to speak on behalf of Left Communists but I would imagine they (like myself) see their politics as forming a cohesive whole rather than being a simple check-list of positions, in which case the history of the PLP and its violent aesthetic (amongst other points) are sufficient to exclude it from any part of the Left Communist tradition.

Broadly agree, though I don't think being a violent idiot is by itself enough to exclude someone from the Left Communist tradition. The PLP's "lineage" is all anti-rev, they've just converged onto positions that are more in line with those of left-coms than anyone else.

[Red_Struggle]

Fun fact: famous Stalin apologist Grover Furr was (is?) a PLP member.


He's a supporter and he's not an apologist...

[DiaMat86]

Another Progressive Labor Party thread?

Do me a favor comrades, PM me when you see a thread like this.

This is what PLP is:

http://www.plp.org/storage/post-images/redstar.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12626652695 49 Progressive Labor Party (PLP) fights to destroy capitalism and the dictatorship of the capitalist class. We organize workers, soldiers and youth into a revolutionary movement for communism.


http://www.plp.org/storage/post-images/redstar.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12626652695 49 Only the dictatorship of the working class — communism — can provide a lasting solution to the disaster that is today’s world for billions of people. This cannot be done through electoral politics, but requires a revolutionary movement and a mass Red Army led by PLP.


http://www.plp.org/storage/post-images/redstar.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12626652695 49 Worldwide capitalism, in its relentless drive for profit, inevitably leads to war, fascism, poverty, disease, starvation and environmental destruction. The capitalist class, through its state power — governments, armies, police, schools and culture — maintains a dictatorship over the world’s workers. The capitalist dictatorship supports, and is supported by, the anti-working-class ideologies of racism, sexism, nationalism, individualism and religion.


http://www.plp.org/storage/post-images/redstar.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12626652695 49 While the bosses and their mouthpieces claim “communism is dead,” capitalism is the real failure for billions worldwide. Capitalism returned to Russia and China because socialism retained many aspects of the profit system, like wages and privileges. Russia and China did not establish communism.


http://www.plp.org/storage/post-images/redstar.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12626652695 49 Communism means working collectively to build a worker-run society. We will abolish work for wages, money and profits. Everyone will share in society’s benefits and burdens.

http://www.plp.org/storage/post-images/redstar.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12626652695 49 Communism means abolishing racism and the concept of “race.” Capitalism uses racism to super-exploit black, Latino, Asian and indigenous workers, and to divide the entire working class.


http://www.plp.org/storage/post-images/redstar.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12626652695 49 Communism means abolishing the special oppression of women — sexism — and divisive gender roles created by the class society.


http://www.plp.org/storage/post-images/redstar.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12626652695 49 Communism means abolishing nations and nationalism. One international working class, one world, one Party.



http://www.plp.org/storage/post-images/redstar.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12626652695 49 Communism means that the minds of millions of workers must become free from religion’s false promises, unscientific thinking and poisonous ideology. Communism will triumph when the masses of workers can use the science of dialectical materialism to understand, analyze and change the world to meet their needs and aspirations.


http://www.plp.org/storage/post-images/redstar.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=12626652695 49 Communism means the Party leads every aspect of society. For this to work, millions of workers — eventually everyone — must become communist organizers. Join Us!

[Rusty Shackleford]

i found one of their papers in a cafe in San Francisco. It had a ben and jerrys ad in it too. :lol:

[DiaMat86]

Funny, but really there are no ads in CHALLENGE

[Per Levy]

Communism means the Party leads every aspect of society. For this to work, millions of workers — eventually everyone — must become communist organizers.

and i thought in a communist society there would be no need for parties anymore, also communism doesnt mean that one party rules evrything, communism a classless and free society. besides what is with all the communist/socialist partys out there right now? i mean "the Party leads every aspect of society" is probally refering to the plp right? so what happens to all the other partys out there?


Join Us!

or else...

[tbasherizer]

All I know about the Progressive Labor Party is that Boots Riley of the Coup and Street Sweeper Social Club was a member, and I love the tone of his lyrics, so they can't be all that bad ;).

