Guess Who's Back... Back Again...

[Kassad]

Miss me kids? I'm back with a passion and have made some pretty immense political changes. I'm posting this thread so people can check out a recent essay of mine on my political development, which I expect to be filled with irrelevant bullshit, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary. In case anyone didn't notice, I left the PSL a good while back and decided that wearing a Bob Avakian shirt was a great way to make myself look splendid. In all seriousness, this is available for everyone to read and I look forward to feedback.

A Break with RCP: The last straw was Avakian on Occupy


For the first time in decades, the masses are seriously in motion and the winds of radical change are blowing. These winds are fierce and they are powerful. With the rise of the Occupy Wall Street that has inspired people across the globe, something historic is brewing. As these winds blow, as communists, we must ask ourselves: do we take flight or do we allow our wings to be clipped once more by this system?

This upsurge is what many of us have only dreamed of and discussed. The potential to shake this empire to the core is very real and the empire’s eyes are on us. The critical contradiction is this: though the rulers of this brutal system seek to chain us down, are there even some on the revolutionary left that, whether intentionally or without recognition, do the very same thing?

Read on: http://kasamaproject.org/2011/11/13/break-with-rcp-avakian-on-occupy-was-the-last-straw/

[pastradamus]

Welcome back kassad! :)

[The Douche]

Welcome back, bro, I read this when you posted it on facebook. Glad to see you've decided to come back to revleft, and I look forward to having many heated disagreements with you!

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Comrade, share your ammo with me.

welcome back. i have no idea who you are, but welcome

[PhoenixAsh]

This artcile has made quite a run around the world on FB. It passed my FB page a few times.

Good to see you back!

[Art Vandelay]

Guess who's back...back again...kassads back....tell a friend.

Do not actually know you but welcome back comrade.

[Broletariat]

Why is this in politics, we shouldn't waste space in a useful thread to hear that a capitalist decided to post here again.

[bricolage]

"To briefly touch on myself and why this essay is being written, I am a young communist living in Ohio. I have been active in supporting the RCP for a little under a year."

Is this actually true? You second to last post before your break from here was on the 17th June where you wrote; (http://www.revleft.com/vb/updated-website-party-t156505/index.html?p=2146216#post2146216)


Check out the newly updated website of the PSL: http://www.pslweb.org/party/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.pslweb.org/party/)

We have lots of new features, so be sure to check out everything. Liberation News now has its own separate page.Even if you left the PSL and joined Bob Avakian the very next day after posting that (which seems unlikely) and left him the day before posting that Kasama article (which also seems unlikely) it still only means you were 'active in supporting the RCP' for five months. Unless that is you were a member of the PSL and 'active in supporting the RCP' at the same time (which seems even more unlikely than the first two). This all looks quite dishonest.

[bricolage]

That being said I'm always pleased to hear of people leaving the PSL.

[Manic Impressive]

Wrong and predictable response to the occupations
As stated, the Occupy movements in this country are an inspiration to all of us. Whether it be in larger cities like New York City, Chicago and Oakland where tens of thousands have poured into the streets crying our for something radically different,

should be out me thinks.

[RadioRaheem84]

What is bad about the PSL?

I understand the rather cultish like behavior of the RCP being a concern but what about the PSL?

[Kassad]

Why is this in politics, we shouldn't waste space in a useful thread to hear that a capitalist decided to post here again.

I'm a capitalist now? It appears this place is still riddled with the intellectually deficient.

In response to the person who asked about the timeline of my membership in different organizations, I had become relatively alienated from the PSL's line well before I left, at which point I began digging in to what the RCP was putting forward. I have no reason for being dishonest.

[The Douche]

Why is this in politics, we shouldn't waste space in a useful thread to hear that a capitalist decided to post here again.

Why do you think Kassad is a capitalist?

[Kassad]

Wrong and predictable response to the occupations
As stated, the Occupy movements in this country are an inspiration to all of us. Whether it be in larger cities like New York City, Chicago and Oakland where tens of thousands have poured into the streets crying our for something radically different,

should be out me thinks.

Thank you, it's been corrected.

[Ocean Seal]

I thought it was going to be Magical Trevor, but its good to have Kassad back again.

[bricolage]

In response to the person who asked about the timeline of my membership in different organizations, I had become relatively alienated from the PSL's line well before I left, at which point I began digging in to what the RCP was putting forward. I have no reason for being dishonest.
Ok, but it still stands that in June you were posting messages about the new PSL website and asking new posters to send you PMs about joining the organisation. It seems strange that you would be doing that whilst being alienated from the PSL's line and being 'active in supporting' another 'party'. To me none of this translates as 'little under a year', especially as I'm guessing you didn't leave the RCP yesterday.

Maybe not dishonest but I think there is definitely something to be gained from making this seem longer than it was as opposed to it being a 'break' with something you were only involved with for a few months.

As for the accusations of you being a capitalist, I don't think you are a one especially as such a thing is determined by ownership of the means of production and not holding particular political views. That being said my only experience of you is as a poster on this website aggressively promoting the PSL and its ideological standpoint, a standpoint that has nothing to do with class politics.

