Libertarian Marxist looking for an organization join

[Comrade Jandar]

I've recently began researching organizations and parties to join and become active in. I'm located in the San Francisco Bay area. I've thrown around the idea of joining the PSL since it seems to have a fairly active branch in my area, but there are ideological differences I would probably have with the membership. I consider myself an "libertarian" marxist so Leninist parties would probably not be the best fit. I would also like to avoid joining any kind of democratic socialist party. I've started to look into the Workers Party in America and they seem to have platform that I'm in agreement with. Anyone have anymore information about them or other organizations?

[Welshy]

I've started to look into the Workers Party of America and they seem to have platform that I'm in agreement with. Anyone have anymore information about them or other organizations?

Do you mean Workers' Party in America? If so the WPA has a member in Bay Area. If you want to learn more about the organization I suggest you PM Cthulhu also we have a forum: http://forum.workers-party.com/ . It's fairly new so it's still working on getting off the ground, so there aren't many discussions on there right now, however more people who join and post the better.

[Comrade Jandar]

Yes, I meant the Workers' Party in America.

[manic expression]

I can tell you from personal experience that the PSL does a lot of good work with libertarian Marxists. A few of the comrades I worked with on the east coast were very much part of that tendency. I'm certain that if you check out the party (the PSL has a strong presence in the Bay Area with offices in San Francisco (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/branches/sf/) and San Jose (http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/branches/san-jose/)) and talk to some members you'll see that it's very open to many different socialist viewpoints. Best of luck. :)

[The Idler]

If you're looking for a libertarian Marxist group then WSPUS (http://www.wspus.org/) is the only group in America that springs to mind. PSL and WPA are Leninist.

[Ocean Seal]

I would imagine that the IWW is probably your best choice for your views.

[Prometeo liberado]

As the nature of the beast dictates you will have ideological issues of some kind or another with any group you decide to join. The key factors to look for here are: 1. Are they out in the community and if they are do you agree with the their approach? 2. When talking to members are they engaging or unwilling to listen or explain the parties position(most of the time it means that they don't understand the position themselves)? 3.Do they have an ongoing educational program apart from internal discussion? 4. The most important thing, do you agree with the overall Party platform?

Good luck!

[Martin Blank]

WPA [is] Leninist.

Say what?! When did that happen? What Convention did I miss?

[Comrade Jandar]

Well they were a splinter group of the World Workers Party. The party also sometimes goes to far in defending, various "socialist" (state capitalist) countries such as North Korea. In their obituary to Kim Jong Il, there was a sentence that read "...the party succeeded in maintaining its national identity by emphasizing the leadership of Kim Il Sung and later Kim Jong Il, and by promoting the philosophy of Juche, or self reliance." Please note I do occasionally have a soft spot for certain "psudeo-socialist" regimes, such as Cuba and I readily agreed with their stance on Libya, but come on, the DPRK? :confused:

[Welshy]

PSL and WPA are Leninist.

Either you are thinking of the WWP, the group that the PSL split from or you are thinking of Thorburn's Workers Party which seems fairly similar to the WWP and the PSL.

[The Idler]

Some quotes from the WPA The Character and Structure of Revolutionary Industrial Unionism (2009) written by Central Committee

Unlike most of those commonly recognized as 20th century communist theoretical leaders — Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, Guevara, etc. — DeLeon was the only one to develop a theory that was not simply an enhancement of what Marx or Engels wrote about during their lives.Aside from the dubious claim that those mentioned "enhanced" Marxist theory. There is the selective use of certain traditions to justify practices such as Central Committees, hierarchical organisations etc.

