Take a look at this list of the most important leftist parties of USA

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friends, take a look at this list of links of the most important leftist political parties of USA. I got that from the website Broadleft. Remember that Leon said that without a party, outside of a party, without a political party people will never get out of poverty. Leon claimed that the only vehicle in this world for real change is a political party specifically built for poor people and workers:

http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/
http://www.cc-ds.org/
http://www.cpusa.org/
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
http://www.frso.org/
http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/
http://www.gpus.org/
http://www.iww.org/
http://www.internationalsocialist.org/
http://www.internationalist.org/
http://www.thelaborparty.org/
http://www.laborstandard.org/
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/
http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/rc.html
http://adams.patriot.net/~cnc/lgn.htm
http://www.leftturn.org/
http://www.nbufront.org/
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/
http://www.newsandletters.org/issues/2011/Nov-Dec/index.asp
http://www.pslweb.org/
http://www.plp.org/
http://www.socialdemocrats.org/
http://www.socialistaction.org/
http://www.socialistalternative.org/
http://www.slp.org/
http://socialistparty-usa.org/
http://www.debsiantendency.org/
http://www.greenparty.org/index.php
http://the-spark.net/
http://abqrazaunida.blogspot.com/
http://www.uspacifistparty.org/
http://www.usmlo.org/
http://www.progressiveparty.org/
http://www.workerscompass.org/
http://www.workersdemocracy.org
http://www.socialistappeal.org/
http://www.workersparty.org/
http://www.socialism.org.i8.com/
http://workersolidarity.org/
http://www.workers.org/


.

[Prometeo liberado]

You should re-list them from the most important to the least! Now that's how you get a thread goin!:crying:

[Caj]

I think this really says something about leftist sectarianism.

[Ostrinski]

Look at all this shit.

[Prometeo liberado]

Fucking embarrassing isn't it?:confused:

[TrotskistMarx]

I think its more really about the human behaviour of being so ultra-individualists, group-narcissist, and very sectarian. Indeed in most countries there are tons of different leftist parties. We are doomed with a divided left



I think this really says something about leftist sectarianism.

[Red Storm]

I think its more really about the human behaviour of being so ultra-individualists, group-narcissist, and very sectarian. Indeed in most countries there are tons of different leftist parties. We are doomed with a divided left
Indeed! What we need is solidarity and unity. Nice resource though for someone looking into getting active in some way. Maybe it is just a case of if we build it they will come. No one likes to see a divided sectarianized community. It makes achieving actual class consciousness that much harder.

[gorillafuck]

all these calls for left unity ignore that some varieties of leftists have extreme differences. the left includes marxist-leninists, trotskyists, social democrats, left communists, reformist socialists, anarchists (and anarchists are divided between old style labor anarchists and punk rock hippie you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do anarchists), and liberals. do any of you actually think an organization could function if it included all those different perspectives? some don't even consider the others to be revolutionary at all.

[Q]

all these calls for left unity ignore that some varieties of leftists have extreme differences. the left includes marxist-leninists, trotskyists, social democrats, left communists, reformist socialists, anarchists (and anarchists are divided between old style labor anarchists and punk rock hippie you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do anarchists), and liberals. do any of you actually think an organization could function if it included all those different perspectives? some don't even consider the others to be revolutionary at all.

On such basis? No, unity cannot exist on this sectarian basis.

The point is to strive for working class unity, where it is formed as a collectivity with a political program of taking power as a class-collectivity. Any and all revolutionary current that fights for this can be and has to be part of this. Would disagreements arise? Of course. Is that a reason to split the class movement? No. Working class politicscan only be founded on democracy and, as Luxemburg famously stated, democracy is the freedom to disagree.

Last year I wrote out the underlying logic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1464) of this and why the "battle for democracy" is so necessary in both forming our class and uniting the left. I'll only add to this that left unity will most likely not occur purely on itself, as an "act of will", but will most likely be the result of the working class forming itself again via struggle. The left can play a positive role in this process, by acting in such a radical democratic manner, being open for genuine debate.

