Is the Party for Socialism and Liberation a vanguard party?

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

According to the Leninist stance?

[wunderbar]

Isn't PSL a Marxist-Leninist party? Are there any Leninist parties in the US (including Trotskyist parties) that don't see themselves as building a vanguard party?

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

They are M-L. I don't have much faith in the PSL anymore, to be honest. They seem to have little info on their website, and not much action that I am aware of. I'm also annoyed at how their two "presidential candidates" are both ineligible to run for office.

[Renegade Saint]

Organization: Party for Socialism and Liberation

Shouldn't we be asking you?

Most M-L parties are vanguard parties.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Isn't PSL a Marxist-Leninist party? Are there any Leninist parties in the US (including Trotskyist parties) that don't see themselves as building a vanguard party?

There is a Trot party that actually doesn't view itself as being, or ever becoming, the future "vanguard party". Unfortunately I can't remember which one it is...

[graymouser]

Does the PSL consider itself a vanguard party? If not, they see themselves as building one. Is it a Leninist vanguard party? With maybe a few hundred members and no significant leadership of the working class, I don't see it as actually being a vanguard party.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There is a Trot party that actually doesn't view itself as being, or ever becoming, the future "vanguard party". Unfortunately I can't remember which one it is...

I remember which one I was thinking of...the American organization "Solidarity".

From wiki:


Solidarity describes itself as "a democratic, revolutionary socialist, feminist, anti-racist organization."[2] It comes out of the Trotskyist tradition but has departed from many aspects of traditional Leninism and Trotskyism. It is more loosely organized than most "democratic centralist" groups, and it does not see itself as the vanguard of the working class or the nucleus of a vanguard.

[graymouser]

I remember which one I was thinking of...the American organization "Solidarity".
To quote a comrade, Solidarity is not really a Trotskyist organization so much as Trotsky-ish.

I've been a member of Solidarity at various times, longer than just about anything else, but it's really not Trotskyist. There are people in it who think of themselves as Trotskyist in some very general sense but it's a very loose organization and Trotsky's ideas are not particularly part of their thought or approach.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

With maybe a few hundred members and no significant leadership of the working class

:(It seems like no communist organizations in America are doing anything. The thing closest to revolution is OWS, and I think that it's starting losing it's steam. Also, I never considered it to be a communist movement in the first place.

[Prometeo liberado]

The PSL is and will continue to cultivate cadres in the Leninist definition and tradition. We work tirelessly in the community and many issues driven causes. The PSL invites all people who recognize the need for working class emancipation and leadership.

[KurtFF8]

They are M-L. I don't have much faith in the PSL anymore, to be honest. They seem to have little info on their website, and not much action that I am aware of. I'm also annoyed at how their two "presidential candidates" are both ineligible to run for office.

Their program and stances on many issues are on the site. They also maintain "Liberation" news which pretty clearly shows what they feel about many issues.

And what do you mean not much action? Are you near a PSL branch by chance?

I'm in NYC, and they are quite active here, and this is not even the biggest branch. In LA, for example, March Forward (which is affiliated with the PSL) is actually trying to launch a veterans center http://www.answercoalition.org/national/news/help-launch-the-national-veterans-center.html

I'm also not sure what the eligibility of the Presidential Candidates has to do with anything or why folks (especially on the Left) are concerned with that. The election helps build the organization and bring discussion about capitalism and socialism to a much broader venue: that is the purpose of the campaign, not to get office. If the PSL were running to try to actually win, they would be a bit delusional, don't you think?

But does the PSL see itself as the vanguard of the working class? No, I think it's quite well aware that it is not leading the working class movement at the moment, nor is any other Left Party. Does it organize to build a vanguard Party? Yes.

[Commissar Rykov]

:(It seems like no communist organizations in America are doing anything. The thing closest to revolution is OWS, and I think that it's starting losing it's steam. Also, I never considered it to be a communist movement in the first place.
Revolutions just don't spring out of the ground like daisies.

[KurtFF8]

And of course it wasn't a communist movement, I'm not aware of anyone other than Glenn Beck who thought otherwise.

But the idea that Communist organizations in America "don't do anything" is just false. Even groups that I completley don't like do some sort of organizing. One thing I've noticed in NY is that many events are organized (at least in part) but Communist groups, or at least with some involvement by them (including some OWS things, e.g. look at all the PSL signs on the Brooklyn Bridge incident ;) )

[Q]

No, it is far too small and irrelevant to be considered a party of the vanguard of our class. Furthermore, it is committed to build a sect instead of a genuine party of our class that unites many different currents of the vanguard.

