Questions for PSL people [Archive]

manic expression

28th March 2012, 18:50

I really suggest you meet up with some PSL members in your area to get a better feeling of their approach to things. To be honest I've been out of the US for over a year and so I'm not a member, I'll try to give you my impressions but that's all I can really offer.

The most important thing to understand is that there is no set opinion on many of these questions. The PSL welcomes different opinions and viewpoints from across the spectrum of genuine Marxist-Leninists.

-Stalin and Trotsky: I've met PSL members who strongly support Stalin and criticize Trotsky and members who strongly support Trotsky and criticize Stalin. In all, there are criticisms to be made of both and I think most PSL members show a willingness to do so. Members are more encouraged to debate these questions in an open and honest manner...no one is told to believe this or that on such an historical question.

-Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: IIRC the PSL is in support of defending the PDPA from its enemies, though the handling of the intervention is not so clear-cut and anyway Brezhnev's foreign policy leaves much to be desired.

-Hoxha: the leader of a legitimately socialist country. Most PSL members don't agree with his arguments about other socialists, but regardless Albania was socialist.

-Maoism: made worthwhile contributions to Marxist thought and practice through its relationship with the peasantry (among other things), and a very noteworthy attempt to push forth proletarian power through the Cultural Revolution.

-Modern Cuba: it's seen as a socialist country, and is very strongly supported due to this.

Iran, North Korea, etc anti-imperialist states: the PSL supports their struggles against imperialism but holds that any bourgeois government is reactionary in relation to the interests of the working class itself. Thus, the PSL opposes all imperialist meddling in Iran and supports all anti-imperialist Iranians in their capacity as opponents of imperialism...beyond that it's a matter of supporting working-class struggle. The PSL is quite clear on this last point, that governments such as Iran are only to be supported as far as they are anti-imperialists, along with all other anti-imperialist Iranians...but that such a government is inherently reactionary when juxtaposed with the proletariat itself. In other words: When opposed by imperialism, such governments are progressive; when opposed by an independent movement of workers, such governments are reactionary. A lot of people who diss the PSL like to ignore that part but it's extremely important nonetheless.

The DPRK is seen as a socialist country that is under siege and therefore trying to keep up its standard of living.

PSL a revolutionary party? I don't think any member would say the PSL is the vanguard at the moment, the party considers itself in the stage of constructing a socialist working-class party that can become a revolutionary vanguard.

Ideological hygiene? The candidacy classes are what I believe you're referring to, where candidate members (like me) learn about various Marxist arguments and conclusions as well as practice.

Activities and activism? Lots and lots. Browse the website for Liberation newspaper and you'll see lots of examples...from anti-police brutality to anti-imperialism to pro-immigrant rights to supporting union actions to electoral campaigns. Each PSL branch is as or more active than any other leftist group I've seen in the US (and I've seen a few).

Leftsolidarity

28th March 2012, 19:05

dodger

28th March 2012, 19:08

Does the PSL have a clear position about party members being in a Trade Union, Manic?

manic expression

28th March 2012, 19:19

While I respect the PSL for their stances on a lot of things, one of the most important questions to ask is, "Why did you split from WWP?"

Without a solid difference, it shows the immaturity as a revolutionary party to conduct itself. If you like the PSL I also advise you to look into the WWP because we have almost the same stances on everything without doing the split that the PSL has done.

I don't mean this as a shit on the PSL. I respect them but this is an important subject to bring up.
You ask a perfectly reasonable question...a lot of members don't speak a lot about it because it's in the past and speaking on it won't fix what happened...there's enough sectarianism in the left as it is, the thinking goes (I imagine). Personally, I can only speak to how it went down on the east coast (even though the west coast was probably more dramatic of a split), but what happened was the leadership was acting somewhat aloof to the concerns of a lot of members, and they had a few chosen members in place who held authority in a few branches and those who became the PSL felt that they abused their authority. WWPers are cool and I respect the WWP as a communist organization, it was just that those who broke off to form the PSL felt they couldn't work in that environment anymore.

Also, those who founded the PSL had a very different vision for their role in ANSWER...the WWP has virtually stopped working in ANSWER while it's become one of the PSL's most important forms of activity. Because of that and a lot of other factors (including the amount of energy and activity in the two respective groups), the WWP has shrunk consistently since the split while the PSL has consistently grown.

So yeah, the political stances of the two parties are very similar (though not identical), but the way in which the WWP was functioning was simply not what the original PSLers wanted anymore. We can't forget that political activity isn't just a list of political arguments...it's also how a group of people work together as a unit, because without that there can be no party and then the political arguments don't matter much anyway.

manic expression

28th March 2012, 19:25

Does the PSL have a clear position about party members being in a Trade Union, Manic?
Members and candidates alike are encouraged to form unions in their workplaces if there aren't any, and if there is a union then to get involved and struggle with their fellow workers through that. Beyond that there are a few important points the PSL makes: one, that union leadership is in general an obstacle to the interests of the working class; two, that union membership itself oftentimes doesn't mean as much as the militancy of those union members (for instance, American workers are more unionized by percentage than French workers are, and yet French unions have far more power because they take decisive, independent action more often); three, that unions are an important tool of working-class struggle, but without a revolutionary vanguard there can be no final victory for the workers.

Omsk

28th March 2012, 19:36

I am not sure are they genuine Marxists-Leninists,and a lot of their 'opinions' do tend to confuse me,and raise more doubt in their ideological correctness.I think it can be said that they are not too pedantic with ideology,but they seem to be quite active,on the other hand,that won't bring too much good,if they are dubious ideologically.Another thing about the PSL is that i find non-ML is the consistent support to Gaddafi and the likes of Kim Jong Il,and the other 'anti-imperialist' figures,because Kim Il Sung himself was a revisionist,by ortodox ML standards,and it is completely obvious that Kim Jong Il has little to do with Marxism-Leninism,and that the country of North Korea is revisionist,like Vietnam and,for an example,China.(China went from revisionism,to open capitalism.) For ultra-lefts,and the rest of the non-ML left,the PSL will probably be 'horrible' - but not because their actions,but because of the fact they are,officially,a ML party,and this sometimes revelas the simplicism that can controll the decision making.I am not sure if they are ML's as they claim so.However,in the ortodox ML view,they are in the waters of support for revisionism,and i am not sure if they are that popular,or actually prepared to 'combat' (Politically) the right-wing,which still controlls the US.Another negative thing is this 'vulgar' anti-imperialism,which is nothing to be proud of,as the regimes in Libya,Iran,were not socialist,and in most casses,they were openly reactionary.If the PSL can get over ideological problems,and shape their opinions further,it would a positive change,if not,i don't see how can the situation improve further.

Prometeo liberado

28th March 2012, 19:47

It looks like most of the criticisms so far have to do with their politics, which are certainly nothing to be jealous of. I don't really think you've read any Hoxha or Mao if you really think the political positions of those men are in any way compatible with the PSL's positions.

What was that Lenin said again? Oh yeah.

Seems as though you're just engaging in gymnastics to attempt apologetics for what you yourself admit are their untenable politics. If the PSL is the best the left has to offer, then we're fucked.

he best the left has to offer? Is this grade school debating 101? I never said that but if your politics are anything like your arguments then I think the PSL is the least of your worries. All of the left is theoretically screwed up because it is judged from your own personal standards or how you interpret the standards of others. The left needs to feed on itself because no one else gives a shit at this point, so I understand threads like this. I won't join the PSL because I don't want to waste my time trying to make them fit me. I respect all the hard work an organization they bring to activism, but they are just not that important to get in hizzy about.

daft punk

28th March 2012, 19:51

I suspect this thread is a secret plot to get me to take manic off ignore. Ok, so, lets take a peek at the hidden message...only gonna pick up one one bit, for now anyway..

Iran, North Korea, etc anti-imperialist states: the PSL supports their struggles against imperialism but holds that any bourgeois government is reactionary in relation to the interests of the working class itself. Thus, the PSL opposes all imperialist meddling in Iran and supports all anti-imperialist Iranians in their capacity as opponents of imperialism...beyond that it's a matter of supporting working-class struggle. The PSL is quite clear on this last point, that governments such as Iran are only to be supported as far as they are anti-imperialists, along with all other anti-imperialist Iranians...but that such a government is inherently reactionary when juxtaposed with the proletariat itself. In other words: When opposed by imperialism, such governments are progressive; when opposed by an independent movement of workers, such governments are reactionary. A lot of people who diss the PSL like to ignore that part but it's extremely important nonetheless.

Progressive and reactionary eh? Clear as mud. If you ever say to a worker that the Iranian regime is progressive you will be laughed at. There is nothing progressive about the regime. The regime is thoroughly reactionary and it exists because in 1979 the workers did not have decent leaders. In 1953 the British and Americans overthrew the government, and the Stalinist Tudeh leaders fled to Moscow.

So how did the mullahs beat the workers in 1979. The problem was the workers leaders did not understand Trotskyism. Instead they followed the false policies of Stalinism. They went for the Two Stage thing, putting socialism off the immediate agenda. They did not want to take power, did not want the working class to take power, so the mullahs took power. This is what comes of following anti-socialist propaganda from 1930s.

Delenda Carthago

28th March 2012, 20:01

Alright, I've been a bit interested in the PSL for a while. My views have changed quite a bit though.

Alright, opinions on:

-Stalin and Trotsky
-If a supporter of Stalin, do you agree with working with Trotskyists? If a supporter of Trotsky, do you agree with working with "Stalinists"?
-The USSR post-Stalin
-Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
-Enver Hoxha
-Maoism
-Modern Cuba
-Iran, North Korea, etc anti-imperialist states

And I'd also like to ask:

-If you feel that the PSL is a truly revolutionary party that's actively preparing for a revolutionary situation in the United States.
-If the PSL practices any type of ideological hygiene within the party.
-What type of activism and activity the PSL engages in.

Thanks in advance.
These are all silly questions, no offence, but since I am a lil interested about PSL myself(not enough to start a new thread obviously) can I ask some questions just in case they get answered?

- What is the strategic analysis of PSL of the elaboration of class struggle in USA? Where are they at the moment and whats the plans for contructing the party and the class front in general?
- What is their analysis on the social front? Do they agree with working class collaboration with petit bourgeois and other lower parts of the society or they believe in a more strictly working class revolution?
- Do they have a plan on working within the youth? And if yes, what is that?
- Do they have an analysis on modern technologies of means of production and their relation to social liberation?

Thanks.

Grenzer

28th March 2012, 20:08

So how did the mullahs beat the workers in 1979. The problem was the workers leaders did not understand Trotskyism. Instead they followed the false policies of Stalinism. They went for the Two Stage thing, putting socialism off the immediate agenda. They did not want to take power, did not want the working class to take power, so the mullahs took power. This is what comes of following anti-socialist propaganda from 1930s.

You make it sound like Trotskyism is some revolutionary gospel. The situation in Iran really has nothing to do with Trotskyism or Stalinism. Iran is so solidly controlled by the forces of reaction that there is no real basis for any ideology which promotes secularism, let alone revolutionary leftism at the moment. In addition, it's probably fair to mention that there weren't really that many workers in Iran back then; I don't know of any specific statistics on industry though. With elevated class consciousness and the advancement of class struggle, religious convictions may fade to the background; but I don't think we can expect this to happen anytime soon.

Daft punk is kind of like the Lyndon LaRouche of Revleft at times.

"Unless you all embrace Trotskyism RIGHT NOW you are all going to DIE in thermonuclear flames!"

daft punk

28th March 2012, 20:09

I am not sure are they genuine Marxists-Leninists,and a lot of their 'opinions' do tend to confuse me,and raise more doubt in their ideological correctness.I think it can be said that they are not too pedantic with ideology,but they seem to be quite active,on the other hand,that won't bring too much good,if they are dubious ideologically."
Another thing about the PSL is that i find non-ML is the consistent support to Gaddafi and the likes of Kim Jong Il,and the other 'anti-imperialist' figures,because Kim Il Sung himself was a revisionist,by ortodox ML standards,and it is completely obvious that Kim Jong Il has little to do with Marxism-Leninism,and that the country of North Korea is revisionist,like Vietnam and,for an example,China.(China went from revisionism,to open capitalism.) For ultra-lefts,and the rest of the non-ML left,the PSL will probably be 'horrible' - but not because their actions,but because of the fact they are,officially,a ML party,and this sometimes revelas the simplicism that can controll the decision making.I am not sure if they are ML's as they claim so.However,in the ortodox ML view,they are in the waters of support for revisionism,and i am not sure if they are that popular,or actually prepared to 'combat' (Politically) the right-wing,which still controlls the US.Another negative thing is this 'vulgar' anti-imperialism,which is nothing to be proud of,as the regimes in Libya,Iran,were not socialist,and in most casses,they were openly reactionary.If the PSL can get over ideological problems,and shape their opinions further,it would a positive change,if not,i don't see how can the situation improve further.

Sorry to shatter your illusions, but the differences between people like Kim and Uncle Joe are of no significance, no interest, no importance. They are all Stalinists and therefore run one man didtatorships which oppose genuine democratic socialism as envisaged by Marx and Engels.

Engels, Principles of Communism:

"What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution..."

Leftsolidarity

28th March 2012, 20:10

Can we leave this thread open for answers from PSL members or ones with connections please?

If you don't like the PSL that's fine but this isn't asking about everyone's opinion. This asking for answers FROM the PSL.

Omsk

28th March 2012, 20:17

This is a thread about the PSL and yet daft punk runs in with his usual 'deep' arguments and thoughts.Sigh.

Sorry to shatter your illusions, but the differences between people like Kim and Uncle Joe are of no significance, no interest, no importance. They are all Stalinists and therefore run one man didtatorships which oppose genuine democratic socialism as envisaged by Marx and Engels.

This is mere demagogy,and i really can't see why should i repond to such simplistic and completely false arguments.

I think the user above me said what should have been pointed out at the very start,let's try to maintain the purpose of this thread - QnA regarding the PSL.

With that done,(Don't even bother with responding)

I have a question: When did the PSL cross the Rubicon and end up supporting openly non-socialist,or even Right-Wing governments who were in some ways,affected by the US imperialism,and are under 'siege'?

manic expression

28th March 2012, 20:21

I suspect this thread is a secret plot to get me to take manic off ignore.
Or maybe it's because you're sour about running away from our last exchange.

Progressive and reactionary eh? Clear as mud. If you ever say to a worker that the Iranian regime is progressive you will be laughed at. There is nothing progressive about the regime. The regime is thoroughly reactionary and it exists because in 1979 the workers did not have decent leaders. In 1953 the British and Americans overthrew the government, and the Stalinist Tudeh leaders fled to Moscow.

So how did the mullahs beat the workers in 1979. The problem was the workers leaders did not understand Trotskyism. Instead they followed the false policies of Stalinism. They went for the Two Stage thing, putting socialism off the immediate agenda. They did not want to take power, did not want the working class to take power, so the mullahs took power. This is what comes of following anti-socialist propaganda from 1930s.
Congratulations, there's literally nothing materialist about this would-be "analysis". It's a compilation of every fallacy one could think of, combined with an immaturity heretofore unseen on RevLeft.

Yes, the government is progressive in that it opposes imperialism and defends Iranian self-determination.

No, I wouldn't be laughed at by Iranian workers, their actions demonstrate that they are aware that imperialist conquest would be a step backwards for them, something you in your infinite ignorance have been unable to discover.

No, not being Trotskyist wasn't the reason for the course of the Revolution, because Trotskyism has never been a significant political force anywhere for anything. Your useless ideology is entirely irrelevant to the interests of Iranian workers.

Have fun running away from another debate.

manic expression

28th March 2012, 20:23

genuine democratic socialism
Ah, a democratic socialist. I expected as much. :laugh:

daft punk

28th March 2012, 20:31

manic expression

28th March 2012, 20:34

No you are wrong for reasons I just explained. Stalinist policies left a vacuum the mullahs filled. Trotskyists would have followed the ideas of Permanent revolution and filled the vacuum with a call for the workers to take power.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...

Didn't.

That's the history of your dogma. Lots of excuses, not a single achievement to speak of.

daft punk

28th March 2012, 20:39

This is a thread about the PSL and yet daft punk runs in with his usual deep arguments and thoughts.Sigh.

fyp

manic expression

28th March 2012, 20:44

off-topic, self-aggrandizing nonsense
fyp

You're very welcome to discuss the matter at hand if you so wish (or if you are able).

Kassad

28th March 2012, 20:46

Christ, you kids love to summon me in these situations. I'm a little pressed for time, but let me lay out some basics points.

It's one thing to want to defend Libya against imperialism; it's a completely different thing to want to suck Gaddafi's dick. The PSL is just an organization that rubs me the wrong way and I can expect that a lot of people like Kassad come out of there.

I know, right? All of us critical thinkers that just can't get a hard on every time we look at pictures of Stalin... it's really a nightmare. It's ironic because you haven't engaged me ideologically once. Not a single time. So scurry off, kiddo. If you want a forum where people circle jerk about Stalinism, I'm sure there's plenty of them. You're the kingpins of the school of falsification.

In regards to the PSL, the quote in my signature makes me think of them every time. I'll post it here just for the sake of stating it:

The reformists have a good smell for what the audience wants....But that is not serious revolutionary activity. We must have the courage to be unpopular, to say ‘you are fools,’ ‘you are stupid,’ ‘they betray you,’ and every once in a while with a scandal launch our ideas with a passion.
- Leon Trotsky

Let me state very quickly that any question you have about the PSL, I will answer honestly. I'm not here to bullshit you. That's what party puppeteers are around for.

But in truth, the PSL does "have a good smell for what the audience wants." They know the proper time to go into a struggle with ANSWER placards (so they don't openly set off the communist alarms) and they know the right places to go in and do PSL work. They're a group that, in essence, knows how to morph because they're incredibly reformist and they have no problem doing work that is openly a prostration before the ruling class. "Please stop going to war and fund our schools!" is what a lot of their slogans can be reduced to.

One important thing to note is that ANSWER beat around the bush around the time of the Iraq War. If you go back and look at their demonstrations in D.C., there were no placards talking about Afghanistan. The central slogans of the rallies were centered on Iraq and that's a fact. They did organize post-9/11, but they were very careful to not blatantly oppose the war in Afghanistan, as that would lose a lot of appeal to the liberals and even Democrats that attend their rallies.

Here's the shits: the PSL is using the same tactics that WWP has for decades. Which have failed miserably. The whole "jobs, not war" slogan is not new. They were emblazoned all over WWP placards and banners decades before this. So why is WWP dying and the PSL growing? Because the PSL is new. They've managed to recruit a sizable chunk of young people, which in turn appeals to other young people. However, WWP's tactics didn't work in the 60's and 70's. They aren't going to work now. There is not a single political difference between the two groups.

If you don't listen to anything I say, listen to this. The ideological pillars of the PSL are rooted in that of Sam Marcy's "contributions." I say that because his writings are dull and pretty much any of us could've come to the conclusions he did if we were horridly anti-worker. Anyway, the core of that ideology is the enemy of my enemy (the United States) is my friend. That means reactionaries like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Milosevic and many others. If they bite their thumb at the United States, they are considered anti-imperialist in the Marcyite perspective, even if they had capitulated to imperialism before. It really doesn't matter if it's Kim Jong-Il or Deng Xiaoping; if they're willing to spit in the face of the United States to even a small extent, they're a fan.

The PSL also believes that socialism can be implemented by a bureaucracy, no matter how deformed or murderous. If a social or even bourgeois nationalist revolution takes place and makes some gains for the working class, the PSL will defend to the death the bureaucracy's right to openly slaughter workers and oppressed people's in defense of those states. That analysis carries over from Hungary in 1956 to Tiananmen Square in 1989. The PSL does not care if workers have to die, as long as it defends some kind of gains of a revolution. Thus, they're just stuck in the present. They will view political revolutions as counterrevolutionary any time they happen until the cows come home. Or at least until their organization disintegrates, which will happen once the working people in the United States are seriously in motion.

For further readings on this, Louis Proyject described the horrid degeneration of WWP in an article here: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/american_left/marcy.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mydocs/american_left/marcy.htm)

Here's another article which pretty much documents the utterly reactionary stance of the PSL in regards to Libya and Gaddafi: http://www.internationalist.org/libyaopportunistleft1104.html

Another reading on the logic of the 'Anti-Anti Gaddafis' from Kasama Project: http://kasamaproject.org/2011/02/27/the-logic-of-the-anti-anti-qaddafis/

There's more I want to say, but this will do for now. Feel free to shoot any comments or questions my way. Fuck the PSL and the reformist left. :)

daft punk

28th March 2012, 20:51

Congratulations, there's literally nothing materialist about this would-be "analysis". It's a compilation of every fallacy one could think of, combined with an immaturity heretofore unseen on RevLeft.

words, words, but no meaning. I stated facts. You state nothing. Debate the points that I made or stay on ignore.

Yes, the government is progressive in that it opposes imperialism and defends Iranian self-determination.

No, I wouldn't be laughed at by Iranian workers, their actions demonstrate that they are aware that imperialist conquest would be a step backwards for them, something you in your infinite ignorance have been unable to discover.

I just explained that when imperialist conquest actually happened, the Stalinist leaders ran back to Moscow. And when the workers overthrew imperialism's stooge Shah, the Stalinist leaders did not believe in the workers taking power.

No, not being Trotskyist wasn't the reason for the course of the Revolution, because Trotskyism has never been a significant political force anywhere for anything. Your useless ideology is entirely irrelevant to the interests of Iranian workers.

Have fun running away from another debate.

Their problem was believing in Stagism. Stagism meant no socialism. No socialism meant the mullahs in power.

I just explained how Stalinism led to the dictatorship of the mullahs. And all you can do is say well at least they oppose imperialism. Great, so did Hitler. Just great. Well done.

manic expression

28th March 2012, 20:54

words, words, but no meaning. I stated facts. You state nothing. Debate the points that I made or stay on ignore.
The only fact you stated was the date of the Revolution. Other than that it was ideologically-blinded hogwash.

I just explained that when imperialist conquest actually happened, the Stalinist leaders ran back to Moscow. And when the workers overthrew imperialism's stooge Shah, the Stalinist leaders did not believe in the workers taking power.
So you think things took such a course because a group of people held a certain belief? Again, not materialist, not Marxist. Congrats.

Their problem was believing in Stagism. Stagism meant no socialism. No socialism meant the mullahs in power.
So you want to go straight to classless society then?

I just explained how Stalinism led to the dictatorship of the mullahs. And all you can do is say well at least they oppose imperialism. Great, so did Hitler. Just great. Well done.
So the Iranian government and Hitler are the same thing? :laugh: What a joke.

Kassad

28th March 2012, 20:54

words, words, but no meaning. I stated facts. You state nothing. Debate the points that I made or stay on ignore.

Ew. You remind me of a CWI version of myself about a year ago. Toting party lines isn't a good look for you and it isn't exactly constructive. Your little left sects and their disputes haven't resolved anything for the working class. So get over your fetish and let's do some real communist work.

Omsk

28th March 2012, 21:11

Kassad,isnt it a little to much to say that Comrade Commistar is the "kingpin of the school of falsification"? I mean,thats the equivalent of me saying that you are the 'head wrecker in the subversive circles' or something like that.

I understand you were in the PSL for some time,and that you probably know enough about them,so here is a question:

Would they be prepared to work with Trotskyites to gain some kind of a benefit. (Although i don;t know what kind of a benefit could come from a friendship with the Trots).

Ok?

manic expression

28th March 2012, 21:13

One important thing to note is that ANSWER beat around the bush around the time of the Iraq War. If you go back and look at their demonstrations in D.C., there were no placards talking about Afghanistan. The central slogans of the rallies were centered on Iraq and that's a fact. They did organize post-9/11, but they were very careful to not blatantly oppose the war in Afghanistan, as that would lose a lot of appeal to the liberals and even Democrats that attend their rallies.
Blatant enough opposition for you? (http://www2.answercoalition.org/images/content/pagebuilder/60441.jpg)

That photo is from October 7, 2001. Tell me again how "careful" ANSWER was.

There is not a single political difference between the two groups.
That's not true, the programs aren't identical.

If you don't listen to anything I say, listen to this. The ideological pillars of the PSL are rooted in that of Sam Marcy's "contributions." I say that because his writings are dull and pretty much any of us could've come to the conclusions he did if we were horridly anti-worker. Anyway, the core of that ideology is the enemy of my enemy (the United States) is my friend. That means reactionaries like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Milosevic and many others. If they bite their thumb at the United States, they are considered anti-imperialist in the Marcyite perspective, even if they had capitulated to imperialism before. It really doesn't matter if it's Kim Jong-Il or Deng Xiaoping; if they're willing to spit in the face of the United States to even a small extent, they're a fan.
This is a gross oversimplification to the point of misrepresentation. It's not the governments that are supported, it's the effort to resist imperialism. The PSL is a party based entirely in the US, it can't tell Iraqi workers or Libyan workers or Syrian workers or Yugoslav workers what to do or what to think, it can only really help their struggle by first and foremost opposing imperialism.

When it comes to a case in which US imperialism is menacing the very self-determination of a certain people, the most immediate response has to be one of opposition to that menace. If you say the PSL's position is merely reactive then you are placing your position as reactive to the aforementioned "reactive" position. The PSL denounces imperialism when it murders workers in those countries and what is your response? To denounce the denouncing as not the right kind of denouncing. Hardly constructive stuff.

