What's it like in Leftist political parties?

[Blanquist]

I just read some very scary things about some parties but it was from a disgruntled former leader.

What's it like to be a member?

Are these things common?

1. Monthly membership dues equaling a percentage of income

2. Having to abandon friends

3. Limits on sexual activity

4. Limits on economic activity

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Being a party member can help you greatly improve your political and ideological skills, but usually, it is a huge party pooper.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

usually they try to turn you into an intellectually impotent party line parrot.

[Ocean Seal]

1. Monthly membership dues equaling a percentage of income
Its only about 20% of your total income.



2. Having to abandon friends

He was a counter-revolutionary anyway.



3. Limits on sexual activity
Chastity belts prevent you from losing your revolutionary discipline.



4. Limits on economic activity
Joining the ruling class was a requirement so that we could afford expensive wine and cigars while reading old tomes of Marxism.

I don't really see where you're going with this.

[NewLeft]

What party are you talking about? :confused:

[The Idler]

Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case ... (http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html)

This is an article about democratic centralist parties.

[Prinskaj]

I just read some very scary things about some parties but it was from a disgruntled former leader.

What's it like to be a member?

Are these things common?

1. Monthly membership dues equaling a percentage of income

2. Having to abandon friends

3. Limits on sexual activity

4. Limits on economic activity
It seems like you're describing the Mormon Church.. Are you sure, that you are in the right place?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

It seems like you're describing the Mormon Church.. Are you sure, that you are in the right place?

Which functions exactly like most left parties.

[Q]

I just read some very scary things about some parties but it was from a disgruntled former leader.
Most groups act like sects and enforce a culture of "discipline", meaning you have to shut independent thinking down and submit yourself to the party line. Within those limits you may "disagree", but only internally, Marx forbid you actually explained your own position to a worker and why it differed from the majority of the group!

That said, for newcomers a group can help to some extent in developing one's views. But only to some extent as all recruits are taught in the ways of sectarian politics.


What's it like to be a member?
If you like to collectively do political activities, it can be a satisfying way to spend your time. But in that regard it isn't much different from, say, a football club, chess club or volunteering to help out in a food bank.


Are these things common?

1. Monthly membership dues equaling a percentage of income
Some groups have this. I believe the ICC for example has 5% of your income as a norm. Other groups have different procedures. In principle I don't oppose spending 5% of my income to a cause, if there is some actual goal for that money.

I for example spent something like 5% of my income in the past to the group I'm in (incidentally being the biggest contributor in my section, percentage wise). Since then that percentage dropped (not because the contribution dropped but because my income has risen) and I've been asked to raise my contribution now. I've refused, not because I disagree with paying more, but because there is no clear goal of raising more money than we already do (besides sending it to the international, but I disagree with just acting as a cash cow without seeing any results in my country).


2. Having to abandon friends
I've never abandoned friends for political work. But I can imagine how, certainly in somewhat bigger groups, one can be "sucked up" in a closed social environment. You, after all, do a lot of stuff with your comrades, so there is little time for other stuff, certainly if you work or study besides.


3. Limits on sexual activity
I've only heard of a few groups being cultish enough to enforce this.


4. Limits on economic activity
Not sure what you mean here.

[Prinskaj]

Which functions exactly like most left parties.
Not exactly, number 2. on his list only applies, on leftist parties, if said person is a douchebag.

[Luc]

about #1

For some organisations dues can be flexible for example, the platformists Common Cause state in their constitution (12. Finance (a) ):


Membership dues are from 1% to 3% of income according to the number of people financially dependent on the member concerned. An actual figure will be worked out in consultation with the Branch treasurer. Members without dependents who are financially unable to pay 3% of income may arrange with the Branch treasurer to pay a lower percentage, as low but no lower than 1% of income and is willing to negotiate with members in genuine financial need.

so it can be flexible in some organisations and it will vary across different organisations as shown by people here saying 5% while Common Cause is 1-3%

btw, I'm not plugging Common Cause it's not my organisation just one that I know and demonstrates this case of varrying dues :lol:

Blanquist I recomend searching the organisation's constitutions you are intrested in to get a better grasp on dues and how the organisation is built. In my experience most organisations have their constitution on there website (assuming you are interested in doing so)

:)

source
http://linchpin.ca/collections+/+Anarchist-movement+/+Constitution-Common-Cause
#2, #3 , and #4 seem like bullshit rumors I have never come across this :laugh: and would advise abstaining from any organisation that would make such demands

[Geiseric]

It's kinda like Animal House so far, the only time I actually met a few comrades was at a christmas party and we all got really drunk.