[Broletariat]

Why do you think Kassad is a capitalist?
"Marxist-Leninist-Maoist"

[ZeroNowhere]

"Marxist-Leninist-Maoist"
Not sure this is the right place or time.

[Broletariat]

Not sure this is the right place or time.

He asked man.

[Blackscare]

Warning to Broletariat for unnecessary tendency-baiting, hostility, and personal attacks. This is an interesting thread and it doesn't need to be derailed. Either stay on point with the purpose of the thread or go play in chit-chat.

[Rusty Shackleford]

...PSL and its ideological standpoint, a standpoint that has nothing to do with class politics.
:lol:


no.

[Revy]

I can't understand why you'd go to the RCP in the first place. But good that you left them.

About PSL. The main reason I would never want to be apart of the PSL is because of their views on regimes like North Korea and Iran. They're always eager to defend every dictatorship. You can't say "I am for liberation" here, yet support those regimes, only because the US opposes them. I'd rather stay consistent for liberation and socialism for ALL countries in the world.

I admire other things about the PSL. But for me their views on that will forever outweigh any positives. And I think more leftists would be eager to join the PSL if they actually did some serious thinking about those Workers' World Party views they still hold.

[Rusty Shackleford]

PSL recruitment isnt about recruiting leftists. Its about recruiting workers who we train to be leaders and organizers of the working class.

[Revy]

PSL recruitment isnt about recruiting leftists. Its about recruiting workers who we train to be leaders and organizers of the working class.

I guess if we lead and organize the working class enough, we can lead them to believe in things like "North Korea is building socialism and defending its socialist revolution".

[Crux]

Miss me kids? I'm back with a passion and have made some pretty immense political changes. I'm posting this thread so people can check out a recent essay of mine on my political development, which I expect to be filled with irrelevant bullshit, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary. In case anyone didn't notice, I left the PSL a good while back and decided that wearing a Bob Avakian shirt was a great way to make myself look splendid. In all seriousness, this is available for everyone to read and I look forward to feedback.

A Break with RCP: The last straw was Avakian on Occupy



Read on: http://kasamaproject.org/2011/11/13/break-with-rcp-avakian-on-occupy-was-the-last-straw/
Congratulations are in order. Kasama is actually one of the few examples of a relatively healthy maoist-influenced org I can think of, off-hand.

[Rafiq]

A capitalist is not defined as a f***ing person who believes capitalism is good, a capitalist is a member of the bourgeoisie, you can't use that as an insult. Capitalism is and never was an ideology.

Also, I'm not really familiar with Kassad, but I'm glad to here he's back and look forward to what he has to offer to this site

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Welcome back Kassad. You seemed way too intelligent for the RCP. I look forward to your contributions with Kasama, a much better outfit.

[FSL]

If someone is at one party for a while, leaves to join another one and stays there for a few months and then leaves that one as well to join a third party/organisation/"project", then I'd guess that that someone's politics are still being defined as he reads/learns/participates etc.

So having theoretical(?) articles like the one posted at the op where one first expresses a genuine interest and a firm belief in someone's vision and then breaks away after a while isn't really the way to go, I'd say.


Maybe you need to calm down on whose line is correct, whose is wrong, who has a vision, whose vision is crap and all that.
Chances are your opinion on things will be different tomorrow.
It's in fact ok to not be directly involved with any organisation as a member until you're ready to play the part.


The comment is good-natured however it may seem.

[KurtFF8]

I can't understand why you'd go to the RCP in the first place. But good that you left them.

About PSL. The main reason I would never want to be apart of the PSL is because of their views on regimes like North Korea and Iran. They're always eager to defend every dictatorship. You can't say "I am for liberation" here, yet support those regimes, only because the US opposes them. I'd rather stay consistent for liberation and socialism for ALL countries in the world.

I admire other things about the PSL. But for me their views on that will forever outweigh any positives. And I think more leftists would be eager to join the PSL if they actually did some serious thinking about those Workers' World Party views they still hold.

This seems to be the issue that most people have with the PSL: the conception that it focuses on "repression" instead of "liberation." The current events in Syria are a pretty good example. If you read the latest article on it: it's made clear that the PSL is attempting to understand the situation and not just jump to supporting mass protests.

Many Leftists seem to do this sometimes: uncritically support rebellion no matter the context (then you get Libya).

And the PSL has no illusions about the nature of regimes like Iran's, they've never claimed that it is a worker's state or anything of that sort. But when Western countries are trying to invade such a country, how could a true Leftist not stand up to such aggression by their own countries? That's what their line is really about.

So if the US started attacking Iran, I would imagine most Lefitsts would condemn such actions by the US: and that's mainly what the PSL promotes doing. I don't know why such a thing causes so much tension with other Left groups.

[S.Artesian]

Exactly what is the purpose of this thread? Kassad's back? That needs a thread? Put it in "Introductions."

[KurtFF8]

Indeed, this thread certainly doesn't belong in Politics

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Move it to Non-Political?

