US Socialist Political Parties --- Which One?

[jdhoch]

I'm looking for alternatives to the CPUSA. Any recommendations?

[The Douche]

You'll be infinitely better off if you decide on your politics and practice before you try to join a party.

[zimmerwald1915]

And if you care about such things, whatever organization you end up joining, if you do decide to do so, will probably be better off as well.

[workersadvocate]

It's okay to go and learn from experience with other leftists, when you think they are doing something worthwhile, without joining any group until you are really ready.

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm in the Socialist Party USA.

Other ones I know people in are World Workers Party, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Party of Socialism and Liberation, Students for a Democratic Society, and there are more but that's off the top of my head.

The party you choose might end up depending on your location as well.

I suggest the SP-USA though.

[Olentzero]

Gotta go with Leftsolidarity on this one. Look around and see who's active in your area, go to a couple meetings, check out some lit. See who makes the most sense to you. To add to that list, there's the International Socialist Organization (http://www.internationalsocialist.org) and Socialist Alternative (http://www.socialistalternative.org/).

[The Douche]

The problem with the SP is that its a hollow organization, with little membership participation, and its lead by reformists who run the party like a personal club. Every revolutionary tendency which has tried to organize in the party has been attacked in an anti-democratic manner by the national committee.

[Aleenik]

Or you could go with no party. I don't trust any party, including communist ones.

[Renegade Saint]

Before you consider SPUSA I'd suggest checking out this group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2340869151/

Seems like a party in trouble.

[Ostrinski]

I'm either gonna join Socialist Action or SPUSA soon.

[Leftsolidarity]

The problem with the SP is that its a hollow organization, with little membership participation, and its lead by reformists who run the party like a personal club. Every revolutionary tendency which has tried to organize in the party has been attacked in an anti-democratic manner by the national committee.

'Tis a bit of a problem, yes.

[The Douche]

'Tis a bit of a problem, yes.

When the same problem (isolating revolutionaries/kicking them out of the party) has been going on since 2005/6 (thats when I got purged from the SP, btw) its more than a "bit" of a problem...

I think there are much better organizations to work with if you're a revolutionary. And thats not a comment motivated by secterianism (I don't belong to any organization, so I don't have a dog in this fight).

[Leftsolidarity]

When the same problem (isolating revolutionaries/kicking them out of the party) has been going on since 2005/6 (thats when I got purged from the SP, btw) its more than a "bit" of a problem...

I think there are much better organizations to work with if you're a revolutionary. And thats not a comment motivated by secterianism (I don't belong to any organization, so I don't have a dog in this fight).

I'd say you're probably correct. I think that the SP-USA does stand more of a chance of attracting more of the general population and putting a face to anti-capitalism.

Is it a revolutionary organization? No, not really. Mostly reformists and some social-democrats. I do know revolutionaries within the party though and I know it varies from location to location.

While being in the SP-USA, I do farrrrrrrr more work with other organizations (mostly the WWP and FRSO). That is because my local (Milwaukee) is dead. If there is an active branch in the area, I think the SP-USA would be a rather good party to be in and do activities with.

I don't think it really matters though. Whatever party we're in, we are all struggling in the same direction.

[The Douche]

I think that the SP-USA does stand more of a chance of attracting more of the general population and putting a face to anti-capitalism.


1) How are they attracting people? What are they doing/where are they doing it?

2) What do swelling numbers in a reformist organization have to do with making communism a reality?

3) The SP is not an anti-capitalist organization. (though it is an anti-communist organization)


I do know revolutionaries within the party though and I know it varies from location to location.


And you know that it is reformists who run the National Committee, and you know it is reformists who edit the paper/magazine, and you know it is a reformist program that the party endorses, and you know that in the past 5 or 6 years there have been 2 attempts to organize revolutionaries in the party, both of which have resulted in expulsions/lock outs.


While being in the SP-USA, I do farrrrrrrr more work with other organizations (mostly the WWP and FRSO).

So you're working with organizations who your organization denounces? You're working with organizations which the SP prevents you from being a member of. You're helping to build organizations which you fundamentally disagree with? Why? Just so you can tell yourself you're "doing something"?


If there is an active branch in the area, I think the SP-USA would be a rather good party to be in and do activities with.


Why?


Whatever party we're in, we are all struggling in the same direction.

I disagree with you, so does the SP, and so do many people.

[Leftsolidarity]

Before I respond to this I'll note that I am tired. I feel you are twisting my words.


1) How are they attracting people? What are they doing/where are they doing it?

2) What do swelling numbers in a reformist organization have to do with making communism a reality?

3) The SP is not an anti-capitalist organization. (though it is an anti-communist organization)


I said that I feel they have the great chance, not that they are at the moment. So me the socialist organization that is swelling in numbers. The SP is anti-capitalist. While they might not be the most radical, they definitely are anti-capitalist.



And you know that it is reformists who run the National Committee, and you know it is reformists who edit the paper/magazine, and you know it is a reformist program that the party endorses, and you know that in the past 5 or 6 years there have been 2 attempts to organize revolutionaries in the party, both of which have resulted in expulsions/lock outs.



Yeah, it's not a good thing. I know this.




So you're working with organizations who your organization denounces? You're working with organizations which the SP prevents you from being a member of. You're helping to build organizations which you fundamentally disagree with? Why? Just so you can tell yourself you're "doing something"?



I don't fundamentally disagree with the organizations I work with. I work with them because I believe in what they are doing and wish to help even if they belong to a different organization. Even if my party does not like that organization.




I disagree with you, so does the SP, and so do many people.


Fair enough, I feel we are all headed in the same direction. Some might wish to take other paths but, at least for now, I feel we have the same things to do and the same basic beliefs.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Heres some online lit on the PSL if you're interested.


http://www.pslweb.org/party/our-program-who-we-are.html

[The Douche]

The SP is anti-capitalist. While they might not be the most radical, they definitely are anti-capitalist.


Their platform states the following:


We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes.


We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale.


We support tax benefits for renters equal to those for homeowners.

The ecomnomic planks in their platform all make it explicitly clear, that with the SP in power, the social relationship of capitalism will not be changed, there will still be property owners and there will still be those who sell their labor power. That is capitalism. The SP doesn't even demand free housing for all people!


Yeah, it's not a good thing. I know this.


Why would you reccomend to somebody that they should join an organization, spend their time and energy to help build it, just so that they can be kicked out later on down the road? (since that's the most likely event, given the history of the SP, it would appear the only reason you haven't been treated like other pro-revs in the party is that you prefer to do your organizing with other organizations)


I don't fundamentally disagree with the organizations I work with. I work with them because I believe in what they are doing and wish to help even if they belong to a different organization. Even if my party does not like that organization.

Well if you don't fuundamentally disagree with stalinism then why are you in the SP, the SP is essentially based on the premise that they're not that kind of socialist. The ideas, theory, practice, and politics of those parties are totally different from the party you're a member of. Why are you helping to build parties which are the opposite of the one you give money to/are a member of. If you don't disagree with WWP or FRSO on a fundamental level, then you must disagree with the SP. You can't support both, social democracy and stalinism...


Fair enough, I feel we are all headed in the same direction. Some might wish to take other paths but, at least for now, I feel we have the same things to do and the same basic beliefs.

Well at least FRSO and WWP claim to be communists, the SP howevever says,


Under authoritarian "Communist" states, decisions are made by Communist Party officials, the bureaucracy and the military. The inevitable product of each system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers.


Now, I suppose I kind of understand what they're doing with the quotes, but it is still dishonest, disrespectful, and ultimately it does display their politics (which are anti-communist).

[Crux]

You can't support both, social democracy and stalinism...
Then what about the CPUSA? ;)

[Renegade Saint]

You can't support both, social democracy and stalinism...
Hal Draper argues pretty convincingly in "The Two Souls of Socialism" that those views are more compatible than is first apparent. Lots of the old Fabians were very enthusiatic about Stalin's USSR.

cmoney(err, Chris), giving SPUSA the benefit of the doubt one could say that that is their "minimum program". That same page you got those quotes from includes this:
We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic plan.

My issue is that they apparently think that socialism can be implemented with the existing structures of government intact. Where's the call to abolish the senate or popularly elect supreme court judges?

If you checked out the FB group of members and former SPUSA members I think you'll agree that, its politics aside, it's not a healthy organization, or an organization that's going anywhere.

[kurr]

None. There are no parties in this country that aren't stuck in the twentieth century.

[The Douche]

Hal Draper argues pretty convincingly in "The Two Souls of Socialism" that those views are more compatible than is first apparent. Lots of the old Fabians were very enthusiatic about Stalin's USSR.

cmoney(err, Chris), giving SPUSA the benefit of the doubt one could say that that is their "minimum program". That same page you got those quotes from includes this:

My issue is that they apparently think that socialism can be implemented with the existing structures of government intact. Where's the call to abolish the senate or popularly elect supreme court judges?

If you checked out the FB group of members and former SPUSA members I think you'll agree that, its politics aside, it's not a healthy organization, or an organization that's going anywhere.

You realize I was kicked out of the SP, right? I am intimately familiar with how they work, and with their politics. That is not "transitional program", though, the revolutionaries in the party may see it that way. But those revolutionaries, when they attempt to organize, are always kicked out, or locked out/marginalized by the national committee.

[Renegade Saint]

You realize I was kicked out of the SP, right? I am intimately familiar with how they work, and with their politics. That is not "transitional program", though, the revolutionaries in the party may see it that way. But those revolutionaries, when they attempt to organize, are always kicked out, or locked out/marginalized by the national committee.

I was just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Apparently they're undeserving of that doubt.

[The Douche]

If the party really operated in a democratic manner, I'd say any revolutionary who opposes democratic centralism, and supports the use of a revolutionary party should join the SP, but because of the way the party is run, and who runs it, I can't, in good mind, reccomend them.


Just like I disagree with the PSL's politics, but I can say that they take political education pretty seriously, and their cadre are very nice people, and seem very genuine.

[workersadvocate]

None. There are no parties in this country that aren't stuck in the twentieth century.

Actually, there is a small relatively newer group called the Workers Party in America, which I feel takes the lessons of the past but keeps its focus forward.

Check it out for yourself at http://www.workers-party.com

[Kadir Ateş]

I'm looking for alternatives to the CPUSA. Any recommendations?

I suggest you not join any until you've let your own experiences teach you lessons about union politics and the misery of work. Any party that wants to promote the "worker image" is probably not worth joining. Start from the fact that you do not like to work, and then let that instinct take you from there. It's crude, but you'll develop your own ideas as you go along.

[workersadvocate]

I suggest you not join any until you've let your own experiences teach you lessons about union politics and the misery of work. Any party that wants to promote the "worker image" is probably not worth joining. Start from the fact that you do not like to work, and then let that instinct take you from there. It's crude, but you'll develop your own ideas as you go along.

Sorry, but I have to ask, what do you mean about "any group that that wants to promote the 'worker image' is probably not worth joining"?
Also, what's this stuff about "start with the fact that you do not like to work"?
Did you forget to add "...under exploitative conditions and where those who do the work have no control over their workplace"?
Even in fully developed worldwide communism, there will still be "work" to do. Not everything will be done by machines, even then, partly because most human beings wouldn't want lives of utter idleness. So, what needs to be dealt with is why "work" sucks under the relations and conditions in exploitative societies.
In the "kingdom of freedom", I suspect humanity will actually want to work in some way or another.

