Updated website of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)

[Kassad]

Check out the newly updated website of the PSL: http://www.pslweb.org/party/

We have lots of new features, so be sure to check out everything. Liberation News now has its own separate page.

[Ocean Seal]

Super sexy page there:thumbup1:. I hope it brings in new comrades.

[Property Is Robbery]

It looks pretty great :)

[Chimurenga.]

If I can point out two crucial new features..

The first being the section of our updated party program called A new government of working and poor people (http://www.pslweb.org/party/program/#part2), which outlines what the party views a socialist society in the US would look like.

The second being most of our Why Socialism? (http://www.pslweb.org/party/why-socialism/) book is online now for free.

[Property Is Robbery]

Thanks for pointing out the free literature Chimurenga

could you or another PSL member tell me what they think about this?

http://www.pslweb.org/party/why-socialism/3d-militancy-without-winning-program.html

I think it's shit. They talk about Proudhon and Bakunin despite the fact they have virtually no followers today. They don't talk about Kropotkin and how most Anarcho-Communists align with his works. Also they talk about how the Russian revolution was proof that Socialism is better. They forgot to mention the reason the Free Territory failed was due to Soviet intervention and the reason the Spanish republicans failed was partly due to the Soviets splitting them and going as far as assassinating anarchist "leaders". (Keep in mind I'm not an Anarchist I just think this was pretty unintelligent)

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Excellent new webpage.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think it's shit. They talk about Proudhon and Bakunin despite the fact they have virtually no followers today. They don't talk about Kropotkin and how most Anarcho-Communists align with his works. Also they talk about how the Russian revolution was proof that Socialism is better. They forgot to mention the reason the Free Territory failed was due to Soviet intervention and the reason the Spanish republicans failed was partly due to the Soviets splitting them and going as far as assassinating anarchist "leaders". (Keep in mind I'm not an Anarchist I just think this was pretty unintelligent)


Just because there are "virtually no followers today" doesnt mean shit. This portion is about history. and anarchism in particular. of course Proudhon and Bakunin are going to be written about.

[DiaMat86]

Nice website!

Anarchist document critique:

Nice document, two criticisms

PSL should consider that onepeopleproject and antifa do fight Nazis. At least put that in the document.

Why are you still working with that Trotskyist view of the Spanish Civil War?

There was no possibility of socialist revolution AND simultaneous defeat of Hitler and Franco.The only strategy that might have won was the solution the poliburo put forward.
If the trots and anarchist would have cooperated with the politburo they could have actually WON. Instead they chased a pie in the sky and lost. Research the Politburo documents they are released. Watching Land and bread and reading Homage to Catalonia are not sufficient.

Nazi intelligence was operating in Spain also. They had agents among the anarcho/trots.

[DiaMat86]

From the PSL Program:

Communism will also mean the “withering away” of the repressive state, which only came into being with the rise of class society.

Today, Socialism has withered into Capitalism. There is no reason to think it won't happen again.

[Rusty Shackleford]

From the PSL Program:

Communism will also mean the “withering away” of the repressive state, which only came into being with the rise of class society.

Today, Socialism has withered into Capitalism. There is no reason to think it won't happen again.
sarcasm i suppose.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a major defeat for socialism. With it and the warsaw pact nations, other non-soviet aligned nations suffered as well. The 90s was a terrible decade.

Smaller socialist states have had to adopt very non-revolutionary policies in order to just survive. The current reforms made by cuba were not revolutionary, but they were needed in order to not allow the socialist system being overthrown or imploding under the pressure of imperialist powers. Chinas dengist reforms are also a retreat from socialism. the DPRK has had to adopt a military first policy because it is currently staring down 50,000 US troops and a nuclear arsenal that could wipe out humanity many times over.

Socialism hasnt been "withered away into capitalism" it has been defeated and replaced by capitalism for the most part in formerly socialist countries.

[Q]

Just because there are "virtually no followers today" doesnt mean shit. This portion is about history. and anarchism in particular. of course Proudhon and Bakunin are going to be written about.

You know very well that this document is pointed against contemporary anarchists. As such it should at least deal about what their political viewpoints and their historical figures. The text as it is, is a big strawman.

[Chimurenga.]

Just saying, I know of Anarchists that don't know Kropotkin. I don't feel that that article is as much of a strawman as it is just incomplete.

[DiaMat86]

sarcasm i suppose.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a major defeat for socialism. With it and the warsaw pact nations, other non-soviet aligned nations suffered as well. The 90s was a terrible decade.

Smaller socialist states have had to adopt very non-revolutionary policies in order to just survive. The current reforms made by cuba were not revolutionary, but they were needed in order to not allow the socialist system being overthrown or imploding under the pressure of imperialist powers. Chinas dengist reforms are also a retreat from socialism. the DPRK has had to adopt a military first policy because it is currently staring down 50,000 US troops and a nuclear arsenal that could wipe out humanity many times over.

Socialism hasnt been "withered away into capitalism" it has been defeated and replaced by capitalism for the most part in formerly socialist countries.


I agree, why use determinist language like "wither away"?

It is vague and does not take into account the enormous class struggle that will be required.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I agree, why use determinist language like "wither away"?

It is vague and does not take into account the enormous class struggle that will be required.
Arent you supposed to be an ML?

Withering away is pretty much only theory about how the transition from the DotP to communism will take place. it may take place in other ways. No one knows because it has not happened yet and it is not even close to happening seeing as there is no world-wide DotP

[DiaMat86]

Arent you supposed to be an ML?

Withering away is pretty much only theory about how the transition from the DotP to communism will take place. it may take place in other ways. No one knows because it has not happened yet and it is not even close to happening seeing as there is no world-wide DotP


The road to communism is parallel to the struggle against revisionism. That is the lesson of the old movement.

[Who?]

The updated site looks pretty sweet, I'll probably check out all the new features later.

http://static.images.memegenerator.net/Instances400/7/8126/8321632.jpg

[The Vegan Marxist]

Too bad Kassad's now left the PSL and joined the ranks of the ultra-leftist RCP. [EDIT: I did originally placed a *thumbs down* emoticon, but looking back at it, it was wrong of me in doing so. Kassad's always been a close comrade of mine and shouldn't disrespect him like that. His choice of joining the RCP is of his own, and none of our business. I apologize to Kassad in doing so earlier.]

[Jose Gracchus]

Too bad Kassad's now left the PSL and joined the ranks of the ultra-leftist RCP. :thumbdown:

Wait what? Are you serious?

[Hebrew Hammer]

The new site looks nice, my only critique is that your party's name isn't Kuppo's version, Party for Silliness and Lollygagging.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Wait what? Are you serious?

Yeah, I'm serious. Kassad's stated he's left the PSL because he doesn't feel the PSL's truly pushing for revolution. And instead, the RCP are.

[Spartacus.]

Yeah, I'm serious. Kassad's stated he's left the PSL because he doesn't feel the PSL's truly pushing for revolution. And instead, the RCP are.


Aren't the RCP to busy pushing deification of Bob Avakian to be able to lead any kind of Revolution? :confused:


http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pAzPIPEnoH0/0.jpg


All hail the allmighty Bob Avakian, creator of the universe, RCP and new synthesis of Communist theory, the sixth sword of Marxism, and the future leader of the Union of World Soviet Socialist Republics (UWSSR)!!!!! :D

[Hebrew Hammer]

Yeah, I'm serious. Kassad's stated he's left the PSL because he doesn't feel the PSL's truly pushing for revolution. And instead, the RCP are.

That's because the RCP is wazzup.

[28350]

Why are you still working with that Trotskyist view of the Spanish Civil War?

There was no possibility of socialist revolution AND simultaneous defeat of Hitler and Franco.

now i understand what the left communists mean when they say left of capital


Wait what? Are you serious?

yeah i actually don't believe that at all.
even if it were a more pragmatic (as opposed to an ideological) reason like 'PSL isn't pushing for revolution,' i don't see how RCP would possibly be a better alternative. Like someone else said, they're focused more on promoting avakian. wheever i run into them on the street, they never talk about capitalism, they talk about avakian.

plus i kinda feel like PSL is pushing the hardest for revolution, or at least their rhetoric does. and we all know kassad's shtick about how fast the PSL is groiwng

[Os Cangaceiros]

yo dawg, did you hear that our last party conference had, like, 300 people at it? We are the tallest dwarf of them all!

No, but seriously, it is pretty strange that Kassad jumped ship. His line on the RCP was always like, "Yeaaah, I'm not calling them a cult or anything, buuuut...I wouldn't be suprised if ol' Bobby brings out a big punch bowl of 'special' Kool-Aid at the next party meeting."

[Red_Struggle]

Kassad is either seriously dillusional about the RCP or he's trolling all of us. He claimed he won't discuss this change in politics, according to his facebook.

[Agnapostate]

Hmmm. I had lunch and spoke with Kassad at the PSL conference, and he didn't say anything about being disillusioned with the party at that time (though obviously he wouldn't have traveled here at his expense if he was), so I would think that something since then has happened inside the party to cause this alliance shift, if he's being serious. I wouldn't know if it, since I haven't been to any PSL functions since then; I got sick of it myself. (Wasn't a tendency change to anarchism or libertarianism what caused Carlos Alvarez to leave the party, incidentally?)

What Kassad did tell me was that he was tired of this forum not being serious because of the anarchists and other such people here though. :D

At any rate, neither the PSL nor the RCP is "pushing for revolution," whatever the ideas of its members, because there aren't going to be violent revolutions in politically stable developed countries. They both pursue similar public awareness campaigns and reformist electoral strategy that could probably be better carried out in a unified operational structure.

[Jose Gracchus]

The forum isn't serious because anarchists are allowed? I guess it is a shame this place has not been transformed into a shut-out network for mobilizing the next ANSWER Coalition event.

[Agnapostate]

The forum isn't serious because anarchists are allowed? I guess it is a shame this place has not been transformed into a shut-out network for mobilizing the next ANSWER Coalition event.

I just thought it was funny because I told him my own "affiliations" right after that. I wasn't really trying to put Kassad on blast or anything though, lol. I have a feeling that a lot of Leninists here share those feelings. ;)

[Tim Finnegan]

i kinda feel like PSL is pushing the hardest for revolution, or at least their rhetoric does.
Seriously? Because I just took a look at their program, and it read like a 1920s Labour Party manifesto. :confused:

[28350]

Seriously? Because I just took a look at their program, and it read like a 1920s Labour Party manifesto. :confused:

i guess
i just liked their "seize BP" campaign

[Tim Finnegan]

i guess
i just liked their "seize BP" campaign
Given that the first act of the 1945 Atlee government was to secure the nationalisation of the coal mines, I'm afraid to say that this really just seems to prove my point. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif

[Ocean Seal]

Given that the first act of the 1945 Atlee government was to secure the nationalisation of the coal mines, I'm afraid to say that this really just seems to prove my point. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif
We really have more of a grab all stance. And in the United States as depressing as it is, revolutionary rhetoric just comes off as an alien notion. We try to go for the victory by victory strategy. That might make us like the labor party a while back but at least something is getting done here. The revolution is then left for another day.

[Tim Finnegan]

We really have more of a grab all stance. And in the United States as depressing as it is, revolutionary rhetoric just comes off as an alien notion. We try to go for the victory by victory strategy. That might make us like the labor party a while back but at least something is getting done here. The revolution is then left for another day.
What happened to the working-class-as-revolutionary-subject? Presumably that's buried somewhere underneath all the Fabianism?

[Who?]

The PSL has a pretty solid stance on anti-imperialism and they uphold the GPCR. Their overall a decent organization, they're probably the best contemporary Marxist organization in the USA (along with the identical WWP). There are legitimate communists in both groups.

The RCP doesn't seem that bad either to be quite honest. I'll admit I don't know much about them but they come from the Maoist tradition so they can't be that bad, right?

[Jose Gracchus]

God the American left sucks. A bunch of revisionism and radical chic adoration of Third World nationalisms, vague emotional slogans, and identity politics. You wonder whether anyone reads about the European workers' movement and Marx and Engels, and thinks it actually has some lessons to teach, rather than historical curiosities.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The RCP doesn't seem that bad either to be quite honest. I'll admit I don't know much about them but they come from the Maoist tradition so they can't be that bad, right?

No, the RCP aren't necessarily bad. They do seriously contribute in the struggle, their main base being in Chicago. But I think a lot of people's issue with the RCP is the fact that they uphold their Chairman a lot, and they subsequently see this as a cult of personality. These are, of course, one's opinions and nothing more. In my opinion, as a member of the FRSO-FB!, I wouldn't mind doing party work with the RCP, just like I wouldn't mind doing party work with the PSL, WWP, etc. There needs to be unity in this country more than ever within the revolutionary left.

[Who?]

No, the RCP aren't necessarily bad. They do seriously contribute in the struggle, their main base being in Chicago. But I think a lot of people's issue with the RCP is the fact that they uphold their Chairman a lot, and they subsequently see this as a cult of personality. These are, of course, one's opinions and nothing more. In my opinion, as a member of the FRSO-FB!, I wouldn't mind doing party work with the RCP, just like I wouldn't mind doing party work with the PSL, WWP, etc. There needs to be unity in this country more than ever within the revolutionary left.

All kidding aside Chairman Avakian is a profound intellectual (I particularly enjoyed Summing Up the Black Panther Party (http://www.archive.org/details/SummingUpTheBlackPantherParty)) and a powerful speaker. He's also one of the most well known radicals in the US. I'm sure everyone on this forum has heard of Avakian. Obviously the strategy has it's flaws (cult accusations being one of them) but it hasn't been a complete failure.

[Tim Finnegan]

The RCP doesn't seem that bad either to be quite honest. I'll admit I don't know much about them but they come from the Maoist tradition so they can't be that bad, right?
What an elegant illustration of the intellectual void that is Marxism-Leninism.

[RedTrackWorker]

No, the RCP aren't necessarily bad. They do seriously contribute in the struggle, their main base being in Chicago. But I think a lot of people's issue with the RCP is the fact that they uphold their Chairman a lot, and they subsequently see this as a cult of personality. These are, of course, one's opinions and nothing more. In my opinion, as a member of the FRSO-FB!, I wouldn't mind doing party work with the RCP, just like I wouldn't mind doing party work with the PSL, WWP, etc. There needs to be unity in this country more than ever within the revolutionary left.

The cult of personality is hardly just an opinion--it's essentially part of the RCP constitution (http://www.revcom.us/Constitution/constitution.html)and their website (http://revcom.us/avakian/index.html). The main sections of the website are: "Current issue | Previous issues | Bob Avakian | RCP | Topics | Contact us". Another thing (http://revcom.us/a/115/makingrevolution-p2-03-en.html) they refer to is the"two mainstays of communist work: the newspaper and the culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization of Bob Avakian".

Kasama has recently had some threads on the harassment of gays within the organization in the past--and how though they've changed their line, they did so in a way that evaded any kind of accountability for past actions. It's disgusting.

Of course there are many more political questions involved with the RCP, for which Max Elbaum's book gives a good overview and context and here's one LRP article (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/rcp20.html).

None of this political evaluation precludes working with them in united front-type work or defending them, but political unity with such an organization is not something I'd want to be involved with at all.

[Who?]

What an elegant illustration of the intellectual void that is Marxism-Leninism.

Hardly, sure I agreed a lot more with the RCP's line circa 1979 and recently the RCP ditched MLM and adopted Bob Avakian's New Synthesis I still didn't consider myself educated enough on the subject to draw a conclusion regarding the current party. I simply asked an open question, hoping that someone would clarify. Possibly enlighten me as to how much of the old Maoist line the party upholds. You however took it upon yourself to make a gratuitous, smart aleck remark regarding Marxism-Leninism. If anything YOUR comment is an excellent example of the sectarianism, anti-intellectualism and general rudeness that runs rampant on this forum.

[Tim Finnegan]

Hardly, sure I agreed a lot more with the RCP's line circa 1979 and recently the RCP ditched MLM and adopted Bob Avakian's New Synthesis I still didn't consider myself educated enough on the subject to draw a conclusion regarding the current party. I simply asked an open question, hoping that someone would clarify. Possibly enlighten me as to how much of the old Maoist line the party upholds.
My point was that assuming that a party must be decent because they uphold a particular body of theory is idealistic in the extreme, yet seemingly rampant among Marxist-Leninists, who will merrily trail anyone waving a reddish flag and shouting vaguely familiar slogans. Hence my comment.


You however took it upon yourself to make a gratuitous, smart aleck remark regarding Marxism-Leninism. If anything YOUR comment is an excellent example of the sectarianism, anti-intellectualism and general rudeness that runs rampant on this forum.The rest is your standard defensive flailing, fine, I saw that coming, but this? This I don't get.

[Who?]

My point was that assuming that a party must be decent because they uphold a particular body of theory is idealistic in the extreme, yet seemingly rampant among Marxist-Leninists, who will merrily trail anyone waving a reddish flag and shouting vaguely familiar slogans. Hence my comment.

I wasn't assuming, I was asking a question. I know I agree with the RCP brand of Maoism from the late 70's and if they still uphold certain key points of that line that would make them a decent party. Hence my reply to you comment.

You also seem to forget that MANY Marxist-Leninists don't defend the RCP. Many Marxist-Leninist-Maoists don't even defend the RCP. Have you ever read Kasama?

Your point is invalid.


The rest is your standard defensive flailing, fine, I saw that coming, but this? This I don't get.