[Kassad]

Exactly what is the purpose of this thread? Kassad's back? That needs a thread? Put it in "Introductions."

Still a whiny little guy, as I remember. I had hoped that the topic would focus more on the article that I posted, but that isn't the way that it seems to have gone.

Let it be known that someone chose to revive this thread after it was dead for a couple weeks, so don't blame me for that.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, I have this thing where I kinda want to be tied up, forced to perform self-criticism for my ultra-leftist adventurism, and fucked by a Maoist. I'm too nervous to go to Maison Norman Bethune, though.

Seriously though, sometimes I touch myself while reading Kasama.

[Prairie Fire]

Welcome back, but as many have already pointed out, this doesn't belong
in "politics".



I had hoped that the topic would focus more on the article that I posted, but that isn't the way that it seems to have gone.


Fair enough. Let's go through your article:



For the first time in decades, the masses are seriously in motion and the winds of radical change are blowing.


This is the "occupy" viewpoint in a nut-shell.

Because by and large the people involved in occupy are not workers, they have never been involved in any other struggle, and are almost invariably North American/European students and youth, you get Egotistical, Euro-centric and altogether incorrect viewpoints such as this.

To give the experience of my country, there have been two major national strikes this year alone, both of which were ordered back to work by the federal government. There have been major workers actions in Southern Ontario by the Steelworkers and Vale-inco workers fighting for their rights, there is activism by indigenous people across Alberta and BC over proposed oil pipelines to the US, the massive opposition to G20 in Toronto was only one year ago...

There were many, many more people involved in the postal workers strike and the Air Canada strike respectively, than in the milieu of the local "occupy" nonsense in my city, and unlike "occupy", the strikers had defined objectives that they were struggling towards.

Now, maybe it's me, but also in this last decade in particular (2001-2011), we have seen millions march around the world to oppose the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, millions more participating in strikes (I remember reading about a one day strike in India last year that had over 100,000 participants- more than the total population of all "occupy" protesters and their supporters in Canada), the whole Arab Spring (not to be confused with "occupy"; the Arab spring had well defined objectives,), progressive social change in Latin America ( Venezuela, Bolivia, etc), not to mention on-going revolutionary armed struggles in various countries...

Before this, in the 1990's, there were also strikes and demonstrations involving millions around the world, as well as revolutionary uprisings...

All self-congratulatory back-patting aside, if anything, "occupy" has manifested as a profound diversion of legitimate sentiments for change into an ultimately fruitless excursion of hanging out in a designated area, venting steam, and waiting until the inevitable eviction by the authorities.

If you're going to have a "Sit in", at least have a program to go with it.



With the rise of the Occupy Wall Street that has inspired people across the globe, something historic is brewing


Yes. It has inspired all of those with student-loans to go hang out down town for a few days, and get nothing accomplished, without so much as even coherent political demands.



This upsurge is what many of us have only dreamed of and discussed.


If you were organizing on a definite basis among the working class, you wouldn't have to dream.

The only ones who were salivating like dogs in a butcher shop were the general floaters of the "Activist scene" who are always waiting for a crowd to gather, so that they can go hand out their generalized literature, and bounce from one impotent "Event" to the next, until they burn-out/drop-out or they keep doing it until they die.

The work that my comrades are doing in my city is targeting and organizing specific groups of workers. Our publication (supplement of our daily online news service) comments on the specific struggles of specific sectors of the workers, we go to their job-sites every month and disseminate the paper to them, and over the course of doing regular work among them, we have come to know them andare beginning to involve them in the over-all political work of their specific situation and of the rest of the country at large.

The revisionists in my city have all taken their turn hanging out and pamphleting at "occupy", and with the city threatening to evict occupy, they now return to their calendar of "events" to float between, while they seek out more crowds to hand out pamphlets at.



The critical contradiction is this: though the rulers of this brutal system seek to chain us down, are there even some on the revolutionary left that, whether intentionally or without recognition, do the very same thing?


The critical contradiction is that "occupy" is diversionary and impotent.

Those sober forces (i.e. the masses of workers who don't have that kind of free time/student loan to hang out down-town indefinately), specifically the political forces of the workers movement, who chose not to participate in "occupy" are by no means " chaining you down".

My comrades across the country did not participate in "occupy", but we have not openly disparaged it either.

Don't blame your failures on those who didn't participate. The truth is that those who did participate had no game plan to begin with, and are unsurprisingly yielding nothing from nothing.



The Occupy Movement is historic and to boil it down to merely being a vehicle to support Avakian’s cult of personality is pure laughable grandiose


To refer to the Occupy movement as "historic" is just as laughable and self-inflated.

In order for something to be "Historic", it needs to generally influence the flow of history that follows it in some way or another.

"Occupy" is barely influencing events in the Present. In the Future, it is doubtful that it will be more than an occurrence in the memories of it's participants.



There is no question that the system as a whole is in question. Even those who have turned to electoral politics and activism within the political framework of this country have begun to challenge the very foundations of this system.