The PSL also believes that socialism can be implemented by a bureaucracy, no matter how deformed or murderous. If a social or even bourgeois nationalist revolution takes place and makes some gains for the working class, the PSL will defend to the death the bureaucracy's right to openly slaughter workers and oppressed people's in defense of those states. That analysis carries over from Hungary in 1956 to Tiananmen Square in 1989. The PSL does not care if workers have to die, as long as it defends some kind of gains of a revolution.
Nonsense. Hungary 1956 was the reliberation of the country from anti-socialist mob violence, and violence in Tiananmen Square started when the protestors murdered unarmed PLA soldiers.

And if you think revolutionary governments can magically exist without any trace of a bureaucracy, that's really an entirely different issue.

Fuck the PSL and the reformist left. :)
Thanks for that comradely contribution. Whatever ideology you decide to adopt next week, I'm sure you'll be a credit to it.

daft punk

28th March 2012, 21:20

Daft:
"Progressive and reactionary eh? Clear as mud. If you ever say to a worker that the Iranian regime is progressive you will be laughed at. There is nothing progressive about the regime. The regime is thoroughly reactionary and it exists because in 1979 the workers did not have decent leaders. In 1953 the British and Americans overthrew the government, and the Stalinist Tudeh leaders fled to Moscow.

So how did the mullahs beat the workers in 1979. The problem was the workers leaders did not understand Trotskyism. Instead they followed the false policies of Stalinism. They went for the Two Stage thing, putting socialism off the immediate agenda. They did not want to take power, did not want the working class to take power, so the mullahs took power. This is what comes of following anti-socialist propaganda from 1930s. "

Originally Posted by manic expression http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2399026#post2399026)

"Congratulations, there's literally nothing materialist about this would-be "analysis". It's a compilation of every fallacy one could think of, combined with an immaturity heretofore unseen on RevLeft. "

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2399069#post2399069)
"words, words, but no meaning. I stated facts. You state nothing. Debate the points that I made or stay on ignore. "

Kassad:

Ew. You remind me of a CWI version of myself about a year ago. Toting party lines isn't a good look for you and it isn't exactly constructive. Your little left sects and their disputes haven't resolved anything for the working class. So get over your fetish and let's do some real communist work.

Thats a shame, I thought we had another Trot, but I guess not.

Please explain:

1. What 'party line' I 'toted'.

2. What was not constructive about my analysis of Iran from 1953 onwards.

3. What was of any actual meaning in:
"Congratulations, there's literally nothing materialist about this would-be "analysis". It's a compilation of every fallacy one could think of, combined with an immaturity heretofore unseen on RevLeft."

What he said was just a statement, an assertion, there was no argument, nothing. He did not say WHY what i said was not materialist, WHY it is a compillation of falacies, WHY it is an immaturity hithertofore unseen on revleft.

If I said ''Kassad is a tosser", you would expect a reason, wouldn't you? Some sort of argument? Supporting evidence? Or do you believe every wild assertion you hear?

I gave arguments, facts, reasons, he did not, certainly not in that statement. And yet you pick on me?

You call yourself a Trot. I dunno why. You just steamed straight in with a sectarian attack mentioning the CWI, ''party lines', 'little sects', 'fetishes'.

A snide vicious disgusting attack.

Omsk

28th March 2012, 21:23

Ah,the petty individualist counter-revolutionaries begin to fight among themseves.

This is most amusing.

Another question for Kassad: Can you list me the completely positive sides of the PSL?

daft punk

28th March 2012, 21:42

The only fact you stated was the date of the Revolution. Other than that it was ideologically-blinded hogwash.

"In 1953 the British and Americans overthrew the government, and the Stalinist Tudeh leaders fled to Moscow.

So how did the mullahs beat the workers in 1979. The problem was the workers leaders did not understand Trotskyism. Instead they followed the false policies of Stalinism. They went for the Two Stage thing, putting socialism off the immediate agenda. They did not want to take power, did not want the working class to take power, so the mullahs took power. This is what comes of following anti-socialist propaganda from 1930s. "

How many facts? I have highlighted some in red. Your statement contained none. You did not take any of the above and try to refute it in any way. This is why you are on ignore, it is very frustrating.

So you think things took such a course because a group of people held a certain belief? Again, not materialist, not Marxist. Congrats.

Do you think the October revolution would have happened without Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky?

Marx was not a materialist, he was a dialectical materialist, which means he does not ignore the importance of the subjective factor, and Lenin more than anyone developed that.

1979 was a crisis of leadership.

So you want to go straight to classless society then?

Lenin gave up stagism in 1917. When are you going to? 2017?

So the Iranian government and Hitler are the same thing? :laugh: What a joke.

did I say they are the same thing?

I'm sure the Nazis saw it a bit like anti-imperialism though, mixed of course with imperial ambitions of their own which Iran is not so much capable of, though it has tried.

No, I am simply saying there is nothing progressive about the Iranian regime.

And that it is largely a result of the failures of the (Stalinist) leadership of the working class.

Kassad

28th March 2012, 22:29

Omsk, I was stating that Stalinists like Comrade Commisar are the kingpins of the school of falsification. Shouldn't they be off doctoring photographs somewhere? Just saying.

A funny phrase that some people use to describe the PSL is Trotskyist-Maoist. Obviously, that's not scientifically applicable, but it's an amusing way to look at how their historical Trotskyist tradition is muddied by pretty much supporting anything that waves a flag that's any shade of red.

Manic Expression, with the restructuring of the ANSWER website, I am actually now unable to find their list of past events where they organized large anti-war demonstrations in D.C. and used the slogan "From Iraq to Palestine, Occupation is a crime", never once mentioning Afghanistan. You might try to claim that the "to" part insinuates that Afghanistan is a part of the occupations, but the ANSWER slogan towards 2009 or so would change to "Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, Occupation is a crime."

Anywho, your typical defense of anti-worker governments and reactionary nationalists that murdered and imprisoned communists widely will always be amusing. Note that back in 2009, not a single Iranian communist organization sided with your analysis. I guess Americans know Iran better than Iranians... interesting.

Furthermore, I've had the gall to actually admit past ideological mistakes and move forward. Unfortunately, the PSL will continue to use the same reformist tactics that have been used for decades, to no avail. And also, I'd like to see a comprehensive list of political differences between PSL and WWP.

Daft Punk, Vicious attack? Grow up. I've seen you frolick around here posting citations from CWI's website as documentation for your arguments. My differences with you aren't in regards to what you've said, but how you've presented them. Don't tote party lines. Think critically. You know, the whole reason it's called Marxism as a science?

Omsk Take 2, in regards to positive things about the PSL, there are many. They are the only anti-war group with the ability to really bring out a lot of people. Their anti-racism work is close to unrivaled in the United States. Do I think the slogans they raise at times are shit? Of course, but they have set up active centers of progressive politics across the country. I do wholeheartedly believe that when the day comes and the barricades are up, many of the folks in the PSL will be on the right side of the struggle. The question is will they be running people like me over with tanks if given the chance. ;)

Brosip Tito

28th March 2012, 23:31

Another debate about semantics, courtesy of Manic Expression.

How can you take seriously, someone who thinks:

- Claims to be a materialist, yet comes to the most anti-materialist conclusions. Such as supporting class collaborationist separatist movements, like in Quebec and Ireland.
- Malcolm X and Anarchists are Marxists.
- The bourgeoisie benefit from communism.
- Anti-nationalism is the same as anti-internationalism
- And dictionaries are inherently bourgeois and should be ignored cause Marx never defined every word in them. Oh, and thinks royal families represent classes of their own -- i.e. he said revolutions are only when the ruling class changes... yet in spain, according to marx they had 3 revolutions or so in the 1800s...and manic said the ruling classes where the different monarchs that ruled.

Yeah, that's a guy to take seriously (Y)

Now, onto the PSL.

Any party that acknowledges that Cuba, the DPRK, or any nation in existence is socialist, should be immediately ignored. They have absolutely no theoretical footpeg, and have a history of anti Marxist, class collaborationist policy.

They are one of the most absurd parties around. If they were the only party, would I suggest working within the party to change them? Yes, but they are not the only party, and if the rest of the Trots and non-tendencies decide to unite - as they should, there could be an actual revolutionary labour party in the USA/Canada.

tldr; PSL is a revisionist party, that will never lead a successful communist revolution.

l'EnfermÃ©

28th March 2012, 23:50

Yes, I am interested in seeing responses to these questions. Kurt, cooee! Manic, fuck it, I might even take you off ignore godammit.

Oh, what is ideological hygiene?! :blink:
Ideological hygiene is when Stalinists lock up, torture and execute Communists because they object to the reactionary-utopian Stalinists and their ideas.

daft punk

29th March 2012, 10:16

I've seen you frolick around here posting citations from CWI's website as documentation for your arguments. My differences with you aren't in regards to what you've said, but how you've presented them. Don't tote party lines. Think critically. You know, the whole reason it's called Marxism as a science?

If you think there is something wrong with what I said about Iran, say what it is exactly, dont just throw around vague, meaningless accusations. I never mentioned the CWI and I can quote various sources on Iran from 1953 to 1979 including several Iranians I have met and discussed stuff with.

My contention is that the stagist vie of the Stalinists held them back, held the workers back, created a vacuum, and the mullahs filled that.

Now, you have to say why instead of countering that you just went for vague, personal, sectarian attacks.

I am talking political analysis and you are giving Trots a bad name.

MustCrushCapitalism

29th March 2012, 11:11

Ideological hygiene is when Stalinists lock up, torture and execute Communists because they object to the reactionary-utopian Stalinists and their ideas.
Mao failed to purge all of the powerful "market socialists" in the CPC, and look how that turned out...

Leftsolidarity

29th March 2012, 14:36

If you think there is something wrong with what I said about Iran, say what it is exactly, dont just throw around vague, meaningless accusations. I never mentioned the CWI and I can quote various sources on Iran from 1953 to 1979 including several Iranians I have met and discussed stuff with.

My contention is that the stagist vie of the Stalinists held them back, held the workers back, created a vacuum, and the mullahs filled that.

Now, you have to say why instead of countering that you just went for vague, personal, sectarian attacks.

I am talking political analysis and you are giving Trots a bad name.

Maybe you can't fucking read or just love to derail threads on purpose. He said he doesn't disagree with you. He just thinks you push your ideas in a shit way. Now lets move on, the thread has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Omsk

29th March 2012, 15:01

I was stating that Stalinists like Comrade Commisar are the kingpins of the school of falsification. Shouldn't they be off doctoring photographs somewhere? Just saying.

Are you forgeting i am a Marxist-Leninist?I doubt stereotypes will do any good,it's just like saying that Stalin was an Okhrana agent,or a Menshevik.

Omsk Take 2, in regards to positive things about the PSL, there are many. They are the only anti-war group with the ability to really bring out a lot of people. Their anti-racism work is close to unrivaled in the United States. Do I think the slogans they raise at times are shit? Of course, but they have set up active centers of progressive politics across the country. I do wholeheartedly believe that when the day comes and the barricades are up, many of the folks in the PSL will be on the right side of the struggle. The question is will they be running people like me over with tanks if given the chance.

Depends if you will be on the right side,i guess.What troubles me more than their current actions,is that they have a quite controversial past,(As you say,Trotskyist roots) and the party they split from,for an example,supported Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il.This is from the ortodox ML perspective,unacceptable.But this is common for organizations that follow some revised 'Marxism and Leninism' - support for anyone or anything that fought the current biggest and most powerful imperialist power in the world - the US.Many organizations i despise just because of that,becuase i will not tolerate people trying to "reveal" me the 'Real-Socialism' of Libya or Belarus.Again,most of such people,see me as 'politically,very close' while i think my opinions are diametrically different than theirs.

manic expression

29th March 2012, 19:33

How many facts? I have highlighted some in red.
Apparently you can't figure out how your opinions aren't the same as fact.

Lenin gave up stagism in 1917. When are you going to? 2017?When are you going to become a materialist?

did I say they are the same thing?Essentially, yes. Thanks for running away from yet another non-argument, it shows how your position is just more blind hot air.

manic expression

29th March 2012, 19:49

Another debate about semantics, courtesy of Manic Expression.

How can you take seriously, someone who thinks:
Awww, is someone mad about getting schooled in a prior, unrelated debate? OK, well cry me a river and stay on topic.

Any party that acknowledges that Cuba, the DPRK, or any nation in existence is socialist, should be immediately ignored. They have absolutely no theoretical footpeg, and have a history of anti Marxist, class collaborationist policy.
Then pray, how is Cuba not socialist? Let's hear your ultra-materialist analysis.

They are one of the most absurd parties around. If they were the only party, would I suggest working within the party to change them? Yes, but they are not the only party, and if the rest of the Trots and non-tendencies decide to unite - as they should, there could be an actual revolutionary labour party in the USA/Canada.
"Non-tendencies"? Making things up as you go, then, right?

tldr; PSL is a revisionist party, that will never lead a successful communist revolution.
I doubt you even know what revisionism means.

manic expression

29th March 2012, 21:23

Manic Expression, with the restructuring of the ANSWER website, I am actually now unable to find their list of past events where they organized large anti-war demonstrations in D.C. and used the slogan "From Iraq to Palestine, Occupation is a crime", never once mentioning Afghanistan. You might try to claim that the "to" part insinuates that Afghanistan is a part of the occupations, but the ANSWER slogan towards 2009 or so would change to "Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, Occupation is a crime."
Wait, so a huge banner in the front of a demonstration saying "STOP THE US BOMBING OF AFGHANISTAN" means ANSWER was only referring to Afghanistan through vague geographic insinuation?

Anywho, your typical defense of anti-worker governments and reactionary nationalists that murdered and imprisoned communists widely will always be amusing. Note that back in 2009, not a single Iranian communist organization sided with your analysis. I guess Americans know Iran better than Iranians... interesting.
You may be amused but you are entirely missing the point. The PSL wasn't telling Iranian communists what position to take, it was doing what any progressive group in the US should have done: oppose imperialism and refute its propaganda. The whole premise of the PSL's perspective was that communists in the US don't know better than Iranian communists, so it's probably best to oppose imperialist meddling and leave making revolution in Iran to communists in Iran. Being determines consciousness, therefore being in the US determines anti-imperialism first and foremost.

Furthermore, I've had the gall to actually admit past ideological mistakes and move forward. Unfortunately, the PSL will continue to use the same reformist tactics that have been used for decades, to no avail. And also, I'd like to see a comprehensive list of political differences between PSL and WWP.
What's your evidence that the PSL is reformist? A few slogans that you take exception to?

As far as the programs of the two parties go, the PSL's program is pretty in-depth, reading Who we are and what we stand for is a lot of statements that the WWP didn't make.

Tim Cornelis

29th March 2012, 21:53

Then pray, how is Cuba not socialist? Let's hear your ultra-materialist analysis.

Socialism requires a transformation of the relations of production from those of capitalism (wage labour) to those of socialism (associated labour). The relations of production are the basic characteristic of any mode of production. Thus, as long as any society has wage labour (capitalist relations of production) it is a capitalist society. Cuba has wage labour, wage labour in Cuba is controlled by the state, therefore Cuba is state-capitalist.

Moreover, the working class does not hold power.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

29th March 2012, 21:54

I am not a fucking Stalinist, I am a Marxist-Leninist. It is like Kassad is suggesting that Marxist-Leninists are "Stalin first, Marx and Lenin second, and the proletariat last" people. We are not. We are "the proletariat of the world first; Marx, Engels, Lenin second; and Stalin third" people. Anyways, when I said that a lot of people like Kassad come out of the PSL, I was talking about people who cannot keep to one serious tendency for more than a year, tops.

Also, you (Kassad) constantly talk about how "Stalinists" get boners for Stalin or how we have circle jerks for Stalin, but you talk about it so much that I am starting to think that that is what you did before you changed your beliefs . . . again.

manic expression

29th March 2012, 22:09

Socialism requires a transformation of the relations of production from those of capitalism (wage labour) to those of socialism (associated labour). The relations of production are the basic characteristic of any mode of production. Thus, as long as any society has wage labour (capitalist relations of production) it is a capitalist society. Cuba has wage labour, wage labour is controlled by the state, therefore Cuba is state-capitalist.
You raise important points. The issue for me is that wage labor isn't merely the existence of wages. From Capital:

First stage: The capitalist appears as a buyer on the commodity- and the labour-market; his money is transformed into commodities, or it goes through the circulation act M — C.

Second Stage: Productive consumption of the purchased commodities by the capitalist. He acts as a capitalist producer of commodities; his capital passes through the process of production. The result is a commodity of more value than that of the elements entering into its production.

Third Stage: The capitalist returns to the market as a seller; his commodities are turned into money; or they pass through the circulation act C — M.

That doesn't match up to the Cuban economy at all, as there is no market for large-scale labor. That being the case, capitalist commodity production cannot exist. Further, there is no position by which any individual can act in the role described here.

If you want to argue that the state takes that role, OK, but then you will have to show us how the state goes through that process.

Moreover, the working class does not hold power.I disagree. The political apparatus is completely (http://cubandemocracy.wordpress.com/election-process/) in the hands (http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/44131) of the working class.

Just as a quick question...how would you envision a society genuinely controlled by the working class? Do you see it as certain democratic measures or something else?

Delenda Carthago

29th March 2012, 22:26

Prometeo liberado

29th March 2012, 23:02

Since "Stalin VS Trotsky" seems to be more important than party development, is it safe to assume that the questions I asked are not even in the mind of PSL? Cause, correct me if I m wrong, there are two members in the conversation.

There are many more PSL members and supporters on REVLEFT. I'm pretty sure that most of them are just over it as far as having to answer endless left-com divisive questions. A forum like this does nothing but bring out a need to slander and divide, for the single purpose of making some feel good about their own crap politics rather than answering the OP's question. What is there to gain from this? Nothing other than further splintering an already ineffectual left. Way to go kids.:thumbup1:

Kassad

29th March 2012, 23:18

Yawn. So I went from Marcyite politics to actually upholding a revolutionary program for the working class and I "change my ideology every year." You should listen to how stupid you sound.

Also, manic expression, a pamphlet summarizing the current situation is no different than books that WWP has released recently which summarize the exact same thing. I'm talking political differences in print. Let's see it.

Ostrinski

29th March 2012, 23:39

I am talking political analysis and you are giving Trots a bad name.Don't worry, you've got that covered.

Tim Cornelis

29th March 2012, 23:59

You raise important points. The issue for me is that wage labor isn't merely the existence of wages. From Capital:

First stage: The capitalist appears as a buyer on the commodity- and the labour-market; his money is transformed into commodities, or it goes through the circulation act M — C.

Second Stage: Productive consumption of the purchased commodities by the capitalist. He acts as a capitalist producer of commodities; his capital passes through the process of production. The result is a commodity of more value than that of the elements entering into its production.

Third Stage: The capitalist returns to the market as a seller; his commodities are turned into money; or they pass through the circulation act C — M.

That doesn't match up to the Cuban economy at all, as there is no market for large-scale labor. That being the case, capitalist commodity production cannot exist. Further, there is no position by which any individual can act in the role described here.

If you want to argue that the state takes that role, OK, but then you will have to show us how the state goes through that process.

I disagree. The political apparatus is completely (http://cubandemocracy.wordpress.com/election-process/) in the hands (http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/44131) of the working class.

Just as a quick question...how would you envision a society genuinely controlled by the working class? Do you see it as certain democratic measures or something else?

I never suggested wage labour = work performed for a wage.

Wage labour is when the means of production (advanced in this stage) are owned by a privileged elite (e.g. state or private individuals), while the working class only own their labour-power and are therefore compelled to sell their labour-power to the owner of means of production.

In Cuba labour-power is subject to buying and selling, and therefore a commodity, and therefore wage labour exists.

Just because the state has nationalised the means of production does not mean it abolished wage labour. This should suffice to prove that wage labour, and therefore capitalist relations of production, exist in Cuba.

The quotation you have presupposes private capitalism, while state-capitalism was alien to Marx' time. It makes sense he did not conceive the possibility of the state nationalising capitalist relations of production. Let me give it a shot anyway:

First stage: The capitalist appears as a buyer on the commodity- and the labour-market; his money is transformed into commodities, or it goes through the circulation act M — C.

It depends what you call a "labour market". If a corporation transfers labour from one branch to another clearly two branches are buying labour-power, but labour-power remains with the same employer. A similar scenario is when the state owns all branches, the worker is still compelled to sell his labour-power to an employer--i.e. wage labour. You could qualify this as "labour market" since there is buying and selling of labour-power despite the lack of competition between workers. Essentially markets are about exchange, and not about competition. In a market economy exchange is subject to competition, what we call a market. When the state nationalises, so to speak, exchange, "markets" technically still persist. There is still exchange of labour-power, it is bought and sold, but since there is only one buyer and only one employer to sell labour-power to there is no competition and thus no 'market'.

Second Stage: Productive consumption of the purchased commodities by the capitalist. He acts as a capitalist producer of commodities; his capital passes through the process of production. The result is a commodity of more value than that of the elements entering into its production.

True. Added value, etc. etc. Has nothing to do with wage labour in any case.

Third Stage: The capitalist returns to the market as a seller; his commodities are turned into money; or they pass through the circulation act C — M.

Also true. C-M-C, or C-M in this example, means the capitalist (in Cuba, the state) sells commodities (In Cuba's example these are state sanctioned and manufactured commodities/products), the money is then use to buy labour-power (a commodity since it's subject to exchange--it is bought and sold). Therefore commodities of the employer (Cuban state) pass through circulation act C-M.

You raise important points. The issue for me is that wage labor isn't merely the existence of wages. From Capital:

First stage: The capitalist appears as a buyer on the commodity- and the labour-market; his money is transformed into commodities, or it goes through the circulation act M — C.

Second Stage: Productive consumption of the purchased commodities by the capitalist. He acts as a capitalist producer of commodities; his capital passes through the process of production. The result is a commodity of more value than that of the elements entering into its production.

Third Stage: The capitalist returns to the market as a seller; his commodities are turned into money; or they pass through the circulation act C — M.

That doesn't match up to the Cuban economy at all, as there is no market for large-scale labor. That being the case, capitalist commodity production cannot exist. Further, there is no position by which any individual can act in the role described here.

If you want to argue that the state takes that role, OK, but then you will have to show us how the state goes through that process.

I disagree. The political apparatus is completely (http://cubandemocracy.wordpress.com/election-process/) in the hands (http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/44131) of the working class.

Just as a quick question...how would you envision a society genuinely controlled by the working class? Do you see it as certain democratic measures or something else?

Democracy in Cuba, as in any Marxist-Leninist state, does not translate well in practice. Candidates are pre-sanctioned by the leadership of the Communist Party and Committees to Defend the Revolution before being allowed to run. The influence the Cuban workers have on municipal affairs is therefore already limited. But since most of the policies are decided at the national level, which is even less democratic, the workers have virtually no say with the exception of some trivial matters.

Genuine workers' power would manifest itself in general popular assemblies who utilise participatory democracy. Workers' councils would control the entire economy, without state. Recallable mandated delegates, etc., you know the deal.

critics argue that these local elections candidates are nominated in open meetings run by the CDR (Committees to Defend the Revolution) that are closely linked to police and security forces. They report and sanction dissent. Prison terms of 4 years threaten those that openly oppose the regime in that public meeting filled with informants. People not supporting can be threatened with losing their home and jobs." and "The nomination of candidates for election to the Municipal Assemblies is done by nominating assemblies, in which all voters are entitled to propose candidates. In practice, however, these district assemblies are usually organized by the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution or the Communist Party, which makes the selection of an opponent of the regime most unlikely.

(source (]http://www.cubaverdad.net/iachr_cuba_elections.htm))

Grenzer

30th March 2012, 00:10

I don't see how Kassad is giving Trotskyism a bad name when he's just telling you to stop repeating the party line like a zombie. He's already said that he agrees with your politics, Daft Punk, just not with how you present them.

Most of the users here, including your fellow Trotskyists, see you as an ultra-sectarian ideologue. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that your behavior is sectarian is all the more hysterical. You are obsessed with seeing Stalinism as the force behind all the world's problems, as you've demonstrated here by talking about the Iranian Revolution. Stalinism has fuck all to do with the mullahs coming to power. I not a fan of Stalinism either, but you become just as bad as they do when you see a Stalinist shadow cast from beyond every corner, just as they do with the Trotskyists.

If you've got some issue with my statement, then make it here in the thread; don't go hiding and send it in the form of a PM like last time I called you out on your tactics. He whined that "if you(the users of this forum, presumably the ones that dislike his behavior) are the best we have to offer, then we'll never reach socialism". It's the internet, don't take it so seriously.

Oh, and punk? You weren't making an analysis, you were just regurgitating what someone else wrote. Quoting someone else isn't an argument. If you bothered to write your own analysis and interpretation(as inspired by the shit you've read) rather than just quote someone else's argument, it'd go a long way in making people take you seriously.

Ostrinski

30th March 2012, 00:44

Inb4 Grenzer joins me and manic on the ignore list. He pretty much just refuses to engage

edit: He's gonna end up having half the site on ignore

Leftsolidarity

30th March 2012, 01:20

I've wanted to put him on mine but not only do I not know how to do that but I get too many lolz out of his posts to ignore them.

Question for Manic:

What would you say are the biggest political differences between the PSL and WWP?

