workers party in america and class background

[bailey_187]

so from what i understand, to join the workers party in america, u need to be either a worker or from a working class background?

do u require members to prove this (and how?), or do u just trust people not to lie?

is this sort of rule only for the WPA? or do other groups do it too?

[KC]

The WPA is Miles and like 5 people. Miles decides if you're prole enough.

[Welshy]

1. You have to be from the working class to join the WPA as a full member, though you don't have to be a worker to join as a supporter if I understand correctly.

2. Not sure you would have to ask Miles or another member of the WPA on here

3. I'm not sure about any current organizations but I know that Engels shared the same opinion.


Second, when such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian viewpoint. But those gentlemen, as has been shown, adhere overwhelmingly to petty-bourgeois conceptions. In so petty-bourgeois a country as Germany, such conceptions certainly have their justification, but only outside the Social-Democratic Labor party. If the gentlemen want to build a social-democratic petty-bourgeois party, they have a full right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, conclude agreements, etc., according to circumstances. But in a labor party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which necessitates tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time.
http://libcom.org/library/strategies-tactics-class-struggle-marx-engels

The part in the WPA's constitution that deals with this topic is pretty much just an edit version of this quote.

[KC]

Except for the fact that Engels was referring to a movement based organization and not an ahistorical sect completely divorced from reality.

[Principia Ethica]

Is it just me. . .or has that site been hacked? I tried to go there to get some info and there was some hacked BS on there. . . .

[Welshy]

Is it just me. . .or has that site been hacked? I tried to go there to get some info and there was some hacked BS on there. . . .

Well shit, that must have just happened. I wonder why they would go after the WPA's website out of all the websites they could have gone after.

[Q]

Is it just me. . .or has that site been hacked? I tried to go there to get some info and there was some hacked BS on there. . . .

Yeah, totally (http://oi52.tinypic.com/2w7mwcy.jpg).

[Martin Blank]

The WPA is Miles and like 5 people. Miles decides if you're prole enough.

First of all, how the fuck would you know anything about us? You haven't been around any of us for four years, were never involved with the Workers Party and were expelled from the League (yes, we rejected your resignation and expelled you for your lies and disruptions; we never wanted you to attempt to return to the League). Disgruntled ex-member is still disgruntled.

But, oh!, it gets worse. The last time I recall my name passing your proverbial lips on this forum was when you and chimx were chuckling back and forth on livechat about how you shared his hope that my heart would explode and I would die. (And then there are the lies you've told on RevLeft to try to keep your ass from being restricted or banned.)

I can understand you don't like me; the feeling is mutual. But openly hoping I would die from heart failure (a condition you know I have) is vile, and is a testament to your ... "objectivity" when it comes to me and the organization to which I belong. Honestly, why anyone with a modicum of human decency would ever believe a single word that emanates from you is beyond me.


Except for the fact that Engels was referring to a movement based organization and not an ahistorical sect completely divorced from reality.

See above for the motivations behind this person's comments.

[Martin Blank]

Is it just me. . .or has that site been hacked? I tried to go there to get some info and there was some hacked BS on there. . . .

It just happened earlier today. The site is restored now and we are taking care of the hackers.

[Martin Blank]

do u require members to prove this (and how?), or do u just trust people not to lie?

We ask prospective members to tell us about themselves, including where they work and/or what their parents do for a living, which usually gives us a clear idea of their class background. There is a measure of trust that goes along with it, but there is also verification. We make a point to get prospective members involved in activities and such, and we get to know them better through our meetings, discussions and common work. After a few months, you usually can verify what they've told you.


is this sort of rule only for the WPA? or do other groups do it too?

There are only a few other organizations in the world that have a similar organizational principle/policy, and we have friendly relations with them.

[RedTrackWorker]

There are only a few other organizations in the world that have a similar organizational principle/policy, and we have friendly relations with them.

What? The LRP has a similar approach and we don't have relations with the WPA--how could we? To do that, we'd have to know what it is and where it came from.

The "local contacts" says there's an NY WPA--never seen them at a protest or interacted with them, so can't judge them based on that experience.

It's "about us" says "The Workers Party in America is the voluntary union of working-class communists in the United States of America fighting for the defeat of capitalist rule and the victory of the working people’s republic." It's "the" union of worker communists? Why should revolutionary workers--seeing the long history of unprincipled splits, fusions, etc. on the left--take this party at their word that they're "the" union--when there's no history of just who these "only workers" are, when there are few to no examples of a record of action by which to judge their words?

They were associated with something called the Communist League--can't find the history of that either.

And then what of internationalism--they have "friendly relations" with organizations based on a membership policy--who are these organizations, what are the political perspectives, etc.? If a revolutionary worker somehow thinks that an international approach is needed, how could that worker judge the WPA on say, Egypt and China?

[Martin Blank]

What? The LRP has a similar approach and we don't have relations with the WPA--how could we? To do that, we'd have to know what it is and where it came from.

Really? You restrict your membership to workers only? Where is that? In your super secret Rules, or only in your mind? After all, it's not anywhere in the pages of Proletarian Revolution or on your website.


The "local contacts" says there's an NY WPA--never seen them at a protest or interacted with them, so can't judge them based on that experience.

I guess I'll have to make a special point to ask them to say hello to you next time there's a demonstration they go to. :rolleyes:


It's "about us" says "The Workers Party in America is the voluntary union of working-class communists in the United States of America fighting for the defeat of capitalist rule and the victory of the working people’s republic." It's "the" union of worker communists? Why should revolutionary workers--seeing the long history of unprincipled splits, fusions, etc. on the left--take this party at their word that they're "the" union--when there's no history of just who these "only workers" are, when there are few to no examples of a record of action by which to judge their words?

Wow. Are you seriously making this argument? You are seriously arguing that because we used one Article ("the") instead of another ("a"), that this somehow means we see ourselves as The One And Only? Is it any wonder the LRP is called "Spartacist Lite"? The angular argument here is so steep that no one could keep their footing.

And, for the record, we're only about two and a half years old, and still working on developing our members to be more effective in public activity. I'm not ashamed to say we still have some problems that we're working to overcome. I'm proud of the fact that we can be open about our organization.


They were associated with something called the Communist League--can't find the history of that either.

:rolleyes:


And then what of internationalism--they have "friendly relations" with organizations based on a membership policy--who are these organizations, what are the political perspectives, etc.? If a revolutionary worker somehow thinks that an international approach is needed, how could that worker judge the WPA on say, Egypt and China?

Wow, what a wonderful way to twist an argument. And you wonder why we don't have any relations with your organization. Many of our members have known about you for a long time, but see no reason to advocate establishing any kind of friendly relations with you, because we knew this is what we would get in return: dishonest discussion, twisting of words to justify an angular argument, boilerplate responses, etc., etc.