[eyeheartlenin]

...My issue is that they apparently think that socialism can be implemented with the existing structures of government intact. Where's the call to abolish the senate or popularly elect supreme court judges?
...

I worked on the Year 2000 SPUSA Presidential campaign. Whenever I think about the SP, what I end up with is, they're nice people, with good intentions, but totally lacking any notion of how to make those intentions a reality, which is not surprising, given that the SP is non- (and probably, anti-) Leninist.

When I was in the SPUSA, it had a very vocal right wing, centered in the North Carolina SP branch, which vociferously criticized anything that was leftist and went beyond electioneering. There were also a number of people who were actually Democrats, so that there was a constant struggle against those who wanted to liquidate the SPUSA as an organization, or, at least, stop running SPUSA election campaigns, one of the few things the SP does to make its existence known to the public.

From where I sit, it looks like most of the left parties in the US capitulated to the Obama campaign, one way or another. IIRC, Workers World called Obama's election, a "people's victory," and both editions of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization endorsed Obama's candidacy; comrades from Freedom Road were subsequently targeted by the Obama administration.

Does it have to be a party formation? Where I live, the IWW has the best anti-capitalists in town, and it is a very democratic union, locally controlled by the membership. You might want to check it out, at www.iww.org

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The comrades that suggest you should clarify your own political views/goals before joining a group are spot on here. Of course you should read the press of various groups and then try to attend events they sponsor or activities in which they are involved. The SPUSA has a very long history of being against socialist revolution in the USA. If you are interested in a liberal/social democratic organization, however, they might fit the bill.

If you are interested in Marxism and fighting for Socialism and Communism, no group is a slam dunk, I'm sorry to say. People on this site will have lots of different things to say about this. I have a long connection to the International Communist League, but they have many problems, an aging heavy handed leadership in particular -- The groups that have resulted from splits (that were never clearly politically defined) such as the Bolshevik Tendency, the Internationalist Group and Revolutionary Regroupment are all terribly small, and in the case of the BT, comprised of some pretty dubious characters. I would recommend that you read the ICL press, which is generally quite good

Now if you don't care for Trotskyist views, there are the Maoist and so-called Marxist-Leninist groups, most of whom look back with great affection on the rule of Stalin -- I'm sure they can speak to which flavor they prefer (e.g., Enver Hoxha or Kim Il Sung, Mao). I think their view of history, and political theory is profoundly flawed, but you should certainly read what some of these groups have to say.

Then there are the more reformist groups like the ISO, Workers World Party and Socialist Action, that actually talk about socialism in their formal programs, but on the ground, are always mucking around with liberals and who wind up supporting liberal bourgeois politicians.

I made critical political choices in college. I was in contact with the SWP, CPUSA and the Spartacist League. The SL was the only group of the three that actually argued politics with me -- they did not seem annoyed or anxious when I brought up political differences. The SWP in the US, is today a very strange group, and really not a player, but they were pretty big back then. Anyway, they got angry when I questioned party policy. The CPUSA organizer that I met struck me as being an idiot and their politics seemed to consist of supporting the foreign policy of the USSR, while supporting liberal politics in the US.

The more investigating you do, the better. Read. Read more. Pay close attention to the program of each group. Talk to people in the various groups. The more you know the more likely you will make a good choice.

[Martin Blank]

Sorry, but I have to ask, what do you mean about "any group that that wants to promote the 'worker image' is probably not worth joining"?
Also, what's this stuff about "start with the fact that you do not like to work"?

It's more bourgeois ideology dressed up in "r-r-r-revolutionary" verbiage. It's the promotion of bigotry and self-hatred of being working class by bourgeois society. The "self-hatred" part is perhaps more important than any other in this ideology.

One of the most important ways that the ruling classes keep workers from recognizing the need to fight for their rights and livelihoods as workers is to keep them believing that being working class is the last thing in the world you should be.

"It's your fault you're a worker," says bourgeois society. "You didn't work hard enough. You're not smart enough. You created your own problems."

The "r-r-r-revolutionary" version of this bourgeois ideology only differs by degrees. The same message of bigotry and self-hatred is perpetuated, but is given a slightly "radical" veneer. Where the bourgeois says workers should despise themselves because they're not wealthy, the "radical" says workers should despise themselves because "work sucks".

Moreover, where the bourgeois denounces workers who refuse to submit to the self-hatred and self-debasement as being "lazy" or "irresponsible", the "radical" denounces these working people as "workerist" or, as Kadir put it, promoting a "worker image". In the end, the meaning is the same: Being working class is a curse, and you should do everything you can to get out of it.

Now, of course, the "radical" will say that revolution is the path to getting out of the working class. But revolution -- especially proletarian revolution -- remains an abstraction in this society. The result is that the classical bourgeois form of this ideology comes to dominate the points beyond reflection. That is, for a working person who accepts the view of the anti-worker "radical", when it comes to moving beyond agreement and into the sphere of acting on that belief, it will be the bourgeois solution (becoming bourgeois or petty bourgeois) that will be the only path open.

"Workerism" is the false romanticizing of the contradictions, the social backwardness and the poor living conditions of the working class. Those who take a position that "workers use racist, sexist and homophobic slurs, so I see no problem with doing the same", for example, are workerists. Those who go "slumming" in working-class neighborhoods are workerists.

But it is not workerism (or promoting a "worker image") to say that workers should be proud of the fact that they built this world, created all of its wealth and are entitled to all that they produce. Workers don't need to be told that work under capitalism sucks, like it's some major fucking revelation from a book of the saints. Anyone who's had a job for any appreciable period of time already knows that.

With all of the above said, I would still urge the OP to take the time and think through their politics before joining any particular organization ... if any at all. Sure, as a member of the Workers Party in America, I'd like our organization to be considered, but that's neither my choice nor anyone else's but the OP's. Take it as you will. YMMV.

[Kadir Ateş]

Sorry, but I have to ask, what do you mean about "any group that that wants to promote the 'worker image' is probably not worth joining"?
Also, what's this stuff about "start with the fact that you do not like to work"?
Did you forget to add "...under exploitative conditions and where those who do the work have no control over their workplace"?
Even in fully developed worldwide communism, there will still be "work" to do. Not everything will be done by machines, even then, partly because most human beings wouldn't want lives of utter idleness. So, what needs to be dealt with is why "work" sucks under the relations and conditions in exploitative societies.
In the "kingdom of freedom", I suspect humanity will actually want to work in some way or another.

I really think Postone puts this better than I can, so I'll defer to what he says:


For Marx, the abolition of capital is the necessary precondition for the dignity
of labor, for only then could another structure of social labor, another relation
of work and recreation, and other forms of individual labor become socially
general. The traditional position accords dignity to labor that is fragmented and
alienated. It may very well be the case that such dignity, which is at the heart
of classical working-class movements, has been important for workers' selfesteem
and a powerful factor in the democratization and humanization of industrialized
capitalist societies. The irony of such a position, though, is that it
implicitly posits the perpetuation of such labor and the form of growth intrinsically
related to it as necessary to human existence. Whereas Marx saw the
historical overcoming of the ' 'mere worker'' as a precondition for the realization
of the full human being,85 the implication of the traditional position is that the
full human being is to be realized as the "mere worker."

- M. Postone, Time, Labor, and Social Domination (1993)

[Prometeo liberado]

I'm looking for alternatives to the CPUSA. Any recommendations?

If your starting off point is the moribund CPUSA then the good news is that you can go nowhere but up. In 1988 I wanted to join the CP until I had lunch with the person who was supposed to recruit me.He couldn't have been nicer yet had no idea what to say when I asked about political theory or the contradictions in their program. And it doesn't seem much different today. Sadly so many Left parties care more that you are against what the other parties stand for rather than seeing to it that good, on the street action is a membership priority. As for the SP-USA I was a member for 3 or for years and found that their politics vary from city to city. In the state of California there is a multi-tendency party called Peace and Freedom party. The good part of this is that you get to see them at work wit other Parties before really committing to one. Good luck!

[Catma]

That's all well and good, Cthulhu, but can one not be a worker, be proud of his place in society as one of the actual producers of value, and still think that work sucks and should be minimized or abolished (in terms of what society requires of the average person)?

Because if that isn't the case, then I am surely a very confused worker.

(I'm responding more to the quote "start with the fact that you do not like to work", which I see nothing wrong with. If you weren't talking about that quote particularly, never mind.)

[Martin Blank]

I really think Postone puts this better than I can, so I'll defer to what he says:

This is a false equivalency. Only the romanticizing workerist and the pro-capitalist labor union official sees the "mere worker" as the alpha and omega of what the working class is or can be. Moreover, this "traditional position" can only be found among those crude workerists and labor union officials. For the former, the glorification of the "mere worker" is used to rationalize their own inability to grasp the proletarian viewpoint (which, as materialists understand, can only be done if one is a part of the proletariat). For the latter, the lauding of the "mere worker" is tied directly to the maintenance of the social relationships between labor and capital.

Postone's attempt to place an equal sign between the workerist/union bureaucrat's view and that of the revolutionary worker/communist is little more than a cover for their own ignorance and subordination to bourgeois ideology.

[Martin Blank]

That's all well and good, Cthulhu, but can one not be a worker, be proud of his place in society as one of the actual producers of value, and still think that work sucks and should be minimized or abolished (in terms of what society requires of the average person)?

Because if that isn't the case, then I am surely a very confused worker.

(I'm responding more to the quote "start with the fact that you do not like to work", which I see nothing wrong with. If you weren't talking about that quote particularly, never mind.)

Of course! I said as such at the end of my post. I was mainly criticizing the falsehood that having pride in being a producer is workerism and/or promoting a "worker image" -- i.e., as if being a worker is something to be ashamed of. I would be shocked if a working person didn't realize that work under capitalism sucks.

My sole issue about that being brought up at all is that it seems like it is presented as some great revelation to workers, when really it's one of those "no shit!" kind of things.

[Kadir Ateş]

I don't know why you are attempting to moralize my statement, I'm suggesting that as a worker myself who goes in and out of work every day, I do not like it like. We start with negation, and through struggle broaden it until the foundations of bourgeois society collapse. Whether or not this takes the form of a party or something else is to be determined by the situation relative in each country.

Postone's point is that rather than glorifying labor, which posits the "mere worker" and reinforces other bogus positions like a worker's state or worker's control, the point is that dignity comes through the fight against reinforcing an individual as a worker and to a human being. I think Marx elaborates on this point quite nicely in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. My point was not a pedantic one, but rather to say that we can become human when we revolt against work.

[black magick hustla]

i don't see how proletarian self negation is "bourgeois". how can a world where wage labor dissappears include a proletariat? the rhetoric of "workers' power" has always been used to justify wage slavery in the ussr, etc. the reality is that very few people today are "proud" of what they do, barring skilled workers or middle class people. actually, if you wanted to probe someone's class a way to do it is to listen if they talk a lot about their job in the sense they self identify with it. a grocery store cashier will talk to you about the music he likes, or girls, or if he likes poetry he'll talk your ear off about it, but about being a cashier? i don't think not being proud of being a "grocery worker" is "bourgeois ideology", on the contrary it is a human reaction to a dehumanizing condition. i was reading an interview of some steel worker in chicago and he was saying how he cant be a communist because communists sing about "tractors". i mean i thought that was funny but there is a grain of truth in that.