Brosip Tito

30th March 2012, 01:30

Awww, is someone mad about getting schooled in a prior, unrelated debate? OK, well cry me a river and stay on topic.You schooled me in the same way Glenn Beck schools Democrats. You lie, and you fail to support your arguments, and you divert and avoid.

Remember your definition of revolution, and how you claimed that different monarch families represented different classes? Something which is quite anti-marxian, as each of these families represented a single class.va

Then pray, how is Cuba not socialist? Let's hear your ultra-materialist analysis.They have a state for one thing. They have private sectors, they a capitalist.

The party has political and social power, not the proletariat.

"Non-tendencies"? Making things up as you go, then, rightNon-tendencies is in reference to smaller tendencies and those who do not identify with a tendency (such as myself).

I doubt you even know what revisionism means.
It means the change of a previously established theory or idea.

Socialism in one Country is an example of revisionism.

Ocean Seal

30th March 2012, 01:40

-Stalin and Trotsky

Many of the party members are Trotskyists, although Stalinists are also present. They both work with each other.

-The USSR post-Stalin

Most support it up to Gorbachev quite critically believing in supporting really existing socialism.

The following are the parties views and not mine

-Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

Support

-Enver Hoxha

They never really talk about him.

-Maoism

Support but don't believe that it is the exclusive ideological road to victory.

-Modern Cuba

Support as the last remaining socialist state.

-Iran,

Support against intervention and not much else.

North Korea, etc anti-imperialist states

Support DPRK as an extremely oppressed nation.

-If you feel that the PSL is a truly revolutionary party that's actively preparing for a revolutionary situation in the United States.

I guess.

-If the PSL practices any type of ideological hygiene within the party.

As in purges?

-What type of activism and activity the PSL engages in.

This is probably their strong point. They engage in more activism than most groups and in practice do as much as they can often in the poorest areas of each city.

daft punk

30th March 2012, 08:55

Maybe you can't fucking read or just love to derail threads on purpose. He said he doesn't disagree with you. He just thinks you push your ideas in a shit way. Now lets move on, the thread has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Maybe you cant fucking read or just love to join in when someone decides to launch an unprovoked attack on someone.

The debate went like this:

The OP asked for PSL views on Iran

Post 9 Manic Expression, who is in the PSL, said that Iran is regarded as progressive when it fights imperialism. He also said some PSL members are Stalinists and some claim to be Trotskyists. He himself is a Stalinist although in that post he sits on the fence.

Post 16 I said the workers in America would laugh at anyone saying that the Irainan regime was progressive in any way, and also that it's existence was largely due to the policies and actions of the Stalinists from 1953-79, which is a direct reflection of the ideology of Stalinism - Two Stage Theory. I would expect all Trots to agree with this analysis (not sure about the progressive when fighting imperialism bit, some Trotskyists have weird views on that kinda thing).

Post 22 ME replies to my analysis with:
"Congratulations, there's literally nothing materialist about this would-be "analysis". It's a compilation of every fallacy one could think of, combined with an immaturity heretofore unseen on RevLeft."

I point out that this statement contains no meaning. Maybe I should have expanded. My analysis is based on historical materialism, but not the simplistic, warped version the Stalinists use to scupper every revolution that comes along. Not that, but the historical materialism used by Lenin and Trotsky to decide on revolution in October 1917. The idea that capitalism is not gonna play a progressive role in most backward countries, because IT IS TIED TO FEUDALISM AND IMPERIALISM.

Post 31, instead of joining in the most fundamental debate between Trotskyism and Stalinism - ie stagism vs permanent revolution, as illustrated by Iran, Kassam simply launches a personal attack on me going on about the CWI, 'little left sects and their dispute'. No fucking clue obviously. No interest in serious debate. Just trying to throw mud and hope some sticks.

Iran is a classic example of how Stalinist ideology, invented to justify and secure Stalin's elite position at the top of a dictatorship, and to prevent socialist revolution in the USSR or anywhere else, continued to derail revolution after his death.

And a classic example of the correctness of the theory of Permanent Revolution, one which all Trotskyists subscribe to, regardless of sect, fetish, or any other bullshit word.

I was explaining how Iran could have become socialist but ended up as a shit hole of a reactionary dictatorship, and kassam said my 'petty dispute' 'offered nothing to the working class'. This is the worst post I have seen for a long time.

What I am offering is what Lenin and Trotsky offered in 1917. Build a revolutionary party and revolution can happen quite easily, and opportunities to not have to be wasted. If your policy is to avoid revolution in the first place, like the Mensheviks or later the Stalinists, it aint gonna happen is it?

This is not a petty dispute, this is the whole essence of Trotskyism and Kassam is not only missing the whole point, he is smokescreeing it with petty personal attacks.

daft punk

30th March 2012, 09:22

I don't see how Kassad is giving Trotskyism a bad name when he's just telling you to stop repeating the party line like a zombie. He's already said that he agrees with your politics, Daft Punk, just not with how you present them.

Are there any Trotskyist parties which would disagree with what I said about Iran? Let's quickly google

"But the Tudeh Party had been schooled by the Soviet bureaucracy in the Menshevik-Stalinist two-stage theory of revolution, which held that in countries of belated capitalist development, the working class must not aspire to any independent role, but only assist the national bourgeoisie in carrying out “its” revolution."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/pers-f11.shtml

"With illusions in variants of Stalinism, the principal forces on the left all had one thing in common - their total lack of faith in the Iranian working class. Preferring to side with the "progressive" sections of the bourgeoisie (including Khomeini himself) the left fatally abandoned working class politics."
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10711

Well, that's two major Trotskyist organisations saying the same as me. Neither are my party. Party line? I think not. Zombie? Grow up.

"Lack of effective socialist leadership meant the shoras never developed into fully fledged workers' councils. Instead the lack of leadership and independent organisation in the working class opened the revolution up to other forces. And, just like previous Third World revolutions, the vacuum was filled by a new middle class - the Ayatollah Khomeini, clerics, Islamist students, doctors, lawyers and professionals. "
same link.

Most of the users here, including your fellow Trotskyists, see you as an ultra-sectarian ideologue.
Ah, so you not only know what everyone thinks, you speak for them, how amazing.

How stupid. I just quoted 2 major left parties agreeing with me. I dont think I need to do more than that to prove my point. The only sectarians here are you and Kassam with your snide personal attacks based on nothing.

The fact that you can't even acknowledge that your behavior is sectarian is all the more hysterical. You are obsessed with seeing Stalinism as the force behind all the world's problems, as you've demonstrated here by talking about the Iranian Revolution.

see above which proves you wrong. All Trotskyists say the same as me, this is basic stuff. You just never got to grips with the basic theory.

Stalinism has fuck all to do with the mullahs coming to power. I not a fan of Stalinism either, but you become just as bad as they do when you see a Stalinist shadow cast from beyond every corner, just as they do with the Trotskyists.

see above. You are hopelessly off course here, reducing the most crucial political questions to petty personal stuff.

If you've got some issue with my statement, then make it here in the thread; don't go hiding and send it in the form of a PM like last time I called you out on your tactics.

Ok, so you prefer public humiliation, I get the message.

Oh, and punk? You weren't making an analysis, you were just regurgitating what someone else wrote. Quoting someone else isn't an argument. If you bothered to write your own analysis and interpretation(as inspired by the shit you've read) rather than just quote someone else's argument, it'd go a long way in making people take you seriously.

No, I didnt quote anyone. I produced some numbers, the numbers of industrial workers. I researched that and it proved you wrong. You didnt like being proved wrong by my numbers, so now you smell blood and attack. I cant even remember where I got the numbers from, I just googled it.

You see, when I say something, I like to make sure it's correct. Which is why I research and back myself up with facts.

Dont say I quoted someone when I didnt. Dont try to reduce Trotskyism to sectarianism. All this does is show that you never even grasped the basics.

Omsk

30th March 2012, 09:32

Which is why I research and back myself up with facts.

Yes,especially when you cite something in a historical dicussion,something from a book written by Trotsky. :lol:

I have another question: What is the stance of the PSL on the problematics of the right of nations for self-determination?

Kassad

30th March 2012, 16:42

I have another question: What is the stance of the PSL on the problematics of the right of nations for self-determination?

I'm rushing out the door right now, but this is an old article from their old website where they talk about Harry Haywood and the question of self-determination: http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13667

I think it broadly covers their perspective on it.

Rusty Shackleford

30th March 2012, 17:15

Many of the party members are Trotskyists, although Stalinists are also present.

come to sacramento. we march with stalin banners.

im joking. we like to have fun around here.

branches have their own nature. some tend to swing a bit more to the 'maoist' side, some are trottier and some are more 'stalinist' but the party line, and constitution are the guiding principles of those branches. if they didnt follow it, then they wouldnt exist as branches of the PSL.

personally, i love the shit out of making jokes about trotskyism. why? probably because ive been on revleft for too long, not anything instilled by party ideology. on the whole the 'trotsky stalin' argument is a dead one and its not just a beaten dead horse, the only way to pick it up is with a sponge.

second of all, ideological purity is a pretty good way to alienate your own class and also not get shit done. that being said, ideological development is one of the primary focuses of the candidacy period, along with orienting people to regular party work. but, apparently since we focus on party work as well, its all we do because hardly anyone else does it. Some organizations are only good for their publications and THATS IT. But leftist tendency puritans will flock to them because "they are so right!" without even considering "will they turn interpretation into practice?"

Kassad claims that since some of the strategies and tactics have been used for decades now but havent done much to make a movement, they are useless. anarchists were popping tsars left and right and that didnt change anything, but apparently RSDLP organizing, tirelessly i might add, grew an organiztion over the period of a dozen or so years to the point to where it could help make revolution. The situation in russia was also favorable compared to the US (and pretty much what let so much political activity develop) mind you, and ill probably be long dead before anything 'happens.'

anyways, what was learned in russia is that organizing is the most fundamental thing. just attacking the enemy willy nilly, even poking it in the eye(killing a tsar or Garfield), doesnt do shit.

Kassad

30th March 2012, 17:19

I don't "claim" anything about WWP/PSL tactics. I'm stating factually how both groups operate. Once Sam Marcy got up in years, they pulled some of their more militant "Victory to the Vietcong"-esque slogans and replaced them with slogans like "Money for jobs, not for war." Ironically these were the same slogans they constantly criticized the Socialist Workers Party for using, but that didn't stop them. Politically bankrupt organizations tend to wiggle and squirm in manners such as this.

Rusty Shackleford

30th March 2012, 17:23

And ive been to ANSWER rallies where answer organizers chanted "Victory to the Palestinians!" Victory to the Afghan people!" and so on.

but you seem to be hung up on the money for jobs and education not for war and occupation thing so much you made a whole damned thread about it before. its just one slogan, not the whole line.

dodger

30th March 2012, 17:26

What form does party education take? I am assuming here there is quite a large range of ages education levels, political experience.

Rusty Shackleford

30th March 2012, 17:34

larger branches include education into their weekly public meetings on current events, history and theory. there are also regular internal discussions which cover all sorts of things, and i wont go into that(the reason is in the name).

then there are also courses which are either in person or over conference call. they are on introductory subjects for candidate members because we know most people arent masters of marxism leninism or are even familiar with the way a communist organization operates. (so no, i wont apologize for the relatively 'basic' nature of our education program compared to some discussions on revleft)

Cadres are also supposed to help with education and generally, knowledge is something all people share with each other. for example, a comrade of mine is very knowledgable on chinese histroy and another is knowledgable on the developments of the american labor movement. their know-how is made known to all so all can ask if they have specific questions... for example...

the SF branch has a large library. books on many subjects, and they are free to borrow. and education is generally encouraged. its not the fundamental orientation of party work though so we dont organize massive study sessions outside of internals, public meetings, and candidacy courses.

lately i havent really even had time to study myself. between doing various forms of labor work, driving people around and shit like that. oh, and i forgot, my day job sucks up much of my time :lol:

daft punk

30th March 2012, 18:15

What form does party education take? I am assuming here there is quite a large range of ages education levels, political experience.

Lol! I would love to see their 'education' material. Hey, lets dig some up and have a look at it! I might as well start with what they say on the 1979 Iranian revolution seeing as that topic appears so popular on this thread.

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/10-02-19-millions-turn-out-in-support-ira.html
Millions turn out in support of Iranian revolution

Demonstrations overwhelm opposition 'greens' on 31st anniversary

"In the absence of a strong left that could give the revolution working-class leadership, bourgeois-national religious forces have maintained capitalist relations while leading development along a path independent from imperialist plunder and domination. "
Hmm. sort of a bit like what I've been saying, just without any detail.

"For the last 31 years, U.S. imperialism has tried a variety of tactics to reverse the gains of this revolution, and to bring back the days when Iran was a U.S. client state, an ally of Israel, and the gendarme of the region on behalf of the Pentagon. "
Gains? And what fucking gains are those? Let's take a look...

http://markhumphrys.com/Bitmaps/iran.5.jpg

Iran 1970s

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/bm%7Epix/iranian-women-protest%7Es600x600.jpg

2008 womens protest against their second class status.

Yes it's been progress, progress, progress.

back to the PSL 'education'...

"Every year, the anniversary of the revolution is a holiday celebrated by large numbers of Iranians. "

The blokes, presumably. Well the one's I've met think it's a shithole. And they told me most Iranians dont like the regime.

"But the 31st anniversary had particular significance. The June 2009 presidential elections had brought large numbers of people to the streets demonstrating against Ahmadinejad’s election as president. The largest demonstrations happened in the week following the elections, when hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—marched in the streets of Tehran and a few other cities. In the months following the elections, much smaller but still significant demonstrations had occurred, the last on the Shi’a holy day of Ashura.

Extravagant predictions

Various opposition figures, including defeated presidential candidates Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mahdi Karroubi, had called for their supporters to come out to the streets and convert the anniversary marches into a show of force by the opposition. Some opposition figures made extravagant predictions, estimating that 3 million or more of their supporters would pour into the streets. This was going to be the day when, in the words of Mohsen Sazegara, an opposition figure, the foundation would be laid for a “final action.”

Imperialist media outlets played up the hype. Voice of America and BBC Farsi, broadcast into Iran through satellite TV, created an aura of a revolution in the making. On its online news site, CNN set up a format to report developments of the 31st anniversary on an hourly basis, anticipating significant opposition demonstrations to report on.

Well, millions of people did come out to the streets, but from the perspective of the opposition “greens” and their imperialist supporters, it was the wrong crowd. The outpouring of support for the revolution was huge, and that did more to quell the opposition’s drive for mounting a big march than the repression of the police and the Basiji militia. One protester told the Associated Press that she left in disappointment shortly after she and others tried to join opposition demonstrations, because they were overwhelmed: “There were 300 of us, maximum 500. Against 10,000 people.”

Western news media went out of their way to make light of the march of millions in support of the revolution and magnified the few hundred opposition demonstrators as the main newsworthy item. A BBC reporter actually said that Iranian media had not shown helicopter shots of the demonstrations, suggesting that the turnout must have been small. But a few hours later, helicopter shots were widely circulated on the Internet, showing a crowd of millions stretching for several miles and crowding Azadi Square, a huge area."

So the greens are bad, and not very numerous, and the poor support the glorious regime in their millions. Basically, most of the demos were in support of the regime. This seems unlikely. If that was the case there would be fighting, with the greens wiped out. Doesnt make much sense to me.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2011/2/13/1297623055448/The-green-movement-was-a--007.jpg

Well if this theory was true all it would do would be to highlight the fact that vast numbers of people are poor.

Like all dangerous nonsense, this article merges small amounts of truth with large amounts of bullshit. Yes the grees were the urban youth, yes the rural poor were more likely to back Ahmadinejad. That is because he is a reactionary populist.

They dont mention the role of the Stalinists back in 1979 and what they keep very quiet about is the fact that the leader of the greens, Mousavi, was backed by these Stalinists!

Anyway, I dunno the exact composition on the revolution anniversary day, obviously it was gonna drew out a layer of support, but since them the opposition protests have continued.

MustCrushCapitalism

30th March 2012, 21:40

Alright, so from what I'm getting, the PSL can be considered a 'Brezhnevite' party?

Omsk

30th March 2012, 21:41

Well,i can't say it is Marxist-Leninist.

TheGodlessUtopian

30th March 2012, 21:46

I heard it be described from one member as a Pan-Leftist party.

MustCrushCapitalism

30th March 2012, 21:48

I heard it be described from one member as a Pan-Leftist party.
This I wouldn't mind. I'd like that, actually, but what I do mind is that party itself taking a position in favor of things like the soviet invasion of afghanistan and the revisionist USSR post-Stalin in general. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism I can take though.

Rusty Shackleford

31st March 2012, 08:52

To 'Hoxhaists,' we're 'Brezhnevites.'
To Left-Coms, we're bourgeois.
To Trotskyists, we're 'Stalinists.'
To liberals, we're 'Stalinists.'
To anarchists, we're 'Stalinists.'
To Maoists, we're revisionists.
To conservatives, we're Nazis.
To Nazis, we're Jew-Bolsheviks.

also daft punk, thats an article, not material used for candidacy education.

two books that come to mind that ARE part of the educational program are:
Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder
Origin of the Family, the State, and Private Property

daft punk

31st March 2012, 09:16

This I wouldn't mind. I'd like that, actually, but what I do mind is that party itself taking a position in favor of things like the soviet invasion of afghanistan and the revisionist USSR post-Stalin in general. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism I can take though.

Why do you think the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was any different to what Stalin would have done?

The Soviet regime supported the regime in Afghanistan before the revolution, ie the monarchist one. Russia had no interest in a revolution. But when it happened they ended up having to intervene because the collapse of it would have been humiliating and would have threatened areas within the USSR where lots of Muslims lived.

Russia's intervention was a bad thing, but I am surprised why a Stalinist would think that.

Also, Russia after Stalin was still Stalinist. Nothing much changed. As such it was doomed to eventually collapse back to capitalism as Trotsky had predicted,
it was just a matter of time.

The disadvantages of a bureaucratic dictatorship ended up outweighing the advantages of the planned economy, like a set of scales tipping the other way. This was the conclusion of the dialectical process Trotsky observed decades earlier.

daft punk

31st March 2012, 09:21

a comrade of mine is very knowledgable on chinese histroy
In a nutshell, what is the PSL position on China 1925-7 and then through to 1949? And Stalin's role in the events up to 1949?

I did a thread on China but nobody wants to post on it, no Stalinists, nobody.

Rusty Shackleford

31st March 2012, 09:34

In a nutshell, what is the PSL position on China 1925-7 and then through to 1949? And Stalin's role in the events up to 1949?

I did a thread on China but nobody wants to post on it, no Stalinists, nobody.
did i say i was very knowledgeable on Chinese history? anyways ill just go with what i know. and its pretty simple:
The Comintern's relationship with the CPC has pretty much always been Soviet-chauvanistic. thats no mystery or lie.

---------

it seems that every period of the Soviet Union's existence has its own ideology surrounding the leadership. As if it was all produced from nothing.

People seem to forget that socialism is not permanent, and it cannot withstand the pressures of imperialism by just sitting around. Socialism could also be destroyed if socialists were ultra gung-ho about spreading revolution. As you can see, and i believe these two points are pretty obvious, this has made for some odd and unfortunate events throughout the history of the SU, as it has with all socialist societies.

If trotsky led the soviet union up until his death in 1953, do you think it would be wholly different? what if lenin hadnt died when he did? what if Beria was at the helm shortly after stalins early death in 1937?

who knows and who cares. a single person doesnt change the course of history and it certainly isnt the deciding factor as to whether german imperialists try to reassert themselves or the Chinese Red Army defeats the KMT in 1932.

Also, im pretty sure Stalin (christ im tired of saying Stalin and Trotsky) had complete and total control over the soviet union during his period as its leader and after his death.

would anyone here say Obama and Bush are completely responsible for Iraq or Libya? no, its absurd. Is Papandreou(sp?) responsible for all things that have happened in Greece through his position as PM? Is the Queen of England and or Thatcher solely responsible for the war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands? no no no no.

daft punk

31st March 2012, 11:04

did i say i was very knowledgeable on Chinese history? anyways ill just go with what i know. and its pretty simple:
The Comintern's relationship with the CPC has pretty much always been Soviet-chauvanistic. thats no mystery or lie.

oh, thanks for that

it seems that every period of the Soviet Union's existence has its own ideology surrounding the leadership. As if it was all produced from nothing.

Not sure what this means exactly. The relation between leaders and the masses is dialectical. A leader can make a crucial difference, but also the leader is the product of the material conditions. The personification of them.

People seem to forget that socialism is not permanent, and it cannot withstand the pressures of imperialism by just sitting around.

Are you saying the pressures of imperialism destroyed the USSR?

Socialism could also be destroyed if socialists were ultra gung-ho about spreading revolution.

Kinda contradicts your previous statement a bit. You are doomed if isolated but also doomed if you try to spread revolution too much?

Yes, I guess this is the standard Stalinist line, ie the Spanish revolution, the Chinese one etc all had to be opposed for the greater long term good. Obviously nobody wants a suicide mission, but Trotsky reckoned 10 revolutions could have been made in Spain, and he was the expert, having led the Russian one.

If trotsky led the soviet union up until his death in 1953, do you think it would be wholly different? what if lenin hadnt died when he did?

Well, Lenin and Trotsky would have done things differently. In the period 1924-8 they would have taxed the wealthy to keep the down, and used the money to build industry and to subsidise cooperatives for the poor peasants. They would have avoided forced collectivisation and encouraged it instead. This would have avoided the famine. Isolated, the best they could do was try, and avoid capitalist restoration by not letting the capitalists gather wealth as Stalin did.

Stalin was partly to blame for the 1923 failure in Germany, maybe that would have happened. At least it is better to try and fail than promise a revolution half heartedly and then cancel it at the last minute.
In Germany around 1931 they would not have been pursuing the social fascism thing so the Nazis probably wouldnt have taken power, they wouldnt have weakened the 1936 general strike in France, or sabotaged the revolution in Spain, or purged the socialists in the USSR.

Also, im pretty sure Stalin (christ im tired of saying Stalin and Trotsky) had complete and total control over the soviet union during his period as its leader and after his death.

yes he did

would anyone here say Obama and Bush are completely responsible for Iraq or Libya?
Libya? No
Iraq? Obama had nothing to do with it, apart from giving Bush an excuse to invade. No of course it wasnt just Bush, it goes back to the Americans who installed Saddam in the first place, and backed him up to the time April Glasbie conned him into invading Kuwait.

Kassad

31st March 2012, 18:37

To 'Hoxhaists,' we're 'Brezhnevites.'
To Left-Coms, we're bourgeois.
To Trotskyists, we're 'Stalinists.'
To liberals, we're 'Stalinists.'
To anarchists, we're 'Stalinists.'
To Maoists, we're revisionists.
To conservatives, we're Nazis.
To Nazis, we're Jew-Bolsheviks.

To real revolutionaries, you're reformists. Just another left sect with no real interest in making revolution a reality.

Prometeo liberado

31st March 2012, 18:51

To real revolutionaries, you're reformists. Just another left sect with no real interest in making revolution a reality.

Is the definition of a "REAL" revolutionary solely defined by you? Your statement suggest that anything to the left or right of your "real revolutionary" definition is bullocks. Sounds elitist and condescending.

Kassad

31st March 2012, 18:51

http://thmg.photobucket.com/albums/v85/vulca/th_emot-ironicat.gif

You're not contributing anything to the conversation with that. Please stop spamming.

Prometeo liberado

31st March 2012, 19:31

Apparently. I stand corrected.

Rusty Shackleford

31st March 2012, 23:31

yes, real revolutionaries flip flop on ideology hard.

KurtFF8

1st April 2012, 02:00

To real revolutionaries, you're reformists. Just another left sect with no real interest in making revolution a reality.

This isn't the first time you've said this. So if the PSL doesn't really want revolution, yet keeps going around claiming that it does, what are the real desires of the Party then?

And what is your explanation for why the PSL is putting on a facade of wanting revolution if it "really doesn't"?

blake 3:17

1st April 2012, 02:56

It's one thing to want to defend Libya against imperialism; it's a completely different thing to want to suck Gaddafi's dick.

A true fact.

L.A.P.

1st April 2012, 03:46

^^^ (to the whole conversation above): ಠ__ಠ

we're so fucked

Rusty Shackleford

1st April 2012, 04:13

this thread has basically turned into a steamy pile of shit. apparently we secretly dont want revolution (according to Kassad)
We're Brezhnevites (apparently?) because we are more concerned with the defeat of imperialism than defeating ideological impurities (meaning we dont try to shit on every socialist state for some mis-step)
And apparently we're bourgeois because we participate in bourgeois elections. Its no secret we do it because that is where the attention is. its called agitation. and no, we're not sewer socialists.

our understanding of marxism-leninism is not some misnomer 'stalinism.' we see it as using marxist analysis and using leninist practice. to the ultra orthodox marxist, thats the worst imaginable thing, to the trot, were still 'stalinists' and to whoever the fuck else, apparently we have sexual desires for Qaddafi. not to mention the accusation is probably homophobic to some degree.

didnt trotsky himself say it would be better to defend the pseudo fascist brazil against the british empire because the british empire was the hub of world imperialism? but no, trots today just love to attack the shit out of socialist states, write their pedantic articles on useless and dry subjects and side with imperialism on some international subjects because the thought of being even remotely associated with marxism-leninism could cause an aneurysm.