Does this make the Workers Party DeLeonist? Again, yes and no. We are DeLeonist in the sense that recognize and accept as our own his theory. We are not DeLeonist in the same sense that we are not Leninist, or even necessarily “Marxist:” we do not live and die by every word written or spoken by DeLeon, Lenin or Marx.and some of the workerism which would involve excluding the likes of Engels

“why are you not a part of the SLP?” We see the SLP as a kindred party — as an organization with many honest and dedicated proletarian socialists. But the party itself is dominated by elements drawn from the exploiting and oppressing classes, and that has had a distorting effect on its theory and practice for decades

[Martin Blank]

Some quotes from the WPA The Character and Structure of Revolutionary Industrial Unionism (2009) written by Central Committee

This is what happens when people are intellectually lazy. The article was, in fact, a signed piece by the Party's Chairperson, not a statement of the Central Committee. It says so in the introductory paragraph of the article.


Aside from the dubious claim that those mentioned "enhanced" Marxist theory. There is the selective use of certain traditions to justify practices such as Central Committees, hierarchical organisations etc.

The only thing dubious here is The Idler's ability to comprehend basic English.

First, it is not inaccurate to say that "Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, Guevara, etc." are "commonly recognized as 20th century communist theoretical leaders". Why? Because they are! If they weren't, there would be no Leninists, no Trotskyists, no Maoists, no Guevarists, and so on. Just because we acknowledge that reality does not mean we embrace any or all of them as such. We also acknowledge that most of the left can be called "self-described socialists and communists", but that doesn't necessarily mean we see them as such.

Second, you have never been involved with the Workers Party, either internally or externally. Thus, your view that "there is the selective use of certain traditions to justify practices such as Central Committees, hierarchical organisations etc." has no basis in fact or even anecdote. Did you even read our Constitution, especially the articles on the C.C.? No, obviously you haven't. So all this talk about us being "hierarchical" is something you're just pulling out of your ass.


and some of the workerism which would involve excluding the likes of Engels

Yes, because nothing has changed in capitalist society or class relations since 1890. :rolleyes:

This issue has been discussed and debated so many times on this forum that I don't even want to repeat the basic argument on here. The "Engels card" is one of the dumbest to use and only shows a complete ignorance of ... well, everything.

Sorry if I'm coming off as terse and sharp here. But these kinds of distortions and falsifications are just annoying, especially when they are so blatantly based in ignorance.

[The Idler]

Source (http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87&Itemid=88)
Well it would be more accurate to point out it says "written by Central Committee" and also "Martin Sayle describes". Martin Sayle is the chair of the central committee and has also translated some of Trotsky's writings, the translations of which have been reprinted by CWI here (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/programme/index.html).

Nobody is denying Kautsky, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Guevara are "commonly recognised as communist theoretical leaders". The WPA does however imply that those mentioned enhanced what Marx and Engels wrote. If the WPA wish to distance themselves from a particular tradition this would be an ideal opportunity to do so. But perhaps they prefer to be publicly ambigious to potential members and keep internal disagreements private since according to Article III item 9.9 of their constitution (here (http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=77)) they are not to discuss internal disagreements with non-members. Typical anti-libertarian fashion.


Article VII states "3. The number of delegates to the Convention and their apportionment shall be determined by the C.C. Delegates shall be apportioned according to membership based upon average dues paid for the period of four months prior to the Call to Convention."


Article III 8. Members at-large must report to the C.C. at least once every three months.

yet


Article VII 1. The Party Convention is the supreme decision-making body of the Party, and shall be called by the C.C. at least once every two years.so much for non-hierarchical, I guess some are more equal than others if they have to be called at least every two years, whereas members is every three months.

