PSL Campaign ad

[KurtFF8]

It would be quite neat to get something like this on TV of course but the internet is a good start ;)

Mh-4R9ThU9A

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Saw it a couple hours ago. A decent video :cool:

[NewLeft]

I mean, are people who aren't familiar with socialism going to even see this ad?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I mean, are people who aren't familiar with socialism going to even see this ad?

I guess that would depend on how many places it was posted online.

[KurtFF8]

I guess that would depend on how many places it was posted online.

Exactly, the idea is to get it out to folks who aren't already familiar with socialism or the PSL

[HEAD ICE]

im gonna make my own election campaign video but instead of "what is socialism" it is going to be "what is the value-form"

[Zealot]

Nice video although it's quite obvious they are reading from something in front of them. They should try to memorise it next time. But it's probably a minor detail that most won't even notice anyway...I just like nitpicking.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Boring. Should have got Rafiq to do it.

"What is socialism? Nothing but the ruthless institution of terror by the working class upon the bourgeoisie!"

"Prison will be abolished under socialism. Why have four walls when you only need one?"

[X5N]

Neat.

Though I'm not sure about the PSL's focus on the presidential election.

[teflon_john]

3HhP23M53Yc

[The Machine]

lol 100 views good luck

[seventeethdecember2016]

They have 78 subscribers... I have more subscribers than them. :rolleyes:

LOL! I think if that MaoistRebelNews gentleman ran for Canadian Parliament, he'd have a better time with it.

I'm going to vote for the best candidate.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1105&pictureid=9054

[Rusty Shackleford]

and KKE videos have low view numbers even though they are able to poll at 8% in Greece nationally. view counts are irrelevant.

[Devrim]

Profits..jobs...wages...affordable housing...end most taxes...free health care...free education

To be honest they sound like old fashioned European social democrats.

Devrim

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I'm not really a massive fan of the PSL's ideology, but a nice video nonetheless.

[Rooster]

The video looks like a collection of hostage tapes but with the beginnings removed.

"I am in good health and my captures are treating me well..." eyes scan across a piece of card to the side of the camera, "their list of demands are...."

[NewLeft]

We will have a utopia on Earth.

[Manic Impressive]

I bet I know which one Rusty was

[Prometeo liberado]

What kills me is that the PSL can have their collective shit together in regards to putting out some sleek material like this but be ompletely rudderless at the branch level. So much wasted inertia. Leadership devoid of membership, this must be what Avakian was talking about when he wrote The New Synthesis.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I bet I know which one Rusty was
i wasnt even in the video.

[Leftsolidarity]

Good video. Kudos to the PSL.

[Zukunftsmusik]

3HhP23M53Yc

is that a parody on this exact video?

[Ocean Seal]

Profits..jobs...wages...affordable housing...end most taxes...free health care...free education

To be honest they sound like old fashioned European social democrats.

Devrim
And the parts about putting all industries under workers control? Its a campaign video, not a lecture you aren't going to have lessons on the crises of overproduction, alienation, and the labor theory of value.

Edit: And to the video above, its parodying the many types of videos that are like this, not the PSL one, in particular. Because this is a common strategy.

[campesino]

Profits in socialism? I like this more. worker's committees allocating resources and products rather than allocating profits.

[Catma]

I was with it until "real democracy is... (list of benefits)." I know it's just a short commercial but that sticks in my craw. Oh well, I guess I'm not the target audience.

[Robespierres Neck]

To be honest they sound like old fashioned European social democrats.

They're not.


It would be great to see this on television. There's been a poll done recently (not completely reliable but it's something) that shows something like 60-70 percent of Americans would prefer socialism to our current system. One source even said over 90 (but I'm not sure if I believe that).

[ed miliband]

They're not.


It would be great to see this on television. There's been a poll done recently (not completely reliable but it's something) that shows something like 60-70 percent of Americans would prefer socialism to our current system. One source even said over 90 (but I'm not sure if I believe that).

doing a great job of pretending otherwise then; what differences lie between their vision of socialism and the post-war british labour government, for example? full employment, free healthcare and education, improved social housing...

do the psl hope to do away with profit one day? or is profit fine so long as it is used in a certain way?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The PSL comes off as reformist. I've met some of their members and they seem legit and not cultish which is nice but they don't seem to have the party they deserve. Or maybe they do deserve it for not standing up to their leadership. Seems like the organization engages in a whole lot of "money for X not Y" nonsense.

[Zukunftsmusik]

It would be great to see this on television. There's been a poll done recently (not completely reliable but it's something) that shows something like 60-70 percent of Americans would prefer socialism to our current system. One source even said over 90 (but I'm not sure if I believe that).

yeah, but those 60-70 percent probably mean social-democracy or even social liberalism, so that doesn't really say much

[Os Cangaceiros]

There's been a poll done recently (not completely reliable but it's something) that shows something like 60-70 percent of Americans would prefer socialism to our current system. One source even said over 90 (but I'm not sure if I believe that).

I don't think there's any way that statistic could be accurate. :unsure:

[Luc]

Boring. Should have got Rafiq to do it.

"What is socialism? Nothing but the ruthless institution of terror by the working class upon the bourgeoisie!"

"Prison will be abolished under socialism. Why have four walls when you only need one?"

wish I could thank this post 1000X :laugh:

can I sig this or something??? I love it! :laugh:

[El Oso Rojo]

The PSL comes off as reformist. I've met some of their members and they seem legit and not cultish which is nice but they don't seem to have the party they deserve. Or maybe they do deserve it for not standing up to their leadership. Seems like the organization engages in a whole lot of "money for X not Y" nonsense.

no, we do not.

[KurtFF8]

Profits in socialism? I like this more. worker's committees allocating resources and products rather than allocating profits.

I'm not sure how that would fit in this 2 minute campaign video


doing a great job of pretending otherwise then; what differences lie between their vision of socialism and the post-war british labour government, for example? full employment, free healthcare and education, improved social housing...

do the psl hope to do away with profit one day? or is profit fine so long as it is used in a certain way?

The point of talking about profit in these contexts is to demonstrate that the current profits that are generated under capitalism ought not to belong to "the 1%" but rather belong to the people, and that those resources could be used for human development (which includes things that people very explicitly want: work, healthcare, education, etc.).

Even in this video the PSL says very clearly that it is for worker control which is of course quite a different thing than calling for a mere reallocation of capitalist profits via taxes and redistribution under this system.

It's also important to keep in mind that RevLeft was likely not the target audience in mind when this video was made but people who are either newer to activism or the idea of socialism in general.

[The Machine]

this shit wasnt near as good as "If I wanted America to fail"

[honest john's firing squad]

It's also important to keep in mind that RevLeft was likely not the target audience in mind when this video was made but people who are either newer to activism or the idea of socialism in general.
obviously the best way to introduce people to socialism is by giving them a completely incorrect understanding of it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's also important to keep in mind that RevLeft was likely not the target audience in mind when this video was made but people who are either newer to activism or the idea of socialism in general.

How many people is it really going to reach, though? I know about the PSL's campaign strategy, i.e. we're only running candidates to gain awareness of ourselves, but honestly I see no evidence that the strategy works in any meaningful sense. The only time I see such groups pull in segments of society outside Activistland is when they use front groups and organize a broad opposition to something perfectly opposable from a pro-capitalist standpoint (like the anti-war issue)

RS made the point that videos related to the KKE don't receive much views, either, but the KKE is one of the oldest left-wing parties in existence, and has a long and storied (not to mention controversial) past, so the comparison is far from apt.

[MarxSchmarx]

Get some music people.

And way, way too much info crammed in. Make a point, a small point, find a compelling way to deliver the message - and repeat it different ways if you have to - for crying out loud you've got two minutes to indoctrinate us, don't just give us your lo-o-o-ong wish list. This is commercial making 101.

The ad also lacks an edge. Something that makes your PSL seem like the subversive entity it claims to be - not a bunch of (apparently young except for one middle aged guy) people repeating platitudes. Learn from things like Ralph Nadar's MasterCard ad, get the message to stick by being mischeavous. You people claim to be the leftist vanguard, so be it for once.

What message do you remember from this? "I care about the PSL and so should you". RIIIIGHT. Lots of people care about lots of things, what makes the PSL special -- err something about 99%, factories, democracy, free speech, puppies, ... and trust me, most viewers won't even remember that.

[NewLeft]

Get some music people.

And way, way too much info crammed in. Make a point, a small point, find a compelling way to deliver the message - and repeat it different ways if you have to - for crying out loud you've got two minutes to indoctrinate us, don't just give us your lo-o-o-ong wish list. This is commercial making 101.

The ad also lacks an edge. Something that makes your PSL seem like the subversive entity it claims to be - not a bunch of (apparently young except for one middle aged guy) people repeating platitudes. Learn from things like Ralph Nadar's MasterCard ad, get the message to stick by being mischeavous. You people claim to be the leftist vanguard, so be it for once.

What message do you remember from this? "I care about the PSL and so should you". RIIIIGHT. Lots of people care about lots of things, what makes the PSL special -- err something about 99%, factories, democracy, free speech, puppies, ... and trust me, most viewers won't even remember that.
This would make sense if it was going to air on tv, but it's only for youtube.. I think?

[Prometeo liberado]

The PSL comes off as reformist. I've met some of their members and they seem legit and not cultish which is nice but they don't seem to have the party they deserve. Or maybe they do deserve it for not standing up to their leadership. Seems like the organization engages in a whole lot of "money for X not Y" nonsense.

The PSL are no so much reformist as they are a group that panders to the lowest common leftist denominator. Unwilling to take a true ML(or any marxist) stance or line, they can instead operate without restraints. Take the article written in Liberation zine about the transfer of power in the DPRK. The most thought provoking line was that it was "...a well organized and planned funeral and transfer of power.". Really. No mention of the undemocratic hereditary line of succession or any take that would inspire thinking amongst the membership. Well organized funerals must be what socialism adds up to these days. A decently produced video with no substance, brain candy for the left. And candy will most certainly leave a cavity where substance once held sway. All to often one does get the party one deserves by the mere act of lowered expectations or no accountability. Just one more "Party" to be embarrassed of I suppose.

[KurtFF8]

*sigh* I guess I should have anticipated the usual sectarian jabs by posting this.

I doubt this thread will go in a meaningful direction at this point

[Os Cangaceiros]

Threads about specific political parties/organizations are always the most sectarian on this website, don't act suprised by the direction the thread headed in...

[KurtFF8]

Threads about specific political parties/organizations are always the most sectarian on this website, don't act suprised by the direction the thread headed in...

I didn't think I was acting surprised, especially since I said " I guess I should have anticipated..."

It's just frustrating that people can't have serious conversations about other tendencies or groups they disagree with. Or rather that people have to chime in and remind everyone that they happen to disagree with a certain group, etc.

[Prometeo liberado]

It's just frustrating that people can't have serious conversations about other tendencies or groups they disagree with. Or rather that people have to chime in and remind everyone that they happen to disagree with a certain group, etc.

Not serious? Maybe you should watch that clip again and then ask yourself who wants to be serious. Does the working class care so little about being "serious" that they have time watch videos about organizations that care so little about them that they organize into a party of comedians and peddle this shit? Not serious? I know several of the people in that clip and I know one is straight out embellishing his/her hardship story. Or is this trivial fact still not serious enough. Not serious? Nothing is more serious than the truth in regards to those who would attempt to mislead the working class, remember them? So yes, lets cease discussion and just agree on whatever is put before us. Sound seriously familiar PSL people? Seriously.

[ed miliband]

*sigh* I guess I should have anticipated the usual sectarian jabs by posting this.