I'll refer to blogposts I made about the subject, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1464) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=8981).

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Revolutions just don't spring out of the ground like daisies.
Actually, yes, they do. Have there ever been planned revolutions? A lot of major ones were spontaneous reactions, such as the Spanish and October revolutions.

[Geiseric]

Hmm well the PSL and ANSWER people usually spew out whatever the party's line is, regardless of what they might think, so it's centralism in the bad sense where most people would theoretically regect centralism. They are not and will never be the vanguard, that hasn't been formed and won't untill class consciousness is at an appropiate level. It will form regardless of what PSL or any other "party" does. I think organising is more important than creating a "party" at this point. Anyways it's increadibly pompous and alienating to the rest of the working class to claim that you're fighting for them on issues they have no say in. Unless they join lol.

[Luís Henrique]

Is the Party for Socialism and Liberation a vanguard partyI very much doubt they are a party at all, for starters.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

:(It seems like no communist organizations in America are doing anything.
That's nothing new. For the last fifty years, Western communist parties have run the gambit from "largely ineffectual" to "outright reactionary". The sooner we get over that anachronistic fetish, the better.

[Commissar Rykov]

Actually, yes, they do. Have there ever been planned revolutions? A lot of major ones were spontaneous reactions, such as the Spanish and October revolutions.
They happened due to the Material Conditions again they just don't spring up. There is a causation for it and what our young friend is not getting is that the material conditions and education is not there to lead a successful revolution yet. It is getting there but I don't believe it has been reached yet. The Crisis of Capital will deepen and then we will see what we have on our hands.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There is a Trot party that actually doesn't view itself as being, or ever becoming, the future "vanguard party". Unfortunately I can't remember which one it is...

Socialist Alternative, the group I'm in, abandoned vanguardism. There may be others, I don't know. The radical left in the US today is tiny, the idea of a small organization becoming a vanguard, like the Bolsheviks in 1917 is silly. Vanguardism in the narrow sense just won't work.

[Tim Finnegan]

They happened due to the Material Conditions again they just don't spring up.
That really doesn't address the point. Observing that revolutions are not randomly spontaneous doesn't provide any basis for arguing that they are party-initiated.

[Q]

Actually, yes, they do. Have there ever been planned revolutions? A lot of major ones were spontaneous reactions, such as the Spanish and October revolutions.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean that we need no revolutionary organisation at all and basically just be cheerleaders of workers struggle and wait until the day of revolution to come. Incidentally, much of the sectarian left are basically nothing more than cheerleaders.

However, you are wrong. The October revolution in 1917 was a highly planned and coordinated affair and while I'm somewhat less familiar with the Spanish civil war, I very much doubt that no planning took place at all and everything just happened "spontaniously".

As Rykov correctly remarked the specific incident may happen "spontaniously", but it does in fact rely upon explicit working class organisation and the familiarity of the movement with socialism and its desire to establish socialism, that is, working class political rule. This implies a long term strategy of patience of political education and mass class organisation.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Hmm well the PSL and ANSWER people usually spew out whatever the party's line is, regardless of what they might think, so it's centralism in the bad sense where most people would theoretically regect centralism. They are not and will never be the vanguard, that hasn't been formed and won't untill class consciousness is at an appropiate level. It will form regardless of what PSL or any other "party" does. I think organising is more important than creating a "party" at this point. Anyways it's increadibly pompous and alienating to the rest of the working class to claim that you're fighting for them on issues they have no say in. Unless they join lol.
Lol, PSL dictates how non party members act in actions?


Have you been to a broad coalition meeting with the PSL or Answer? May Day Coalition even?

Also, the centralism you are criticising is called discipline. Maintaining a unified party stance in all public matters while internally discussing issues. It helps build coherence. It also makes the organization stronger.

As for being a vanguard, no we do not consider ourselves to be a vanguard. Kurt basically laid it out already though.

Do we hope to become one? of course.

[Omsk]

In every revolution,there is the mass and the vanguard,in the October revolution,the vanguard was the Bolshevik party,which organized,agitated,supported rebellions and served as the vanguard.But,no matter how important the Bolshevik party was,the main motor of the revolution was the mass,and a cooperation and contact between the mass and the vanguard must exist.
We as marxists,must understand the Marxist theory of the vanguard,the communist vanguard in theory consists of workers who are in direct combat against the capitalist imperialist state,and who take an important position in the construction of the socialist movement.