Now, again, for the record, we have friendly relations with a number of organizations -- some we have more agreement with than others. For example, we've had comradely relations for some time with the Worker-Communist parties in Iraq and Kurdistan, as well as their supporters in Europe and North America. We don't consider ourselves to be Hekmatist, but we do find common ground with them on practical issues.

If people want to know what our views are on political matters, they can read our publications and our other literature.

[black magick hustla]

"workers' only" rule doesn't make sense in small groups, were class background says more about statistical noise than the nature of the group. (physics 4ever)

as KC said, if a sort of movement has as a mayority "petit-bourgeois" (god i hate that word) then the class nature of the movement is evident, but movements are not built by small organizations so their "workers' only rule" has nothing to do with whether a broader movement would be prole or not. some folks like to argue that "petit-bourgeois" elements derailed the "struggle", but this is contingent to the strength of the class at any moment, not "fraternity" rules of who can enter an organization or not. if there is class struggle, the working class dominates the movement, simple like that, you won't be able to achieve that by purging "the middle class" or whatever. That is maoist gibberish.

[Martin Blank]

"workers' only" rule doesn't make sense in small groups, were class background says more about statistical noise than the nature of the group. (physics 4ever)

as KC said, if a sort of movement has as a mayority "petit-bourgeois" (god i hate that word) then the class nature of the movement is evident, but movements are not built by small organizations so their "workers' only rule" has nothing to do with whether a broader movement would be prole or not. some folks like to argue that "petit-bourgeois" elements derailed the "struggle", but this is contingent to the strength of the class at any moment, not "fraternity" rules of who can enter an organization or not. if there is class struggle, the working class dominates the movement, simple like that, you won't be able to achieve that by purging "the middle class" or whatever. That is maoist gibberish.

There is a relationship between composition and program. The history of the 20th century is littered with examples of how petty-bourgeois political leaderships betrayed and destroyed both organizations and movements that were dominated by the working class, because of the contradictions that develop in these multi-class formations. Many of these organizations and movements started with a generally proletarian program, but due to the alien class ideologies that are brought into them by non-proletarian elements, these programs become watered down or revised to reflect those bourgeois and petty-bourgeois viewpoints. When there is a contradiction between a petty-bourgeois leadership and a proletarian program, it resolves itself in one of two ways: either the composition of the leadership is changed, or the content of the program is. Historical experience shows no "third way".

So, yes, we have chosen to resolve that problem by keeping non-proletarian elements out of our party's membership. There is enough to deal with in terms of the "baggage" of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology that workers themselves bring into an organization or movement. We don't have a problem with non-proletarians being supporters of our organization, or working with them in movements. But if you're from a non-proletarian background and want to be a member of our organization, you need to cut your ties to that class and irreversibly integrate yourself into the working class. Period. No "purges". No "Maoist gibberish". A clear line of demarcation.

[RedTrackWorker]

if anyone else agrees with Miles that my questions are "dishonest discussion, twisting of words to justify an angular argument, boilerplate responses", please let me know. Otherwise, I guess the whole "we're only about two and a half years old" excuse never gets old if you keep building a new organization. But does he really expect us to believe that they just arose pure from the womb of the working class with no important history to speak of or to be accountable for?

[black magick hustla]

There is a relationship between composition and program. The history of the 20th century is littered with examples of how petty-bourgeois political leaderships betrayed and destroyed both organizations and movements that were dominated by the working class, because of the contradictions that develop in these multi-class formations. Many of these organizations and movements started with a generally proletarian program, but due to the alien class ideologies that are brought into them by non-proletarian elements, these programs become watered down or revised to reflect those bourgeois and petty-bourgeois viewpoints. When there is a contradiction between a petty-bourgeois leadership and a proletarian program, it resolves itself in one of two ways: either the composition of the leadership is changed, or the content of the program is. Historical experience shows no "third way".

this only applies to massive organizations that have historical significance, and where talking about class makes sense. if there is an organization that has three people, and one of them happens to be a small buisness owner does it really matter, does it really prove anything? marxist categories make sense when there is a sort of statistical significance, it doesn't say anything about individuals and their lifestyles.

Togliatti and Brezhnev came from prole as fuck backgrounds. However, their individual backgrounds say nothing, rather they makre more sense when analyzing them as expressions of certain class dynamics that existed in those movements.

[Martin Blank]

But does he really expect us to believe that they just arose pure from the womb of the working class with no important history to speak of or to be accountable for?

Our members come from different political histories and traditions. Only a few of us have longtime experience in the left, and we've all come to renounce much of our past political affiliations (i.e., the various and sundry self-described socialist and communist organizations we were once members of) for all the right reasons. Are we "pure from the womb"? No. We never said we were. Those are your words. Individual members have different histories with the left, but the Party is a relatively new thing. Sorry that we don't fit into one of your nice, neat little doctrinaire boxes.

[RedTrackWorker]

Our members come from different political histories and traditions. Only a few of us have longtime experience in the left, and we've all come to renounce much of our past political affiliations (i.e., the various and sundry self-described socialist and communist organizations we were once members of) for all the right reasons. Are we "pure from the womb"? No. We never said we were. Those are your words. Individual members have different histories with the left, but the Party is a relatively new thing. Sorry that we don't fit into one of your nice, neat little doctrinaire boxes.

You don't have to fit into one of my boxes. You say you renounced that stuff "for all the right reasons"--then state the reasons so others in the workers' movement can evaluate them. Is there some kind of theory section hidden on the website (perhaps hidden in plain sight and I just missed it)? I've seen the platforms and principles and such...I hope you don't point me to that as if that's a sufficient basis for renouncing all other political groups and founding yet another group.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I don't often feel the need to say stuff like this, but Miles, you'd probably get a better hearing if your posts weren't so angry and full of vitriol, as tempting or legitimate as it may sometimes be.

Nic.

[Martin Blank]

this only applies to massive organizations that have historical significance, and where talking about class makes sense. if there is an organization that has three people, and one of them happens to be a small buisness owner does it really matter, does it really prove anything? marxist categories make sense when there is a sort of statistical significance, it doesn't say anything about individuals and their lifestyles.

Actually, it does matter, because I am talking about how social being determines consciousness, and you're only seeing things through an individualist lens. Even in a group of three people, it would have an effect, because behind that individual small business owner is an entire class to which they are connected. And that small business owner will bring into that organization the consciousness that comes from his or her social being. They will bring with them the class-based training, prejudices and worldview that they share with the rest of their class. The working-class members will bring their consciousness into the organization, too, including the training that they receive to defer to the petty-bourgeois "experts" and "professionals". And, yes, this does eventually lead to a class-based division of labor in left organizations, where the petty-bourgeois elements are the leaders and the working-class members schlep papers and serve as warm bodies at protests.

Marxist categories make sense at all levels, because we are not isolated individuals, but part of a class society ... whether we like it or not.