You accuse Marxism-Leninism of being intellectually void, casting aside the brilliant men and women who have contributed to that movement. You gave no analysis, you just made a snide remark. If you have a problem with the Chairman Avakian or Marxism-Leninism just say so.

[Tim Finnegan]

I wasn't assuming, I was asking a question. I know I agree with the RCP brand of Maoism from the late 70's and if they still uphold certain key points of that line that would make them a decent party. Hence my reply to you comment.
Upholding theory that you like does not make them a good party, it just makes them a welcoming circle-jerk.


You also seem to forget that MANY Marxist-Leninists don't defend the RCP. Many Marxist-Leninist-Maoists don't even defend the RCP. Have you ever read Kasama?

Your point is invalid.My point was an observation on a general tendency, not a universal compulsion. If that wasn't clear, then you need to start learning to distinguish between literal assertions and rhetorical hyperbole.


You accuse Marxism-Leninism of being intellectually void, casting aside the brilliant men and women who have contributed to that movement. You gave no analysis, you just made a snide remark. If you have a problem with the Chairman Avakian or Marxism-Leninism just say so.I'm casting them aside because I think that they are hapless nitwits until they can prove otherwise. I really don't see how that constitutes "anti-intellectualism".

[manic expression]

Given that the first act of the 1945 Atlee government was to secure the nationalisation of the coal mines, I'm afraid to say that this really just seems to prove my point. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif
Edited: do you have any point here other than to make historically incorrect comparisons?

[Agnapostate]

You have no idea what you're talking about. None. That goes for the other anarcho-intellectuals who think they know what's best for everything but unsurprisingly never do more than talk about it.

It's accurate to say that nationalization strategy could potentially be used as a stabilization mechanism of capitalist governments, and historically has been. This isn't a problem if Leninist groups such as the RCP and PSL simply admit that they're in favor of electoral reformism in politically stable developed countries; I admit it myself. Instead, they pretend to be "professional revolutionaries."

[Tim Finnegan]

Edited: do you have any point here other than to make historically incorrect comparisons?
My previous comment was an observation that the PSL manifesto reminded me of the heavily reformist line of the Fabianist old (i.e. pre-Kinnock) Labour Party, one roughly parallel to Bernsteinism on the continent, rather than to anything I would recognise as substantially Marxist. Oscar the Grouch, while conceding this, commented approvingly of the "Seize BP" campaign, which I then observed really just supported my previous observations, given that the program- the nationalisation of natural resources- was fairly typical of even moderate post-war social democratic program.

tl;dr: That the PSL's program is basically that of Labour c.1950, it's just that 2011 in general, and the US in particular, is so politically backasswards that it sounds radical.

[Rusty Shackleford]

so then, the PSL program should solely be about calling for revolution, over and over?

Also, dont call my party 'Fabian' please. its really offensive.

[Tim Finnegan]

so then, the PSL program should solely be about calling for revolution, over and over?
I think that the PSL should focus on pursuing working class political power, preferably in the form of a mass class-movement. Party-building, whether revolutionary or reformist, is an idealist and ahistorical distraction.


Also, dont call my party 'Fabian' please. its really offensive.Then write a better manifesto. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif

[Jose Gracchus]

so then, the PSL program should solely be about calling for revolution, over and over?

I'd like a little bit more than "the working class will control things through their committees". That's just empty sloganism.


Also, dont call my party 'Fabian' please. its really offensive.

You know what they say, if the shoe fits.

[Who?]

My point was an observation on a general tendency, not a universal compulsion. If that wasn't clear, then you need to start learning to distinguish between literal assertions and rhetorical hyperbole.

But the hyperbole isn't really based in reality. I've never seen a Marxist-Leninist support and organization/regime/movement just because it professes itself to be Marxist-Leninist or Maoist. There's always analysis involved.




I'm casting them aside because I think that they are hapless nitwits until they can prove otherwise. I really don't see how that constitutes "anti-intellectualism".

You gave them a chance? Really? You've read Avakian? Is that how you've come to your conclusion?

Or did you just read a post on RevLeft about the RCP being a cult?

Listen, I don't want to start a fight or anything but maybe you and your ultra-left ilk are guilty of the same crime you accuse Marxist-Leninists of.

You know, assuming the worst about every regime/organization/movement that's labeled "Marxist-Leninist" or "Maoist".

I've personally always been a pretty easy going dude, I don't refer to Trotskyists as "Troskyites" and I hold the USFI in high regard. But after seeing the ad hominem attacks being made in this thread I understand how these these feuds could start. But guess what? I don't want to be a part of it.

See ya.

[HEAD ICE]

so then, the PSL program should solely be about calling for revolution, over and over?

Also, dont call my party 'Fabian' please. its really offensive.

PSL: socialist revolution - who needs it?

[manic expression]

It's accurate to say that nationalization strategy could potentially be used as a stabilization mechanism of capitalist governments, and historically has been. This isn't a problem if Leninist groups such as the RCP and PSL simply admit that they're in favor of electoral reformism in politically stable developed countries; I admit it myself. Instead, they pretend to be "professional revolutionaries."
The PSL isn't about electoral reformism, the PSL engages in electoral campaigns to reach out to workers, to combat capitalist propaganda in its own arena. The pro-nationalization campaigns are about getting people to think about working-class expropriation in a positive and constructive way. It's a tool, not an end onto itself by any means.


My previous comment was an observation that the PSL manifesto reminded me of the heavily reformist line of the Fabianist old (i.e. pre-Kinnock) Labour Party, one roughly parallel to Bernsteinism on the continent, rather than to anything I would recognise as substantially Marxist. Oscar the Grouch, while conceding this, commented approvingly of the "Seize BP" campaign, which I then observed really just supported my previous observations, given that the program- the nationalisation of natural resources- was fairly typical of even moderate post-war social democratic program.
What it reminds you of has no bearing on what it is. Because a platform has something in common with another platform doesn't make them equal. We might as well look at all the political platforms with universal suffrage in them and then say they're the same.

OMG HE WANTS A GRADUATED INCOME TAX WUT A FABIAN-ATLEEIST LOL (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

:rolleyes:


I think that the PSL should focus on pursuing working class political power, preferably in the form of a mass class-movement. Party-building, whether revolutionary or reformist, is an idealist and ahistorical distraction.
The two are one in the same. You can't pursue working-class political power without a strong party. Plus, even if you disagree with that, you can do so without resorting to name-calling.


Then write a better manifesto. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif
Yeah, right, all you care about is writing...


I'd like a little bit more than "the working class will control things through their committees". That's just empty sloganism.
"I'd like this...I'd like that"...the left doesn't spin around your every childish whim. While you're thinking up new and fun ways to slander socialists, the PSL is working toward working-class revolution through constant activity (an objective which entails "the working class will control things through their committees", in case you didn't get the memo). That, backing up revolutionary rhetoric with revolutionary activity, is what divides the revolutionaries from the anarcho-wannabes like yourself. But what were you saying?


if the shoe fits.
Then wear it.

[Tim Finnegan]

See ya.
Can I just ask why you bothered to aim a whole post at me, including questions, to end on this? It sort of feels like you're picking your rhetorical points out of a hat. http://media.bigoo.ws/content/smile/miscellaneous/smile_280.gif



What it reminds you of has no bearing on what it is. Because a platform has something in common with another platform doesn't make them equal. We might as well look at all the political platforms with universal suffrage in them and then say they're the same.

OMG HE WANTS A GRADUATED INCOME TAX WUT A FABIAN-ATLEEIST LOL (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

:rolleyes:
But he did so with constant reference to politics, which I do not see present in the PSL manifesto in any substantial form. What I see is standard left-socdem fair, with a few superficial reference to "the workers and poor" and "committees" dusted over the top. The nationalisation of capitalist enterprises does not become a revolutionary act simply because you shout about the working class while doing.


The two are one in the same. You can't pursue working-class political power without a strong party.A strong party cannot be assumed to represent a strong working class, though; the former, if it can be anything at all, can only ever be an expression of the latter, and with the effectively non-class-based program apparently pursued by the PSL, I'm obliged to wonder how this is imagined to come about.


Plus, even if you disagree with that, you can do so without resorting to name-calling.I'm not really convinced that comparisons to Fabianism constitute "name-calling", as such.


Yeah, right, all you care about is writing...I don't even know what this means.


"I'd like this...I'd like that"...the left doesn't spin around your every childish whim. While you're thinking up new and fun ways to slander socialists, the PSL is working toward working-class revolution through constant activity (an objective which entails "the working class will control things through their committees", in case you didn't get the memo). That, backing up revolutionary rhetoric with revolutionary activity, is what divides the revolutionaries from the anarcho-wannabes like yourself. But what were you saying?Well, where's this manifesto, then? If the PSL is so out-and-out revolutionary as all that, then why didn't they publish something declaring as much, instead of all this wishy-washy socdem stuff about capping housing costs and nationalising oil? The very best that one could infer from your manifesto is the intent to reform the United States along along the lines of the old "people's democracies", which is by definition a non-revolutionary program.

Also, what's an "anarcho-wannabe", exactly? Are they wannabe anarchists, or anarchists who are also wannabes, and, if the latter, what is it that they want to be? You really need to learn that simply sticking "anarcho-" on the front of an off-the-shelf insult doesn't really constitute political satire.

[Edit: "But he did so with constant reference to politics" should be "But he did so with constant reference to the end-goal of working class political power", or something to that effect. Not sure how I screwed that one up.]

[manic expression]

But he did so with constant reference to politics, which I do not see present in the PSL manifesto in any substantial form. What I see is standard left-socdem fair, with a few superficial reference to "the workers and poor" and "committees" dusted over the top. The nationalisation of capitalist enterprises does not become a revolutionary act simply because you shout about the working class while doing.
That's horseshit. Sorry, nothing personal, but it is.

Part 2: A new government of working and poor people

In order to guarantee the interests of working and poor people who make up the vast majority of the United States, a new revolutionary government run by and for the workers and poor shall be established. The present capitalist government—the role of which has been to defend the big-business system of exploitation by a web of hundreds of measures, legal and illegal, and has been accessible only to the super-rich elite—shall be abolished.

It's all there (http://www.pslweb.org/party/program/#part2)

Honestly, though, you've already decided it's "SocDem", so nothing is going to convince you.

And where did Marx outline everything about future socialist society? He didn't, he wrote almost nothing about what socialism would possibly look like.


A strong party cannot be assumed to represent a strong working class, though; the former, if it can be anything at all, can only ever be an expression of the latter, and with the effectively non-class-based program apparently pursued by the PSL, I'm obliged to wonder how this is imagined to come about.
Read the platform again. It's all about establishing a government of the workers.


I'm not really convinced that comparisons to Fabianism constitute "name-calling", as such.
I don't really care if you're not convinced.


I don't even know what this means.
It seems you care about writing...not about action. Ounces and tons and all that.


Well, where's this manifesto, then?
Up there.


Also, what's an "anarcho-wannabe", exactly? Are they wannabe anarchists, or anarchists who are also wannabes, and, if the latter, what is it that they want to be? You really need to learn that simply sticking "anarcho-" on the front of an off-the-shelf insult doesn't really constitute political satire.
It means "leftists" who are all talk and no action. It means habitual contrarians who stand against things just to feel radical instead of standing for anything at all. It means those who spend more time badmouthing revolutionaries at work than anything else.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's horseshit. Sorry, nothing personal, but it is.

Part 2: A new government of working and poor people

In order to guarantee the interests of working and poor people who make up the vast majority of the United States, a new revolutionary government run by and for the workers and poor shall be established. The present capitalist government—the role of which has been to defend the big-business system of exploitation by a web of hundreds of measures, legal and illegal, and has been accessible only to the super-rich elite—shall be abolished.

It's all there (http://www.pslweb.org/party/program/#part2)

Honestly, though, you've already decided it's "SocDem", so nothing is going to convince you.

And where did Marx outline everything about future socialist society? He didn't, he wrote almost nothing about what socialism would possibly look like.
This isn't about the future society, this is about the path being pursued by communist political organisations and by the working class. Marx, rather famously, discussed the necessity of proletarian autonomy administered in a direct and radically democratic fashion, as illustrated by the Paris Commune, while what the PSL seems to be pursuing the mere seizing of state power by a political party which will proceed sort everything out without the need for those messy councils and communes.


Read the platform again. It's all about establishing a government of the workers.Well, so you say, but I honestly don't see an authentic working class program there. What I see is a standard program for the accumulation of political influence by a party which, in this case, happens to have declared itself the heroic chevalier to the proletarian damsel.


I don't really care if you're not convinced.I fear that you're taking a figure of speech somewhat to literally.

...And "I fear" was another figure of speech. Just so you know.


It seems you care about writing...not about action. Ounces and tons and all that.Really? Why do I give you that impression?



Up there.Hm.


It means "leftists" who are all talk and no action. It means habitual contrarians who stand against things just to feel radical instead of standing for anything at all. It means those who spend more time badmouthing revolutionaries at work than anything else.So it's a vague pejorative that can be thrown at just about anyone you've taken a dislike to? No surprises there, then.

[KC]

so then, the PSL program should solely be about calling for revolution, over and over?

When the choice is between opportunism and idealism you should probably reconsider the question you're asking in the first place.

[Rusty Shackleford]

When the choice is between opportunism and idealism you should probably reconsider the question you're asking in the first place.

but we do call for revolution. it is in our program and is a part of our line and stance.

[KC]

but we do call for revolution.

So what?

[Rusty Shackleford]

So what?
Ok, so opportunism and idealism?

have we slid into opportunism like the ISO on Libya?
or, have we become idealists like the PLP?

[Agnapostate]

The PSL isn't about electoral reformism, the PSL engages in electoral campaigns to reach out to workers, to combat capitalist propaganda in its own arena.

The PSL encourages votes in statewide and local referendums in favor of the more "progressive" option, which is reformist in nature.


The pro-nationalization campaigns are about getting people to think about working-class expropriation in a positive and constructive way. It's a tool, not an end onto itself by any means.

The primary means that nationalization would serve under a capitalist government is sustainment of the capitalist economy, as occurred with the Bush administration's partial nationalization of the auto industry.

[Rusty Shackleford]

you can fight for reforms and revolution at the same time.

reforms are dual natured. they are good for the immediate needs of the oppressed and working people, but they are bad in that they may weaken class consciousness/revolutionary intent.

the fight for a reform is a form of class struggle. working and oppressed people demanding things to better their immediate conditions is definitely something that shouldnt be ignored.

[Agnapostate]

you can fight for reforms and revolution at the same time.

reforms are dual natured. they are good for the immediate needs of the oppressed and working people, but they are bad in that they may weaken class consciousness/revolutionary intent.

the fight for a reform is a form of class struggle. working and oppressed people demanding things to better their immediate conditions is definitely something that shouldnt be ignored.

I entirely agree. However, when the predominant nature of a party's political program and activity is directed toward such strategy, it should accurately be referred to as "reformist," not "revolutionary."

[Rusty Shackleford]

I entirely agree. However, when the predominant nature of a party's political program and activity is directed toward such strategy, it should accurately be referred to as "reformist," not "revolutionary."
i suggest you actually read the program.

the first chapter, under the 5th header "The Right of Revolution"

ill give you an excerpt:

The capitalist system has proven to be incapable of meeting the needs of the people - even in the richest capitalist country in history. Every year, millions more people are forced into abject poverty, many while working full time, and many are denied the right to a job.

Simply reforming the capitalist system is not enough.

For the capitalists, reforms are a threat to the status quo. Reforms for the working class mean something different. They ease the burdens of living under capitalism though the extension of civil rights or other beneficial social or economic policies.

While reforms must be fought for, and can be won, they are under constant attack by the ruling class. Capitalism itself cannot be reformed. Its supreme law and driving force is the maximization of profit. The only force capable of putting an end to this criminal system is the organized working class. Capitalism cannot be voted out of power - it will take a revolution.

...

More than at any other time, it is the working class that hols the future for humanity. For the people and planet to live, capitalism must go.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is dedicated to building a revolutionary workers' party in the United States. A party that can unite the multinational U.S. working class is an essential and irreplaceable element in the struggle for socialism.

...

For the working class, revolution is a necessity and a right. The most brutal aspects of capitalism will not go away unless there is a socialist revolution. Only a revolution can do away with the rule of the capitalists once and for all.

[Tim Finnegan]

Saying "reform is crap" in sixteen different ways but never once referencing working class political power doesn't make you a revolutionary communist, it just makes you a social democrat with a barricade fetish.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Saying "reform is crap" in sixteen different ways but never once referencing working class political power doesn't make you a revolutionary communist, it just makes you a social democrat with a barricade fetish.
:lol:




Solving the multiple crises of the present system is impossible without a revolution that ends the rule of the capitalist class and replaces it with a new state power that acts in the interests of the working class. Marx wrote, "The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes." In other words, the government that has worked so well for the capitalists cannot serve the interests of the working class. The dictatorship of the rich must be dismantled and replaced with the working class in power. A state and government "of, by and for" the working class.

The foundation of any state power is repressive force - the military, police, prisons, courts and so on. The standing army and police must be disbanded and replaced by the armed people, organized in workers' defense councils. A critical task of the new socialist order will be defending itself from the displaced capitalist class that would like to return to the days of exploitation.

A workers' government would create an entirely different type of court system, with its basic institutions determined by the democratic organs of workers' power. Judges would not be required to be lawyers.