The language in Article XII point 1 is revealing
"Members of the Party are expected to abide by and accept the decisions made by Party organizations that exist above the level of their particular body: Locals above Units, the Central Committee above Locals, and Conventions and Assemblies of the Whole above the Central Committee"Setting up strawman arguments like "nothing has changed in capitalist society or class relations since 1890" even sarcastically completely fails to address the point about Engels. Although perhaps this is a diversion from discussing the SLP maybe because (as in Article III 9.9) you're not allowed to discuss internal disagreements. Disagreements like why the Communist League became the Workers Party of America in the first place. Or what organisations the chairman has been in previously, and the circumstances of his departure. I wonder if you would be able to post the following (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=993657&postcount=47) as a member of WPA

When the C.C. said enough was enough, they attempted to overturn the Convention and remove the C.C. That's when we pulled the trigger, threw the rest of them out and began reorganization.and this very workerist comment

we intend to enforce the copyright we hold on all logos, names and materials produced by the League between 2004 and when they were thrown out. We consider them a "pirates" and "plagiarists". Since we do not see them as a part of any kind of broader "workers movement", we have no problems pursuing legal action if these pirates attempt to hijack any of our publications.Some more comments are here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=993896&postcount=58)

[Martin Blank]

Data mining is no substitute for common sense, comrade. Anyway,...


Source (http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87&Itemid=88)
Well it would be more accurate to point out it says "written by Central Committee" and also "Martin Sayles describes". Martin Sayles is the chair of the central committee and has also translated some of Trotsky's writings, the translations of which have been reprinted by CWI here (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/programme/index.html).

Having been unable to find anything of substance, The Idler picks nits. It says "Written by Central Committee" on the web page because it was posted by the C.C. account for the Party's website, not because it was a C.C. document. If you know where in the PHP for Joomla we can change "Written by" to "Posted by", we'd be glad to make it.

And, IIRC, Martin did that translation for the Marxists Internet Archive back in the mid-1990s -- that is, at least 15 years ago. I don't even think the MIA uses that translation any more (it's been quite a while since I've been in the Trotsky Internet Archive).


Nobody is denying Kautsky, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Guevara are "commonly recognised as communist theoretical leaders". The WPA does however imply that those mentioned enhanced what Marx and Engels wrote. If the WPA wish to distance themselves from a particular tradition this would be an ideal opportunity to do so.

No, we explicity state that others recognize them as "communist theoretical leaders". From my perspective, and I would venture to say this is true with other members as well, there are a few on that list who contributed only in the sense of elaboration and clarification of the method and positions of Marx and Engels: Lenin's The State and Revolution; Trotsky's writings on fascism; Kautsky's writings on religion. But that's about it. We generally refer to this as the "blind squirrel" theory -- as in, "even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while". Another way of putting it would be that a stopped clock is right twice a day. In other words, there are moments when someone with whom we would otherwise have fundamental disagreements can put forward something of general value.

I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend this concept; I know it doesn't fit into the model of sect politics to which you seem to be quite accustomed. But it's also not my problem.


But perhaps they prefer to be publicly ambigious to potential members and keep internal disagreements private since according to Article III item 9.9 of their constitution (here (http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=77)) they are not to discuss internal disagreements with non-members. Typical anti-libertarian fashion.

Seriously?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :laugh::laugh::laugh::lol::lol::lol:

Would you like to know how many issues, topics, debates, discussions, etc., have been declared "members-only"? C'mon, take a guess. If you said "Zero", you'd be right. It takes a lot to declare a discussion to be "members-only" -- and it would only be done if there was a genuine concern about the safety of members/supporters. In fact, only the Convention can declare a "members-only" discussion; the C.C. is not empowered to do that (or a lot of other things).


so much for non-hierarchical, I guess some are more equal than others if they have to be called at least every two years, whereas members is every three months.

OK, this is obvious distortion and falsification. At this point, all The Idler is doing is trolling. He must not have anything else to do today. Sigh!

Members at-large (i.e., members not in a Party organization, operating out on their own) have to report (i.e., check in and let us know s/he is still alive and/or active) to the C.C. (i.e., the administrative body that functions between Conventions) every three months. Umm, how is this hierarchical -- a short e-mail or phone call, IM or PM?

Oh, and, apparently you missed Article VIII, Section 5:


The C.C. shall make a quarterly report of Party activities and Party finances.And Section 7:


A complete audit and accounting of all Party funds shall be made every six months.So, what was that about who being more equal than whom?