Togliatti and Brezhnev came from prole as fuck backgrounds. However, their individual backgrounds say nothing, rather they makre more sense when analyzing them as expressions of certain class dynamics that existed in those movements.

And both Togliatti and Brezhnev left those "prole as fuck backgrounds" behind, becoming a part of the petty bourgeoisie through the Kremlin bureaucracy (as well as, in Togliatti's case, a bourgeois "justice" minister!).

[PhoenixAsh]

if anyone else agrees with Miles that my questions are "dishonest discussion, twisting of words to justify an angular argument, boilerplate responses", please let me know. Otherwise, I guess the whole "we're only about two and a half years old" excuse never gets old if you keep building a new organization. But does he really expect us to believe that they just arose pure from the womb of the working class with no important history to speak of or to be accountable for?

Yes, I do.

I have very little background knowledge of both mentioned parties and no invested interest in either. But your argument was reversed and circular and it included several over stretchings and based on obvious unfounded conclusions of what was actually said.

I am not challenging the validity of either what you or Miles said on the topic since I already mentioned...I know very little about that. But textually and linguistically speaking...you were wrong.

That is nothing personal.

But...on the flip side of that.


I don't often feel the need to say stuff like this, but Miles, you'd probably get a better hearing if your posts weren't so angry and full of vitriol, as tempting or legitimate as it may sometimes be.

Nic.


This is also a bit true. Though I wouldn't use the exact same words.

[Martin Blank]

I don't often feel the need to say stuff like this, but Miles, you'd probably get a better hearing if your posts weren't so angry and full of vitriol, as tempting or legitimate as it may sometimes be.

I appreciate what you're saying, Nic, and I try not to be like this (I'm never like this in person). Admittedly, I get more than a little annoyed when people make comments about the organization I belong to that have no basis in fact, and make assumptions about us that owe more to self-inoculation than genuine interest.

I know that KC is here just to talk trash and spread lies (it's all he's really good for these days). And I know that RTW would rather spend all his time looking for reasons to bash us and make self-proclamations instead of actually learning about us. And I really should apologize to the other comrades on here who have a genuine interest in learning about us. They (and you) don't deserve to be caught in the middle of this left-ghetto tribal warfare.

But this is why I don't like discussing our organization like this; it inevitably descends into this kind of pathetic (it's not even worthy of being called "sectarian") bashing. And we're not alone in getting this treatment. Any time a thread about a specific organization (the ISO, PSL, ICC, etc.) starts up, the vultures circle and look to peck out someone's eyes. It's the incestuous nature of the left these days; it's all about angular arguments and misrepresentations, all with the goal of expending huge amounts of resources to "regroup" one or two people out of another group. It's sick, it's counterproductive and it's something we choose to reject as ever being a part of our activity.

When the Communist League was formed in 2004, we adopted a strict "no raiding" policy. This was partly because we saw ourselves as a clandestine group and wanted to be able to function inside other public organizations. Back in 2007, when we found out that a couple members were "freelancing" a raid in the CPUSA, I personally called Sam Webb and told him about it, making clear that it was against League policy to do it. (Those members were later expelled.) When the Workers Party was formed, we adopted the "no raiding" policy the League had. The fact that we have it, of course, has not stopped us from being at the receiving end of paranoia about our organization. League, and later WPA, members who were also a part of the Socialist Party were driven out due to this kind of paranoia. A WPA member who was in Solidarity was dropped from membership after his involvement in the Party was known. The left expects us to act like them. They cannot seem to fathom that we have chosen to do things differently.

And that's why I bring this up. We choose to do things differently. We don't want to be involved in the left's reindeer games. We're happy doing the work we do in our workplaces and areas of political activity, and we're not interested in playing the "show me yours and I'll show you mine" game that other groups like to play. It's just not us, and I have long since had the amusement of such things wear off.

So, either it's an honest discussion with honest intentions, or don't expect me to be Mr. Nice Guy. I'm too old and too sick to put up with the bullshit.

[Martin Blank]

You don't have to fit into one of my boxes. You say you renounced that stuff "for all the right reasons"--then state the reasons so others in the workers' movement can evaluate them. Is there some kind of theory section hidden on the website (perhaps hidden in plain sight and I just missed it)? I've seen the platforms and principles and such...I hope you don't point me to that as if that's a sufficient basis for renouncing all other political groups and founding yet another group.

Did you try reading any of our publications?

[Martin Blank]

This is also a bit true. Though I wouldn't use the exact same words.

I can accept that criticism. But do see my reply to Nic.

[PhoenixAsh]

On the subject of workers only parties...

I kind of agree with that position depending on what is classified as workers and what not. I see this in the broadest sense.

But when you let other classes in a proletarian movement you run a very high risk of losing contact with your base and your goals.

In Holland we have seen this in the 60's and 70's. A period which in my opinion marked the decline of communism through popularisation, how contradictory that may sound, and increased influx of intelectuals from petit-burgeoisie and burgeoisie backgrounds who slowely took over the party at the expense of workers themselves and making communism into a intelectual exercise rather than political struggle eventually leading to the decline of worker support for the CPN....and its eventual demise into a pseudo-socialist political party coalition which is now thoroughly established as a green-leftwing liberal party: Green Left (Groen Links)...a part whose main demographic support comes fom rich intelectual left wing liberals.

I have no issue with petit-burgeoisie and intelectuals supporting a party. I even don't have much problems with them working for the party or in rare cases becomming active as members. But they have no place in party leadership.

[Martin Blank]

A postscript: I don't think I'm going to post in this thread after this, mostly because Nic is right in pointing out that I'm getting too angry and annoyed with some of the comments. I am genuinely sorry for that and, again, apologize for letting that side of me show through. If anyone wants to ask questions about the WPA, or wants to engage in a constructive dialogue, you are more than welcome to PM me, or to join the Party's user group on RevLeft, and post your questions and comments.

We formed the WPA as a multi-tendency communist organization because we didn't want to have to play these left-ghetto games, and I'm done with being dragged back into them.

[PhoenixAsh]

I know that KC is here just to talk trash and spread lies (it's all he's really good for these days). And I know that RTW would rather spend all his time looking for reasons to bash us and make self-proclamations instead of actually learning about us. And I really should apologize to the other comrades on here who have a genuine interest in learning about us. They (and you) don't deserve to be caught in the middle of this left-ghetto tribal warfare.

KC is an...well...I can't really say what he is because it would be considerd flaming. But I definately get why you lose your patience.

Do continue telling more about the party. I appreciate the info.

[RedTrackWorker]

I hope hindsight does not think my question was dishonest (which is what Miles claimed). My argument could have been clearer.