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friend, the world, i mean human relationships, social relationships, and all forms of organizations in this world are not perfect and puritan 100%, where ever there are humans there will be problems. So being a member of a leftist workers party, is just like being a member of any other organization. The only differences is that the goals are different. And leftists might be friendlier, more cooperative, more loving and more willing to help poor people, than members of right-wing organizations.

Having said all this, I think we should accept and welcome the things we don't like of socialist workers parties. Because look the capitalist system, i mean living within the capitalist society, with a capitalist economy, in a capitalist country, with a capitalist government, with high unemployment, rising costs of food, and all basic needs, dollar devaluations as a result of neoliberal IMF policies and so many billions spent on wars. The rising costs of all monthly utility basic services bills like dish network, telephone bills, internet bills, the monthly payment of aparment rents or loan-mortgages, the rising prices of food, the rise of the costs of medical services. All that turns life into a living hell on earth. Which is what the majority of americans, mexicans, pakistanis, haitians and most people in this world are going thru.

So having said all this: You have to weigh the differences of all this pain of capitalism, and the "lesser evil pain" of all the problems and errors of being a member of a workers socialist party.

So, I think you should join a socialist labor party, and if you see any problem within it. Just look for another better party like The Socialist Equality Party of USA. I do acknowledge that there are many corrupt leftist parties in this world, that give a bad reputation to socialism. Like The Socialist Workers Party of Spain, and The Socialist Party of Chile, 2 parties that were in government power and instead applying a socialist-democrat or socialist economic model. They applied a neoliberalism model.

So try to look for authentic marxist parties, that are democratic, and where their leaders do not try to control your personal life. Thanks


.





I just read some very scary things about some parties but it was from a disgruntled former leader.

What's it like to be a member?

Are these things common?

1. Monthly membership dues equaling a percentage of income

2. Having to abandon friends

3. Limits on sexual activity

4. Limits on economic activity

[Prometeo liberado]

Dear friend when will this end?

[Grenzer]

It seems like you're describing the Mormon Church.. Are you sure, that you are in the right place?

Oh, come now!

The Rural People's Party isnt that bad.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I just read some very scary things about some parties but it was from a disgruntled former leader.

What's it like to be a member?

Are these things common?

1. Monthly membership dues equaling a percentage of income

2. Having to abandon friends

3. Limits on sexual activity

4. Limits on economic activity

There is no need to fetishize radical groups any differently than any other kind of group. The most important factors to keep in mind are simply: do I agree with the goals of this groups and if so, do their methods actually help an attempt to approach these goals. If you get into group you agree with politically but their practice is cultish or whatnot, then they probably will not be able to effectively do anything about those politics.

I think the main thing for revolutionaries to be doing right now is to try and reconnect radical politics to emerging working class struggles and working class communities in an organic way. Therefore, if a group is demanding that people restrict their love-life or personal behavior, IMO, that group is not making itself available to most working class people.

Personally I'm against any group under normal conditions making strict requirements on the non-political activities in the lives of their members. Specifically, I think any group that asks you to cut ties with family or friends or makes demands on the love-life of members is cult-like and you should seriously look elsewhere.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case ... (http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html)

This is an article about democratic centralist parties.

Well according to this article, being any kind of revolutionary indicates some kind of warped perception and delusion of grandeur. There's a line in there essentially about how seeing a black and white view of "socialism or barbarism" leads to cult-like behaviors.