All public officials, without exception, would be elected and subject to recall at any time by those who elected them. The salaries of all elected officials will be no higher than the average wage of workers. The same would be true for all those hired to carry out government and state business. Holding public office would be based on a real desire to serve, not on self-enrichment. Corporate lobbying would be eliminated - along with corporations themselves.

[Red_Struggle]

One thing I never understood about the PSL: Why do you charge people 7 fucking dollars to just read the program. Shouldn't something as basic as this to a supposed "vanguard" party be free for everyone to read?

[Rusty Shackleford]

One thing I never understood about the PSL: Why do you charge people 7 fucking dollars to just read the program. Shouldn't something as basic as this to a supposed "vanguard" party be free for everyone to read?
all of the more important parts of the book are free online...

we cant afford to just print and give away a bunch of books right now.


plus, if the PSL was actually at the vanguard (no organization is) we would actually be able to do things like that. obviously.

[Agnapostate]

i suggest you actually read the program.

You're not understanding. The PSL may call for "revolution." I'm referring to walking the walk, not talking the talk. Their actual strategies are based on reformism, which is an understandable necessity in a politically stable "first world" country.

The PSL could perhaps function as a vanguard party. So-called vanguard parties have generally turned out to be authoritarian elite dictatorships in practice, and the PSL does exhibit a tendency for enforcement of an authoritarian environment in the small space that they do control. If you recall, at the last national conference, during one of the focus group workshops (since I remember you being one of the speakers), I was taking notes, and was explicitly told to stop because no outside note taking was allowed...only the PSL's official authorized notes were allowed...:rolleyes:

[Red_Struggle]

all of the more important parts of the book are free online...

we cant afford to just print and give away a bunch of books right now.


plus, if the PSL was actually at the vanguard (no organization is) we would actually be able to do things like that. obviously.

It doesn't have to be in book form. Make it readable online so people can print it out and distribute it for free at demos. The APL does this and it's been very effective. People need to be able to read and understand a party's politics without being concerned about monetary issues associated with this.

[Tim Finnegan]

:lol:
A "new state power" does not become an authentic conception of working class political power just because you slap the label "workers' government" onto it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

You're not understanding. The PSL may call for "revolution." I'm referring to walking the walk, not talking the talk. Their actual strategies are based on reformism, which is an understandable necessity in a politically stable "first world" country.

The PSL could perhaps function as a vanguard party. So-called vanguard parties have generally turned out to be authoritarian elite dictatorships in practice, and the PSL does exhibit a tendency for enforcement of an authoritarian environment in the small space that they do control. If you recall, at the last national conference, during one of the focus group workshops (since I remember you being one of the speakers), I was taking notes, and was explicitly told to stop because no outside note taking was allowed...only the PSL's official authorized notes were allowed...:rolleyes:
No, i didnt speak at the conference. you must have me confused with someone.

Also, you are an anarchist, of course you are going to view leninist politics as 'authoritarian elite dictatorships.' were not anarchists. were leninists. so, no, were not going to have anarchist rhetoric, obviously.

also, "walking the walk." right now, the struggle is no where near a point of it being revolutionary(in the sense that revolution is not imminent). Currently, the struggle gravitates towards struggles for reforms because that is where the working class and oppressed people are at. Now, of course, when we participate in struggles, we distribute information to try to drive it/participants towards more revolutionary consciousness. Everything starts somewhere.


It doesn't have to be in book form. Make it readable online so people can print it out and distribute it for free at demos. The APL does this and it's been very effective. People need to be able to read and understand a party's politics without being concerned about monetary issues associated with this.
and like i said, the important parts are free online.

the rest of it is from older publications and just history.


A "new state power" does not become an authentic conception of working class political power just because you slap the label "workers' government" onto it.
did you miss the part about workers' defense councils and organs of working class power?

[Tim Finnegan]

did you miss the part about workers' defense councils and organs of working class power?
No, I caught those half-hearted sops to those among your ranks who still remember what a "Lenin" is, but I'm of the opinion that sloganeering does not constitute authentic content. You have to go much deeper, come much closer to the heart of what working class political power actually means, what its implications are- and those implications are, if we follow from Marx, far more radical than your reheated Bennism would allow.

[Rusty Shackleford]

No, I caught those half-hearted sops to those among your ranks who still remember what a "Lenin" is, but I'm of the opinion that sloganeering does not constitute authentic content. You have to go much deeper, come much closer to the heart of what working class political power actually means, what its implications are- and those implications are, if we follow from Marx, far more radical than your reheated Bennism would allow.
.

Part 2: A new government of working and poor people

In order to guarantee the interests of working and poor people who make up the vast majority of the United States, a new revolutionary government run by and for the workers and poor shall be established. The present capitalist government—the role of which has been to defend the big-business system of exploitation by a web of hundreds of measures, legal and illegal, and has been accessible only to the super-rich elite—shall be abolished.


The primary function of the new government shall be planning and administering the economy in the interests of working and poor people, as set forth below, and implementing the measures to fulfill those interests.
Participation and representation in the new government shall be guaranteed through democratically organized workplace, neighborhood and social committees. The “professional politicians” and big-business political parties shall be replaced with the political organization of the working class.
There shall be no distinction between the legislative and executive functions of government. Those who enact measures shall be responsible for carrying them out. All elected representatives shall be subject to recall at any time by the bodies that elect them.
Elected officials of the new workers’ government shall be paid an average worker’s salary and shall receive no special privileges.
There shall be primary government institutions created guaranteeing representation of all nationalities inside the United States. In recognition of centuries of national oppression and systematic exclusion, and to protect the interests of all, the new government structures would be constructed to assure equal representation from all nationalities in the United States.
The current legal and criminal justice system is infested with racism and class privilege, and shall be replaced by a new justice system based on the democratic organization of the working class and its right to defend its class interests on the basis of solidarity and unity.
The rights of freedom of speech and political involvement shall be extended to the entire working class. These rights shall only be abridged in the efforts to eliminate racism, xenophobia and all forms of bigotry, or to prevent the re-establishment of the capitalist system of exploitation and oppression.
There shall be a complete separation of church and state, with no one religion favored over another and no favoring of religion over the absence of religion.
No law shall be enacted that discriminates against people based on nationality, gender, sexual orientation or gender expression. The new government shall take it as the highest priority to remedy the legacy of institutionalized divisions and inequalities perpetuated against wide sectors of the working class that had continued without respite for hundreds of years, by measures of affirmative action and other measures listed below.
Older and retired workers will be able to live a dignified and fulfilling life with the constitutionally guaranteed rights to housing, health care, food and water. The new government will allocate resources to ensure the maximum participation in society of older and retired workers. The new government shall initiate an educational campaign to promote respect for older people and to value their contributions to society.
People with disabilities will be guaranteed full access to, and participation in, society, with the government allocating resources to eliminate barriers in housing, education, employment and public facilities. The new government shall initiate an educational campaign to promote respect for and programs in the interests of people with disabilities, promoting their contributions to society.
The new government will place great importance on the social development of children. The new government will allocate resources to develop programs for the intellectual, physical, psychological and social development of young people.
The defense of the revolutionary government shall be organized on the basis of the armed, organized working class. All foreign military bases shall be closed immediately.
The new government will approach the peoples of the world on the principles of international working-class solidarity. All occupations, military interventions and military proxy wars, agreements and alliances carried out by the previous imperialist government shall be ended immediately.
A national assembly shall craft a new Constitution that enshrines and protects the interests of workers and oppressed peoples, to address, at minimum, the issues outlined below.

Socialism: Addressing the interests of working and poor people
The new government shall be directed to address the interests of working and poor people. This means that no laws, regulations or measures shall negatively impact the rights of working and poor people in society. The following issues will be addressed by the new government.


The exploitation of labor for private profit shall be prohibited.
It shall be a right of every person in the United States to have a job with guaranteed union representation and full social benefits provided by the new government, including a pension, health care, workers’ compensation, paid parental and family leave for up to one year, a minimum of one month’s paid vacation, and at least 12 paid holidays and sick days.
Poverty shall be eradicated by providing a guaranteed living income for any worker who is not able to find or hold a job. Priority in addressing the legacy of capitalism shall be granted to communities that have suffered disproportionately in the past.
Citizenship rights shall be granted to every person living in the United States. No person shall be discriminated against in any way due to past citizenship status.
Working conditions shall aim to enhance the humanity and dignity of all workers. The working week shall be 30 hours. Child care for workers shall be provided by the new government at no cost to the parents. There shall be cultural and athletic opportunities for all workers during working hours.
The new government shall provide free, high-quality health care to every person living in the United States, regardless of citizenship. For-profit health care and private insurance companies shall be outlawed.
The new government shall provide decent housing for every person in the United States. No person shall pay more than 10 percent of their income on housing costs. It shall be illegal to generate private profit by renting or selling land. No person may suffer foreclosure or eviction.
The new government shall provide free, high-quality education to every person in the United States from pre-school through college, as well as post-college educational opportunities for life-long learning to advance the technical and cultural level of society, as well as the promotion of working-class unity and international solidarity. The historic disparities in educational quality and opportunities in Black, Latino, Asian and Native communities, and other working-class communities, shall be addressed as a first order of business. The intellectual products of colleges and universities shall be the property of society, with no patents, trademarks, copyrights or private profit from social knowledge and materials.
The new government will approach agriculture by implementing sustainable methods. This means environmental protection; water and soil conservation; and improvement of the quality of life of agricultural laborers and rural communities by providing adequate wages, safe working conditions, year-round employment opportunities, housing, health care, education, social and recreational services, the elimination of “guest worker” programs and all laws discriminating against workers on the basis of citizenship, and humane treatment of animals.
The food and nutritional needs of the population shall be the responsibility of the new government. All schools and workplaces shall provide high-quality meals to those who study or work there. It shall be illegal to profit from the production or distribution of food and food products. Food shall be produced according to a democratic and rational plan, with opportunities for the input of all people into what foods are produced and the manner in which they are produced and distributed.
The new government shall recognize that the well-being of the environment is essential for the future development of the economy and society, indeed for all workers and oppressed people. Environmental considerations shall be made in every area of economic and social planning, and there shall be special efforts to remedy and end environmental degradation.
Penal institutions shall be organized on the principle of social education and rehabilitation. Those convicted of unlawful acts shall maintain political rights while participating in their rehabilitation.

Liberation: Overcoming racism, exploitation, national oppression and all forms of bigotry
The new government shall seek to codify the goals of eradicating racism, national oppression and all forms of exploitation and bigotry. The following issues will be addressed by the new government.


The new government shall recognize the inviolable right of all oppressed nations to self-determination with regard to their means of gaining and maintaining their liberation. In the United States, this includes the right of self-determination for African American, Native, Puerto Rican and other Latino national minorities, the Hawai’ian nation, Asian, Pacific Islander, Arab and other oppressed peoples who have experienced oppression as a whole people under capitalism.
With the goal of the unity of the multinational U.S. working class on the basis of class solidarity, the new government shall eliminate white supremacy, racism and privilege as an immediate task, recognizing that this goal will not be achieved automatically or by decree. It shall be prohibited to advocate any form of racism, xenophobia or national hatred.
The new government shall institute a program of reparations for the African American community to address the centuries of unpaid slave labor and super-exploitation.
All U.S. colonies shall be granted independence, including Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the Mariana Islands. The new government shall honor all treaty obligations with Native nations, and shall provide restitution for land and resources stolen by the capitalist U.S. government.
The new government shall institute programs on the basis of proletarian internationalism to help overcome the ravages of U.S. imperialism that have exploited the people, resources and economies of other countries with an emphasis on sovereignty, solidarity, revolutionary assistance and reparations.
All U.S. workers shall have the right to speak the language of their choosing. All government services and education shall be provided with multilingual provisions.
Sexism and other forms of male chauvinism and oppression of women shall be eliminated as an immediate task, recognizing that this goal will not be achieved automatically or by decree. It shall be prohibited to advocate any form of sexism or male chauvinism.
The new government shall guarantee the right of women workers to receive the same pay, benefits and treatment as their male counterparts.
The right to contraception, birth control and abortion services shall not be restricted in any way, nor shall there be any restriction on a woman’s right to decide to have children or not. Abortion services shall be available free and on demand.
It shall be the responsibility of the new government to provide women with the right to choose to have children by providing free, high-quality pre- and post-natal health care and child care. Any caregiver shall be given access to free child care.
All forms of bigotry, discrimination or the promotion of hatred against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, or against anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender expression, shall be eliminated, including in marriage rights, employment, housing, adoption and health care. It shall be prohibited to advocate any form of bigotry, discrimination or hatred against LGBT people.
No law or measure shall give preference in word or in deed that favors heterosexual relationships over other relationships.
There shall be a sustained public education campaign promoting the goals of multinational working-class unity and international solidarity, the advancement of women’s rights, the promotion of respect of sexual orientation and gender expression, as well as exposing the evils of racism, sexism, anti-LGBT bigotry, xenophobia and national chauvinism. Affirmative action measures shall be instituted wherever needed to eliminate the effects of historical discrimination in education, employment, promotion, housing and other areas.

[Red_Struggle]

and like i said, the important parts are free online.

the rest of it is from older publications and just history.

Again, why not put the whole thing online? You guys make enough money from dues and other literature. At least offer your members and supporters some freebies.

[Tim Finnegan]

.

Yeah, I know, I read yer fucking thing before I called it "Fabian" the first time round. Simply re-posting extended extracts isn't going to change my mind.

And I should be clear, for the most part, the PSL manifesto isn't a bad manifesto. I would love it if a major party with a manifesto like that could emerge. It's just not a communist manifesto, nor, at its heart, a working class manifesto. It's just social democracy with a bit of inherited sloganeering dusted over the top.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Again, why not put the whole thing online? You guys make enough money from dues and other literature. At least offer your members and supporters some freebies.


and we also have expenses. Actions, coalitions, office space rental, travel, legal etc.

also, there 'freebies.' branches host regular public meetings and most more established branches have libraries and such. Also, its not like we forbid members from letting people borrow books on a person to person basis.

as for online. I dont administer the website. I dont manage publications. And i certainly dont manage party finances. So, yeah.


Yeah, I know, I read yer fucking thing before I called it "Fabian" the first time round. Simply re-posting extended extracts isn't going to change my mind.

And I should be clear, for the most part, the PSL manifesto isn't a bad manifesto. I would love it if a major party with a manifesto like that could emerge. It's just not a communist manifesto, nor, at its heart, a working class manifesto. It's just social democracy with a bit of inherited sloganeering dusted over the top.

We are a growing and maturing organization. Most of our stuff is meant to orient people towards socialism and communism.

its like being critiqued from an anarchist position. obviously, we arent anarchists so we dont hold up to anarchist standards or points of view.

[Red_Struggle]

and we also have expenses. Actions, coalitions, office space rental, travel, legal etc.

True, but we're talking about the program here, the most basic underlying principles laid down by a party.


Also, its not like we forbid members from letting people borrow books on a person to person basis.

Nor would I expect you to. All I'm asking for is some justification for charging for your program.

[Tim Finnegan]

We are a growing and maturing organization. Most of our stuff is meant to orient people towards socialism and communism.
You're an explicitly Marxist-Leninist, and, in your bolder moments, "revolutionary" organisation; you can't maintain those identifications if you are in practice nothing but a social democratic pressure group. Beyond anything else, if that was what you were willing to settle for, you'd be far better off seeking to organise as a grouping within a multi-tendency group, so it's a practical criticism, if nothing else.


its like being critiqued from an anarchist position. obviously, we arent anarchists so we dont hold up to anarchist standards or points of view.But you are, in this case, being critiqued about fundamental points of communist praxis by another communist; those should not be difficult standards to live up to, even if the "other communist" in question is a horrible pedant like myself. ;)

[Agnapostate]

No, i didnt speak at the conference. you must have me confused with someone.

You spoke at a focus group I was at. I took these notes about your speech before they told me to stop taking notes: "He's a community college student; students on campus are interested in working-class issues also. The on-campus clubs are used as a conduit to individuals that are already somewhat involved in activism (mirroring my own experience). There are activities there such as public awareness campaigns, advertising boycotts of Israel, etc. College campuses, particularly the community college campuses that many lower-income youth are confined to, are potentially ample networks of activism."


Also, you are an anarchist, of course you are going to view leninist politics as 'authoritarian elite dictatorships.' were not anarchists. were leninists. so, no, were not going to have anarchist rhetoric, obviously.

This doesn't seem to be a challenge of the veracity of my claim.


also, "walking the walk." right now, the struggle is no where near a point of it being revolutionary(in the sense that revolution is not imminent). Currently, the struggle gravitates towards struggles for reforms because that is where the working class and oppressed people are at. Now, of course, when we participate in struggles, we distribute information to try to drive it/participants towards more revolutionary consciousness. Everything starts somewhere.

Then at this point, the PSL is reformist, not revolutionary. If the theoretical revolution occurs, and they participate, they will have earned the "revolutionary" titles that they currently bestow upon themselves.

[DiaMat86]

Tim, it's important to be comradely with other ACTUAL communist parties. We are all the same to the bosses.

My limited experience with PSL:

Actual PSL members in person carry out more revolutioary struggle than the website and manifesto imply.

The electoral and coalition stuff is their "legal front" IMHO.

[Agnapostate]

When I went home from the PSL conference (rode my bike), going through South Central, I wondered if the organization's revenue might not be better contributed towards meaningful change in the lives of working people, instead of asking for forty to eighty dollars (non-mandatory, in fairness), to attend a conference in a USC ballroom and provide members with complementary James Bond type alcoholic beverages after.