The quote on the WPA claiming to be "the voluntary union"...so let's say they changed it to "a voluntary union." But they're still--by the very fact of their existence--suggesting that workers should join and build their organization rather than other organizations, but I cannot find anything in their "about us" (platforms, principles, etc.) that would really suggest why join them and not others, so to rephrase my question:

Why should revolutionary workers--seeing the long history of unprincipled splits, fusions, etc. on the left--join this party--when there's no history of just who these "only workers" are, when there are few to no examples of a record of action by which to judge their words?

Now, that question was basically in my first post, and I think the best way to conduct discussion and polemics is to focus on the best in the others' arguments. I think it's clear that Miles chose a weak link in my argument to avoid the question above, which was clear despite a weak formulation--then he later "answered" the question by avoiding it (stating the party is young and they've renounced previous views). So still nothing to judge their existence as a political tendency in the workers' movement by.

The WPA has many statements and such, but I have not found any--nor has Miles taken this opportunity to direct me to any--that justify its independent existence (explicitly or implicitly). Compare our Political Resolution (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/polres.html):


COFI’s reason for independent existence is not tactical but fundamental. Our differences with the various pseudo-Marxist tendencies are those of class. While we welcome into our ranks dissidents from other strata who have proven themselves loyal to the interests of the proletariat, the vanguard party acts to zealously preserve its working-class composition and political character.

He now adds:

Did you try reading any of our publications?

Let me try again: I have read various things on the WPA website. I have not seen anything that amounts to an argument to revolutionary workers as to why the WPA should exist as an independent organization, what makes it politically necessary for it to exist and why should workers join it instead of other groups?


And I know that RTW would rather spend all his time looking for reasons to bash us and make self-proclamations instead of actually learning about us.

How do you know this? Where have I proven such behavior on this forum or otherwise?

[Devrim]

I don't often feel the need to say stuff like this, but Miles, you'd probably get a better hearing if your posts weren't so angry and full of vitriol, as tempting or legitimate as it may sometimes be.


I appreciate what you're saying, Nic, and I try not to be like this (I'm never like this in person). Admittedly, I get more than a little annoyed when people make comments about the organization I belong to that have no basis in fact, and make assumptions about us that owe more to self-inoculation than genuine interest.

It is easy not to behave like a fool when nobody is criticising or attacking you. However, it is when you are being criticised that it counts. If you try not to be like this, which personally I find hard to believe considering that the vast majority of your posts come across like this, I would suggest you try a little harder.

Devrim

[Le Libérer]

I'm not going to say this but once. No more attacking people in this thread. If you have questions about the WPA fine ask them. But I wont tolerate singling out one of the WPA members to have a go at.

The irony is, most of the people who are having a go at Miles, are as bad if not worse than he is, so stop now. I'm not above taking all the personal jabs and splitting them from this thread.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think that is a good idea. Because I for one like to hear more about the WPA positions...without it getting overly complicated by sectarian jabs and personal vendetta's which seem to have a very horrible and loathsome past to judge from what Miles said. If somebody wants to make a thread about the LRP thingy then they should do that and I'll read that with just as much interest...

I have the website here...Like Miles said...it seems to be up and running again:

http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=57

[graymouser]

A question asked genuinely about the WPA, out of curiosity and with no malice.

What does the WPA consider "proletarian" for purposes of membership? I'm going to give a group of examples, I'd like to know which of these people would be eligible. (I'm also curious which would be allowed into the LRP.)

1. A carpenter (union).
2. An elementary or high school teacher (union).
3. A transit worker (union).
4. A nurse (union).
5. An adjunct instructor at a university.
6. A graduate student.
7. A computer programmer with a salaried job.
8. A salesperson (non-commission) at a parts supply company.
9. A grocery store worker (union).
10. A non-supervisory employee at a government agency (union).
11. A line worker at a telephone company (union).
12. An office worker at a catering company.
13. A working chemist in research & development.
14. An office worker for a non-profit.
15. A postal worker (union).
16. A janitor (non-union).
17. An IT technician (networks, computer repairs etc).
18. A taxi driver.
19. A high school student (with parents in any above categories)
20. A retiree (from any above category).

Each of these jobs describes people I know. Some of them are leftists, some not. (I know a lot more than one teacher.) None of them work point-of-production jobs in factories. I've omitted certain categories, including management. None of the people above have supervisory authority, although several of the union members are stewards or reps. Everyone except the students and retirees works for salary or wages, and does not work for themselves. So: if you have a proletarian party membership, of these 19 groups, who do you let in?

[PhoenixAsh]

I hope hindsight does not think my question was dishonest (which is what Miles claimed). My argument could have been clearer.

The quote on the WPA claiming to be "the voluntary union"...so let's say they changed it to "a voluntary union." But they're still--by the very fact of their existence--suggesting that workers should join and build their organization rather than other organizations, but I cannot find anything in their "about us" (platforms, principles, etc.) that would really suggest why join them and not others, so to rephrase my question:

Why should revolutionary workers--seeing the long history of unprincipled splits, fusions, etc. on the left--join this party--when there's no history of just who these "only workers" are, when there are few to no examples of a record of action by which to judge their words?

Now, that question was basically in my first post, and I think the best way to conduct discussion and polemics is to focus on the best in the others' arguments. I think it's clear that Miles chose a weak link in my argument to avoid the question above, which was clear despite a weak formulation--then he later "answered" the question by avoiding it (stating the party is young and they've renounced previous views). So still nothing to judge their existence as a political tendency in the workers' movement by.

The WPA has many statements and such, but I have not found any--nor has Miles taken this opportunity to direct me to any--that justify its independent existence (explicitly or implicitly). Compare our Political Resolution (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/polres.html):

Let me try again: I have read various things on the WPA website. I have not seen anything that amounts to an argument to revolutionary workers as to why the WPA should exist as an independent organization, what makes it politically necessary for it to exist and why should workers join it instead of other groups?



I hardly think Miles is making these statements for your sole benefit....and seeing taht your avatar is the logo of your party...I hardly think he should even consider your opinion or persuasion to be a relevant and obtainable goal.

I don't think your question itself is dishonest, but I think your motivations are crystal clear.

You directly position the LRP against the WPA...so instead of wanting to be persuaded or to get genuine information you seem to want to direct attention away towards your own platform.

That is in essence a very competative strategy. So basically you are trying to say people should join your organisation at the expense of others. Something which you accuse the WPA of doing....and I don't understand why you can't see that is more than a little bit dishonest in intent.

It is also ultimately disruptive. A good question was asked about the policy of exclusion of other classes in the WPA. I think the thread should be about that....because ultimately that is a very interesting and important position to take.

If you are interested in honest debate about that subject...and want to discuss based on interpretations of that point I hardly think anybody could object. But making those accusations which are basically uncalled for and very opportunistic in nature....well...thats kind of beyond the scope of this thread.