[workersadvocate]

"Bogus" positions like workers' power and workers' control?

I'm almost afraid to ask....what sort of leftist are you?

[A Marxist Historian]

The problem with the SP is that its a hollow organization, with little membership participation, and its lead by reformists who run the party like a personal club. Every revolutionary tendency which has tried to organize in the party has been attacked in an anti-democratic manner by the national committee.

Yup. Starting in the year 1912, when they kicked out Big Bill Haywood. And ever since, every few years like clockwork.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

1) How are they attracting people? What are they doing/where are they doing it?

2) What do swelling numbers in a reformist organization have to do with making communism a reality?

3) The SP is not an anti-capitalist organization. (though it is an anti-communist organization)



And you know that it is reformists who run the National Committee, and you know it is reformists who edit the paper/magazine, and you know it is a reformist program that the party endorses, and you know that in the past 5 or 6 years there have been 2 attempts to organize revolutionaries in the party, both of which have resulted in expulsions/lock outs.



So you're working with organizations who your organization denounces? You're working with organizations which the SP prevents you from being a member of. You're helping to build organizations which you fundamentally disagree with? Why? Just so you can tell yourself you're "doing something"?



Why?



I disagree with you, so does the SP, and so do many people.

Leftists organizing in the SP and getting kicked out is just about the oldest story of the American left.

The IWW wing led by Big Bill Haywood in 1912, framed up as "violent."

The left in 1919, who had the vast majority of the party--and became the Communist Party after the reformists in control kicked them out, almost destroying the SP in the process.

The Workers Council in 1922, who took just about all live elements left in the party, and fused with the CP.

Revived in the 1930s due to the Great Depression. Then the Trotskyists took over the youth organization and got a number of its trade unionists too, creating the Socialist Workers Party and leaving behind the usual hollow shell.

Then in the '50s the leftover youth broke from the SP and joined Max Shachtman's organization, leaving it a hollow shell again--until Shachtman had a change of heart and brought 'em all back.

Then the revived YPSL marched out again in the '60s, leading (skipping some steps) eventually to the ISO and others (Solidarity, the extreme left joining the Spartacists, etc.)

Then, after what seemed like the final SP collapse in the '70s, the smallest piece of the threeway split revived the SP one more time--and promptly kicked out the Debs Caucus in the '80s (Milwaukee based by the way), who joined the Spartacists.

And again a couple times in the last few years it seems, as the SP once again emerges zombie like from its grave.

-M.H.-

"I dreamed I saw ol' Max last night, alive as you or me,
but Max I said, you're politically dead,
I never lived said he, I never lived said he.

Wherever bureaucrats are tailed, there stalks my corpse said he,
except when they're a ruling class, then join the bourgeoisie, then join the bourgeoisie..."

--The Song of Max Shachtman

[A Marxist Historian]

I worked on the Year 2000 SPUSA Presidential campaign. Whenever I think about the SP, what I end up with is, they're nice people, with good intentions, but totally lacking any notion of how to make those intentions a reality, which is not surprising, given that the SP is non- (and probably, anti-) Leninist.

When I was in the SPUSA, it had a very vocal right wing, centered in the North Carolina SP branch, which vociferously criticized anything that was leftist and went beyond electioneering. There were also a number of people who were actually Democrats, so that there was a constant struggle against those who wanted to liquidate the SPUSA as an organization, or, at least, stop running SPUSA election campaigns, one of the few things the SP does to make its existence known to the public.

From where I sit, it looks like most of the left parties in the US capitulated to the Obama campaign, one way or another. IIRC, Workers World called Obama's election, a "people's victory," and both editions of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization endorsed Obama's candidacy; comrades from Freedom Road were subsequently targeted by the Obama administration.

Does it have to be a party formation? Where I live, the IWW has the best anti-capitalists in town, and it is a very democratic union, locally controlled by the membership. You might want to check it out, at www.iww.org (http://www.iww.org)

Indeed, just about all American left parties capitulated to Obama one way or another. Including PSL by the way. The biggest, the ISO, was one of the worst offenders, to say nothing of what's left of the CPUSA, probably second biggest, who were the most blatant about it.

The main exception was the Spartacists. Since everybody else is touting their favorite left group here, I will do the same. As they like to point out, not only was the whole American left superenthused about just having a black President, something black people have not benefitted from in any way shape or form, but not a single left group has said one word of self-criticism about tailing Obama!

Literally nobody!

So check out the Spartacist website while you're at it.

http://www.spartacist.org/

As for the IWW, as an anarchist organization it doesn't take positions on things like that, but I'll betcha most IWW members voted for him to get rid of the Republicans. Of course there's no way of knowing.

-M.H.-

[citizen of industry]

Indeed, just about all American left parties capitulated to Obama one way or another. Including PSL by the way. The biggest, the ISO, was one of the worst offenders, to say nothing of what's left of the CPUSA, probably second biggest, who were the most blatant about it.

The main exception was the Spartacists. Since everybody else is touting their favorite left group here, I will do the same. As they like to point out, not only was the whole American left superenthused about just having a black President, something black people have not benefitted from in any way shape or form, but not a single left group has said one word of self-criticism about tailing Obama!

Literally nobody!

So check out the Spartacist website while you're at it.

http://www.spartacist.org/

As for the IWW, as an anarchist organization it doesn't take positions on things like that, but I'll betcha most IWW members voted for him to get rid of the Republicans. Of course there's no way of knowing.

-M.H.-

FSP never backed the dems. Their line has been consistent.

[A Marxist Historian]

FSP never backed the dems. Their line has been consistent.

Yes, in general the various groups that have split from the old SWP to the left over the years haven't gone in for outright support to the Democrats, too far against old James P. Cannon party traditions.

The SWP is still around and still not supporting Obama, but they are so extremely cultist and weird these days that few people take them seriously. I mean, these guys think East Germany is still a communist country!

Of the various left splits from the SWP, until recently at least the Spartacists were the biggest, though I've heard some claims that Socialist Action has been recruiting a lot of people lately and may now be bigger.

The FSP was once upon a time associated with the Spartacists, initially, way back in the 1960s, the two groups had "fraternal relations." But after the two FSP founders, Dick and Clara Fraser, had a very nasty divorce, Clara ran Dick out of the organization, and the SL and FSP were no longer friends. Dick joined the Spartacists shortly before he died.

So there's a distant cousinship there. If you consider yourself a feminist and admire Clara and hate Dick, then the FSP, which describes itself as "socialist feminist," is the group to join.

-M.H.-

[Martin Blank]

Indeed, just about all American left parties capitulated to Obama one way or another. Including PSL by the way. The biggest, the ISO, was one of the worst offenders, to say nothing of what's left of the CPUSA, probably second biggest, who were the most blatant about it.

The main exception was the Spartacists. Since everybody else is touting their favorite left group here, I will do the same. As they like to point out, not only was the whole American left superenthused about just having a black President, something black people have not benefitted from in any way shape or form, but not a single left group has said one word of self-criticism about tailing Obama!

Literally nobody!

Some of us never needed to make a self-criticism because we called "bullshit" on Obama early and often. It was Working People's Advocate that called Obama "Bush's Third Term" consistently in the run-up to the elections, that refused to join in the greasy group-hug around Obama's speech on racism, and that took on the LSD liberals and their phony charges of racism against left-wing critics of the Dems. We caught hell from the left for it, but we knew we were right. And now, those who were critical of us in 2008, and are honest enough to admit it, acknowledge that we were right every step of the way.

[Small Geezer]

Yeah I like the Sparticists. They have come up with a silver bullet strategy.

Intstead of organising among the class they undertake the heroic task of picketing existing left organisations and correcting their opportunist positions which include not hailing deformed workers states like the DPRK and Cuba.

Those Ostensibly Revolutionary Organisations should take a page out of the Sparts book,

[NoOneIsIllegal]

As for the IWW, as an anarchist organization* it doesn't take positions on things like that, but I'll betcha most IWW members voted for him to get rid of the Republicans. Of course there's no way of knowing.
I wouldn't take you to a casino. You're a bad better.
There may have been a small, handful of Greens and social-democrats in the IWW who did so. The majority of people I know in the union did not vote for him.
Your claim is baseless, therefore it was pointless to post it.

* Although based on syndicalist principles (but not in name), there is a decent chunk of Marxists in the union. Of course anarchists dominate it, but it's worth mentioning. In my GMB, I'd say it's 40-60.

[HEAD ICE]

"Bogus" positions like workers' power and workers' control?

I'm almost afraid to ask....what sort of leftist are you?

i would hope not a leftist at all

[A Marxist Historian]

Some of us never needed to make a self-criticism because we called "bullshit" on Obama early and often. It was Working People's Advocate that called Obama "Bush's Third Term" consistently in the run-up to the elections, that refused to join in the greasy group-hug around Obama's speech on racism, and that took on the LSD liberals and their phony charges of racism against left-wing critics of the Dems. We caught hell from the left for it, but we knew we were right. And now, those who were critical of us in 2008, and are honest enough to admit it, acknowledge that we were right every step of the way.

Fair enough, the WPA gets some definite brownie points for that in my book.

Until I got on Revleft, I'd have to say I'd never heard of the WPA however. Perhaps because they don't seem to have any presence where I am, in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Just out of curiosity, as you're located in Michigan, and I hear that the Spartacists have a new chapter in Lansing, I assume you've had some contact with them? How has that gone?

The WPA has perhaps the unique distinction on the American left of being the only left group with more than two people in it the Workers Vanguard has never even mentioned.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Yeah I like the Sparticists. They have come up with a silver bullet strategy.

Intstead of organising among the class they undertake the heroic task of picketing existing left organisations and correcting their opportunist positions which include not hailing deformed workers states like the DPRK and Cuba.

Those Ostensibly Revolutionary Organisations should take a page out of the Sparts book,

Advice: if you want to take a slap at 'em, it's more effective, and easier to have a good argument here, if you get it right.

The Spartacists have never ever hailed either the DPRK or Cuba, caracterizing both of 'em as Stalinist, calling for political revolutions to overthow the respective bureaucracies, just like Trotsky did with Stalin. Something they used to catch a lot of hell for back when Fidel was more popular.

Though I have to say putting Castro's Cuba in the same bag as Kim Il Sung Dynasty North Korea, though ultimately correct, is shall we say not a usual attitude for your average leftist.

So tell me, since you hate 'em both, how does your AWL feel about the Bay of Pigs these days? A good thing or a bad thing?

(I'm assuming your AWL is Sean Matgamna's AWL in England. If it's a different one, then nevermind, I advise you to clarify your self-description.)

Since you guys support various other attempts by the US and British government to overthrow other governments you and they don't like, Qaddafi being only the most recent example, would that apply to Cuba too? That's logical right?

-M.H.-

[manic expression]

Indeed, just about all American left parties capitulated to Obama one way or another. Including PSL by the way.
That's completely (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/08-06-10-why-ruling-class-chose-obama.html) false (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/08-07-21-mccain-obama-agree-us-must-d.html).

[Uncle Rob]

I'm looking for alternatives to the CPUSA. Any recommendations?

American Party of Labor, If you're looking for a Marxist-Leninist party.