The language in Article XII point 1 is revealing

I'll tell you, that section is up for amendment. In fact, much of that structural element of the Constitution is under discussion. It served us fine so far, but we're looking at more flexible models now -- models that more closely match what we've learned through our experience in the #Occupy movement.

(So much for not being allowed to discuss internal issues!)


Setting up strawman arguments like "nothing has changed in capitalist society or class relations since 1890" even sarcastically completely fails to address the point about Engels.

It does, if you don't see things from a vulgar materialist or idealist perspective.


Although perhaps this is a diversion from discussing the SLP maybe because (as in Article III 9.9) you're not allowed to discuss internal disagreements. Disagreements like why the Communist League became the Workers Party of America in the first place.

The League didn't become the Workers Party. The League was a Charter Organization of the Party, but not everyone who joined the Party at its formation was either a League member or a supporter of its politics. For the first two years of the Party's existence, the League continued to operate as a separate organization. It was at the end of 2010 that the League formally dissolved as an independent organization and melded into the Party.


Or what organisations the chairman has been in previously, and the circumstances of his departure.

Oh, this is a fun one -- mostly because of the petty ridiculousness of it. But it's still amusing that this is somehow an issue. Don't talk about the Party's program. Don't talk about our activity. Let's just gossip about a member of the Workers Party who's relatively well known. OK, little Magpie, here's your grist for the mill:


From 1991 to early 1993, a member of the Communist Party USA and Young Communist League (on the YCL National Council). Reason for leaving: quit, political differences
From early 1993 to early 1994, a sympathizer (not member) of the Revolutionary Workers League. Reason for leaving: quit, political differences
From early 1994 to the end of 1995, a member of the Trotskyist League (on the Central Committee). Reason for leaving: expelled, "raising political differences in a sharp manner"
From 1996 to 1998, a member of Workers' Voice. Reason for leaving: quit, political differences
From 1998 to 2001, a member of the Marxist Workers' Group. Reason for leaving: dissolution of organization
From 2002 to mid-2005, a member of the Socialist Party USA (founding member of Debs Tendency; author of its founding documents). Reason for leaving: driven out (membership lapsed), fighting racism and sexism of SP members
From mid-2005 to the end of 2008, a member of the Detroit Working People's Association. Reason for leaving: dissolution of organization and merger into Workers Party in America
From 2005 to the end of 2008, Ambassador Plenipotentiary of the Communist League (a liaison between the League and the public; not a member). Reason for leaving: position abolished

Not as fascinating as you and so many others seem to think. (The above is copy-pasted from an IM sent by Sayles.)

It seems to me that the only real "crime" here is that Sayles didn't drop out of politics (something it seems that so many have hoped for over the years), but continued to be involved ... and continued to fight for his principles, evolving though they were. Is that something a person should be ashamed of, or is it something that should be seen as a positive? Personally, I think it's the latter. I worry about the person who joins the first group they encounter and stays there for their entire life.


I wonder if you would be able to post the following (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=993657&postcount=47) as a member of WPA

Umm, duh! :drool:

Let me put it this way: the Code of Conduct in Article III, Section 9, of the WPA Constitution is the same as was the League's Code of Conduct. So, if that was posted while I was in the League,...

Ah, you do the math.


and this very workerist comment

This has been a position taken by various socialist and communist organizations for over a century. In fact, the copyright statement we use is the same as that used by the original Appeal to Reason and its book publishing arm.


Some more comments are here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=993896&postcount=58)

A fading, distant echo of the past. Where is that "real Communist League" now? After changing their name to "Communist Workers League", a month after asserting themselves as the "real League", they dropped off the face of the earth three months later. They were exactly what we said they were at the time: charlatans and provocateurs. They made their peace with reformism and faded into oblivion. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Искра]

What's Libertarian Marxism?

[Comrade Jandar]

What's Libertarian Marxism?