[Jose Gracchus]

I know redstar2000 left well before the "direct to communism" line took hold, but I wonder to what extent polemics with him and others who departed for actual left communism had an effect on those later developments.

Not liking the boilerplate classic ML-and-Trot caricature of "vanguard party" and advocating communism based on workers' councils doesn't magically make you a left communist, much less a "council communist" (someone in the tradition of the German-Dutch ultra-left).


The PLP's "lineage" is all anti-rev, they've just converged onto positions that are more in line with those of left-coms than anyone else.

What does "anti-rev" mean in this practice? Not thinking Tom Sankara with red rhetoric passes for a revolution in the Marxian sense?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Funny, but really there are no ads in CHALLENGE

Well, It was in a paper that had the PLP logo on it and yeah.

[DiaMat86]

and i thought in a communist society there would be no need for parties anymore, also communism doesnt mean that one party rules evrything, communism a classless and free society. besides what is with all the communist/socialist partys out there right now? i mean "the Party leads every aspect of society" is probally refering to the plp right? so what happens to all the other partys out there?

or else...

I agree with the manifesto: "The communists do not make parties to oppose other working class parties."

If a socialist party comes to power I would hope PLP would keep fighting for communism. History shows socialism can be reversed with a mere "palace coup". Revisionism can't be permitted.

In the beginning a strong Party will be needed to smash capitalism. In a society without money, wages and privileges, organized violence will not be long lived. There will be no great leader to worship. The working class will use the Party as a tool. Not the other way round.

In short the Party replaces the state. The party is lead by communist politics, not famous individuals.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I agree with the manifesto: "The communists do not make parties to oppose other working class parties."

If a socialist party comes to power I would hope PLP would keep fighting for communism. History shows socialism can be reversed with a mere "palace coup". Revisionism can't be permitted.

In the beginning a strong Party will be needed to smash capitalism. In a society without money, wages and privileges, organized violence will not be long lived. There will be no great leader to worship. The working class will use the Party as a tool. Not the other way round.

In short the Party replaces the state. The party is lead by communist politics, not famous individuals.
so basically society has no time to adjust and the possibility that within a generation capitalism is replaced with communism? (because obviously socialism would be skipped)


And the party replaces the state? so it effectively is a military bureaucracy?

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Well I can tell you that they are definitely in a lot more places than that, including many places where I never see any other communist parties. A lot of PLP's membership isn't out in the open.

If "a lot of PLP's membership isn't out in the open," then how are they organizing for communism? Ostensibly, you would have to be somewhat open about your politics in order to discuss them with people, so how does a mostly secret membership fall in line with their stated goals and positions?

Note: I'm not discounting that in certain situations it is necessary to withhold your membership status, however, surely if the PLP is still one of the largest orgs in the US, that would imply that a highly disproportional amount of the people in the PLP are secret members, and I doubt that ALL of them would need to be.

[RED DAVE]

They were a pretty powerful activist force in the 60's and 70's.They were about as big as any other group in that period. But they constantly put themselves in an antagonistic position vis-a-vis other groups. It was almost impossible to work with them in any arena.

Point is, the PLP, due to its Maoist politics, was unable to work with or within the working class. It concentrated on the petit-bourgeois student milieu (SDS) and, as stated ended up shits creek without a paddle. They still haven't got one as they still haven't got a clue how to work with and in the working class.

RED DAVE

[Kassad]

They were about as big as any other group in that period. But they constantly put themselves in an antagonistic position vis-a-vis other groups. It was almost impossible to work with them in any arena.

Point is, the PLP, due to its Maoist politics, was unable to work with or within the working class. It concentrated on the petit-bourgeois student milieu (SDS) and, as stated ended up shits creek without a paddle. They still haven't got one as they still haven't got a clue how to work with and in the working class.

RED DAVE

Thus why they chose to yell at people in the One Nation Working Together rally about how "we need communist revolution now." People were laughing at them, to say the least. I could've used all of their newspapers that had been thrown on the ground to wallpaper my fucking house. They're one of those groups that is going to fade away in the not so distant future.

