Workers World Party.

[stonerboi]

I have seen the WWP website and read a few of their articles.

I know that the WWP is ex-Trotskyist and that they now support Cuba and Fidel Castro's government.

Other than that can anyone tell me more about the WWP?

Are they Guervarist, Maoist, radical Trotskyist or Stalinist?

[Severian]

When they started out, they went from supporting Trotskyism to supporting Mao. Today, their overall political approach is in the tradition of Stalinism in the broad sense of the word.

(Mistaking dictatorship over the proletariat for dictatorship of the proletariat, almost treating repression as a virtue in and of itself. Combining, or going back and and forth between, ultraleft tactics and supporting bourgeois and petty-bourgeois politicians. Putting narrow organizational advantage for themselves over the interests of the broader working-class movement - trying to get mechanical control of actions through their different front groups. Not valuing truth and factual accuracy. Politically adapting to any regime that happens to be in conflict with Washington at the moment - Hussein, Milosevic, whoever.)

While Workers World praises the leaders of the Cuban Revolution, I'd say they have little in common politically.

[redstar2000]

I don't have enough information to dispute the rather grim characterization of the WWP that Severian offered; but I will note that I have heard his own party--Socialist Workers Party (U.S.)--described in the same terms. Those folks really don't like each other at all.

It is a matter of fact that the WWP did take "a leading role" in organizing opposition to the American aggression against Iraq. That would stand to their credit, in my opinion.

But I think the most important factor to consider is that the WWP is a Leninist party...which means that the leaders boss and the members obey.

If that appeals to you, then jump right in. They don't have state power, so they can't shoot you if you find out that you don't like it and want to quit.

If you do decide to hook up with them and later quit, don't let the experience sour you on radical politics altogether...which happens with staggering frequency. Some of the worst reactionaries of recent history were once Stalinists and Trotskyists and Maoists...being treated like shit in a Leninist party drove them to the conclusion that the left "as a whole" was "worse" than capitalism.

And don't let them work your ass off...a lot of these groups treat their members worse than sweatshops--selling newspapers, attending endless meetings, etc., etc., etc. They'll drive you to exhaustion if you let them. Be firm! Just say no!

Also, don't let them "guilt-trip" you into doing something that you don't want to do. History did not appoint them "keepers of the sacred flame" nor give them "the keys to the future"...use your own judgment and stick to it.

Good luck!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Sensitive]

Workers World Party is Marxist-Leninist.

Don't let an anarchist like RedStar2000 scare you off. The WWP members I have met are all very nice people and they don't order anyone around - we just want to eat your children! :D

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 05:12 PM
It is a matter of fact that the WWP did take "a leading role" in organizing opposition to the American aggression against Iraq. That would stand to their credit, in my opinion.
Not really. What they do is they set up front groups in an effort to take organizational control. Aside from the issue of honesty - actually honesty may be the main point, but it doesn't need belaboring...

It's a practice that's quite damaging to any kind of united action. WW sets up a "coalition" - actually a front group - which they solidly control, and anyone who wants to work with it has to accept their control and basically be foot soldiers for them. In practice, other people and groups end up getting fed up with this, and setting up competing coalitions. Which is what happened during the invasion of Iraq. So it'd be more accurate to say they played a "leading role" in splitting and dividing antiwar activity.

During the first Gulf War, a broader coalition was created, and Workers World found they had to join it. Then WW split it - over the issue of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, which WW supported, but the broader coalition voted to condemn. But really, the exact issue is almost a minor point here.

The major point is that WW's insistence on total control for themselves, and their decision to place their narrow, small-group organizational interests over the cause their organization is supposed to serve, led to two competing coalitions...and two competing Marches on Washington, set for Jan. 19 and Jan. 26, 1991. That's exemplary of WW's standard operating procedure.

Well, they're not the only ones responsible. One might, for example, ask why other groups and individuals decided to pass a resolution condemning Hussein's invasion of Kuwait even knowing that it might split the coalition. Or in other cases, whether more could've been done to achieve unity despite WW's efforts in the other direction.

I go into detail on this not solely to say that the WWP are bad eggs, actually. That bit of knowledge is, by itself, not that important.

It's kind of a cautionary tale on how not to conduct oneself. "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. " as the Manifesto says. Certainly the organizational interests of a small group cannot be put ahead of broader considerations and political principles.


I will note that I have heard his own party--Socialist Workers Party (U.S.)--described in the same terms.

So why should anyone care what you "have heard" irrespective of whether it can be backed up with specifics? And isn't that fairly OT to this thread?