"Libertarian Marxism includes such currents as Luxemburgism, council communism, left communism, Socialisme ou Barbarie, the Johnson-Forest tendency, world socialism, Lettrism/Situationism and operaismo/autonomism, and New Left. Libertarian Marxism has often had a strong influence on both post-left and social anarchists. Notable theorists of libertarian Marxism have included Anton Pannekoek, Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Antonio Negri, Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, Guy Debord, Daniel Guérin, Ernesto Screpanti and Raoul Vaneigem."

[The Douche]

A lot of those ideologies are quite contradictory, in fact, I think some of the people listed were expelled from organizations of other people listed.

"left communism", for instance has numerous different schools within it. Plus, why the fuck is "new left" included in there? Thats maoism...

[Comrade Jandar]

I'll make it even broader then. It is a tendency that focuses upon the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism. All libertarian marxists reject the concept of vanguardism and many also reject the notion needing a centralized state in order to transition to communism.

[The Idler]

Having been unable to find anything of substance, The Idler picks nits. It says "Written by Central Committee" on the web page because it was posted by the C.C. account for the Party's website, not because it was a C.C. document. If you know where in the PHP for Joomla we can change "Written by" to "Posted by", we'd be glad to make it.
So when in response to "written by Central Committee" you point out its "as described by Martin Sayle" its not nit-picking, but when I point out it actually says both, its nit-picking? If you knew about Joomla (which I did not) why not post it in your first response?

And, IIRC, Martin did that translation for the Marxists Internet Archive back in the mid-1990s -- that is, at least 15 years ago. I don't even think the MIA uses that translation any more (it's been quite a while since I've been in the Trotsky Internet Archive).So what of Trotsky did he accept then and what does he accept now and why has this changed?



No, we explicity state that others recognize them as "communist theoretical leaders". From my perspective, and I would venture to say this is true with other members as well, there are a few on that list who contributed only in the sense of elaboration and clarification of the method and positions of Marx and Engels: Lenin's The State and Revolution; Trotsky's writings on fascism; Kautsky's writings on religion. But that's about it. We generally refer to this as the "blind squirrel" theory -- as in, "even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while". Another way of putting it would be that a stopped clock is right twice a day. In other words, there are moments when someone with whom we would otherwise have fundamental disagreements can put forward something of general value.

I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend this concept; I know it doesn't fit into the model of sect politics to which you seem to be quite accustomed. But it's also not my problem.Any decent organisation (other than religious dogma) is somewhat selective in its ideas from Marx, Engels and so on. Again, we're not told which ideas the WPA are selecting.



Seriously?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :laugh::laugh::laugh::lol::lol::lol:

Would you like to know how many issues, topics, debates, discussions, etc., have been declared "members-only"? C'mon, take a guess. If you said "Zero", you'd be right. It takes a lot to declare a discussion to be "members-only" -- and it would only be done if there was a genuine concern about the safety of members/supporters. In fact, only the Convention can declare a "members-only" discussion; the C.C. is not empowered to do that (or a lot of other things).
If the rule is there, its kind of beside the point that either such disagreements haven't yet arisen or the rule hasn't yet been applied. Why doesn't the rule simply ask for names and locations to be removed, and share ideological differences? This rule is not libertarian Marxist.



I'll tell you, that section is up for amendment. In fact, much of that structural element of the Constitution is under discussion. It served us fine so far, but we're looking at more flexible models now -- models that more closely match what we've learned through our experience in the #Occupy movement.Fair enough about this.

(So much for not being allowed to discuss internal issues!)Well the Article III rule 9.9 specifically prohibits this. Either its not applied or its applied selectively when it suits? Perhaps it's because you're more senior cadre?

It does, if you don't see things from a vulgar materialist or idealist perspective.Well which is it? Is it idealist or materialist?