And also...in itself...a bit dishonest. Because lets face it even in your program itself it says that 4th internationalists are just as prone to unprincipled splits and fractionalisation as any other party out there....it is even stated in your program that this is the case ascribing to that the ultimate demise of the FI.

If you want to tell me and other users about the positions and merits of the LRP I would suggest that you make another thread and I will read that thread with the same interest.

But from an outsiders perspective I would be more inclined to join or support the WPA if only for the sole reason that they are broad spectrum platform. Meaning amongst others that, what I have read so far, its not adherent to dogmatic interpretations and positions....nor does it focuss itself on lengthy analysis of what went wrong in the past nor does it entrench itself in theoretical fait-a-complis. To me it seems a flexible and proactive party which, if I had the opportunity and inclination to join a party, would make me feel comfortable to join.

That is reason enough. To claim that more words equals better positions and a better party or a better group...is IMO a bit of a deflection....and not really an argument. I have seen extremely well worked out political programs turn to absolute shite at the first challenge. So that don't impress me much.

Also their website has a better lay-out and they have cooler t-shirts. :-P

[Le Libérer]

A question asked genuinely about the WPA, out of curiosity and with no malice.

What does the WPA consider "proletarian" for purposes of membership? I'm going to give a group of examples, I'd like to know which of these people would be eligible. (I'm also curious which would be allowed into the LRP.)

1. A carpenter (union).
2. An elementary or high school teacher (union).
3. A transit worker (union).
4. A nurse (union).
5. An adjunct instructor at a university.
6. A graduate student.
7. A computer programmer with a salaried job.
8. A salesperson (non-commission) at a parts supply company.
9. A grocery store worker (union).
10. A non-supervisory employee at a government agency (union).
11. A line worker at a telephone company (union).
12. An office worker at a catering company.
13. A working chemist in research & development.
14. An office worker for a non-profit.
15. A postal worker (union).
16. A janitor (non-union).
17. An IT technician (networks, computer repairs etc).
18. A taxi driver.
19. A high school student (with parents in any above categories)
20. A retiree (from any above category).

Each of these jobs describes people I know. Some of them are leftists, some not. (I know a lot more than one teacher.) None of them work point-of-production jobs in factories. I've omitted certain categories, including management. None of the people above have supervisory authority, although several of the union members are stewards or reps. Everyone except the students and retirees works for salary or wages, and does not work for themselves. So: if you have a proletarian party membership, of these 19 groups, who do you let in?
I would hope none of the WPA members would buy into this attempt to scrutinize and nit pick whatever you answer.

graymouser, Here is the link (http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=57)that should answer your questions.

Be nice people. In my opinion the OP wasnt genuine to begin with, so best keep in on track or its going to be trashed and burned.

[graymouser]

I would hope none of the WPA members would buy into this attempt to scrutinize and nit pick whatever you answer.

graymouser, Here is the link (http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=57)that should answer your questions.

Be nice people. In my opinion the OP wasnt genuine to begin with, so best keep in on track or its going to be trashed and burned.
I asked an honest question, and I resent your implication that I am trying to "scrutinize" or "nit pick" people. The Workers Party in America claims to have a "proletarian" membership policy, and I want to know where they draw the various lines in society.

I listed occupations of real people I know; some are revolutionaries, some are not. All of them work for wages, except the retirees and some students, and would be homeless in a month without working. None of them are point-of-production workers. Some are blue collar, some are white collar. When you start talking about "middle class," a number would identify themselves as such, but none of them own means of production or work for themselves.

The WPA links don't answer the question at all. The terms "middle class" and "petty bourgeois" have been degraded to the point where they could conceivably refer to almost any of them, or none of them, depending on how you are interpreting it. I think this is an important question, how the line is drawn, and that any organization limiting themselves to "proletarians" or "workers" should be prepared to answer it.

[Le Libérer]

I asked an honest question, and I resent your implication that I am trying to "scrutinize" or "nit pick" people. The Workers Party in America claims to have a "proletarian" membership policy, and I want to know where they draw the various lines in society. Sorry you were insulted but surely you can see how your question is a loaded gun and very much is scutinizing.
Why dont we make a list of occupations to discuss of your party as well and see if they are acceptable to the wise readers of revleft, that is if you are a member of a workers party.

[bailey_187]

Be nice people. In my opinion the OP wasnt genuine to begin with, so best keep in on track or its going to be trashed and burned.

just more evidence of ur personal dislike of me. it was a genuine question, if u look at my posts about parties in the UK u can see im quite a trainspotter when it comes to leftist groups. but whatever

[graymouser]

Sorry you were insulted but surely you can see how your question is a loaded gun and very much is scutinizing.
Why dont we make a list of occupations to discuss of your party as well and see if they are acceptable to the wise readers of revleft, that is if you are a member of a workers party.
Socialist Action does not have a policy of eligibility for membership based on what someone's putative class background is. Our constitution states that, "Every person who accepts the program of the Party and agrees to submit to its discipline and engage actively in its work shall be eligible for membership." While there are a few professions that would prevent this - you couldn't be a cop, a preacher, a professional bourgeois politician, or a couple of other things - we do not have any policy even remotely like the WPA's.

Quite a number of the jobs I listed are or were the jobs of Socialist Action members, or members of other left-wing groups I've worked in or around. I can honestly say that if any contact with any job I outlined above wanted to be in Socialist Action, as long as they agreed with our program and wanted to work as a disciplined member of the party, would be allowed to join.

The fact that an admin is a member of a party should not preclude questions about that party's membership requirements, or make the admins consider all such questions to be asked in bad faith. A political party, at least in theory, is contesting for political power. It is perfectly legitimate to question their membership policies, and the function of being a board admin is not to make members immune from criticism.

[Q]

That is in essence a very competative strategy. So basically you are trying to say people should join your organisation at the expense of others. Something which you accuse the WPA of doing....and I don't understand why you can't see that is more than a little bit dishonest in intent.

I think this is a good point to raise and lays at the basis of why both sectism and bureaucratism is so common within the workers movement (of which the far left is merely an exponent), as a direct result of capitalist relations itself.

Under capitalism you don't have that many options: Either you have lots of time and little money or vice versa. As an organisation this boils down to the conclusion of making certain members fulltimers, paid by the membership fees and other income, so work for the organisation can be done.

There thus exists a relationship of dependence upon the membership; the fulltimer relies for his/her existance upon the membership to feed him/her. The path of least resistence then to take is where this fulltimer uses its time and resources to exert a top-down (that is, bureaucratic) control on the organisation.

Sectism also flows from this as it logically flows that the more members there are, the easier a bureaucrats' lifestyle can be maintained. Also, the more members there are, the easier they get in, the lower the theoretical education of the general membership... the easier the bureaucrats can maintain their hold on the organisation and impose a political education that is designed at keeping the organisation unique. Because a reason to exist as a separate organisation is a requirement to keep the bureaucrats safe.