As to all the comments about "toeing the party line" - well if you disagree, don't join that group. This is a straw-man against "democratic centralist" groups because first of all many of the anecdotal instances of these kinds of practices come from parties from the New Communist movement or the New Left that were centralist but not democratic. Second, the way democratic centralism works in a non-straw-man example is not that the individual can't have X or Y position, but that when representing the group, you should argue what the group has democratically decided. In the bad examples where internal democracy hasn't existed, this means that people have to carry decisions that only come from the top and this leads to dogmatism. In the examples where this method does work, it allows a group to be united in their activities so that members can learn together if the decision was effective or not. If you loose a vote, but then agree to try out the winning position, in DEMOCRATIC-centralism you can then re-raise the point and say, we tried X, but it didn't pan out as supporters argued". It's a compromise system - how do we keep our own views, without letting them prevent us from taking united action. So one possible answer is you debate, vote, but then act as a group as long as that vote holds. A strike-vote is ideally democratic-centralist because if most workers voted to strike but the ones who didn't scabbed, then what's the point of having a union, the union is effectively broken.

Second, regardless of a group being democratic-centralist or not, effectively "going along with the decisions of the party" happens regardless of if the individual members support it or not. So for example, in effect what's the difference between being in a general membership party where the leadership and membership vote to endorse an electoral candidate for various reasons and members then can individually choose to try and help that candidate or not depending on how they voted (but of course collective party resources are available to that candidate regardless of what the individual members feel). On the other hand, a democratic-centralist group who ran a candidate would need to have a much more specific set of reasons for running the candidate (so unlike a 2nd internationalist party where some might see the candidate as a potential reform politician but other support the candidate as a protest-vote, in this alternative model, there'd have to be an agreed apon reason or reasons for running the candidate). So IMO a general membership party creates passivity among it's members even when the party runs well - because then it's just happier passive support. A democratic-centralist party only produces passivity when there is a dysfunction in the model - i.e. too top-down, not democratic enough, or too loose and not centralized and organized. However, in the best cases, and the intended outcome of the Dem-centralist model is an active membership of leaders rather than followers who are willing to argue their positions but also willing to put circumstantial disagreements aside for a time in order to have concerted and organized group-efforts... which can always be reassessed and re-evaluated later for another vote.

[Tim Cornelis]

I've heard some Maoist parties are sects/cults.
Of one party I'm sure this is indeed the case.

The KEN-ML (Communist UnityMovement Netherlands-Marxist-Leninist) had an all powerful leadership who decided where the members were supposed to live and with whom. Sexual activities were restricted to the approval of the leaders. And the leader proposed, De Boer, all women be topless because this supports "openness".

And also, I think I remember the members having to sit in a room confessing ideological sins.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The only group I've encountered that I think is actually cult-like (rather than maybe just being awkward and too inwardly focused) is the Larouchites. They actually do tell people to drop out of school, give all their savings to the group, they use intense internal peer-pressure, they (used to) have dictates about who could be in a relationship (and I think bans on homosexual relationships) and they elevate ideology (or Laruche's wacky concoction of ideas really) to morality and dictate what music and culture members should enjoy (i.e. one of their members told me that they only listen to classical music because after Jazz music is too "sensual" - hmm, don't like the "race music" eh?).

Laruche used to be a leftist and was around the last time I think we can say that there were serious political cults active which was the 1970s. Many of the Maoist-inspired groups at that point had a "revolution is around the corner" view on top of really top-down and undemocratic practices - which helped these groups survive and explain all the political twists of cold-war politics of the time: China supports Russia, China is against Russia, Cultural Revolution, China supports the US. These groups would encourage people to do drastic things (since the revolution was about to happen anyday) and engage in revolutionary-criticism in which people have to tell everyone else in the group about their flaws and revolutionary deficiencies... very cult-y and results in people who are not confident in their own abilities - as if being in a group wasn't about adding our strengths together but about making up for our personal weakness.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I've heard some Maoist parties are sects/cults.
Of one party I'm sure this is indeed the case.

The KEN-ML (Communist UnityMovement Netherlands-Marxist-Leninist) had an all powerful leadership who decided where the members were supposed to live and with whom. Sexual activities were restricted to the approval of the leaders. And the leader proposed, De Boer, all women be topless because this supports "openness".

And also, I think I remember the members having to sit in a room confessing ideological sins.

Members of the former Norwegian Maoist party (AKP-ml, "Workers' Communist Party) had to ask for permission to move to a different city, but that's about how far it went, I think.

[Blanquist]

I heard about one Trotskyist party in France that doesn't allow members to marry or own houses.

Because they will love something else more than the party and the cause, and the class enemy will use it against them.

[Martin Blank]

I just read some very scary things about some parties but it was from a disgruntled former leader.