Yazman

1st April 2012, 04:32

Kassad is a real revolutionary. In fact the only real revolutionary.

E_gP4GFUnS8

You can't keep shitposting like this! You just got an infraction for flames the other day and you follow it up with the trolling, spammy crap in here!

DON'T do it again.

KurtFF8

1st April 2012, 04:34

apparently we have sexual desires for Qaddafi. not to mention the accusation is probably homophobic to some degree.

Even if that statement isn't homophobic (although I certainly think it is) it's at least quite immature. It is embarrassing that anyone on the Left would resort to this kind of language, regardless of their political positions on these questions.

I guess some folks just need to get their two cents in no matter what.

black magick hustla

1st April 2012, 04:38

A lot of people are gonna take pot shots at the PSL. By just reading a few of those one can see why the left is so fractured. "If you are a fan of Enver Hoxha or Mao, then the PSL is most definitely not for you". Ya, that is what every working class person is asking themselves when they see the PSL out on the streets. And they are out there, every single day. They are the fastest growing party on the left and as Kassad has said in the past they are much flash and youth. Along with rapid youth oriented growth you're gonna have ideological infantilism. Unfortunately this is where the PSL either can't move forward or won't move forward from. This manifest itself in a lack of democracy at the branch level and immature high school mind games as well. Seasoned veterans of the movement won't be caught dead dealing with them at the branch level and are often routed over to ANSWER. Having said all of this the PSL do serve a very important role for the left in being able to rally many people to an event at a moments notice. Speaking ill of other organizations is frowned upon in the PSL as they know all to well that everyone has to work together. They are frustrating but much of the bashing I read coming from the left is just petty jealousy.

the psl is irrelevant as every other left wing sects. "big" in the left means that you have a few hundred cadre. the psl has nil influence in the general political discourse of america, i am sorry.

Rusty Shackleford

1st April 2012, 04:42

the psl is irrelevant as every other left wing sects. "big" in the left means that you have a few hundred cadre. the psl has nil influence in the general political discourse of america, i am sorry.
actually, funny thing, an old middleschool friend of mine who i thought in a million years would never be interested in socialism, turns out to now be interested in the peta/yari campaign by the PSL. though, we are nowhere near the influence of the KKE for example, im actually stunned by the growth weve had.

generally speaking though, yes, 'big' on the left today in the US does pretty much mean a few hundred well developed cadre.

Prometeo liberado

1st April 2012, 04:56

black magick hustla

1st April 2012, 05:47

The PSL is very relevant when your organization is in need of technical,financial, human and/or material support. However you want to downplay this it is true. PSL has never, nor have I, said that they have any influence in the general political discourse of America. But if that is your measure of importance on the left then by extension almost the entire left is irrelevant. Sorry? Don't be sorry just rethink what you perceive to be relevant or important in terms of the left within the confines of 21st century America.

maybe that wasn't what you were saying but i think that mentioning "fastest growing party in the left" and "prescence in the streets" etc. might give the wrong impression to the reader of what it actually means in real terms.

i don't think the mayority of the left is relevant at all. i think its influence is confined in the activist ghetto, which is not exemplary of the general discourse/mentality of most working people.

Prometeo liberado

1st April 2012, 06:06

maybe that wasn't what you were saying but i think that mentioning "fastest growing party in the left" and "presence in the streets" etc. might give the wrong impression to the reader of what it actually means in real terms.

i don't think the mayority of the left is relevant at all. i think its influence is confined in the activist ghetto, which is not exemplary of the general discourse/mentality of most working people.

I can see where someone not knowledgeable in left parties could misunderstand that. What I do feel is important is to recognize that within the minuscule left there is a steady and rising number of people and organizations committed to the PSL. The left needs to appreciate any small gains instead of acting like the jilted ex-girlfriend.

Sadly, all of this is like telling an alcoholic that they need help. Only until the working class realizes the shit that they live in will they make that step towards political action. Now the question is would they want to put a hand out to the back-stabbing, dysfunctional left as it stands today?

black magick hustla

1st April 2012, 08:31

I can see where someone not knowledgeable in left parties could misunderstand that. What I do feel is important is to recognize that within the minuscule left there is a steady and rising number of people and organizations committed to the PSL. The left needs to appreciate any small gains instead of acting like the jilted ex-girlfriend.

small gains in terms of what?

Sadly, all of this is like telling an alcoholic that they need help. Only until the working class realizes the shit that they live in will they make that step towards political action. Now the question is would they want to put a hand out to the back-stabbing, dysfunctional left as it stands today?

they don't need to "put a hand out" to the left lol

daft punk

1st April 2012, 11:26

Ew. You remind me of a CWI version of myself about a year ago. Toting party lines isn't a good look for you and it isn't exactly constructive. Your little left sects and their disputes haven't resolved anything for the working class. So get over your fetish and let's do some real communist work.

Thats a shame, I thought we had another Trot, but I guess not.

Please explain:

1. What 'party line' I 'toted'.

2. What was not constructive about my analysis of Iran from 1953 onwards.

3. What was of any actual meaning in:
"Congratulations, there's literally nothing materialist about this would-be "analysis". It's a compilation of every fallacy one could think of, combined with an immaturity heretofore unseen on RevLeft."

What he said was just a statement, an assertion, there was no argument, nothing. He did not say WHY what i said was not materialist, WHY it is a compillation of falacies, WHY it is an immaturity hithertofore unseen on revleft?

Daft Punk, Vicious attack? Grow up. I've seen you frolick around here posting citations from CWI's website as documentation for your arguments. My differences with you aren't in regards to what you've said, but how you've presented them. Don't tote party lines. Think critically. You know, the whole reason it's called Marxism as a science?

Nice how moderators (Kassad) are allowed to tell lies about me, and then when I challenge them and prove them wrong they run away. And it's me that gets infracted at the end of it all. :tt2:

A couple of brainless arselickers did try to argue on behalf of Kassad...nothing of substance of course, just more lies and personal abuse

Maybe you can't fucking read or just love to derail threads on purpose. He said he doesn't disagree with you. He just thinks you push your ideas in a shit way. Now lets move on, the thread has absolutely nothing to do with this.

I don't see how Kassad is giving Trotskyism a bad name when he's just telling you to stop repeating the party line like a zombie. He's already said that he agrees with your politics, Daft Punk, just not with how you present them.

Most of the users here, including your fellow Trotskyists, see you as an ultra-sectarian ideologue. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that your behavior is sectarian is all the more hysterical. You are obsessed with seeing Stalinism as the force behind all the world's problems, as you've demonstrated here by talking about the Iranian Revolution. Stalinism has fuck all to do with the mullahs coming to power. I not a fan of Stalinism either, but you become just as bad as they do when you see a Stalinist shadow cast from beyond every corner, just as they do with the Trotskyists.

If you've got some issue with my statement, then make it here in the thread; don't go hiding and send it in the form of a PM like last time I called you out on your tactics. He whined that "if you(the users of this forum, presumably the ones that dislike his behavior) are the best we have to offer, then we'll never reach socialism". It's the internet, don't take it so seriously.

Oh, and punk? You weren't making an analysis, you were just regurgitating what someone else wrote. Quoting someone else isn't an argument. If you bothered to write your own analysis and interpretation(as inspired by the shit you've read) rather than just quote someone else's argument, it'd go a long way in making people take you seriously.

I debunked every word of this pile of shit and what was the response?

SWEET FUCK ALL.

And that pile of lies, abuse and shit was 'thanked' by the following 5 pathetic sheep:

Brospierre (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=31948), Deicide (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=61447), Goti123 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=37718), Kassad (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=17829), Leftsolidarity (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=37425)

I wrote a long reply to Left Solidarity:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2400700&postcount=60

a long reply to Grenzer

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2400714&postcount=61

I proved he was LYING.

Replies, zero.

These are hit and run posters of the shittiest kind.

I had not quoted anyone originally, so that was a lie, and I found two other major political internationals which said exactly the same as me, so to say it was just a party line was a lie too.

You fucking pathetic liars, come out of hiding.

I tried to have a serious debate about the question on Iraq and these people have just thrown shit all over the thread and got away with it.

MustCrushCapitalism

1st April 2012, 13:21

Rusty Shackleford

1st April 2012, 16:59

Another question for PSLers (so can all the Trots please stop hijacking the thread?) -

Would you say your views are those of the party? Does the leadership itself take a stance on Mao, Hoxha, etc? are there any Maoists or 'Hoxhaists' in the party?
the leadership doesnt ideologically lean to one leader more than others. The party recognizes them all though.

i havent met ant self-described maoists or hoxhaists in the party. non-revisionist marxism leninism seems to mostly just be active on the internet, though the APL does organize their own contingent in public events.

Leftsolidarity

2nd April 2012, 02:37

I tried to have a serious debate about the question on Iraq and these people have just thrown shit all over the thread and got away with it.

Holy fucking balls, just shut the fuck up. You don't try to have a serious debate about anything.

You personally attack people (and by that I mean you just call anything that you disagree with as "stalinist"), you derail conversations, you ignore responses by just saying that they're lying/misrepresenting you, and you just copy and paste obnoxious walls of texts that nobody wants to read.

Now please, stfu&gtfo.

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

Anyways, back to the original intention of the thread of asking questions. Mine a few pages back must have been looked over or something, nbd cuz I've been offline, but I am really interested in how the PSL views itself differently from WWP. I don't really get any face-to-face interaction with PSL members often so it's hard for me to see and hear it in person.

So PSL members, what would you say are your major differences organization/recruitment wise and ideology/party-line wise?

Prometeo liberado

2nd April 2012, 04:01

Here's one of the points I do disagree or maybe don't understand about the PSL. I have yet to hear a direct answer to the WWP/PSL split. The patent answer that I have always heard was that they split over tactical issues. In particular recruitment. When senoir leadership is ask this direct question a cloud of paranoia and frustration seems to enter the room. Having said that I can only judge them by the work they do on the streets. I won't become a member but I will work with them.

L.A.P.

2nd April 2012, 15:42

^^^ Just leave

daft punk

2nd April 2012, 18:13

In fairness to J beard I should say I deleted my post so this shitposter here is talking to me, not him.

I did write a post exposing the multiple lies of of the ironically named leftsolidarity, but I really just cant be arsed. His credibility just reached zero.

Kassad

2nd April 2012, 18:20

TheGodlessUtopian

2nd April 2012, 18:22

The reasoning behind the PSL/WWP split will most likely never be made public. I find it almost repulsive that the two can exist separately with identical politics and look working people in the face and claim that they're principally building a movement for real revolutionary change. One left sect gives birth to another.

I am wondering how long it will take before a group splits off from the PSL and forms another new party. Seems to be the only thing that happens on the American left today.

Prometeo liberado

2nd April 2012, 19:04

I am wondering how long it will take before a group splits off from the PSL and forms another new party. Seems to be the only thing that happens on the American left today.

You have no idea how close to the truth that statement is.

Ocean Seal

2nd April 2012, 19:27

small gains in terms of what?

For one, while I was with the New York branch, we managed to organize a successful boycott of the Continental Bar, which eventually led to a retraction of their racist and homophobic policies. We also are pretty good to reaching out to people with regards to anti-imperialism and getting quite a few anti-war converts and supporters.

Here's one of the points I do disagree or maybe don't understand about the PSL. I have yet to hear a direct answer to the WWP/PSL split. The patent answer that I have always heard was that they split over tactical issues. In particular recruitment. When senoir leadership is ask this direct question a cloud of paranoia and frustration seems to enter the room. Having said that I can only judge them by the work they do on the streets. I won't become a member but I will work with them.

The reasoning behind the PSL/WWP split will most likely never be made public. I find it almost repulsive that the two can exist separately with identical politics and look working people in the face and claim that they're principally building a movement for real revolutionary change. One left sect gives birth to another.

Yes, the split is essentially bullshit. The reason that it probably happened was not recruitment strategies, but rather some petty squabble at the top.

daft punk

2nd April 2012, 20:07

Leftsolidarity

2nd April 2012, 20:10

Prometeo liberado

2nd April 2012, 22:23

Well I just went through the whole thread, hoping for some interesting posts from PSL members that I'd missed. There is only Rusty Shakleford trying, plus manic, but he is on ignore. Couple of non-posts from Kurt. And that's it. Where are all the PSL members?

The rest is people giving their opinion on PSL. Too many of the posts are shit. This board makes me depressed. :(:(

Like I said earlier, I think most PSL people and their supporters will not post in this thread because of the fact that this has not been about hearing their side as much trashing their beliefs. Why would someone want to have to answer the same question on imperialism over and over? They are probably to busy doing actual street work any way.

A Marxist Historian

3rd April 2012, 02:54

I really suggest you meet up with some PSL members in your area to get a better feeling of their approach to things. To be honest I've been out of the US for over a year and so I'm not a member, I'll try to give you my impressions but that's all I can really offer.

The most important thing to understand is that there is no set opinion on many of these questions. The PSL welcomes different opinions and viewpoints from across the spectrum of genuine Marxist-Leninists.

-Stalin and Trotsky: I've met PSL members who strongly support Stalin and criticize Trotsky and members who strongly support Trotsky and criticize Stalin. In all, there are criticisms to be made of both and I think most PSL members show a willingness to do so. Members are more encouraged to debate these questions in an open and honest manner...no one is told to believe this or that on such an historical question.

-Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: IIRC the PSL is in support of defending the PDPA from its enemies, though the handling of the intervention is not so clear-cut and anyway Brezhnev's foreign policy leaves much to be desired.

-Hoxha: the leader of a legitimately socialist country. Most PSL members don't agree with his arguments about other socialists, but regardless Albania was socialist.

-Maoism: made worthwhile contributions to Marxist thought and practice through its relationship with the peasantry (among other things), and a very noteworthy attempt to push forth proletarian power through the Cultural Revolution.

-Modern Cuba: it's seen as a socialist country, and is very strongly supported due to this.

Iran, North Korea, etc anti-imperialist states: the PSL supports their struggles against imperialism but holds that any bourgeois government is reactionary in relation to the interests of the working class itself. Thus, the PSL opposes all imperialist meddling in Iran and supports all anti-imperialist Iranians in their capacity as opponents of imperialism...beyond that it's a matter of supporting working-class struggle. The PSL is quite clear on this last point, that governments such as Iran are only to be supported as far as they are anti-imperialists, along with all other anti-imperialist Iranians...but that such a government is inherently reactionary when juxtaposed with the proletariat itself. In other words: When opposed by imperialism, such governments are progressive; when opposed by an independent movement of workers, such governments are reactionary. A lot of people who diss the PSL like to ignore that part but it's extremely important nonetheless.

The DPRK is seen as a socialist country that is under siege and therefore trying to keep up its standard of living...

Ancestrally (and I have this on the best of authority BTW, one of the main leaders of the PSL whom I used to be personally acquainted with) the PSL are Marcyites, i.e. closet Trotskyists. Who think Trotsky was absolutely right about absolutely everything up until he died, but now think that Trotskyism is irrelevant and that "Marxism-Leninism" is the ideology that revolutionary parties are going to have, so they pretend not to be Trotskyists. Closeted in a rather literal sense, they pretend to be "Marxist Leninists" in much the same fashion as closeted gays pretend to be straight.

But the trouble with this kind of pretense is that sooner or later, since this is ideology not sexual orientation, the mask becomes the face. As is pretty obvious from the postings of the junior PSL supporters here on Revleft, whose postings are often not the secret "party line," which comes out of the closet occasionally at auspicious moments, but not Trotskyist at all.

Marcy was a leader of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party in the 1940s and early '50s, who left the party because of his disagreement over Hungary. Whereas the SWP supported the Hungarian Revolution, Marcy decided that it was actually a counterrevolution, and that Khrushchev's suppression of the Revolution was objectively revolutionary. Which generalized quickly into the kind of politics the PSL and its twin brother party, the WWP, share.

This happened before the Sino-Soviet split, so their line on that has always been Rodney King's, i.e. why can't we all just get along? Likewise for Albania, North Korea, Cuba, etc., they would like to see one nice big "Marxist Leninist" happy family, that being "objectively revolutionary," and they want to conceal their secret Trotskyism as much as possible, so that they can be part of the family too.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

3rd April 2012, 03:12

You make it sound like Trotskyism is some revolutionary gospel. The situation in Iran really has nothing to do with Trotskyism or Stalinism. Iran is so solidly controlled by the forces of reaction that there is no real basis for any ideology which promotes secularism, let alone revolutionary leftism at the moment. In addition, it's probably fair to mention that there weren't really that many workers in Iran back then; I don't know of any specific statistics on industry though. With elevated class consciousness and the advancement of class struggle, religious convictions may fade to the background; but I don't think we can expect this to happen anytime soon.

Daft punk is kind of like the Lyndon LaRouche of Revleft at times.

"Unless you all embrace Trotskyism RIGHT NOW you are all going to DIE in thermonuclear flames!"

Grenzer, the reason your posts are so often so irritating is that you have absolutely no understanding of history. Anything that happened earlier than last week is beyond your comprehension. Your ridiculous musings about Iran being the perfect example.

Firstly, there are huge numbers of Iranians who are deathly sick of all the Islam soaking the atmosphere. This doesn't get an expression at the moment because the main bourgeois opposition, besides being pro-US, is Islamic, and secularism is associated with the Shah and the USA. So the populist measures of Ahmedinajad prop up religious attitudes in the lower classes, as most Iraninan secularists are seen, correctly, as being even more anti-working class than he is, and pro-imperialist to boot.

But that's arguable I suppose. What's not arguable is that Stalinism is 100% relevant to people in Iran, as the historic party of the Iranian working class, which in the 1950s would have taken the power except that the Soviet Union forbade it, was Tudeh, a thoroughly Stalinist party. Stalinism is in fact the traditional form working class protest took in Iran for half a century or more.

You are indeed ignorant about the Iranian working class if you think there weren't many workers in Iran in the 1950s. The percentage was about the same as in Russia in 1917, and the workers made a pretty big impact then, I seem to recall.

How do you think the oil comes out of the ground? By magic? No, the oil workers until Khomeini took power were the backbone of the Tudeh party.

Give the total disgrace in Iran of religious fundamentalism *and* Mossadegh style bourgeois nationalism *and* the current worthless pro-imperialist opposition *and* the Stalinism of Tudeh, and the revolutionary turmoil all over the Muslim world, Trotskyism is exactly suitable for the current situation in Iran, a country which is a letter-perfect example of where Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution corresponds totally to day to day Iranian reality.

So why no Trotskyism in Iran? Well, historical reasons. The main Trotskyist group which arose during the Khomeini Counterrevolution disgraced itself by being even more pro-Khomeini than the other left groups. For which the only reward they got is that they were the last one to be arrested and murdered by the secret police, after the others were wiped out first. That sure didn't help.

-M.H.-

Homo Songun

3rd April 2012, 05:09

As a Marxist-Leninist, I am quite sympathetic to the Marcyist line, insofar as their line coincides with the Marxist-Leninist line, which in itself is no small feat for the Western left, and in particular, the North America left. After all, prevailing opinion on world events in this forum (being predominately populated by the Western Left, if not the North American left as such), speaks for itself.

That said, I think it is fascinating that multiple (ex-)members of the Marcyist trend have stated in this thread even they don't know what the politics of the split was over.

Suffice to say, this is quite foreign to the Marxist-Leninist/Maoist paradigm, in which political line is usually proclaimed to be paramount. A survey of the EROL archive on marxists.org should aptly illustrate the sometimes extreme degree to which the New Communist Movement either sought out or invented political differences to justify inter-party polemics and splits.

Now, given that there is a different answer offered for every time the question is asked, it is clear to me at least that, applying Occam's Razor, the split was obviously over personality clashes or something similarly trite.

The point I want raise is not that the WWP or PSL are trite in general, because I definitely do not think that of them, but that apparently they have had the decency to not make up imaginary ideological disputes after the fact. This is unusual and to their credit. Although it obviously raises a different set of problems for them, as this thread and others like it can attest.

One final point I'd make is that for those who don't see differences in the style of work and/or political line between the WWP or PSL nowadays really aren't looking very hard. Its fairly obvious to me that there are real differences, particularly over elections, Occupy, and the antiwar movement.

Prometeo liberado

3rd April 2012, 05:54

Thanks for that Shmuel Katz. Could you elaborate on the differences you seem to see. As for the antiwar movement I can see almost no difference in ANSWER before or after the split. Please enlighten.

Grenzer

3rd April 2012, 06:08

From how closely the PSL and WWP are politically and, from what I've observed, discipline wise, I would not be surprised if they came back together someday.

I don't understand the pessimistic and defeatist attitude some are taking to Leftist parties. It seems that unless they match your complete checklist they are a piece of shit reformist/revisionist/bourgeois/stalinist/etc./etc.

The problem with this statement is that it ignores the vast history and experience of the left, which in fact suggests the opposite. Parties absorbing one another is almost unheard of, and the vast mountain of historical experience tells us that it would be optimistic to assume that such would happen; I would be surprised if they came back together. The degeneration of parts of the left is not something to be taken lightly either, as this is exactly how the communist-Soc.Democratic split began, which proved to be disastrous for the movement. It is defeatist to accept elements of the "left" whose interests are not in alignment with the working class.

The problems with Marcyism are not mere deviations or tactical differences, but a vast gulf in which the theoretical and practical differences are legion. It seems to me that Marcyism is defined by a lack of a coherent theoretical outlook and political opportunism. That's just my take on it though. Jbeard's suggestion that we dislike Marcyism "because [we're] jealous" is incredibly childish and is more fitting on a primary school playground than a forum for serious political discussion.

When it's everyone other than the Marcyites themselves being against Marcyism, then it's not mere sectarianism I'm afraid to tell you. That said, from what I've seen of the WWP members, they do seem to be marginally better than the PSL folk.

Prometeo liberado

3rd April 2012, 06:17

Jbeard's suggestion that we dislike Marcyism "because [we're] jealous" is incredibly childish and is more fitting on a primary school playground than a forum for serious political discussion.

Either you misread me or you yourself are using "incredibly childish" games to make your point. When I spoke of jealousy I did so in regards to the rapid growth in membership, funds, and notoriety. Please get your quotes correct and keep the personal games out of a thread that has not once but twice had to keep itself from derailing.

Homo Songun

3rd April 2012, 07:18

Thanks for that Shmuel Katz. Could you elaborate on the differences you seem to see. As for the antiwar movement I can see almost no difference in ANSWER before or after the split. Please enlighten.

Antiwar:

It seems to me that the post-split TONC is different in purpose/character than pre/post split ANSWER.

Occupy:

WWP has taken on Occupy in a way that PSL has not. This may be chalked up to regional peculiarities, i.e., PSL isn't as strong in NYC as WWP, but I don't think it explains the whole picture.

Elections:

ISTR that post-split WWP endorses third party candidacies other than it's own. I don't think PSL does this, although I'd be happy to be corrected on this.

I've more to say but (1) I'm not an expert on this political trend and I don't want to be on record saying something blatantly wrong and (2) I don't want to throw more chum overboard for the blindly anti-Marcyist feeding frenzy here.

That said, my observations are based on public information and anybody who closely follows the respective parties should be able to get a feel for what I'm saying.

Yazman

3rd April 2012, 08:33

Cool it guys, it's getting a bit heated in here and the last thing we need is more administrative action when there are actually some good posts in here.

If you're feeling a bit pissed off at another user in here, take a break and come back later.

Kassad

3rd April 2012, 09:00

daft punk

3rd April 2012, 15:30

Like I said earlier, I think most PSL people and their supporters will not post in this thread because of the fact that this has not been about hearing their side as much trashing their beliefs. Why would someone want to have to answer the same question on imperialism over and over? They are probably to busy doing actual street work any way.
I'd much rather trash their beliefs after hearing them first hand. The WWP/PSL are fascinating in the way they swapped from Trot to Stalinist, something unthinkable to Trots normally.

manic expression

3rd April 2012, 15:53

Let me state very clearly that I am fully aware of the political and leadership disputes/issues that led to the split, how it happened etc. However, within that story is a lot of internal information that really doesn't need to be made public.
If you're aware of that then why do you reject the idea that the split was on some level justified? Some posters in here are trying to make it seem like a bunch of WWP members woke up one morning and decided they wanted to form a new party, when in fact it was a matter of objecting to serious issues in how the WWP was running its internal affairs.

Those who became the PSL didn't like how the WWP was functioning...political differences aren't a checklist of opinions on what happened 80 years ago, they also involve how you operate as a unit.

Homo Songun

3rd April 2012, 16:49

The problem with this statement is that it ignores the vast history and experience of the left, which in fact suggests the opposite. Parties absorbing one another is almost unheard of, and the vast mountain of historical experience tells us that it would be optimistic to assume that such would happen; I would be surprised if they came back together.

If you really think that merges are unheard of you simply haven't studied the movement closely enough. I'm not a psychic so I can't say what will happen to WWP and PSL, but your sentiment seems to betray a broader confusion, that splits are always wrong and unity is always good. Sometimes unity efforts are a sign of weakness, as the latter part of history of the New Communist Movement illustrates. Max Elbaum's book focuses on the USA but it describes this correlation pretty well I think.

The degeneration of parts of the left is not something to be taken lightly either, as this is exactly how the communist-Soc.Democratic split began, which proved to be disastrous for the movement. It is defeatist to accept elements of the "left" whose interests are not in alignment with the working class.