[DiaMat86]

It looks like the "Trot Patrol" has found this thread, so in response:


@ Rusty
"so basically society has no time to adjust and the possibility that within a generation capitalism is replaced with communism? (because obviously socialism would be skipped)
And the party replaces the state? so it effectively is a military bureaucracy?"

Communism is not a military bureaucracy. Obviously it is unscientific to say there is no development period. Socialism is not being "skipped", history has so far discredited socialism as a path to communism. Socialism has not achieved working class power. So obviously a new hypothesis is called for.

What lessons do you draw from the collapse of the old system?

@"RED" DAVE

"They were about as big as any other group in that period. But they constantly put themselves in an antagonistic position vis-a-vis other groups. It was almost impossible to work with them in any arena."

"Point is, the PLP, due to its Maoist politics, was unable to work with or within the working class. It concentrated on the petit-bourgeois student milieu (SDS) and, as stated ended up shits creek without a paddle. They still haven't got one as they still haven't got a clue how to work with and in the working class."

"RED" DAVE forgets about the Worker Student Alliance that PLP initiated in the SDS days. Read a little more about SDS. PLP also had work in the United Farmworkers Struggle and lot's of union work during the same period. PLP also struggled with comrades NOT to accept draft deferments. So work was also done in the military. "RED" DAVE is a Trot/Democrat so we can understand why he always gets it wrong.

@Kassad
Thus why they chose to yell at people in the One Nation Working Together rally about how "we need communist revolution now." People were laughing at them, to say the least. I could've used all of their newspapers that had been thrown on the ground to wallpaper my fucking house. They're one of those groups that is going to fade away in the not so distant future.

Kassad laughs at communist revolution. You should be inspired!

Kassad's Grandfather said PLP would fade away, yet we grow.

Fun Fact: Kassad has poor taste in home decor!

PLP is for dictatorship of the working class. On message for 47 years!

[RED DAVE]

It looks like the "Trot Patrol" has found this thread:RED DAVE tried and true member of


THE TROT PATROL


http://i54.tinypic.com/2ik4pav.jpg


(Obscure reference: rep points to whoever IDs this picture first.)



so in response
so basically society has no time to adjust and the possibility that within a generation capitalism is replaced with communism? (because obviously socialism would be skipped)
And the party replaces the state? so it effectively is a military bureaucracy?
Communism is not a military bureaucracy.But Stalinism is a state bureaucracy.


ObviouslyWith regard to your assertions, nothing is obvious.


it is unscientific to say there is no development period. Socialism is not being "skipped", history has so far discredited socialism as a path to communism. Socialism has not achieved working class power. So obviously a new hypothesis is called for.And little old PL is going to rewrite Marxism all by its widdle self.


What lessons do you draw from the collapse of the old system?Obviously not the ones you draw. And since many of think that the USSR, etc., was not socialism but some form of capitalism, no rewriting of Marxism is necessary.


They were about as big as any other group in that period. But they constantly put themselves in an antagonistic position vis-a-vis other groups. It was almost impossible to work with them in any arena.

Point is, the PLP, due to its Maoist politics, was unable to work with or within the working class. It concentrated on the petit-bourgeois student milieu (SDS) and, as stated ended up shits creek without a paddle. They still haven't got one as they still haven't got a clue how to work with and in the working class.
"RED" DAVE forgets about the Worker Student Alliance that PLP initiated in the SDS days.RED DAVE remembers the so-called Worker Student Alliance very well. Only problem with it was that it had no presence in the working class. You can't have a worker student alliance without workers.


Read a little more about SDS. PLP also had work in the United Farmworkers Struggle and lot's of union work during the same period.Many groups worked with the Farmworkers, including petit-bourgeois radicals and even liberals. What was required, in the Farmworers or anywhere else, was long-term work over years and decades. This PL was unable to do.


PLP also struggled with comrades NOT to accept draft deferments. So work was also done in the military.Okay. But concretely, how many people were involved and how long did that last? As far as I know, no left group had any enduring presence in the GI Movement, certainly not PL.