Are you talking about David Wohlforth here? I know that his book was rather graphic in its details about the Workers League (predecessor of the SEP/WSWS). Unfortunately, there are some organizations out there that are just as bad as the WL was in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Thankfully, ours is not one of them.


What's it like to be a member?

For our organization, it's relatively laid back for the average member. Sure, there are tasks members have to fulfill, from educational activity to basic administrative functioning, but a lot of it is pretty easy and not very time-consuming. Right now, much of it is a case of what you're willing to take on for the Party.


Are these things common?

1. Monthly membership dues equaling a percentage of income

With some organizations, yes. With others, no. We have a sliding scale for dues, but it starts low ($1 a month) and is manageable for members.


2. Having to abandon friends

Not unless they're cops or fascists.


3. Limits on sexual activity

No, with one very specific exception.


4. Limits on economic activity

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, either. If this means being a business owner or manager, or otherwise a part of the exploiting and oppressing classes, then yes. We are a workers-only organization, and we intend to keep it that way. If it means what kind of jobs our members have, the only limits are those that make you an agent of the ruling classes: cop, bourgeois politician, manager, etc.

[Ned Kelly]

Are you talking about David Wohlforth here? I know that his book was rather graphic in its details about the Workers League (predecessor of the SEP/WSWS). Unfortunately, there are some organizations out there that are just as bad as the WL was in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Thankfully, ours is not one of them.



For our organization, it's relatively laid back for the average member. Sure, there are tasks members have to fulfill, from educational activity to basic administrative functioning, but a lot of it is pretty easy and not very time-consuming. Right now, much of it is a case of what you're willing to take on for the Party.



With some organizations, yes. With others, no. We have a sliding scale for dues, but it starts low ($1 a month) and is manageable for members.



Not unless they're cops or fascists.



No, with one very specific exception.



I'm not really sure what you mean by this, either. If this means being a business owner or manager, or otherwise a part of the exploiting and oppressing classes, then yes. We are a workers-only organization, and we intend to keep it that way. If it means what kind of jobs our members have, the only limits are those that make you an agent of the ruling classes: cop, bourgeois politician, manager, etc.

What it is the exception?

[Blanquist]

Are you talking about David Wohlforth here? I know that his book was rather graphic in its details about the Workers League (predecessor of the SEP/WSWS). Unfortunately, there are some organizations out there that are just as bad as the WL was in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Thankfully, ours is not one of them.



For our organization, it's relatively laid back for the average member. Sure, there are tasks members have to fulfill, from educational activity to basic administrative functioning, but a lot of it is pretty easy and not very time-consuming. Right now, much of it is a case of what you're willing to take on for the Party.



With some organizations, yes. With others, no. We have a sliding scale for dues, but it starts low ($1 a month) and is manageable for members.



Not unless they're cops or fascists.



No, with one very specific exception.



I'm not really sure what you mean by this, either. If this means being a business owner or manager, or otherwise a part of the exploiting and oppressing classes, then yes. We are a workers-only organization, and we intend to keep it that way. If it means what kind of jobs our members have, the only limits are those that make you an agent of the ruling classes: cop, bourgeois politician, manager, etc.


You mean Tim Wolfroth? And yes, I'm referring to him partially. I read a little of what he wrote about Healy, Grant, Larouche, and some other ones.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What it is the exception?I think it would be reasonable to guess that it's relationships with an unhealthy power dynamic - possibly physically abusive ones, most likely ones involving a legal adult and a legal minor.

I understand that romantic relationships in active groups can have severe consequences and be disruptive or even a liability, but I am totally against groups trying to manage these things. Any group of people is going to have these issues, people hook up, people cheat, people break-up, people engage in hetero- and homosexual acts, it's just the cost of working in groups of people :lol:.

But the problems of nepotism or informalism between working activists in relationships can be checked with various organizational mechanisms that should be in place to promote open-ness and counter normal cliquish tendencies from becoming quasi-institutional anyway. Other issues can be delt with on a case by case basis - people break up and can't work together, then figure it out! It's just people, deal with it.

[Martin Blank]

What it is the exception?


I think it would be reasonable to guess that it's relationships with an unhealthy power dynamic - possibly physically abusive ones, most likely ones involving a legal adult and a legal minor.