My earlier comments on the WWP were a description of their political program and practices. Based on publicly available information, primarily reading their paper.


But I think the most important factor to consider is that the WWP is a Leninist party...which means that the leaders boss and the members obey.

No, they're a Stalinist party, like I said. The Bolshevik Party certainly didn't operate on that principle, if you know anything about its history.

Don't know if it's true that in the WWP "the leaders boss and the members obey." Never having belonged to it, I don't know how their internal decisionmaking operates. Unless you have, don't see how you could.


If you do decide to hook up with them and later quit, don't let the experience sour you on radical politics altogether...which happens with staggering frequency. Some of the worst reactionaries of recent history were once Stalinists and Trotskyists and Maoists...being treated like shit in a Leninist party drove them to the conclusion that the left "as a whole" was "worse" than capitalism.

True. And then there are those, like Redstar, whose experience in some Stalinist party drove him to the conclusion that Leninism is bad. Similar baby-bathwater problem.


And don't let them work your ass off...a lot of these groups treat their members worse than sweatshops--selling newspapers, attending endless meetings, etc., etc., etc. They'll drive you to exhaustion if you let them. Be firm! Just say no!

Yeah, y'know, no revolution is made without hard work. And a lot more sacrifice than any group in the U.S. asks of anybody, actually.


Also, don't let them "guilt-trip" you into doing something that you don't want to do. History did not appoint them "keepers of the sacred flame" nor give them "the keys to the future"...use your own judgment and stick to it.

Yeah, that's good advice. You have to decide for yourself how much you can do. And guilt is a rotten motivation for almost anything.

[redstar2000]

It's a practice that's quite damaging to any kind of united action. WW sets up a "coalition" - actually a front group - which they solidly control, and anyone who wants to work with it has to accept their control and basically be foot soldiers for them. In practice, other people and groups end up getting fed up with this, and setting up competing coalitions.

I have no doubt that people resent being treated like foot soldiers. But my understanding is that the reason another coalition was established was to avoid the "taint" of "communist" (Leninist) "leadership"...as well as representing the views of those who think our periodic imperial adventures are "aberrations" and not the normal behavior of U.S. imperialism.

But don't get me wrong; I'm quite sure the WWP did act arrogantly...it's what Leninist parties do.


So why should anyone care what you "have heard" irrespective of whether it can be backed up with specifics?

Well, I guess the war in Vietnam was "before your time". Your party behaved in the same way that you criticize the WWP for behaving during the anti-war movement of 1964-1975...and with the same outcome, by the way; a bourgeois-liberal coalition emerged to challenge your group's hegemony.

Particularly vivid in my memory was a meeting in Washington, D.C., when I was in the hallway outside with some other delegates. A young woman emerged from the assembly crying her eyes out. We didn't know what happened, but when we asked her, she sobbed out the words "fucking arrogant trot sectarian bastards", etc.

I don't think she was a member of a rival Leninist party or of any group, for that matter.

And I'm sure you will object, possibly with justification, that that was all a long time ago, that you've learned better, that your party doesn't act like that any more, etc.

Perhaps.


No, they're a Stalinist party, like I said. The Bolshevik Party certainly didn't operate on that principle, if you know anything about its history.

Oh, I've picked up a few bits and pieces here and there. You are quite right; the Bolshevik Party in its "glory years" (1901-1921?) was considerably more democratic than its modern epigones. In those days, Lenin actually had to persuade his party that he was right...and he was not always successful.

That really was "a long time ago". To the best of my knowledge, all modern Leninist parties are, as you call them, "Stalinist"...there is no doubt whatsoever about the identity of the "Chiefs" and of the "Indians" or about their respective roles.


Don't know if it's true that in the WWP "the leaders boss and the members obey." Never having belonged to it, I don't know how their internal decision-making operates. Unless you have, don't see how you could.

Such assumed "naiveté" on your part! We are grown-ups here and can speak plainly; we are not required to wait for some ex-WWPer to publish her/his memoirs. You know as well as I how such things work; why pretend otherwise?

Perhaps you wish to seem "fair-minded".


Yeah, y'know, no revolution is made without hard work. And a lot more sacrifice than any group in the U.S. asks of anybody, actually.

Possibly. But consider the "heavy toil" involved in assigning the "hard work" and the "enviable privilege" of actually doing it.

Makes a difference.


And then there are those, like Redstar, whose experience in some Stalinist party drove him to the conclusion that Leninism is bad.