Home page- http://americanpartyoflabor.org/
Paper- http://theredphoenixapl.org/

[A Marxist Historian]

That's completely (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/08-06-10-why-ruling-class-chose-obama.html) false (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/08-07-21-mccain-obama-agree-us-must-d.html).

't'ain't. Sorry. I'll grant you they weren't quite as crude about sucking up to Obamaism as their old blood brothers of the WWP. And they wanted people to vote for the capitalist Green Party in 2008 instead of the capitalist Democratic Party. (Anybody who has any doubt about the Greens being capitalist just read any of Ralph Nader's books, or take a look at what the Greens have done in Germany in the German government.)

But right after the election, they signed on to the RCP petition calling on Holder to prosecute Bush, thereby helping build illusions in Obama and facilitating his and Holders' witchhunts against leftists and Arabs, ripping up the constitution even worse than Bush has, drone strikes etc. etc.

And you had the PSL jumping on the bandwagon of the big AFL-CIO/NAACP demo to get Democrats elected in Congress in 2010.

Or the PSL immigration statement summer 2010 that: "Instead of mass deportations, the Obama administration should support comprehensive immigration reform..."

So yes, the PSL are not the worst offenders here, but they have a lot to live down too. As Cthulhu put it, the PSL was definltely part of the left "clusterfuck" around Obama, though on the fringes of the mosh pile.

-M.H.-

[kurr]

Actually, there is a small relatively newer group called the Workers Party in America, which I feel takes the lessons of the past but keeps its focus forward.

Check it out for yourself at http://www.workers-party.com

WPA is DeLeonist. Like I said, no Communist political party in the US that isn't stuck in the twentieth century.

[kurr]

Also... A Marxist Historian. How exactly did the PSL capitulate to Obama when they ran their own candidates and (I imagine) spend a lot of party funds on that campaign? Doesn't really add up.

[manic expression]

't'ain't. Sorry. I'll grant you they weren't quite as crude about sucking up to Obamaism as their old blood brothers of the WWP.
We're not "blood brothers" with the WWP. Just because neither party publishes their views about the split doesn't mean it was at all amicable.


And they wanted people to vote for the capitalist Green Party in 2008 instead of the capitalist Democratic Party.
If you're referring to the PSL, then no, the PSL wanted people to vote for the PSL in 2008.


But right after the election, they signed on to the RCP petition calling on Holder to prosecute Bush, thereby helping build illusions in Obama and facilitating his and Holders' witchhunts against leftists and Arabs, ripping up the constitution even worse than Bush has, drone strikes etc. etc.
No, that's calling for Bush to be prosecuted by whomever can prosecute him. It has nothing to do with "building illusions" in Obama and if you think as much then I dare say you're overreaching.


And you had the PSL jumping on the bandwagon of the big AFL-CIO/NAACP demo to get Democrats elected in Congress in 2010.
Participating in labor union activities doesn't mean you endorse everything they say.


Or the PSL immigration statement summer 2010 that: "Instead of mass deportations, the Obama administration should support comprehensive immigration reform..."
Ah, demanding an end to racist mass deportations, how horrible. Tell me, do you think it "building illusions" in Obama if a party demanded an end to the attack against Libya?


So yes, the PSL are not the worst offenders here, but they have a lot to live down too. As Cthulhu put it, the PSL was definltely part of the left "clusterfuck" around Obama, though on the fringes of the mosh pile.
I do not think the facts bear that assessment out.

[Martin Blank]

Fair enough, the WPA gets some definite brownie points for that in my book.

Thank you. Much appreciated.


Until I got on Revleft, I'd have to say I'd never heard of the WPA however. Perhaps because they don't seem to have any presence where I am, in the San Francisco Bay Area.

We have a member in the Bay Area, but he's young and relatively isolated. We normally don't like sending our members into a public event solo, but he has been working in Occupy Oakland for a while and participated in the two mass protests that shut down the ports.


Just out of curiosity, as you're located in Michigan, and I hear that the Spartacists have a new chapter in Lansing, I assume you've had some contact with them? How has that gone?

I think I met two of them at a labor protest against Snyder and Public Act 4 (the Emergency Manager Law). I can't say for sure because they only identified themselves as being "sympathizers" at the time. We had a decent conversation at the rally, and I imagine it was nice change of pace from the running argument they were having with two ISOers from Grand Rapids who were at the event.


The WPA has perhaps the unique distinction on the American left of being the only left group with more than two people in it the Workers Vanguard has never even mentioned.

I figure it's just a matter of time before they find a reason. As well, there is the fact that the WPA is only three years old, and that the WV editors have had "bigger fish" to fry.

[Martin Blank]

WPA is DeLeonist. Like I said, no Communist political party in the US that isn't stuck in the twentieth century.

Actually, we're not DeLeonist. The only "ist" we are is communist. We might agree that DeLeon's theory of socialist/revolutionary industrial unionism continues to have merit, but that does not mean we live by every dot and comma he penned.

If you want to get a better sense of how we conduct our work, take a look at our activity in and around #Occupy -- particularly our circulating draft outlining #[email protected] and our work in the recently reorganized Occupy Saginaw.

[A Marxist Historian]

Also... A Marxist Historian. How exactly did the PSL capitulate to Obama when they ran their own candidates and (I imagine) spend a lot of party funds on that campaign? Doesn't really add up.

That would be a very good question if I hadn't already answered it in my previous post. Suggest you take another look at it.

The CPUSA ran Prez candidates for decades, but everybody knew they were really supporting the Demos, no matter how much money they spent on the campaigns. Original model was their Earl Browder campaign in 1936, whose slogan was "vote Earl Browder to defeat the Republicans." And everybody knew that most of the party membership actually voted for Roosevelt.

That by the way is simply an answer to your question, not a suggestion that PRL members did the same in 2008.

Small leftist groups run election campaigns not to get themselves elected into office or shape the outcome of the election, but for the publicity value.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

We're not "blood brothers" with the WWP. Just because neither party publishes their views about the split doesn't mean it was at all amicable.


If you're referring to the PSL, then no, the PSL wanted people to vote for the PSL in 2008.


No, that's calling for Bush to be prosecuted by whomever can prosecute him. It has nothing to do with "building illusions" in Obama and if you think as much then I dare say you're overreaching.


Participating in labor union activities doesn't mean you endorse everything they say.


Ah, demanding an end to racist mass deportations, how horrible. Tell me, do you think it "building illusions" in Obama if a party demanded an end to the attack against Libya?


I do not think the facts bear that assessment out.

If the PSL wanted people to vote for the PSL only, then why did they call on people to vote for the Green presidential ticket? As for your relations with the WWP, yes, I know you guys hate each other, happens in the best of families. But you have remarkably few actual political differences. Actually, your somewhat different lines on the 2008 election are just about the only one I can think of offhand.

And the petition didn't call for Bush to be prosecuted by invading Martians or deported to Taliban country to be prosecuted there, it called on Attorney General Holder to prosecute him--even though any fool should have been able to predict that there is absolutely nothing prosecutable Bush Jr. ever did that was not going to be replicated by Obama on steroids.

I mean, what do you think they do to prisoners at Baghram? Obama never made any secret of the fact that he was more interested in war on Afghanistan and Pakistan than Bush was. So why aren't you guys petitioning the Republicans in Congress to prosecute him! They might actually listen, don't you know? Wouldn't be a total waste of paper like the petition you guys actually signed.

And PSL didn't just participate in that big labor march, like any other workers, they endorsed it.

And PSL didn't just call for Obama to stop the deportations, they called on him to "reform" immigration policy. Which he has done! Except his "desktop raids" are worse than Bush's brutality, he has deported more than twice as many people.

In short, raising illusions in Obama at every turn, though not as grossly as some others.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

As for voting, I haven't voted for at least 30 years, and I do not intend to, in the future. Our IWW branch is nearly all anarchists, and I do not know anyone in the branch who voted in 2008.

As for the Spartacists, some years ago, I bought a subscription from a traveling representative of WV, and, for the $10 I gave her, I got exactly one issue of the paper. I'm not annoyed any more, but that was my first and last contribution to the SL.

Now that's bad. Sounds like a fuckup on the part of somebody, not an organizational policy. I'm sure if you'd pursued the matter you'd have gotten the rest of your sub, and an apology. But I suppose if you didn't like the one issue you read, that'd be too much trouble.

Maybe my crack about the IWW and voting was overly cynical, consider it withdrawn. But I've met all too many anarchists who are skin deep liberals who voted for Obama in the voting booth with nobody looking. If you say there are none such in your chapter, I have no reason not to believe you.

-M.H.-

[eyeheartlenin]

I had forgotten about writing in McReynolds in the year 2000 election, so I have to say, I have not voted for over a decade, and I'm not gonna, in the future. :blushing: I would never vote for a Democrat; I always point out that Chomsky endorses the Democrats, every four years, like clockwork.

As it happens, I spent Election Day night, 2008, in a bar, with another IWW person (we say "Wobs"). When a friend of the other Wob arrived, my fellow worker asked his friend if he had voted, and the guy said no, a response that met with our approval. I honestly don't know anyone in the branch who votes or makes noises like a Democrat. They are anarchists; given that the other choices where I live are the ISO, which we all regard as cheerleaders for the Democrats, Workers World, and the Quakers, I can honestly say that, from where I sit, we seem to have the best people in town.

BTW, could you point me to the WV article that said that Chomsky endorsed the sanctions against, was it, Serbia, or Iraq? One of those states, I am fairly sure.

Thanks in advance for any information,
eyeheartlenin

[MarxSchmarx]

As it happens, I spent Election Day night, 2008, in a bar, with another IWW person (we say "Wobs"). When a friend of the other Wob arrived, my fellow worker asked his friend if he had voted, and the guy said no, a response that met with our approval. I honestly don't know anyone in the branch who votes or makes noises like a Democrat. They are anarchists; given that the other choices where I live are the ISO, which we all regard as cheerleaders for the Democrats, Workers World, and the Quakers, I can honestly say that, from where I sit, we seem to have the best people in town.


One thing that's always left me puzzled about the IWW is that if they ever gain, say, a large chunk of working people (which comprises let's say 40% of the electorate) in some liberal democracy to join them and be enthusiastic supporters,will they really tell their members that electoral politics doesn't matter and to therefore abstain?

I agree the CNT went about it the wrong way in joining a coalition government. But the IWW is an explicitly multi-tendency organization that does seek to accommodate people who do see a role for voting.

[A Marxist Historian]

I had forgotten about writing in McReynolds in the year 2000 election, so I have to say, I have not voted for over a decade, and I'm not gonna, in the future. :blushing: I would never vote for a Democrat; I always point out that Chomsky endorses the Democrats, every four years, like clockwork.

As it happens, I spent Election Day night, 2008, in a bar, with another IWW person (we say "Wobs"). When a friend of the other Wob arrived, my fellow worker asked his friend if he had voted, and the guy said no, a response that met with our approval. I honestly don't know anyone in the branch who votes or makes noises like a Democrat. They are anarchists; given that the other choices where I live are the ISO, which we all regard as cheerleaders for the Democrats, Workers World, and the Quakers, I can honestly say that, from where I sit, we seem to have the best people in town.

BTW, could you point me to the WV article that said that Chomsky endorsed the sanctions against, was it, Serbia, or Iraq? One of those states, I am fairly sure.