It is "in question", but is not in question in any way that is actionable (let alone consistent).



However, towards the conclusion of his essay, Avakian makes his view of what is necessary abundantly clear.
He continues:
“While uniting with the basic and very positive thrust of the “Occupy” protests; while continuing to work to broaden and deepen them; and while learning as much as can be learned from the already rich experience of these protests and the initiative and creativity, as well as determination, shown by many involved in them, it is crucial to influence and win more and more people to seriously engage with the scientific communist understanding and orientation—particularly as this is embodied in the outlook and strategic approach of our Party, the RCP, and in a concentrated way in the new synthesis of communism that I have brought forward over the past few decades and that I am continuing to work to further develop. ” (Emphasis mine)


So, Avakian/the RCP reacted to "Occupy" by viewing it as a recruiting pool, and trying to insert their politics into it.

Just like all of the other revisionists.

If any of these incompetents had succeeded in gaining sway over a local "occupy" scene, it may have been better (i.e. having coherent, clearly articulated goals/program, democratic-centralism as opposed to an idealized concept of "consensus"), but ultimately still impotent.

Because these revisionists are still trying to organize on the basis of random individuals gathered into crowds, rather than on a definite basis (i.e. a work place, a community, an educational institution, etc), they will never have any socio-economic clout, which is the ultimate power that the proletariat has over their exploiters.

The bourgeoisie has tanks, an armed forces, tear gas, covert infiltrators and all kinds of other diabolical instruments of force and murder, but the proletariat always have the upper hand by virtue of the position they hold as the producers of all in society (a function that they can with-hold).
The random individuals in the occupy scene by and large don't possess this relation to the means of production, and so it is no surprise that they can be evicted with impunity.



How many of the people who are a part of the Occupy movement in this country, along with the global uprisings it has spurred in support of it internationally,


We're being a bit generous with the definition of the word "uprising" ,are we?

In my city, it was maybe 200+ people(in the beginning), all of them students and the "usual suspects" of the activist "scene", pitching tents down-town, hanging out and not bathing.

I think that "uprising" is a reckless exaggeration of what took place around the world (even at Wall street itself).



Avakian has a fundamental misunderstanding of the passion and movement of the masses and he has for quite a long time.


The "passion of the movement" is fucking irrelevant if nothing comes out of it.



As communists, it is our duty to unite with the masses in their struggle and show to the people that this economic crisis, the imperialist wars abroad and ever-growing unemployment in this country are symptoms of a much greater disease that is the capitalist system.


And as communists, it is our duty to begin from the point of organizing the working class, and not to take marching orders from a post-modern magazine financed by wealthy industrialists.



If we do succeed in inspiring this movement and maintain our devotion in principle, can we not organize the people not only against the rich or the “1%”, but against capitalism-imperialism as a whole?


The task of organizing is done around tangible objectives, not indefinite musing.

If you want to mobilize people, generally you mobilize them in the work that they are already in the thick of, and it is through doing this work that they acquire class consciousness, and the necessity for revolution.

Anyways... I realize that the point of your essay was to point out the inadequacies of the RCP-USA as you see them, and you are not altogether incorrect in your criticisms of their line.

I simply saw your promotion of the "occupy movement" (which still seems to be something of a sacred cow on revleft) as something that was itself in need of criticism.

I don't question your motives, only your tactics.

As far as your new affiliations are concerned, the fact that you chose to go with the Kasama "project" is not really a step up. Kasama is a blog, not an organization.

For American Comrades, I understand the pickin's are slim in the US, because most of the alleged "Workers" parties have no connection what-so-ever to the workers in America.

I would advocate that you check out USMLO: http://usmlo.org/ (http://usmlo.org/)
( A year ago, I would have said the American Party of Labour, but they are stagnating, and they are also not a working class trend, speaking of Marxism-Leninism in abstract and of American workers politics only in a generalized sense).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can folks please stick to the issues raised rather than name-calling. If someone doesn't like the PSL or RCP for their view of this or that, please talk about the issue, why you think their view of it is wrong and what a better alternative would be in your opinion. It will make the discussion useful and keep flaming at a lower volume.

Because by and large the people involved in occupy are not workers, they have never been involved in any other struggle, and are almost invariably North Americans/Europeans students and youth, you get Egotistical, Euro-centric and altogether incorrect viewpoints such as this.Just numerically, most of the people involved in occupy in the US are workers. Most of the ideas however are infomed in many of the protests by liberal or life-stylist ideas. Many are young and some are students (but I don't see how being a worker in training or an underemployed worker suddenly pulls you out of your class). Your description is a straw-man and if we apply the same sort of thinking to movements in the past then the left would not have organized around anti-jim-crow protests, the sit-in movement (petty-bourgeois black students mostly at the beginning) etc. Yes many people have not been involved in struggle - most US workers have never been in a major strike, most are unorganized. Youth unemployment is higher, unionization rates for youth are lower despite larger numbers of youth wanting to be unionized, and fights against oppression and in the workplace have been non-existent or defensive. In this social context, it should be no shock that the way struggle begins is not at a high level of working class consciousness and has a mixed quality. But through these struggles, class politics can become more clear and in Oakland hundreds of thousands of people learned that you can have mass struggle to hit the so-called 1% where it counts by allying with workers and shutting down the port or taking other militant actions.