As long as the far left doesn't realize this basic point, it'll stay small, irrelevant and completely unable to perform its stated tasks of revolution.

[Caj]

all these calls for left unity ignore that some varieties of leftists have extreme differences. the left includes marxist-leninists, trotskyists, social democrats, left communists, reformist socialists, anarchists (and anarchists are divided between old style labor anarchists and punk rock hippie you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do anarchists), and liberals. do any of you actually think an organization could function if it included all those different perspectives? some don't even consider the others to be revolutionary at all.

A lot of the differences boil down to mere semantics.

[Book O'Dead]

I think this really says something about leftist sectarianism.

I'm going against the current here and disagree with you.

To me, what the list says is that there are still many orgs to choose from and that although they may be divided by doctrinal and tactical differences they are, or appear to be, united in their hostility to capitalist rule.

IOW, there is still hope.

[Red Storm]

A lot of the differences boil down to mere semantics.
That is what it looks like to me as well. It is really terrible to see it divide people so terribly. More often than not, the difference is so trivial, I cannot see that it is worth the trouble. Sad but true.:( I think Marx would be disappointed.

[Red Storm]

I'm going against the current here and disagree with you.

To me, what the list says is that there are still many orgs to choose from and that although they may be divided by doctrinal and tactical differences they are, or appear to be, united in their hostility to capitalist rule.

IOW, there is still hope.
Good point as well. Not all hope is lost. We just need to keep moving forward and strive for progress.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Pretty inclusive list, don't you think? Even the Green Party is on it.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Green Party and the CPUSA... lol... what is your definition of "important" and leftist?

edit: also... this (http://adams.patriot.net/%7Ecnc/lgn.htm)is an important party?

[Martin Blank]

This list is years old. A lot of those organizations don't exist anymore, or have merged into other groups, or changed names, etc.

[Grenzer]

A lot of the differences boil down to mere semantics.

I disagree, with vast swathes of the left supporting nationalist and imperialist movements(and ergo, capitalism itself), how can they be reconciled to those who refuse to support these things? I don't think they can be, but Q makes a good point. I think the party of the future will be a multi-tendency, democratic entity.

[Caj]

I disagree, with vast swathes of the left supporting nationalist and imperialist movements(and ergo, capitalism itself), how can they be reconciled to those who refuse to support these things?

Well, if they support capitalism itself, I wouldn't say they're on the left to begin with.

[Grenzer]

Well, if they support capitalism itself, I wouldn't say they're on the left to begin with.

But the question is, those that support capitalism implicitly or explicitly? Many people that qualify for the former consider themselves leftists. You probably know what I'm referring to, but I'll use a less controversial example.

Most of us would agree that people who identify themselves as Market Socialists are actually just ordinary capitalists, yet they consider themselves on the left. Do you consider them to be? If you are talking about the difference between a Market Socialist and a Council Communist, I don't think it can be reduced to semantics.

But if you're talking about Trotskyists(post-orthodox at least), Left Communists, and Anarchists, then I'd say that there could be some kind of possible unity and many times their differences boil down to semantics.

Then there's another kind of unity, like the kind you see DNZ and the CPGB promoting which seems to be acceptable to a good majority, but unacceptable to the left fringe of the left(anarchists, some left coms) and the right fringe of the left(Hoxhaists and Maoists).

[L.A.P.]

all these calls for left unity ignore that some varieties of leftists have extreme differences. the left includes marxist-leninists, trotskyists, social democrats, left communists, reformist socialists, anarchists (and anarchists are divided between old style labor anarchists and punk rock hippie you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do anarchists), and liberals. do any of you actually think an organization could function if it included all those different perspectives? some don't even consider the others to be revolutionary at all.

That's why the Left should try to rid itself of ideology. The goal should be working class revolution, bottom line. Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Left Communism, etc. is all stupid and trivial, just be a communist.

[Caj]

But the question is, those that support capitalism implicitly or explicitly? Many people that qualify for the former consider themselves leftists.

They may call themselves leftists, but I'm not going to acknowledge them as such. If they support capitalism, whether it be explicitly or implicitly, they are not leftists in my opinion.