Thanks in advance for any information,
eyeheartlenin

That would be this one.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/874/chomsky.html

It was Chomsky's Iraq article in Z Magazine, February 1991. Though later, when Clinton actually did exactly what Chomsky had suggested and a million and a half Iraqis starved to death, Chomsky did complain about it.

And as of when that WV article was written, Chomsky was still talking about “diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror,” even after the Iraq horror.

-M.H.-

[NoOneIsIllegal]

One thing that's always left me puzzled about the IWW is that if they ever gain, say, a large chunk of working people (which comprises let's say 40% of the electorate) in some liberal democracy to join them and be enthusiastic supporters,will they really tell their members that electoral politics doesn't matter and to therefore abstain?
Why not? Most people, both new and familiar with IWW principles and ideology, typically come into the union with the frustration of bourgeois elections. Most new members I have met have already come to the conclusion that reform from the ballot doesn't work. Many working people already think that and stay home during election day.
We take this very serious. If we do have a member who believes in the ballot, why wouldn't we explain the situation? We can show how direct action and change-from-below makes the real different, both historically and present.
The IWW has been doing major overhaul the last couple of years, and really investing time, money, and self-sacrifice into education and organizer training.

[manic expression]

If the PSL wanted people to vote for the PSL only, then why did they call on people to vote for the Green presidential ticket?
Oh, you're right...that whole PSL presidential campaign in which members were working hard to get their party on the ballot was just for fun, the PSL was secretly asking people to vote Green when they said "Vote PSL". :rolleyes:


As for your relations with the WWP, yes, I know you guys hate each other, happens in the best of families. But you have remarkably few actual political differences. Actually, your somewhat different lines on the 2008 election are just about the only one I can think of offhand.Politics is bigger than one's view on history. The WWP was functioning in a manner in which those who formed the PSL could not tolerate. And if you knew we "hate each other" (which is a pretty crude way of putting it), then you wouldn't have made that vapid comment about "blood brothers".

As for the "best of families", that's rich coming from a sympathizer of the Spartacist League.


And the petition didn't call for Bush to be prosecuted by invading Martians or deported to Taliban country to be prosecuted there, it called on Attorney General Holder to prosecute him--...because Holder was the person who could have prosecuted him. When a party demands that capitalists do things it's not because we think they're actually going to do it, it's done to expose bourgeois figures for what they are. Demanding that Holder prosecute Bush dispelled illusions in Obama and his administration.


I mean, what do you think they do to prisoners at Baghram? Obama never made any secret of the fact that he was more interested in war on Afghanistan and Pakistan than Bush was.Funny, we pointed that out more than any other party in 2008.


And PSL didn't just participate in that big labor march, like any other workers, they endorsed it.Oh my stars, endorsing union activities, let me find my pearl necklace.


And PSL didn't just call for Obama to stop the deportations, they called on him to "reform" immigration policy. Which he has done!Not in the manner that the PSL demanded, which is kind of the point. Try this on for size:

Multiple communist parties demanded that Obama end the War in Iraq. Which he has "done"!

Feels good, right? Too bad it has nothing to do with the demand or the intention or the effect.


In short, raising illusions in Obama at every turn, though not as grossly as some others.The only illusion here is your cross-eyed notion that the PSL was saying and doing things that were neither said nor done.

[MarxSchmarx]

Why not? Most people, both new and familiar with IWW principles and ideology, typically come into the union with the frustration of bourgeois elections. Most new members I have met have already come to the conclusion that reform from the ballot doesn't work. Many working people already think that and stay home during election day.
We take this very serious. If we do have a member who believes in the ballot, why wouldn't we explain the situation? We can show how direct action and change-from-below makes the real different, both historically and present.
The IWW has been doing major overhaul the last couple of years, and really investing time, money, and self-sacrifice into education and organizer training.

Well, it's not too far fetched to imagine a situation, at least somewhere, where one candidate is running on the platform of "I will go all out and smash this IWW fad with an iron fist" while the other is saying "we should let them live, they're going to fizzle out anyway"? The IWW would then seriously risk being set back decades by not "participating" and sticking to the same boycott strategy they used when they had a tiny fraction of the population behind them.

In fact something like this did happen in many countries when the IWW or other radical unions were on the upswing in the early 20th century and in the mid-20th century when banning communist parties were a real possibility.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One thing that's always left me puzzled about the IWW is that if they ever gain, say, a large chunk of working people (which comprises let's say 40% of the electorate) in some liberal democracy to join them and be enthusiastic supporters,will they really tell their members that electoral politics doesn't matter and to therefore abstain?

I agree the CNT went about it the wrong way in joining a coalition government. But the IWW is an explicitly multi-tendency organization that does seek to accommodate people who do see a role for voting.

Unfortunately, comrade, that is their anti-political line. The IWW itself refuses to commit to becoming a political party in fact, a la Ferdinand Lassalle's General German Workers Association (political party in substance, officially a "union"). It even refuses to conduct its own mass spoilage campaigns. In other words, it rarely engages in political action generally, despite pretensions of doing otherwise.

BTW, I didn't know the CNT went that far in terms of Popular Frontism. :closedeyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

In addition to the SP-USA and the WPA recommendations above, I'd like to ask here and now if the World Federation of Trade Unions is interested in lessening its Third World focus, re-establishing itself in Europe, and setting up shop in North America, thus giving great impetus to a new International. That, of course, necessarily entails the establishment of political formations with ties to the WFTU.

[Crux]

In addition to the SP-USA and the WPA recommendations above, I'd like to ask here and now if the World Federation of Trade Unions is interested in lessening its Third World focus, re-establishing itself in Europe, and setting up shop in North America, thus giving great impetus to a new International. That, of course, necessarily entails the establishment of political formations with ties to the WFTU.
Do you have much experience with being in any actual organizations, DNZ?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Unfortunately, comrade, that is their anti-political line. The IWW itself refuses to commit to becoming a political party in fact, a la Ferdinand Lassalle's General German Workers Association (political party in substance, officially a "union"). It even refuses to conduct its own mass spoilage campaigns. In other words, it rarely engages in political action generally, despite pretensions of doing otherwise.
1) Workers can commit themselves to a party and political action on their own, but the organization itself will not endorse a party. I know plenty of members who are party members OR who want a party but are disappointed by the choices, so they simply dedicate themselves to the union.

2) Spoiling the ballots? Talk about a waste of time, and a silly idea...

[The Douche]

1) Workers can commit themselves to a party and political action on their own, but the organization itself will not endorse a party. I know plenty of members who are party members OR who want a party but are disappointed by the choices, so they simply dedicate themselves to the union.

2) Spoiling the ballots? Talk about a waste of time, and a silly idea...

Isn't there a clause in the IWW constitution which bans organizers from either being in or holding an office in any party, and isn't every member of the IWW an "organizer"?

I know its very, very common for IWW members to be in various political parties, but I seem the remember this discussion happening when I was in either the IWW or the SP.

[Crux]

DNZ since you are chastising the IWW for not being politically active, in the way you define the word. But it does beg the question, what is your experience with political activism? That you spoil your ballot I have no problem believing, but beyond that? No doubt DNZ will not answer this, as he has always ignored similar questions before. But this is a thread about political organizations and DNZ supposes to give advice on what organizations to join, so it would be interesting to know if he's ever been active in one, or even active around one.

[Die Neue Zeit]

1) Workers can commit themselves to a party and political action on their own, but the organization itself will not endorse a party. I know plenty of members who are party members OR who want a party but are disappointed by the choices, so they simply dedicate themselves to the union.

2) Spoiling the ballots? Talk about a waste of time, and a silly idea...

Here's a very basic political action question: Where was the IWW in Occupy? To what extent was the union itself involved in "dispatching cadres" to organize Occupy events and stuff?

The answer to this just might indicate the IWW's stance on political action.

[The Douche]

Here's a very basic political action question: Where was the IWW in Occupy? To what extent was the union itself involved in "dispatching cadres" to organize Occupy events and stuff?

The answer to this just might indicate the IWW's stance on political action.

I've seen pictures of people at occupations who I know are/were (? maybe they aren't anymore, but I knew them when I was in that circle) wobs.

But based on my conversations with people on the west coast and midwest the IWW is really different out there than it was when I was involved with them here on the east coast.

When I was a wob and in wobbly circles, they were mostly older activist types who were dual carders in other unions (lots of them were in healthcare), and young anarcho-communist/platformist types. They marched in black blocs and generally were indistinguishable from other anarchists, and the only thing that set them aside from the insurrecto types was a lower number of tattoos/facial piercings/punk clothing.

But I hear in the midwest they can be very much in the anarcho-liberal camp, and on the west coast they fall into the circles of the weird wingnut types.

[Crux]

Here's a very basic political action question: Where was the IWW in Occupy? To what extent was the union itself involved in "dispatching cadres" to organize Occupy events and stuff?

The answer to this just might indicate the IWW's stance on political action.
yes it very much seems so I've seen it come up in the occupy forum.
What is your stance on political action? I'm not really asking for a lists of things you've done or groups you've been active with. A more general answer will suffice. Given that you avoid the question I am tempted to draw the conclusion that your answer is "none at all", but that would be presumptios of me. But again given the subject of the thread and given your critique I would like to know if any of your insights are based on experience or material reality.

[eyeheartlenin]

One thing that's always left me puzzled about the IWW is that if they ever gain, say, a large chunk of working people (which comprises let's say 40% of the electorate) in some liberal democracy to join them and be enthusiastic supporters,will they really tell their members that electoral politics doesn't matter and to therefore abstain?

(Speaking as a rank and file member, not a representative, of the IWW, I think that) Electoral politics has given workers in the US a Democratic administration (the current one) whose only "transformation" so far is that Democrats in Congress are now free to attack Medicare and Social Security openly, legislatively. In other words, believing in elections (as a method of change) has led to a major, major attack on workers, the poor, the elderly, those chronically ill, etc.

If the IWW ever won over 40% of the working class, the union would be in a good position to organize a general strike to put an end to bourgeois rule, I would bet. With 40%, it would be a crime to tell workers to leave the streets, go home, and go vote. That's how the French Stalinist party, the PCF, ended the longest and largest (11 million workers, I just read) strike in history, in May-June 1968. In a potentially revolutionary situation, calling for elections is a prescription for defeat, I think.

So I hope the IWW never embraces electoral politics, which is an absolute dead end for the working class, as history shows. Power for workers and our allies lies in the conquest of the streets. The call for a general strike on May Day, that our branch is hoping to popularize, shows the way forward IMHO and is an class answer to the 2012 Presidential election, which will undoubtedly offer workers a choice between cancer and the plague.


I agree the CNT went about it the wrong way in joining a coalition government. But the IWW is an explicitly multi-tendency organization that does seek to accommodate people who do see a role for voting.

As a rank and file Wob, I am not aware that the IWW defines itself as an "explicitly multi-tendency organization," which sounds to me like some toothless political group, like the SPUSA or Solidarity. The IWW is a union, wherein, from what I've seen, there are lots and lots of anarchists, who are pretty clear that elections only determine "who will mis-represent the people," (to quote one of Lenin's several insights).

I have been involved with the Wobs in a couple of different places, at several different points in my life, and I have yet to find any enthusiasm for elections or politicians among them, which is a refreshing change from the generally pro-Obama US left.