What you then see is exactly what you see with companies: All the sects competing with eachother for "market share", that is, influence in the working class, at least to the extend that it keeps the bureaucrat where they are: on top.

Linked to this are also the undemocratic nature of many groups and mass organisations and, with mass formations such as unions, a material interest in keeping the current system in place as that is exactly what they need to maintain their job.

It is a pity that the far left generally fails at overcoming suchbasic tendencies of capitalism, often not realising they even exist. Most people just blindly stare at paper formalities like the right to recall leaders, etc. Such rules however, on a formal level, exist even within many unions yet didn't prevent bureaucratism.

Surely we need a more rigorous approach against any type of bureaucratism. I would say there is a two-tier way to achieve exactly that: 1. Raising the theoretical level of comrades. Not only by reading party propaganda and rehashed bits by Marx, et al, but a more broader approach by extending to more than just the "box". This can be many subjects and writers. Related to this is 2. where members have a right to openly disagree, yet be united in action through democratic vote. This requires a culture change though within the left as we've been in this quagmire for so long already.

[chegitz guevara]

I wish I could thank Q's post more.

[Le Libérer]

just more evidence of ur personal dislike of me. it was a genuine question, if u look at my posts about parties in the UK u can see im quite a trainspotter when it comes to leftist groups. but whatever

It has nothing to do with liking, but more to do with trust. So far, all I have seen from your imput, has an agenda.

I like you ok, I guess. You can be funny, sometimes.

[black magick hustla]

Actually, it does matter, because I am talking about how social being determines consciousness, and you're only seeing things through an individualist lens. Even in a group of three people, it would have an effect, because behind that individual small business owner is an entire class to which they are connected. And that small business owner will bring into that organization the consciousness that comes from his or her social being. They will bring with them the class-based training, prejudices and worldview that they share with the rest of their class. The working-class members will bring their consciousness into the organization, too, including the training that they receive to defer to the petty-bourgeois "experts" and "professionals". And, yes, this does eventually lead to a class-based division of labor in left organizations, where the petty-bourgeois elements are the leaders and the working-class members schlep papers and serve as warm bodies at protests.

"'We do not know what anyone means when they describe the proletariat as a social category. If they are implying that the working class as a social body have something between themselves other than their experience of work then we utterly reject this. MD [i.e. Monsieur Dupont] have a penchant for Champagne and Tarkovsky movies whereas our neighbours prefer White Lightening [sic.] and WWF wrestling, our economic position, however, is identical.'"

-monsieur dupont, nihilist communism

the working class is very diverse and is full of people with perspectives. i think a lot of the talk of "working class consciousness" is fairly bankrupt, and its a remnant of an epoch when workers where subject to shopfloor culture and were loyal to laborist organizations. i don't know what similarities an art school dropout hipster that makes minimum wage in a coffee shop and a middle aged construction worker have beyond their economic position. "working class consciousness" appears after a peculiar succession of events and where there is a sort of social break. i think a lot of the talk of "working class consciousness" in the leftist ghetto amounts to "laborist consciousness".

"class" as a category is only useful when it has a political significance. "workers´only" policies for tiny organization are bound to the same logic and intent than threads asking whether soccer players or pornstars are working class. the latter is a sociological question because soccer players or pornstars have almost no political significance as professions in the class struggle.

today "communist" organizations are not really contingent to self-interest, in the same sense labor unions might be. nobody joins a communist organization for your advancement of "self-interest", no matter how some of its spokesmen tell you so. there are way better ways to spend your life to make a better living than being in a communist organization today. so the application of class categories to marginal groups is misguided, communists in the U.S. are not large enough to be subject to the statistical effects described by marxism. some of the most awful leaders (Healy, Togliatti, Brezhnev) had really hardcore prole credentials. It didn't mean shit, they ended up giving orders and fucking up everyone up in the process. This is because their individual class background was insignificant compared to the larger picture of the class struggle, which these leaders where expressions therein. most drug dealing gangs today are made from people with prole backgrounds, "woking class consciousness" is a very empty term.

[KC]

Aside from the ad hominem (notice I have not attacked Miles at all, he just must resort to doing so because he does not want to address what I am saying - or anyone else that knows what's going on like Q's post), this organization came about in the exact same way as every other of Miles' organizations. So I think it's safe to say that this isn't really much of a departure from any of the other - what was it like 10? (Miles can verify that) - orgs that he has started, either in form or content.

You'll notice that I'm focusing on Miles in the above paragraph, and that's precisely because such organizations are inseparable from him. When you have one person creating an organization, and having it be "their" organization - whether it have 2, 5 or even 20 members - we obviously can't ignore that individual in discussing the organization. You'll also notice I'm not saying anything at all about Miles' character or making any ad hominems, because that's stupid.

As for the proletarian-only policy, I think that's been covered by others rather well. I wrote a significant critique about it some time ago on the comleague or whatever it was forum before they disbanded and can't be bothered to recreate it. But It's quite obvious why this policy is silly.

First, the fact that this is a sect is one of the largest reasons. Only in organizations contained within a larger and active, militant proletarian movement can we even begin to discuss such policies. Outside of such a movement this workerism takes on the form of identity politics, and has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism no matter how much Miles or its supporters misrepresent Engels quotes. In this sense it is quite similar to how "Leninist" parties quote Lenin to justify absolute bureaucracy and discipline in a 30-person "militant proletarian revolutionary organization." These organizations are merely ahistorical in their approach, and are modes of production in themselves, apart from any kind of movement.

Second, the issue of how to determine who is worker and who is not comes up. This leads naturally from the first point to an absurdly mechanical and lifestylist interpretation of Marxism, which can only be categorized as ridiculous to the extreme. It is hilarious that one would take such broad social analysis and attempt to apply it in individual circumstances. Others in this thread have already argued the absolute absurdity of this. One would have to go through every single profession and judge entirely based on that. But of course this would not take into account one's personal background or their individual consciousness which obviously isn't as shallow as being in line with one's "class". We can see Miles taking it to the extreme in the following quote (bold mine):


Marxist categories make sense at all levels, because we are not isolated individuals, but part of a class society ... whether we like it or not.

This is obviously a false dichotomy. One's class certainly does factor into one's individual consciousness. But so do a whole ton of other factors. Workerism ignores this, as well as the fact that it's blatantly untrue otherwise we'd all be already living in communist society as workers wouldn't have "false consciousness".

You can see CoTR getting upset that one would even challenge such a policy, because of the fact that such a policy is indefensible based simply on its subjectivity. Which leads me to my third point. Who gets to determine who is "prole enough" to be a member? There certainly has to be some kind of process one goes through to find out if they're enough of a worker to join the prestigious Workers' Party in America! From my experience in the League it was Miles that got to make that determination. Could be different in the WPA, but based on his history I doubt it.