I doubt this thread will go in a meaningful direction at this point

actually i think this thread has gone in a much more meaningful direction than us simply patting you on the back and saying how great the psl is

[Devrim]

And the parts about putting all industries under workers control?

Which is something that Europe social democrats used to talk about too:


To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.


Its a campaign video, not a lecture you aren't going to have lessons on the crises of overproduction, alienation, and the labor theory of value.

No, you don't, but you could talk about socialism.


The point of talking about profit in these contexts is to demonstrate that the current profits that are generated under capitalism ought not to belong to "the 1%" but rather belong to the people, and that those resources could be used for human development (which includes things that people very explicitly want: work, healthcare, education, etc.).

Even in this video the PSL says very clearly that it is for worker control which is of course quite a different thing than calling for a mere reallocation of capitalist profits via taxes and redistribution under this system.

I grew up in a state, which had free health care, education, and virtually full employment. Most Western European states did until at least 1974. I don't think that they were in anyway socialist.


*sigh* I guess I should have anticipated the usual sectarian jabs by posting this.


I don't think you understand what sectarianism means even.

Devrim

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I didn't think I was acting surprised, especially since I said " I guess I should have anticipated..."

It's just frustrating that people can't have serious conversations about other tendencies or groups they disagree with. Or rather that people have to chime in and remind everyone that they happen to disagree with a certain group, etc.

What serious conversation am I going to have with a party that I disagree with besides the parts we disagree on? "Hey so you like communism? Me too, well see ya!" Don't be so thin skinned.

[Ocean Seal]

obviously the best way to introduce people to socialism is by giving them a completely incorrect understanding of it.
So what you're telling me is that you had the same understanding of socialism that you do now when you first started? Perhaps you better get to learning.

[Robocommie]

*sigh* I guess I should have anticipated the usual sectarian jabs by posting this.

I doubt this thread will go in a meaningful direction at this point

Socialist crab bucket.

[KurtFF8]

edit: nevermind, this is a waste of time at this point

[honest john's firing squad]

So what you're telling me is that you had the same understanding of socialism that you do now when you first started? Perhaps you better get to learning.
no organisation should be deliberately masquerading social democracy as socialism, though. it's one thing to take a political journey yourself and develop your own ideas as you read more and learn from others, but what the PSL is doing here is just patently dishonest. although i suppose it is to be expected of them.

[KurtFF8]

no organisation should be deliberately masquerading social democracy as socialism, though. it's one thing to take a political journey yourself and develop your own ideas as you read more and learn from others, but what the PSL is doing here is just patently dishonest. although i suppose it is to be expected of them.

Saying that healthcare would be provided under socialism is dishonest?

[honest john's firing squad]

Saying that healthcare would be provided under socialism is dishonest?
saying there would be wages and profits under socialism is.

[KurtFF8]

saying there would be wages and profits under socialism is.

Well I suppose this goes into the questions of whether the USSR and Cuba,etc. were/are socialist countries (they had/have wages, etc.)

While this whole point is quit a nit-pick, if we are to continue with the nit pick: the PSL is (at least usual does) denounces the fact that profits don't belong to the people but rather belong to the workers, and that that wealth can be used for things like health care and education, when instead it's being used for private billionaire's luxury, war and occupation, etc. And calls for that wealth to be owned by the public. What's so misleading about that?

The PSL shares the answer to these problems with most Marxists: worker ownership over the means of production. After all the very first thing this video says is that Socialism means workers taking over mines factories, etc.

[honest john's firing squad]

Well I suppose this goes into the questions of whether the USSR and Cuba,etc. were/are socialist countries (they had/have wages, etc.)
i would certainly hope the answer to this question is, by now, evident.


While this whole point is quit a nit-pick, if we are to continue with the nit pick: the PSL is (at least usual does) denounces the fact that profits don't belong to the people but rather belong to the workers, and that that wealth can be used for things like health care and education, when instead it's being used for private billionaire's luxury, war and occupation, etc. And calls for that wealth to be owned by the public. What's so misleading about that?
what's misleading is that what you have described is socialism at all, according to the PSL.


The PSL shares the answer to these problems with most Marxists: worker ownership over the means of production. After all the very first thing this video says is that Socialism means workers taking over mines factories, etc.
everything else the PSL says is completely irrelevant when they've already admitted the law of value will operate in their people's republic of murrica.

[KurtFF8]

i would certainly hope the answer to this question is, by now, evident.

If the answer to these questions were just "self evident" we likely wouldn't have 15+ Communist groups in the United States alone for example.


what's misleading is that what you have described is socialism at all, according to the PSL.

You are just restating your original claim here.


everything else the PSL says is completely irrelevant when they've already admitted the law of value will operate in their people's republic of murrica.

The PSL made no comment about the law of value in post-capitalist America. As a matter of fact, most people on the Left (take Pareconists perhaps) don't make comments about such "blueprints" for socialism other than rather vague statements.

[honest john's firing squad]

If the answer to these questions were just "self evident" we likely wouldn't have 15+ Communist groups in the United States alone for example.
I was talking about you, specifically.


The PSL made no comment about the law of value in post-capitalist America. As a matter of fact, most people on the Left (take Pareconists perhaps) don't make comments about such "blueprints" for socialism other than rather vague statements.
I know the PSL did not explicitly state that the law of value would operate within their America, but it is the only logical conclusion which can be inferred from their claim that wages and profit/surplus-value would exist under socialism.

[KurtFF8]

I was talking about you, specifically.

Then you, once again, didn't really say much of anything at all.


I know the PSL did not explicitly state that the law of value would operate within their America, but it is the only logical conclusion which can be inferred from their claim that wages and profit/surplus-value would exist under socialism.

It's quite silly to claim that it's the "only logical conclusion" and requires quite a few assumptions on your end to draw such an "obvious" conclusion.

[honest john's firing squad]

how else is surplus-value created in the PSL's glorious vision of america if not by the exploitation of the working class, anyway?

[KurtFF8]

how else is surplus-value created in the PSL's glorious vision of america if not by the exploitation of the working class, anyway?

What on earth are you talking about? Of course the PSL agrees that surplus value is created by exploitation of the working class. This is why we feel that surplus value belongs to the proletariat.

I don't see what's so controversial about this in the context of a Marxist/Communist analysis. This is perhaps the least divisive position the PSL or any group has

[Delenda Carthago]

Being the most revolutionary fuck on the corner is the easiest thing on planet earth. And it costs nothing. You can be very very revolutionary on your toilet or while you hang with your friends. Hell, you can call yourselves a "party", an "assembly", an "organisation" or whatever. But it dont do anything.

The point is to reach to people, to talk to them about their problems. Nobody gives a minimum fuck on what socialism is. They want to hear proposals about unemployntment, about health care, about economy, wages etc. And thats what this video lacks on, not being ultra-gangsta-but-revolutionary to cover your childish lifestylish nonsense.


edit: That is, people in USA are not ready to "take over the means of production" and stuff. They first learn to do tha basics. Like syndicalism for example.

[Ocean Seal]

no organisation should be deliberately masquerading social democracy as socialism, though. it's one thing to take a political journey yourself and develop your own ideas as you read more and learn from others, but what the PSL is doing here is just patently dishonest. although i suppose it is to be expected of them.
At no point do they encompass exclusively social-democratic positions, but rather they campaign for reforms which will eventually lead to the contradictions between capital and labor. For all their defects they aren't running on a social democratic platform. Saying socialism gets you healthcare isn't dishonest. You should get healthcare in a socialist society. Moreover, do you really think that the workers care about workers councils, the inevitable collapse of the surplus-value economy and the scientific nature of socialism? Or do they care about peace, land and bread. And at this point of the class struggle getting things like free healthcare in America would be huge.

When I first arrived on revleft I thought that socialism was about free healthcare and education. Which were things that really appealed to me. And then I learned more from posters like Zanthorus, and Zeronowhere, and from authors like Bordiga, Pannekoek, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Marx, Engels, Mao, Guerin, Luxemburg. Then I learned what was necessary.

And I have taught others about the scientific nature of socialism and for the most part they have responded graciously and investigated further sources. But you can't get the "hardcore socialism" into a 2-3 minute ad.

[Delenda Carthago]

A good idea to promote it would be to post the link of the video to the websites of newspapers and stuff, on the comments section.

[Mindtoaster]

I think its a pretty good video but they should do a second take

Have them memorize the lines a bit better and shave that one guy's neckbeard

[Robocommie]

Moreover, do you really think that the workers care about workers councils, the inevitable collapse of the surplus-value economy and the scientific nature of socialism? Or do they care about peace, land and bread. And at this point of the class struggle getting things like free healthcare in America would be huge.

Exactly, very well said.

[Rusty Shackleford]

How many people is it really going to reach, though? I know about the PSL's campaign strategy, i.e. we're only running candidates to gain awareness of ourselves, but honestly I see no evidence that the strategy works in any meaningful sense. The only time I see such groups pull in segments of society outside Activistland is when they use front groups and organize a broad opposition to something perfectly opposable from a pro-capitalist standpoint (like the anti-war issue)




i would like to point out that an old high school/middle school friend started talking about the PSL because of the campaign. and if thats just one person that i know of, then how about people who send in applications or even people who out of the blue see a video or hear a snippet look into it?


the campaign is not the end all solution, the only reason to engage in bourgeois politics is to end bourgeois rule and one way of going about that is attempting to build an organization that challenges the rule of the bourgeoisie.

[Android]

The point is to reach to people, to talk to them about their problems. Nobody gives a minimum fuck on what socialism is. They want to hear proposals about unemployntment, about health care, about economy, wages etc. And thats what this video lacks on, not being ultra-gangsta-but-revolutionary to cover your childish lifestylish nonsense.

Self help sessions are the road to socialism!


At no point do they encompass exclusively social-democratic positions, but rather they campaign for reforms which will eventually lead to the contradictions between capital and labor. For all their defects they aren't running on a social democratic platform.

So, it is socialists who bring the class antagonism between capital and labour into existence? This is a social democratic conception.


And I have taught others about the scientific nature of socialism and for the most part they have responded graciously and investigated further sources. But you can't get the "hardcore socialism" into a 2-3 minute ad.

That is the point though, surely, socialism will never occur as the result of a propaganda campaign. Otherwise why not start going door to door with your message.

[Tim Cornelis]

For the PSL, I thought this was a good ad. Though I would've gone for a different background. It explains socialism using contemporary, relevant words ("profits") which makes it more easily comprehensible. Going around telling we are going to abolish value, prisons, money, exchange, and private property would be quite ineffective. We need to demonstrate the practical value of communism and socialism.

It expositions how socialism can practically improve the lives of the working class.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think the message was very well put together for a political ad however I just think the technique in which they used (no offense) reminds me of a Valtrex commercial.

[ed miliband]

surely telling people that we want a society where we don't have to slave away for someone else or live in fear of the poverty and boredom of unemployment is far more appealing than saying "YEAH AND EVERYONE WILL HAVE A JOB!!"?

[Tim Finnegan]

So, what, they're the Labour Party c. 1945? Big fucking whoop.

[El Oso Rojo]

How many people is it really going to reach, though? I know about the PSL's campaign strategy, i.e. we're only running candidates to gain awareness of ourselves, but honestly I see no evidence that the strategy works in any meaningful sense. The only time I see such groups pull in segments of society outside Activistland is when they use front groups and organize a broad opposition to something perfectly opposable from a pro-capitalist standpoint (like the anti-war issue)

RS made the point that videos related to the KKE don't receive much views, either, but the KKE is one of the oldest left-wing parties in existence, and has a long and storied (not to mention controversial) past, so the comparison is far from apt.