[KC]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2177591#post2177591) also, "walking the walk." right now, the struggle is no where near a point of it being revolutionary(in the sense that revolution is not imminent). Currently, the struggle gravitates towards struggles for reforms because that is where the working class and oppressed people are at. Now, of course, when we participate in struggles, we distribute information to try to drive it/participants towards more revolutionary consciousness. Everything starts somewhere.

Of course in practice what you "try" to do doesn't really matter. When it comes down to praxis you, like every other socialist sect, are opportunist.

Organizing, or participating in, a rally to legalize gay marriage, and you get a small handful of new prospects interested in you, and pass out some general socialist literature followed by how everyone should vote on the bill to legalize it, and what changed? Maybe you got 2 or 3 people interested in socialism, but hey at least that legalization bill passed (btw I voted to legalize gay marriage in WI).

[Tim Finnegan]

Tim, it's important to be comradely with other ACTUAL communist parties. We are all the same to the bosses.
But are we the same to the workers? That, I would suggest, is rather more pertinent.


Actual PSL members in person carry out more revolutioary struggle than the website and manifesto imply.
I don't really know what this means, in this context.

[Sun at Eight]

If I can't drink complementary James Bond type alcoholic beverages, it's not my revolution!

[Rusty Shackleford]

When I went home from the PSL conference (rode my bike), going through South Central, I wondered if the organization's revenue might not be better contributed towards meaningful change in the lives of working people, instead of asking for forty to eighty dollars (non-mandatory, in fairness), to attend a conference in a USC ballroom and provide members with complementary James Bond type alcoholic beverages after.
Corona and Heinekin are "james bond type alcoholic beverages?"

[DiaMat86]

But are we the same to the workers? That, I would suggest, is rather more pertinent..


The ruling class ideology is the dominant ideology. In the US we are up against some heavy anti-communist ideas. There is lack of confidence is communism because of the failure of the old movement.

In the working class this is expressed through apathy and idealism. For the bosses it's anti-communist attacks.

[manic expression]

This isn't about the future society, this is about the path being pursued by communist political organisations and by the working class. Marx, rather famously, discussed the necessity of proletarian autonomy administered in a direct and radically democratic fashion, as illustrated by the Paris Commune, while what the PSL seems to be pursuing the mere seizing of state power by a political party which will proceed sort everything out without the need for those messy councils and communes.
Wow. Here, let me outline it for you again.

In order to guarantee the interests of working and poor people who make up the vast majority of the United States, a new revolutionary government run by and for the workers and poor shall be established. The present capitalist government—the role of which has been to defend the big-business system of exploitation by a web of hundreds of measures, legal and illegal, and has been accessible only to the super-rich elite—shall be abolished.

See the word "party" in there? Me neither. You lose.


Well, so you say, but I honestly don't see an authentic working class program there.Because you haven't read it honestly.


Really? Why do I give you that impression?What did your organization do last year?


So it's a vague pejorative that can be thrown at just about anyone you've taken a dislike to? No surprises there, then.Not really. Some leftists I disagree with actually engage in activity....

[manic expression]

When the choice is between opportunism and idealism you should probably reconsider the question you're asking in the first place.
Your position is nothing but opportunism and idealism.


The PSL encourages votes in statewide and local referendums in favor of the more "progressive" option, which is reformist in nature.
Voicing a communist platform in bourgeois elections is a vehicle to reach workers and challenge bourgeois propaganda in its own arena. That's why revolutionaries do it. It's an instrument for revolutionary agitprop.


You're not understanding. The PSL may call for "revolution." I'm referring to walking the walk, not talking the talk. Their actual strategies are based on reformism, which is an understandable necessity in a politically stable "first world" country.
Can you name me one organization in the US that's more active in opposing imperialist war, in reaching workers with revolutionary politics, in opposing pig brutality?

[Tim Finnegan]

Wow. Here, let me outline it for you again.

In order to guarantee the interests of working and poor people who make up the vast majority of the United States, a new revolutionary government run by and for the workers and poor shall be established. The present capitalist government—the role of which has been to defend the big-business system of exploitation by a web of hundreds of measures, legal and illegal, and has been accessible only to the super-rich elite—shall be abolished.

See the word "party" in there? Me neither. You lose.
The absence of a word in a paragraph does not indicate the absence of a concept from a program. That is basic fucking stuff.


Because you haven't read it honestly....Pardon? :confused:


What did your organization do last year?Oh, so it's just a dick-measuring contest? Count me out, thanks.


Not really. Some leftists I disagree with actually engage in activity....Good for them. It's still a lazy substitute for actual criticism.


Your position is nothing but opportunism and idealism.
How can it be both? :confused:

You are really bad at arguing. :bored:

[manic expression]

The absence of a word in a paragraph does not indicate the absence of a concept from a program. That is basic fucking stuff.
:lol: And you were the one screaming that this or that word wasn't in this or that paragraph.


...Pardon? :confused:
Like I said, you've already determined what you want the PSL to be. No amount of facts is going to change your mind. It's "SocDem" by virtue of you saying so.


Oh, so it's just a dick-measuring contest? Count me out, thanks.
Not a dick measuring contest, just a simple question: what did your organization do last year?


Good for them. It's still a lazy substitute for actual criticism.
No, it's not. In fact, it's likely the most important criticism. Ounces and tons.


How can it be both? :confused:
Idealist in outlook, opportunist in criticism. That basically sums up most of the anti-PSL posters on this forum.

[Tim Finnegan]

:lol: And you were the one screaming that this or that word wasn't in this or that paragraph.
I really wasn't. I don't think that you've at all grasped what I'm saying.


Like I said, you've already determined what you want the PSL to be. No amount of facts is going to change your mind. It's "SocDem" by virtue of you saying so.Actually, I was quite surprised by how conservative the manifesto was. I was expecting much more in the way of Stalinist chest-thumping.


Not a dick measuring contest, just a simple question: what did your organization do last year?I don't have one; I'm new to this, and am at present stuck in a small shitty town with no opportunities for regular activism. I don't believe that invalidates anything I've said.


No, it's not. In fact, it's likely the most important criticism. Ounces and tons."Important criticism" generally doesn't take the form of ambiguous compound words that you just made up.


Idealist in outlook, opportunist in criticism. That basically sums up most of the anti-PSL posters on this forum.I'm not even sure what this means, exactly. That they're only criticising you when something worthy of criticism makes itself evident? Isn't that kind of how criticism works, at least if we're not planning to get too deep into theory? :confused:

[Jose Gracchus]

I love how manic tries to call out a 'dick-measuring contest' and follows it up with a "well what did your org do last year? huh punk?! yea!"
http://danwoodcomms.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/black-pot-kettle1.jpghttp://danwoodcomms.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/black-pot-kettle1.jpg

[Agnapostate]

Corona and Heinekin are "james bond type alcoholic beverages?"

I remembered pseudo martini glasses (made of plastic, I think), but maybe I'm wrong.


Voicing a communist platform in bourgeois elections is a vehicle to reach workers and challenge bourgeois propaganda in its own arena. That's why revolutionaries do it. It's an instrument for revolutionary agitprop.

There is not and cannot be a "communist platform in bourgeois elections." The PSL participation in these elections is a mechanism for reform of the current living conditions of working class people, as Rusty Shackleford stated.


Can you name me one organization in the US that's more active in opposing imperialist war, in reaching workers with revolutionary politics, in opposing pig brutality?

Probably so, if I wanted to research it, but I don't, since it's not of relevance. Those aims are for the capitalist government to reform from within.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I remembered pseudo martini glasses (made of plastic, I think), but maybe I'm wrong.
A catering service came with the use of the conference hall. Its not like we went out to get plastic martini classes or whatever. seriously, you are making a deal about this?

[Agnapostate]

A catering service came with the use of the conference hall. Its not like we went out to get plastic martini classes or whatever. seriously, you are making a deal about this?

I wasn't intending to, but you responded to it.

[RedTrackWorker]

Can you name me one organization in the US that's more active in opposing imperialist war, in reaching workers with revolutionary politics, in opposing pig brutality?

How about you tell us what the PSL is doing in the unions in the U.S.--the only mass organizations of workers--to fight for a revolutionary program? I know the WWP in my union (TWU Local 100) played the role of socialist praetorian honor guard for Samuelsen while he was not mobilizing against layoffs. Where does the PSL explain how it does union work differently than the group that it split from with no announced differences? Where is a union bulletin that puts forward a way forward for the issues facing the workers in that union and argues that the union itself is not enough, we need a revolution and to build a revolutionary party?

[HEAD ICE]

Quite a few times already some of the PSLers have brought up their election campaigns.

To quote manic:

Voicing a communist platform in bourgeois elections is a vehicle to reach workers and challenge bourgeois propaganda in its own arena. That's why revolutionaries do it. It's an instrument for revolutionary agitprop. Now, whether this is actually an effective and meaningful tactic in 21st century United States, which I would argue it is absolutely not, lets see what the PSL does "voice" in the "bourgeois elections" that they run.

http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14684&news_iv_ctrl=3283

http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14699&news_iv_ctrl=3283

This is why Carlos Alvarez is running for Governor as a socialist—to bring real issues to the forefront of California politics and provide a real alternative to the budget cuts, bank bailouts, and war that the twin parties of capitalism have offered. His campaign advocates for socialism—a system where people’s needs come first, and corporate profits are eliminated. The Alvarez campaign also demands free health care, education, the creation of millions of jobs, free housing and so many other things that working and poor people need.(some "communist program" LOL, no different than rhetoric by "progressive" Democrats, Ralph Nader, and the Green Party)

oh wait a moment, PSLers actually run for office in the Green Party!:
http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14674&news_iv_ctrl=3283

http://www2.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=VotePSL_Stevie

http://www2.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=francesformayor_archive

Platform:
The billionaires are going to pay for this crisis! They created the crisis—now they should be the ones to pay for it. Tax Wall Street and the big landlords. People before banks!
The city currently pays $5 billion every year to the banks in debt payments—before it ever makes it to the city budget. We are calling for the city to put the banks at the back of the line.

Every New Yorker has a right to a job! New York City should be an eviction-free zone.
No foreclosures or evictions in the city.
Education is a right. Make sure every child in the city has a safe and modern classroom. Raise the salary for every public school teacher in the city, and make parents have a real say in their children’s curriculum. CUNY should be free.Watch out Progressive Democrat Caucus, you have some competition! The PSL is in town!

the Communist Program™ of the PSL is so terrifying to the bourgeoisie that even Democratic Party politicians endorse them!:
http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12833&news_iv_ctrl=2841
(lol don't talk about opportunism ever again)

http://www2.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=carlosformayor_archive

I have gave links to PSL election campaign websites, included on which are the full platforms and public statements that can be read in full, as presented by the PSL.

I fail to see in any of these links such a program. What I do see is a bunch of reformists demands that match those of Progressive Democrats and the Green Party, even if barely that. What the PSL puts forward in all these instances is a moderate form of social democracy. At least some reformists actually believe capitalism can be reformed into socialist production. The most "radical" thing the PSL puts forward is "tax the rich" and the redistribution of profits, aka capitalism.

The immediate struggles of the working class must be linked to the greater, international struggle for a communist world. Nothing in the PSL's election campaigns make any mention of this (along with zero mentions of "communism" or "revolution" for that matter).

We must not mince words about social democracy. What is supposedly a "classic", but hasn't been read apparently, Rosa Luxemburg used the words "reactionary" and "capitalist" to denounce reformism.

Why a completely watered down social democratic electioneering for the PSL? Is it because if you used openly revolutionary and communist rhetoric it would "alienate" yourselves from the "mass movement" or whatever the fuck? Would it be "ultra-leftist" ? The Bolsheviks, when they ran in elections and when they won seats in the Duma, did so on a platform of not redistribution of profits but of smashing the capitalist state. In the Duma and in the elections they described parliament as an utter joke, completely and irrevocably under the control of the capitalist class. They openly said in their elections and in their participation within class struggles that the only way to fulfill the needs of the working class is the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.

Of course this kind of revolutionary leadership alienated many people. The Bolsheviks were a minority and had minority support amongst proletarians for the great majority of their existence. However, it was through this revolutionary communist leadership that when the material conditions were favorable, when the contradictions within capital reached their breaking point that the working class smashed the bourgeois state and claimed power.

We should not be surprised at the PSL for running on bourgeois platforms in bourgeois elections. Such as their theoretical founder Sam Marcy's enthusiastic support for Jesse Jackson in the 1984 presidential primaries:
http://www.workers.org/2008/us/ww_1984_1002/

Yes, virtually every socialist grouping and sect were able to see through Jesse Jackson almost immediately except for Marcy and the WWP (the PSL's split from seems to not be based on any ideological reasons). However, this was no slip up, no mistake on their part. Supporting Jesse Jackson and running candidates on pro-capitalist platforms are the logical conclusions of their politics.

Funnily enough, the PSL seems to be very ultra-leftist to me. First, they believe that it is appropriate to form the revolutionary working class party in the absence of the necessary material conditions, and second the zombie theory of 'Global Class War' and the belief that Eastern Europe were workers states (at least "orthodox" Trotskyists have the decency to call them deformed) is eerily reminiscent of the beliefs of those who opposed ratifying the Brest-Litvosk treaty. The PSL shares the same position as those ultralefts who believed that "workers states" can come into existence not by social revolution but by military conquest.

tl;dr fuck the psl

[RedTrackWorker]

the Communist Program™ of the PSL is so terrifying to the bourgeoisie that even Democratic Party politicians endorse them!:
http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12833&news_iv_ctrl=2841
(lol don't talk about opportunism ever again)

At the March 4, 2010 rally against cuts and layoffs in NYC, Charles Barron (the Democratic Party politician that the PSL brags about getting the attention of in the link above) told the students, youth and workers there that they had won a victory because then-governor Paterson had agreed to meet with a delegation from them.

Paterson was of course the one carrying out the attacks at the time, and meeting a delegation organized through Barron was of course and obviously merely an attempt at defusing anger and dividing people and had no hope of (and did not) do a damn thing to help the people facing cuts and layoffs. But where does the PSL warn workers and youth that left-talking Democrats like Barron are dangerous and not to trust them?

Or consider the protests against the police murder of Sean Bell:
"Family members have been joined by civil rights leaders, activists and some elected officials, including Rev. Al Sharpton and city councilman Charles Barron, in demanding justice for the three men" (link (http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6071&news_iv_ctrl=1261))

Compare what we said:
"The Rev. Al Sharpton, who in the past has led mass protest marches against police killings, is sticking to a moderate role, asking that the city show “moral outrage” and that cops be “held as accountable as anyone else.” Sure. He stood silently with Bloomberg at a press conference two days after the shootings, providing protective cover while the billionaire mayor appealed for calm." (link (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/TWU100/RTW/40/policeterror.html))

I think it's called opportunism when you avoid criticizing left-talking Democrats. Sharpton did not "join" the protests over Sean Bell's murder--he was there to contain it. Barron does not offer a way forward out of the crisis--he is there to contain it too. For the PSL to want to associate with such without criticism shows what they think of preparing the workers and youth for the revolution we need.

[Ocean Seal]

I'm really curious what the non-PSL members on this page would like them to do. When they advocate progressive options they're not communists, because they don't advocate the overthrow of the ruling class without doing anything else, and if they were to merely advocate communism they would not be communists. So what exactly should they do, when the criteria on this site has placed the PSL between a rock and a hard place? What is the communist thing to do in their position?

[KC]

I'm really curious what the non-PSL members on this page would like them to do. When they advocate progressive options they're not communists, because they don't advocate the overthrow of the ruling class without doing anything else, and if they were to merely advocate communism they would not be communists. So what exactly should they do, when the criteria on this site has placed the PSL between a rock and a hard place? What is the communist thing to do in their position?

Already answered this:


When the choice is between opportunism and idealism you should probably reconsider the question you're asking in the first place.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm really curious what the non-PSL members on this page would like them to do. When they advocate progressive options they're not communists, because they don't advocate the overthrow of the ruling class without doing anything else, and if they were to merely advocate communism they would not be communists. So what exactly should they do, when the criteria on this site has placed the PSL between a rock and a hard place? What is the communist thing to do in their position?
Who has said either of these things? :confused:

[Agnapostate]

What's funny is that I heard Carlos had left the PSL because he came around to a libertarian socialist worldview instead. Is that right?


I'm really curious what the non-PSL members on this page would like them to do. When they advocate progressive options they're not communists, because they don't advocate the overthrow of the ruling class without doing anything else, and if they were to merely advocate communism they would not be communists. So what exactly should they do, when the criteria on this site has placed the PSL between a rock and a hard place? What is the communist thing to do in their position?

All parties in first-world countries that advocate reforms within the capitalist government should abandon the pretense of being "revolutionary." Moreover, there should not be factionalism between socialist organizations in these countries, since their shared anti-capitalism and anti-militarism are of significance, not the specific form of socialism that they advocate.