Actually, it took a year of so of reading and reflection to reach that conclusion. When you are in a Leninist party, the basic texts that you're supposed to read are What is to be Done?, Imperialism, The State and Revolution, and Left-Wing Communism.

Only the last named title was written after the revolution.

So what I did was sit down and read all of Lenin's Collected Works written after the revolution...and it came as quite a shock.

Here's a little taste...


...there is not the least contradiction between soviet (i.e., socialist) democracy and the use of dictatorial power by a few persons.

Needless to say, I failed once again to "grasp the dialectic". It was my last attempt to do so.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Redstar wrote:

I have no doubt that people resent being treated like foot soldiers. But my understanding is that the reason another coalition was established was to avoid the "taint" of "communist" (Leninist) "leadership"...as well as representing the views of those who think our periodic imperial adventures are "aberrations" and not the normal behavior of U.S. imperialism.

That was a factor as well - we're talking about the most recent Gulf War, right? - some other groups wanted to have a more liberal orientation and program. "Give the inspections more time to work" and all that phony stuff that's not actually opposed to invading Iraq, just the timing.

But then, Workers World and its front groups weren't entirely free of this either. A lot of anti-Bush stuff, which tends to imply backhanded support for the Democrats. So WW's policy wasn't so much trying to maintain a principled line for their antiwar group, or anything like that - more about organizational control.

And rather than splitting the coalition over this, it'd be better to have united action with the liberals, remaining in contact with whoever's following them and continuing debate as part of united action.



But don't get me wrong; I'm quite sure the WWP did act arrogantly...it's what Leninist parties do.

Ironic, coming as a papal edict, without facts or argument to back it up. You seem quite fond of that kind of arrogant pronouncement lately.


Well, I guess the war in Vietnam was "before your time". Your party behaved in the same way that you criticize the WWP for behaving during the anti-war movement of 1964-1975...and with the same outcome, by the way; a bourgeois-liberal coalition emerged to challenge your group's hegemony.

Yes, it was before my time. But I've read about it, and spoken with people who were involved. In "Out Now" by Fred Halstead, the most detailed and history of the movement against the Vietnam War, it's documented that the SWP never had mechanical control of any of the major antiwar coalitions. Goes through the numbers of delegates and everything.

What the SWP did do was fight for its ideas, through debate and majority vote, together with other forces who agreed on what policy the antiwar movement should follow. That it should demand immediate withdrawal from Vietnam - bring the troops home now - organize mass demonstrations to bring this about, that it should make decisions through open conferences rather than closed meetings of a few leaders, that it should be nonexclusive and open to people and groups of all ideologies rather than excluding, say, communists.

Because the SWP was particularly forceful and effective in arguing for this approach, some of its opponents were left with the impression that all those who supported it were SWP members. But in fact, it was a downright common-sense approach that was supported by many, many antiwar activists.

There was a split by groups that favored more of a multi-issue approach, who had trouble agreeing even among themselves on what that approach would be. They set up something called the NNACWR or something like that, then later the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice. The SWP always favored trying to involve them in united actions, and encouraged the larger coalition, NPAC, to reach out to them. There were no rival mass marches on Washington - unlike in 1991 - 'cause the PCPJ didn't believe in mass marches. They did join in on the largest of NPAC's marches in April of 1971.


Particularly vivid in my memory was a meeting in Washington, D.C., when I was in the hallway outside with some other delegates. A young woman emerged from the assembly crying her eyes out. We didn't know what happened, but when we asked her, she sobbed out the words "fucking arrogant trot sectarian bastards", etc.

I don't think she was a member of a rival Leninist party or of any group, for that matter.
So, again: some unnamed "young woman" at some unspecified meeting didn't like the SWP, but you've given no fact or argument to support whether this dislike was justified.

I don't care for decades-old personal anecdote as a basis for debate, BTW; even if you've recounted it as honestly as you can, someone else, with a different set of biases, might remember that event differently, and we have no way to know here.


And I'm sure you will object, possibly with justification, that that was all a long time ago, that you've learned better, that your party doesn't act like that any more, etc.

You're quite wrong, as with many things you're "sure" about. The SWP has no reason to apologize for its role in helping to keep the movement against the Vietnam War on a course of mass action that led it to success, and working with others to oppose those who would have led it into a swamp of liberal electioneering or street confrontation, or in some cases both.

Unlike WW, the SWP did not insist on mechanical control, nor was it seeking primarily to advance any narrow organizational interest. The SWP fought, through open debate, for political principles.