When I am caught with a Psl item, A regular person on the train comes up to me very offten.

[El Oso Rojo]

I think its a pretty good video but they should do a second take

Have them memorize the lines a bit better and shave that one guy's neckbeard

We need him to keep that for the bears on the Left thank you.

[campesino]

I went to the PSL Party's wikipedia page, and they have a very good platform I can get behind. I don't know why they would make a commercial so milk-toast. I think a radical message will bring in more people and even people who are apathetic to politics. This appeal to the center or moderation crap will not move the left anywhere. We have strong truthful rhetoric, and we should not be afraid to broadcast it.

[nomad05273k]

I prefer Noam Chomsky's vid but there's some good info hear. Over 700 views in a few days, let's just hope it picks up

[Mindtoaster]

We need him to keep that for the bears on the Left thank you.

http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/7/72/Francois.gif

[KurtFF8]

I went to the PSL Party's wikipedia page, and they have a very good platform I can get behind. I don't know why they would make a commercial so milk-toast. I think a radical message will bring in more people and even people who are apathetic to politics. This appeal to the center or moderation crap will not move the left anywhere. We have strong truthful rhetoric, and we should not be afraid to broadcast it.

Calling for worker ownership over the means of production isn't exactly an "appeal to the center"

[The Douche]

If I have to work afterwards I don't want to be part of your revolution.

Fuck that, work blows.

[Welshy]

Calling for worker ownership over the means of production isn't exactly an "appeal to the center"

Yeah but as others have shown that doesn't make you anymore radical than a social democratic party (like the Labour Party post-WWII).

[The Douche]

You know who else promises to provide you with food, housing, healthcare, recreation, a job, and clothing?


The army...


Honestly, I don't even know how to engage with communists of this sort anymore. I don't even think we're talking about the same thing.

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2010/2/6/129099886145036139.jpg

[KurtFF8]

Yeah but as others have shown that doesn't make you anymore radical than a social democratic party (like the Labour Party post-WWII).

Ah, well I would love to hear at what threshold this video could have passed from being "social democratic" to "radical"


You know who else promises to provide you with food, housing, healthcare, recreation, a job, and clothing?


The army...


Honestly, I don't even know how to engage with communists of this sort anymore. I don't even think we're talking about the same thing.

That's pretty weak logic, and you know it. The army also exists to protect the interests of the United States (and by extension, capital accumulation). It's quite a stretch to suggest similarities between the PSL's message and the Army.

[nomad05273k]

no organisation should be deliberately masquerading social democracy as socialism, though. it's one thing to take a political journey yourself and develop your own ideas as you read more and learn from others, but what the PSL is doing here is just patently dishonest. although i suppose it is to be expected of them.

Many Americans see Socialism as some sort of evil but they see Democracy as this amazing answer to everything, selling Socialism as "true Democracy" isn't a bad thing when trying to win these people over. Intelligent people know the difference but the ignorant (aka the majority) won't see it coming

[Lucretia]

"Socialism means working people taking control and ownership over the factories, mines, transportation, media, and communication, and service sector enterprises."

Yes, like what the PSL considers to be the great socialist state of North Korea.

The problem with the PSL's understanding of socialism is the same as most people's understanding of it: they conflate socialism purely with state control over the economy.

[Welshy]

Ah, well I would love to hear at what threshold this video could have passed from being "social democratic" to "radical"


Well probably not advocating a system where there would still be profits as this implies that workers are still being exploited, even if those profits are being used to provide useful services for the working class. Also the video is really vague and seems to imply that you can establish socialism through reforms (nationalization of companies and reforms that provide healthcare and housing). I'm not doubting that the people in the PSL are pro-revolutionaries, but your definition of socialism in that video is just (left) social democracy and reformist.

[ridethejetski]

It must suck trying to promote a party to the mainstream while supporting the Kim Dynasty of Korea.

If you manage to reel in some people with the 'true democracy' (such an abuse of words) stuff, i'm sure a quick glance at the international news or history section of your site will send them running away :crying:

[The Douche]

Ah, well I would love to hear at what threshold this video could have passed from being "social democratic" to "radical"



That's pretty weak logic, and you know it. The army also exists to protect the interests of the United States (and by extension, capital accumulation). It's quite a stretch to suggest similarities between the PSL's message and the Army.

My point is that the PSL's conception of communism is not actually something that is at odds with capitalism. If communism is jobs and medicine then communism is nothing. Communism is not a welfare state, ee shouldn't define it as such, we shouldn't make it appear as such in an attempt to build for communism, or a welfare state is what we'll end up with, but then again, i think that might not be to far off from what the PSL actually wants.

[Rusty Shackleford]

My point is that the PSL's conception of communism is not actually something that is at odds with capitalism. If communism is jobs and medicine then communism is nothing. Communism is not a welfare state, ee shouldn't define it as such, we shouldn't make it appear as such in an attempt to build for communism, or a welfare state is what we'll end up with, but then again, i think that might not be to far off from what the PSL actually wants.
second point in the program for the PSL in part II


Participation and representation in the new government shall be guaranteed through democratically organized workplace, neighborhood, and social committees. the "professional politicians" and big business political parties shall be replaced with the political organization of the working class.


....

The exploitation of labor for profit shall be prohibited



are such goals compatible with a welfare capitalist state?

[Welshy]

Doesn't this video contradict your program then? How can you still have profits with out exploiting the working class?

[KurtFF8]

"Socialism means working people taking control and ownership over the factories, mines, transportation, media, and communication, and service sector enterprises."

Yes, like what the PSL considers to be the great socialist state of North Korea.

The problem with the PSL's understanding of socialism is the same as most people's understanding of it: they conflate socialism purely with state control over the economy.

What does North Korea have to do with this conversation?


My point is that the PSL's conception of communism is not actually something that is at odds with capitalism. If communism is jobs and medicine then communism is nothing. Communism is not a welfare state, ee shouldn't define it as such, we shouldn't make it appear as such in an attempt to build for communism, or a welfare state is what we'll end up with, but then again, i think that might not be to far off from what the PSL actually wants.

This is simply a straw man against the PSL's conception of communism, nothing more. The PSL doesn't claim that socialism is merely social programs. When the PSL focuses on those things: it is an attempt to focus on what capitalism has failed to provide in the US, and that an alternative system would be able to provide. That is a different thing than saying that the alternative system is equal to or defined by those social programs.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I am kinda surprised at the negative responses received from this campaign video. Honestly, do you guys have nothing better to do than relentlessly criticize a short video meant for mass consumption? :lol:

[The Douche]

I have the program. You can't build a movement for social democracy, and somehow expect that to create communism though. And that's what projects like this are doing.

[The Douche]

I am kinda surprised at the negative responses received from this campaign video. Honestly, do you guys have nothing better to do than relentlessly criticize a short video meant for mass consumption? :lol:

If we had better things to do, we wouldn't be posting on revleft.

[ridethejetski]

Honestly, do you guys have nothing better to do than relentlessly criticize a short video meant for mass consumption? :lol:

No, or we wouldn't be on rev left




I'm surprised with all the whining and self pitying of the PSLites just cause people are honest about your video.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

If we had better things to do, we wouldn't be posting on revleft.

I guess so... Rev-Left: For when you have nothing better to do!

[Ocean Seal]

You know who else promises to provide you with food, housing, healthcare, recreation, a job, and clothing?
The army...

I offer you a cookie.
I offer you a cookie, but ask you in exchange to cut your dick off.
Same offer right.

[The Douche]

I offer you a cookie.
I offer you a cookie, but ask you in exchange to cut your dick off.
Same offer right.

I left the army with my dick intact, just saying, I make a reasonable point if you read all the posts.

[Ocean Seal]

I left the army with my dick intact, just saying, I make a reasonable point if you read all the posts.
Yes, but joining the army isn't exactly a free exchange. Joining the army means you have to do what the army says for a given amount of time before you can enjoy the benefits of being a veteran. This includes possibly driving over a roadside bomb. Getting free healthcare for being a citizen on the other hand doesn't force you to go through military training, and fight for the US army. And strictly speaking from a perspective of self-interest not anti-imperialism or anything I imagine that going to Afghanistan isn't exactly fun.

[Lucretia]

What does North Korea have to do with this conversation?

The PSL commercial is talking about its definition of socialism. The PSL defines North Korea as a socialist state. That is what North Korea has to do with the advertisement and therefore this discussion, as if it was not plainly obvious.

[KurtFF8]

I have the program. You can't build a movement for social democracy, and somehow expect that to create communism though. And that's what projects like this are doing.

Yet another straw man


The PSL commercial is talking about its definition of socialism. The PSL defines North Korea as a socialist state. That is what North Korea has to do with the advertisement and therefore this discussion, as if it was not plainly obvious.

I still don't see how North Korea fits into this campaign video in any way. It seems more like a weak attempt to find another reason to attack the PSL based something that has nothing to do with this topic (which is supposed to be about a particular video).

[Lucretia]

I still don't see how North Korea fits into this campaign video in any way. It seems more like a weak attempt to find another reason to attack the PSL based something that has nothing to do with this topic (which is supposed to be about a particular video).

So the advertisement is about the PSL's definition of socialism, and its claim that North Korea is a socialist state also reveals a lot about the PSL's definition of socialism, yet you still think there is no relationship between the two subjects, and that somebody like me bringing up NK is trying to interject issues that have no direct bearing on the advertisement, simply because the advertisement didn't mention the words "North Korea"? You've got to be kidding. Not even you believe this. You're just playing the good little foot-soldier.

When the Mormons advertise on television, they don't mention that they think married couples will inherit their own planet from god after they die. Instead, they air a lot of feel-good nonsense about "family values" -- small children bringing cookies to the sick old lady across the street. They call this approach to marketing their religion "Milk before meat." Acquiring a lease on Neptune is mysteriously absent from their thirty-second tv spots. They don't want to scare people away with their insanity. But it doesn't change the fact that their understanding of planet ownership is directly relevant to any discussion about Mormonism's approach to the family. Even if the Mormon church is rightfully embarrassed about it, just as the PSL should be embarrassed by its support for NK. If the PSL doesn't like it, it can stop defending insane shit -- or more specifically, insane monarchical dynasties.

[Prometeo liberado]

second point in the program for the PSL in part II


are such goals compatible with a welfare capitalist state?

You and I both know that what is written in the holy PSL playbook and their deeds are two different things entirely. Take their stance on internal democracy as outlined in the party constitution and by-laws, have you ever seen a vote for the branch leadership or the party central committee? You, I, and most everyone here know the answer. This vid is just more of the cynical, self-obsessed, patronizing culture that permeates from the Beckers/La Riva junta.

[The Douche]

Yes, but joining the army isn't exactly a free exchange

And neither is living in a Stalinist state.


Yet another straw man

Fuck you, straw man. Your commercial, and all your attempts at building the party are focused around anti-war positions (nothing inherently socialist there) or appeals to "progressive" or lowest common denominator leftist ideas. This commercial sums up perfectly what I'm talking about, this commercial doesn't suggest in any way that the PSL is looking for the destruction of alienated labor or mass society.

The PSL seeks to build itself as an organization, first and foremost, but when you appeal to people, like you do in this commercial, with the most minimum of reformist, social democratic politics, you will attract those individuals who want to fight for social democracy. The PSL is a party which is rooted in the struggle for social democracy, even if many of its members are communists (of some sort).

[Prometeo liberado]

Social Democracy is better than Free Market Democracy. I mean it would be in the right direction. Changes come slowly and socialism in America would be one of those changes that come slowely.I tell people who are working class all the time. That I do not expect Socialism to come so fast in the country, I would be fine with social democracy, but it not socialism but hey it mean we are getting there, and we are getting closer.