"RED" DAVE is a Trot/Democrat(A) At best I'm a heretical Trot, and (B) I've never supported a Democrat in my life, so you're full of shit, as usual.


so we can understand why he always gets it wrong.Problem is that history is not and never was on the side of your bizarre sect, now cult.


Thus why they chose to yell at people in the One Nation Working Together rally about how "we need communist revolution now." People were laughing at them, to say the least. I could've used all of their newspapers that had been thrown on the ground to wallpaper my fucking house. They're one of those groups that is going to fade away in the not so distant future.
Kassad laughs at communist revolution. You should be inspired!If what you do is a prelude to revolution, I think that we ought to be organizing a wallpaper hangers union.


Kassad's Grandfather said PLP would fade away, yet we grow.So do the Mormons. They believe in Joseph Smith. You believe in ... whoever you believe in.


Fun Fact: Kassad has poor taste in home decor!Fun fact: you have poor taste in politics.


PLP is for dictatorship of the working class. On message for 47 years!Too bad in all those years you never learned to spell "one."

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

PL are certainly not anarchists. in fact they haven't gotten over their Stalinist origins. they still believe everything should be controlled by the party-state. vanguardists to the hilt. they certainly do not advocate power and control to the mass organizations autonomous of the party.

[North Star]

Space Patrol!

But to stay on topic I've always found the PLP's line to be puzzling. If they want to critique socialism fine but there is no rigorous historical materialist critique of it that they have put out. No critique of Marx's idea of socialism. By upholding Stalin they basically prove to have no solid theoretical foundation. If socialism is problematic then they should be denouncing Lenin for the NEP and breaking with the USSR after it was introduced.

[Martin Blank]

Space Patrol!

Fucker! You beat me to it! :D


But to stay on topic I've always found the PLP's line to be puzzling. If they want to critique socialism fine but there is no rigorous historical materialist critique of it that they have put out. No critique of Marx's idea of socialism. By upholding Stalin they basically prove to have no solid theoretical foundation. If socialism is problematic then they should be denouncing Lenin for the NEP and breaking with the USSR after it was introduced.

It was always my understanding that by "socialism", the PL meant Stalin's definition of "socialism", as contained in the 1936 Constitution and exemplified by the principle, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work" (as opposed to "... according to their need", which was Marx's principle for communist society). If I am correct about this (I think DiaMat86 can confirm this), then the PLP's current view actually brings them closer in line with communist theory, since it rejects the idea of a separate "socialist" mode of production that exists between capitalism and communism. Moreover, they don't reject the proletarian dictatorship (as shown in DM86's posting of the PLP's short statement of what they believe), but subsume it within "communism" itself. (The conflation of the two is a problem in itself, but something deserving a separate post.)

If there is a central problem to be seen in the PLP's politics, it is its substitutionism. The party is substituted for the working class itself; the role of the party as political leadership is now yoked together with the idea of the party as practical leadership. They try to square the circle by proclaiming the need for all workers to join the PLP, but this ignores the fact that different layers of the working class develop different levels of consciousness, even in a period of transition from capitalism to communism. In a sense, the position boils down to a gamble -- a hope that their call for all workers to join the PLP comes true -- rather than relying on the ability of the working class to carry out its own emancipation. It does stem from the petty-bourgeois conception of the revolutionary proletarian party being led by a "de-classed" (read: petty-bourgeois) "vanguard", rather than by workers themselves.

[North Star]

Uncle Sam you are certainly right about their substitutionism:

from plp.org

We need communist democracy, based on democratic centralism. This system requires criticism and self-criticism of what we do and don't do. We fight to defeat anti-collective behavior and to help each other become better communists.

Extending the party organization over society? Sounds like ready made recipe for a party-state. Never heard that one before. Not to mention they also call for a Red Army which in itself can be problematic. If they want to go directly in the "lower stage of communism" I think worker's militias would be more appropriate or some kind of general call to "arm the workers." Though there were moves to abolish ranks in USSR, China and Albania, this wasn't the actual reality of how their armies were structured.