Now, maybe it's me, but also in this last decade in particular (2001-2011), we have seen millions march around the world to oppose the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, millions more participating in strikes (I remember reading about a one day strike in India last year that had over 100,000 participants- more than the total population of all "occupy" protesters and their supporters in Canada), the whole Arab Spring (not to be confused with "occupy"; the Arab spring had well defined objectives,), progressive social change in Latin America ( Venezuela, Bolivia, etc), not to mention on-going revolutionary armed struggles in various countries...The anti-war protests were significant and had millions of people participating, but on the other hand it was mostly behind liberal organizations like UFPJ which made decisions from the top-down and ultimately argued to support the war "after it started" and that the goal was only to get rid of Bush.

The occupy movement on the other hand is generally at least suspicious of BOTH parties and is developing not against Bush and the "republican agenda" but with liberalism in power and showing its true allegiance to business. On top of that despite some issues I have with the process that most occupys have adopted, this is a movement of organizers where people are learning their own lessons and leading themselves. Radicals should be a part of that development and argue the necessity for radical class politics as well as trying to win votes for proposals we thing will help build the movement's connection to labor and oppressed people as well as prevent co-option by establishment liberals.

And the Arab spring, a conscious inspiration for this movement from progressives to radicals, also had mixed politics a limited agreed goal of ousting one leader. It is much bigger and impressive and militant, but it also suffers from some of the mixed class consciousness that movements arising elsewhere in this era have had.


Yes. It has inspired all of those with student-loans to go hang out down town for a few days, and get nothing accomplished, without so much as even coherent political demands.As opposed to the movement against austerity that's accomplishing something? And how are students who have to pay back student loans in an economy with high youth unemployment not fighting a class issue?


The critical contradiction is that "occupy" is diversionary and impotent.

Because these revisionists are still trying to organize on the basis of random individuals gathered into crowds, rather than on a definite basis (i.e. a work place, a community, an educational institution, etc), they will never have any socio-economic clout, which is the ultimate power that the proletariat has over their exploiters.In Oakland there really isn't a political hub - union offices are usually downtown or in industrial warehouse areas. There is a labor council which doesn't really organize anything meaningful when it comes to rank and file actions - without a lot of pressure anyway. But Occupy Oakland, for a while, provided a center for political organizing - union militants involved were able to attract rank and file workers form various unions to work together in publicizing the port shut-down and made new links with community activists. People involved with the Oscar Grant protests are working with union militants. In a very modest but organic way, workers involved in community struggles are making real links with labor and rank and file workers are seeing how mass action and community support are possible.

This is all baby-steps in making a new left in the US and rebuilding rank and file confidence and militancy, but it is a significant step and a whole generation of young people are learning how to be political organizers on their own rather than ending up working for some NGO where they have no democratic voice or influence.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Honestly, PF, your posts are pretty grating. That one is no exception. :rolleyes:

OWS is not revolutionary, nor was what happened in the middle east, at least not in the sense that leftists use the word. That's not even the point. The point is that OWS (and similar activities internationally, esp. in countries around the mediterranean) open up an opportunity for the left's viewpoints to be heard, and for the left to participate on the social terrain which it seeks to influence (for example, in Occupy Atlanta with the defense of the homeless shelter there, or in Occupy Oakland with the outreach to the ILWU). Kassad is speaking about what OWS has done in the USA, not Canada, so your impressions are less than relevant here. The fact that events such as the Oct 15th day of action, the Oakland port shutdown and the November 15 day of action (since you mentioned activities related to labor, that was one of the largest labor rallies NYC has seen in decades, although it was pretty much the deathnell of OWS as well) happened, but aren't even acknowledged by you, indicates to me that you have just as much myopia on this topic as the blowhards on television.

That's without going into the fact that OWS brought up topics in the USA's national dialogue that had been almost completely ignored. I guess it's easy to miss that if you don't live here, though.

re: OWS's historical relevance - yes, it is historicallly relevant, not because it managed to accomplish anything concrete, but because it represents the American manifestation of an international trend.

[CWAF]

( A year ago, I would have said the American Party of Labour, but they are stagnating, and they are also not a working class trend, speaking of Marxism-Leninism in abstract and of American workers politics only in a generalized sense). Greetings comrade, I wonder if you could please elaborate on this for me? How does the USMLO compare with the APL ideologically? I'm not American, but the APL always seemed like a good party to me.

[Crux]

This seems to be the issue that most people have with the PSL: the conception that it focuses on "repression" instead of "liberation." The current events in Syria are a pretty good example. If you read the latest article on it: it's made clear that the PSL is attempting to understand the situation and not just jump to supporting mass protests.

Many Leftists seem to do this sometimes: uncritically support rebellion no matter the context (then you get Libya).