Wow. Is this what passes for theory in the PSL now? Those candidate meetings must come with giant salt licks. So by your reasoning then a heroine addict needs to become addicted to methadone, then the next lethal drug and so on down the line in order to finaly "kick" the habit so to speak? And apparently you tell this to people "who are working class all the time". I guess I deal with people who are working class only part time. Your last sentence really sums up your PSL cadre education, " I would be fine with social democracy,but it not socialism...". Fine with a form of government not socialist?????? Your party is an unfunny joke that produces unfunny jokers.Good luck organizing that new branch out in the mid-west comrade, that noise you'll hear is the PSL message falling on deaf ears.

[Deicide]

I thought I was watching an Obama commercial.

[MarxSchmarx]

This would make sense if it was going to air on tv, but it's only for youtube.. I think?

TBH, I think on the internet you need to be even more engaging than on tv. People might put up w/ your ad because their programming may resume next on tv. On the internet, they are so much more likely to move on if they are bored.

[Kotze]

If I have to work afterwards I don't want to be part of your revolution.Remember, everybody:

It's only true socialism if cmoney can leech off the working class :rolleyes:

[Tim Finnegan]

Remember, everybody:

It's only true socialism if cmoney can leech off the working class :rolleyes:
I don't think you understand what "work" means, in this context. CMoney means it in the sense of toil, activity which we are compelled by circumstances to undertake by material necessity, rather than because we experience it as enjoyable or fulfilling. If that's something that you're not hostile to, then, quite frankly, you don't really get this whole "communism" thing.


Ah, well I would love to hear at what threshold this video could have passed from being "social democratic" to "radical"
Abolition of the wage-system would be a start.


That's pretty weak logic, and you know it. The army also exists to protect the interests of the United States (and by extension, capital accumulation). It's quite a stretch to suggest similarities between the PSL's message and the Army.Historically, the socialisation of labour (which is what you advocate) has served to protect capital from its own contradictions. So it seems pretty similar to me.

[honest john's firing squad]

fuck I should reply to this thread, huh?

soon, my pretties.

[KurtFF8]

So the advertisement is about the PSL's definition of socialism, and its claim that North Korea is a socialist state also reveals a lot about the PSL's definition of socialism, yet you still think there is no relationship between the two subjects, and that somebody like me bringing up NK is trying to interject issues that have no direct bearing on the advertisement, simply because the advertisement didn't mention the words "North Korea"? You've got to be kidding. Not even you believe this. You're just playing the good little foot-soldier.

They are perhaps related overall, but you have yet to demonstrate how they are linked in this particular instance. You have pointed out that the PSL "defines NK as socialist" yet you have been unable to demonstrate how that criticism of yours is relevant to this campaign ad.

I'm just asking you to demonstrate how the PSL's stance on the DPRK shows anything in relation to this campaign ad. You're simlpy saying "well elsewhere the PSL has said X about the DPRK, therefore the things (Y) it's saying about socialism in this video are flawed!" This is silly logic.

And why do folks like yourself feel the need to personally insult other users on an anonymous internet message board? (in reference to your good little foot soldier comment) It's immature at best and doesn't add anything to the conversation.


Fuck you, straw man.

I genuinely stopped reading after this.


Historically, the socialisation of labour (which is what you advocate) has served to protect capital from its own contradictions. So it seems pretty similar to me.

The "socialization of labor" is when the production process itself becomes "socialized" (i.e. the social interconnectedness of the whole process becomes quite clear via urban growth, etc.). At least that is what Marx meant by the term. You seem to be using it to be equal to a sort of nationalization or expropriation sense which is a wholly different thing.

And yes, under capitalism when nationalization occurs, it's usually for the interests of capital, of course.

[Kotze]

CMoney means it in the sense of toil, activity which we are compelled by circumstances to undertake by material necessity, rather than because we experience it as enjoyable or fulfilling. If that's something that you're not hostile to...I don't expect that we will get rid of that in the next 200 years, for technical reasons. Expecting that we will is highly speculative, so if you do, you are building your outlook on sand.

I prefer robust proposals, and given that we don't exactly know the future that means stuff that works over a range of assumptions. Labour vouchers work whether people are selfish or nice. So when I propose this I'm not doing it because I think all people are assholes and will be assholes to the exact same degree of assholery forever. Maybe there will be tremendous technical progress, maybe not. Either way, labour vouchers work. One needs to be much more specific in assumptions about technical and social developments to forecast that remuneration won't be needed at all.

I understand entirely that there is a lot of satisfaction in producing something for yourself, and when you don't enjoy just the result of the process, but the process itself (like with cooking, for some people). Why on earth should I be hostile to people enjoying what they do? I also think it's quite reasonable to expect that with technical progress and more social security, people will become more generous, to some degree. But to what degree? To believe that this will not just reduce the need for remuneration mechanisms, but completely eliminate it, is highly speculative, no matter how much you guys invoke Marx (in a pretty disingenuous way).

[danyboy27]

Personally i dont understand how an organization who defend the people republic of china can go out and advertise about socialism, its just dosnt make any fucking sense.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't expect that we will get rid of that in the next 200 years, for technical reasons. Expecting that we will is highly speculative, so if you do, you are building your outlook on sand.
Is "for technical reason" a polite way of saying "talking out of my arse"?


The "socialization of labor" is when the production process itself becomes "socialized" (i.e. the social interconnectedness of the whole process becomes quite clear via urban growth, etc.). At least that is what Marx meant by the term. You seem to be using it to be equal to a sort of nationalization or expropriation sense which is a wholly different thing.
Sometimes words have more than one meaning, yes. The fact that this comes as a surprise to you might explain some of your theoretical shortcomings.


And yes, under capitalism when nationalization occurs, it's usually for the interests of capital, of course.If nationalisation under capitalism represents the interests of capital rather than labour, how can you expect to nationalise capitalism out of existence?

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't know what some of these users expected from the PSL. They're trying to introduce the concept of socialism to people who have otherwise been unexposed except for massive propaganda.

I doubt the idea of having a video where they go "WE MUST SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION FROM THE BOUGEOISIE THROUGH THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT SO WE CAN SURPASS THE CLASS ANATAGONISMS THAT LEAD TO THE FORMATION OF THE STATE!!!! :hammersickle::star3::che::castro::cubaflag::marx: :star2:" would be of much help.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't know what some of these users expected from the PSL. They're trying to introduce the concept of socialism to people who have otherwise been unexposed except for massive propaganda.
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

But, no, let's just condescend the shit out of people, much more practical.

[Leftsolidarity]

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

But, no, let's just condescend the shit out of people, much more practical.

I don't think they did anything opposed to that quote. Quote what parts you think did that.

There's a difference between denying your views and building a form of conversation.

[Lucretia]

They are perhaps related overall, but you have yet to demonstrate how they are linked in this particular instance. You have pointed out that the PSL "defines NK as socialist" yet you have been unable to demonstrate how that criticism of yours is relevant to this campaign ad.

I'm just asking you to demonstrate how the PSL's stance on the DPRK shows anything in relation to this campaign ad. You're simlpy saying "well elsewhere the PSL has said X about the DPRK, therefore the things (Y) it's saying about socialism in this video are flawed!" This is silly logic.

It's very simple, Kurt, so I am surprised that you are actually making me go through the motions of showing you. I have absolutely no doubt that you know exactly where this is headed. If you honestly don't, then all I have to say is that the PSL and its sympathizers are more dense than even I suspected.

The criticism is relevant to the campaign ad because the advertisement is presenting a misleading, and to be even more frank, deceptive understanding of what PSL means when it claims it is a party for "socialism." The advertisement talks about socialism meaning that the workers are controlling various things in the economy, but what it doesn't mention is that the PSL supports and praises the DPRK as a socialist state -- only it's a state where the workers have literally no control over the industries and institutions mentioned in the commercial.

So it's hilarious that the PSL is airing an advertisement where it talks in glowing words and phrases about a social system where people are empowered to take control over their own lives and their own society, yet in that very same advertisement, it is misleading viewers in a way that will prevent them from making informed and potentially empowering choices about how to get to that kind of society. The people who are being targeted by your little Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-Day-Saints, feel-good marketing spot have a right to know this, and not to be misled by the group's carefully filtered and choreographed representation of what it actually thinks socialism is (which is state ownership of the economy, regardless of who runs the state).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Meh, the video seems play into the poor perceptions of Marxist Socialism. It is full of the kind of theoretical oversimplification that led people to perceive the Eastern Block as "Socialist". It's not about "profits" going to health care. A person who has studied Marx's critique sees that "profits" are the Capitalist's take of surplus value when contrasted to the amount of Capital they needed to invest. Socialism means the end of the system of profit as such. You can say "Oh, well this is only meant to introduce workers to socialism" ... this seems paternalistic, because you can explain that idea without sounding like an economist lecturing on Das Kapital.

You might as well add a flying American flag and some jingoistic nonsense about how "the greatest nation on earth deserves the greatest services on earth".

It could have been worse though, it is nice to see socialism being put into terms of the worker's control over the means of production because Americans assume that socialism is necessarily state control. However the PSL seems to have a questionable definition of what "worker's control" means.



I still don't see how North Korea fits into this campaign video in any way. It seems more like a weak attempt to find another reason to attack the PSL based something that has nothing to do with this topic (which is supposed to be about a particular video).

It has everything to do with the topic. The best thing that the PSL talks about in this video is the worker's owning the means of production. This is a vague idea which can be interpreted in many ways however. If the PSL thinks that the workers in the DPRK are "controlling the means of production", then somebody would be correct to be very worried when watching this video. It shows how the PSL defines the terms they use. If worker's control means bureaucratic micromanagement, militarism and dynastic despotism, any worker in their right mind would reject it.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't think they did anything opposed to that quote. Quote what parts you think did that.

There's a difference between denying your views and building a form of conversation.
My intention was to suggest why communists might be reluctant to endorse the video, rather than to suggest that it did not accurately represent the PSL.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

But, no, let's just condescend the shit out of people, much more practical.

Well, if Marx said it than it must be true. Forget "scientific" analysis, and material conditions.

Definitions, is what the quote boils down to.Definitions on "existing social conditions."

[Tim Finnegan]

Well, if Marx said it than it must be true. Forget "scientific" analysis, and material conditions.
If that was really what the PSL was interested in, they wouldn't present themselves with this sort of utopian appeal.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

If that was really what the PSL was interested in, they wouldn't present themselves with this sort of utopian appeal.

Dunno, my post had nothing to do with the PSL. I was just taking offense at how people all too often take a quote from Marx and somehow expect that to dissolve all opposition.

I hear that quote a lot and contrary to popular belief each leftist has their own preference to their activity ("Concealment of aims").

[Tim Finnegan]

Dunno, my post had nothing to do with the PSL. I was just taking offense at how people all too often take a quote from Marx and somehow expect that to dissolve all opposition.
I didn't, I was just being a sarky bastard. If I wanted to make a serious case, I'd argue that there are multiple levels of abstraction at which communists need to work, and that its possible to engage with people at the more concrete level without hitting them over the head with abstract theory. This ad, and other appeals like it, sacrifice both a revolutionary perspective and the potential for concrete engagement, because the former is given up in favour of social democratic niceties and the latter is given up in favour of grand, state-level utopianism.

Contrary to Leftsolidarity's claim, engaging with people does not mean condescending to them, it means engaging them on the level of concrete needs rather than abstract principles. It's not as if convincing people of this-or-that principle was ever how this was going to work in the first place.