The League didn't become the Workers Party. The League was a Charter Organization of the Party, but not everyone who joined the Party at its formation was either a League member or a supporter of its politics. For the first two years of the Party's existence, the League continued to operate as a separate organization. It was at the end of 2010 that the League formally dissolved as an independent organization and melded into the Party.Fair enough (I guess that precludes me being sectarian on your terms), although this is picking nits if stuff like Article III 9 was liberally borrowed from the CL.



Oh, this is a fun one -- mostly because of the petty ridiculousness of it. But it's still amusing that this is somehow an issue. Don't talk about the Party's program. Don't talk about our activity. Let's just gossip about a member of the Workers Party who's relatively well known. OK, little Magpie, here's your grist for the mill:


From 1991 to early 1993, a member of the Communist Party USA and Young Communist League (on the YCL National Council). Reason for leaving: quit, political differences
From early 1993 to early 1994, a sympathizer (not member) of the Revolutionary Workers League. Reason for leaving: quit, political differences
From early 1994 to the end of 1995, a member of the Trotskyist League (on the Central Committee). Reason for leaving: expelled, "raising political differences in a sharp manner"
From 1996 to 1998, a member of Workers' Voice. Reason for leaving: quit, political differences
From 1998 to 2001, a member of the Marxist Workers' Group. Reason for leaving: dissolution of organization
From 2002 to mid-2005, a member of the Socialist Party USA (founding member of Debs Tendency; author of its founding documents). Reason for leaving: driven out (membership lapsed), fighting racism and sexism of SP members
From mid-2005 to the end of 2008, a member of the Detroit Working People's Association. Reason for leaving: dissolution of organization and merger into Workers Party in America
From 2005 to the end of 2008, Ambassador Plenipotentiary of the Communist League (a liaison between the League and the public; not a member). Reason for leaving: position abolished

Not as fascinating as you and so many others seem to think. (The above is copy-pasted from an IM sent by Sayles.)

It seems to me that the only real "crime" here is that Sayles didn't drop out of politics (something it seems that so many have hoped for over the years), but continued to be involved ... and continued to fight for his principles, evolving though they were. Is that something a person should be ashamed of, or is it something that should be seen as a positive? Personally, I think it's the latter. I worry about the person who joins the first group they encounter and stays there for their entire life.I appreciate this, and agree that two, three or maybe four organisations might demonstrate rigorous thinking but how many political differences does it take to go through that many in such a short space of time?





This has been a position taken by various socialist and communist organizations for over a century. In fact, the copyright statement we use is the same as that used by the original Appeal to Reason and its book publishing arm.Yes and this is the 21st Century. Copyleft is well-known and piracy is a hot topic. Why dismiss the "real Communist League" as a fading distant echo of the past but defend copyright on the grounds of a position taken for over a century? Wasn't revleft blacked out to protest SOPA? How does this fit with
we intend to enforce the copyright we hold on all logos, names and materials produced by the League between 2004 and when they were thrown out. We consider them a "pirates" and "plagiarists". Since we do not see them as a part of any kind of broader "workers movement", we have no problems pursuing legal action if these pirates attempt to hijack any of our publications.

[Martin Blank]

So when in response to "written by Central Committee" you point out its "as described by Martin Sayles" its not nit-picking, but when I point out it actually says both, its nit-picking? If you knew about Joomla (which I did not) why not post it in your first response?

Because I really didn't think you'd make this such a big issue -- because no one has before, and I seriously question whether anyone else ever will. That's why I called it nit-picking. It is such a trivial thing you're latching onto in this corner of the discussion. This kind of angular arguing, a standard trick among sects (taken to an art form by the Spartacists and other similar groups), does nothing to clarify the issue.


So what of Trotsky did he accept then and what does he accept now and why has this changed?

You'd have to ask him to know for sure, but I would imagine that, since he was in and around Trot groups at the time, his politics at the time would be obvious. These days, I think the only thing of Trotsky's that he continues to agree with is his analysis of fascism. But, again, you'd get your best answer from the horse's ass himself. :D


Any decent organisation (other than religious dogma) is somewhat selective in its ideas from Marx, Engels and so on. Again, we're not told which ideas the WPA are selecting.