[Tim Finnegan]

All parties in first-world countries that advocate reforms within the capitalist government should abandon the pretense of being "revolutionary."
While I certainly agree that reformism is, put simply, a poison, I think that there is a difference between advocating for reform and advocating for reformism. A proper criticism of the PSL would not simply be that they advocate reform, but that they advocate reform-by-party, rather than reform-by-class; that is, they intend to enter government or to influence those in government as a political organisation to create these reforms, rather than to organise the working class as a class-for-itself which is able to apply political pressure upon the bourgeoisie in such a manner as to oblige these reforms. (Which then leads one to speculate as to the necessity of the political party as an organisational form, but that's another discussion...)
Revolution, at least as I understand it, isn't something that just explodes out of nothing when class conciousness has reached some as-yet-undetermined level and everyone sets out to create communism, but what happens the bourgeoisie is unable or unwilling to concede any further ground to the workers, who are then obliged to seize political power as the only way to further their class interests. As such, you have to start out by pursuing working class interests, which will inevitably begin as modest- tax reform here, public services there, labour laws elsewhere- and build your way up from there. The key is the pursuit of these interests as class interests, which necessarily means the workers pursuing them as a class, rather than some party or other pursuing them as points on a party-program.

Or, so I understand it. I'm open to criticism.

[manic expression]

I really wasn't. I don't think that you've at all grasped what I'm saying.
Perhaps you could explain it, then.


Actually, I was quite surprised by how conservative the manifesto was. I was expecting much more in the way of Stalinist chest-thumping.
The PSL isn't a very "Stalinist" organization (a dumb term, but let's not get into it).


I don't have one; I'm new to this, and am at present stuck in a small shitty town with no opportunities for regular activism. I don't believe that invalidates anything I've said.
I was in a similar situation so I can sympathize. Still, do you get my point? Platforms are platforms and activity is activity.


"Important criticism" generally doesn't take the form of ambiguous compound words that you just made up.
We're leftists. We make up words.


I'm not even sure what this means, exactly. That they're only criticising you when something worthy of criticism makes itself evident? Isn't that kind of how criticism works, at least if we're not planning to get too deep into theory? :confused:
No, they're criticizing the PSL because they don't like the idea that the most active, growing, relevant leftist organization in the US upholds communist politics as opposed to whatever left-communist or anarchist sect the detractors subscribe to.


I love how manic tries to call out a 'dick-measuring contest' and follows it up with a "well what did your org do last year? huh punk?! yea!"
I love how the people with the most vitriol for the PSL are usually the ones farthest away from any type of political activity.


There is not and cannot be a "communist platform in bourgeois elections." The PSL participation in these elections is a mechanism for reform of the current living conditions of working class people, as Rusty Shackleford stated.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.


Probably so, if I wanted to research it, but I don't, since it's not of relevance. Those aims are for the capitalist government to reform from within.
It's working class struggle against the crimes of capitalism. Therefore, it is of great relevance.

Your inability to name such an organization is noted.


How about you tell us what the PSL is doing in the unions in the U.S.--the only mass organizations of workers--to fight for a revolutionary program? I know the WWP in my union (TWU Local 100) played the role of socialist praetorian honor guard for Samuelsen while he was not mobilizing against layoffs. Where does the PSL explain how it does union work differently than the group that it split from with no announced differences? Where is a union bulletin that puts forward a way forward for the issues facing the workers in that union and argues that the union itself is not enough, we need a revolution and to build a revolutionary party?
This (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/grocery-workers-march-on.html)
This (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/california-teachers-and.html)
This (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/anti-worker-sb5-passes.html)
And more (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/dc-nurses-strike-supported.html)

I can't account for the WWP's actions myself.

[Ocean Seal]

Already answered this: When the choice is between opportunism and idealism you should probably reconsider the question you're asking in the first place.
So you answered it by saying absolutely nothing with any relevance to the question.


Who has said either of these things? :confused:
Some of the members that I'm quoting.



All parties in first-world countries that advocate reforms within the capitalist government should abandon the pretense of being "revolutionary."

So fuck that free healthcare thing right, and forget about gentrification, screw everyone who's getting fired, and better wages merely make the proletariat bourgeosified so fuck them too. Onwards to the revolution.


Moreover, there should not be factionalism between socialist organizations in these countries, since their shared anti-capitalism and anti-militarism are of significance, not the specific form of socialism that they advocate.
I agree, however I don't control the politics of these organizations so it doesn't really matter what I think. I just try to get involved where I'll have the greatest effect.


While I certainly agree that reformism is, put simply, a poison, I think that there is a difference between advocating for reform and advocating for reformism. A proper criticism of the PSL would not simply be that they advocate reform, but that they advocate reform-by-party, rather than reform-by-class; that is, they intend to enter government or to influence those in government as a political organisation to create these reforms, rather than to organise the working class as a class-for-itself which is able to apply political pressure upon the bourgeoisie in such a manner as to oblige these reforms. (Which then leads one to speculate as to the necessity of the political party as an organisational form, but that's another discussion...)
I disagree, we do what we can to organize the working class as a class, the extent to which we have success can be debated, but its not easy especially when you have the majority of people thinking that Obama is their savior or Obama is the devil. Political thought in America is binary, and even getting people to explore a bit more outside of there is difficult.


Revolution, at least as I understand it, isn't something that just explodes out of nothing when class conciousness has reached some as-yet-undetermined level and everyone sets out to create communism, but what happens the bourgeoisie is unable or unwilling to concede any further ground to the workers, who are then obliged to seize political power as the only way to further their class interests. As such, you have to start out by pursuing working class interests, which will inevitably begin as modest- tax reform here, public services there, labour laws elsewhere- and build your way up from there. The key is the pursuit of these interests as class interests, which necessarily means the workers pursuing them as a class, rather than some party or other pursuing them as points on a party-program.
Or, so I understand it. I'm open to criticism.
Again we agree with this statement, but class organization isn't something that you can see from day 1.

[manic expression]

Oh, good, now one of RevLeft's most distinguished slander-artists is here.


(some "communist program" LOL, no different than rhetoric by "progressive" Democrats, Ralph Nader, and the Green Party)You don't get anywhere running an election saying "COMMUNISM COMMUNISM COMMUNISM!"...you find out what your fellow workers want and then translate it back to them in a way they can understand. That's why you find this rhetoric...that actually resonates with workers...instead of your preferred ultra-left rhetoric of...oh yeah, you don't have a voice to begin with. :laugh:


oh wait a moment, PSLers actually run for office in the Green Party!:"Oh, no! Communists might actually talk to people who don't already consider themselves communists! What will we dooooooooooo!?" :rolleyes:

It's called outreach. Of course you're unfamiliar with the term.


the Communist Program™ of the PSL is so terrifying to the bourgeoisie that even Democratic Party politicians endorse them!:
http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12833&news_iv_ctrl=2841
(lol don't talk about opportunism ever again)"Oh, no! Communists might get support from people who haven't already memorized Das Kapital!!!!!!!!" :rolleyes:

There are working-class Democrats who can be allies when it comes to progressive causes, you know. Maybe you should talk to workers sometime, they might surprise you.


I have gave links to PSL election campaign websites, included on which are the full platforms and public statements that can be read in full, as presented by the PSL.

I fail to see in any of these links such a program. What I do see is a bunch of reformists demands that match those of Progressive Democrats and the Green Party, even if barely that. What the PSL puts forward in all these instances is a moderate form of social democracy. At least some reformists actually believe capitalism can be reformed into socialist production. The most "radical" thing the PSL puts forward is "tax the rich" and the redistribution of profits, aka capitalism.BULLSHIT. What you're doing, appropriately enough, is cherry-picking the quotes you find most damning and using them exclusively. Here, let me help you out, since you're too stupid to figure out what's what (http://pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/10-11-02-why-party-socialism-liberation-i.html):

The PSL does not believe that the solution to the systemic problems facing the working class will come from elections. The PSL is a revolutionary Marxist party in the United States that struggles for socialism. We want a revolution; and, we work hard to make it happen.

Oh, back to the drawing board you go.


The immediate struggles of the working class must be linked to the greater, international struggle for a communist world. Nothing in the PSL's election campaigns make any mention of this (along with zero mentions of "communism" or "revolution" for that matter).Blah blah blah more empty nothingness from a tendency that amounts to even less.

So what do you expect? That the PSL says "the immediate struggles of the working class must be linked to the greater, international struggle for a communist world"? So why do you think the PSL keeps bringing up working-class struggle from around the world in its campaigns? Why do you think Iraq, Palestine, Haiti, Venezuela, Cuba, Honduras, Afghanistan and many other countries are brought up constantly by the PSL?

You keep lying while the PSL keeps reaching workers with revolutionary politics. Thanks for showing up, it's a nice contrast to everyone here.


We must not mince words about social democracy. What is supposedly a "classic", but hasn't been read apparently, Rosa Luxemburg used the words "reactionary" and "capitalist" to denounce reformism.Except this isn't reformism. Try again, make sure your lies have a bit more polish on them.


Why a completely watered down social democratic electioneering for the PSL? Is it because if you used openly revolutionary and communist rhetoric it would "alienate" yourselves from the "mass movement" or whatever the fuck? Would it be "ultra-leftist" ? The Bolsheviks, when they ran in elections and when they won seats in the Duma, did so on a platform of not redistribution of profits but of smashing the capitalist state. In the Duma and in the elections they described parliament as an utter joke, completely and irrevocably under the control of the capitalist class. They openly said in their elections and in their participation within class struggles that the only way to fulfill the needs of the working class is the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.That's how the PSL views (http://pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/10-11-02-why-party-socialism-liberation-i.html) it.

Our party knows that revolution is necessary. We fight for reforms that ease the burden on workers and oppressed people, but ultimately reforms are not enough. We know that revolutions are made in the streets, in the factories and other workplaces, and in the military units when workers—in and out of uniform—become conscious that the power of the capitalist bosses and the generals must be replaced with the power of the people. This is the message that the PSL has promoted in its 2010 election campaigns.

Too bad you don't care.


We should not be surprised at the PSL for running on bourgeois platforms in bourgeois elections. Such as their theoretical founder Sam Marcy's enthusiastic support for Jesse Jackson in the 1984 presidential primaries:Of course, you don't understand why he encouraged communists to take part in that campaign, do you? Well, since I have to explain everything to you like the lying ultra-left windbag that you are, Marcy did so because Jackson's campaign was comprised by a large part of independent working-class struggle. Jackson wasn't beholden to the Democratic Party establishment, and was eventually sunk by it. It was an important chance to reach workers, to point them toward a more radical and revolutionary line.


Supporting Jesse Jackson and running candidates on pro-capitalist platforms are the logical conclusions of their politics.Reaching workers with revolutionary politics is the logical conclusion of our politics.

Lying about communists because you don't have anything better to do is the logical conclusion of yours.


Funnily enough, the PSL seems to be very ultra-leftist to me.That's because you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.


tl;dr fuck the psltl;dr you're a lying hack who doesn't know the first thing about revolutionary politics.

[Tim Finnegan]

Perhaps you could explain it, then.
My reply to Agnapostate above contains the core of my position, but in regards to the manifesto in particular, my criticism is the lack of what I would regard as substantial reference to class politics, specifically, the organisation of the working class as a class-for-itself, instead focusing on a party acting on behalf of a class. The limited and vague references to "a government of the working class and poor" and to "committees", most of which feels quite tacked, really doesn't resolve this.


The PSL isn't a very "Stalinist" organization (a dumb term, but let's not get into it).
Well, evidently.


I was in a similar situation so I can sympathize. Still, do you get my point? Platforms are platforms and activity is activity.
That doesn't mean that the legitimacy of critique can be measured by the accumulated activism of the one giving it. It's either valid or it's not.


We're leftists. We make up words.
Yes, but usually we try not to make them sound like spoof punk bands.


No, they're criticizing the PSL because they don't like the idea that the most active, growing, relevant leftist organization in the US upholds communist politics as opposed to whatever left-communist or anarchist sect the detractors subscribe to.
What are you basing that on?

[RedTrackWorker]

This (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/grocery-workers-march-on.html)
This (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/california-teachers-and.html)
This (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/anti-worker-sb5-passes.html)
And more (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/dc-nurses-strike-supported.html)

So:
* the first article is a report on a union-event
* the second says "The author, a San Francisco teacher and member of Party for Socialism and Liberation, spoke about the need to build a movement independent of the Democrats and Republicans in order to defend public education and social services." and " An independent movement is needed that can push back the attacks on education and demand that education be treated as a right, not a privilege."
* the third says "PSL members distributed special copies of Liberation that demanded an end to the war on unions. Thousands of fliers agitating for a general strike to fight back against SB 5 were distributed to workers and other activists." and "Activists across the country are realizing that an alternative to “business as usual” is needed. It is the duty of revolutionaries to mobilize with the working class and fight anti-worker legislation wherever it surfaces."
* the fourth is a report on a union struggle and says "The Party for Socialism and Liberation stands with the nurses of Washington Hospital Center as well as workers everywhere in hopes that we will one day live in a society that is truly run by and for the people!"

The problem is that here is what I asked:

How about you tell us what the PSL is doing in the unions in the U.S.--the only mass organizations of workers--to fight for a revolutionary program? I know the WWP in my union (TWU Local 100) played the role of socialist praetorian honor guard for Samuelsen while he was not mobilizing against layoffs. Where does the PSL explain how it does union work differently than the group that it split from with no announced differences? Where is a union bulletin that puts forward a way forward for the issues facing the workers in that union and argues that the union itself is not enough, we need a revolution and to build a revolutionary party?

The closet thing to bringing up "revolution" in these reports is mentioning "revolutionaries" and that final quote about a society run "by and for the people". So there is no fight for the need for revolution described in any of these reports.
Second, except for the Ohio work, these don't describe an intervention into the unions, just reports on them.
Third, there is no link to nor mention of a union bulletin (not a report on a union) that puts forward a revolutionary perspective.
All we're given--other than the general strike line in Ohio--is some rather bare-bones reporting on some union struggles, not a fight in the unions for revolutionary leadership.

[black magick hustla]

I love how manic tries to call out a 'dick-measuring contest' and follows it up with a "well what did your org do last year? huh punk?! yea!"
http://danwoodcomms.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/black-pot-kettle1.jpghttp://danwoodcomms.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/black-pot-kettle1.jpg
my michigan one drank forties in shitty basements with shitty dubstep djs and read books communizing like a motherfucker

[Jose Gracchus]

No, they're criticizing the PSL because they don't like the idea that the most active, growing, relevant leftist organization in the US upholds communist politics as opposed to whatever left-communist or anarchist sect the detractors subscribe to.

You guys sound like a (not so cleverly) deliberately-programmed tape deck. I swear everytime a PSLite talks about DER PARTEI its always the same "MOST ACTIVE GROWING ORG EVER"...down to the actual word choice. Kassad, before he apparently joined the new cult of the week, used to sound like he was reading off the same cue cards. No PSL evangelist ever forgets to tell you about the growing and how active they are and maybe a reference to how they got called out by Glenn Beck! (if there was ever a communist endorsement...)


I love how the people with the most vitriol for the PSL are usually the ones farthest away from any type of political activity.

How the fuck would you know if I've ever participated in activism or not? Here's a hint: I did and I have, and largely quietly under the leadership of people with politics just like yours. So why don't you shut the fuck up.


my michigan one drank forties in shitty basements with shitty dubstep djs and read books communizing like a motherfucker

Sounds better than what I used to be up to (and what some guys like manic who should've ended up in the local Mormon tabernacle are still doin). Pass the PBR

[caramelpence]

You don't get anywhere running an election saying "COMMUNISM COMMUNISM COMMUNISM!"...you find out what your fellow workers want and then translate it back to them in a way they can understand.

Do you not see anything wrong with the second part of this sentence? I've said it before but it deserves to be repeated - the approach of the PSL, judging by what their members on this site say, is to treat the communist project essentially as a marketing enterprise, in that its success is seen to depend not on the immanent development of working-class activity, but on whether self-proclaimed activists can do enough "outreach", on whether you can have a website with a pretty masthead, and a newspaper that has articles in entertaining and simple language - because, after all, you need to talk to workers in a language they can understand, right? Not only does this offer no real prospect of emancipation, it is also a one-way route to burnout for the activists involved. Down with the activist ghetto, fuck the PSL.

Also, Kassad joining the RCP? LOL.

[manic expression]

My reply to Agnapostate above contains the core of my position, but in regards to the manifesto in particular, my criticism is the lack of what I would regard as substantial reference to class politics, specifically, the organisation of the working class as a class-for-itself, instead focusing on a party acting on behalf of a class. The limited and vague references to "a government of the working class and poor" and to "committees", most of which feels quite tacked, really doesn't resolve this.
And my replies to you show that I feel you've missed a great chunk of what the PSL puts out, writings that contradict these concerns you harbor.


That doesn't mean that the legitimacy of critique can be measured by the accumulated activism of the one giving it. It's either valid or it's not.It's both invalid and the product of those who spend their time bad-mouthing active socialists instead of doing something to further the cause of the working class. We might as well mention both.


Yes, but usually we try not to make them sound like spoof punk bands.Dialectical Materialism. The Two Whatevers. Social-Chauvinists. The Propaganda of the Deed.

I see a few punk band names in there.


What are you basing that on?Their rhetoric and their lack of reasoning.


* the first article is a report on a union-event
Stop. Looks like you need to read them with more care and attention.

The action was called by the grocery workers’ union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, and supported by the SEIU, UHW, ILWU, Teamsters, community organizers, and the ANSWER Coalition among others.


The closet thing to bringing up "revolution" in these reports is...is irrelevant, because labor activism isn't validated as soon as one mentions "revolution" a requisite number of times.

What's the required ratio of words to "revolution" references"? 10:1? 5:1? Why not just go for the 1:1 slam dunk? Yes, that makes for a much more communist report:

"Revolution, revolution revolution 'revolution'. Revolution revolution; revolution revolution? Revolution! Revolution...revolution."

Happy?