That's correct. Our Members' Code of Conduct puts it this way:


A member will not:... Engage publicly, or in the presence of other Party members, in any intimate activity with any person that is under the age of 18 or the legal age of consent, whichever is lower, if they are above such an age.

It's a very specific set of circumstances, as you can see. Outside of this, we place no demands or requirements on a member's intimate relations.

[ridethejetski]

The control over personal lives tends to come from the more cultish groups, particularly (but not limited to) Maoist ones in the 1970s.

Not all parties and groups are like this. Im not sure if theres a way to tell before hand how they party or group is, but you can generally tell which parties and groups will try to control your personal life. Size of the group is an important factor maybe. The small groups can (but not always) become quite closed and cultish

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The only group I've encountered that I think is actually cult-like (rather than maybe just being awkward and too inwardly focused) is the Larouchites. They actually do tell people to drop out of school, give all their savings to the group, they use intense internal peer-pressure, they (used to) have dictates about who could be in a relationship (and I think bans on homosexual relationships) and they elevate ideology (or Laruche's wacky concoction of ideas really) to morality and dictate what music and culture members should enjoy (i.e. one of their members told me that they only listen to classical music because after Jazz music is too "sensual" - hmm, don't like the "race music" eh?).

Laruche used to be a leftist and was around the last time I think we can say that there were serious political cults active which was the 1970s. Many of the Maoist-inspired groups at that point had a "revolution is around the corner" view on top of really top-down and undemocratic practices - which helped these groups survive and explain all the political twists of cold-war politics of the time: China supports Russia, China is against Russia, Cultural Revolution, China supports the US. These groups would encourage people to do drastic things (since the revolution was about to happen anyday) and engage in revolutionary-criticism in which people have to tell everyone else in the group about their flaws and revolutionary deficiencies... very cult-y and results in people who are not confident in their own abilities - as if being in a group wasn't about adding our strengths together but about making up for our personal weakness.
I think it is fair to say that Larouche and his cult left the left in the early 70s when they launched "operation mopup" trying to physically attack and destroy the CPUSA (given the relationship of forces, a rather foolish endeavor). Because in a real cult, the cult leader can take the group anywhere, the Labor committees, soon developed clear anti-working class politics with a crack-pot coloration. LaRouche ran many times in Democratic Party Primaries. These guys are a genuine cult -- they are not leftists of any stripe, reformist, centrist or revolutionary. And if anything, they are more pernicious than the SEP/WL/ICFI whack-jobs.

As for the op, this is a broad question. Different groups on the left have different standards of membership--based, in part, on the political philosophy of the group. More social democratic type groups will tend to have relatively loose definitions of membership. Self-proclaimed Leninist groups, be they Trotskyist, Maoist, "Marxist-Leninst" -- should have tighter norms. This could include higher rates of donation, more work expected, etc. The group that I belonged to, had relatively high rates of pledges -- they rate was progressive, the more you made, the higher percentage you paid. But it was/is a Trotskyist/Leninst group, therefore the members consider themselves to be "professional revolutionaries." Therefore, they are willing to sacrifice a great deal to help move the work forward. Also, these Leninist groups, if they are operating correctly (many are not), practice "democratic centralism." In practice, that should mean that there are democratic discussions and even organized opposition factions within the group, but that once a decision is made by the majority of the group, publicly all group members abide by that decision.

I'm not sure that I'm against any kind of lifestyle impositions. Obviously engaging in criminal activity, when not directly tied to political work is a no-no. I would be quite leery of any group that tries to dictate tastes in the arts. And more than leery of a group that tells you who you may or may not have sex with.

[Robespierres Neck]

I just read some very scary things about some parties but it was from a disgruntled former leader.

What's it like to be a member?

Are these things common?

1. Monthly membership dues equaling a percentage of income

2. Having to abandon friends

3. Limits on sexual activity

4. Limits on economic activity

Where are you from, comrade? I don't know a single party that'll put limits on your sexual or economic activity in the US (if I'm mistaken, please correct me).


Oh, come now!

The Rural People's Party isnt that bad.

Long live Jim Jones!!


I've heard some Maoist parties are sects/cults.
Of one party I'm sure this is indeed the case.