If you ask me,the PSL is not a vanguard party.

[KurtFF8]

No, it is far too small and irrelevant to be considered a party of the vanguard of our class. Furthermore, it is committed to build a sect instead of a genuine party of our class that unites many different currents of the vanguard.

I'll refer to blogposts I made about the subject, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1464) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=8981).

Yes we all know that the Left itself is small in the United States, I don't know how that can be held against the PSL, especially considering it's only a few years old. (And considering that it has been growing ever since)


Hmm well the PSL and ANSWER people usually spew out whatever the party's line is, regardless of what they might think, so it's centralism in the bad sense where most people would theoretically regect centralism. They are not and will never be the vanguard, that hasn't been formed and won't untill class consciousness is at an appropiate level. It will form regardless of what PSL or any other "party" does. I think organising is more important than creating a "party" at this point. Anyways it's increadibly pompous and alienating to the rest of the working class to claim that you're fighting for them on issues they have no say in. Unless they join lol

As someone who has worked with them for some time now, this is quite false. Other than positions on opposing NATO and supporting Cuba, I'm not sure what the "party line" that people spew against their own will is, or why they would be in the Party if they didn't already agree with such stances.

I'm also not sure why organizing and being part of a Party are mutually exclusive. There's this idea that groups like the PSL or any other Party don't engage in organizing and only focus on selling papers which is of course not true.

[Tim Finnegan]

However, you are wrong. The October revolution in 1917 was a highly planned and coordinated affair...
The "October Revolution" wasn't actually a social revolution, in the Marxian sense, but a political coup by the Bolshevik-lead soviets. The Russian Revolution has to be understood as a revolutionary process beginning in February 1917 and lasting until... Well, I'm not going to touch that one... Rather than just being a single event. That logic would lead you to concluding that there were a good half dozen French Revolutions between 1789 and 1799, which means abandoning any recognisably Marxist historiography entirely.

[IndependentCitizen]

They are M-L. I don't have much faith in the PSL anymore, to be honest. They seem to have little info on their website, and not much action that I am aware of. I'm also annoyed at how their two "presidential candidates" are both ineligible to run for office.

But why should them being eligible be an issue. Do you want them to gain presidency? They need to raise awareness and publicity, what a way. They don' want, well I assume, don't want to become president.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It was also described to me that the PSL is more of a tendency right now than a party. Though we refer to ourselves as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, we are not actually a party yet.


A book that i have to read is "from tendency to party" by marcy IIRC.

[KurtFF8]

If the only thing that separates a tendency from a Party is having a "mass base" then there are no Communist or Leftist parties in the US.

Such a definition of a party seems to be a strange semantic nit pick in my opinion though

[Geiseric]

A vanguard party and the revolutionary masses are one and the same though, if anything the bolsheviks programme, not the bolsheviks were chosen. It's not like the bolsheviks forced the soviets into accepting their programme, they were voted in, by working people, no? the bolsheviks were the leading tendency in the soviets, which were an organ of working class rule, right? Even for the most hardcore libertarian, the way the bolsheviks and the soviets gained power was extremely democratic, that bit about the constituitent assembly was the results of a faux election, in which the SR's got votes from mostly isolated peasentry who didn't get news like most workers did via the railroad. I mean, the way they came to power was by the will of the majority. They didn't have 30 different revolutionary parties that were conflicting eachother like in spain, germany, the U.S, there were bourgeois parties like the mensheviks, democrats, and the populists then the party that was accepted by the working class, the bolsheviks.

[Q]

If the only thing that separates a tendency from a Party is having a "mass base" then there are no Communist or Leftist parties in the US.

Such a definition of a party seems to be a strange semantic nit pick in my opinion though

The difference may become clearer when we look after the words themselves:

Party (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/party):

From Anglo-Norman partie, Old French partie , from Medieval Latin partita (“a part, party”), from Latin partita, feminine of partitus, past participle of partiri (“to divide”); see part.

Faction (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faction):

From Latin factiō, noun of process from perfect passive participle factus, from faciō (“do, make”).

A group of people, especially within a political organization, who express a shared belief or opinion different from people who are not part of the group.