[Kotze]

Is "for technical reason" a polite way of saying "talking out of my arse"?Partially, but mostly I'm saying that to distinguish from the merely political obstacle type (=people not having enough awareness of it, and if they had and acted collectively, they could overcome it) the more stubborn type of obstacle: that the technology isn't there yet. Not expecting a drastic enough change here is also speculative of course. My point is that using labour vouchers looks plausible over a broader range of assumptions.

I also want to remind everybody that labour vouchers are part of the package that Marx and Engels called the lower stage of communism, so would you wankers please stop calling remuneration capitalism, thank you :)


what it doesn't mention is that the PSL supports and praises the DPRKThe members of the PSL live in the USA, and they do everything to counter their mass media, which 24/7 dehumanizes people who live in certain countries to make the US population more accepting of these becoming military targets.

I know of that Kim funeral stuff, and I can also remind anybody who hasn't maxed out their rage meter yet that they also have done puff-piece writing on Iran. They could handle that differently (more showing normal people as normal people and less going on about how fabulous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad etc are), but I don't think they can afford much more subtlety here, and the usual ultraleft style ("any country is just as imperialist at the USA!!1") would be worse.


engaging with people does not mean condescending to them, it means engaging them on the level of concrete needs rather than abstract principles.And housing, student debt, healthcare don't count as concrete because?

[Prometeo liberado]

And housing, student debt, healthcare don't count as concrete because?
Not when these demands preceded with asking "money for". Thats either a revisionist statment, pandering to peoples lack of knowledge of communism or both. Either way a party that claims to be a vanguardist party should, and does, know better. The working class deserves and demands better than this schoolyard ego driven garbage. Pretty sure.

[Leftsolidarity]

Contrary to Leftsolidarity's claim, engaging with people does not mean condescending to them, it means engaging them on the level of concrete needs rather than abstract principles.

Never claimed anything like that. Sure, it could have probably been made better but I still think it was pretty good. I also don't see another group making a better ad explaining things.


It's not as if convincing people of this-or-that principle was ever how this was going to work in the first place.

See this. This is what I don't like. This is some strange pseudo-Calvinist shit that seems to come from left communists a lot. It's the whole idea of, "Why even bother reaching out to the masses or trying to inform them of the concepts of socialism? It will happen all by itself. It's predetermined by the material conditions of society that we will have socialism."

It's really not. There is no destiny of socialism in the world. While the material conditions created by capitalism lend itself to a socialist revolution, it is not bound to happen and it will not happen un-conciously.

It still takes agitation, education, and organization.

[Tim Finnegan]

Never claimed anything like that. Sure, it could have probably been made better but I still think it was pretty good. I also don't see another group making a better ad explaining things.
Why on earth would they want to?


See this. This is what I don't like. This is some strange pseudo-Calvinist shit that seems to come from left communists a lot. It's the whole idea of, "Why even bother reaching out to the masses or trying to inform them of the concepts of socialism? It will happen all by itself. It's predetermined by the material conditions of society that we will have socialism."

It's really not. There is no destiny of socialism in the world. While the material conditions created by capitalism lend itself to a socialist revolution, it is not bound to happen and it will not happen un-conciously.

It still takes agitation, education, and organization.Like I said, there are multiple levels of abstraction at which we have to work, and posing it as a question of winning 50%+1 of the population to an ideological project is just as far from the mark as sitting back and letting history take care of itself. Communism is neither a conciousness nor a mechanical process, and any attempt to reduce it to one single level of abstraction will leave you with nothing more than an ugly and ineffective caricature.

[Delenda Carthago]

Fuckin North Korea. No matter what the subject, it always finds a way to pop up.

[Lucretia]

Fuckin North Korea. No matter what the subject, it always finds a way to pop up.

Gee. I wonder why.

[El Oso Rojo]

Well, You guys should come up with a better video to present. we take notes from there. I am being serious, if you guys can come up with something better. I would make a suggest to our media people to fellow your guys model.

[KurtFF8]

Not when these demands preceded with asking "money for". Thats either a revisionist statment, pandering to peoples lack of knowledge of communism or both. Either way a party that claims to be a vanguardist party should, and does, know better. The working class deserves and demands better than this schoolyard ego driven garbage. Pretty sure.

Name a single instance where the PSL has "asked for" money for X or Y

And as for the DPRK: I'm not going to sit here and try to argue that it is a workers' state (in all honesty I doubt anyone would be able to successfully demonstrate that)


It's very simple, Kurt, so I am surprised that you are actually making me go through the motions of showing you. I have absolutely no doubt that you know exactly where this is headed. If you honestly don't, then all I have to say is that the PSL and its sympathizers are more dense than even I suspected.

The criticism is relevant to the campaign ad because the advertisement is presenting a misleading, and to be even more frank, deceptive understanding of what PSL means when it claims it is a party for "socialism." The advertisement talks about socialism meaning that the workers are controlling various things in the economy, but what it doesn't mention is that the PSL supports and praises the DPRK as a socialist state -- only it's a state where the workers have literally no control over the industries and institutions mentioned in the commercial.

So it's hilarious that the PSL is airing an advertisement where it talks in glowing words and phrases about a social system where people are empowered to take control over their own lives and their own society, yet in that very same advertisement, it is misleading viewers in a way that will prevent them from making informed and potentially empowering choices about how to get to that kind of society. The people who are being targeted by your little Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-Day-Saints, feel-good marketing spot have a right to know this, and not to be misled by the group's carefully filtered and choreographed representation of what it actually thinks socialism is (which is state ownership of the economy, regardless of who runs the state).

If anything, it seems the issue here is that you feel the PSL is being inconsistent more than being dishonest. The PSL quite clearly states that socialism would be worker ownership/control of the means of production for the United States. Nowhere does it say, nor has it ever, promoted a North Korean model for any other revolutionary movement, let alone the US movement.

So it seems what you're getting at is "Well the PSL may say they want worker ownership, but they 'support' North Korea, therefore they really secretly mean that they want a system like North Korea!" which is just faulty logic.

I'm not saying that one ought not criticize the PSL's stance on the DPRK, but I just see it as quite a stretch to fit it into a criticism of this particular video, and it demonstrates that much of the criticism of the video has little to do with the video itself and is rather just using the video to attack the party for other issues.

[Lucretia]

If anything, it seems the issue here is that you feel the PSL is being inconsistent more than being dishonest.

Whether you want to frame the issue as one of deliberate deception or empty-headed inconsistency is your choice. The point stands: there is a direct contradiction between saying that a necessary condition of socialism is workers' control, then also saying that NK is socialist. If you want to think this is the accidental product of confusion on the part of PSL members, fine. If you want to view this as an attempt not to scare people who won't have the greatest reaction to realizing that the PSL is fighting for an economic system not different in any fundamental way from what the PSL thinks exists in NK, then that's fine also. I happen to subscribe to the latter interpretation.

You try to respond to this by putting your own words into the commercial rather than let the commercial speak for itself. You claim, "The PSL quite clearly states that socialism would be worker ownership/control of the means of production for the United States."

Setting aside the ridiculous conflation of state control with workers' control (which is implicit in your mashing together "ownership" with control), where on Earth in that commercial does the PSL limit its definition to just the United States, and why would the PSL establish a different definition of socialism for each country?

After hassling me for multiple posts for bringing issues up supposedly unrelated to the commercial, KurtF8 is now trying to rewrite the commercial in order to defend the PSL. This is rich stuff, folks. The title of this thread is "PSL Campaign ad," not "KurtF8's editorial revision of the PSL campaign ad."


So it seems what you're getting at is "Well the PSL may say they want worker ownership, but they 'support' North Korea, therefore they really secretly mean that they want a system like North Korea!" which is just faulty logic.Now you're trying to rewrite my argument, which doesn't mention "two models of socialism." It doesn't mention "models" at all. Of course when socialism is established, it won't look exactly the same throughout the entire world, but what will be the same -- at least according to the PSL's basic definition of socialism, which I actually agree with on this point -- is workers' control over the means of production. Since this does not exist in NK, what exists there is not any model of socialism. It's not that their "socialism" does not match my or the PSL's overly specific Eurocentric model that, at any rate, is not mentioned and has no relevance for the advertisement in question.


I'm not saying that one ought not criticize the PSL's stance on the DPRK, but I just see it as quite a stretch to fit it into a criticism of this particular video, and it demonstrates that much of the criticism of the video has little to do with the video itself and is rather just using the video to attack the party for other issues.I think it's pretty obvious from your remarks here what your goal has been.

[KurtFF8]

Whether you want to frame the issue as one of deliberate deception or empty-headed inconsistency is your choice. The point stands: there is a direct contradiction between saying that a necessary condition of socialism is workers' control, then also saying that NK is socialist. If you want to think this is the accidental product of confusion on the part of PSL members, fine. If you want to view this as an attempt not to scare people who won't have the greatest reaction to realizing that the PSL is fighting for an economic system not different in any fundamental way from what the PSL thinks exists in NK, then that's fine also. I happen to subscribe to the latter interpretation.

You try to respond to this by putting your own words into the commercial rather than let the commercial speak for itself. You claim, "The PSL quite clearly states that socialism would be worker ownership/control of the means of production for the United States."

Setting aside the ridiculous conflation of state control with workers' control (which is implicit in your mashing together "ownership" with control), where on Earth in that commercial does the PSL limit its definition to just the United States, and why would the PSL establish a different definition of socialism for each country?

After hassling me for multiple posts for bringing issues up supposedly unrelated to the commercial, KurtF8 is now trying to rewrite the commercial in order to defend the PSL. This is rich stuff, folks. The title of this thread is "PSL Campaign ad," not "KurtF8's editorial revision of the PSL campaign ad."

The PSL only exists in the United States and is fighting for a socialism in the United States, so I figured that would not be a point for you to contest.

No where have I "rewritten" anything in the ad.


Now you're trying to rewrite my argument, which doesn't mention "two models of socialism." It doesn't mention "models" at all. Of course when socialism is established, it won't look exactly the same throughout the entire world, but what will be the same -- at least according to the PSL's basic definition of socialism, which I actually agree with on this point -- is workers' control over the means of production. Since this does not exist in NK, what exists there is not any model of socialism. It's not that their "socialism" does not match my or the PSL's overly specific Eurocentric model that, at any rate, is not mentioned and has no relevance for the advertisement in question.

I think it's pretty obvious from your remarks here what your goal has been.

If the "obvious" goal of mine has been to delink the question of North Korea to this ad, then yes I would hope that much is obvious, considering the weak attempt at discrediting the ad with a separate position of the PSL which has little to do with any real criticism of this ad.

You haven't been pointing to anything in the ad in terms of faulty definitions of socialism, but rather are pointing elsewhere. This is a classic red herring.

[Kotze]

What jbeard meant with "money for" was in direct reference to the ad. That is, the part where you guys talk about using profits to get the money to do this or that good thing with it, which is a very odd way of phrasing things. Not that reading discussions on this forum is likely to help much, since people here are very inconsistent about what they mean with terms like wages and money.

I find talking about profits of state-owned enterprises going into good things misleading (even in a reformist context), unless you are talking about local government. Money doesn't really store energy, it only seems to work like that when you are playing a small role in the big economy, and the way you guys talk you seem to transplant that micro-level impression to the macro scale.

When I go out and buy stuff with all my saved money it's highly unlikely that I affect the prices of the stuff I buy, so for me money works like it were storing in it the stuff I buy. Injecting a huge amount of money into the economy has a different effect. I'm not saying doing that guarantees a price hike that is both immediate and exactly proportional to the money increase, it depends on various factors and a lot on how much unemployment there is, and when we reach that level of understanding (aka vulgar Keynesianism), we already see that organizing things differently, even while staying inside capitalism, is about using the potential of people. (The vulgar Keynesian understands, unlike the austerity masochists, that the time somebody hasn't anything to do just goes by and is not stored anywhere for future use. We should be a bit more precise than just that distinction in our efficiency considerations.)