[A Marxist Historian]

Oh, you're right...that whole PSL presidential campaign in which members were working hard to get their party on the ballot was just for fun, the PSL was secretly asking people to vote Green when they said "Vote PSL". :rolleyes:

Politics is bigger than one's view on history. The WWP was functioning in a manner in which those who formed the PSL could not tolerate. And if you knew we "hate each other" (which is a pretty crude way of putting it), then you wouldn't have made that vapid comment about "blood brothers".

As for the "best of families", that's rich coming from a sympathizer of the Spartacist League.

...because Holder was the person who could have prosecuted him. When a party demands that capitalists do things it's not because we think they're actually going to do it, it's done to expose bourgeois figures for what they are. Demanding that Holder prosecute Bush dispelled illusions in Obama and his administration.

Funny, we pointed that out more than any other party in 2008.

Oh my stars, endorsing union activities, let me find my pearl necklace.

Not in the manner that the PSL demanded, which is kind of the point. Try this on for size:

Multiple communist parties demanded that Obama end the War in Iraq. Which he has "done"!

Feels good, right? Too bad it has nothing to do with the demand or the intention or the effect.

The only illusion here is your cross-eyed notion that the PSL was saying and doing things that were neither said nor done.

OK, you had your own presidential candidate and didn't vote for the Green candidate for Prez. A mistake on my part, hereby corrected, sorry. But you did get involved with the Green Party in Illinois, in the state representative elections. Qualitatively the same thing.

And also Peace & Freedom in California, historically a left liberal bourgeois party, as is pretty obvious from the name, even if it has fallen on such hard times that left wing activists are fighting over the corpse.

I like your line that "politics is bigger than one's views on history." Sure. But politics is also about, well, politics! Not who is pissed off at who, whether rightly or wrongly. Given that it's been almost a decade since the split and PSL and WWP still have pretty much exactly the same politics, then you are still blood brothers, even if the blood you want to shed is each others, and you really have no principled basis for separate existence.

As for endorsing that union rally, do you guys have a principle of endorsing any rally for any purpose called by unions? How 'bout if unions had rallies calling to deport immigrants, would you support that too? This was a rally to get Democrats elected to Congress, as everybody knew including even the PSL. So when you endorsed it, you were endorsing electing Democrats to Congress, despite your protestations to the contrary.

So demanding that Holder prosecute Bush dispels illusions in Obama and bourgeois justice, 'cuz he doesn't? That's ridiculous. It only makes sense if you think that Holder is better in some way than Bush or his attorney generals, and he isn't. If anything, the Bush administration has done *more* to rip up democratic rights and freedoms than Bush Jr. ever did.

Obama just last year order a murder--a hit--on an American citizen with a cruise missile. So why aren't you petitioning that he be prosecuted for murder? Or impeached by the Republicans in the House, being as Holder is not likely to arrest his boss? Because, despite your protestations, you guys go along with the illusion that the Obama and the Democrats are better than the Republicans. They are not.

Finally, what does it say in your article on Obama that Manic Expression posted a link for?

"For many Black people especially, the prospect of simply having a Black president—regardless of his politics—is enough to arouse excitement. This is perfectly justifiable. The fact that there have been so few Black elected officials in this country is a testament to the country’s deeply-rooted racism. Our campaign has absolutely no quarrel with those who have devoted their time to righting this historic wrong."

There you go. Sucking up to illusions in Obamaism. Not as deep into it as say the ISO, like I said, but definitely on the fringes of the mosh pile of leftists trying to get something out of the Obama bandwagon.

-M.H.-

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Here's a very basic political action question: Where was the IWW in Occupy? To what extent was the union itself involved in "dispatching cadres" to organize Occupy events and stuff?

The answer to this just might indicate the IWW's stance on political action.
Many Wobblies have participated in Occupy, at the original OWS and various cities. My good friend Liberte Locke was taking over 40 pounds of marked Starbucks food every night to OWS protesters. Various Wobblies have taken part in either spreading literature, propaganda, or giving speechs at Occupies, or taking part in their General Assemblies.

The IWW as a whole endorses OWS, but various branches have done various things.
If anything, I'm sure we've done much more political work than you, who can't even answer the question of what you've done ;) :lol: Which I find hilarious, because you are always espousing political activism.

So, DNZ, what are you trying to get at?


On a lighter note, here's what one hippy had to say about us Wobblies in Omaha:

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/400238_2452785518211_1209216069_32048446_543127003 _n.jpg

Best conversation ever. "[The Nebraska IWW GMB] came out of Chicago"
....wut?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Isn't there a clause in the IWW constitution which bans organizers from either being in or holding an office in any party, and isn't every member of the IWW an "organizer"?

I know its very, very common for IWW members to be in various political parties, but I seem the remember this discussion happening when I was in either the IWW or the SP.
I would have to check, but I have never once heard that. It could be true, who knows. I know various people in various organizations (SWP, APL, PSL) but none of them hold office, of course.

Yes, all wobblies are considered organizers and the IWW has taken great steps the past year to hold O.T. 101's (Organizer Training 101).
I will actually be attending my first one this upcoming weekend. We have people attending from Omaha, Lincoln, Lawrence (KS), Kansas City, Tulsa, Chicago, and Iowa City. Over 40 people. We've had to turn away so many people we plan on holding another one in Lincoln in April. Pretty crazy stuff.

[Die Neue Zeit]

(Speaking as a rank and file member, not a representative, of the IWW, I think that) Electoral politics has given workers in the US a Democratic administration (the current one) whose only "transformation" so far is that Democrats in Congress are now free to attack Medicare and Social Security openly, legislatively. In other words, believing in elections (as a method of change) has led to a major, major attack on workers, the poor, the elderly, those chronically ill, etc.

If the IWW ever won over 40% of the working class, the union would be in a good position to organize a general strike to put an end to bourgeois rule, I would bet. With 40%, it would be a crime to tell workers to leave the streets, go home, and go vote. That's how the French Stalinist party, the PCF, ended the longest and largest (11 million workers, I just read) strike in history, in May-June 1968. In a potentially revolutionary situation, calling for elections is a prescription for defeat, I think.

That's still quite a minoritarian approach relative to the class. Any general strike would disrupt the flow of fuel to gas stations, food to groceries, and other basic items to stores. Though you are right that the question of power would then be posed, there's a reason why French and Portuguese workers themselves turned to their respective official CPs to the point of becoming members: those who organized the general strikes did not offer comprehensive solutions within an equally comprehensive political program to resolve the crisis, while the official CPs did:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/middle-ground-may-t165270/index.html


Many Wobblies have participated in Occupy, at the original OWS and various cities. My good friend Liberte Locke was taking over 40 pounds of marked Starbucks food every night to OWS protesters. Various Wobblies have taken part in either spreading literature, propaganda, or giving speechs at Occupies, or taking part in their General Assemblies.

The IWW as a whole endorses OWS, but various branches have done various things.

Endorsing is quite different from highly organized political work, as the continued mainstream union endorsement of the Democrats and the continued British union ties to Labour show. I put in quotation marks "dispatching cadres" for a reason. At a minimum, the IWW could and should establish guidelines for organizing in Occupy, but then there'd be screams of "Centralization!"

Margery Coffey's comments are a liberal exaggeration of precisely what the IWW must do - "managing" and not "micromanaging."

[Crux]

That's still quite a minoritarian approach relative to the class. Any general strike would disrupt the flow of fuel to gas stations, food to groceries, and other basic items to stores. Though you are right that the question of power would then be posed, there's a reason why French and Portuguese workers themselves turned to their respective official CPs to the point of becoming members: those who organized the general strikes did not offer comprehensive solutions within an equally comprehensive political program to resolve the crisis, while the official CPs did:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/middle-ground-may-t165270/index.html



Endorsing is quite different from highly organized political work, as the continued mainstream union endorsement of the Democrats and the continued British union ties to Labour show. I put in quotation marks "dispatching cadres" for a reason. At a minimum, the IWW could and should establish guidelines for organizing in Occupy, but then there'd be screams of "Centralization!"

Margery Coffey's comments are a liberal exaggeration of precisely what the IWW must do - "managing" and not "micromanaging."

And speaking of organized political work, what is your experience with political work exactly? Have you had any chance to test your theories, to try and apply them in practice?

[manic expression]

OK, you had your own presidential candidate and didn't vote for the Green candidate for Prez. A mistake on my part, hereby corrected, sorry. But you did get involved with the Green Party in Illinois, in the state representative elections. Qualitatively the same thing.
First of all, it's not the same thing, and secondly working with Greens on some issues isn't necessarily a bad thing. The fact that you seem very afraid of citing specifics in this circumstance speaks volumes.


And also Peace & Freedom in California, historically a left liberal bourgeois party, as is pretty obvious from the name, even if it has fallen on such hard times that left wing activists are fighting over the corpse.I couldn't care less what P&F was "historically". The PSL's work with that group has brought many progressives into contact with a revolutionary socialist platform and that is definitely a positive for the movement.


I like your line that "politics is bigger than one's views on history." Sure. But politics is also about, well, politics! Not who is pissed off at who, whether rightly or wrongly. Given that it's been almost a decade since the split and PSL and WWP still have pretty much exactly the same politics, then you are still blood brothers, even if the blood you want to shed is each others, and you really have no principled basis for separate existence.Don't try to walk that one back, you've changed your mind on what you meant about a half-dozen times now. Those who formed the PSL were unable to continue their work as part of the WWP and so the split happened. It was about the day-to-day realities of party work first and foremost, and in all frankness that's about as justified as a split as you're going to find.


As for endorsing that union rally, do you guys have a principle of endorsing any rally for any purpose called by unions? How 'bout if unions had rallies calling to deport immigrants, would you support that too?Did we? No? Awesome, thanks.


So demanding that Holder prosecute Bush dispels illusions in Obama and bourgeois justice, 'cuz he doesn't? That's ridiculous. It only makes sense if you think that Holder is better in some way than Bush or his attorney generals, and he isn't. If anything, the Bush administration has done *more* to rip up democratic rights and freedoms than Bush Jr. ever did.It exposes Holder for what he is...which was the whole point.

Try this one on for size: "demanding that Obama not bomb Libya only makes sense if you think that Obama is better in some way than Bush".

Or, replace Obama with Bush, Bush with Clinton and Libya with Iraq! Yeah, still makes no sense.


Obama just last year order a murder--a hit--on an American citizen with a cruise missile. So why aren't you petitioning that he be prosecuted for murder?The PSL has been denouncing every inch of Obama's foreign policy and if you don't believe that than you aren't paying attention. There was no petition because we all know the Republicans don't give a sh*t while many on the left actually thought Obama brought something new to the table...which meant it was a good idea to call out the Obama administration and show them for what they are.


Finally, what does it say in your article on Obama that Manic Expression posted a link for?That would be me...no need for the third person.


"For many Black people especially, the prospect of simply having a Black president—regardless of his politics—is enough to arouse excitement. This is perfectly justifiable. The fact that there have been so few Black elected officials in this country is a testament to the country’s deeply-rooted racism. Our campaign has absolutely no quarrel with those who have devoted their time to righting this historic wrong."

There you go. Sucking up to illusions in Obamaism. Not as deep into it as say the ISO, like I said, but definitely on the fringes of the mosh pile of leftists trying to get something out of the Obama bandwagon.hahahahahahahahahaha

Oh, TMH, I didn't expect this kind of cheap polemics from you...you're better than this, and I think you know it.