This is plainly wrong by any standard of morality to say nothing of more crass concerns, i.e., actually seizing power. The twentieth century was the socialist century, and this would have never happened if a small group of Party types had not irrevocably split Social Democracy over the question of the senseless slaughter of millions of workers in World War 1.

KurtFF8

4th April 2012, 15:55

Ancestrally (and I have this on the best of authority BTW, one of the main leaders of the PSL whom I used to be personally acquainted with) the PSL are Marcyites, i.e. closet Trotskyists. Who think Trotsky was absolutely right about absolutely everything up until he died, but now think that Trotskyism is irrelevant and that "Marxism-Leninism" is the ideology that revolutionary parties are going to have, so they pretend not to be Trotskyists. Closeted in a rather literal sense, they pretend to be "Marxist Leninists" in much the same fashion as closeted gays pretend to be straight.

Wow...

And this is why it's unfortunate that other folks post in threads where people just want some questions answered about a party. Perhaps those folks should PM members instead of posting threads. It seems that this forum has demonstrated that it is not an atmosphere where we can have a civil conversation about simple things like "what a party's position on X and Y" are.

daft punk

4th April 2012, 16:16

Wow...

And this is why it's unfortunate that other folks post in threads where people just want some questions answered about a party. Perhaps those folks should PM members instead of posting threads. It seems that this forum has demonstrated that it is not an atmosphere where we can have a civil conversation about simple things like "what a party's position on X and Y" are.

Just answer the OP, ignore everything else. We are eagerly awaiting enlightenment. Go for it. Just do it. Go Kurt, go!

KurtFF8

5th April 2012, 17:14

I believe most of the OP questions were answered by PSL members, dp

And your condescending "We are eagerly awaiting enlightenment" doesn't make much sense in this context.

daft punk

6th April 2012, 10:44

So, you support the PSL, but are not prepared to answer the OP?

Not even one little bit of it?

No, Rusty had a go, manic was on ignore, and you said nothing. Not much to go on. I could have a go at Rusty's posts I suppose. But I dont like to pick on one person in isolation.

Maybe I could I suppose...

KurtFF8

6th April 2012, 15:01

What do you mean I'm not prepared to answer the OP? Those questions were actually answered in this thread.

And if anything this thread shows that an honest discussion of simple matters like a party's position on certain things can't be discussed on RevLeft without people who need to chime in and criticize those positions.

The OP wasn't asking "What are the PSL's positions on X Y and Z, and what are other tendencies criticisms of those positions?" They were merely asking for the former part. Yet folks like yourself felt that you had to make your voices known and as we can now see: the thread is derailed.

And the above post is yet more evidence that the majority of your posts are full of personal attacks and lacking in substance.

daft punk

6th April 2012, 15:26

What do you mean I'm not prepared to answer the OP? Those questions were actually answered in this thread.

Not by you they werent

And if anything this thread shows that an honest discussion of simple matters like a party's position on certain things can't be discussed on RevLeft without people who need to chime in and criticize those positions.

That is the point of an open forum.

The OP wasn't asking "What are the PSL's positions on X Y and Z, and what are other tendencies criticisms of those positions?" They were merely asking for the former part.

you seem desperate to avoid open debate on PSL

Yet folks like yourself felt that you had to make your voices known and as we can now see: the thread is derailed.

debating points in the OP is not a derailment. I discussed one topic only, Iran.

And the above post is yet more evidence that the majority of your posts are full of personal attacks and lacking in substance.

I asked you why you didnt take the opportunity to expound the views of your party. I was replying to your post. that was the only 'personal' bit.

I am here to debate politics. If you aren't, that's up to you, but it is the point of the forum.

KurtFF8

6th April 2012, 15:33

Not by you they werent

Right, because they were already addressed. If I had copied and pasted maniac expression's answers would you have felt better?

That is the point of an open forum.

Not necessarily. There are such things as "off topic posts" and "derailing of threads"

you seem desperate to avoid open debate on PSL

How so?

debating points in the OP is not a derailment. I discussed one topic only, Iran.

And the thread wasn't calling for a debate, but simply asking about a Party's particular views on certain issues. Debating those points is thus not relevant to the thread and is derailing.

I asked you why you didnt take the opportunity to expound the views of your party. I was replying to your post. that was the only 'personal' bit.

You wrote "We are eagerly awaiting enlightenment. Go for it. Just do it. Go Kurt, go! "

This is hardly a genuine question or attempt at discourse and is rather yet another example of smugness and condescension while making sectarian attacks on your behalf. It's getting old.

I am here to debate politics. If you aren't, that's up to you, but it is the point of the forum.

Of course that's why I'm here. But there's a difference between actual debate and cheap sectarian jabs and derailment of threads that are asking for real discourse.

daft punk

6th April 2012, 19:07

Right, because they were already addressed. If I had copied and pasted maniac expression's answers would you have felt better?

Here we go. Now you've get the debate off politics and onto personal bullshit you are more than happy to post.

Oh well.

Manic was on ignore as I pointed out so I only read one or two posts.

Not necessarily. There are such things as "off topic posts" and "derailing of threads"

Yeah, and it's you that is doing that, I am here to listen to the PSL view and give my feedback when I hear it. So far about 3 posts, non of which are from you.

How so?

It doesnt take a brain surgeon to work it out. Dont beg me to state the blatantly obvious. Because you've posted zilch despite it being on your party and despite me asking.

And the thread wasn't calling for a debate, but simply asking about a Party's particular views on certain issues. Debating those points is thus not relevant to the thread and is derailing.

Dont talk wet. It's an open forum. This thread is not of limited membership. If someone posts their version of the PSL line I have the right to question it or comment on it. For fuck's sake.

You wrote "We are eagerly awaiting enlightenment. Go for it. Just do it. Go Kurt, go! "

This is hardly a genuine question or attempt at discourse and is rather yet another example of smugness and condescension while making sectarian attacks on your behalf. It's getting old.

Interpret it how you want. I was asking for you to comment on the OP. I find it amazing that you dont want to.

Of course that's why I'm here. But there's a difference between actual debate and cheap sectarian jabs and derailment of threads that are asking for real discourse.
At least i contributed to the thread. I wrote about Iran which was part of the OP. You have contributed nothing to a thread about your own party, which is incredible. If the OP was about the CWI I would have written at least 1,000,000 words by now.

I'm really dissapointed that only 2 PSL people have posted, and with one on ignore that doesnt exactly give us much.

The whole essence of the thread seems to me to be that the PSL is quite unusual with a party line that has changed and is hard to pin down, with people posting about Trots and Stalinists in the same party and so on, so you would expect more variation of views within the PSL than most parties. So no matter how good Rusty Shacklefords views were they probably wouldnt represent all members. Plus it's not like he could have covered everything in 3 posts anyway.

Ok I'm done with this. Debate some politics or not, but I'm not discussing this derail of yours any more. Byeee.

daft punk

6th April 2012, 20:28

Kurt, dont neg rep me, especially for personal attacks, which I have not done. I hesitate to call you a liar. I think you actually believe what you write. The trouble is you and reality do not seem to actually engage. I asked for your opinion on the OP and then said I was surprised that you didnt want to write about your own party.

That is not a personal attack, ok?

Asking for your views is not an attack.

I would have attacked your views when you posted them, sure, but that isnt personal either, and you didnt give me the chance.

ellipsis

7th April 2012, 05:50

Stop derailing the thread and bickering.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

7th April 2012, 08:56

Does the PSL have a clear position about party members being in a Trade Union, Manic?

I have been thinking about this issue myself. You know, in the west the working classes have relatively high living standards. In Germany where there was huge workers labor movement in the early to middle 20th century, workers used unions to fight for higher wages, deal with the oppressors.

I have come to think that Unions are "evil", at least they seriously piss me off.
...That is not to say that i don't appreciate their achievements on a human level, but goddamit i want me my socialism now.:)

Rusty Shackleford

7th April 2012, 08:59

Members are encouraged to engage in organizing their workplaces. Not everyone can do it and for some it may be too great of a risk because of obligations to their families and so on, financially.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

7th April 2012, 08:59

(I hope this doesnt count as a de-rail) Just a sincere thought when reading.

Rusty Shackleford

7th April 2012, 09:09

Also, a disclaimer to all who read this thread. The few PSL members on revleft that are responding do not represent the entire membership definitively.

Secondly, membership posing in here are not all master theoreticians.

Thirdly, the Party has a single line, but a member's personal inclinations towards certain historical figures can vary, were not a monolithic entity that tries to hammer some sort of unified culture onto its membership(and i was referring to cult-like 'cultural' behavior, not political orientation or views on organizing and practical work) .

Quite a few of our comrades that ive talked to have never heard of Revleft. And even then, its a waste of most people's time... to be blunt and honest.

Finally, Party members are people, not robots. How members approach questions and answers vary from person to person. Answers may vary a bit from person to person as well due to different levels of udnerstanding of the party. Maybe they are new, they are supporters, candidates, been around or members for a few years, maybe they are cadre?

Our website has plenty of introductory information and basic theory on the party portion of the website, and then the news and editorial publications on the other half of the website. (the website is divided into two by selecting the toggle at the top left.)

Party for Socialism and Liberation (http://www.pslweb.org/?libnewssite=1)website

daft punk

7th April 2012, 09:40

Also, a disclaimer to all who read this thread. The few PSL members on revleft that are responding do not represent the entire membership definitively.

Well I remember 3 and Kurt refused to post on topic (or even on politics), so I assume you are saying you disagree with some of what manic has said. I have taken him off ignore now so I will re-read the thread and see what's what. Hopefully the people who ruined it will stay away now and maybe we can even discuss some politics!

Secondly, membership posing in here are not all master theoreticians.

ahem

Thirdly, the Party has a single line, but a member's personal inclinations towards certain historical figures can vary, were not a monolithic entity that tries to hammer some sort of unified culture onto its membership(and i was referring to cult-like 'cultural' behavior, not political orientation or views on organizing and practical work) .

Quite a few of our comrades that ive talked to have never heard of Revleft. And even then, its a waste of most people's time... to be blunt and honest.

Finally, Party members are people, not robots. How members approach questions and answers vary from person to person. Answers may vary a bit from person to person as well due to different levels of udnerstanding of the party. Maybe they are new, they are supporters, candidates, been around or members for a few years, maybe they are cadre?

Our website has plenty of introductory information and basic theory on the party portion of the website, and then the news and editorial publications on the other half of the website. (the website is divided into two by selecting the toggle at the top left.)

Party for Socialism and Liberation (http://www.pslweb.org/?libnewssite=1)website

Yeah you get a bit of variation in any party, but the PSL do seem to be a lot more than most. Thats if some of the posts are to believed. I'm thinking some branches are Trotskyist, some are Stalinist. An unlikely mix.

So, on Iran, forgetting the history, do you support the idea that it is progressive in opposing imperialism, as claimed by manic?

If so, what is the logic and historic justification, and how do you think a western worker would react if you said the Iranian regime was in any way progressive?

daft punk

7th April 2012, 10:21

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2399137#post2399137)
"How many facts? I have highlighted some in red."
Apparently you can't figure out how your opinions aren't the same as fact.

You see this is a classic example of why I had you on ignore, and probably soon will do again.

Here is what I said there

"In 1953 the British and Americans overthrew the government, and the Stalinist Tudeh leaders fled to Moscow.

So how did the mullahs beat the workers in 1979. The problem was the workers leaders did not understand Trotskyism. Instead they followed the false policies of Stalinism. They went for the Two Stage thing, putting socialism off the immediate agenda. They did not want to take power, did not want the working class to take power, so the mullahs took power. This is what comes of following anti-socialist propaganda from 1930s. "

How many facts? I have highlighted some in red. Your statement contained none. You did not take any of the above and try to refute it in any way. This is why you are on ignore, it is very frustrating.

You have various facts highlighted in red. If you want to say they are not true you need to provide evidence against each of these. You dont though. And you claim they are just opinions.

Did the Stalinist leaders flee to Moscow in 1953 or not? It should be easy for you to prove wrong if you already know different, as you imply.

For me to say they fled is not an opinion, it is a claim. If the claim is true it is a fact, if not it is a mistake or even a lie. Which is it?

Wikipedia says

""Many high- and middle-ranking Tudeh leaders were arrested or forced to flee the country. The arrest and execution of Khosrow Roozbeh in 1957-8 signaled the end of this process." [46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party_of_Iran#cite_note-45)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party_of_Iran
The source is:

Behrooz writing in Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Edited by Mark j. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yW2slrVAb5kC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

You can read the relevant section here, the Tudeh leaders were behind Mossadeq. I am assuming the CIA said they were plotting a revolution or something, because this section is saying they didnt have the forces or the inclination. However the book says the Tudeh could have reacted to the coup and even reversed it, as the coup only succeeded by "the narrowest of margins".

"The Tudeh had the opportunity to assassinate the Shah and the U.S. vice president but not to launch a coup." [44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party_of_Iran#cite_note-43) Maziar Behrooz is more optimistic about the party's chances of stopping the coup, saying that while "most of the Tudeh officers were in non-combat posts," they "were in a position to access and distribute weapons. In their memoirs, TPMO high- and middle-ranking members have confirmed their ability to distribute weapons and even to assassinate key Iranian leaders of the coup. Hence, with a disciplined party membership, backed by military officers with access to weapons, the Tudeh had a strong hand." [45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party_of_Iran#cite_note-44) With the TPMO decimated, the Tudeh network was compromised as the TPMO had "acted as a shield for the party" and helped preserve it immediately after Mosaddeq's overthrow. "Many high- and middle-ranking Tudeh leaders were arrested or forced to flee the country. The arrest and execution of Khosrow Roozbeh in 1957-8 signaled the end of this process." [46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party_of_Iran#cite_note-45)"
wiki article link above

Now what about the rest? Are you saying the Stalinists werent stagists? Prove it. Why would they have a different policy to other Stalinists anyway. I wont bog us down with the 1979 revolution, but

"At every single major turning point in the revolution the Tudeh leaders were miles behind their rank and file. In fact the Tudeh did not declare the situation a revolutionary one, before mid January. Instead of being at the head of the movement, the Tudeh leadership were acting as its tail. But by January the revolution was not only beginning, it was reaching or had passed its climax. To declare then that the situation of Iran was revolutionary was too little, too late. Of course there were speeches, declarations, resolutions, but curiously enough the Tudeh leaders never took any practical steps to defend an independent revolutionary stance for a united working class. Instead the Tudeh leaders took the opportunist stance of support for the "progressive" (petit) bourgeoisie in the form of the mullahs. As always with sectarians or opportunists, they face the movement of the petit bourgeois either by embracing the whole movement and subjugating the working class to it, or rejecting it all together."
http://www.marxist.com/historical-origins-of-iranian-revolution-2.htm

Do you want to prove the stuff in red incorrect? Or are you gonna reply with a oneliner?

When are you going to become a materialist?

I am a dialectical materialist. Marx rejected materialism.

Essentially, yes. Thanks for running away from yet another non-argument, it shows how your position is just more blind hot air.

Amazing how you can make such claims without blushing.

Now, the above please, line by line.

Reply with a useless oneline post with no comment and I will put you straight back on ignore.

ellipsis

7th April 2012, 14:41

Verbal warning to daft punk for off-topic flaming. Don't make me close this thread or turn this car around.

daft punk

7th April 2012, 15:58

Pathetic.

The OP asked about Iran. I have tried to discuss it. Manic has proved incapable and unwilling.

I would actually like a serious discussion on the idea that Iran is progressive because it opposes imperialism, but the only person left is Rusty Shakleford.

ellipsis

7th April 2012, 16:14

I thought this was a different Psl thread, so my bad daft punk wasn't being off topic. Warning for flaming and flame-baiting ie derailment remains. Again sorry for the mistake.

daft punk

7th April 2012, 16:16

didnt trotsky himself say it would be better to defend the pseudo fascist brazil against the british empire because the british empire was the hub of world imperialism? but no, trots today just love to attack the shit out of socialist states, write their pedantic articles on useless and dry subjects and side with imperialism on some international subjects because the thought of being even remotely associated with marxism-leninism could cause an aneurysm.

when did Trots side with imperialism?
do you think Iran is in any way progressive as claimed by manic?

Trotsky was talking about national liberation at a time when the world was still a colonial one. That is no longer the case. Britain lost it's empire after WW2. Does that make no difference?

KurtFF8

7th April 2012, 16:49

Here we go. Now you've get the debate off politics and onto personal bullshit you are more than happy to post.

Oh well.

Manic was on ignore as I pointed out so I only read one or two posts.

Him being on ignore is your issue, not mine. I'm not going to "make up" for people you have on ignore and translate what hidden messages you may have missed, that's on you

Yeah, and it's you that is doing that, I am here to listen to the PSL view and give my feedback when I hear it. So far about 3 posts, non of which are from you. So you've change your purpose of being in this thread from the last response. Before you said that "the forum is here to debate" and now all of the sudden you've had a change of heart and want "to listen"

Because you've posted zilch despite it being on your party and despite me asking. Show me a single post where you've asked me a question about my Party.

If someone posts their version of the PSL line I have the right to question it or comment on it.Of course you have "a right" to troll a thread, but that doesn't mean it's desirable.

I was asking for you to comment on the OP. I find it amazing that you dont want to. As I pointed out, the OP's questions were answered on the first page. What value would it add for me to merely repeat those answers?

You've yet to explain why you need 2 people to answer the same questions separately when one has already answered them.

If the OP was about the CWI I would have written at least 1,000,000 words by now. What on earth are you talking about?

I'm really dissapointed that only 2 PSL people have posted, and with one on ignore that doesnt exactly give us much.

You keep whining about me having not "answered the OP" yet you continue to ignore the fact that the OP's questions were answered on the first page! What has not been answered? And why do you need me to restate those answers?

You keep complaining about this yet you have yet to point to a single thing you feel hasn't been adequately dealt with.

Don't complain about failure to answer something unless you are ready to actually point out what you feel needs answering.

when did Trots side with imperialism?

Libya within the past year?

Rusty Shackleford

7th April 2012, 19:11

when did Trots side with imperialism?
do you think Iran is in any way progressive as claimed by manic?

Trotsky was talking about national liberation at a time when the world was still a colonial one. That is no longer the case. Britain lost it's empire after WW2. Does that make no difference?
First of all, whats the difference between throwing off the yoke of british imperialism in colonial times (and britain never colonized brazil of most of latin america!) and US imperialism today which is a different beast altogether?

Also, Iran is an Islamic Republic, were not fans of it because of that, but its origins are in establishing an independent iran. Along with that, Oil and other industries were nationalized and revenues went back into society through social programs. during the time of the shah, almost all of the money went to the west and some people in the royal family.

you posted a picture of iranian women who were well dressed, but im assuming since they are not wearing any religious headdress, they are free! you are also omitting the fact that during the time of the shah, and before mossadeq, oil workers in the south were literally living and working in knee-deep mud.

Now, regardless of Iran being an islamic republic, will we still defend them against US imperialism? YES! Do we think Iran is socialist? No. does oppression and exploitation still exist in iran? yes.

also, i loled when you said you would have already written a million words if this were on the CWI. instead of answering a question, you just run them into a wall of text and they forget they ever asked anything!

daft punk

7th April 2012, 19:24

Show me a single post where you've asked me a question about my Party.

I asked you several times what you views were on the issues raised in the op. Now, this is a waste of time, as usual, so, byeee..

daft punk

7th April 2012, 19:36

First of all, whats the difference between throwing off the yoke of british imperialism in colonial times (and britain never colonized brazil of most of latin america!) and US imperialism today which is a different beast altogether?

Well, one is that the US doesnt actually have an empire like the British did. Ok you could argue they sort of tried to colonise Iraq, but it's not the same as Britain owning India and so on. Plus when Trotsky said that WW2 was brewing which puts a new slant on things, Trotsky rightly saw the possibility of world revolution.

Also, Iran is an Islamic Republic, were not fans of it because of that, but its origins are in establishing an independent iran. Along with that, Oil and other industries were nationalized and revenues went back into society through social programs. during the time of the shah, almost all of the money went to the west and some people in the royal family.

I know that. 1979 was a revolution flushed down the toilet by the Stalinists. What was your party saying at the time?

you posted a picture of iranian women who were well dressed, but im assuming since they are not wearing any religious headdress, they are free! you are also omitting the fact that during the time of the shah, and before mossadeq, oil workers in the south were literally living and working in knee-deep mud.

Yeah, it was shit, that's why they had a revolution. Shame it was wasted. As for the women, if you thing the Islamic regime just makes them wear burkas you've got another think coming.

Now, regardless of Iran being an islamic republic, will we still defend them against US imperialism? YES! Do we think Iran is socialist? No. does oppression and exploitation still exist in iran? yes.

defend against imperialism is one thing, but to describe such a reactionary regime as in any way progressive just wont ring any bells with people in the west or indeed many Iranians.

also, i loled when you said you would have already written a million words if this were on the CWI. instead of answering a question, you just run them into a wall of text and they forget they ever asked anything!

Yeah. Marx wrote his whole works on a beer mat.

Rusty Shackleford

8th April 2012, 08:03

daft punk

8th April 2012, 11:02

1979 was a revolution flushed down the toiled by the stalinists? are you fucking kidding me? so the only reason that the revolution was islamist and not proletarian was because the communist organizations there decided to trash it?

A profound statement seeing as that reality has shown that the communist organizations wouldnt have been able to establish socialism if they wanted to. The only place to organize was in the mosques.

Ok, let's just look at this bit. I have already quoted an author saying that in 1953 the Tudeh party was big enough to reverse the coup that got rid of Mossadeq. You have not addressed that.

You did not answer my question about what your party was saying in 1979. Or the fact that I showed manic to be making false claims about 1953.

You did not answer the fact that I said it was Stalinist policy not to take power because of Two Stage Theory, or is that implied in the bit I highlighted in blue?

You claim that the only place to organise was the mosques. What about the factories?

You do realise that Lenin had to stay in hiding until the day after the October revolution? He still played a major part in it though. He was the most important person, or joint most with Trotsky, who was jailed for a period but managed to work openly just before the revolution.

You have ignored the fact that I have quoted and linked to two other major Trotskyist organisations saying exactly the same as me, that it was Stalinist stagism that held them back. Are you not a little curious as to whether there might be some fire behind the smoke?

Let's just pick one of these, wsws and see what they say.

Here is what I quoted, plus a bit more..

"Contemporary Iran is marked by social inequality, poverty and economic insecurity no less pronounced than under the Shah. While the regime routinely characterizes the US as the “Great Satan,” it has collaborated with the US invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The tragedy of the Iranian revolution is that the working class proved incapable of assuming a political role commensurate with its social weight in the struggle against the Shah’s dictatorship.

For this, Stalinism is entirely responsible.

The Communist Party of Iran or Tudeh Party had deep roots within the Iranian working class. In the 1940s, it emerged at the head of a mass movement, and in 1944-1947 and again in 1953, it could have challenged for power. But the Tudeh Party had been schooled by the Soviet bureaucracy in the Menshevik-Stalinist two-stage theory of revolution, which held that in countries of belated capitalist development, the working class must not aspire to any independent role, but only assist the national bourgeoisie in carrying out “its” revolution.

The Stalinists were thrown into utter confusion when in August 1953 their main bourgeois ally, the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq, bent to US pressure and called out the army to suppress mass anti-royalist demonstrations. They thus offered no resistance when the CIA engineered Mossadeq’s overthrow two days later.

Over the next 25 years, the Stalinists moved even further to the right, flirting with any general or politician who had a falling out with the Shah and reconciling themselves to the perpetuation of the Shah’s regime if only he would become a constitutional monarch.

The Soviet and Chinese Stalinist bureaucracies, meanwhile, developed extensive diplomatic and commercial relations with the Pahlavi dynasty.

If Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—who had been associated with the opposition of conservative and traditional elements to the Shah—was able to successfully recast himself in the 1970s as the foremost and most resolute opponent of the Shah’s imperialist-sponsored dictatorship, it was only due to the Stalinists’ decades-long subordination of the working class to the discredited bourgeois politicians, who regularly implored the Shah to become an enlightened despot.

The Tudeh Party was taken completely unawares by the mass eruption against the Shah’s regime in 1978-1979. Its response was to adapt to Khomeini and the mullahs. The Tudeh Party supported the creation of an Islamic Republic, continued to support the Khomeini regime even as it systematically stamped out independent working class activity, and often echoed the regime’s pseudo-leftist Islamic rhetoric."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/pers-f11.shtml

any comments?

It seems a bit weak to say that the communists couldnt organise but the mullahs could. Do you not see my point after reading the above?

The SWP says exactly the same thing

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10711

However they go into a bit more detail about 1979:

"One year later, on 16 January 1979, following months of demonstrations and a general strike, the Shah was forced to leave Iran.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 came as a surprise not just to the US ruling class but to nearly all foreign observers. How had Mohammad Reza Shah - the megalomaniac monarch who had ruled Iran with an iron fist for nearly three decades - been toppled so quickly?

How had this powerful insurrection, involving tens of millions of people, been led by a frail 76 year old Shia cleric? There is no doubt that the modern history of the Middle East would be very different had it not been for its abundance of oil. In 1908 Iran was the first country in the Middle East where oil was discovered. As Britain switched from coal to oil to fuel its battleships, intervention came in form of the Anglo-Iranian oil company. Iran received a mere £105 million of the profits in comparison to Britain's massive £700 to £800 million share.