I'll use a less controversial example.

Ah, come on! :laugh:

I'm going to fix your post for you then if you don't mind. :lol:


Most of us would agree that people who identify themselves as Marxist-Leninists are actually just ordinary capitalists, yet they consider themselves on the left. Do you consider them to be? If you are talking about the difference between a Marxist-Leninist and a Council Communist, I don't think it can be reduced to semantics.


True, the differences between a Marxist-Leninist and a council communist can't be reduced to semantics; nonetheless, there isn't any reason we should regard Marxist-Leninists as anything other than what they are: capitalists.

You wouldn't describe the USSR as a socialist state, would you? Should that be any different, because it described itself as such? The way I look at it, we shouldn't be concerned with what people identify as, but what they are, in the same way that we disregard the fact that the USSR described itself as socialist, because it was actually capitalist.


But if you're talking about Trotskyists(post-orthodox at least), Left Communists, and Anarchists, then I'd say that there could be some kind of possible unity and many times their differences boil down to semantics.

This is what I was referring to when I said that the differences boil down to semantics.


Then there's another kind of unity, like the kind you see DNZ and the CPGB promoting which seems to be acceptable to a good majority, but unacceptable to the left fringe of the left(anarchists, some left com)

Not as familiar with this. Can you elaborate?


and the right fringe of the left(Hoxhaists and Maoists).

Not leftists, in my opinion.

[Grenzer]

They may call themselves leftists, but I'm not going to acknowledge them as such. If they support capitalism, whether it be explicitly or implicitly, they are not leftists in my opinion.
Seems like we're on the same exact page then! The only thing is that I don't really consider myself part of the "left" for the reason that a vast majority of the left I consider to be pro-imperialist, pro-nationalist, and pro-capitalist. If that's how so many leftists conduct their politics, then I dissociate myself from the label. From my understanding many ultra-leftists feel similarly on the matter. I mean, when I hear "leftist" the first thing that comes to my mind is "You mean those crazy motherfuckers who talk about how important it is to defend the Kim dynasty, theocratic Iran, and think it's important to defend the Soviet Union even though it was an anti-communist shithole?" I don't want anything to do with that, or the people who define their politics that way. In practice, their politics are usually just as reactionary as neo-liberals and Randians; this is why I consider myself to be a vehement anti-leninist. I think you get where I'm coming from.

As Nietzsche pointed out, it tends to only be people that have let their reason be overcome by hate, envy, and greed that are willfully blind to the blatant totalitarian machinations of the traditional left and their own hypocrisy. No sane person would agree to this, except to those who are so buried in their materialist philosophy that they are ironically unable to see the world around them as it really is. For this reason, the traditional statist left is undesirable, and I don't think people are ignorant enough to not see through this paper thin façade; the old left is dead, but they do not yet realize it. As they have stating on many occasions, they are relying on blind hate and rage of workers towards their deteriorating living conditions to overcome their reason; it is only then that people will behave irrationally enough to go along with the madness. How many times have you seen someone support, advocate, or defend mass murder on this forum? Either they are very confused, or something is very, very wrong. You can already anticipate the cries of "Materialism! Materialism!" that eternal fall back of the feeble willed and weak minded to excuse their own incompetency, sociopathy, and lack of common sense. It is for this reason that I do not, and never will, associate myself with the statist left. Not materialist you say, well I don't see how associating yourself with tactics and strategies that through sheer statistical probability could end you up in an unmarked mass grave is in your material interests.




Ah, come on! :laugh:

I'm going to fix your post for you then if you don't mind. :lol:
Yeah, might as well get to brass tacks. You know I'm talking about Stalinists, but I was just trying to be diplomatic. :lol:




True, the differences between a Marxist-Leninist and a council communist can't be reduced to semantics; nonetheless, there isn't any reason we should regard Marxist-Leninists as anything other than what they are: capitalists.

You wouldn't describe the USSR as a socialist state, would you? Should that be any different, because it described itself as such? The way I look at it, we shouldn't be concerned with what people identify as, but what they are, in the same way that we disregard the fact that the USSR described itself as socialist, because it was actually capitalist.