The KEN-ML (Communist UnityMovement Netherlands-Marxist-Leninist) had an all powerful leadership who decided where the members were supposed to live and with whom. Sexual activities were restricted to the approval of the leaders. And the leader proposed, De Boer, all women be topless because this supports "openness".

And also, I think I remember the members having to sit in a room confessing ideological sins.

Do you have any more information on De Boer and his party?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Being a party member can help you greatly improve your political and ideological skills, but usually, it is a huge party pooper. hahaha
"party pooper"

[Jimmie Higgins]

they (Laroucheites) are not leftists of any stripe, reformist, centrist or revolutionary.Word. In a totally crude way, I might even say they are sort of a proto-fascist cult inside the Democratic party. Their crazy beliefs, unprincipled and illogical positions on most things, invention of their own kind of predictive "science", disdain for post-Jazz music as "degenerate" and their overall appeals to petty-bourgeois mistrust of popular democracy and working class radicalism on the one hand and corporate power on the other, makes the analogy a tempting one to me. Though probably just the old classic "cult of personality" is more accurate.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

My personal experience during my brief time with the Socialist Party (England and Wales) was:

* Occaisional meetings round John (regional organisers) house. Max 3 people, including me. Discussion, apologies from absent comrades, minutes of last meeting.
*Setting up stalls in town on a Saturday to sell papers / recruit / sign petitions
* John walking to my house to give me my party newspaper / chase subs and give me the latest gossip and party news.
* Some *****ing about the SWP and how they kept trying to dominate the electoral pact / coalition of the day.

...good times :)

[Left Leanings]

During my time at uni, I defected from the Labour Party, and was very close to the SWP and the SWSS (the student arm of the SWP).

I went to a meeting of the SWP in the city, and I have to say, it was quite well attended. There were students there, industrial workers, peeps on the dole, and I noticed a lot tended to be public sector workers, most noticeably healthcare professionals. There was a guest speaker, a senior comrade, who had travelled up to speak on some topic or another. What the fuck it was now, I can't recall lol.

We did have a good drink in the bar downstairs afterwards, though.

I was on the cusp of joining, and my dues would have been very small, the student rate, being, I think, something like £1.50 - £2.00 a month.

I did a paper sale with them on a couple of occasions, in my home town.

It was the time the dreaded Poll Tax was in force, and we did a lot of work around this. We went around the local estates, visiting non-payers in their homes who had received a courts summons, encouraging them to actually go to court (it could be processed in absentia), so we could demonstrate outside the court, and possibly stage an occupation.

There was collaboration between the SWP and the hard left members of the Labour Party in this endeavour.

On the day of the court appearances, we met the non-payers in a local pub, and went to the court with them. Quite a day, with our loudspeakers and banners and plackades. Lots of local peeps turned out too, who were not leftist supporters, but who were disgusted at the Poll Tax.

One of the comrades tried to act as a 'Macenzie's friend', which is where a non-legally qualified person can represent and speak on behalf, of someone facing the magistrate. The clerk to the magistrates wouldn't allow it, so we all started heckling and hissing from the back.

The Chairman of the Bench (the senior magistrate), ordered the police to remove us from the court room, so we continued our rallying outside.

And yep, there was piss-taking between the SWP and Militant (now the SP).

The comrades I am currently associated with, are not in the tradition of either the SWP or the SP.

[Mr. Natural]

My decades-old experiences with Progressive Labor Party, the Revolutionary Union (Avakian's first group), and YSA/SWP convinced me that these parties only wanted to use me to use whatever group their program targeted.

LaRouchites are fascinating and evil. They parrot their lines so well and are definitely a cult.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

My decades-old experiences with Progressive Labor Party, the Revolutionary Union (Avakian's first group), and YSA/SWP convinced me that these parties only wanted to use me to use whatever group their program targeted.

LaRouchites are fascinating and evil. They parrot their lines so well and are definitely a cult.
Well, I don't know -- PL, RU and the YSA, are quite a collection. It seems that you were really trying to find something. Now, none of those groups really qualifies as a cult, although some of the RCP stuff about Avakian approaches that.