You guys sound like a (not so cleverly) deliberately-programmed tape deck. I swear everytime a PSLite talks about DER PARTEI its always the same "MOST ACTIVE GROWING ORG EVER"...down to the actual word choice. Kassad, before he apparently joined the new cult of the week, used to sound like he was reading off the same cue cards. No PSL evangelist ever forgets to tell you about the growing and how active they are and maybe a reference to how they got called out by Glenn Beck! (if there was ever a communist endorsement...)
It's more about calling it for what it is: the most active, growing communist organization in the US. That's the fact, whether or not you want to admit it. In fact, your obvious frustration and denial just goes to show how important it is to repeat that which is true.


How the fuck would you know if I've ever participated in activism or not? Here's a hint: I did and I have, and largely quietly under the leadership of people with politics just like yours. So why don't you shut the fuck up.Organisation: None right now
I see.


Do you not see anything wrong with the second part of this sentence? I've said it before but it deserves to be repeated - the approach of the PSL, judging by what their members on this site say, is to treat the communist project essentially as a marketing enterprise, in that its success is seen to depend not on the immanent development of working-class activity, but on whether self-proclaimed activists can do enough "outreach", on whether you can have a website with a pretty masthead, and a newspaper that has articles in entertaining and simple language - because, after all, you need to talk to workers in a language they can understand, right? Not only does this offer no real prospect of emancipation, it is also a one-way route to burnout for the activists involved. Down with the activist ghetto, fuck the PSL.
Nothing personal, but your writing style is horrible. You use less periods than a fucking hockey game. You make black magick hustla's posts look like William Shakespeare's better sonnets.

And that's before we get to how utterly clueless the "content" is. It's hilarious that you condemn a party for reaching workers...for trying to extend revolutionary socialism to as many workers as possible. This is the epitome of ultra-left nonsense...you literally oppose the promotion of revolutionary politics because it "seems" to be based on some concept of "success". Well, in case someone forgot to tell you, that's kind of the idea of being an active communist: REACHING WORKERS. What's your idea of being a communist? Yelling revolutionary slogans into your pillow?

And to top it all off, you're quicker to say "down with the activist ghetto" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) than "down with capitalism". Your fight is with socialists first and foremost. That, sadly enough, is all that needs to be said.

[caramelpence]

What's your idea of being a communist? Yelling revolutionary slogans into your pillow?

No, more yelling cries of sexual pleasure into my pillow.

Go cheer the tanks of Tiananmen, Stalinist hack.

[manic expression]

No, more yelling cries of sexual pleasure into my pillow.
When no one else hears you either way...what's the difference?

[caramelpence]

When no one else hears you either way...what's the difference?

On a more serious note, what are you saying, that the PSL exists to "make a difference"? I'm honestly interested in what your plan is - do you think that by doing "outreach" and having a great website the PSL will eventually be able to recruit a critical mass of people, and at that point it will become possible to have a socialist revolution, because your party is the best and strongest of them all? Whilst never a Stalinist, I used to also be committed to a similar model of party building, in that I thought the role of Communists was also to be a member of a party and that we would eventually expand the ranks and influence of that party by involving ourselves in struggles, having conversations with other people, selling papers, and all of the other things (incredibly boring things, most of the time) you are expected to spend much of your free time doing when you are an activist and a member of a party. I was also proud of being a member of a party that was growing and full of committed people. But, honestly, that isn't how revolutions work and it's ultimately only an effective way of driving people away from revolutionary politics - if you haven't yet encountered anyone suffering from burnout I'm sure you will soon, it happens to the most enthusiastic people, and it might even happen to you. A revolutionary party isn't something that's created by formal decision and then developed over a long period of time through individual arguments and recruitments, especially when that means selling people newspapers - a revolutionary party is a product of a revolutionary period, it signifies the coming-together of a range of incipient forces, which may or may not have a basis in pre-existing organizations. The Bolsheviks, for example, were a numerically tiny force before 1917, and during that year itself, when they became the revolutionary party in a historic sense, they drew in individuals and forces who had not been located within their initial milieu, as exemplified by Trotsky.

We are not currently in a revolutionary period, the situation is still one of relative social peace, and that is why the PSL (and other parties that share its fundamental nature, if not your arrogance - including most Trotskyist organizations as well) will remain a marginal force, despite the obvious commitment and energy of its activists. I have no qualms about not being a member of a self-proclaimed party and not selling newspapers, because I have an entirely different conception of the party from you - not to mention a different conception of what a socialist society means, given your support for the Chinese government.

[southernmissfan]

You don't get anywhere running an election saying "COMMUNISM COMMUNISM COMMUNISM!"...you find out what your fellow workers want and then translate it back to them in a way they can understand. That's why you find this rhetoric...that actually resonates with workers...

Not to take sides or jump into this pissing contest...but that little part bugged me. It's as if, in your mind at least, workers are helpless children that are incapable of voicing demands or communicating effectively. Does the PSL use some kind of party member to prole translator or dictionary?

Perhaps I am taking it the wrong way. I'm not trying to come across as an ass. It just bothers me when I see leftists talking like this, as if they are the parents or teachers of young children instead of, ya know, workers themselves...

[manic expression]

Lots of valid points, caramelpence, I'll respond to your post in a bit.


Not to take sides or jump into this pissing contest...but that little part bugged me. It's as if, in your mind at least, workers are helpless children that are incapable of voicing demands or communicating effectively. Does the PSL use some kind of party member to prole translator or dictionary?

Perhaps I am taking it the wrong way. I'm not trying to come across as an ass. It just bothers me when I see leftists talking like this, as if they are the parents or teachers of young children instead of, ya know, workers themselves...
That's not how I was trying to put it, I should have been clearer. Workers are plenty capable expressing themselves, voicing demands and communicating, but I think it's a different thing to put those demands in the context of a revolutionary, class-conscious outlook. A great many workers can demand higher wages, for instance, but a communist worker can explain that the struggle for higher wages is part of a struggle of class against class, and that the only way to win and defend gains is to organize as a class and fight the bosses at every step. That's I mean by "translating it back to them".

When I was researching the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, I found one story told by a volunteer, who remembered that his first exposure to leftist politics was an old wobbly he talked to on a train trip...when the IWW activist started talking about "class struggle", the future volunteer thought he was talking about classes in school getting in fights. It just goes to show how we can't expect everyone to understand leftist politics right off the bat. Like I said, listen to the demands of workers and then put them in the larger context of class struggle...that's key IMO.

What's also implicit in that is that when communists run in bourgeois elections, their platform is something that touches upon the immediate concerns and demands of their fellow workers. Constantly shouting "revolution!" might seem more politically pure for some, but it means absolutely nothing to many workers. That's why the PSL, in addition to calling for revolution, puts forward demands that workers can relate to: higher wages, rent freezes, repealing bigoted legislation, etc. These demands speak to the immediate concerns of workers, and it gets them to start thinking about the crimes of capitalist society, as well as what is and isn't possible under that system.

[RedTrackWorker]

This is why I have manic expression on my ignore list but am reading his posts for the purposes of this thread, not because I think he has terrible politics but because he flouts the rules of honest debate so much.

People can reading the thread can see that I asked a question about what the PSL does in the unions to fight for a revolutionary program. He linked me to several articles, and I responded that they didn't show the PSL fighting for a revolutionary program in its union work. His response?

First he picks on a formulation in characterizing a report as a "union-event" because it had other organizations involved. For the purposes of this debate, what does that matter?

Second, he replies:

because labor activism isn't validated as soon as one mentions "revolution" a requisite number of times.

What's the required ratio of words to "revolution" references"? 10:1? 5:1? Why not just go for the 1:1 slam dunk? Yes, that makes for a much more communist report:

"Revolution, revolution revolution 'revolution'. Revolution revolution; revolution revolution? Revolution! Revolution...revolution."

The first sentence is clearly a straw man to evade the fact that he can't link to something on their website that shows the PSL fighting for a revolutionary program in the union movement.

Let's break it down again:
1) I ask where the PSL fights for revolution in its union work.
2) Manic links me to several articles.
3) I reply that the articles don't show them doing that.
4) He then mocks the original request.

I would say it's child-ish but children don't engage in such inanity. It takes time and training to develop that kind of corrupted thinking.

[manic expression]

This is why I have manic expression on my ignore list but am reading his posts for the purposes of this thread, not because I think he has terrible politics but because he flouts the rules of honest debate so much.

People can reading the thread can see that I asked a question about what the PSL does in the unions to fight for a revolutionary program. He linked me to several articles, and I responded that they didn't show the PSL fighting for a revolutionary program in its union work. His response?

First he picks on a formulation in characterizing a report as a "union-event" because it had other organizations involved. For the purposes of this debate, what does that matter?
I linked you to several articles that show the PSL is involved in union activities. You do know the PSL is on the steering committee of ANSWER, right? You know you blatantly ignored the presence of ANSWER at the very first event I posted, right?

It's very interesting how quickly people try to get away with ignoring what they want, and when I call them out on it, they say I have bad manners.

And it's interesting how a poster who takes the time to brag about their ignore list has no problem ignoring what refutes their empty arguments.


Second, he replies:

The first sentence is clearly a straw man to evade the fact that he can't link to something on their website that shows the PSL fighting for a revolutionary program in the union movement.Except I did. You ignored the parts you didn't like.


I would say it's child-ish but children don't engage in such inanity. It takes time and training to develop that kind of corrupted thinking.You have experience in such matters, no doubt.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The PSL/ANSWER in Sacramento to and San Francisco are out at almost every Unite Here! Hotel and Restaurant Workers' union action. We work together in coalitions and also have mutual support in most actions. if that accounts for anything. or is it not revolutionary enough?


3 PSL members got arrested with Unite Here! employees yesterday.

[KC]

I think both of you have quite clearly shown that the PSL works both within and alongside unions. Nobody is denying that. What was being asked - and as of yet has still not been addressed - is how the PSL is promoting a revolutionary program within those struggles and actions.

[HEAD ICE]

http://imgsrv.2wd.com/image/wwde/UserFiles/Image/Don/jeff%20foxworthy.jpg

You might be a PSLer if...


... you think Jesse Jackson wasn't beholden to the Democratic Party establishment

... you think linking the immediate struggles of the working class to a further goal of a communist society does not "resonate" with workers.

... you think in order to "resonate" with workers, communist "activists" must tail-end Democratic and Green Party politicians and absorb their platforms. Talking about "revolution" is meaningless, despite the fact it is the only way humanity can progress and meet its needs.

... you think the Democratic Party are good allies for "communist" "activists"

... you think instead of offering anything to the working class, denounce everyone to the left of the Democratic Party as "ultra-leftist"

... participating in union struggles means trying to absorb yourself as much as you can to the union leadership

... you think the working class can come to power at the end of bayonets rather than social revolution

... you think criticizing the capitalist political establishment is wrongheaded because they maybe potential communists one day!

... you think that elected Democratic Party politicians constitute the "working class"

... on your website you use mild communist rhetoric, but when it actually comes to electoral activity and interacting with workers you put forth centrist social democracy as a plausible alternative to capitalism

... you reject theory because it is alien to the "needs" of the working class (after all what kind of worker can read??)

and finally...

You might be a PSLer if you believe yelling social democratic slogans at workers is worthwhile activity of communist militants

[manic expression]

More BS from RevLeft's #1 lying hack. Let's see how many of Stagger Lee's points end up being predicated on lies. I'm guessing all of them. Stagger Lee needs 12 lies to hit 100%, so follow along as we keep score!


... you think Jesse Jackson wasn't beholden to the Democratic Party establishment
Here's a lie. You ignore that the analysis was more about the movement behind Jackson, not the man himself. Further, Jackson was at odds with that establishment for quite a bit and that proved to be his undoing. The point of working with that campaign wasn't to make Jackson a communist or anything, it was to go where the workers were...you know, what the Bolsheviks did.

(1/1)


... you think linking the immediate struggles of the working class to a further goal of a communist society does not "resonate" with workers.That's a lie. Linking immediate struggles of the working class in the context of revolution is precisely what I proposed.

Next time read what I write before trying to comment on it instead of looking like an ass.

(2/2)


... you think in order to "resonate" with workers, communist "activists" must tail-end Democratic and Green Party politicians and absorb their platforms. Talking about "revolution" is meaningless, despite the fact it is the only way humanity can progress and meet its needs.Talking about revolution is meaningless unless you link it with immediate struggles of workers. Which is exactly what you said just before this point. Which means you're idiotically rambling without paying attention to your own words.

But alas, even though you're showing yourself to be as empty-headed as you are full of crap, what you said is still a lie. Nice job saving the streak.

(3/3)


... you think the Democratic Party are good allies for "communist" "activists"Another lie. No one ever said this. Workers within the Democrats are fine allies...the Party itself isn't.

Again, read what I write so you don't look like an idiot.

(4/4)


... you think instead of offering anything to the working class, denounce everyone to the left of the Democratic Party as "ultra-leftist"One more lie. That was never said, suggested or even alluded to. Do we denounce the WWP, FRSO and others as "ultra-leftist"? No, sorry, you lose.

(5/5)


... participating in union struggles means trying to absorb yourself as much as you can to the union leadershipAgain a lie. The contrary has been demonstrated on this very thread. You'd do well to read it.

(6/6)


... you think the working class can come to power at the end of bayonets rather than social revolutionAw, what a disappointment. This isn't a lie so much as a stupid point. It's stupid because revolutions oftentimes involve quite a few bayonet ends. Marx wasn't complaining about bayonet ends when the workers tried to defend their government in 1871...and yet Stagger Lee thinks it's wrong for workers to defend and extend their gains so because he doesn't actually support revolution.

Well, that's too bad the streak was broken. But no matter, rally behind Stagger, everyone, glory is still within reach!

(6/7)


... you think criticizing the capitalist political establishment is wrongheaded because they maybe potential communists one day!:lol: A laughable lie, this one. You can read the PSL criticize, denounce and challenge the capitalist political establishment EVERY SINGLE DAY in its publications.

(7/8)


... you think that elected Democratic Party politicians constitute the "working class"Recycled lie. Already dealt with. Already shown to be nonsense.

(8/9)


... on your website you use mild communist rhetoric, but when it actually comes to electoral activity and interacting with workers you put forth centrist social democracy as a plausible alternative to capitalismMo' lies. PSL electoral campaigns have this to say, for example:

It's our turn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yVSvzTvmf0)

Notice the part about promoting the examples of socialist countries.

The funny part is that we're supposed to simultaneously believe that the PSL doesn't criticize the capitalist establishment...and then that the PSL does criticize the capitalist establishment, but only on the internet.

Which is really funny, because Stagger Lee's pathetic tendency only exists on the internet. :laugh:

(9/10)


... you reject theory because it is alien to the "needs" of the working class (after all what kind of worker can read??)Complete lie. You can read all sorts of Marxist theory explained and applied on the website. You can also see it in action (do you know what that is or should I draw you a picture?) in every city in which there is a PSL chapter.

(10/11)


and finally...

You might be a PSLer if you believe yelling social democratic slogans at workers is worthwhile activity of communist militantsThe lie de grace. It's obvious to anyone who looks at what the PSL does that in all the varied activities in engages it, it's definitely not "yelling social democratic slogans at workers". Although even that is more than you can say for our ultra-left slander-artist here. :lol:

(11/12)

That's a shame...Stagger just missed the 100% mark by one. So close, and yet so far. What's really sad is that this ultra-left clown can't even be consistent when it comes to the only thing he does well: lying about socialists.

Oh, well...there's always next time, Stagger Lee. And with all your free time not spent doing anything for socialism, we can be quite sure there will be a next time. :lol: See you then.

[HEAD ICE]

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

http://i55.tinypic.com/j9u3qr.jpg

[manic expression]

And now I present Stagger Lyin Lee and his capitalist top-hat-wearing buddy:

http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/liar.jpg

"Left communism" = Lying about communists

Any other lying anti-socialist idiots want to try to slander communists and fail?

[RedTrackWorker]

The PSL/ANSWER in Sacramento to and San Francisco are out at almost every Unite Here! Hotel and Restaurant Workers' union action. We work together in coalitions and also have mutual support in most actions. if that accounts for anything. or is it not revolutionary enough?


I linked you to several articles that show the PSL is involved in union activities. You do know the PSL is on the steering committee of ANSWER, right? You know you blatantly ignored the presence of ANSWER at the very first event I posted, right?

I did not ask about the PSL's involvement in union-related activities and protests. Manic was bragging about how the PSL is the best communist organization in the country or whatever, so I asked what is it doing in the unions to fight for a revolutionary program? Going to rallies and getting arrested is no the same thing as, say, having a union bulletin that puts forward a perspective on that union's issues and argues on the need for a revolution. Here is my original question:


How about you tell us what the PSL is doing in the unions in the U.S.--the only mass organizations of workers--to fight for a revolutionary program? I know the WWP in my union (TWU Local 100) played the role of socialist praetorian honor guard for Samuelsen while he was not mobilizing against layoffs. Where does the PSL explain how it does union work differently than the group that it split from with no announced differences? Where is a union bulletin that puts forward a way forward for the issues facing the workers in that union and argues that the union itself is not enough, we need a revolution and to build a revolutionary party?

So no I didn't "ignore" ANSWER being at the union protest--it wasn't relevant. It would've been somewhat relevant if they had reported a PSL speaker had argued against the strategy of the union bureaucracy and for the need to be a revolutionary workers' party--but that wasn't in the article was it?