Oh, I've picked up a few bits and pieces here and there. You are quite right; the Bolshevik Party in its "glory years" (1901-1921?) was considerably more democratic than its modern epigones. In those days, Lenin actually had to persuade his party that he was right...and he was not always successful.

That really was "a long time ago". To the best of my knowledge, all modern Leninist parties are, as you call them, "Stalinist"...there is no doubt whatsoever about the identity of the "Chiefs" and of the "Indians" or about their respective roles.

So. By "Leninist party" you don't mean a party like the Bolshevik Party that Lenin led and organized. Isn't that a pretty inaccurate use of terminology, then? Words mean things!

"All" - you're fond of the sweeping generalization, aren't you?


Such assumed "naiveté" on your part! We are grown-ups here and can speak plainly; we are not required to wait for some ex-WWPer to publish her/his memoirs. You know as well as I how such things work; why pretend otherwise?

Perhaps you wish to seem "fair-minded".

I "wish" to speak on the basis of fact, provable, publicly available fact, rather than issue faith-based papal edicts like you. I "wish" to make serious political criticism based on public program and action, rather than engage in small-group organizational gossip.


Possibly. But consider the "heavy toil" involved in assigning the "hard work" and the "enviable privilege" of actually doing it.

Makes a difference.

Hm...organizational gossip again? In volunteer organizations of any kind, a leadership role often involves a greater commitment of time and effort than membership alone.

In any case, preaching against work and sacrifice doesn't help anyone become a revolutionary, as revolutions are made with plenty of both.

[redstar2000]

I "wish" to make serious political criticism based on public program and action, rather than engage in small-group organizational gossip.

Then why all the talk of WWP "front groups"? I'm pretty sure they didn't come into existence with that label attached, did they?

You want to argue that the SWP "didn't do" things like the WWP "does"...but how does your "political" criticism differ from my "gossip"?

And, I might add, these are "small groups" that we're speaking of here.

Be that as it may, you appear to be arguing that the WWP should have "stepped back" and let the bourgeois liberals take over the coalition that the WWP built.

That doesn't make any sense to me at all, at least not within the Leninist paradigm. If the WWP sincerely feels that their "leadership" is "required", why should they give it up to a bunch of ass-kissers?

How can you reproach the WWP for "splitting" that which was never unified in the first place? How can there be "unity" between people who are opposed in principle to U.S. imperialism and people who simply dispute the timing of the next invasion?

I better break off here...I'm starting to sound too much like a defender of the WWP in another pointless sectarian argument.

Let me just say that if one decides to join a Leninist party, the approach that will most likely preserve both one's sanity and one's integrity is that of political anthropology...preserve a sense of observational detachment as much as possible.

People who get too emotionally wrapped up in these groups can be really devastated when things don't work out.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 05:34 PM
Be that as it may, you appear to be arguing that the WWP should have "stepped back" and let the bourgeois liberals take over the coalition that the WWP built.
No, they should, from the beginning, try to involve the broadest possible forces in a real coalition, not a narrow front group. Then, not "step back", but conduct a political fight for their ideas.

Just as the SWP fought in the movement against the Vietnam War. In open debate. Fought to win the votes, at open conference of the antiwar movement, fair and square. And won. Not immediately. It took years, really, as the antiwar movement developed. But in the end.

It's about confidence in one's ideas, and in the people you're trying to win to those ideas. That by working together with people, on the points you have in common, you have the best chance to discuss the points you don't.

Workers World avoids having the debate or the votes. There is never any question about what line their front groups will adopt, who will lead them, or anything else. Which in the end, condemns their front groups to isolation and sterility.

Small groups that try to capture a broader movement by those methods end up capturing nobody but themselves.

Maybe the idea of a political fight, rather than grabbing organizational control, is incomprehensible to you, and your basically authoritarian mindset. Maybe letting your opponents speak feels like a capitulation to you. I noticed this before, when I tried to explain to you why Cuba was correct to invite the pope to visit and speak.

If the Bolshevik Party had adopted the Workers World approach, they would have set up their own, narrow, organizationally controlled, soviets, rather than joining the existing soviets, dominated by Mensheviks and SRs, and winning a majority over time by debate, example, and the experience of struggle.


I better break off here...I'm starting to sound too much like a defender of the WWP in another pointless sectarian argument.

And it's not accidental you've been defending the WWP here. Like I've said before, Redstar, you're still a Stalinist at heart.