And the PSL has no illusions about the nature of regimes like Iran's
This is simply not true and if you like I could yet again produce the Liberation articles to prove it. Read what Liberation writes about Iran and the Iranian regime. And indeed the current events in Syria are a good example of the modus operandi of the PSL and their predecessor, rush to support the regime doing the repressing, that has been the case from Hungary 56, through Czeckoslovakia 68, Tianamen Square 89 up until today. Frankly, I'd be suprised if you can find repression made by any regime that could with any stretch of the imagination be described as "anti-imperialist" that the PSL/WWP crowd has not lined up, quite uncritically might I add, with the regime. But I am sorry, I do not wish to derail, I'm just saying perhaps you should read PSL's paper more often. It's all there.

[S.Artesian]

Still a whiny little guy, as I remember. I had hoped that the topic would focus more on the article that I posted, but that isn't the way that it seems to have gone.

.

Still the ignoramus, as I remember.

[KurtFF8]

This is simply not true and if you like I could yet again produce the Liberation articles to prove it. Read what Liberation writes about Iran and the Iranian regime. And indeed the current events in Syria are a good example of the modus operandi of the PSL and their predecessor, rush to support the regime doing the repressing, that has been the case from Hungary 56, through Czeckoslovakia 68, Tianamen Square 89 up until today. Frankly, I'd be suprised if you can find repression made by any regime that could with any stretch of the imagination be described as "anti-imperialist" that the PSL/WWP crowd has not lined up, quite uncritically might I add, with the regime. But I am sorry, I do not wish to derail, I'm just saying perhaps you should read PSL's paper more often. It's all there.

Of course the PSL didn't exist during most of those events, and yes the founders of the Party were in WWP at the time, you can't necessarily accuse a current party for all of the ills of the party it split from.

Here's a recent example though about Syria: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/will-syria-be-another-libya.html


As in the case of Libya, the Syrian state is not a workers' state or a socialist country even though there is state ownership of large industrial enterprises. Many Syrians are opposed to Assad’s government for a variety of reasons, including economic problems, rising unemployment, religious conflicts, regional tensions and others. And the Syrian state has certainly taken a hard line against opposition protests, including violently repressing peaceful marches.

Not exactly the "hell yeah repress the opposition!" kind of language that the Party is often accused of having

[Le Libérer]

Took Lenina's advise. Moved it to Non-Political because Kassad needs no introduction.

Welcome back.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Still the ignoramus, as I remember.Oy, you two! Just fuck already.

[Kassad]

If you don't mind me asking Prairie Fire, what led you to go the USMLO route?

[bricolage]

re: OWS's historical relevance - yes, it is historicallly relevant, not because it managed to accomplish anything concrete, but because it represents the American manifestation of an international trend.
See I'm not sure how I feel about this in that I don't think a tactic on its own represents a trend. The points that the current occupy movements trace their lineages to (Tahrir Square, Syntagma Square) were all componenets of and extensions of identifiable movements with semi-specific goals. In contrast OWS seems less a manifestation of an international trend than a start of one, of occupation as a strategy (and not a tactic) existing independent to a clear movement and under which the space itself gains importance over all else, namely what the space might actually be used for. Although I suppose Spain was really the start of the trend but I don't know too much about what went on there.

[Os Cangaceiros]

See I'm not sure how I feel about this in that I don't think a tactic on its own represents a trend. The points that the current occupy movements trace their lineages to (Tahrir Square, Syntagma Square) were all componenets of and extensions of identifiable movements with semi-specific goals. In contrast OWS seems less a manifestation of an international trend than a start of one, of occupation as a strategy (and not a tactic) existing independent to a clear movement and under which the space itself gains importance over all else, namely what the space might actually be used for. Although I suppose Spain was really the start of the trend but I don't know too much about what went on there.

I didn't mean the tactic of occupation...I meant OWS just as part of the worldwide reaction to "the crisis". I think a lot of what's happened in the USA, Europe, the middle east, Africa and China can be traced back to 2008.

[Crux]

Of course the PSL didn't exist during most of those events, and yes the founders of the Party were in WWP at the time, you can't necessarily accuse a current party for all of the ills of the party it split from.

Here's a recent example though about Syria: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/will-syria-be-another-libya.html



Not exactly the "hell yeah repress the opposition!" kind of language that the Party is often accused of having

are you suggesting the psl somehow holds another position on these and more events than the pre-split wwp? And yes the psl sometimes comes with startling revelations like "iran is not a worker's state" or "syria is not socialist" but given where you always end up in the end those statements does not do you any favours does it? That you couple your de facto support for various regimes with a kind of vague reformism just drives the point home further. But perhaps you can convince Ahmadinejad of the greatness of socialism next time you meet.

[Il Medico]

It's good to see you back Kassad! Glad to hear you dumped the PSL and didn't stick around with those RCP wankers for too long.