Any group will seek to "use" members to advance their aims. That is why you join the group in the first place, right? I have run into some people that join groups or try to join groups in an effort to have friends, and a social milieu. They don't last very long because they are invariably very disappointed that being in a political group is about working toward a goal, not self-improvement. That being said, my time in a Trotskyist group gave me a lot. I learned about history, dialectical materialism and so much more. Essentially, I learned to think.

Also, I wanted to add, that the SL always emphasized education -- and learning about other left groups. Each local had subscriptions to most of the left press available in the US, and some international press as well.

[Mr. Natural]

Lev Bronsteinovich, I'm not trying to kick up a feud here, although I do want to point to the current poverty of left political parties.

In response to brief references to my decades-old (early 70s) experiences with YSA/SWP, PL, and the Revolutionary Union, you observed, "It seems you were really trying to find something."

I sure was and still am. I'm looking for a group of people or a political party that understands the evil of capitalism and is organizing or looking for means of organizing processes out of capitalism into a realized, anarchist/communist human future. I am not aware of any such groups, although there might be something happening somewhere around OWS of which I am unaware.

I'm also looking for any attempts to develop a viable revolutionary organizing theory at Revleft and other left sites, and there is nothing. (Well, I make a constant effort)

I have found only the stalest, stagnant dogmatism and unalloyed liberalism in Trotskyist groups, but at least they aren't some form of Stalinist authoritarianism.

You wrote, "Any group will seek to 'use' members to advance their aims."

Well, Lev, I found the groups I mentioned (you may add the Black Panthers) nakedly, outrageously manipulated their "recruits." Human liberation must come from the workers/people in a grassroots process of growing revolutionary awareness and praxis, and cannot come from a top-down, dictatorial, "enlightened" leader or two or a small bureaucratic leadership corps.

Communism is about creating full democracy, and left political parties, especially in the West, must be models of engaged, radical democracy.

Nature is pervasively "democratic": all species have their place and make their contributions in the dance of life. Left political parties must dance to democratic, popularly engaging tunes, too, or you violate the people who must make the revolution.

My red-green best.
.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Side note - have a look at the album I've started, tried to get as many leftists parties names / logos as I could find.

My old party's logo is there...(remembers laminated membership card) Awww..i miss having that hehe

[TheGodlessUtopian]

My personal experience during my brief time with the Socialist Party (England and Wales) was:

* Occaisional meetings round John (regional organisers) house. Max 3 people, including me. Discussion, apologies from absent comrades, minutes of last meeting.
*Setting up stalls in town on a Saturday to sell papers / recruit / sign petitions
* John walking to my house to give me my party newspaper / chase subs and give me the latest gossip and party news.
* Some *****ing about the SWP and how they kept trying to dominate the electoral pact / coalition of the day.

...good times :)

I'll remind you not to use such derogatory slang, in the future as there are rules here against doing so.

[Mr. Natural]

TheGodlessUtopian, Was KickTheFrog's offhand remark, "*****ing about the SWP" really out of line? Because he used the term "*****ing"? His was a sincere post.

Has Revleft become so "politically correct" that we cannot communicate? Is there a list of terms we cannot use?

I appreciate the work moderators and admins do, but I find your objection to "*****ing about the SWP" to be chilling and stifling of discussion.

My perplexed red-green best.

[Q]

Has Revleft become so "politically correct" that we cannot communicate?
Yes, or at least hampered. There are quite a few terms that we may not use here.


Is there a list of terms we cannot use?
Quite amazingly, no. And this is where most non-US comrades who get a warning or infraction stumble, as they're often not familiar with left-liberal American political correctness.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

^Exactly, I am kind though, my warning was a demi-warning, meaning it wasn't an official verbal.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Your point is well taken that political groups can be manipulative and exploitative. The Spartacist League, of which I was a member and then a close supporter for many years could hardly be called "liberal." Usually, they are criticized for being sectarian if anything. While I was a member, the rules were clear, the purpose of work was clear, and everybody did their part.

And I must say, that I am pretty surprised that the word "*****in'" could constitute any kind of violation -- I mean this doesn't even make sense from a liberal, PC perspective.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Are these things common?

1. Monthly membership dues equaling a percentage of income

2. Having to abandon friends

3. Limits on sexual activity

4. Limits on economic activity
Not in either of the two parties I've been a member of. What you describe sounds more like a dangerous cult.