The statement has only to do with the fact that many in the Black community felt obliged to support Obama because him as president might represent progress in some way. The PSL was saying that that motivation isn't a negative one, but WENT ON TO SAY (right after that):

The PSL La Riva/Puryear campaign, however, is focused on exposing the systemic problems of racism and capitalism. Gentrification, rampant police brutality against Black and Latino people, the criminal neglect of the Gulf Coast, the disproportionate poverty and unemployment in oppressed communities: these phenomena are not caused by a few bad apples.

The President of the United States—regardless of who is elected—will be the manager of capitalist America. Every president in the modern era has waged some sort of war against someone, and has refused to guarantee the basic necessities of life for the majority of the population. This pattern will be repeated in this electoral cycle, regardless of the campaign promises.

Revolutionaries cannot be a tail on the kite of the Democrats. Nor can we simply criticize the available candidates and decide to do nothing. We must build an independent alternative inside the electoral process that uses every chance to intervene to bring the demands and voices from the people’s struggles. We have to speak for those locked out of the electoral system altogether. We have to engage in the electoral process in order to fight against it.

The idea of fundamental and deep change—revolution—is deeply felt by millions of working people throughout the United States. Ruling-class propaganda aims at convincing them that revolutionary change is “not possible.” The same ruling class wants the people to be involved in politics only so long as it is the harmless politics of the two-party system. Otherwise they want people to be politically apathetic, pessimistic and focus their energy on recreational activities.

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

So, I do hope you can look at this rationally instead of through the warped glasses of a pre-concocted narrative.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So demanding that Holder prosecute Bush dispels illusions in Obama and bourgeois justice, 'cuz he doesn't? That's ridiculous. It only makes sense if you think that Holder is better in some way than Bush or his attorney generals, and he isn't. If anything, the Bush administration has done *more* to rip up democratic rights and freedoms than Bush Jr. ever did.

Obama just last year order a murder--a hit--on an American citizen with a cruise missile. So why aren't you petitioning that he be prosecuted for murder? Or impeached by the Republicans in the House, being as Holder is not likely to arrest his boss? Because, despite your protestations, you guys go along with the illusion that the Obama and the Democrats are better than the Republicans. They are not.


-M.H.-

Exactly. They don't want rad/lib types to think they are "crazy."

And comrade, the best reason for a split is difference in program -- it should be highly problematic to you that the WWP and PSL have separate groups with very little programmatic difference.

[MarxSchmarx]

(Speaking as a rank and file member, not a representative, of the IWW, I think that) Electoral politics has given workers in the US a Democratic administration (the current one) whose only "transformation" so far is that Democrats in Congress are now free to attack Medicare and Social Security openly, legislatively. In other words, believing in elections (as a method of change) has led to a major, major attack on workers, the poor, the elderly, those chronically ill, etc.

If the IWW ever won over 40% of the working class, the union would be in a good position to organize a general strike to put an end to bourgeois rule, I would bet. With 40%, it would be a crime to tell workers to leave the streets, go home, and go vote. That's how the French Stalinist party, the PCF, ended the longest and largest (11 million workers, I just read) strike in history, in May-June 1968. In a potentially revolutionary situation, calling for elections is a prescription for defeat, I think.

So I hope the IWW never embraces electoral politics, which is an absolute dead end for the working class, as history shows. Power for workers and our allies lies in the conquest of the streets. The call for a general strike on May Day, that our branch is hoping to popularize, shows the way forward IMHO and is an class answer to the 2012 Presidential election, which will undoubtedly offer workers a choice between cancer and the plague.

I have given up on people who don't bother to give other people's posts serious consideration and instead set up the most crass strawman arguments imaginable. "Believing in elections as a method of change"? Where did I ever say that? It's disingenuous to put words on other's mouths, but I hope you feel better about yourself.

As for your point about 40% of workers being sufficient for THE general strike, well, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.



As a rank and file Wob, I am not aware that the IWW defines itself as an "explicitly multi-tendency organization," which sounds to me like some toothless political group, like the SPUSA or Solidarity.

I know for a fact the IWW allows dual-card membership with other unions and as other users have noted, several IWW members are also members of political parties. I have no reason to believe the IWW wants to move away from that model. Maybe it's just semantics but that makes them a multi-tendency organization in my book.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have given up on people who don't bother to give other people's posts serious consideration and instead set up the most crass strawman arguments imaginable. "Believing in elections as a method of change"? Where did I ever say that? It's disingenuous to put words on other's mouths, but I hope you feel better about yourself.

As for your point about 40% of workers being sufficient for THE general strike, well, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Comrade, I think more patience is in order. The poster in question is probably still learning what class politics is all about. His figure of 40% for THE One Big Strike (or Strike Wave) is better than lower alternatives, so he is developing somewhere.


I have no reason to believe the IWW wants to move away from that model. Maybe it's just semantics but that makes them a multi-tendency organization in my book.

It's a multi-tendency but mainly apolitical organization, I would add.

[Crux]

Comrade, I think more patience is in order. The poster in question is probably still learning what class politics is all about. His figure of 40% for THE One Big Strike (or Strike Wave) is better than lower alternatives, so he is developing somewhere.



It's a multi-tendency but mainly apolitical organization, I would add.
Mainly apolitical? That's interesting coming from someone who refuses to even adress questions pertaining to, you know, actual political activity. So what do you base this judgement on?

[Renegade Saint]

They are anarchists; given that the other choices where I live are the ISO, which we all regard as cheerleaders for the Democrats, Workers World, and the Quakers, I can honestly say that, from where I sit, we seem to have the best people in town.

Ok, the 'ISO loves democrats' thing is going on in another thread, but I've never heard anything about Workers World or the Quakers. A Stalinist newspaper and a pacifist religious group?

[Leftsolidarity]

Manic, could you explain to me the justifications for the split between the WWP and PSL and how the workings of the parties are different?

(This is coming from someone who might eventually end up in the WWP so I'd like to know this things)

[eyeheartlenin]

Ok, the 'ISO loves democrats' thing is going on in another thread, but I've never heard anything about Workers World or the Quakers. A Stalinist newspaper and a pacifist religious group?

The boldface words must have misled you. I was just listing the groups that are politically active where I live. I did not intend to make a political characterization of Workers World or the Quakers.

Sorry for the confusion

[Lucretia]

The boldface words must have misled you. I was just listing the groups that are politically active where I live. I did not intend to make a political characterization of Workers World or the Quakers.

Sorry for the confusion

We all know the iso are cheerleaders for the quakers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

We all know the iso are cheerleaders for the quakers.No! Everyone knows we're organizing Amish portable fireplace manufacturing workers. Stalinists keep denouncing us for being anti-buttons.

[Prometeo liberado]

1) How are they attracting people? What are they doing/where are they doing it?


2) What do swelling numbers in a reformist organization have to do with making communism a reality?


3) The SP is not an anti-capitalist organization. (though it is an anti-communist organization)
WHAT?


And you know that it is reformists who run the National Committee, and you know it is reformists who edit the paper/magazine, and you know it is a reformist program that the party endorses, and you know that in the past 5 or 6 years there have been 2 attempts to organize revolutionaries in the party, both of which have resulted in expulsions/lock outs.



So you're working with organizations who your organization denounces? You're working with organizations which the SP prevents you from being a member of. You're helping to build organizations which you fundamentally disagree with? Why? Just so you can tell yourself you're "doing something"?



Why?



I disagree with you, so does the SP, and so do many people.

1)They seem to be attracting people the old fashioned way by getting out in the street and talking to people, selling papers. and at rallys. They are discussing the issues in garages or offices in parks or peoples houses.

2) Swelling numbers of party members getting out the message to co-workers , family, fellow students and neighbors makes a statement that a dialogue on socialism exist and that systemic change is possible. Sadly many SP members shutter when you mention Communism.

3) What?

If your party does blow that bad, and all the SP people I know are happy with it, then inquire of those of other parties what and how of their beleifs.
I left the SP for some of the same reasons. Mostly lack of on the street action and disorganization. I eventually joined the PSL.

I kind of see the SP as a minor league team that everyone else gets to pick from the best for their Party.

[Shotgun Opera]

I'm an SPUSA member but I have to say I've been a little disappointed.

[Martin Blank]

I'm an SPUSA member but I have to say I've been a little disappointed.

That seems to be the consensus view of all ex- and soon-to-be-ex-members. But there are always ... alternatives.

[A Marxist Historian]

First of all, it's not the same thing, and secondly working with Greens on some issues isn't necessarily a bad thing. The fact that you seem very afraid of citing specifics in this circumstance speaks volumes.

I couldn't care less what P&F was "historically". The PSL's work with that group has brought many progressives into contact with a revolutionary socialist platform and that is definitely a positive for the movement.

Don't try to walk that one back, you've changed your mind on what you meant about a half-dozen times now. Those who formed the PSL were unable to continue their work as part of the WWP and so the split happened. It was about the day-to-day realities of party work first and foremost, and in all frankness that's about as justified as a split as you're going to find.

Did we? No? Awesome, thanks.

It exposes Holder for what he is...which was the whole point.

Try this one on for size: "demanding that Obama not bomb Libya only makes sense if you think that Obama is better in some way than Bush".

Or, replace Obama with Bush, Bush with Clinton and Libya with Iraq! Yeah, still makes no sense.

The PSL has been denouncing every inch of Obama's foreign policy and if you don't believe that than you aren't paying attention. There was no petition because we all know the Republicans don't give a sh*t while many on the left actually thought Obama brought something new to the table...which meant it was a good idea to call out the Obama administration and show them for what they are.

That would be me...no need for the third person.

hahahahahahahahahaha

Oh, TMH, I didn't expect this kind of cheap polemics from you...you're better than this, and I think you know it.

The statement has only to do with the fact that many in the Black community felt obliged to support Obama because him as president might represent progress in some way. The PSL was saying that that motivation isn't a negative one, but WENT ON TO SAY (right after that):

The PSL La Riva/Puryear campaign, however, is focused on exposing the systemic problems of racism and capitalism. Gentrification, rampant police brutality against Black and Latino people, the criminal neglect of the Gulf Coast, the disproportionate poverty and unemployment in oppressed communities: these phenomena are not caused by a few bad apples.

The President of the United States—regardless of who is elected—will be the manager of capitalist America. Every president in the modern era has waged some sort of war against someone, and has refused to guarantee the basic necessities of life for the majority of the population. This pattern will be repeated in this electoral cycle, regardless of the campaign promises.

Revolutionaries cannot be a tail on the kite of the Democrats. Nor can we simply criticize the available candidates and decide to do nothing. We must build an independent alternative inside the electoral process that uses every chance to intervene to bring the demands and voices from the people’s struggles. We have to speak for those locked out of the electoral system altogether. We have to engage in the electoral process in order to fight against it.

The idea of fundamental and deep change—revolution—is deeply felt by millions of working people throughout the United States. Ruling-class propaganda aims at convincing them that revolutionary change is “not possible.” The same ruling class wants the people to be involved in politics only so long as it is the harmless politics of the two-party system. Otherwise they want people to be politically apathetic, pessimistic and focus their energy on recreational activities.

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

So, I do hope you can look at this rationally instead of through the warped glasses of a pre-concocted narrative.