[Chambered Word]

welcome, I might dislike you less now that you've bailed on the PSL. :lol:

[KurtFF8]

are you suggesting the psl somehow holds another position on these and more events than the pre-split wwp? And yes the psl sometimes comes with startling revelations like "iran is not a worker's state" or "syria is not socialist" but given where you always end up in the end those statements does not do you any favours does it? That you couple your de facto support for various regimes with a kind of vague reformism just drives the point home further. But perhaps you can convince Ahmadinejad of the greatness of socialism next time you meet.

I don't think that I, or the PSL is claiming that pointing out that those aren't workers' states is a revelation.

The question was the PSL's stance and analysis of these places: and I think it's quite clear. I'm not sure what reformism has to do with anything either considering the question is about anti-imperialism here.

Was opposing the US invasion of Iraq a "de factor support" for Saddam Hussein? I don't understand why it was so politcally obvious to Leftists to oppose US intervention in cases like that, yet when the US bombs Libya or is clearly trying to provoke war with Iran, or Syria that it's all of the sudden "supporting repressive regimes" to oppose the US and NATO in these cases.

The comment about Ahmadinejad seems like a bit of a straw man as well. The PSL, and as far as I understand no other Left group in the US, sees the Iranian government as having the potential to be a socialist country in its current state. What is clear (or at least folks like myself believe is clear) is that opposing US invasions/interventions in these places is what Communists in places like the US should be doing.

Would we like to see revolutionary Communist movements that are anti-imperialist take power in these places? Of course. But when the US decides to invade a place like Iraq, and there isn't a "third option" to support: what are you to do?

[Chambered Word]

Would we like to see revolutionary Communist movements that are anti-imperialist take power in these places? Of course. But when the US decides to invade a place like Iraq, and there isn't a "third option" to support: what are you to do?

Well, you could not support either side.

[Battlecat]

. But when the US decides to invade a place like Iraq, and there isn't a "third option" to support: what are you to do?

I've always wondered who de facto supporters of north korea as "anti-imperialists" would support if the North invaided the South unprovoked. Would you be forced to support south korea against "DPRK agression", or could you spin it in such a way that you could make South korea be the aggressors? (in such a hypothetical situation, that is)

[KurtFF8]

Well, you could not support either side.

And be indifferent to NATO bombing a developing nation in what is essentially a resource grab? That would be quite a strange position to hold for someone who is opposed to capitalism.


I've always wondered who de facto supporters of north korea as "anti-imperialists" would support if the North invaided the South unprovoked. Would you be forced to support south korea against "DPRK agression", or could you spin it in such a way that you could make South korea be the aggressors? (in such a hypothetical situation, that is)

And interesting question indeed. I would likely be opposed to such an action by the DPRK

[manic expression]

Hey Kassad, good to have you back again.

[Prometeo liberado]

Why all the boo-hoo about the PSL? I can understand the RCP bashing, what with "OUR BENEVOLENT LEADER" Bobby Avakian stuff. But the PSL really does work with anyone regardless of tendency.:scared:

[Chambered Word]

And be indifferent to NATO bombing a developing nation in what is essentially a resource grab? That would be quite a strange position to hold for someone who is opposed to capitalism.

indifference is not my position, I am opposed to imperialism, why do I have to repeat this to every single PSLite who tries to misrepresent my position with their false dichotomies before they've even heard it?

supporting a capitalist state would be quite a strange position to hold for someone who is opposed to capitalism.

edit: to the last poster, the PSL isn't liked much by many people mainly because of their awful politics.

[Prometeo liberado]

Very good point. The PSL is always heard to have said that they support North Korea for example when in fact the party is staunchly against the forces that want the North for nothing more than a pool of cheap labor. We certainly dont "support" these types of regimes so much as we defend with our words, against those who wish to impose another capitalist system. Its not so much a matter of a lesser evil than it is keeping one less capitalist army off the face of the earth.

[Prometeo liberado]

To Chamber Word:Not to get into a long drawn out debate but to truly find out what these awful politics are. We are always looking to better ourselves and accept criticism whenever and wherever one finds it.:D

[Chambered Word]

got your PM anyhow, I'm not sure how much you'll get out of it but I'll send you email sometime.

[KurtFF8]

indifference is not my position, I am opposed to imperialism, why do I have to repeat this to every single PSLite who tries to misrepresent my position with their false dichotomies before they've even heard it?

supporting a capitalist state would be quite a strange position to hold for someone who is opposed to capitalism.

Indeed it would be. So according to this post, it seems you had a very similar position on Libya than the PSL (opposing NATO), no?


the PSL isn't liked much by many people mainly because of their awful politics.

This is more of a cheap jab than an explanation.

[Robespierre Richard]

Hey I'm back too what's up bros.

[Rafiq]

Hey I'm back too what's up bros.

What's up kiroff.

Where you been?

[Robespierre Richard]

What's up kiroff.

Where you been?

Got treatment for my problems, -- ADHD and bipolar disorder, -- now getting into following politics again, maybe taking up active civil positions.

[Rafiq]

Got treatment for my problems, -- ADHD and bipolar disorder, -- now getting into following politics again, maybe taking up active civil positions.

Aren't you still a Marxist Leninist ?