Talking about "profits" of "money" going into this or that is so indirect and convoluted, like looking at some machine schematic that has a lot of friction in a spot and you have an idea how to remove some parts, to simplify stuff, but somebody else proposes that the friction can be used to generate heat which can be used to blablahthis and blahblathat and this whatchamadingle over there than goes here to help with movement.

Sooo, does all that actually lead to some proposal how to say things differently? -Yes. Doing things differently is really about humans putting their time less into this and more into that. Talk about meaningful work. Eg. fewer people in the army, more people working as nurses.

[KurtFF8]

Not to sound redundant but: any talk of "money for X or Y" in the ad was preceded by a direct call for worker ownership/control (both terms were used) over production and the state.

So the idea that subsequent calls for money for X or Y are an appeal to reform the capitalist system is just a misrepresentation of what the video clearly states.

Would "profits" exist in the same way that surplus value leads them to be owned in this current system under a socialist system? Well no. But is talking about what we could do with profits helpful to appealing to a broader audience that has yet to get through Marx's Capital? Perhaps

[Lucretia]

The PSL only exists in the United States and is fighting for a socialism in the United States, so I figured that would not be a point for you to contest.

It's simply non-sequential to argue that because the PSL is a US political activism group, it's definition of socialism necessarily only applies to the US. This is especially absurd given that socialism (at least as conceived by all the classical Marxists, even if not by Marcyites) is to be an international system.


No where have I "rewritten" anything in the ad.The advertisement stated what socialism meant. In order to defend the PSL from its own contradictions, you have now rewritten the advertisement so that its definition of socialism is USA-specific, when in fact no such qualification exists in the advertisement at all. So now in KurtFF8's magical little fantasy world, the USA can have its "socialism," while North Korea can have its "socialism" -- even though both "socialisms" contradict each other on the one definitional criterion that the PSL mentions in its advertisement! You're making this way too easy, Kurt. One wonders if each country can have its own dramatically and fundamentally different versions of "socialism," whether Germany's version will be presided over by a fuhrer. One also wonders whether KurtFF8 and his Marcyite friends will defend this as a "model of socialism."


If the "obvious" goal of mine has been to delink the question of North Korea to this ad, then yes I would hope that much is obvious, considering the weak attempt at discrediting the ad with a separate position of the PSL which has little to do with any real criticism of this ad.Your goal here is to defend the PSL at all costs, even if results in hypocritical behavior on your part, even if it results in your having to perform the most humorously contorted of intellectual gymnastics.

The irony is that the more desperately you defend them, the more obvious it is just how deficient and indefensible the PSL's theoretical line is.


You haven't been pointing to anything in the ad in terms of faulty definitions of socialism, but rather are pointing elsewhere. This is a classic red herring.I've criticized the PSL for advertising what I consider to be a correct definition of socialism, then in its political activity using a completely different, and incompatible definition of socialism such that NK qualifies as "socialist." So one of two things must be true: the PSL's definition of socialism in the advertisement is not really its definition of socialism, or its defense of NK as "socialist" is incorrect. The only other alternative, addressed above, is that there is no definition of socialism with a quality that will apply universally to all socialist "states." All states will therefore have a different form of "socialism," but there's no telling what that "socialism" will entail.

I have already explained why I think the first option is the most plausible, and that the PSL is deliberate trying to provide the most appealing definition of socialism, even when that definition contradicts its political practice -- and its real understanding of what socialism means. So, yes, Kurt, my criticism most certainly is a criticism of the advertisement, even if you want to remain in your little fantasy world and pretend it's not.

[Q]

Fuck you, straw man. Your commercial, and all your attempts at building the party are focused around anti-war positions (nothing inherently socialist there) or appeals to "progressive" or lowest common denominator leftist ideas. This commercial sums up perfectly what I'm talking about, this commercial doesn't suggest in any way that the PSL is looking for the destruction of alienated labor or mass society.

The PSL seeks to build itself as an organization, first and foremost, but when you appeal to people, like you do in this commercial, with the most minimum of reformist, social democratic politics, you will attract those individuals who want to fight for social democracy. The PSL is a party which is rooted in the struggle for social democracy, even if many of its members are communists (of some sort).

This is an important point that needs repeating. It, paradoxically, justifies a bureaucratic and highly stratified type of organisation. After all, how do you prevent the "party" from going the way of the reformists if you seek to attract workers on a reformist basis? Surely we need "educators" (aka "cadres") that lead the way in the "proper" understanding of the party program.

The ad strengthens my gloomy prospects of the PSL's internal democratic culture.

What we need is a diametrical opposite: An open political formation (call it a party if you want) where communists (yes, communists acting as such openly) engage with eachother on a variety of subjects but are united on the fight for working class seizure of political power as a class. This implies the overthrow of the existing constitutional order, designed to keep a minority in power, and the establishment of a new order based on working class self-organisation.

On this basis, you would expect a party that seeks to educate the masses more on political issues, the battle for democracy, as opposed to keeping yourself to platitudes like "real democracy" (meaning what?). All of the other wishlist items (free healthcare, free education, et al) logically flow from this seizure of power.

A good base demand for a presidential ad campaign would be the end of the president as an office. Away with all such monarchical structures! But this is not what we hear from the ad. What we hear is your typical "vote for us" message, which doesn't work in the locked and non-democratic two-party political system (where are demands for representative democracy for that matter?).

Conclusion: The PSL is just another sect with a bureaucratic leadership that competes with other sects to attain the biggest "market share" within the working class movement.

[KurtFF8]

The advertisement stated what socialism meant. In order to defend the PSL from its own contradictions, you have now rewritten the advertisement so that its definition of socialism is USA-specific, when in fact no such qualification exists in the advertisement at all. So now in KurtFF8's magical little fantasy world, the USA can have its "socialism," while North Korea can have its "socialism" -- even though both "socialisms" contradict each other on the one definitional criterion that the PSL mentions in its advertisement! You're making this way too easy, Kurt. One wonders if each country can have its own dramatically and fundamentally different versions of "socialism," whether Germany's version will be presided over by a fuhrer. One also wonders whether KurtFF8 and his Marcyite friends will defend this as a "model of socialism."

Wow you read quite a bit into people's statements that isn't there. No I'm not saying that the PSL is talking only about the United States. You keep harping on the PSL's articles on the DPRK (which actually say quite little about the PSL "promoting" that model) as a criticsm of what the PSL means by socialism (this being in the context of building a socialist movement in the United States). I said, which I'm sure most PSL folks would agree with, that the PSL is not arguing that socialism in the US would look like the DPRK. How is this inconsistent with the idea that socialism is an international system?

The PSL released this video as part of a US presidential campaigned with the intended audience being workers in the United States. Thus the purpose of the ad is to raise the question of building socialism in the US (a major part of that of course being the promotion of internationalism).

You have yet to demonstrate the relevance of North Korea to this ad, however. And again, this is simply a red herring.


Your goal here is to defend the PSL at all costs, even if results in hypocritical behavior on your part, even if it results in your having to perform the most humorously contorted of intellectual gymnastics.

The irony is that the more desperately you defend them, the more obvious it is just how deficient and indefensible the PSL's theoretical line is.

Spare me the insults please. I'm not willing to engage with someone who needs to devolve a conversation into a petty pissing match about what my motivations are, or how "desperate" my internet message board posts are as you spend time to attack an organization on that same internet message board.


I've criticized the PSL for advertising what I consider to be a correct definition of socialism, then in its political activity using a completely different, and incompatible definition of socialism such that NK qualifies as "socialist." So one of two things must be true: the PSL's definition of socialism in the advertisement is not really its definition of socialism, or its defense of NK as "socialist" is incorrect. The only other alternative, addressed above, is that there is no definition of socialism with a quality that will apply universally to all socialist "states." All states will therefore have a different form of "socialism," but there's no telling what that "socialism" will entail.

I have already explained why I think the first option is the most plausible, and that the PSL is deliberate trying to provide the most appealing definition of socialism, even when that definition contradicts its political practice -- and its real understanding of what socialism means. So, yes, Kurt, my criticism most certainly is a criticism of the advertisement, even if you want to remain in your little fantasy world and pretend it's not.

What "political practice" does it contradict exactly? Again the logic you're using here is quite faulty and is hardly fleshed out.

Your criticism doesn't entail a single quote or aspect of the advertisement itself but rather a handful of articles on the DPRK (which is hardly a major focus of the PSL in its publication or political practice). So your argument essentially relies on "well the ad sounds nice, but they must secretly mean something else by it all, therefore the ad is faulty!"

[Lucretia]

Wow you read quite a bit into people's statements that isn't there. No I'm not saying that the PSL is talking only about the United States.

Really? Because quoting verbatim from an earlier post, you stated that my criticism of the advertisement was off base because "The PSL quite clearly states that socialism would be worker ownership/control of the means of production for the United States." How else could this statement possibly be interpreted, Kurt? If we remove "for the United States," and say that the PSL defines socialism as worker control over the means of production, then we're back to the original contradiction: how can the PSL claim that socialism means workers' control over production, while saying that NK - a state where workers do not have control over production - is socialist?


You keep harping on the PSL's articles on the DPRK (which actually say quite little about the PSL "promoting" that model) as a criticsm of what the PSL means by socialism (this being in the context of building a socialist movement in the United States).I have not once mentioned the PSL's "articles" on anything. I have, however, made frequent reference to the PSL's position that North Korea is socialist. If North Korea is socialist, and the PSL advertisement is promoting and advocating socialism, well...you do the math.

You keep on wanting to muddy this discussion by bringing up contexts, but we're not talking about specific contexts and how that might change the realization of socialism. Every revolutionary socialist on this board would obviously agree that socialism would look different depending on the historical and cultural context. What we're talking about in relation to the advertisement is the PSL's basic, fundamental criteria of what makes a society socialist -- regardless of the concrete peculiarities or contexts.

In the advertisement, that criteria is laid out as "workers' control over the means of production." In its practice, it identifies countries as socialist even though workers in those countries do not control the means of production. Again the question arises, Kurt: which definition is correct?


I said, which I'm sure most PSL folks would agree with, that the PSL is not arguing that socialism in the US would look like the DPRK. How is this inconsistent with the idea that socialism is an international system?But the issue, to repeat for the fourth time, isn't whether socialism will look the same everywhere. It's whether socialism as an international system has as its basis workers' control over the means of production, whether through a centralized "state" type apparatus or more decentralized governing bodies. If you, like the PSL, want to argue that NK is socialist, while maintaining that socialism means workers' control, you'll necessarily have to take the position that socialism will have radically, dramatically different definitions depending on where in the world it is established. This, of course, basically means the idea of socialism as a unified system loses all coherence.


You have yet to demonstrate the relevance of North Korea to this ad, however. And again, this is simply a red herring.I have stated repeatedly that the advertisement provides a definition of socialism that is at odds with the PSL's political practice regarding its position on North Korea. This makes the advertisement, at the very least, misleading if not outright deceptive. Got that? Let me run it by you again. The PSL's position on the "socialist" nature of North Korea is relevant to the advertisement because it contradicts the definition provided in the advertisement, and therefore calls into question whether that advertised definition really corresponds with the PSL's understanding of socialism.

You can keep declaring over and over again that North Korea has no relevance to this advertisement, but in order to do so you have to claim that the PSL's working definition of socialism in its political practice has no relevance to this advertisement. Are you willing to go that far?