The consequence, following a popular nationalist movement, was the election of the liberal nationalist Mohammad Mossadegh as prime minister and the nationalisation of Iranian oil in 1951. Outraged by its imperial castration, the British government immediately organised an international oil boycott before looking to the US who had replaced them as the post-war regional imperialist power. Their answer was a CIA-masterminded coup headed by Kermit Roosevelt who, arriving in Iran with suitcases stuffed with cash, toppled the popular Mossadegh from power in August 1953, reinstating the young Shah to his Peacock Throne.

Ironically, Mohammad Reza Shah used Iran's increased share of oil profits achieved by the nationalist movement (from 16 percent to 50 percent) to continue a programme of state-driven industrialisation. This process did little for the majority of Iranians. In 1960, 80 percent of Iranians were illiterate and only 1 percent had access to a medical facility. Worried by the fragility of his claim to power and frightened by rising political unrest, the Shah suppressed all political dissent and built a massive military machine, increasing his armed forces from 120,000 to around 400,000 by the time of the revolution.

Inequality and military rule were underlined by massive contradictions. Alongside new factories, forms of production existed not changed for centuries. Encircling cities, where the elite embarked on one-day shopping trips to Paris, shanty towns grew. But this process of uneven capitalist development brought into existence an indigenous bourgeoisie and a modern working class. And this came into increasingly sharp conflict with the Shah's autocratic form of rule.

By the mid-1970s opposition was coming from all sections of society - women, national minorities, the clergy, the urban poor, the bazaar (merchant capitalists), intelligentsia, students and the young. A successful uprising by shantytown dwellers to save their housing from being bulldozed in the summer of 1977 ignited a confidence in the poor and working class that precipitated new protests. The Shah's response was to increase repression. On "Black Friday", 8 September 1978, the Shah's troops armed with tanks and helicopter gunships shot live rounds at protesters in Tehran's Jaleh Square. Some 1,600 died, unaware they were violating a new curfew. But the regime would not be brought to its knees until the intervention of what was now the largest social force - the working class.

Following the massacre at Jaleh Square machine-tool workers from the city of Tabriz walked out. They were soon followed by workers at the giant steel mills in the city of Esfahan. By October workers from nearly every section of the labour force were coming out. The oil workers struck in November, causing a 10 percent drop in the world consumption of oil. The Shah's response was to send in his troops. But by December millions, including soldiers, were demonstrating against the Shah. On 31 December, only one year after Carter's toast to the Shah, a general strike brought the national economy to a halt.

If the working class was so central in the fall of the Shah, why was a socialist revolution not possible? The answer, quite simply, is that it was. Even though this was a new and inexperienced working class, the committees from the mass strikes developed quickly into factory councils known as
shoras - spontaneous organs of workers' power. Initially striking over economic grievances, they very quickly made political demands. By December 1978 they were calling explicitly for regime change.

Unfortunately the politics of the religious (Mojahedeen) and secular left (Tudeh Party and Fedaayeen) had a damaging impact on this process. With illusions in variants of Stalinism, the principal forces on the left all had one thing in common - their total lack of faith in the Iranian working class. Preferring to side with the "progressive" sections of the bourgeoisie (including Khomeini himself) the left fatally abandoned working class politics.

Lack of effective socialist leadership meant the shoras never developed into fully fledged workers' councils. Instead the lack of leadership and independent organisation in the working class opened the revolution up to other forces. And, just like previous Third World revolutions, the vacuum was filled by a new middle class - the Ayatollah Khomeini, clerics, Islamist students, doctors, lawyers and professionals."

Any comments on that?

With Stalinism there's always an excuse, not for failure, which can happen, but for not even trying.

I posted this before but nobody from the PSL has touched upon it. Yes I'm sure the Tudeh was repressed but how much? If the factory committees existed, revolution was possible, that is how revolutions start, general strikes and workplace organisations, calling for reforms and then regime change.

Do you know that rail workers stopped the army elite from travelling? Customs workers only allowed in essentials like medicines and babyfood. But you say there was nothing that could be done.

Do you know that the army was fraternising with the crowds? The regime did topple didnt it? When a regime topples, like in February 1917 for example, what would a Leninist be thinking?

Stay at home and leave it up to the mullahs?

The working class was a greater proportion of the population than it was in Russia in 1917, I have already shown that. So everything was there bar one - leadership, which the Stalinists have never offered. They are blinded by anti-Trotskyism. Permanent Revolution is what was adopted in Russia in 1917 and rejected in 1979.

Now, I have been accused throughout this thread of spouting a party line, which is a lie because I have not quoted from my own party, but now I will.

Check this:

"Instead of leading the Iranian working class in a struggle for power, the Tudeh were in the straightjacket of the Stalinist ‘two-stage’ theory. It argued that the struggle for socialism was postponed to a future date after the establishment and development of a capitalist state. Subsequently the Tudeh only called for a ‘Democratic Islamic Republic’ and rallied behind the capitalist Islamic clerics. Their leader was even nicknamed “Ayatollah”."

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3470

I ask you this question. Are they lying, mistaken, or correct? Please provide evidence if you think all three organisations I have quoted are wrong on this point.

Leftsolidarity

8th April 2012, 14:45

nice wall of text bro

Brosip Tito

8th April 2012, 15:15

nice wall of text bro
Nice one liner bro. I've seen more contribution to a thread from spambots.

Rusty Shackleford

8th April 2012, 17:34

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/09-02-11-iranian-revolution-30-years-res.html

The class character of the Islamic Republic
The Iranian revolution was not led by the most progressive forces. The left and the secular nationalist forces had been crushed by the U.S. client regime, leaving a grouping of Islamic nationalists with socially reactionary views to take the leadership of the revolution.
While solidly anti-imperialist in its orientation, the Islamic Republic has also been staunchly anti-communist. This is evident from the bloody campaign of repression carried out against leftist forces, particularly in the first decade of the revolution.
The Islamic Republic represents the capitalist class, but it is rooted in the nationalist sectors of that class. Unlike the comprador sectors of the capitalist class, which are content in selling out the country to the highest bidder, the nationalists seek to assert control over the country’s resources so that they can exploit them to their own ends.
This gives the Islamic Republic a dual character. Insofar as it oppresses the working class, it is a reactionary force. But insofar as it defends Iran’s independence from imperialist plunder, it is a progressive force.

the author of this piece is an iranian born communist who was there for the revolution in '79.

of course, this probably wont answer all of your questions, but i have work. i might be able to re-respond in 13-14 hours.

daft punk

8th April 2012, 17:50

of course, this probably wont answer all of your questions

Not really.

KurtFF8

9th April 2012, 02:11

I asked you several times what you views were on the issues raised in the op. Now, this is a waste of time, as usual, so, byeee..

And when I point out that the PSL's perspective has been demonstrated, you haven't pointed out what you feel hasn't been said.

Do you want me person opinion on the OP's questions?

Geiseric

9th April 2012, 03:29

dodger

9th April 2012, 03:48

OK can we all agree on two things?

1. Proletarian movements should not ever be subordinated to bourgeois elements who have dialectically opposed views and interests

2. Any imperialist war is to be fought against by any Communist. This does not mean "Support Ghadaffi against the Imperialists." It means "Let the Libyan people have a revolution against anybody who seeks to oppress them, be it a Dictator who represents the National Bourgeois from Libya or a Capitalist from Europe."

I tend to think, as for your example, it is more productive to leave THE Libyan people to decide their own fate within secure borders. Personally I think if we prevented or held back our own countries involvement, we would be doing them in Libya and us the greatest service. Besides, Syd, there are many chores piling up at home, gazing out of the kitchen window at next doors neglected orchard, wont get those plates clean.

Geiseric

9th April 2012, 05:23

We need to push for non interventionism from Capitalist states, that is the only thing that most people will agree with. And it's the only stance that's consistent with Marxism, that can be taken universally.

daft punk

9th April 2012, 09:24

OK can we all agree on two things?

1. Proletarian movements should not ever be subordinated to bourgeois elements who have dialectically opposed views and interests

2. Any imperialist war is to be fought against by any Communist. This does not mean "Support Ghadaffi against the Imperialists." It means "Let the Libyan people have a revolution against anybody who seeks to oppress them, be it a Dictator who represents the National Bourgeois from Libya or a Capitalist from Europe."

Unfortunatelynot, as the PSL dont agree with either of those.

1. Stalinists dont agree with

2. Not sure about Stalinists in general, the PSL dont agree with it, and also some left coms and even some Trots disagree with.

Geiseric

9th April 2012, 14:55

How can you be a communist and not be anti imperialism?

Leftsolidarity

9th April 2012, 17:39

How can you be a communist and not be anti imperialism?

No, imperialism is capitalism.

A Marxist Historian

11th April 2012, 00:36

when did Trots side with imperialism?
do you think Iran is in any way progressive as claimed by manic?

Trotsky was talking about national liberation at a time when the world was still a colonial one. That is no longer the case. Britain lost it's empire after WW2. Does that make no difference?

Why yes, huge difference. Now Britain is just a lackey of the usa, a jackal imperialist, and the imperialist country that lords over Argentina is no longer England, like before WWII when Argentina was in debt up to its neck to London banks, but the USA, which backed the Argentine junta's military coup to the hilt, in fact I'm sure the CIA was directly involved.

Which is why supporting Galtieri vs. Thatcher on an "anti-imperialist" basis makes no sense, as it was just a squabble between two lapdogs of the real big imperialist in the world, the USA. The USA being basically neutral over the Falklands, but finally, after some discussion, deciding to go with the winner.

But anyone who thinks there is any real difference between classic imperialist colonialism and modern "neo-colonialism," American style, has got another think coming

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

11th April 2012, 00:50

A Marxist Historian

11th April 2012, 00:53

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/09-02-11-iranian-revolution-30-years-res.html

the author of this piece is an iranian born communist who was there for the revolution in '79.

of course, this probably wont answer all of your questions, but i have work. i might be able to re-respond in 13-14 hours.

In short, he was one of those damn fools in Iran who destroyed the once very powerful radical movement in Iran by handing it over to Khomeini.

I suspect he is just a survivor, most of his comrades having been murdered. Which, if this was something written recently, he clearly hasn't learned much from.

-M.H.-

daft punk

11th April 2012, 16:15

Why yes, huge difference. Now Britain is just a lackey of the usa, a jackal imperialist, and the imperialist country that lords over Argentina is no longer England, like before WWII when Argentina was in debt up to its neck to London banks, but the USA, which backed the Argentine junta's military coup to the hilt, in fact I'm sure the CIA was directly involved.

Which is why supporting Galtieri vs. Thatcher on an "anti-imperialist" basis makes no sense, as it was just a squabble between two lapdogs of the real big imperialist in the world, the USA. The USA being basically neutral over the Falklands, but finally, after some discussion, deciding to go with the winner.

But anyone who thinks there is any real difference between classic imperialist colonialism and modern "neo-colonialism," American style, has got another think coming

-M.H.-

But America is not Britain. And also, according to your logic here you seem to contradict what you say below. If America now is the same as Britain in 1938, are you saying Trotsky was wrong to back Brazil at that time?

KurtFF8

11th April 2012, 17:31

Unfortunatelynot, as the PSL dont agree with either of those.

1. Stalinists dont agree with

2. Not sure about Stalinists in general, the PSL dont agree with it, and also some left coms and even some Trots disagree with.

More empty jabs and rhetoric. These kinds of attacks aren't productive or even accurate.

daft punk

12th April 2012, 08:55

"Originally Posted by Syd Barrett http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2410117#post2410117)
OK can we all agree on two things?

1. Proletarian movements should not ever be subordinated to bourgeois elements who have dialectically opposed views and interests

2. Any imperialist war is to be fought against by any Communist. This does not mean "Support Ghadaffi against the Imperialists." It means "Let the Libyan people have a revolution against anybody who seeks to oppress them, be it a Dictator who represents the National Bourgeois from Libya or a Capitalist from Europe." "

"Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2410439#post2410439)
Unfortunately not, as the PSL dont agree with either of those.

1. Stalinists dont agree with

2. Not sure about Stalinists in general, the PSL dont agree with it, and also some left coms and even some Trots disagree with. "

More empty jabs and rhetoric. These kinds of attacks aren't productive or even accurate.

No, it is not empty jabs, rhetoric, inaccurate or unproductive. If is fact and all facts are useful and important.

1. The Stalinists tried to subordinate proletarian movements to bourgeois interests. This was the policy of Two Stage Theory and Popular Fronts. You should know this basic stuff. I suggest you google them.

For example, at the end of WW2 both Mao and Stalin wanted China to be capitalist. Do you dispute that fact?

2. The PSL does support people like Gaddafi against imperialism. For example you delegated manic expressive to speak on your behalf, and he described the Libyan regime as progressive in that they opposed American imperialism.

PSL support Gaddafi:
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/libya-and-the-united-front.html

"But as the bombs rain down on Tripoli, some groups have issued statements that are as anti-Gaddafi as they are anti-intervention."

I stand by my comments. Support yours or retract.

Leftsolidarity

12th April 2012, 14:58

he described the Libyan regime as progressive in that they opposed American imperialism.

Because it is. How is this concept hard to understand? Forces can be reactionary and progressive when they are in different circumstances. When surpressing the working class and its interests, it is reactionary. When fighting against imperialism for self-determination, it is progressive.

Unless you want to say that imperialism isn't that bad and self-determination isn't needed.

KurtFF8

12th April 2012, 17:29

No, it is not empty jabs, rhetoric, inaccurate or unproductive. If is fact and all facts are useful and important.

Cute, but your claim to have a monopoly on the "facts" is just absurd.

1. The Stalinists tried to subordinate proletarian movements to bourgeois interests. This was the policy of Two Stage Theory and Popular Fronts. You should know this basic stuff. I suggest you google them.

For example, at the end of WW2 both Mao and Stalin wanted China to be capitalist. Do you dispute that fact? What does any of this have to do with this thread? Like most of your posts, this is off topic

2. The PSL does support people like Gaddafi against imperialism. For example you delegated manic expressive to speak on your behalf, and he described the Libyan regime as progressive in that they opposed American imperialism.

PSL support Gaddafi:
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/libya-and-the-united-front.html

"But as the bombs rain down on Tripoli, some groups have issued statements that are as anti-Gaddafi as they are anti-intervention."

I stand by my comments. Support yours or retract.How does that quote equate to praise for Gaddafi exactly? The PSL first and foremost was about opposing intervention. The attempts to link our anti-intervention stance to a "pro-Gaddafi stance" are appealing to the exact same logic that folks used to discredit the anti-Iraq War protesters as "pro-Saddam." It's dishonest and untrue. For someone so worried about "facts" you seem to overlook them when they are inconvenient to your story.

And I didn't designate anyone to "speak for me." You (as usual) are ignoring what I've asked you: what do you want me to answer about the PSL that you feel has gone unanswered? It's a pretty straight forward question, why do you keep dodging it?

daft punk

12th April 2012, 18:54

[QUOTE=daft punk;2413767] he described the Libyan regime as progressive in that they opposed American imperialism. [QUOTE]

Because it is. How is this concept hard to understand? Forces can be reactionary and progressive when they are in different circumstances. When surpressing the working class and its interests, it is reactionary. When fighting against imperialism for self-determination, it is progressive.

Unless you want to say that imperialism isn't that bad and self-determination isn't needed.

What exactly is Iran doing that is progressive? Specifically? List the actual specific progressive things this regime has done to oppose American imperialism. What are they? A baby step towards a nuke? Some anti-American words? Helping some of the Shia in Iraq? What exactly?

Socialists should obviously oppose imperialist aggression against Iran. But that doesnt mean calling the regime progressive in any way. The regime needs to be overthrown by it's people.

daft punk

12th April 2012, 19:39

Cute, but your claim to have a monopoly on the "facts" is just absurd.

What does any of this have to do with this thread? Like most of your posts, this is off topic

Here we go again. The usual vague statements with no actual substance of any kind, no political content.

I agreed with Syd's comments about subordinating proletarian movements to the bourgeois, I said it was Stalinist policy. You deny it. I challenged you to support or retract. You cannot, so you have to make these vague meaningless noises to avoid tackling the subject.

How does that quote equate to praise for Gaddafi exactly?

It is perfectly clear from what I just pasted and the general tone and content of their articles. And I said support not praise.

The PSL first and foremost was about opposing intervention. The attempts to link our anti-intervention stance to a "pro-Gaddafi stance" are appealing to the exact same logic that folks used to discredit the anti-Iraq War protesters as "pro-Saddam." It's dishonest and untrue.

I just fucking quoted the PSL.

For someone so worried about "facts" you seem to overlook them when they are inconvenient to your story.

Analyse the quote and deal with the point no.1.

And I didn't designate anyone to "speak for me." You (as usual) are ignoring what I've asked you: what do you want me to answer about the PSL that you feel has gone unanswered? It's a pretty straight forward question, why do you keep dodging it?
All of it, in your own words, from scratch.

I dunno why you reply to may posts, put some content in ffs. Actually there is a bit in this one, that you disagree that the PSL supported Gadaffi. But you need to read the quote properly.

"But as the bombs rain down on Tripoli, some groups have issued statements that are as anti-Gaddafi as they are anti-intervention."

Shock horror!

It is expressing strong disagreement with the notion that Gaddafi is as bad as the western intervention. This amounts to support for Gaddafi.

Basically what the PSL does is make a disclaimer (Gaddafi is a dictator) and then proceed each time to bias very heavily towards him:

"

No participation in the war-makers’ demonization campaign. In every war hysteria and so-called “humanitarian intervention,” the preferred tactic of the war-makers is to portray the leader of the targeted nation as the devil, an embodiment of pure evil. Politicians and the corporate media repeat this singular message, which always includes outright fabrication and usually a large dose of racism, minute-by-minute, until it is accepted as truth. If our anti-war literature can momentarily recapture the public’s attention amid the war hysteria, our slogans and key message should counter the corporate media, not participate in their demonization campaign.

So as to be explicit: these points of unity do not require a particular position on Muammar Gaddafi. On the ‘Eyewitness Libya’ tour, some speakers expressed admiration for Gaddafi’s support of the African Union, or the development of the Libyan welfare state. We do not have to have an identical view of Gaddafi to whole-heartedly organize alongside one another."

"an embodiment of pure evil" .....'might as well say 'he aint that bad really'

"Far too many “leftist” and “anti-war” groups have nothing visible on their websites about Libya. Far too few have passed out a single leaflet against the war. This is unfortunate because many young people joined such organizations in recent years precisely because of their hatred for imperialist wars. But as the bombs rain down on Tripoli, some groups have issued statements that are as anti-Gaddafi as they are anti-intervention. Some have instead spent much of their time writing vitriolic and dishonest articles against those of us who have been out in front denouncing the intervention. For such “centrist” groups, their top priority is keeping their own politics acceptable to bourgeois public opinion. These “balanced” statements serve only for self-definition—a registering of one’s “position on Libya”—but are not designed to fight the imperialists’ agitation. Their extreme opportunism does nothing to rebuild the anti-war movement, but allows them to join with the capitalist media to say, “We too condemn the enemy.” These so-called socialists and the capitalist ruling class share a common enemy: the Libyan government. Both want regime change in Libya. Both want the rebels to win. What we need now are straight-forward slogans against the bombing of Libya, and a message that exposes the corporate demonization of Gaddafi as nothing more than a war tactic."

Now, I assume you can fathom what your own party is saying there. If you can read, the message is loud and clear. Support for Gaddafi.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Muammar_al-Gaddafi_at_the_AU_summit.jpg/220px-Muammar_al-Gaddafi_at_the_AU_summit.jpg

KurtFF8

12th April 2012, 19:51

Here we go again. The usual vague statements with no actual substance of any kind, no political content.

I agreed with Syd's comments about subordinating proletarian movements to the bourgeois, I said it was Stalinist policy. You deny it. I challenged you to support or retract. You cannot, so you have to make these vague meaningless noises to avoid tackling the subject.

I didn't "deny" it, I asked how it has anything to do with the PSL. You are the one avoiding subjects here. What Stalinist policy of the earlier 20th century has to do with the PSL is beyond me. But you see Stalin in your soup so I suppose that's why you're unable to discuss anything else.

It is perfectly clear from what I just pasted and the general tone and content of their articles. And I said support not praise. Ah, so you can't find anything that backs your claim so you appeal to "the tone." Give me a break.

I just fucking quoted the PSL.You also just fucking failed to make a point with that quote.

I dunno why you reply to may posts, put some content in ffs. Actually there is a bit in this one, that you disagree that the PSL supported Gadaffi. But you need to read the quote properly.

"But as the bombs rain down on Tripoli, some groups have issued statements that are as anti-Gaddafi as they are anti-intervention."

Shock horror!

I'm sure what you mean by "read the quote properly" is "read the quote in the way that I read the quote" which is childish to say the least. This quote does not prove your point.

It is expressing strong disagreement with the notion that Gaddafi is as bad as the western intervention. This amounts to support for Gaddafi. And this is the key word "This amounts to support for Gaddafi." So in other words, you are reading into and projecting your political point onto that statement.

Basically what the PSL does is make a disclaimer (Gaddafi is a dictator) and then proceed each time to bias very heavily towards him:

"No participation in the war-makers’ demonization campaign. In every war hysteria and so-called “humanitarian intervention,” the preferred tactic of the war-makers is to portray the leader of the targeted nation as the devil, an embodiment of pure evil. Politicians and the corporate media repeat this singular message, which always includes outright fabrication and usually a large dose of racism, minute-by-minute, until it is accepted as truth. If our anti-war literature can momentarily recapture the public’s attention amid the war hysteria, our slogans and key message should counter the corporate media, not participate in their demonization campaign. So as to be explicit: these points of unity do not require a particular position on Muammar Gaddafi. On the ‘Eyewitness Libya’ tour, some speakers expressed admiration for Gaddafi’s support of the African Union, or the development of the Libyan welfare state. We do not have to have an identical view of Gaddafi to whole-heartedly organize alongside one another."

"an embodiment of pure evil" .....'might as well say 'he aint that bad really'

"Far too many “leftist” and “anti-war” groups have nothing visible on their websites about Libya. Far too few have passed out a single leaflet against the war. This is unfortunate because many young people joined such organizations in recent years precisely because of their hatred for imperialist wars. But as the bombs rain down on Tripoli, some groups have issued statements that are as anti-Gaddafi as they are anti-intervention. Some have instead spent much of their time writing vitriolic and dishonest articles against those of us who have been out in front denouncing the intervention. For such “centrist” groups, their top priority is keeping their own politics acceptable to bourgeois public opinion. These “balanced” statements serve only for self-definition—a registering of one’s “position on Libya”—but are not designed to fight the imperialists’ agitation. Their extreme opportunism does nothing to rebuild the anti-war movement, but allows them to join with the capitalist media to say, “We too condemn the enemy.” These so-called socialists and the capitalist ruling class share a common enemy: the Libyan government. Both want regime change in Libya. Both want the rebels to win. What we need now are straight-forward slogans against the bombing of Libya, and a message that exposes the corporate demonization of Gaddafi as nothing more than a war tactic."

Now, I assume you can fathom what your own party is saying there. If you can read, the message is loud and clear. Support for Gaddafi.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Muammar_al-Gaddafi_at_the_AU_summit.jpg/220px-Muammar_al-Gaddafi_at_the_AU_summit.jpg

And once again, nothing you have said proves your point. Pointing out the demonetization of Gaddafi by the West is to point to a contradiction in the West: they demonized Gaddafi while supporting Bahrain and Mubarak. This is quite a valid point.

You just want the PSL to be a "supporter of bad things" so bad that you are trying to project things into our analysis that aren't really there.

Since you're unable to find any quotes that "prove your point" you have to appeal to the "tone" of our articles, or what is "implicit" in them. Why? Because you can't actually find articles that show us "supporting Gaddafi" in the way you claim we did.

As a matter of fact, one of the things you quoted quite clearly points out that we "don't have to share the views of Gaddafi to work with pro-Gaddafi folks." In other words: your attempt at painting us as "pro-Gaddafi" is quite weak.

daft punk

12th April 2012, 20:17

And once again, nothing you have said proves your point. Pointing out the demonetization of Gaddafi by the West is to point to a contradiction in the West: they demonized Gaddafi while supporting Bahrain and Mubarak. This is quite a valid point.

Pointing out inconsistencies and hypocrisy in the west is a different story, we were doing that. However your articles always lean heavily over to the support of people like Gaddafi.

"Human rights groups: charges against Gaddafi unsupported by evidence"

http://pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/charges-against-gadaffi-unfounded.html

and so on. We just had manic expression saying how progressive the Iranian regime was in it's opposition to imperialism.

You just want the PSL to be a "supporter of bad things" so bad that you are trying to project things into our analysis that aren't really there.

Why would I want that? I just state the facts. It is unfortunate that so many socialist parties have lost the plot like yours.

http://pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/charges-against-gadaffi-unfounded.html

and so on. We just had manic expression saying how progressive the Iranian regime was in it's opposition to imperialism.

Since you're unable to find any quotes that "prove your point" you have to appeal to the "tone" of our articles, or what is "implicit" in them. Why? Because you can't actually find articles that show us "supporting Gaddafi" in the way you claim we did.