I suppose that's for two reasons: 1) the Party as an entity does not make the selection, the members do; and 2) those specific selections vary from member to member. If you took a survey of members, I would imagine that you would find the list would include (in more or less this order) Marx, Engels, DeLeon, Myasnikov, Debord, Luxemburg, Mattick, Glaberman, Lenin (his elaboration on tactics in a democratic revolution; his elaboration on the "commune-state"), Trotsky (his analysis of fascism). After that, it would get much more diffuse, as you would be looking at individual preferences. In the end, though, even this kind of a list is meaningless, for the simple reason that, while members look to these thinkers and writers, it is really only the methodology that is selected, not necessarily the specific positions they took at one time or another. Sure, it's nice to be able to reach back and find historical precedent for this or that position, but it's really not what we're about. We leave quote-mongering and citation regurgitation to the confessional sects.


If the rule is there, its kind of beside the point that either such disagreements haven't yet arisen or the rule hasn't yet been applied. Why doesn't the rule simply ask for names and locations to be removed, and share ideological differences? This rule is not libertarian Marxist.

First of all, every member understands that the basis of calling for an issue to be "members-only" is extraordinary and can only be done by Convention. Second, there are instances where simply removing names and locations to be removed from documents is not enough -- instances where just having an association with the Party could result in being arrested or detained for questioning. That is what the rule is for: extraordinary emergency situations.

And when exactly were you designated as the arbiter of what is and is not "libertarian Marxist" or any other doctrine?


Well the Article III rule 9.9 specifically prohibits this. Either its not applied or its applied selectively when it suits? Perhaps it's because you're more senior cadre?

No, it's because it only applies to those issues that are "designated as members-only by the Party". Just because a discussion is taking place among members and is generally "internal" in its focus does not mean that it is "members-only". It has to be designated as such by a Convention. Period.


Well which is it? Is it idealist or materialist?

Materialist -- specifically the dialectical kind.


I appreciate this, and agree that two, three or maybe four organisations might demonstrate rigorous thinking but how many political differences does it take to go through that many in such a short space of time?

Again, you should ask him directly if you have questions about this. It really is not germane to the matter at hand.


Yes and this is the 21st Century. Copyleft is well-known and piracy is a hot topic.

I understand all that. But we've had some pretty slimy elements try to take our literature over the years and use them for their own benefit. If these elements were more honest, and willing to do their own thinking and writing, then we would have no problem with going Copyleft.


Why dismiss the "real Communist League" as a fading distant echo of the past but defend copyright on the grounds of a position taken for over a century?

I'm not defending copyright or supporting SOPA. That's like saying that because I eat meat, I don't care about how animals are treated. It's really a disingenuous line of argument for you to take.

[Q]

While this WPA baiting is an interesting discussion, could it be split off to its own thread title?

Ontopic: A few years back I created a thread called "Red Earth" (I'm sure you can still find it on this subforum), which was basically a Google Map that anyone could edit to have their own group added in a locality they were active in.

What about something similar? Helpful enough for leftists to get in touch, yet unhelpful enough for the cops to gather more info than they already have? This can also be done in a different format, such as a wiki.

[Martin Blank]

WPA baiting

Glad someone else sees The Idler's trolling for what it is. The Idler and his favored political trend, the "World Socialist Movement", seem to have a deep hatred for us. Why? I don't know. I know they had some issues with the League for a while, but I figured that was in the past. Guess they're still holding a grudge (for the record, we have no ill feelings toward them). Oh well.