Basically. Although Trotskyists won't call the Soviet Union or Stalinists capitalists, it seems to be a matter of semantics for the most part(though their insistence on degenerated worker's state is too right wing for most of our tastes, it's not like that alone should keep us from working together; they are at least willing to acknowledge that it wasn't socialism. I would consider a good portion of people that even go here to be capitalists. Most of the people that are obsessed with pan-leftist unity are just delusional I think, but well intentioned.




This is what I was referring to when I said that the differences boil down to semantics.
I thought so, but I didn't want to jump to any conclusions




Not as familiar with this. Can you elaborate?

This is kind of complicated, but it's a statist movement so you probably wouldn't be a big fan. Basically the idea behind this "party of a new type" is to seek the merger of the Marxist movement and the labor movement, which at the moment exist independently of each other. The labor movement is currently co-opted by liberals, so this would necessitate the party embracing non-revoultionary elements and dabbling in what might be considered reformist politics(though with the aim of radicalizing and working for revolutionary change through a minimum-maximum programme). It'd be a multi-tendency party so as I said, you don't get the usual sectarian wars. You might guess that it plays a dangerous game in dabbling with parliamentary tactics, and I would agree. It's still an improvement over Leninism in my opinion and worth reading about, if only because of its novelty. The two biggest proponents of this party of a new type on the forum are Die Neue Zeit and Q. The Revolutionary Marxists user group has a lot of resources on the subject; it's actually quite complicated and I've grossly simplified it so if you're curious, look there. As I said, I don't think you'd be a fan of this; but it does represent a radical break with traditional leftist politics.


Not leftists, in my opinion.

Well going back to what I said earlier, I think the problem is that they are leftists, which is to say anti-western chauvinists who embrace capitalism, imperialism, and nationalism so long as it doesn't have a "made in the USA" label on it.

We went REALLY off topic on this one. WTF is the CPUSA doing on that list anyway?

[Caj]

@Grenzer: So you reject the leftist label because of its association with M-Ls and other pseudo-socialists? That's an interesting perspective, and I can certainly understand why one would take it. Nonetheless, I think by the same logic we could also sacrifice the labesl of socialist and communist, as they have the same connotations. Instead of allowing pseudo-socialists to hijack socialistic terminology, I still think we should just call them what they are: supporters of capitalism.

[Grenzer]

@Grenzer: So you reject the leftist label because of its association with M-Ls and other pseudo-socialists? That's an interesting perspective, and I can certainly understand why one would take it. Nonetheless, I think by the same logic we could also sacrifice the labesl of socialist and communist, as they have the same connotations. Instead of allowing pseudo-socialists to hijack socialistic terminology, I still think we should just call them what they are: supporters of capitalism.

I wish I shared your enthusiasm, but I doubt they are going away anytime soon.

"So, you advocate the complete abolition of present society, what do you plan on replacing it with?"

"Plan? What plan?! Since Marx said communism is a movement, we don't need a plan. We're just going to go crazy and start killing everyone until only the people that agree with us are left!"

I guess it may be materialistic, but it still doesn't make it anything other than fucking stupid in my opinion. Thankfully, it looks like some organizations are actually starting to take planning and organization seriously; but as it stands, the left is pretty fucked right now. The idea that a plan was not needed was acceptable in 1848, or whenever it was Marx wrote his work with the "Communism is a movement, not an ideal to which reality itself must be adapted", but now, there is little excuse that we are completely ignorant of what is to be done. As I mentioned, we are starting to see the beginnings of reorganization and theoretical advancement once again; but it's moving at a very slow pace. At the present, we lack the intellectual capital to put forward a detailed, comprehensive plan which can only be finally formulated through struggle and the organization of the working class as a class, for its class interests, something which I need not mention is weak at the present time.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Wow
What boring names

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Wow
What boring names

Most names are boring though I wish someone would name their org the "Fuck Capitalism League." Just seems nice on a leaflet and whatnot, ya know? lol