[redstar2000]

Maybe the idea of a political fight, rather than grabbing organizational control, is incomprehensible to you, and your basically authoritarian mindset. Maybe letting your opponents speak feels like a capitulation to you. I noticed this before, when I tried to explain to you why Cuba was correct to invite the pope to visit and speak.

Yes, I am very authoritarian when it comes to letting the class enemy speak...or even exist.

Perhaps you and your party do not view bourgeois liberalism and shame-faced capitulation to U.S. imperialism as significant "markers" of the class enemy.

To each their own.


Like I've said before, Redstar, you're still a Stalinist at heart.

Everyone on this board will tell you: I :wub: Uncle Joe. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Stalins, Maoists, Trotskiests, Leninists, Regardless, I think we all need to put aside our petty differences and join the CPUSA. There is far to much sectarianism within the communist movement, and I feel we simply need to rally behind the CPUSA and form a united front against the capitalists.

[redstar2000]

Regardless, I think we all need to put aside our petty differences and join the CPUSA.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Good joke!

Reminds me of the time the CPUSA sent some people to a convention of the old Students for a Democratic Society...20 seconds into the first attempt to proselytize us, hundreds of people were laughing their asses off.

Bourgeois liberalism and "democratic" centralism?

Get real!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 06:41 AM

Like I've said before, Redstar, you're still a Stalinist at heart.

Everyone on this board will tell you: I :wub: Uncle Joe. :lol:
The point is not about what you think of the individual. The Beijing and Moscow Stalinists called each other all kinds of names....without ceasing to have fundamental concepts in common.

SDS, huh? Of which it was justly said that the New Left exhibited all the faults of the old, without its virtues. PL or RCP?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

You are totally missing the idea. We should not let small ideological differences break up the party, but simply we should work with what we have, and try to form a united front against the capitalists. If there is so much infighting within the Communist movement then we will never get anything done. Personally, I am willing to work with everyone from the Democratic Socialists to the Stalinists, I keep an open mind, and avoid overly dogmatic groups. It is my personal belief that we should all rally behind the CPUSA and try to get somewhere with this. I've heard they are the largest socialist party, so I think they have some potential.

[redstar2000]

SDS, huh? Of which it was justly said that the New Left exhibited all the faults of the old, without its virtues.

SDS had many faults and shortcomings, true. It also dominated radical political activity in the U.S. from 1965 to 1969, involving more than 100,000 people on more than 300 campuses in sustained activity against U.S. imperialism. Compared to us, the "old left" did nothing.

If there were any "virtues" in the "old left", I failed to observe them...and, I remind you, I was there.

I certainly had the chance to join a number of "old left" parties--including yours. I even have a single article to my credit in your newspaper, The Militant.

Why didn't I? Because it was clear even then that the old left parties were fossils. Joining such a party, then, much less now, would be the same as joining a movement for an independent Babylonia or launching a campaign to revive the Holy Roman Empire.

Thus I chose otherwise, picking a Leninist group that didn't smell like an abandoned museum. I made a mistake, but it was an understandable one at the time. No one then knew (except a handful of very obscure folks) just how badly Leninism as a theory was flawed at its core.

Indeed, as I saw it with my own eyes (I was at the June 1969 Convention), it was the pernicious influence of Leninism (all factions) that wrecked SDS.

We were "new"...but not new enough.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Morpheus]

The WWP is a Leninist cult with some very perverted views. I would call them NeoStalinist. They think North Korea is a model socialist society and supported the Tianamen Square Massacre. They are also very dishonest. They know that they will not be able to lead any kind of mass movement because they are a tiny cult with extremely whacked views, so instead of trying to convince people that their ideas are right they set up front groups. These front groups hold rallies and try to dupe niave reformists (and others) into following the WWP leaders. The tactics of their front groups is usually identical to those of timid reformsits - just a bunch of permitted rallies, nothing that challenges the status quo. The whole point of this is just to build the reputation of the leaders and gain followers, not to actually achieve the goals of the movement(s) they are coopting. Their front groups generally do not use the stalinist rhetoric of the leaders, they are dishonest and hide their politics. I strongly advise against joining any Leninist group, they are all cults. ESPECIALLY the WWP/IAC/ANSWER. If the WWP ever got into power they would shoot most people on this board.

See:
http://www.authoritarianopportunistswhocoz...s-forpeace.org/ (http://www.authoritarianopportunistswhocozyuptogenocidald ictators-forpeace.org/)
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/wwp.html

Also, the CPUSA stopped being Communist decades ago. Today they are just dupes of the Democratic Party.