Our members come from different political histories and traditions.

Here's another problem that came up in the League that has never been resolved, and I still see miles sticking to his guns on it. Presumably the WPA welcomes revolutionaries of all stripes, from left communist to Maoist, as long as they can "get along". This sweeping under the rug of ideological differences in the hope that they will go away is never going to get anywhere.


I'm not going to say this but once. No more attacking people in this thread.

I'm very glad that you said this, I didn't particularly care for being attacked by Miles, as I haven't attacked him at all in this thread. Ad homs get us nowhere. How anyone can view my posts in this thread as "attacks" (much less ad homs) is beyond me.

[PhoenixAsh]

As for the proletarian-only policy, I think that's been covered by others rather well. I wrote a significant critique about it some time ago on the comleague or whatever it was forum before they disbanded and can't be bothered to recreate it. But It's quite obvious why this policy is silly.

No...actually it is not obvious. I wonder why you would suggest and claim that.

As we are speaking about a proletarian and therefore essentially working class revolution, quite possibly (and since I am an Anarchist) quite preferably joined in its broadest sense, I see no reason why such a policy would be considered silly.

Nor do I think the argument of petit-burgeoisie being reliable at best and following interests which often do not correlate with that of the proletariat irrelevant in this case. Especially since their role in the ultimate demise of several communist parties, groups and factions has been well established in the course of history. Which is also more or less concurred with by the FI charter posted in this thread.

In fact I am wondering why an essentially Marxist contrary position would be considered not silly by you.

So I have no use for articles or pieces you may or may not have written in some board or group which does not exist any more and can't possibly be used for reference and fact check. If you wish to make such a statement you need to back it up by arguments.



First, the fact that this is a sect is one of the largest reasons.Perhaps you haven't noticed but apart from a few parties left the revolutionary left has more splits, cut offs and infighting than Catholocism. And that says a lot. So far we will probably agree. But my conclusion is that apart from a few exceptions most groups and parties can be considered as such according to the proper use and definition of the word. Which brings me to the negative connotation inherrited in the use of the word...which I suspect has been deliberately chosen....so again. I like to see some arguments why the course of the WPA is to be considered worse than the original group they split from (an essential part of the definition of the word sect).

But size does not matter for adopting such a policy. Essentially all groups started out small to very small. For reference the SDAP*, the forebarer of the Communist Party of the Netherlands, had originally 12 members. I see no correlation in adopting such a strategy from the start and the term silly.



Only in organizations contained within a larger and active, militant proletarian movement can we even begin to discuss such policies. Outside of such a movement this workerism takes on the form of identity politics, and has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism no matter how much Miles or its supporters misrepresent Engels quotes.Well enlighten us to the correct interpretation of that quote. Because so far you have failed to mention one argument which backs up your claim other than blanket statements which are posed as given facts without any sound funding in argument. (If that is complicated...it means: you are basically saying: "The sky is blue because the grass is green")


In this sense it is quite similar to how "Leninist" parties quote Lenin to justify absolute bureaucracy and discipline in a 30-person "militant proletarian revolutionary organization." These organizations are merely ahistorical in their approach, and are modes of production in themselves, apart from any kind of movement.So basically you are attacking and disagreeing with any form of party/group or association which does not adher to complete openness to all and who have policies or agreed upon modes of operation. Because thats the only logical conclusion I can make from this paragraph.

That leaves one big question unanswered. What according to you is not an ahistorical approach to organisation?


Second, the issue of how to determine who is worker and who is not comes up. This leads naturally from the first point to an absurdly mechanical and lifestylist interpretation of Marxism, which can only be categorized as ridiculous to the extreme.That seems like a very narrow interpretation of such rules and how they are applied and a big assumption as well.


It is hilarious that one would take such broad social analysis and attempt to apply it in individual circumstances. Others in this thread have already argued the absolute absurdity of this.Yes...and others have also failed to make a convincing argument. And if you are refering to BHM...well then I am very sorry...that post reeks of reactionary sentiments translated into a nice socialist sounding analysis. But in essence...saying drugdealers are working class ignores the fact taht these people operate outside the legal societal bounds and are therefore to be classified according to Marx's class theory as Lumpen....his whole post is based on lack of theoretical knowledge and the wrong application of terminology. Or is he suggesting they dabble in drugs next to their day-time job?


One would have to go through every single profession and judge entirely based on that.Yes. And why is this wrong? Simply because it sounds complicated to you? Or is it because you find it exluding? Because I have got news for you....when the CPN applied that policy they grew stronger...and as soon as they let that policy go the party was dead in a mere 15 years time overtaken by petit-burgeoisie and burgeoisie intelectuals who completely fucked up the working class appeal and were instrumental in dissolving the party in to what became ultimately a semi-liberal rich boys and girls club.


But of course this would not take into account one's personal background or their individual consciousness which obviously isn't as shallow as being in line with one's "class".
O really? Because I quite clearly remember Miles saying:


We ask prospective members to tell us about themselves, including where they work and/or what their parents do for a living, which usually gives us a clear idea of their class background. There is a measure of trust that goes along with it, but there is also verification. We make a point to get prospective members involved in activities and such, and we get to know them better through our meetings, discussions and common work. After a few months, you usually can verify what they've told you.

This soounds like an intake....and it also sounds like it leaves room for margin and leniency. And that quite clearly contradicts what you have just stated here. I am now wondering why you overlooked that post.


We can see Miles taking it to the extreme in the following quote (bold mine):

This is obviously a false dichotomy. One's class certainly does factor into one's individual consciousness. But so do a whole ton of other factors. Workerism ignores this.I do not see the problem. They can still support the group if that happens.

But your argument is also a false dichotomy....since your previous argument of multiple parties in existance basically undermines your claim here. The claim you are making is one of exclusion. There are solid historical and theoretical arguments to be made for that exlusion. The only argument against it is basically boiling down to: "its unfair". But since your previous claim that this is just another sect, one of many, in fact according to your argumens so far. I hardly think that induvidual conscious non-proletarians are hard pressed to find a party which will gladly take them in.



You can see CoTR getting upset that one would even challenge such a policy, because of the fact that such a policy is indefensible based simply on its subjectivity. Which leads me to my third point. Who gets to determine who is "prole enough" to be a member? There certainly has to be some kind of process one goes through to find out if they're enough of a worker to join the prestigious Workers' Party in America! From my experience in the League it was Miles that got to make that determination. Could be different in the WPA, but based on his history I doubt it.Yes...and that proces...as pointed out in this post has been described. It maybe a process you, obviously don't agree with, but non of your points actually make any logical sense...as I have pointed out to you and are in fact contrary to historical evidence, contrary to the origins of many communist parties and contrary to theory.

Nor do you suggest a valid alternative other than: "don't be exclusive". In fact...what you are doing is boiling down to antagonising for the sake of antagonising.