I originally had a long response written out to his last-minute edit/provocation, but now I'm glad that my browser crashed and deleted the reply. I'm good with his baiting and my responses being split off (won't do it myself because of my involvement in the discussion). Actually, I'd prefer that it all be sent to the Trash can, but that's me.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I'll make it even broader then. It is a tendency that focuses upon the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism. All libertarian marxists reject the concept of vanguardism and many also reject the notion needing a centralized state in order to transition to communism.
This depends on how you define some of the terms you use. There's a bit of debate on the boards here regarding the dichotomy between 'libertarianism' and 'authoritarianism', and whether they are indeed opposites. Some feel that any sort of a revolution will be authoritarian in nature, based on the idea that one group is imposing their will on a resisting opponent. Otherwise, there would be no 'revolution' in the colloquial sense of a sort of civil war or at least a rather frictional reorganization of society.

Second, the concept of vanguardism is another topic of debate. I assume you mean the common, colloquial use of 'vanguard' in the Leninist sense: a formal group of professional revolutionaries 'leading' the people. However, a more abstract definition of 'vanguard' can be applied to Left-Com and even Anarchist tendencies: a group of people informally affiliated by ideology alone who educate fellow workers on leftist theory (or in the case of platformist anarchism, a loose organization of individuals with no vertical hierarchy - see platformism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism) for details).

Third, a centralized state is a manifestation of bourgeois power that was not eliminated in the revolution. Meaning, the bourgeoisie coopted and won the revolution. If this is what appears, the revolution was a failure from a communist standpoint. I'm civil with the Leninists on the board, but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with them on a fundamental level.

Fourth, the dictatorship of the proletariat is yet another concept that can be taken literally or metaphorically. In the literal sense, it falls in the range of 'traditional' vanguardism. In the more abstract sense, it's referencing the working class imposing its will upon society, in contrast to the current system of the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'. This could take many forms. For example, anarchist Spain could be considered to fall in line with the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as the 'transition phase' or the 'lower phase of communism' if you define it more abstractly.

However, don't assume ideologies and tendencies are concrete. I am influenced by Marxism to some degree, yet 'formally' I consider myself an Anarchist. I believe that the tendency of "Libertarian Marxism" would be better described as more of a Classical Marxism, or more broadly 'Heterodox Marxism'. Personally, I find that Marxism and Anarchism are complementary theories when you exclude the later additions to Marxism introduced by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc.

[Susurrus]

Second, the concept of vanguardism is another topic of debate. I assume you mean the common, colloquial use of 'vanguard' in the Leninist sense: a formal group of professional revolutionaries 'leading' the people. However, a more abstract definition of 'vanguard' can be applied to Left-Com and even Anarchist tendencies: a group of people informally affiliated by ideology alone who educate fellow workers on leftist theory (or in the case of platformist anarchism, a loose organization of individuals with no vertical hierarchy - see platformism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism) for details).


Not to mention whether or not the vanguard should be disbanded after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Not to mention whether or not the vanguard should be disbanded after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
Yes, I agree this should receive some further analysis as well. Thanks for bringing it up, Susurrus. It would seem that if the vanguard is not disbanded, the bourgeoisie have not yet been defeated; or, at least, their ideas have not lost sympathy among the people, in which case it can be said that the bourgeoisie as a concept has not been eliminated.

Unless someone else can properly justify the existence of a post-revolution vanguard. Perhaps as a think-tank? At such a point would it cease to be a 'vanguard'?

[Susurrus]

Yes, I agree this should receive some further analysis as well. Thanks for bringing it up, Susurrus. It would seem that if the vanguard is not disbanded, the bourgeoisie have not yet been defeated; or, at least, their ideas have not lost sympathy among the people, in which case it can be said that the bourgeoisie as a concept has not been eliminated.

Unless someone else can properly justify the existence of a post-revolution vanguard. Perhaps as a think-tank? At such a point would it cease to be a 'vanguard'?

Well, one could argue that worker's councils could count as a different, post-revolution form of the vanguard, existing until the last vestiges of the state wither away.

[The Idler]

For what its worth, I appreciate your answers and think you've been pretty honest and open about WPA.
The topic can be split although I think we both feel there's not much more to say.