[RED DAVE]

There is a book on PL's work among the garment workers in New York in the 1960s. I confess that being involved, extensively, with Left politics in New York in the 60s, I never heard of this effort, nor did I ever hear anyone in PL, which I had a lot of contact with, talk about this.


Publisher Comments:

The New Labor Radicalism and New York City's Garment Industry: Progressive Labor Insurgents During the 1960s (Garland Studies in the History of American Labor) (http://www.amazon.com/Labor-Radicalism-Citys-Garment-Industry/dp/0815333854)

This book examines how Progressive Labor (PL) insurgents challenged the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) and tried to revolutionize labor in New York City's garment industry during the 1960s. Progressive Labor's role in New York City's economically important but declining garment industry — the group's first attempt to organize industrial workers on the job — suggests the problematic nature of PL's attempt to transform itself from a group of radical intellectuals into a mass working-class party. Pitted against powerful opponents, such as the garment firms and the imperious, socially progressive, and historically anticommunist ILGWU, a handful of PLers were able to foment a surprising number of work stoppages, which exposed the egregious problems facing low-paid black and Latino garment workers and their problematic relationship with the ILGWU. Progressive Labor's experience in New York City's garment industry suggests that industry workers were very willing to fight their trade union battles under communist leadership, but were far less willing to commit themselves to Progressive Labor's strategy for communist revolution.

Book News Annotation:

Examines how Progressive Labor (PL), an antirevisionist offshoot of the Community Party USA, attempted to revolutionize the labor front in New York City's garment industry during the 1960s. Discusses the origins of PL, the development of its antirevisionist theory, and its labor organizing practices during the 1960s and 1970s. Considers PL's organizing activities in New York City's industrial heartland, looking at the party's critique of the ILGWU, PL-led work stoppages in garment trucking, a PL-led wildcat strike, and the anticommunist purge which followed the strike. Author credentials are not given. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-9780815333852-1

RED DAVE

[DiaMat86]

RED DAVE tried and true member of


THE TROT PATROL


http://i54.tinypic.com/2ik4pav.jpg


(Obscure reference: rep points to whoever IDs this picture first.)


But Stalinism is a state bureaucracy.

With regard to your assertions, nothing is obvious.

And little old PL is going to rewrite Marxism all by its widdle self.

Obviously not the ones you draw. And since many of think that the USSR, etc., was not socialism but some form of capitalism, no rewriting of Marxism is necessary.

RED DAVE remembers the so-called Worker Student Alliance very well. Only problem with it was that it had no presence in the working class. You can't have a worker student alliance without workers.

Many groups worked with the Farmworkers, including petit-bourgeois radicals and even liberals. What was required, in the Farmworers or anywhere else, was long-term work over years and decades. This PL was unable to do.

Okay. But concretely, how many people were involved and how long did that last? As far as I know, no left group had any enduring presence in the GI Movement, certainly not PL.

(A) At best I'm a heretical Trot, and (B) I've never supported a Democrat in my life, so you're full of shit, as usual.

Problem is that history is not and never was on the side of your bizarre sect, now cult.

If what you do is a prelude to revolution, I think that we ought to be organizing a wallpaper hangers union.

So do the Mormons. They believe in Joseph Smith. You believe in ... whoever you believe in.

Fun fact: you have poor taste in politics.

Too bad in all those years you never learned to spell "one."

RED DAVE

OK "Red" Dave I'm getting used to your blend of anti-communism and cynicism.

Here is a reply for you:

Let's compare what Trotsky achieved in practice to the USSR. Or we can compare PLP to whatever you're party is up to. Labor Notes? Treacherous infighting like your namesake?

No other revolutionary party in the US is doing better than PLP. If you can show a more successful path to communist revolution, I'm interested.

Thanks for pointing out that socialism is the system between capitalism and capitalism. That's PL's observation as well.

You're assertion that PLP has no base is a lie. There are plenty of examples of struggle in CHALLENGE.