So, from a communist point of view, a proletarian party represents the the politically aware and communist part of the working class. It has the interests of our class as a whole in mind and tries to unite and organise the class as a class. A faction on the other hand is only a part of the greater whole, representing certain viewpoints and campaigning for them in an organised fashion to achieve a majority in the greater whole. This is also known as a tendency, a platform or, in English, a "caucus".

However, there is no such thing as a "faction without a party". If an organisation requires theoretical unity and stands on itself, refusing unity with other communist trends out of "purity" or other such reasons, it has its own politics in mind, namely the continued existence of the group as such. This can better be typified as a sect:

Sectarian (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sectarian):

From Medieval Latin sectarius +‎ -an

1. Of, or relating to a sect.
2. Dogmatic or partisan.
3. Parochial or narrow-minded.
4. Bigoted.

This is a little short and there are some other notes to be made. Factions inside parties can for example behave in a very sectarian manner. But I hope this clears up a few things.

[KurtFF8]

I'm not sure how those definitions are helpful.

The PSL certainly does represent a Communist part of the working class. But the anti-capitalist Left of the working class has been fragmented since Marx's time, so if the criterion of a "party" is that it must represent the full socialist Left of the working class movement, it would seem that for the most part, there has never been "a party."

This seems like it's getting quite into semantics though. The PSL is a party of the working class, but obviously it is not the only Communist party of the working class.

Whether directly representing the whole revolutionary segment of the working class is a requirement for it to be considered "a party" seems not to be too relevant in all honesty and is going into a debate over semantics.

[Luís Henrique]

the idea of a small organization becoming a vanguard, like the Bolsheviks in 1917 is silly.

Yup. The point is not a party becoming a vanguard, but the vanguard becoming a party.

Luís Henrique

[Renegade Saint]

A vanguard party and the revolutionary masses are one and the same though, if anything the bolsheviks programme, not the bolsheviks were chosen. It's not like the bolsheviks forced the soviets into accepting their programme, they were voted in, by working people, no? the bolsheviks were the leading tendency in the soviets, which were an organ of working class rule, right? Even for the most hardcore libertarian, the way the bolsheviks and the soviets gained power was extremely democratic, that bit about the constituitent assembly was the results of a faux election, in which the SR's got votes from mostly isolated peasentry who didn't get news like most workers did via the railroad. I mean, the way they came to power was by the will of the majority. They didn't have 30 different revolutionary parties that were conflicting eachother like in spain, germany, the U.S, there were bourgeois parties like the mensheviks, democrats, and the populists then the party that was accepted by the working class, the bolsheviks.
25% equals a majority now :rolleyes: A majority if you casually discount the opinions of the 85% of the population that were peasants.

[kurr]

I find groups like the PSL and WWP interesting in some ways but the PSL's isolation from broader anti-war coalitions and such prevent it from growing I think. It seems to me that they very much want to do things their way. I'm not so sure that thats such a good idea.

[chegitz guevara]

According to the Leninist stance?

No. None of them are. No one has won the vanguard.

The vanguard is not the Party. The vanguard is the most advanced, most militant layer of the working class. In contemporary America, that would be the Occupation movement.

The vanguard party is not something that can be built or declared. It is the party that best represents and wins over the vanguard. It is the vanguard party because the vanguard choses it. The Bolsheviks did not become the vanguard party in Russia until mid-1917.

[Rafiq]

Even from a Marxist Leninist standpoint it is not a genuine vangaurd party.

A vangaurd party would have to manifest itself during conditions that would potentially lead to a proletarian revolution, and this is something the PSL didn't form out of. The PSL is just another opportunistic Communist party built upon historical foundations, i.e., it didn't adjust itself to the conditions of modern day capitalism, it's positions cannot apply today.

[KurtFF8]

I find groups like the PSL and WWP interesting in some ways but the PSL's isolation from broader anti-war coalitions and such prevent it from growing I think. It seems to me that they very much want to do things their way. I'm not so sure that thats such a good idea.

Are you referring to the split between ANSWER and UFPJ? From what I understand, UFPJ isn't that active anymore in general. And in general: the anti-war movement is hardly what it was a few years back of course.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by its' isolation?

And the PSL has grown over the past few years so that part just seems incorrect.


The PSL is just another opportunistic Communist party built upon historical foundations, i.e., it didn't adjust itself to the conditions of modern day capitalism, it's positions cannot apply today.

How so?