Something which your two initial posts make very clear. Neither one constitutes an adhominem if taken by themselves. But if you put these two together that becomes an entirely different matter:



The WPA is Miles and like 5 people. Miles decides if you're prole enough. Except for the fact that Engels was referring to a movement based organization and not an ahistorical sect (the WPA) completely divorced from reality.


So Miles is the WPA. The WPA is a sect completely divorced from reality. Quite clearly you are saying Miles is completely divorced from reality.
And given your post history I conclude that this was absolutely intentional.

Especially since yhou have a history of making very nice snide ad hominems yourself.

And that makes your little spiel about being so unappreciatve of b eing personally attacked a bit dodgy at best. Well...not a bit...it actually makes it a lot dodgy and completely insincere buhne politics. Buhne means you are playing the audience by assuming the victims role here.

Now...I have no way of knowing if what Miles said in his first post is true. Nor do I have any reason to doubt him...and given the nature of some of your posts there must absolutely be some truth in it. I find such statements quite distastefull...even when made in jest....and I am only calling it distasteful because I have no reason to want to get infracted over you. But At the very least it indicated that there is a personal agenda at play here. Which makes all your post in this thread very suspect.


Here's another problem that came up in the League that has never been resolved, and I still see miles sticking to his guns on it. Presumably the WPA welcomes revolutionaries of all stripes, from left communist to Maoist, as long as they can "get along". This sweeping under the rug of ideological differences in the hope that they will go away is never going to get anywhere.Ahhh...so basically you rather have infighting than aiming for the most important goal first: the proletarian revolution and the overthrow of capitalism?

Because the very essence of ideological differences...you know...the ones which cause all those splits...is that they can not be overcome unless people are willing to get along and work together.

Something which...quite obviously from the start of this thread...is something which is not very high on your agenda. Because you are trying your utmost best to devide and attack. Not trying to overcome ideological differences but enlarging them and actually creating them. You are doing this not only in the tone and content of your posts butb aslo in your choice of words.

All the while you pretend to take on the mantle of the voice of wisdom...the voice of the one who knows best...that we all need a broad movement....but here you quite clearly argue the exact opposite.



I'm very glad that you said this, I didn't particularly care for being attacked by Miles, as I haven't attacked him at all in this thread. Ad homs get us nowhere. How anyone can view my posts in this thread as "attacks" (much less ad homs) is beyond me.O...please....yes you have, and we already know this is basically you trying to play the victim...

Now if you actually want to have a productive debate....which IMO you really don't want to...state your well argued points. Because up until now you have completely failed to do so and only insulted the intelligence of the members of this board by issuing blanket statements of supposed facts by pointing to some no longer existent and non accessible work you have done in the past...in an attempt to make it look like you are not arguing a case from personal agenda. Which seems to be a reoccuring theme....funny how that works.

Please....that is so freaking obvious.



***

* Social Democratic Workers Party - during a time in which Social Democrat was still carried by all teh sorts of socialists.

[PhoenixAsh]

snip

I don't disagree with you on this. But I am not in a position to say if that is what is happening here....or that we are having another tendency war.

[Le Libérer]

You'll notice that I'm focusing on Miles in the above paragraph, and that's precisely because such organizations are inseparable from him. When you have one person creating an organization, and having it be "their" organization - whether it have 2, 5 or even 20 members - we obviously can't ignore that individual in discussing the organization. You'll also notice I'm not saying anything at all about Miles' character or making any ad hominems, because that's stupid. As usual, you were attacking a singular person (Miles) by your own definition.

You keep referring back to the Communist League as if its the same organization as WPA. I know of sister organizations based in NY as well as very established ones such as ACT-UP that have stood in soladarity on several issues.

The WPA is hardly made up of a handful of people anymore. All its members are workers.


As for the proletarian-only policy, I think that's been covered by others rather well. I wrote a significant critique about it some time ago on the comleague or whatever it was forum before they disbanded and can't be bothered to recreate it. But It's quite obvious why this policy is silly. I remember that piece. It was about the Communist League, not the WPA. And wasnt it right after you were asked to leave the group? Holding onto bitterness after so many years isnt a healthy thing, KC. Really, the WPA has moved on, I suggest you do the same.





You can see CoTR getting upset that one would even challenge such a policy, because of the fact that such a policy is indefensible based simply on its subjectivity. Which leads me to my third point. Who gets to determine who is "prole enough" to be a member? There certainly has to be some kind of process one goes through to find out if they're enough of a worker to join the prestigious Workers' Party in America! From my experience in the League it was Miles that got to make that determination. Could be different in the WPA, but based on his history I doubt it. Upset? Hardly. But I will not allow anyone to be attacked. Thats my position on this board. Doubt is the key word here. Doubt, assumption, projection.....



Here's another problem that came up in the League that has never been resolved, and I still see miles sticking to his guns on it. Presumably the WPA welcomes revolutionaries of all stripes, from left communist to Maoist, as long as they can "get along". This sweeping under the rug of ideological differences in the hope that they will go away is never going to get anywhere. The League isnt the WPA and vise versa.
Because you refuse to let your strawman die, just proves you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.



I'm very glad that you said this, I didn't particularly care for being attacked by Miles, as I haven't attacked him at all in this thread. Ad homs get us nowhere. How anyone can view my posts in this thread as "attacks" (much less ad homs) is beyond me.Oh nice try turning the tables, Mr Victim. Really, I prefer your brassness over this imagery. :lol:

[Le Libérer]

Just curious, OP, why are you so concerned over an American based organization seeing you dont live in the states?

[bietan jarrai]

Just curious, OP, why are you so concerned over an American based organization seeing you dont live in the states?
I've also been wondering that same thing since I've spotted this thread.

[9]

Isn't this an international forum for political discussion..? Certainly there's nothing wrong with being curious about political organizations outside of the country in which you live...

[bietan jarrai]

Isn't this an international forum for political discussion..? Certainly there's nothing wrong with being curious about political organizations outside of the country in which you live...
Certainly there's nothing wrong with being curious about why that person is curious about that political organization outside of the country in which he/she lives.

[28350]

Just curious, OP, why are you so concerned over an American based organization seeing you dont live in the states?

Allow me.


just more evidence of ur personal dislike of me. it was a genuine question, if u look at my posts about parties in the UK u can see im quite a trainspotter when it comes to leftist groups. but whatever

[Le Libérer]

Allow me.

And allow me.

OP I hope you received the desired info or attention or drama you were going after.

Seeing the WPA could hardly interest you being on a different continent, if your questions werent answered to your satisfaction, I suggest emailing the WPA for pamplets.

K? Good.

Thread closed.

Also if theres one thread in the members forum on why this thread is closed, I will immediately close and trash it, and possibly hand out infractions for trolling this board.