Or do you want to maintain your desperate defense?



What "political practice" does it contradict exactly? Again the logic you're using here is quite faulty and is hardly fleshed out.When the PSL actively touts the North Korean regime as socialist, and sends letters to the country expressing sympathy at the time one of its dictators died, that is a political act -- an act of political practice.

I'm wondering what you want me to explain next, the definition of "act"? How about the definition of "the" or "is"? Your Clintonian approach to salvaging the PSL's reputation on this issue verges on insulting.

[Prometeo liberado]

Name a single instance where the PSL has "asked for" money for X or Y

Your kidding me right? I have marched with the Becker's and Prysner and that effite Ian. This "money for jobs, not for war" mantra is encrypted in their DNA. Shit, if I had a dime for every time Peta L. screamed it out at a march I'd have enough to pay the rent that they are behind on. Do you even hang with these people or just read Liberation, because you make no sense KurtFF8?

[El Oso Rojo]

Your kidding me right? I have marched with the Becker's and Prysner and that effite Ian. This "money for jobs, not for war" mantra is encrypted in their DNA. Shit, if I had a dime for every time Peta L. screamed it out at a march I'd have enough to pay the rent that they are behind on. Do you even hang with these people or just read Liberation, because you make no sense KurtFF8?

Rent they are behind on?

[Prometeo liberado]

Rent they are behind on?

I am not going to hold your hand and walk you through the finances and personal politic of your own party, comrade. Get off your ass and ask questions, send emails, get online and google the fuck out of people like Marcial/Pedro. Be willing to admit you that all is not as it seems. Read the speeches given at the International Communist seminar in Brussels at least.

[El Oso Rojo]

I am not going to hold your hand and walk you through the finances and personal politic of your own party, comrade. Get off your ass and ask questions, send emails, get online and google the fuck out of people like Marcial/Pedro. Be willing to admit you that all is not as it seems. Read the speeches given at the International Communist seminar in Brussels at least.

A. I don't know that is possible.

B. Don't talk to me like that, I don't appiciate when I ask a question in a respectful way. To some bitter person talk to me like that.

[Prometeo liberado]

A. I don't know that is possible.

B. Don't talk to me like that, I don't appiciate when I ask a question in a respectful way. To some bitter person talk to me like that.

Would you kindly remove your wee buttocks from that wee chair your sitting in and join the rest of the thinking world in a good bout of.........thinking? Please, pretty please?

You don't know if it is possible you say? I see. So what your telling me is that finding about truth as it pertains to your Party has it's limits. Oh, so sorry. Would you please, kindly, ever so thoughtfully inform me as to what your idea of revolution is? Does that also have these limitations of the 'possible"?

Nice enough for you? Dolt.

[El Oso Rojo]

Would you kindly remove your wee buttocks from that wee chair your sitting in and join the rest of the thinking world in a good bout of.........thinking? Please, pretty please?

You don't know if it is possible you say? I see. So what your telling me is that finding about truth as it pertains to your Party has it's limits. Oh, so sorry. Would you please, kindly, ever so thoughtfully inform me as to what your idea of revolution is? Does that also have these limitations of the 'possible"?

Nice enough for you? Dolt.

I couldn't find nothing but that letter nati wrote.

[The Douche]

Jbeard, take it easy, you're flaming, so consider this a verbal warning.

[KurtFF8]

Your kidding me right? I have marched with the Becker's and Prysner and that effite Ian. This "money for jobs, not for war" mantra is encrypted in their DNA. Shit, if I had a dime for every time Peta L. screamed it out at a march I'd have enough to pay the rent that they are behind on. Do you even hang with these people or just read Liberation, because you make no sense KurtFF8?

You of course didn't even address my question. Calling for money to be allocated to X and not Y is not the same as "asking the capitalist class to do it." That's the whole point.

And please don't tell me that the critics is the use of the term "money," because that would be a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

[Prometeo liberado]

You of course didn't even address my question. Calling for money to be allocated to X and not Y is not the same as "asking the capitalist class to do it." That's the whole point.

And please don't tell me that the critics is the use of the term "money," because that would be a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

Whom are they asking that this money be allocated from? Who controls the purse strings? Slogans like this are at best ambiguous and at worse a straight lie. Now am I wrong?

[Prometeo liberado]

I couldn't find nothing but that letter nati wrote.

You couldn't find nothing? Nothing is a pretty hard thing to locate unless your looking in the PSL handbook. Do me a favor, one last time I'll do this for you, PM me and Ill dredge up some documents that I have in regards to what they think the makeup of the Party should be and why they want it that way. Also ask around as to whether other branches have had a vote on who leads the branch and who is on the Central Comittee. We're getting off topic here and Cmoney is already on the grumpy train(let it go) so PM me.

p.s. Send me the nati letter so I can see what it is and not send you a similar letter.

[The Douche]

I'm not grumpy, of I was I'd have given you an infraction.;)

[KurtFF8]

Whom are they asking that this money be allocated from? Who controls the purse strings? Slogans like this are at best ambiguous and at worse a straight lie. Now am I wrong?

They are making an appeal to the idea that money can be allocated for human needs and not profit.

The thing is, this is not an objectionable call for most Leftists to get behind, it's just a matter of nit picking and perhaps the imagined necessity of critiquing the hell out of other groups that has become such a ritual that leads to these sorts of arguments.

[Prometeo liberado]

They are making an appeal to the idea that money can be allocated for human needs and not profit.

The thing is, this is not an objectionable call for most Leftists to get behind, it's just a matter of nit picking and perhaps the imagined necessity of critiquing the hell out of other groups that has become such a ritual that leads to these sorts of arguments.

I really wish that that were the case. Having spent entirely too much time with these people I can attest that they pander to the audience at hand. Actually that may be an oversimplification. They pander to the youngest, ideologically naive denominator possible. If you can pay the monthly dues and are remotely leftist and YOUNG then these "appeals for a redirection of monies" chants will strike a chord with you. There is a culture of do and say whatever it takes, the details be damned. And they know this......man. Its all, unfortunately, about relating to people who will not question the things we are questioning here. Bring this subject up at an internal and your branch head and her/his minions will shut you down if not expel you. Apparently questions/concerns equals insubordination.

[The Douche]

They are making an appeal to the idea that money can be allocated for human needs and not profit.

The thing is, this is not an objectionable call for most Leftists to get behind, it's just a matter of nit picking and perhaps the imagined necessity of critiquing the hell out of other groups that has become such a ritual that leads to these sorts of arguments.

Imagined necessity of critiquing the hell out of other groups?

Are you serious?

First of all, this is not just a critique of your organization, it is a critique of a certain politics. And its not nit picking, in fact, its a pretty central issue in how we organize and fight.

This is not nit picking, I'm saying that PSL is not a communist organization, I'm saying that PSL is the left-wing of capital. The PSL's politics are those of the reorganization of capital, not a break with capital. And this is not a critique directed at just the PSL, but at many, many organizations like it, it just so happens that this particular piece of propaganda makes the PSL's position (on the left of capital) pretty obvious.

The demands of "money for ___ not ___" may be agreeable to leftists, but it is not communist. And the fact that you use that language, that these demands are something leftists can get behind, really leaves me laughing, because you're right, thats exactly what those demands are, something that people who represent the left wing of capital can get behind.

[KurtFF8]

Having spent entirely too much time with these people I can attest that they pander to the audience at hand.

You certainly do like to appeal to your own experiences with the PSL as a source quite a bit. Of course other folks experiences that contradict yours must be faulty I'm sure.


I'm saying that PSL is the left-wing of capital. The PSL's politics are those of the reorganization of capital, not a break with capital.

And this is simply not true. I could go on about how anarchism is really just about "promoting a smaller scale capitalism" but that would just be inaccurate, just as your claims here are simply inaccurate.

Do you mean that the PSL want's to continue the rule of capital? Or that it is actually the Left wing of capital?

Either claim is of course absurd.

Your whole post was essentially just repeating that claim without explaining what that claim is anyway.

[L.A.P.]

This is why we feel that surplus value belongs to the proletariat.

How could there be surplus-value under worker's control? Doesn't make sense.

[KurtFF8]

How could there be surplus-value under worker's control? Doesn't make sense.

How does that not make sense? Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie extracts a surplus value via the exploitation of labor that is thus owned by the capitalist class. We (as well as most other revolutionary Leftists) believe that that surplus value/product belongs to the proletariat. The method of placing that value in the hands of the working class is via ownership over the means of production being transfered to the proletariat.

I'm surprised that so many people on this thread are actually trying to contest this. This post that I'm quoting above is a prime example of "nit picking" if there is one.

[Prometeo liberado]

You certainly do like to appeal to your own experiences with the PSL as a source quite a bit. Of course other folks experiences that contradict yours must be faulty I'm sure.

Finally your seeing the light! Look I don't know what branch you come from but I unfortunately dealt with at least 4-5 branches up and down my state an two others.
Patterns begin to emerge and all roads lead to Becker/La Riva. Why do so many ex-members, with no axe to grind, keep popping up to back up all the negatives? Can you give one example of an ex-member coming to the aide of the PSL publicly?

[KurtFF8]

Finally your seeing the light! Look I don't know what branch you come from but I unfortunately dealt with at least 4-5 branches up and down my state an two others.
Patterns begin to emerge and all roads lead to Becker/La Riva. Why do so many ex-members, with no axe to grind, keep popping up to back up all the negatives? Can you give one example of an ex-member coming to the aide of the PSL publicly?

You mean an ex member who is also a frequent poster at RevLeft? :lol:

[Prometeo liberado]

You mean an ex member who is also a frequent poster at RevLeft? :lol:

Damn it!:cursing:

[Devrim]

Profits..jobs...wages...affordable housing...end most taxes...free health care...free education

To be honest they sound like old fashioned European social democrats.



I'd just like to apologise for this. The part "end income taxes and most other taxes" does not sound like old fashioned social democracy at all. It is more like something from the Reganite right. Probably just thrown in as it is a popular idea in the US.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The PSL only exists in the United States and is fighting for a socialism in the United States,..

Yes, it is very, very obvious.

Devrim

[KurtFF8]

Yes, it is very, very obvious.

Devrim

(That doesn't mean the PSL aren't internationalists, however)

[Q]

(That doesn't mean the PSL aren't internationalists, however)

One country at a time huh?

[Devrim]

(That doesn't mean the PSL aren't internationalists, however)

You are right. Existing in only one country doesn't necessarily mean that you are not internationalists though most left-wing political tendencies do exist on an international basis. Personally though I feel that in the case of the PSL their is a connection.

The PSL reminds me of an American version of the anti-Germans, a political organisation that could only exist in the US, just as the anti-Germans can only exist in Germany. I don't think there is a trace of internationalism at all in their politics, and don't find it surprising in anyway that this group only exists in the US.

Devrim

[KurtFF8]

One country at a time huh?

No, there are revolutionary movements in multiple countries as far as I know.


I don't think there is a trace of internationalism at all in their politics, and don't find it surprising in anyway that this group only exists in the US.

Considering the PSL constantly defends international developments, and makes international struggle a focus of much of the articles released and solidarity work that's done, I would say this comment is strange.

The raison d'etre of the ANSWER coalition is to express international solidarity with peoples that the PSL considers to be victims of imperialism, so it's strange that that doesn't count as "a trace of internationalism" in the politics of the group.

[Android]

You are right. Existing in only one country doesn't necessarily mean that you are not internationalists though most left-wing political tendencies do exist on an international basis. Personally though I feel that in the case of the PSL their is a connection.