[El Oso Rojo]

You guys sound like a (not so cleverly) deliberately-programmed tape deck. I swear everytime a PSLite talks about DER PARTEI its always the same "MOST ACTIVE GROWING ORG EVER"...down to the actual word choice. Kassad, before he apparently joined the new cult of the week, used to sound like he was reading off the same cue cards. No PSL evangelist ever forgets to tell you about the growing and how active they are and maybe a reference to how they got called out by Glenn Beck! (if there was ever a communist endorsement...)



How the fuck would you know if I've ever participated in activism or not? Here's a hint: I did and I have, and largely quietly under the leadership of people with politics just like yours. So why don't you shut the fuck up.



Sounds better than what I used to be up to (and what some guys like manic who should've ended up in the local Mormon tabernacle are still doin). Pass the PBR

its die partei, also. You should expect for people to tell you that, when you tell them. they do not do nothing.

[El Oso Rojo]

When I went home from the PSL conference (rode my bike), going through South Central, I wondered if the organization's revenue might not be better contributed towards meaningful change in the lives of working people, instead of asking for forty to eighty dollars (non-mandatory, in fairness), to attend a conference in a USC ballroom and provide members with complementary James Bond type alcoholic beverages after.

There were people who are non-member enjoying the complementary drinks.

[manic expression]

So no I didn't "ignore" ANSWER being at the union protest--it wasn't relevant.
It's only lacking relevance to you because you honestly don't care. You don't care that ANSWER and the PSL is involved in union struggles, you don't care that those organizations are reaching workers every single day. You don't care because you're not here for the movement, you're here for sectarianism. That's the real problem. Let me put it to you this way, if your idea of a valid communist party is whether or not they release a certain type of bulletin you deem necessary, you're not interested in actual criticism, you're only interested in being critical. Learn the difference.

[RedTrackWorker]

You ignore that the analysis was more about the movement behind Jackson, not the man himself. Further, Jackson was at odds with that establishment for quite a bit and that proved to be his undoing. The point of working with that campaign wasn't to make Jackson a communist or anything, it was to go where the workers were...you know, what the Bolsheviks did.

When did the Bolsheviks "go where the workers w[h]ere" when they were supporting a candidate in bourgeois party? The Bolsheviks organizers in Russia were risking their lives, sacrificing everything they had, to build up the political and organization independence from the bourgeoisie on the basis of a revolutionary program and you slander them that they would've supported a candidate in a bourgeois party? Where is your proof? Otherwise you're just making stuff up to justify your party's actions.

There's a great James Cannon quote on this:

It has been argued that ‘we must go through the experience with the workers.' That is a very good formula, provided you do not make it universal. We go with the workers only through those experiences which have a class nature. We go with them through the experience of strikes, even though we may think a given strike untimely. We may even go with the workers through the experience of putting a reformist labor party in office, provided it is a real labor party and subject to certain pressures of the workers, in order that they may learn from experience that reformism is not the correct program for the working class. But we do not go through the experience of class collaboration with the workers.

Cannon was no Lenin but he got that right. Marcy's no Stalin but he sure understands class collaboration.

[RedTrackWorker]

It's only lacking relevance to you because you honestly don't care. You don't care that ANSWER and the PSL is involved in union struggles, you don't care that those organizations are reaching workers every single day. You don't care because you're not here for the movement, you're here for sectarianism. That's the real problem. Let me put it to you this way, if your idea of a valid communist party is whether or not they release a certain type of bulletin you deem necessary, you're not interested in actual criticism, you're only interested in being critical. Learn the difference.

Explain it to me then. Explain to me that telling unionized workers that their union isn't enough, that their union leaders will betray them and that they need to take up the struggle to build a revolutionary party--explain to me how asking that shows I don't care about the movement. You mean, that's not important for the movement, to explain the need for revolution within the unions and against the union leadership? That that's only "a certain type of bulletin"?

Go ahead: explain what you mean and how I'm not really interested. What's wrong with my idea? What's wrong with the politics of the Revolutionary Transit Worker bulletin?

Maybe you think I'm a lost cause and "don't care" but I'm not the only one reading this thread--explain it for those interested in the PSL that might be reading.

[manic expression]

When did the Bolsheviks "go where the workers w[h]ere" when they were supporting a candidate in bourgeois party?
They did one better...they went to the Black Hundreds (a few steps to the right of a "bourgeois party") and reached out to workers there. For a long time, they also reached out to their comrades in the Second International, and I doubt I need remind you of the Revisionism (with a capital "R") coming out of that organization at that time.


The Bolsheviks organizers in Russia were risking their lives, sacrificing everything they had, to build up the political and organization independence from the bourgeoisie on the basis of a revolutionary program and you slander them that they would've supported a candidate in a bourgeois party? Where is your proof? Otherwise you're just making stuff up to justify your party's actions.
FYI, the WWP didn't sacrifice or lose or even endanger their political and organizational independence from the bourgeoisie in the 80's.


Cannon was no Lenin but he got that right. Marcy's no Stalin but he sure understands class collaboration.
He understood it because he was able to avoid it. Seeing an opportunity to be a part of genuine working-class political debate isn't class collaborationism.

[manic expression]

Explain it to me then.
Oh, so now you don't think the PSL talks about any of that, ever? This is a new claim, a result of your incessant backpeddling. Regardless, you'd make this much easier for everyone if you did your homework. From the PSL website (http://www.pslweb.org/party/who-we-are/#part3):

The PSL aims to build a militant, class-conscious working-class movement—independent of the capitalist parties—that fights for the interests of the working class on all issues.

At important points in history, unions have played a key role in advancing the fight for workers, organized and unorganized. Although the leadership of the AFL-CIO union federation has been historically infected by racism, bureaucracy, chauvinism and ties to the government—especially since the anti-communist purges of the 1940s—labor strikes and protests have brought workers together in struggle across the many divides that are reinforced throughout capitalist society. In recent years, there has been a growing struggle inside the labor movement to oppose the Iraq war and to make the connection between militarism, war and capitalist globalization.

The struggle to simply maintain health care coverage has become the central issue in union negotiations and strikes across the United States. Union organizing, especially in the private sector, has been made more difficult than at any time since the early 1930s. The massive relocation of industry and manufacturing out of the United States or into more isolated rural and semi-rural areas, combined with anti-labor government policies, has had the effect of further reducing the percentage of unionized workers. Today, less than 13 percent of all employees in the United States are union members, the lowest percentage in 70 years.

The continued interconnections between top labor leaders and the imperialist state produce shameful class betrayals like aid to the corrupt and counterrevolutionary “labor leaders” in Venezuela; refusal to recognize the connection between the war budget and economic attacks on workers; silence on the Iraq war; and unconditional support for Israel. This relationship also hamstrings the labor movement as a progressive force in U.S. society. The labor leadership has subordinated itself to the Democratic Party.

Yet unions remain the most numerous and powerful organizations of the working class. They must be renewed and strengthened for the struggle to go forward.

--------------------------------------------

Huh. That's odd. I thought you said the PSL never said such things. Now you explain to me...why do you keep ignoring what's right in front of you just because you care more about sectarianism than about advancing the movement?


Go ahead: explain what you mean and how I'm not really interested.I already did. You're here to be critical, not to bring real criticism.

[RedTrackWorker]

They did one better...they went to the Black Hundreds (a few steps to the right of a "bourgeois party") and reached out to workers there. For a long time, they also reached out to their comrades in the Second International, and I doubt I need remind you of the Revisionism (with a capital "R") coming out of that organization at that time.

The question was "When did the Bolsheviks "go where the workers w[h]ere" when they were supporting a candidate in bourgeois party?" The issue isn't "reaching out" to workers who supported Jesse Jackson's candidacy but supporting his candidacy. The Bolsheviks never advocated voting for any party associated with the Black Hundreds.

Try again: When did the Bolsheviks support a candidacy in a bourgeois party because that's where the workers were?

[RedTrackWorker]

Huh. That's odd. I thought you said the PSL never said such things. Now you explain to me...why do you keep ignoring what's right in front of you just because you care more about sectarianism than about advancing the movement?

Where did I say the PSL never said such things? I asked you for links to where they said it in the unions and you gave me links which did not say it. And you still haven't provided a report or bulletin of the PSL saying it in or at a union-event rather than just on the website (which was never in question).

[manic expression]

The question was "When did the Bolsheviks "go where the workers w[h]ere" when they were supporting a candidate in bourgeois party?" The issue isn't "reaching out" to workers who supported Jesse Jackson's candidacy but supporting his candidacy. The Bolsheviks never advocated voting for any party associated with the Black Hundreds.

Try again: When did the Bolsheviks support a candidacy in a bourgeois party because that's where the workers were?
:lol: So going into the Black Hundreds, a fully racist organization, in order to reach workers is OK...but doing so in the Jesse Jackson campaign isn't. Funny logic. Perhaps if Jesse Jackson went around assaulting Jews and other minorities, it would be alright to propagate within his campaign...but if not, it's bourgeois! :laugh:

For the 12th time...it was about that movement behind that candidacy first and foremost. Get that through your head and we'll talk.

[RedTrackWorker]

:lol: So going into the Black Hundreds, a fully racist organization, in order to reach workers is OK...but doing so in the Jesse Jackson campaign isn't. Funny logic. Perhaps if Jesse Jackson went around assaulting Jews and other minorities, it would be alright to propagate within his campaign...but if not, it's bourgeois! :laugh:

For the 12th time...it was about that movement behind that candidacy first and foremost. Get that through your head and we'll talk.

Questions:
Did Marcy advocate voting for Jackson?
Did the Bolsheviks advocate voting for any bourgeois candidate?
Is there a difference between telling workers to vote for a bourgeois candidate with criticisms and "reaching out" to them while agitating against the bourgeois party they support?

[manic expression]

Where did I say the PSL never said such things? I asked you for links to where they said it in the unions and you gave me links which did not say it. And you still haven't provided a report or bulletin of the PSL saying it in or at a union-event rather than just on the website (which was never in question).
This is on the party website. Do you think it has a union-member firewall or something? Does it magically change wording as soon as union-members boot up the screen?

[manic expression]

Questions:
Did Marcy advocate voting for Jackson?
In order to be a part of that movement, yes. Not for much more than that. The Rainbow Coalition was were Marcy looked to, not Jackson himself.


Did the Bolsheviks advocate voting for any bourgeois candidate?
Such an opportunity never even vaguely presented itself to them. It's the principle of flexibility that's at work here, not the precise situation.


Is there a difference between telling workers to vote for a bourgeois candidate with criticisms and "reaching out" to them while agitating against the bourgeois party they support?
If voting for it makes it possible to be a part of it, then they're one-in-the-same. It was a very unique opportunity and the WWP tried to make the best of it in order to reach workers. Splitting hairs on this doesn't get rid of that fact.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think both of you have quite clearly shown that the PSL works both within and alongside unions. Nobody is denying that. What was being asked - and as of yet has still not been addressed - is how the PSL is promoting a revolutionary program within those struggles and actions.


Unite Here! is probably one of the more militant private sector unions out there. And they are not just labor oriented. They align themselves with as many different struggles. So, that is not the doing of the PSL (credit goes where it is due, and Unite Here has excellent membership and leadership) But, what the PSL and more often ANSWER does when workign with them is

1. supporting the action at hand.
2. promoting other actions or handing our political material.
3. organizing and meeting with new people for future actions and political orientation

(this list is not concrete or anything like that, just stuff off the top of my head.)

Also, ANSWER and PSL members dedicate a lot of time to assisting unions. For example. There was an attack on MUNI (Municipal Transit Workers) over bus fares or something. The PSL mobilized itself behind the transit workers and helped to deflect criticism from the drivers to the state and city. It almost ended in a slowdown. this was last year.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You've gotta give them one thing: they're consistent. The Marcyites pick a horse in every bourgeois showdown. Mugabe vs. MDC. Gaddafi Regime vs. NATO. Jesse Jackson vs. Walter Mondale. Etc.


In order to be a part of that movement, yes. Not for much more than that. The Rainbow Coalition was were Marcy looked to, not Jackson himself.

Are you sure it wasn't because his platform looked a hell of a lot like what the PSL runs on?

* creating a Works Progress Administration-style program to rebuild America's infrastructure and provide jobs to all Americans,
* reprioritizing the War on Drugs to focus less on mandatory minimum sentences for drug users (which he views as racially biased) and more on harsher punishments for money-laundering bankers and others who are part of the "supply" end of "supply and demand"
* reversing Reaganomics-inspired tax cuts for the richest ten percent of Americans and using the money to finance social welfare programs
* cutting the budget of the Department of Defense by as much as fifteen percent over the course of his administration
* declaring Apartheid-era South Africa to be a rogue nation
* instituting an immediate nuclear freeze and beginning disarmament negotiations with the Soviet Union
* giving reparations to descendants of black slaves
* supporting family farmers by reviving many of Roosevelt's New Deal–era farm programs
* creating a single-payer system of universal health care
* ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment
* increasing federal funding for lower-level public education and providing free community college to all
* applying stricter enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and
* supporting the formation of a Palestinian state.

Is that from the Rainbow Coalition or Gloria La Riva's Peace & Freedom ticket?


Perhaps if Jesse Jackson went around assaulting Jews and other minorities, it would be alright to propagate within his campaign

Well, he did verbally assault them, so you should be OK.

"While talking with the Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman in January 1984, Jackson referred to New York City as 'Hymietown'. Hymie is a pejorative term for Jews. Jackson first denied having the conversation and said Jews were conspiring against him. Later, he acknowledged Coleman's account..."

"Among Jackson's other remarks were that Richard Nixon was less attentive to poverty in the U.S. because four out of five [of Nixon's top advisors] are German Jews and their priorities are on Europe and Asia'..." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson#Remarks_about_Jews


It's the principle of flexibility that's at work here, not the precise situation.

Flexibility in this case meaning opportunism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This is why I have manic expression on my ignore list but am reading his posts for the purposes of this thread, not because I think he has terrible politics but because he flouts the rules of honest debate so much.

Yep, that's about right. There's really not much point in even trying to debate him unless you want to expose his bullshit to the people reading.

[KC]

Unite Here! is probably one of the more militant private sector unions out there. And they are not just labor oriented. They align themselves with as many different struggles. So, that is not the doing of the PSL (credit goes where it is due, and Unite Here has excellent membership and leadership) But, what the PSL and more often ANSWER does when workign with them is

1. supporting the action at hand.
2. promoting other actions or handing our political material.
3. organizing and meeting with new people for future actions and political orientation

(this list is not concrete or anything like that, just stuff off the top of my head.)

Also, ANSWER and PSL members dedicate a lot of time to assisting unions. For example. There was an attack on MUNI (Municipal Transit Workers) over bus fares or something. The PSL mobilized itself behind the transit workers and helped to deflect criticism from the drivers to the state and city. It almost ended in a slowdown. this was last year.

Again, you're not answering the question at all.

Supporting an action, promoting other actions, handing out material, organizing and meeting with people, assisting unions, "mobilizing" to "deflect criticism" - none of this addresses the question whatsoever.

[Rusty Shackleford]

well, i guess to put it bluntly, were not in the position to dictate a revolutionary program.

[KC]

well, i guess to put it bluntly, were not in the position to dictate a revolutionary program.

Thanks for being honest unlike manic.

So the next question, then, is: what is the difference between the PSL and any other pro-union social democratic group if that's all you're doing?

[manic expression]

You've gotta give them one thing: they're consistent. The Marcyites pick a horse in every bourgeois showdown. Mugabe vs. MDC. Gaddafi Regime vs. NATO. Jesse Jackson vs. Walter Mondale. Etc.
Ultra-lefts think everything is bourgeois, so it's not much of a charge.


Are you sure it wasn't because his platform looked a hell of a lot like what the PSL runs on?

Is that from the Rainbow Coalition or Gloria La Riva's Peace & Freedom ticket?Maybe you could read the part where I pointed out the PSL election platforms are principally a way to connect the immediate demands and concerns of workers to revolutionary politics. An election platform can't look like "REVOLUTION REVOLUTION REVOLUTION" and make sense to anyone outside of the left.

And you're not even part of the left, so yeah.


Well, he did verbally assault them, so you should be OK.Nice job side-stepping the example. You learn nothing from history because you ignore it.


Flexibility in this case meaning opportunism.Flexibility meaning looking for ways to reach workers. You know, exactly what you failed at.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Thanks for being honest unlike manic.

So the next question, then, is: what is the difference between the PSL and any other pro-union social democratic group if that's all you're doing?
is there no end to your bullshit?

Manic and I are just TWO members of the PSL who do not have omnipotent knowledge of the Party's actions across the whole country.

Also, a difference:

we supported the call for a general strike that the Madison Labor Council was preparing for in the public sector labor struggle in WI a few months back.

"but oh, were you there preparing for it too?! No! ha!"
we had chicago comrades there at the occupation.

[KC]

is there no end to your bullshit?

So you admit that PSL plays absolutely no role as a "revolutionary" organization within the unions yet get all bent out of shape when I take your statement to its logical conclusion?

[Rusty Shackleford]

So you admit that PSL plays absolutely no role as a "revolutionary" organization within the unions yet get all bent out of shape when I take your statement to its logical conclusion?
get off it.

We advocate workers control. We advocate socialism. We advocate revolutionary struggle. Just because we cannot implement workers control, socialism, or make a revolution does not mean we do not work towards revolution.

are the RCP or ISO basically pro-union social democrats for participating in labor struggle too? The RCP screams the loudest about revolution at the demos, but does that make them the most revolutionary?