[Prometeo liberado]

The last time I checked the only socialist organization that went out of its way to make it clear that they were not a vanguard was the Big Flame movement in England. A Leninist party by its deep commitment to the living science of Marxism and writings of Lenin a vanguard party by definition if not action. The problem lay in organizations thinking that they and they alone carry the mantle of history. For that reason alone the PSL works with everyone and yes there are many working class people here. The vanguard? We'll leave that for others to judge.

[Sam_b]

The last time I checked the only socialist organization that went out of its way to make it clear that they were not a vanguard was the Big Flame movement in England. A Leninist party by its deep commitment to the living science of Marxism and writings of Lenin a vanguard party by definition if not action. The problem lay in organizations thinking that they and they alone carry the mantle of history. For that reason alone the PSL works with everyone and yes there are many working class people here. The vanguard? We'll leave that for others to

Of course I have a lot of sympathy for this view. One of the biggest problems in the contemporary left is not necessarily that of class composition but of class viewpoint; and I mean this in the sense that the organisation, or Party in the political sense, is not separate from the class. An organisation can and should be right in there with the concept of the vanguard, aiming to influence this, but ultimately it will be the mass that follows through. Parties should not be desiring to become the vanguard as they themselves are part of a mass and not isolated from it.

[KurtFF8]

Of course I have a lot of sympathy for this view. One of the biggest problems in the contemporary left is not necessarily that of class composition but of class viewpoint; and I mean this in the sense that the organisation, or Party in the political sense, is not separate from the class. An organisation can and should be right in there with the concept of the vanguard, aiming to influence this, but ultimately it will be the mass that follows through. Parties should not be desiring to become the vanguard as they themselves are part of a mass and not isolated from it.

This x1000

This is the point I often try to make with some folks who use the language of how to "approach the working class" as if they aren't part of it. One thing that folks should look for in Communist or Anarchist organizations can be a simple noticing of how they describe themselves in relation to the class. So if there is talk of "we need to bring X message to our class" I would say that's a positive sign.

[Drosophila]

I'm also annoyed at how their two "presidential candidates" are both ineligible to run for office.

Well if they're just running to get their message out there, then I don't think their being underage really makes much of a difference. Though I kind of see what you mean, since Americans see older people as being more informed than younger people (because that's definitely the case with Pat Robertson and the 17 year old who found a cure to cancer).

[KurtFF8]

I don't think that's the issue, dan74.

[Agathor]

Actually, yes, they do. Have there ever been planned revolutions? A lot of major ones were spontaneous reactions, such as the Spanish and October revolutions.

They weren't planned by a few professional revolutionaries in a bunker somewhere, but they didn't suddenly spring triumphantly out of hitherto infertile grounds either. The Anarcho-syndicalist labour unions had been organizing in Spain since the 19th century, so by 1936 they had a good proportion of the Catalonian proletariat in their organizations. Russian socialist organizations had been organizing for decades prior to 1917, if you'll remember, they assassinated the Tsar in 1881.

So yeah, sorry, but if there is a socialist revolution in our lifetimes we probably won't be young enough to participate. I think that's what people are scared of when they stress the spontaneity of revolution.

[Prometeo liberado]

I find groups like the PSL and WWP interesting in some ways but the PSL's isolation from broader anti-war coalitions and such prevent it from growing I think. It seems to me that they very much want to do things their way. I'm not so sure that thats such a good idea.
So by your criteria if you believe in something then it should not dissent from what others believe. That dissent amongst dissidents is isolation not leadership. I'd like to hear more of your ideas about rebellion.

[Jimmie Higgins]

According to the Leninist stance?They are in the sense of wanting to help build a organized vanguard party - I don't know if they consider themselves to be that at this point. I think maybe only the RCP really sees themselves as "the vanguard" - or maybe they just see Bob Avakian as that - but I'm not sure.


There is a Trot party that actually doesn't view itself as being, or ever becoming, the future "vanguard party". Unfortunately I can't remember which one it is...
The ISO doesn't consider itself a vanguard or the individual group that will be the vanguard party at some point. It's just a radical collective based around some shared viewpoints and politics. We think it's important for radical workers to organize themselves and build a party of these vanguard workers to coordinate their efforts and generalize their experiences and we hope to help lay the groundwork for that to happen.

I doubt any individual group out there now will simply grow in size and become the vanguard party. More likely as a real left and working class movement grows some groups and political tendencies as well as individual militants and radical activists will begin to converge on some shared ideas and strategies and out of that could come some kind of structure that will bring the best working class radical activists and fighters together.