The PSL reminds me of an American version of the anti-Germans, a political organisation that could only exist in the US, just as the anti-Germans can only exist in Germany. I don't think there is a trace of internationalism at all in their politics, and don't find it surprising in anyway that this group only exists in the US.

Devrim

There are anti-Germans outside Germany, in Austria and Switzerland for example. Rather pedantic but there you go. I don't think the anti-German phenomena is limited to the German speaking world although it has a particular character there for historical reasons.

To follow you comparison I just wish the PSL and that kind of politics was disintegrating as quickly as the anti-Germans are.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

There are anti-Germans outside Germany, in Austria and Switzerland for example. Rather pedantic but there you go. I don't think the anti-German phenomena is limited to the German speaking world although it has a particular character there for historical reasons.

To follow you comparison I just wish the PSL and that kind of politics was disintegrating as quickly as the anti-Germans are.
Man, so do I. The sooner that rubbish is dead and gone the better. The youth wing of the Left- Greens in Iceland has pretty similar politics as the PSL actually, only more openly reformist. They share this obsession with US- imperialism and consider it sufficient to base ones politics exclusively on opposing it. How anyone can claim that to be internationalist is beyond me. You never see those upholding this sort of politics showing solidarity with workers struggles or revolutionary movements in other countries. This sort of politics is like a decadent leftover from the 1960´s. I´m so sick and tired of that shit.

[Android]

Man, so do I. The sooner that rubbish is dead and gone the better. The youth wing of the Left- Greens in Iceland has pretty similar politics as the PSL actually, only more openly reformist. They share this obsession with US- imperialism and consider it sufficient to base ones politics exclusively on opposing it. How anyone can claim that to be internationalist is beyond me. You never see those upholding this sort of politics showing solidarity with workers struggles or revolutionary movements in other countries. This sort of politics is like a decadent leftover from the 1960s. I´m so sick and tired of that shit.

Yes, I agree with what you have said.

The point about the left in its various forms laying claim to 'internationalism' is it in substance it is simply the interacting of different nationalisms, e.g. when you hear left activists declaring their are supporting some 'anti-imperialist' struggle out of internationalist duty.

[Devrim]

Considering the PSL constantly defends international developments, and makes international struggle a focus of much of the articles released and solidarity work that's done, I would say this comment is strange.

The raison d'etre of the ANSWER coalition is to express international solidarity with peoples that the PSL considers to be victims of imperialism, so it's strange that that doesn't count as "a trace of internationalism" in the politics of the group.

I don't think that supporting various bourgeois politicians and nationalist groups in other countries has anything to do with internationalism at all.


There are anti-Germans outside Germany, in Austria and Switzerland for example. Rather pedantic but there you go. I don't think the anti-German phenomena is limited to the German speaking world although it has a particular character there for historical reasons.

I didn't realise they existed in Switzerland, and it quite surprises me. I knew they existed in Austria, which was after all a part of the Reich.

Devrim

[Android]

I didn't realise they existed in Switzerland, and it quite surprises me. I knew they existed in Austria, which was after all a part of the Reich.

Devrim

I will double check the Switzerland claim with a Swiss friend.

[Leftsolidarity]

Man, so do I. The sooner that rubbish is dead and gone the better. The youth wing of the Left- Greens in Iceland has pretty similar politics as the PSL actually, only more openly reformist.

The Green party talks about bringing about the end of capitalism through socialist revolution? What kind of Green Party is that?


They share this obsession with US- imperialism and consider it sufficient to base ones politics exclusively on opposing it. How anyone can claim that to be internationalist is beyond me.

lol wut? First, do you feel that imperialism is not one of the biggest threats to the global working class? As imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and is just another form of it, wouldn't you think that opposing it is a pretty good base for a platform? And wouldn't opposing imperialism (which is international) be a major part of being an internationalist? Your logic of "One of their main positions is to oppose global capitalism is not internationalist." is ridiculous.

Also, the PSL doesn't base their politics exclusively on opposing imperialism. Imperialism is one of the major things that we, as Americans, should be fighting against, though.


You never see those upholding this sort of politics showing solidarity with workers struggles or revolutionary movements in other countries.

Really? Maybe you don't see it because you don't look. They do all the time. You're making shit up at this point.


This sort of politics is like a decadent leftover from the 1960´s. I´m so sick and tired of that shit.

Yeah, fuck the time when the Leftist movement was really strong. We should forget all about that.

[ed miliband]

Yeah, fuck the time when the Leftist movement was really strong. We should forget all about that.


The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language

- marx, eighteenth brumaire

[Leftsolidarity]

- marx, eighteenth brumaire

lol I love to take random quotes from Marx and use it as scripture that seemly applies to whatever you want. :rolleyes:

Might as well abandon communism. After all, it is ideas from the past right?

Different ideas and tactics stem from different time periods. Just because something was from 50 years ago (also, idk why he's saying anti-imperialism is from the 60's. it was around a long time before that.) doesn't mean it isn't valid or isn't an issue today. It's called learning from the past, using what works, ditching what doesn't, applying it to the conditions today, and not having to reinvent the wheel every 20 years because someone says "Well that was 20 years ago! Things are totally different now!" and then throws in a random quote from Marx as if it proves their point.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

The Green party talks about bringing about the end of capitalism through socialist revolution? What kind of Green Party is that?
A leftist one.




lol wut? First, do you feel that imperialism is not one of the biggest threats to the global working class?
The capitalist class is not exclusively based in the US. It´s a global class just like their system. For most workers the enemy is at home.

As imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and is just another form of it, wouldn't you think that opposing it is a pretty good base for a platform? And wouldn't opposing imperialism (which is international) be a major part of being an internationalist? Your logic of "One of their main positions is to oppose global capitalism is not internationalist." is ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is your narrow- minded and black & white world- view. Supporting workers struggles is true internationalism.


Also, the PSL doesn't base their politics exclusively on opposing imperialism. Imperialism is one of the major things that we, as Americans, should be fighting against, though.
yeah, whatever...knock yourselves out:rolleyes:




Really? Maybe you don't see it because you don't look. They do all the time. You're making shit up at this point.
Cheerleading Chaves or whatever "third-world" strongman with leftist rhetoric and defending the Iranian theocracy is not supporting workers struggles or communist militants.




Yeah, fuck the time when the Leftist movement was really strong. We should forget all about that.
Things have moved on, I´m sorry to inform you. You can´t revive something from the past, your politics have to respond to contemporary reality if you wan´t people to take it seriously and pay attention.

[Leftsolidarity]

Lol I'm not even gonna bother responding to all that ^ nonsense. Good day. I think you're a complete fucking fool.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Lol I'm not even gonna bother responding to all that ^ nonsense. Good day. I think you're a complete fucking fool.

Lay off the flaming comrade.

[Leftsolidarity]

Lay off the flaming comrade.

Sorry, I was just trying to get out of the conversation while displaying me disliking of his views. I apologize.

[ed miliband]

lol I love to take random quotes from Marx and use it as scripture that seemly applies to whatever you want. :rolleyes:

Might as well abandon communism. After all, it is ideas from the past right?

Different ideas and tactics stem from different time periods. Just because something was from 50 years ago (also, idk why he's saying anti-imperialism is from the 60's. it was around a long time before that.) doesn't mean it isn't valid or isn't an issue today. It's called learning from the past, using what works, ditching what doesn't, applying it to the conditions today, and not having to reinvent the wheel every 20 years because someone says "Well that was 20 years ago! Things are totally different now!" and then throws in a random quote from Marx as if it proves their point.

nah, cos communism is a movement, not an ideology to be put into place by organisations of your sort.

[Tim Finnegan]

As imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism...
You'd probably be able to make your case better if you weren't working with an obsolete theory of imperialism.

[Q]

This is an important point that needs repeating. It, paradoxically, justifies a bureaucratic and highly stratified type of organisation. After all, how do you prevent the "party" from going the way of the reformists if you seek to attract workers on a reformist basis? Surely we need "educators" (aka "cadres") that lead the way in the "proper" understanding of the party program.

The ad strengthens my gloomy prospects of the PSL's internal democratic culture.

What we need is a diametrical opposite: An open political formation (call it a party if you want) where communists (yes, communists acting as such openly) engage with eachother on a variety of subjects but are united on the fight for working class seizure of political power as a class. This implies the overthrow of the existing constitutional order, designed to keep a minority in power, and the establishment of a new order based on working class self-organisation.

On this basis, you would expect a party that seeks to educate the masses more on political issues, the battle for democracy, as opposed to keeping yourself to platitudes like "real democracy" (meaning what?). All of the other wishlist items (free healthcare, free education, et al) logically flow from this seizure of power.

A good base demand for a presidential ad campaign would be the end of the president as an office. Away with all such monarchical structures! But this is not what we hear from the ad. What we hear is your typical "vote for us" message, which doesn't work in the locked and non-democratic two-party political system (where are demands for representative democracy for that matter?).

Conclusion: The PSL is just another sect with a bureaucratic leadership that competes with other sects to attain the biggest "market share" within the working class movement.

I'd like to bump this earlier post of mine as nobody responded to it (as everyone was busy about North-Korea at the time). I think this point (while it could be applied to many groups beside the PSL) is worthwhile making.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I'd like to bump this earlier post of mine as nobody responded to it (as everyone was busy about North-Korea at the time). I think this point (while it could be applied to many groups beside the PSL) is worthwhile making.
As for US politics, I find some consolation in the existence of Workers Party in America, whose politics and approach is actually pretty admirable IMO. They at least seem to have something to offer to the working class in the US, instead of insolent and condescending middle- class radicalism. One has to look to those who seem to be on the right track, because those preachy, bureaucratic sects and their insolent activists are really what is isolating the left and dooming it to impotence. I think it´s very alarming and should not be taken lightly. The working class deserves better than this. Therefore I´m thankful there are at least organizations and writers who have something positive to offer. Hovewer small (relatively) their forces might be.

[El Oso Rojo]

As for US politics, I find some consolation in the existence of Workers Party in America, whose politics and approach is actually pretty admirable IMO. They at least seem to have something to offer to the working class in the US, instead of insolent and condescending middle- class radicalism. One has to look to those who seem to be on the right track, because those preachy, bureaucratic sects and their insolent activists are really what is isolating the left and dooming it to impotence. I think it´s very alarming and should not be taken lightly. The working class deserves better than this. Therefore I´m thankful there are at least organizations and writers who have something positive to offer. Hovewer small (relatively) their forces might be.

Can you explain how the PSL is like this?

[Luís Henrique]

and KKE videos have low view numbers even though they are able to poll at 8% in Greece nationally. view counts are irrelevant.

Hm, the KKE have actual work inside factories and farms, maybe that explains the difference?

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

As for US politics, I find some consolation in the existence of Workers Party in America, whose politics and approach is actually pretty admirable IMO. They at least seem to have something to offer to the working class in the US, instead of insolent and condescending middle- class radicalism. One has to look to those who seem to be on the right track, because those preachy, bureaucratic sects and their insolent activists are really what is isolating the left and dooming it to impotence. I think it´s very alarming and should not be taken lightly. The working class deserves better than this. Therefore I´m thankful there are at least organizations and writers who have something positive to offer. Hovewer small (relatively) their forces might be.
man, are you kidding me. have you ever seen miles post anything. i mean he is sometimes cool but if there is something that would embody condescension in these boards, its him

[Rusty Shackleford]

Hm, the KKE have actual work inside factories and farms, maybe that explains the difference?

Luís Henrique
and the PSL doesnt do this? Of course, we are muuuuuch smaller than the KKE and we down have out 'own' labor mass org doesnt mean we dont do that work!