[KC]

We advocate workers control. We advocate socialism. We advocate revolutionary struggle. Just because we cannot implement workers control, socialism, or make a revolution does not mean we do not work towards revolution.

I asked what kind of revolutionary work do you do in the unions and you basically said "none". None of this really matters if you're just a glorified social democratic party in practice.



are the RCP or ISO basically pro-union social democrats for participating in labor struggle too?

Where did I say participating in a union struggle makes one a social democrat?


The RCP screams the loudest about revolution at the demos, but does that make them the most revolutionary?

Of course not, screaming revolution doesn't mean anything.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I asked what kind of revolutionary work do you do in the unions and you basically said "none".


where did i say this?

i said the party could not dictate a revolutionary program. i guess i should have said "THE PSL IS CURRENTLY NOT AT THE VERY FOREFRONT OF THE LABOR STRUGGLE"

the party takes part in the struggle, but by no means are we not trying to build a revolutionary movement.

[KC]

where did i say this?

i said the party could not dictate a revolutionary program. i guess i should have said "THE PSL IS CURRENTLY NOT AT THE VERY FOREFRONT OF THE LABOR STRUGGLE"

Okay, then what are you doing in the unions that advances a revolutionary cause?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Ultra-lefts think everything is bourgeois, so it's not much of a charge.

As opposed to Marcyite clowns who have "proletarian" heroes like Milosovic, Ahmadinejad, Hussein, Gaddafi, Mugabe, etc.

Blood-soaked dictators of the world unite, you have nothing to loose but your coffers!


Maybe you could read the part where I pointed out the PSL election platforms are principally a way to connect the immediate demands and concerns of workers to revolutionary politics. An election platform can't look like "REVOLUTION REVOLUTION REVOLUTION" and make sense to anyone outside of the left.

So the difference between your electoral platform and a bourgeois candidate like Jackson's is only that yours is "meant" to connect workers to revolutionary politics (even though you don't draw real class lines, or mention intention at any point). Gotcha.


And you're not even part of the left, so yeah.

You're right about that. Thanks for acknowledging it. I don't want to be a part of anything that counts people like you and Kim Jong-il among its ranks.

But wait.. you said I scream "REVOLUTION REVOLUTION REVOLUTION" which doesn't "make sense to anyone outside of the left," but you then say I'm "outside of the left." So what is it?

And did the call for revolution make sense to working people in Paris in 1871, Russia in 1917, etc.? Were they all a part of "the left"? I don't think so.


Flexibility meaning looking for ways to reach workers. You know, exactly what you failed at.

I can "reach workers" whenever I want.. by going to the next apartment; calling my parents, uncles, cousins; visiting or emailing friends; etc. I don't need to scream reformist crap at them through a bullhorn in a park.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

a general strike that the Madison Labor Council was preparing for in the public sector labor struggle in WI a few months back.

Yeah, the union bureaucrats were at the forefront of the struggle! Good thing they had your support in their fearless and militant leadership of the Madison workers!

"Obviously this was a very disappointing loss for us, with regards to the collective bargaining changes that were made. However, it's not the end of our fight," said Abelson. "We have -- we're a union. What we do is we represent workers at the workplace, give them a voice, and we will continue to do so. It is our mission, it is what we believe, it is who we are.

"And now it's time to redirect those efforts, it is time to take back the Wisconsin Senate. We are very much engaged in the recall efforts that are taking place with the eight Republican senators. We think a significant number of those are gonna be successful recalls, we think by summer we will have changed the face of the Wisconsin Senate."

"But again, I want to just make this very clear. If the intent was by Governor Walker and his fellow De-- Republicans, excuse me, in the legislature, to destroy the union movement in the public sector in Wisconsin, it's going to fail," he said. "We are going to change, and we are going to adapt, and we will continue to do what we do, and that is represent people in the workplace. And if the bargaining table is taken away from us, we will replace that with much more political and legislative activity."

"I mean, look, public sector workers in Wisconsin are committed and dedicated to the citizens we serve. And there has been no talk of a general strike, there has been no talk of targeted strikes, or job actions or anything else. Our dispute is not with our employers. Our dispute is with the Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate, the Republicans in the Wisconsin Assembly, and Governor Walker."

- Rich Abelson, executive director of AFSCME Council 48 in Milwaukee, on the local public affairs show UpFront with Mike Gousha, with guest host Kent Wainscott. Emphasis added.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Forget all of this back and forth and ridiculous wrangling. Let's get down to it. Can someone from the PSL show where their group or the group it split from (WWP) have denounced or even criticized a union bureaucrat, ever?

[RedTrackWorker]

are the RCP or ISO basically pro-union social democrats for participating in labor struggle too?

I don't understand how this question can be interpreted as anything other than complaining we're not also attacking these other groups, which is just a bait-and-switch when it's a thread on the PSL and is especially confused when my signature has a link to a rather thorough critique of the ISO's union work and I don't know of any union work the RCP does that's even worth talking about.

[Mythbuster]

Thank you for announcing the updated site. Looks awesome! Keep up the good work.

[manic expression]

Okay, then what are you doing in the unions that advances a revolutionary cause?
This has already been shown to you multiple times. Stop being thick and read something honestly for once.


Forget all of this back and forth and ridiculous wrangling. Let's get down to it. Can someone from the PSL show where their group or the group it split from (WWP) have denounced or even criticized a union bureaucrat, ever?
That was done throughout the entire candidacy course on unions I attended. Try again.


As opposed to Marcyite clowns who have "proletarian" heroes like Milosovic, Ahmadinejad, Hussein, Gaddafi, Mugabe, etc.

Blood-soaked dictators of the world unite, you have nothing to loose but your coffers!A lie told by a liar. We don't support those leaders, we stand against the imperialist aggression against the countries they head.

Keep lying, it shows us how bankrupt you are.


So the difference between your electoral platform and a bourgeois candidate like Jackson's is only that yours is "meant" to connect workers to revolutionary politics (even though you don't draw real class lines, or mention intention at any point). Gotcha.Um, no. I've already explained how PSL campaigns DO connect workers to revolutionary politics through touching upon their immediate concerns and demands.

That's how you get workers to listen to you....SOMETHING YOU FAILED AT. Think about it the next time you try to slander active communists.


You're right about that.Yep, I'm right that you're an un-leftist hack who doesn't know the first thing about revolutionary politics. Thanks for admitting it.


But wait.. you said I scream "REVOLUTION REVOLUTION REVOLUTION" which doesn't "make sense to anyone outside of the left," but you then say I'm "outside of the left." So what is it?No, I said you mindlessly think the PSL should do so, which is in fact what you've been saying. You, on the other hand, don't have the ability to say "REVOLUTION" in any political campaign because you have nothing to do with leftist activity. Besides, being a revolutionary isn't just about screaming "REVOLUTION" constantly. If that were the case, every two-bit would-be wannabe anarchist would be the most revolutionary voice of all time. But that's not the case, is it?


And did the call for revolution make sense to working people in Paris in 1871, Russia in 1917, etc.? Were they all a part of "the left"? I don't think so.Yeah, because we're totally living in the final days of the Franco-Prussian War and in the middle of WWI. :rolleyes: Nice analysis.


I can "reach workers" whenever I want.. by going to the next apartment; calling my parents, uncles, cousins; visiting or emailing friends; etc. I don't need to scream reformist crap at them through a bullhorn in a park.Ah, yes, that's the real communist way! Calling one's parents and emailing friends! Watch out capitalists, NHIA has an email account and a landline phone and he's not afraid to use them!

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

What. A. Joke.

[KC]

This has already been shown to you multiple times.

Really? Where? Because all that's been posted so far is that the PSL works with unions, so if you're referring to the response to RedTrackWorker then you're wrong.

[Lyev]

I have been looking at this thread occasionally over the past few days and have held back from participating, mostly because KC and NHIA are doing a good job of making your (or the representative of your) organisation look confused or silly. But your debating technique makes you sound like an infant, and really leaves something to be desired:
Ah, yes, that's the real communist way! Calling one's parents and emailing friends! Watch out capitalists, NHIA has an email account and a landline phone and he's not afraid to use them!

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

What. A. Joke.Using the phone or your email address is a pretty standard way to communicate in modern society. What other mode of communication would you suggest that NHIA uses? I think what was really being got at here is that proselytising on a weekend stall with pamphlets and a newspaper does not really constitute "reaching workers" in a really meaningful and consistent manner, even if we put aside side for a moment how out-of-touch this phrase sounds. It's a joke that his friends/family are also from working class backgrounds? Sometimes just chatting to people about work issues or what is going on is more important than sloganeering and "recruitment drives" for The Party. What possibly could be so amusing about this post that it warrants the use of over 6 inane smilies, anyway? and what the hell is the "real communist way"?
but the same line of reasoning works for you too: "watch out capitalists manicexpression has a shiny PSL placard and an updated website, he is not afraid to use them"

[twenty percent tip]

the Puss-Sack League (PSL) is infected.r eaaly. comeon. youare the most militant byshowing the most supportfor labor lutenents. ?? even the old yellow sorcialists new bettre than that!!

o boy. you reporyed on a strike? a rally?noway!! did youget toshake hands with Al Shorpoton??! the washington post reports on strikestoo! cooldude! butyour masthead is red so its all!

plussed you hadyour members sneak on the ballot for the bourgeoius greene party ?? cool. thats deeper entreeism than when james bond entered the kgb!way to go boys and grills! and no body couldtell cos your platforms looks like it was writeen by main spleen man August Bebel! but dont worry comorades they have some mentions of revolution on their websiteburied deep in some corner. people will see them running for the greene party, search their name; fined them in the PSL; search the psl websitye and then see revolution! and theyll support itby castinga vote! GOOOOOOOOD JOBN!!!

and maybethey can go on FOXNEWS GOOD DAY LA Again and tell evryhone how they wantto make america like CuBA !! thats what he said brod. thatwill win over everybody. saludes!

:cool:

manic exporsion aka tragic expression of leftiste. arent you traversing europe onmoney from yer rich family? trustfund baby crying tears aboyu ultra leftism. lend me some change andill sell your marxism. beef

[manic expression]

Really? Where? Because all that's been posted so far is that the PSL works with unions, so if you're referring to the response to RedTrackWorker then you're wrong.
It's been shown that the PSL works with unions in labor struggles...far more than any other organization has been shown to do here. The arbitrary gold standard set up by RTW is of little consequence.


I have been looking at this thread occasionally over the past few days and have held back from participating, mostly because KC and NHIA are doing a good job of making your (or the representative of your) organisation look confused or silly. But your debating technique makes you sound like an infant, and really leaves something to be desired:
In the interests of fairness, I present to you the reasoned, dignified and upstanding debate tactics of the anti-PSL squad:

the Puss-Sack League (PSL) is infected.r eaaly. comeon. youare the most militant byshowing the most supportfor labor lutenents. ?? even the old yellow sorcialists new bettre than that!!

(The above post was thanked by 4 users)

As opposed to Marcyite clowns who have "proletarian" heroes like Milosovic, Ahmadinejad, Hussein, Gaddafi, Mugabe, etc.

(This is an out-and-out lie)

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

(Thanked by 3)

my michigan one drank forties in shitty basements with shitty dubstep djs and read books communizing like a motherfucker

(Thanked by 3)

You guys sound like a (not so cleverly) deliberately-programmed tape deck.

(Thanked by 4)

Down with the activist ghetto, fuck the PSL.

(Thanked by 7)

Go cheer the tanks of Tiananmen, Stalinist hack.

(Thanked by 2)

----------------------------------------------------

Yep, you really got me there. :rolleyes:


Using the phone or your email address is a pretty standard way to communicate in modern society. What other mode of communication would you suggest that NHIA uses?Uh, yeah. Not my point. It's more the fact that NHIA has nothing to do with communist activity, and instead brags about the fact that he has access to the internet and a landline phone. That's not reaching workers with revolutionary politics, that's chatting on the phone with friends and family. There's a difference: one is what active communists do, the other is what non-leftists (which NHIA willingly identifies as) do in their free time.


but the same line of reasoning works for you too: "watch out capitalists manicexpression has a shiny PSL placard and an updated website, he is not afraid to use them"Yeah, that and the most active communist party in the US today.

[manic expression]

manic exporsion aka tragic expression of leftiste. arent you traversing europe onmoney from yer rich family? trustfund baby crying tears aboyu ultra leftism. lend me some change andill sell your marxism. beef
lol cuz u cant say nethng about the psl so u just ta1k st00pid shit about hoo u think i am lol ur not a socialist so i dnt care about ur liez lol keep crying about the psl promoting socialism wile u sit on ur azz and komplane on ur keebord lol wut a lozer kthnxbie

Yes, it's unfortunate, but it's the only way to communicate a point to such a joker.

[RedTrackWorker]

It's been shown that the PSL works with unions in labor struggles...far more than any other organization has been shown to do here. The arbitrary gold standard set up by RTW is of little consequence.

What KC asked, repeating a question I and others have asked several times (bolded for emphasis): "Okay, then what are you doing in the unions that advances a revolutionary cause?"

The question was not: "Are you doing anything in labor struggles?"

So my standard on how to do revolutionary work in the unions is "arbitrary" and of "little consequence"...fine, so what is your standard for revolutionary work in the unions?

[manic expression]

What the PSL does with unions is revolutionary. They're promoting revolutionary politics, revolutionary approaches and viewpoints, revolutionary publications and more in their work with unions. I find that to be very important. Further, I know for a fact that several members (people I know) are in unions and do voice the communist perspective at any reasonable opportunity. There aren't any articles published about it, but there it is.

[Jose Gracchus]

Lol they say so okay stfu red track wanker

[Lyev]

In the interests of fairness, I present to you the reasoned, dignified and upstanding debate tactics of the anti-PSL squad:
...
Yep, you really got me there. :rolleyes:Why do you lump me in with the rest of those who are critical of the PSL in some way? Criticisms of any group, I would imagine, are by no means homogenous. There is no "anti-PSL squad"; we do not convene in a dark room every fortnight to discuss how to disrupt your party. And to be honest, twenty percent tip is pretty funny (he got about 10 likes).


Uh, yeah. Not my point. It's more the fact that NHIA has nothing to do with communist activity, and instead brags about the fact that he has access to the internet and a landline phone. That's not reaching workers with revolutionary politics, that's chatting on the phone with friends and family. There's a difference: one is what active communists do, the other is what non-leftists (which NHIA willingly identifies as) do in their free time.So this is your politics, in a nutshell? It's not proper revolutionary discussion unless it's mediated by some Lenin pamphlets and a copy of Liberation? Being identified as a "non-leftist" is probably positive, if all the "real leftist activists" are from socialist grouplet no. 99 along with the likes of the PSL, ISO, RCP etc.


Yeah, that and the most active communist party in the US today.Whether the PSL upholds class (communist) politics is exactly what is under scrutiny in this thread. And I think that your proof is reducible to you merely asserting that what the PSL "does with unions is revolutionary" really doesn't help your case. You might be "active"--again it does not naturally follow from this that all or any of this activity is based around class struggle--but that does not mean a lot if if you are an organisation which fails to put forward a communist perspective.

[Rusty Shackleford]

So, on may day in Sacramento, a comrade and a very close latina friend(she is an EXCELLENT organizer) of ours gave speeches at the Capitol building. Our friend gave a speech in Spanish and then my comrade gave a speech in English which she also translated into Spanish. Most of the crowd was latino.

Since most CHP officers in Sacto are white and privileged, they also dont speak much Spanish. Once they head my comrade speaking and the translation they started paying attention and edging closer. His speech was about the history of May 1st, the struggle, and the need for a new revolutionary anti-capitalist struggle. it was pretty bad ass. The cops didnt think so, but they didnt make a move. I didnt think he was going to get arrested, it was just funny watching the cops start mumbling to each other and staring at the microphone.

we also brought out some red flags and stuff. Also, Wunderbar was there and he had his IWW flag and a queer anarchist from the Bay was there too with a pink and black. The aesthetic part was fun. 2 che flags, a red flag, an iww flag and a pink and black. :lol:

[Tim Finnegan]

Since most CHP officers in Sacto are white and privileged, they also dont speak much Spanish.
Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance here, but is being monoglot really a product of privilege, and not just of ethnic background? What are the rates of Spanish-speaking bilingualism among working-class whites (or, for that matter, blacks and Asians)? It's not like Spanish is just a plebian sister of English, as, to use a provincial example, Scots is over here, that you could be expected to pick up with any coherence simply by living near its speakers.

(Not that I'm trying to make a point, or anything, it's just a minor detail that caught my attention.)

[Rusty Shackleford]

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance here, but is being monoglot really a product of privilege, and not just of ethnic background? What are the rates of Spanish-speaking bilingualism among working-class whites (or, for that matter, blacks and Asians)? It's not like Spanish is just a plebian sister of English, as, to use a provincial example, Scots is over here, that you could be expected to pick up with any coherence simply by living near its speakers.

(Not that I'm trying to make a point, or anything, it's just a minor detail that caught my attention.)
actually you know what. im just gonna say this. that point i kind of did pull out of my ass. i dont care to know how many cops speak spanish. i just noticed that the cops only started paying attention when my comrade was speaking english even though the same thing was just said in spanish. :lol:

the rest of it is truf though.

[Lucretia]

get off it.

We advocate workers control. We advocate socialism.

Then what's the deal with claiming that the Soviet Union was deserving of support, when the workers had almost no control over production?