I just posted plenty

As a matter of fact, one of the things you quoted quite clearly points out that we "don't have to share the views of Gaddafi to work with pro-Gaddafi folks." In other words: your attempt at painting us as "pro-Gaddafi" is quite weak.
lol

Human rights groups: charges against Gaddafi unsupported by evidence

http://pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/charges-against-gadaffi-unfounded.html

watch you dont trip over rushing to defend Gaddafi.

Fact is you were attacking the rebels from the start, but at the start the rebels were not in favour of NATO intervention. It was later that the middle class elements won leadership and also circumstances were harder, so they called on the UN to intervene.

It's always amusing to see the sects bashing each other. Here's the SWP:

"As madman Muammar el-Qaddafi ranted in his bunker about al-Qaeda slipping hallucinogens into young people's coffee in order to make them rebel, the Workers World Party (WWP) and Party for Liberation and Socialism (PSL) refused to take a stand with the Libyan people against a dictator. These two organizations, part of the same group until 2004, have long accepted the Libyan dictatorship's claim to be progressive and anti-imperialist in spite of the corruption of the country's tiny elite around Qaddafi and the savagery of the regime's police-state repression and violence--now on sickening display for all the world to see."

http://socialistworker.org/2011/02/28/taking-sides-about-libya

Even the SWP got it right at the time. I suggest you read that article, it is a general critique of the PSL/WWP

Kassad

12th April 2012, 20:32

I've still yet to have a single person point out political differences between WWP and PSL.

A Marxist Historian

12th April 2012, 21:55

But America is not Britain. And also, according to your logic here you seem to contradict what you say below. If America now is the same as Britain in 1938, are you saying Trotsky was wrong to back Brazil at that time?

Both America and Britain are and were, obviously, imperialist countries. But after WWII, Britain became a jackal imperialist, thoroughly dependent on its "special relationship" with the USA, with Blair in particular famously becoming "Bush's poodle."

Now, Argentina has never had much luck at imperialism, but in the 1980s was if anything even more dependent on its American "ally" in the fight vs. workers, radicals and leftists than England was. Ever seen "State of Siege"? Haig preferred Argentina to England as he saw the Argentine junta as being more right wing, anti-communist and anti-Soviet than England was even under Thatcher. So there was no reason to back either side.

I don't see how Trotsky could have been wrong to want to defend Brazil vs. the British bankers in 1938. If anything, you probably had more British investment in Brazil than American back then. And Brazil being pro-Hitler was irrelevant, as German imperial presence in Latin America was nearly nonexistent.

Though Central America and the Caribbean were essentially under US rule back then, with the marines landing in dozens of countries, continental Latin America was then still under divided imperial ownership, with the British probably having more influence, investment and control than the US did. WWII of course changed all that.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

12th April 2012, 22:01

[QUOTE=daft punk;2413767] he described the Libyan regime as progressive in that they opposed American imperialism. [QUOTE]

Because it is. How is this concept hard to understand? Forces can be reactionary and progressive when they are in different circumstances. When surpressing the working class and its interests, it is reactionary. When fighting against imperialism for self-determination, it is progressive.

Unless you want to say that imperialism isn't that bad and self-determination isn't needed.

Qaddafi was hardly "progressive," whatever this non-Marxist, classless term means, nor was he anti-imperialist by the time he was toppled. Close friend of Berlusconi, helped the US "anti-terrorist" campaign, and one of his main propaganda ploys vs. the opposition was that they were all Al Quaida terrorists.

So why then did the US topple him? Lese majeste essentially. Yes, he was licking the American boot, but in times past he had not, and the imperialists have long memories.

Also, "Western" support for the "Libyan Revolution" was a marvelous way to help coopt the "Arab Spring" into a tool for Western imperial domination. With a lot of help from stupid leftists of course.

Thus, it was only after the fall of Qaddafi that the opposition movement in Syria started calling for Western military support.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

12th April 2012, 22:08

...

"But as the bombs rain down on Tripoli, some groups have issued statements that are as anti-Gaddafi as they are anti-intervention."

Shock horror!

It is expressing strong disagreement with the notion that Gaddafi is as bad as the western intervention. This amounts to support for Gaddafi.

Daft, this is a good example of what's wrong with your postings.

Does the PSL deserve criticism for calling Qaddafi a "progressive" etc. etc.? Yes.

But what the hell is wrong with the above statement by the PSL? Nothing that I can see.

With bombs raining down on Tripoli and the imperialists murdering innocent Libyan civilians, that's not the right moment for fervent denunciations of Qaddafi.

Not only was that statement technically politically correct, there was nothing wrong with its tone either.

-M.H.-

Basically what the PSL does is make a disclaimer (Gaddafi is a dictator) and then proceed each time to bias very heavily towards him:

"

No participation in the war-makers’ demonization campaign. In every war hysteria and so-called “humanitarian intervention,” the preferred tactic of the war-makers is to portray the leader of the targeted nation as the devil, an embodiment of pure evil. Politicians and the corporate media repeat this singular message, which always includes outright fabrication and usually a large dose of racism, minute-by-minute, until it is accepted as truth. If our anti-war literature can momentarily recapture the public’s attention amid the war hysteria, our slogans and key message should counter the corporate media, not participate in their demonization campaign.
So as to be explicit: these points of unity do not require a particular position on Muammar Gaddafi. On the ‘Eyewitness Libya’ tour, some speakers expressed admiration for Gaddafi’s support of the African Union, or the development of the Libyan welfare state. We do not have to have an identical view of Gaddafi to whole-heartedly organize alongside one another."

"an embodiment of pure evil" .....'might as well say 'he aint that bad really'

"Far too many “leftist” and “anti-war” groups have nothing visible on their websites about Libya. Far too few have passed out a single leaflet against the war. This is unfortunate because many young people joined such organizations in recent years precisely because of their hatred for imperialist wars. But as the bombs rain down on Tripoli, some groups have issued statements that are as anti-Gaddafi as they are anti-intervention. Some have instead spent much of their time writing vitriolic and dishonest articles against those of us who have been out in front denouncing the intervention. For such “centrist” groups, their top priority is keeping their own politics acceptable to bourgeois public opinion. These “balanced” statements serve only for self-definition—a registering of one’s “position on Libya”—but are not designed to fight the imperialists’ agitation. Their extreme opportunism does nothing to rebuild the anti-war movement, but allows them to join with the capitalist media to say, “We too condemn the enemy.” These so-called socialists and the capitalist ruling class share a common enemy: the Libyan government. Both want regime change in Libya. Both want the rebels to win. What we need now are straight-forward slogans against the bombing of Libya, and a message that exposes the corporate demonization of Gaddafi as nothing more than a war tactic."

Now, I assume you can fathom what your own party is saying there. If you can read, the message is loud and clear. Support for Gaddafi.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Muammar_al-Gaddafi_at_the_AU_summit.jpg/220px-Muammar_al-Gaddafi_at_the_AU_summit.jpg

TheGodlessUtopian

12th April 2012, 22:14

No, imperialism is capitalism.

True, but it is important to remember that Imperialism, as defined by Lenin, is the highest stage of capitalism.

KurtFF8

12th April 2012, 22:30

Pointing out inconsistencies and hypocrisy in the west is a different story, we were doing that. However your articles always lean heavily over to the support of people like Gaddafi.

"Human rights groups: charges against Gaddafi unsupported by evidence"

http://pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/charges-against-gadaffi-unfounded.html

More of what I said previously: you must read implications into this instead of explicit quotes (since you're unable to find those)

Why would I want that? I just state the facts. It is unfortunate that so many socialist parties have lost the plot like yours.

And in this case your "facts" completley fail to support your claims.

I just posted plenty

No, you posted things that you have to try to explain was secretly pro-Gaddafi rhetoric covered in anti-imerpialist rhetoric. This seems to be the furthest you're able to actually go. You can't find any actual "support" so you have to read into it (and are failing)

watch you dont trip over rushing to defend Gaddafi.

Fact is you were attacking the rebels from the start, but at the start the rebels were not in favour of NATO intervention. It was later that the middle class elements won leadership and also circumstances were harder, so they called on the UN to intervene.

No, from the start the PSL cautioned about jumping right into supporting the rebels. Then as events progressed, it became quite clear that the rebels were not fighting in favor of the Libyan people. If this is not clear at this point, that's quite sad.

It's always amusing to see the sects bashing each other. Here's the SWP:

"As madman Muammar el-Qaddafi ranted in his bunker about al-Qaeda slipping hallucinogens into young people's coffee in order to make them rebel, the Workers World Party (WWP) and Party for Liberation and Socialism (PSL) refused to take a stand with the Libyan people against a dictator. These two organizations, part of the same group until 2004, have long accepted the Libyan dictatorship's claim to be progressive and anti-imperialist in spite of the corruption of the country's tiny elite around Qaddafi and the savagery of the regime's police-state repression and violence--now on sickening display for all the world to see."

http://socialistworker.org/2011/02/28/taking-sides-about-libya

And how is the socialist worker a valid source about our stance? They constantly build straw man arguments against the PSL so this hardly counts as one of your "facts."

And their stance was that our caution against supporting the rebels was "opposition to the Libyan people" which is absurd. What they meant by "supporting the Libyan people" was supporting those groups attempting to overthrow the government. And those groups ended up being the very ones to call for NATO support and have done awful things in post-Gaddafi Libya. How was the PSL's analysis flawed here again?

Even the SWP got it right at the time. I suggest you read that article, it is a general critique of the PSL/WWP

The article you just cited is from the ISO, not the SWP. And how were they right at the time? They were supporting the groups that made intervention possible! I have read the article, and it's quite flawed.

You have completley failed to show where the PSL "supported" Gaddafi a "praising sort" of way. The PSL focused on opposing NATO, as did just about every other group (including the ones who had originally criticized us for cautioning against the rebels!) Does that mean they "supported Gaddafi" as well?

Again you're using the same logic that people said in 2003: opposing the US war in Iraq equals "supporting Saddam Hussein!" This is simply absurd, and is the exact same argument I'm hearing from you about Libya.

I've still yet to have a single person point out political differences between WWP and PSL.

Haven't you said many times on this website that you were privy to the top internal discussions and all that of the PSL? I've even seen you reference quite explicitly what you see as the reasons for the split.

There is of course little direct political line difference between the groups, the major differences are over organizing strategies and techniques (at least in my experience).

MustCrushCapitalism

13th April 2012, 04:24

This thread has seemingly changed topics quite a bit...

I've emailed the PSL regarding a few questions and also asked questions in the PSL group here on RevLeft, seeing as it's a bit easier to get a response without a sectarian war that way.

And I'm absolutely with the PSL on calling Gaddafi a progressive. He's certainly not any kind of Marxist or socialist, but he's much, much better than the reactionary rebels that NATO have been backing. The Libyan "Revolution" was no popular uprising and it only makes sense to [have] support[ed] Moammar Gaddafi against it.

Rusty Shackleford

13th April 2012, 06:35

I've still yet to have a single person point out political differences between WWP and PSL.
guess what, i dont really give a fuck if the PSL and WWP have similar lines. we have a similar line as the FRSO-FB too! (and its already been said, they are similar lines!)

im more interested in being engaged in various areas of work than fretting over my party's orientation to other parties on a national scale, especially since im not in a position where i decide said orientation on a national scale. Maybe when the party congress comes around, but other than that, im not going to waste my time, especially since the WWP and FRSO-FB are pretty much non-existant on the west coast.

and yes, i know im not being civil.

daft punk

13th April 2012, 09:24

More of what I said previously: you must read implications into this instead of explicit quotes (since you're unable to find those)

And in this case your "facts" completley fail to support your claims.

No, you posted things that you have to try to explain was secretly pro-Gaddafi rhetoric covered in anti-imerpialist rhetoric. This seems to be the furthest you're able to actually go. You can't find any actual "support" so you have to read into it (and are failing)

"But as the bombs rain down on Tripoli, some groups have issued statements that are as anti-Gaddafi as they are anti-intervention."

This opposes the idea that Gaddafi is as bad as intervention. Therefore it says Gaddafi is better than intervention. It does not oppose intervention and Gaddafi equally. Therefore it offers relative support to Gaddafi. Nowhere do the PSL ever call for the overthrow of Gaddafi.

No, from the start the PSL cautioned about jumping right into supporting the rebels. Then as events progressed, it became quite clear that the rebels were not fighting in favor of the Libyan people. If this is not clear at this point, that's quite sad.

From the start the PSL refused to support the rebels, even though initially the rebels were opposed to intervention. At the time, the PSL was wrong to do that.

What you were doing was pouring cold water on a revolution in it's early stages. This means doing the job of the bourgeoisie for them, putting out anti-working class propaganda. Imagine if in 1917 people had been saying 'Lenin is a lawyer and Trotsky is the son of a kulak'.

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/libya-and-the-arab-revolt-in.html

"At present, the revolt has not produced any organizational form or leader that would make it possible to characterize it politically."

What is that supposed to mean?

You first article on Libya denounces the rebels and then goes on to list all the wonderful accomplishments of Gaddafi - "illiteracy was almost completely wiped out", "provided significant aid to neighboring states and to national liberation movements around the world" (you mean like terrorists?), "still ranked the highest among African countries in the Human Development Index—which includes such factors as living conditions, life expectancy and education", "profound economic and social development, including in the fields of education, health care, nutrition, and a massive water project".

But the big bad west said uncle Gaddafi was a nasty man, and "demonized, sanctioned and attacked" Libya. "President Reagan ordered the bombing of downtown Tripoli in an attempt to assassinate Gaddafi. Gaddafi survived, but his infant daughter and more than 300 others were killed this murderous assault". Poor old Gaddafi.

Not one mention of socialism, revolution, nothing.

Here is the CWI article
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4884

Gaddafi must go! It’s a fight to the finish

28/02/2011
Masses reject foreign intervention as towns fall to opposition

"Sensing the way in which the struggle in Libya is likely to conclude, Western powers are now quickly publicly shedding their cosy links with the brutal Gaddafi regime. They are exploiting their past hostility to Gaddafi to present themselves as being on the side of the “people”, something they do not do in regard to the semi-feudal regimes of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The imperialists are scrambling to influence a post-Gaddafi regime, to ensure continuing preferential and lucrative Western big business access to Libya’s oil fields and to safeguard imperialist interests in a vital geo-strategic region. The US, in particular, is terrified that the Libyan events could be emulated in oil-rich Saudi Arabia, where youth on the internet are calling 11 March the day of “revolution”."

"Amongst the Libyan masses, who are well aware of their history of opposition to colonialism, there is opposition to another imperialist intervention in the region. “Despite the heavy sacrifice they are offering every day, Libyans utterly reject any foreign intervention, even for their defence and protection,” writes Mahmoud Al-Nakou, a Libyan author (Guardian 28/02/11). “The people are adamant that this revolution is theirs alone.”"

"For the revolution to win its goals – for real democratic rights and a transformation in living standards – it needs democratically-elected committees that truly represent the interests of the mass of working people, youth and the poor, in the neighbourhoods, workplaces and colleges, linked up at local, regional and national levels. Building committees within the forces of the state is also vital. Putting forward democratic demands as well as those needed to assure decent living standards, such a movement can appeal to the masses of Tripoli to rise up against Gaddafi’s last stronghold.
The masses armed, under democratic control, can defend themselves against Gaddafi’s forces, march on his last bases of support, and sweep away the dictator and his entire regime while preventing the country once again falling under foreign control.
Such a mass movement would immediately introduce full democratic rights and oversee elections to a revolutionary constituent assembly. A government representing the interests of workers and small farmers would take the oil fields into public ownership, and other major planks of the economy, under democratic workers’ control and management. This would ensure that the country’s huge natural riches serve the majority of society not only an elite around the corrupt Gaddafi family and giant multi-national companies.
To ensure this, mass organisations of the working class need to be formed, including independent unions and a mass party of the working class, with bold socialist policies. Such mass class organisations would oppose not just Gaddafi and the remnants of his regime but all pro-capitalist and reactionary forces in Libya and meddling imperialism."

See the difference? For you there is never a chance of socialism. For Trotskyists there is always the possibility, always worth pointing out what tasks are needed to be accomplished.

And how is the socialist worker a valid source about our stance? They constantly build straw man arguments against the PSL so this hardly counts as one of your "facts."

And their stance was that our caution against supporting the rebels was "opposition to the Libyan people" which is absurd. What they meant by "supporting the Libyan people" was supporting those groups attempting to overthrow the government. And those groups ended up being the very ones to call for NATO support and have done awful things in post-Gaddafi Libya. How was the PSL's analysis flawed here again?

see above. You wrote off a revolution. A revolution would have appealed to the workers in the towns Gaddafi controlled. If those workers had joined in, then they wouldnt have needed foreign help. It's class character could have been working class.

On their own, the rebels would inevitably turn to NATO and so middle class leaders would consolidate power and bring Libya into the US sphere of influence.

The way to combat that is not to denounce the rebels in advance like you did, and isolate them, driving them into the arms of American capitalists, but to call for a socialist revolution throughout Iraq, to separate the rebels from America.

The article you just cited is from the ISO, not the SWP. And how were they right at the time? They were supporting the groups that made intervention possible! I have read the article, and it's quite flawed.

You have completley failed to show where the PSL "supported" Gaddafi a "praising sort" of way. The PSL focused on opposing NATO, as did just about every other group (including the ones who had originally criticized us for cautioning against the rebels!) Does that mean they "supported Gaddafi" as well?

Again you're using the same logic that people said in 2003: opposing the US war in Iraq equals "supporting Saddam Hussein!" This is simply absurd, and is the exact same argument I'm hearing from you about Libya.

See above. It is not the same. I was on the big anti-war demo in 2003. Nobody saw that as supporting Saddam. Only a few morons on the right.

Ok I'm bored with this argument now, just stick to this....why did you never talk about socialist revolution re Libya? Compare your article with ours.

Oh I just remembered. You are Stalinists.

daft punk

13th April 2012, 09:27

And I'm absolutely with the PSL on calling Gaddafi a progressive. He's certainly not any kind of Marxist or socialist, but he's much, much better than the reactionary rebels that NATO have been backing. The Libyan "Revolution" was no popular uprising and it only makes sense to [have] support[ed] Moammar Gaddafi against it.

Lol. Kurt, are you reading this? The OP wanted to know about the PSL. It appears he understands them better than you do!

daft punk

13th April 2012, 09:35

Lets play the word search game

search for socialist

Liberation News ...100

Socialist World 24,400

search for socialist and Libya

Liberation news ....3

Socialist World 6,790

daft punk

13th April 2012, 09:42

Kurt. In April 1917 all the Bolshevik central committee except Lenin (as far as I know) were conditionally supporting the Provisional Government.

In October they overthrew the PG.

This was down to Lenin and Trotsky, who had the theory, knowledge, desire ability and character to lead a socialist revolution.

Kassad

13th April 2012, 15:28

guess what, i dont really give a fuck if the PSL and WWP have similar lines. we have a similar line as the FRSO-FB too! (and its already been said, they are similar lines!)

im more interested in being engaged in various areas of work than fretting over my party's orientation to other parties on a national scale, especially since im not in a position where i decide said orientation on a national scale. Maybe when the party congress comes around, but other than that, im not going to waste my time, especially since the WWP and FRSO-FB are pretty much non-existant on the west coast.

and yes, i know im not being civil.

It appears I struck a nerve. Marcyites throw the cutest temper tantrums when you catch them in a corner politically. So your argument boils down to the fact that your politics are identical and you're divided for petty reasons? No wonder the working class doesn't take you seriously.

KurtFF8

13th April 2012, 15:52

"But as the bombs rain down on Tripoli, some groups have issued statements that are as anti-Gaddafi as they are anti-intervention."

This opposes the idea that Gaddafi is as bad as intervention. Therefore it says Gaddafi is better than intervention. It does not oppose intervention and Gaddafi equally. Therefore it offers relative support to Gaddafi. Nowhere do the PSL ever call for the overthrow of Gaddafi.

Your comments here just don't make much sense. But yes the logic is that intervention would have been much worse than Gaddafi remaining in power. That seems quite clear at this point any way.

The PSL would have supported an independent Communist/Socialist movement to replace Gaddafi, sure. But the fact of the matter is that such a movement didn't exist, and the actual forces involved in the conflict were Gaddafi's and the NATO backed rebels. As much as we all would like to have seen a third Marxist oriented movement vying for power, it simply wasn't a factor in this conflict.

From the start the PSL refused to support the rebels, even though initially the rebels were opposed to intervention. At the time, the PSL was wrong to do that.

And the PSL seems to have been quite right in refraining to support the rebels, as the rebels called for intervention and have lead the country to ruin since.

What you were doing was pouring cold water on a revolution in it's early stages. This means doing the job of the bourgeoisie for them, putting out anti-working class propaganda. Imagine if in 1917 people had been saying 'Lenin is a lawyer and Trotsky is the son of a kulak'.

What anti-working class propaganda? Didn't you admit yourself earlier that the rebels were not comprised of a working class movement?

What is that supposed to mean?

It meant that it was not clear at the time what the composition (ideologically and in terms of class composition) the rebellion was. This was simply urging folks on the Left to analyze the situation before blindly jumping to support the rebels. That blind support lead groups like the ISO to "support the rebels and oppose intervention" which was a fictional position as the rebels supported intervention.

You first article on Libya denounces the rebels and then goes on to list all the wonderful accomplishments of Gaddafi - "illiteracy was almost completely wiped out", "provided significant aid to neighboring states and to national liberation movements around the world" (you mean like terrorists?), "still ranked the highest among African countries in the Human Development Index—which includes such factors as living conditions, life expectancy and education", "profound economic and social development, including in the fields of education, health care, nutrition, and a massive water project".

What of those things listed do you think is false?

But the big bad west said uncle Gaddafi was a nasty man, and "demonized, sanctioned and attacked" Libya. "President Reagan ordered the bombing of downtown Tripoli in an attempt to assassinate Gaddafi. Gaddafi survived, but his infant daughter and more than 300 others were killed this murderous assault". Poor old Gaddafi.

Again, what about these quotes do you find problematic?

Not one mention of socialism, revolution, nothing.

And why would there be? How is this relevant?

Here is the CWI article
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4884

:lol: In other words: my group is better than your group!!! Give me a break.

See the difference? For you there is never a chance of socialism. For Trotskyists there is always the possibility, always worth pointing out what tasks are needed to be accomplished.

I'm sure this could easily be turned around to criticizing you for denouncing actual attempts at building socialism as just being "stalinist" or whatnot. But then again comments like this are simply sectarian jabs and offer nothing constructive.

see above. You wrote off a revolution. A revolution would have appealed to the workers in the towns Gaddafi controlled. If those workers had joined in, then they wouldnt have needed foreign help. It's class character could have been working class.

And what does this have to do with the PSL?

On their own, the rebels would inevitably turn to NATO and so middle class leaders would consolidate power and bring Libya into the US sphere of influence.

Which is indeed what happened

The way to combat that is not to denounce the rebels in advance like you did, and isolate them, driving them into the arms of American capitalists, but to call for a socialist revolution throughout Iraq, to separate the rebels from America.

Wow, now I would like to believe that the PSL's article are that influential around the world but this is just ridiculous

See above. It is not the same. I was on the big anti-war demo in 2003. Nobody saw that as supporting Saddam. Only a few morons on the right.

It was a common criticism in the media, and it is the same logic you're using.

Ok I'm bored with this argument now, just stick to this....why did you never talk about socialist revolution re Libya? Compare your article with ours.

We would love to talk about socialist revolution in Libya, but the problem was that it was not taking place.

Oh I just remembered. You are Stalinists.

Give me a break. I'm getting really tired of your empty rhetoric and sectarianism. It's not constructive and is a waste of all of our time.

Rusty Shackleford

13th April 2012, 17:15

It appears I struck a nerve. Marcyites throw the cutest temper tantrums when you catch them in a corner politically. So your argument boils down to the fact that your politics are identical and you're divided for petty reasons? No wonder the working class doesn't take you seriously.
the working class (as if there is some separation between me and 'them' or 'us' and 'them') hardly has any exposure to any left organization. Of course, im wrong though because Trotsky's memory is at the helm of the proletariat in the US! Seriosuly though, how does one make such an assumption that the whole working class has the same opinion of the PSL? are you a wizard?

i never said anything about the division.

i wasnt caught in a corner as you think, i have said it time and time again that there are ideological similarities. now, i just dont care. Its not like the umpteen million trot groups all had profound, watershed moment divisions that affected the course of history.

Anderson

13th April 2012, 17:26

PSL a revolutionary party?

Is PSL very liberal in its approach, looks like they want to keep all happy and on board?

I may be wrong in the above conclusion, as I really have no clue about their path and programme.

Rusty Shackleford

13th April 2012, 17:30

Is PSL very liberal in its approach, looks like they want to keep all happy and on board?

I may be wrong in the above conclusion, as I really have no clue about their path and programme.
probably not because we defend the DPRK and Iran and are opposed to NATO interventions for one. We also oppose Obama and the democrats as we do the republicans and libertarians.

Prometeo liberado

13th April 2012, 17:31

Is PSL very liberal in its approach, looks like they want to keep all happy and on board?

I may be wrong in the above conclusion, as I really have no clue about their path and programme.

How in the hell can you make a statement "looks like they want to keep all happy and on board" when you yourself stated that you "..have no clue about their path and programme."? Turn you computer off and run outside and play.....next to a highway...NOW!

dodger

13th April 2012, 18:19

Is PSL very liberal in its approach, looks like they want to keep all happy and on board?

I may be wrong in the above conclusion, as I really have no clue about their path and programme.