I'm not too interested in a big long tendency war here, I'll just note that:

a) the specifics of Illinois, as I understand them (and not being in Illinois and hearing this second hard, I'm willing to entertain the notion I have a detail or two wrong) were that you had state rep elections in Illinois, and a Green Party in Illinois, and that the PSL got involved, running a candidate in the Green primary or something like that. Right or wrong? By all means clarify.

b) As for Obama and Libya, there's a whole big difference between demanding that Obama or Bush Jr. or any other capitalist politician *stop* doing whatever disgusting or reactionary thing they are doing this week, which obviously is good, and demanding that they *do* something, especially when that something is that they prosecute somebody!

I would just as soon Holder did less prosecuting, not more. He is very fond of prosecuting leftists, if anything even more than Bush Jr. was, as the PRSO found out (and they voted for him, didn't they?)

Calling on him to prosecute Republicans doing things no different from what his boss is doing at the exact same time, namely torture people in foreign countries, just creates illusions in him and makes it easier for him to prosecute people he really shouldn't be prosecuting, like say Revleft participants.

As for the rest of your posting, I am content to let you have the last word, as I think both of our positions are clear enough to others here.

-M.H.-

[Shotgun Opera]

That seems to be the consensus view of all ex- and soon-to-be-ex-members. But there are always ... alternatives.
Such as?

I'm not aware of any Socialist or even Socialist-like organization in the US with a membership of over ~5,000.

[Martin Blank]

Such as?

I'm not aware of any Socialist or even Socialist-like organization in the US with a membership of over ~5,000.

There isn't. Not one. Doesn't really mean much at the moment, though. What matters now is educating and organizing, not necessarily recruiting -- especially when all it really gets you is a paper membership. I'd rather have the solid support of 10 workers for a communist program, even if they aren't a part of any organization, than 100 paper members.

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm an SPUSA member but I have to say I've been a little disappointed.



Cthulhu:
That seems to be the consensus view of all ex- and soon-to-be-ex-members. But there are always ... alternatives.

Yep, soon-to-be-ex-member right here. Idk if I already am one actually. I think I was supposed to send in my dues a month or 2 back. Through discussion on this very thread and my own disappointments with the SPUSA, I've decided to depart from it. I am now joining the WWP because of my interactions with them and our positions.

[Leftsolidarity]

There isn't. Not one. Doesn't really mean much at the moment, though. What matters now is educating and organizing, not necessarily recruiting -- especially when all it really gets you is a paper membership. I'd rather have the solid support of 10 workers for a communist program, even if they aren't a part of any organization, than 100 paper members.

This. The SP-USA is a paper party. They might have some nice numbers (not really but for the sake of argument) but they are send in dues-get newsletter-vote Obama members. Hell, lots of them don't even send in dues I've heard.

[Shotgun Opera]

There isn't. Not one. Doesn't really mean much at the moment, though. What matters now is educating and organizing, not necessarily recruiting -- especially when all it really gets you is a paper membership. I'd rather have the solid support of 10 workers for a communist program, even if they aren't a part of any organization, than 100 paper members.
I've been talking to various members of my chapter, trying to get them to step things back to fundraising and work that made us strong in the early party of the 20th century. There seems to be a lot of "Yeah, great idea!" and...that's about it.

[Leftsolidarity]

I've been talking to various members of my chapter, trying to get them to step things back to fundraising and work that made us strong in the early party of the 20th century. There seems to be a lot of "Yeah, great idea!" and...that's about it.

If you don't mind sharing, which chapter is it?

[Shotgun Opera]

If you don't mind sharing, which chapter is it?
Los Angeles. Which, I would have thought, would have a higher membership or more committed members....not so much.

[Leftsolidarity]

Los Angeles. Which, I would have thought, would have a higher membership or more committed members....not so much.

Idk about you're political views but if I'm not mistaken, the PSL (and maybe WWP) have fairly good locals over there.

[João Jerónimo]

Since everybody else is touting their favorite left group here, I will do the same.

From this side of the Atlantic, what I would like to know is when the USA revolutionaries will (re)create a communist party with a strategy and tactics that actually work and manage to elevate the class struggle in your country.
One that is able to apply the class struggle manifold nature consistently to both institutional and street struggle, and is able to criticize itself in a way that actually succeeds in strengthening itself.

Too bad that the CPUSA is definitely lost... Perhaps it's still possible to save it? Who knows...

JJ

[Shotgun Opera]

From this side of the Atlantic, what I would like to know is when the USA revolutionaries will (re)create a communist party with a strategy and tactics that actually work and manage to elevate the class struggle in your country.
One that is able to apply the class struggle manifold nature consistently to both institutional and street struggle, and is able to criticize itself in a way that actually succeeds in strengthening itself.

Too bad that the CPUSA is definitely lost... Perhaps it's still possible to save it? Who knows...

JJ

Part of the problem is the word Communism leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. They still have a bad knee-jerk reaction to it even though very few people actually understand what it means and may actually agree with a great deal of Communist thought until it's out and out called Communism.

[workersadvocate]

Part of the problem is the word Communism leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. They still have a bad knee-jerk reaction to it even though very few people actually understand what it means and may actually agree with a great deal of Communist thought until it's out and out called Communism.

This is true to an extent, but I think also in the wealthiest Great Powers of our time, there is a much larger "middle class" of junior partners to the ruling class. I suppose 1 out of every three people in the United States is part of this "middle class". That 33% is never ever going to support communism. To put it another way what I'm saying is I believe there will need to be revolutionary civil war in the imperialist countries, to break the power and crush the resistance of that 33%. For a workers' America to rise, imperialist corporatist bourgeois America and its "middle class" must fall.
You have seen the old Cold War propaganda about "the commies are coming". What I'm saying is that the international working class needs to give bourgeois and petty bourgeois America an ass-whooping from below that is 1000 times more severe then anything depicted in that anticommie cold war propaganda....we must bury all those cold warriors and everything they stood for and the classes which their America was built to serve. In America 1 out of every three is a mortal enemy of the international working class. We will build communist society upon their graves, and not before then.
For working people around the world to secure a better classless future, the bourgeoisie and their many junior partners must be not only expropriated but entirely liquidated and buried...and they will fight us every step of the way to maintain their wealth, privilege and higher social stratifications ( which is what they mean by "America" and "American") until we finally accept that it's really for us working people a question of kill or be killed in the end. This country's continuing evil legacy can be ended only by the decisive victory of the international working class over America, and not a single star spangled banner of the bourgeiosie and its junior partners will fly anywhere on Earth that day nor ever again.

Don't say it can't be done. Don't say that our enemies are too strong. Don't accept anything less than our complete victory, and don't take any shit from anyone who'd get in the way of the rising of the international working class (that includes any of the middle class left who beat around the bush or block our way so we'll never arrive at our intended future destination). We working people of the world in 2012 do have the objective potential power to accomplish our systematic changing tasks and defeat all enemies.

Class society leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I am certainly not alone in that sentiment.

[craigd89]

I'm an IWW member and voted for Obama:thumbup:..

[craigd89]

Why not? Most people, both new and familiar with IWW principles and ideology, typically come into the union with the frustration of bourgeois elections. Most new members I have met have already come to the conclusion that reform from the ballot doesn't work. Many working people already think that and stay home during election day.
We take this very serious. If we do have a member who believes in the ballot, why wouldn't we explain the situation? We can show how direct action and change-from-below makes the real different, both historically and present.
The IWW has been doing major overhaul the last couple of years, and really investing time, money, and self-sacrifice into education and organizer training.I see the benefit of coupling Industrial action with electoral politics, but wouldn't this be a non-issue anyway since IWW policy is to not endorse any political party of candidate. I really think if leftist parties want to make headway they should dedicate their resources on building local branches and running in city/county elections where they actually have a chance of winning and gaining supporters.

[João Jerónimo]

Part of the problem is the word Communism leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.

That word is blessed! The odd-named parties rarely manage to take-off...
Looks like the word "communism" manages to give the parties some sort of aura of chance...
:-)
I know this is nonsense, but whatever... After all, I'm one of those odd people who defend north korea, so nothing unexpected!...

JJ

[João Jerónimo]

This is true to an extent, but I think also in the wealthiest Great Powers of our time, there is a much larger "middle class" of junior partners to the ruling class. I suppose 1 out of every three people in the United States is part of this "middle class". That 33% is never ever going to support communism. To put it another way what I'm saying is I believe there will need to be revolutionary civil war in the imperialist countries, to break the power and crush the resistance of that 33%. For a workers' America to rise, imperialist corporatist bourgeois America and its "middle class" must fall.

You may very well be true, but I do not understand what you are trying to transmit...
What is "middle-class", anyway? Is it petty-bourgeoisie?

JJ

[A Marxist Historian]

From this side of the Atlantic, what I would like to know is when the USA revolutionaries will (re)create a communist party with a strategy and tactics that actually work and manage to elevate the class struggle in your country.
One that is able to apply the class struggle manifold nature consistently to both institutional and street struggle, and is able to criticize itself in a way that actually succeeds in strengthening itself.

Too bad that the CPUSA is definitely lost... Perhaps it's still possible to save it? Who knows...

JJ

Heh. From my POV, the group that can do this is the Spartacist League.
Others here differ.

When will this be done? Now that's the question. But you can't be an astrologer.

This will happen when the American working class is up for that, and not before. What radicals do is necessary, but the creation of a working class party is a historical act of the working class. They can't be sucked out of your thumb, but result from events in the class struggle.

Something there is not enough of in the US at the moment. But that will change.

-M.H.-

[eyeheartlenin]

Earlier in this thread, days ago, I responded to MarxSchmarx (who had described a situation in which the IWW would have the backing of 40% of the working class):


Originally Posted by eyeheartlenin
... If the IWW ever won over 40% of the working class, the union would be in a good position to organize a general strike to put an end to bourgeois rule, I would bet. With 40%, it would be a crime to tell workers to leave the streets, go home, and go vote....

and MarxSchmarx then answered:


I have given up on people who don't bother to give other people's posts serious consideration and instead set up the most crass strawman arguments imaginable. "Believing in elections as a method of change"? Where did I ever say that? It's disingenuous to put words on other's mouths, but I hope you feel better about yourself.

As for your point about 40% of workers being sufficient for THE general strike, well, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion....

In answering MarxSchmarx' post, I had tried to think under what conditions the IWW could attract the support of 40% of the working class, and the scenario I came up with, where mass support of the IWW was a possibility, was as a response to a serious economic collapse.

In the wake of such a collapse, the political situation would be very fluid, I would imagine, with working people open to considering new ideas. 40% of the working class must be millions of people (and any group with that kind of influence would be hegemonic, so I hope it's us, and not some group from the Obama-loyal US left). Anyway, a massive organization of rebel workers (like the IWW in MarxSchmarx' scenario), would very likely also attract the attention of vast numbers of unaffiliated workers and their families, and their allies. It was under those conditions that I thought the IWW could try to organize a general strike. I don't think that is an unreasonable perspective, and I certainly think it constitutes a "serious consideration" of MarxSchmarx' perspective.

MarxSchmarx, BTW, was the one who came up with the 40% number, not me.

I also wanted to ask, if MarxSchmarx does not think elections are a means of change, then why did he push elections in his original post?

[daft punk]

There is one decent socialist organisation in America, it's called Socialist Alternative. They are part of the CWI which is easily the best socialist international. Check them out. They have a good debate against the Tea Party on youtube by the way, and some good videos of speeches at OWS. I can't post links yet.