[Robespierre Richard]

Aren't you still a Marxist Leninist ?

I'm post-ideology. Marxism-Leninism was basically just invented by Stalin to ideologically defeat the Left and Right Opposition and make Marxism a system that is distinctly separate from Social Democracy in ways other than "revolution guys, fuck bourgeois politics."

But yeah, my positions politically are more or less the same I guess.

[Rafiq]

I'm post-ideology. Marxism-Leninism was basically just invented by Stalin to ideologically defeat the Left and Right Opposition and make Marxism a system that is distinctly separate from Social Democracy in ways other than "revolution guys, fuck bourgeois politics."

But yeah, my positions politically are more or less the same I guess.

Anarcho Stalinist :D

[Crux]

I don't think that I, or the PSL is claiming that pointing out that those aren't workers' states is a revelation.

The question was the PSL's stance and analysis of these places: and I think it's quite clear. I'm not sure what reformism has to do with anything either considering the question is about anti-imperialism here.

Was opposing the US invasion of Iraq a "de factor support" for Saddam Hussein? I don't understand why it was so politcally obvious to Leftists to oppose US intervention in cases like that, yet when the US bombs Libya or is clearly trying to provoke war with Iran, or Syria that it's all of the sudden "supporting repressive regimes" to oppose the US and NATO in these cases.

The comment about Ahmadinejad seems like a bit of a straw man as well. The PSL, and as far as I understand no other Left group in the US, sees the Iranian government as having the potential to be a socialist country in its current state. What is clear (or at least folks like myself believe is clear) is that opposing US invasions/interventions in these places is what Communists in places like the US should be doing.

Would we like to see revolutionary Communist movements that are anti-imperialist take power in these places? Of course. But when the US decides to invade a place like Iraq, and there isn't a "third option" to support: what are you to do?
That's a massive strawman right there. I have said nothing of the sort in regards to Iran, Iraq, Syria or Libya. PSL (or rather ANSWER) representatives have met with Ahmadinejad. What does not "having the potential to be a socialist country in it's current state" mean? Socialism is a good idea but it will have to wait? See this is exactly where reformism comes in. This combined with a supposed anti-imperialist but in reality incredibly U.S-centric stance. Socialist groups in Iran don't agree with your position. Really I have yet to see any iranian group take up your supposed anti-imperialist position the way you do. Point in case, socialists in Iran, of any stripe, do not meet with Ahmadinejad. If you want to understand what is wrong your position and how it is at best reformist, compare your own statements with those of the iranian groups.

[Rafiq]

I'm post-ideology. Marxism-Leninism was basically just invented by Stalin to ideologically defeat the Left and Right Opposition and make Marxism a system that is distinctly separate from Social Democracy in ways other than "revolution guys, fuck bourgeois politics."

But yeah, my positions politically are more or less the same I guess.

Also post ideology does not exist.

[Robespierre Richard]

Also post ideology does not exist.

You're posting about ideology right now.

[Rafiq]

You're posting about ideology right now.

Spotting ideology is not qualifications for a post ideological environment.

Ideology is more prevalent today in modern society than ever before.

Zizek is right, we all think ideology is something of the past, yet we are drowned in it unconsciously, even by doing something so simple as using a toilet.

[Robespierre Richard]

Spotting ideology is not qualifications for a post ideological environment.

Ideology is more prevalent today in modern society than ever before.

Zizek is right, we all think ideology is something of the past, yet we are drowned in it unconsciously, even by doing something so simple as using a toilet.

Wow you're really good at regurgitating other people's words, dude.

[Rusty Shackleford]

you're posting about ideology right now.
10/10

[Rafiq]

Wow you're really good at regurgitating other people's words, dude.

I don't claim I came up with all of that on my own, I was just repeating something Zizek said, nothing wrong with that.

[Chambered Word]

Indeed it would be. So according to this post, it seems you had a very similar position on Libya than the PSL (opposing NATO), no?

I oppose NATO, but that's where our common political positions end in this case.


This is more of a cheap jab than an explanation.

well, I wasn't really trying to explain the details of why the PSL gets a bad rap on this forum amongst many members. but essentially the reason is because their politics seem so removed from revolutionary Marxism to many people here and it's less to do with organizational or practical criticism (although there is plenty of that as well). it wasn't intended simply to rile you up or anything to be honest.


PSL (or rather ANSWER) representatives have met with Ahmadinejad.

I thought it was the WWP? anyway I pretty much agree with what you've said here.

[Small Geezer]

I'd like to do a little blog on the most whorish leftists that can't stop changing parties. I would actually be worse than Kassad, I have jumped all over the place. But just to be respectful to Kassads legacy I would include him.
I'm not actually going to do it cause I can't be fucked.

[Robespierre Richard]

I don't claim I came up with all of that on my own, I was just repeating something Zizek said, nothing wrong with that.

No, it just makes talking to you pointless because I already know what you're going to say. I was going to illustrate this point by paraphrasing something I may have read on maddox.xmission.com 8 years ago but realized that it would annoy me as well as you.