Ding-dong Anderson! Ding-dong!

Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

I am clueless too........

daft punk

13th April 2012, 19:16

Your comments here just don't make much sense.

To you maybe

But yes the logic is that intervention would have been much worse than Gaddafi remaining in power. That seems quite clear at this point any way.

See, you do understand, you say Gaddafi remaining in power was preferable, therefore between the two you expressed a preference for Gaddafi, therefore you supported Gaddafi.

The PSL would have supported an independent Communist/Socialist movement to replace Gaddafi, sure. But the fact of the matter is that such a movement didn't exist, and the actual forces involved in the conflict were Gaddafi's and the NATO backed rebels. As much as we all would like to have seen a third Marxist oriented movement vying for power, it simply wasn't a factor in this conflict.

The rebels were not Nato backed at the start and did not want to be. You wrote them off on day 1 without giving them a chance. The rebels were a mix of ordinary Iraqis. The middle class elements took the leading positions in the end. This was always a possibility. But even then, workers could have renewed the leadership or forced it to oppose NATO intervention. The fact is they pushed forward militarily but without a class appeal to the workers in Gaddafi's areas, found themselves losing, so naturally turned to NATO. They obviously werent the Bolsheviks.
Your position was wrong because you wrote them off from the start. This is typical of the sects.

What anti-working class propaganda? Didn't you admit yourself earlier that the rebels were not comprised of a working class movement?

I just told you. Dismissing any potential for overthrowing Gaddafi and building a socialist revolution. The rebels contained workers. After some time the educated middle class elements became the leaders. Then they called for NATO, when things started going badly.

It meant that it was not clear at the time what the composition (ideologically and in terms of class composition) the rebellion was. This was simply urging folks on the Left to analyze the situation before blindly jumping to support the rebels. That blind support lead groups like the ISO to "support the rebels and oppose intervention" which was a fictional position as the rebels supported intervention.

Glass half full - CWI, glass half empty- PSL. The CWI pointed out the potential at the time, the PSL did the opposite, even though as you admit it was not certain what would happen or even what was happening exactly.

What of those things listed do you think is false?

It wasnt that great, and there were many negatives. You are oblivious to the overall tone of your stuff, you cant see the wood for the trees.

Again, what about these quotes do you find problematic?

where is the stuff about all the people Gaddafi has tortured and killed, his support for terrorism and so on? His enormous personal wealth?

"Not one mention of socialism, revolution, nothing. "
And why would there be? How is this relevant?

Because you are supposed to be a revolutionary socialist, and this was a revolution. This is how revolutions start.

:lol: In other words: my group is better than your group!!! Give me a break.

The difference is not only did the PSL support Gaddafi, they never even thought of the possibility that this revolution could become a socialist one.

"See the difference? For you there is never a chance of socialism. For Trotskyists there is always the possibility, always worth pointing out what tasks are needed to be accomplished. "
I'm sure this could easily be turned around to criticizing you for denouncing actual attempts at building socialism as just being "stalinist" or whatnot. But then again comments like this are simply sectarian jabs and offer nothing constructive.

No it couldnt. Dont even think about it. Stalin did not try to build socialism, he did the opposite. Mao and Castro wanted to build capitalism. Eastern Europe is complicated but the official Comintern position was to build capitalism.

And what does this have to do with the PSL?

I am talking about your position.

Which is indeed what happened

no wonder with people like PSL writing them off from the start.

Wow, now I would like to believe that the PSL's article are that influential around the world but this is just ridiculous

Some on the left backed the NATO intervention, some like you backed Gaddafi. Some like the CWI called for socialist revolution. Of course the main factors were internal. Yes you probably have little influence, but if you did have it would be negative.

It was a common criticism in the media, and it is the same logic you're using.

Of course the media said that. But millions didnt fall for it. Anyway, it's not the same. In 2003 I opposed the war and Saddam equally, I did not express a preference for Saddam over intervention, as you did with Gaddafi just now at the top of this post.

We would love to talk about socialist revolution in Libya, but the problem was that it was not taking place.

No thanks to you. It was a revolution. All revolutions have potential.

Give me a break. I'm getting really tired of your empty rhetoric and sectarianism. It's not constructive and is a waste of all of our time.

Your perspective on all these things is related to your Stalinist-lite position. It is a fact. You cosied up to Stalinism and naturally incline to these positions, eg not mentioning socialism during a revolution. It's only to be expected. Dont dismiss the fundamental root of your perspectives - anti-socialism. Stalinism is anti-socialist, you are Stalinist, this is why you did not mention socialism during the revolution. I could have predicted it in advance.

Tell you what, lets play compare the party again, lets try July 2011.

PSL
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/egyptians-take-to-the-streets.html

It's titled Struggle to Complete the revolution, hopeful, but doh! No mention of socialism.

CWI
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5184

"“Save the revolution”

Some youth groups are calling for unity to “save the revolution”. Some have raised the slogan of “the revolution first” in an attempt to side-step debate over whether a new constitution should be adopted before elections or afterwards. Having elections first is thought to favour the MB, who are better organised than other parties.

But if the ruling class keep their power, no constitution will stop them exploiting the people. The “revolution first” does not answer the question as to what sort of revolution is needed to meet the demands of the majority – the workers, small farmers and the poor. January 25th was the beginning, but to complete the revolution a mass movement is needed to fight for a £E1200 minimum wage, a massive expansion of education, health care, housing and other vital services, linked to the nationalisation under democratic workers’ control of all the major corporations, banks and large estates. A socialist revolution would enable the resources and wealth of the country are democratically managed and planned in the interests of the majority. It would give renewed inspiration to workers and youth throughout the region and around the world.

Activists in the many new independent trade unions that have formed, as well as in youth and community campaigns and from new left parties need to campaign for an independent class programme and to urgently set about building a new mass party able to win majority support for a programme of action and for democratic socialism."

compare and contrast

Lucretia

14th April 2012, 03:01

This is a gross oversimplification to the point of misrepresentation. It's not the governments that are supported, it's the effort to resist imperialism.

So I guess the letter of condolence to NK was sent because Kim Jong Il's death was a blow against imperialism? Silly me.

Imposter Marxist

16th April 2012, 03:33

They're all state capitalist letters being sent to the other state capitalist families

KurtFF8

16th April 2012, 15:58

daft punk

16th April 2012, 17:25

DP, I don't even know what is worth replying to in your post.

You claim that the PSL's flaw in the Libya case is that we didn't call for socialist revolution. So what groups did the CWI support that were calling for a socialist revolution?

I dont think any were. The CWI was saying this is the potential, this is what should happen. This is the job of Marxists, nit just to describe what is happening but to say what could and should happen.

Like for instance in April 1917 when Lenin and Trotsky were calling for a socialist revolution - not even the other Bolshevik leaders were doing that.

A Marxist Historian

16th April 2012, 22:34

So I guess the letter of condolence to NK was sent because Kim Jong Il's death was a blow against imperialism? Silly me.

Typo on your part, Lucretia? I think it is fair to say that the PSL, whatever else one might say about it, did not see Kim Jong Il's death as a blow against imperialism.

Now, whether or not they saw Kim Jong Il's life as a blow against imperialism, that's another matter. But they definitely weren't into dancing on his grave.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

16th April 2012, 22:52

...
The rebels were not Nato backed at the start and did not want to be. You wrote them off on day 1 without giving them a chance. The rebels were a mix of ordinary Iraqis. The middle class elements took the leading positions in the end. This was always a possibility. But even then, workers could have renewed the leadership or forced it to oppose NATO intervention. The fact is they pushed forward militarily but without a class appeal to the workers in Gaddafi's areas, found themselves losing, so naturally turned to NATO. They obviously werent the Bolsheviks.
Your position was wrong because you wrote them off from the start. This is typical of the sects...

Simply factually wrong. The rebels weren't "a mix of ordinary "Iraquis"" [sic]. The rebellion started with a prison break by pro-Al Quaida Islamic fundamentalists, supported by their middle to upper class lawyers, who spread it to all Benghazi.

Initially and briefly, you had "revolutionary committees" of lawyers, doctors and chiropractors, 100% middle class, with little or no working class participation. And how could there be any? The overwhelming majority of the Libyan working class in what amounted to a "progressive" oil sheikdom were brutally oppressed foreign workers, half from Africa and half from other Arab countries. More or less the Kuwait-Saudia Arabia model, except with some "socialist" bones thrown to the relatively small Libyan citizenry.

And the one unifying thing that characterized the rebellion from the beginning was racist brutalizing and murders of the hundreds of thousands of African workers doing most of the actual work in the oilfields, all framed up by the opposition as agents of Q'addafi.

So even at the very beginning, this was a racist mobilization of the petty bourgeoisie vs. the working class. Not of course that Q'addafi was any better, he just preferred to brutalize and murder the foreign Arab workers.

And that's only at the very beginning, within a few weeks the "revolution" was taken out of the hands of the nationalist petty bourgeoise and fell into the hands of former Qaddafi torturers, Islamic fundamentalist fanatics, and the monarchist and other reactionary exile groups, all more or less CIA puppets. So the old Osama Bin Laden/CIA alliance from Afghanistan in the 1980s was reformed over the corpse of Bin Laden himself.

It took a few weeks before they came out openly for NATO to bomb Tripoli and send them guns. At first they thought the regime was collapsing and they didn't need that, so they didn't want to undermine their Libyan nationalist street cred. But even at the very beginning the middle class "revolutionary committees" were calling for Kurdistan style NATO enforced "no fly zones," just like in Iraq. So the "opposition" was pro-imperialist right from the beginning.

-M.H.-

Lucretia

17th April 2012, 00:51

Typo on your part, Lucretia? I think it is fair to say that the PSL, whatever else one might say about it, did not see Kim Jong Il's death as a blow against imperialism.

Now, whether or not they saw Kim Jong Il's life as a blow against imperialism, that's another matter. But they definitely weren't into dancing on his grave.

-M.H.-

You have to view my sardonic remark in its context of responding to the previous claim that the PSL only supports anti-imperialist policies and not governments or dictators.

KurtFF8

17th April 2012, 16:13

I dont think any were. The CWI was saying this is the potential, this is what should happen. This is the job of Marxists, nit just to describe what is happening but to say what could and should happen.

Like for instance in April 1917 when Lenin and Trotsky were calling for a socialist revolution - not even the other Bolshevik leaders were doing that.

I think every socialist group would say this is "what should happen," but it was not a realistic call at that point.

Your example of what Lenin and Trotsky said in April of 1917 is totally irrelevant here. They were speaking at a time where there was a Bolshevik party and it actually had some potential for political power. In the case of Libya in the past few years, there wasn't anything like the Bolshevik party.

So to say that the position taken up should have been "call for a socialist revolution!" sounds nice and all, and of course that would be the ultimate aim for socialist organizers. But what socialist groups even existed at the time that were vying for power??

So you were essentially calling to support an imaginary force in Libya.

daft punk

17th April 2012, 19:09

Simply factually wrong. The rebels weren't "a mix of ordinary "Iraquis"" [sic]. The rebellion started with a prison break by pro-Al Quaida Islamic fundamentalists, supported by their middle to upper class lawyers, who spread it to all Benghazi.

Initially and briefly, you had "revolutionary committees" of lawyers, doctors and chiropractors, 100% middle class, with little or no working class participation. And how could there be any? The overwhelming majority of the Libyan working class in what amounted to a "progressive" oil sheikdom were brutally oppressed foreign workers, half from Africa and half from other Arab countries. More or less the Kuwait-Saudia Arabia model, except with some "socialist" bones thrown to the relatively small Libyan citizenry.

And the one unifying thing that characterized the rebellion from the beginning was racist brutalizing and murders of the hundreds of thousands of African workers doing most of the actual work in the oilfields, all framed up by the opposition as agents of Q'addafi.

So even at the very beginning, this was a racist mobilization of the petty bourgeoisie vs. the working class. Not of course that Q'addafi was any better, he just preferred to brutalize and murder the foreign Arab workers.

And that's only at the very beginning, within a few weeks the "revolution" was taken out of the hands of the nationalist petty bourgeoise and fell into the hands of former Qaddafi torturers, Islamic fundamentalist fanatics, and the monarchist and other reactionary exile groups, all more or less CIA puppets. So the old Osama Bin Laden/CIA alliance from Afghanistan in the 1980s was reformed over the corpse of Bin Laden himself.

It took a few weeks before they came out openly for NATO to bomb Tripoli and send them guns. At first they thought the regime was collapsing and they didn't need that, so they didn't want to undermine their Libyan nationalist street cred. But even at the very beginning the middle class "revolutionary committees" were calling for Kurdistan style NATO enforced "no fly zones," just like in Iraq. So the "opposition" was pro-imperialist right from the beginning.

-M.H.-

I dunno where you get your info from. You say they were killing hundreds of thousands of Africans right from the start. Do you have proof? I googled and found a human rights website saying there may be racism and some murders but it was 4 months after the rebellion started and didnt say anything about hundreds of thousands. I dont see how they could kill that sort of number unless it was over a long period of time anyway.

Apparently there was a rumour going round that the Africans were becoming mercenaries for Gaddafi. Hence the arrests and killings. An Amnesty worker who was there said: "The rebels spread these rumours everywhere, which had terrible consequences for African guest workers: there was a systematic hunt for migrants, some were lynched and many arrested. Since then, even the rebels have admitted there were no mercenaries, almost all have been released and have returned to their countries of origin, as the investigations into them revealed nothing.”

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/07/libya-ethnic-cleansing/

As for your claim that all Libyans are middle class, do you have evidence for that? It seems a bit unlikely, even in that rebel area. Benghazi was just doctors and lawyers plus foreign workers, and the doctors and lawyers killed the working class?

I need evidence.

daft punk

17th April 2012, 19:16

I think every socialist group would say this is "what should happen," but it was not a realistic call at that point.

Your example of what Lenin and Trotsky said in April of 1917 is totally irrelevant here. They were speaking at a time where there was a Bolshevik party and it actually had some potential for political power. In the case of Libya in the past few years, there wasn't anything like the Bolshevik party.

So to say that the position taken up should have been "call for a socialist revolution!" sounds nice and all, and of course that would be the ultimate aim for socialist organizers. But what socialist groups even existed at the time that were vying for power??

So you were essentially calling to support an imaginary force in Libya.

You have to start somewhere. The Bolsheviks were very small in Feb 1917, they were supporting wrong policies, their leader was abroad, and the other main revolutionary leader had not yet joined. In the summer many were arrested including Trotsky, and Lenin had to stay in hiding until after the revolution. The revolution was led by Trotsky who as I say didnt even join the party until the summer.

Socialists should always point out the potential. Stalinists always have an excuse to say no. 'Just say no to revolution', the Stalinists motto.

Pointing out what should be done in a given situation does not mean imagining some revolutionary party that does not exist:

"mass organisations of the working class need to be formed, including independent unions and a mass party of the working class, with bold socialist policies."
http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4884

Geiseric

17th April 2012, 19:26

Simply factually wrong. The rebels weren't "a mix of ordinary "Iraquis"" [sic]. The rebellion started with a prison break by pro-Al Quaida Islamic fundamentalists, supported by their middle to upper class lawyers, who spread it to all Benghazi.

Initially and briefly, you had "revolutionary committees" of lawyers, doctors and chiropractors, 100% middle class, with little or no working class participation. And how could there be any? The overwhelming majority of the Libyan working class in what amounted to a "progressive" oil sheikdom were brutally oppressed foreign workers, half from Africa and half from other Arab countries. More or less the Kuwait-Saudia Arabia model, except with some "socialist" bones thrown to the relatively small Libyan citizenry.

And the one unifying thing that characterized the rebellion from the beginning was racist brutalizing and murders of the hundreds of thousands of African workers doing most of the actual work in the oilfields, all framed up by the opposition as agents of Q'addafi.

So even at the very beginning, this was a racist mobilization of the petty bourgeoisie vs. the working class. Not of course that Q'addafi was any better, he just preferred to brutalize and murder the foreign Arab workers.

And that's only at the very beginning, within a few weeks the "revolution" was taken out of the hands of the nationalist petty bourgeoise and fell into the hands of former Qaddafi torturers, Islamic fundamentalist fanatics, and the monarchist and other reactionary exile groups, all more or less CIA puppets. So the old Osama Bin Laden/CIA alliance from Afghanistan in the 1980s was reformed over the corpse of Bin Laden himself.

It took a few weeks before they came out openly for NATO to bomb Tripoli and send them guns. At first they thought the regime was collapsing and they didn't need that, so they didn't want to undermine their Libyan nationalist street cred. But even at the very beginning the middle class "revolutionary committees" were calling for Kurdistan style NATO enforced "no fly zones," just like in Iraq. So the "opposition" was pro-imperialist right from the beginning.

-M.H.-

Your post doesn't explain why Ghadaffi was to be supported, all you're egging on about is how bad the rebels were. Ghadaffi was the root of these racial problems, and he's been pitting tribe vs. tribe and the black libyans vs. I suppose arab Libyans in order to keep his rule in check. He's been privatising the Libyan oil industry for the past 10 years gradually in the same way that FLN has dealt with the Algerians.

A Marxist Historian

18th April 2012, 00:28

Your post doesn't explain why Ghadaffi was to be supported, all you're egging on about is how bad the rebels were. Ghadaffi was the root of these racial problems, and he's been pitting tribe vs. tribe and the black libyans vs. I suppose arab Libyans in order to keep his rule in check. He's been privatising the Libyan oil industry for the past 10 years gradually in the same way that FLN has dealt with the Algerians.

I don't think Qaddafi should have been supported, he was a tinpot dictator, and until the NATO bombs started dropping on Tripoli, there was no reason to support either side in a civil war between two equally reactionary sides.

But as soon as the bombs started dropping and the drone missiles started flying, it became an issue of supporting, not Qaddafi, but Libya, vs. imperialism.

Trotsky, you may recall, even supported the ultrareactionary kingdom of Ethiopia, in which slavery and just about every horror you can imagine, was practiced, vs. Italian imperialism when Mussolini invaded.

Or the Taliban in Afghanistan, who are about as reactionary as it gets, but vs. US imperialism you should "militarily" support anybody, except, of course, a rival capitalist imperialist.

But not politically, not even for a second.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

19th April 2012, 02:10

I dunno where you get your info from. You say they were killing hundreds of thousands of Africans right from the start. Do you have proof? I googled and found a human rights website saying there may be racism and some murders but it was 4 months after the rebellion started and didnt say anything about hundreds of thousands. I dont see how they could kill that sort of number unless it was over a long period of time anyway.

Apparently there was a rumour going round that the Africans were becoming mercenaries for Gaddafi. Hence the arrests and killings. An Amnesty worker who was there said: "The rebels spread these rumours everywhere, which had terrible consequences for African guest workers: there was a systematic hunt for migrants, some were lynched and many arrested. Since then, even the rebels have admitted there were no mercenaries, almost all have been released and have returned to their countries of origin, as the investigations into them revealed nothing.”

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/07/libya-ethnic-cleansing/

As for your claim that all Libyans are middle class, do you have evidence for that? It seems a bit unlikely, even in that rebel area. Benghazi was just doctors and lawyers plus foreign workers, and the doctors and lawyers killed the working class?

I need evidence.

You misread my posting. I didn't say that the rebels had murdered hundreds of thousands, I said that there "was racist brutalizing and murders of the hundreds of thousands of African workers doing most of the actual work in the oilfields." Not the same thing!

How many did they actually kill? Hard to say, nobody's counting, but it's safe to assume it didn't reach the hundreds of thousands levels. After all, the Nazis didn't start mass murder of German Jews till eight years after they seized power. Instead, they started, after in power for five years, to press German Jews to get out of Germany, using "racist brutalizing and murders," most famously in Kristallnacht, to get them to leave, not escalating to genocide until WWII started.

By contrast, the Libyan rebels seem to have effectively driven something like a million African workers out of the country with their pogroms, in a single year. In short, their treatment of Africans is arguably worse than the Nazis treated the Jews.

The working class wasn't quite as exclusively foreign in Libya as in say Kuwait, but the great majority of the working class was foreign, especially in the oilfields. I say "was," because the majority of the working class has been driven out of the country, which is why the country is collapsing into economic and social chaos.

And you could see the middle class character of the revolt vividly in the press and video reports in the first few weeks from Benghazi and other rebel centers. The members of the revolutionary committees were interviewed over and over again, and they were 100% middle class, lawyers, doctors and chiropractors.

I saw exactly one instance of video footage of people, presumably workers, waving red flags and wearing Che Guevara T-shirts. That was literally on the second day of the uprising. Thereafter, that was gone, and the old Libyan monarchist flag was adopted as the rebel symbol. Whatever working class participation in the rebellion that there was had been immediately snuffed out.

Libya is by the way literally the only country in the Arab world from which there was not a single report of workers going on strike during the "Arab Spring." I think that tells you something, doesn't it?

-N.H.-

A Marxist Historian

19th April 2012, 02:13

You have to view my sardonic remark in its context of responding to the previous claim that the PSL only supports anti-imperialist policies and not governments or dictators.

Do I (or we)?

I would if it were written more intelligently.

Hey, we all commit silly typos from time to time, I sure have. Defending them is deeply foolish.

-M.H.-

Lucretia

19th April 2012, 06:35

Do I (or we)?

I would if it were written more intelligently.

Hey, we all commit silly typos from time to time, I sure have. Defending them is deeply foolish.

-M.H.-

MH, I always like to expect the best of fellow posters, but I get the impression you're looking for opportunities to try to criticize me as if you carry some sort of grudge from our previous disagreements. If this is the case, grow up. You're apparently not a young man judging by what you say of your personal history. On the other hand, if you genuinely don't understand the sardonic/sarcastic nature of my post here, let me spell it out for you (though, I warn you, systematically explaining it will cause my post to lose whatever humorous edge I intended it to have). Allow me spell out the logic behind my comment very carefully for you. Please let me know where any of these premises or conclusions confuse you.

A) PSL Supporter claims that that the PSL does not support dictators only anti-imperialist policies.

B) The PSL sent a letter of condolence to the people of NK lamenting the death of their "great leader."

C) Since the PSL, according to the previous supporter, does not support dictators like Kim Jong Il, the letter could not possibly have been a declaration of support for the person.

D) Ergo, the letter was instead a declaration of support for anti-imperialism, not Kim Jong Il.

E) Therefore, the death of Kim Jong-Il must have been a blow against imperialism.

Of course, the argument is ridiculous, and is intended to appear ridiculous, in order to draw attention to the absurdity of proposition (A). The letter of condolence to the people of NK is unmistakeably a sign that the PSL supported the PERSON of Kim Jong Il, not just whatever policies he enacted that were purportedly "anti-imperialist."

Got it now? No typos involved.

A Marxist Historian

20th April 2012, 01:12

MH, I always like to expect the best of fellow posters, but I get the impression you're looking for opportunities to try to criticize me as if you carry some sort of grudge from our previous disagreements. If this is the case, grow up. You're apparently not a young man judging by what you say of your personal history. On the other hand, if you genuinely don't understand the sardonic/sarcastic nature of my post here, let me spell it out for you (though, I warn you, systematically explaining it will cause my post to lose whatever humorous edge I intended it to have). Allow me spell out the logic behind my comment very carefully for you. Please let me know where any of these premises or conclusions confuse you.

Definitely a failure to communicate on both our parts!

Actually, you have things a bit backwards. Whereas in the past I might have ridiculed you for a posting like that, I was sufficiently impressed by your argumentation in the threads as to Lenin and the state under socialism to want to take what you have to say more seriously. And, in fact, to help you out, get you out of a possible embarrassment.

I find the way you argue very annoying on several levels, and have expressed my annoyance about that here on numerous occasions. But content is more important than style, and you have managed to raise some serious issues that have advanced the level of discourse here, even though you have not persuaded me, or too many other folk for that matter I don't think.

You didn't persuade me, but you definitely got me to do some serious thinking, reread my Lenin, etc. For which I am grateful.

Although I will say that I am coming around to the notion that our disagreement as to whether there will be something one could call a "state" under socialism, as well as how to interpret what Lenin had to say in State and Revolution, may actually be more verbal/definitional than substantive.

A) PSL Supporter claims that that the PSL does not support dictators only anti-imperialist policies.

B) The PSL sent a letter of condolence to the people of NK lamenting the death of their "great leader."

C) Since the PSL, according to the previous supporter, does not support dictators like Kim Jong Il, the letter could not possibly have been a declaration of support for the person.

D) Ergo, the letter was instead a declaration of support for anti-imperialism, not Kim Jong Il.

E) Therefore, the death of Kim Jong-Il must have been a blow against imperialism.

Of course, the argument is ridiculous, and is intended to appear ridiculous, in order to draw attention to the absurdity of proposition (A). The letter of condolence to the people of NK is unmistakeably a sign that the PSL supported the PERSON of Kim Jong Il, not just whatever policies he enacted that were purportedly "anti-imperialist."

Got it now? No typos involved.

I get it now, but I have to say that, well, we each have different strengths and weaknesses. As this failed attempt at a joke illustrates, with or without the explanation, a sense of humor is not your strong point.

Well, in the immortal words of Tom Lehrer,

"Everybody these days is talking about how they don't know how to communicate. Well, if you don't know how to communicate, why don't you just shut up!"

To which I must hastily add that this is me (or rather my idol Tom Lehrer) being humorous, not a suggestion!

-M.H.-