Does the PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation) defend the 1935-38 purges?

[Unclebananahead]

What position, if any, does the PSL take on the purges which took place in the Soviet Union in the second half of the 1930's? Does it defend them as the, "Liquidation of the Remnants of the Bukharin-Trotsky Gang of Spies, Wreckers and Traitors to the Country" as the Soviet state did at the time? Does it take any position on the legacy of the Stalin period whatsoever? Do members regard the Soviet Union to have undergone any degeneration, and if so, to what extent?

[Let's Get Free]

From what I know about them, they don't really take a position on the Stalin-Trotsky conflict. They don't condemn Stalinism, and they seem to adopt the view that the USSR ceased to be Communist as a result of the policies of Gorbachev.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I don't see how it's relevant. Stalin and Trosky are dead, get over it.

[The Douche]

I don't see how it's relevant. Stalin and Trosky are dead, get over it.

Verbal warning, that's off topic, and a one liner, not acceptable for the learning board.

[Questionable]

I don't see how it's relevant. Stalin and Trosky are dead, get over it.

It's good to have a stance on the USSR but I must admit I'm tired of internet parties that only exist to carry on their "legacies."

[Zeus the Moose]

What position, if any, does the PSL take on the purges which took place in the Soviet Union in the second half of the 1930's? Does it defend them as the, "Liquidation of the Remnants of the Bukharin-Trotsky Gang of Spies, Wreckers and Traitors to the Country" as the Soviet state did at the time? Does it take any position on the legacy of the Stalin period whatsoever? Do members regard the Soviet Union to have undergone any degeneration, and if so, to what extent?

My guess is that PSL as it currently exists hasn't spent much time working on a critique or a defense of the purges in any capacity. They don't seem to be overly interested in rehashing historical arguments, except where they may intersect with politics today. With that in mind, you'd probably have to trace back to the Workers World Party (the group PSL split from) to see if they have any position on the purges. It seems reasonable to assume that PSL would at least hold this position de facto. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any works by Sam Marcy (one of the founders and the intellectual leader of the WWP) online on the subject, so it's possible that he didn't write anything about it either.

I doubt that PSL defends the purges, because while they may have strayed pretty far from their "roots," they have history in Trotskyism (again through the WWP), so I think they'd be more likely to condemn the purges than condone them.

[LiberationTheologist]

What position, if any, does the PSL take on the purges which took place in the Soviet Union in the second half of the 1930's? Does it defend them as the, "Liquidation of the Remnants of the Bukharin-Trotsky Gang of Spies, Wreckers and Traitors to the Country" as the Soviet state did at the time? Does it take any position on the legacy of the Stalin period whatsoever? Do members regard the Soviet Union to have undergone any degeneration, and if so, to what extent?

I do not see a direct answer after re-reading the "who are we" section. The only thing that I see that really gives a hint is the following section.

http://www.pslweb.org/party/who-we-are/#part1


To the question of what revolutionaries do in non-revolutionary times, Lenin’s answer was clear: Build the party, build the organization without which the revolutionary opportunity cannot be transformed into a revolutionary victory. Build now, because if you wait, it will be too late. From Lenin’s point of view, the entire reason for the party from the very beginning was preparation for the revolutionary opportunity.

Preparation means many things. It means studying and absorbing the lessons of past movements and revolutions. It means being involved in the most critical struggles of the day, at the points of greatest conflict between the classes. It means fighting to win the movements that respond spontaneously to smaller crises in capitalist society to a truly progressive and revolutionary outlook.

It means organizing the party itself for the multiplicity of challenges that it faces. It means a commitment to recruiting new cadre from among the many new and not so new activists, particularly among the most exploited and oppressed workers. The structure and operating principles of the party are based on democratic centralism: internal democratic debate combined with unity in action. Success in confronting the bureaucratically and militarily centralized capitalist state is inconceivable without a centralized working-class party and movement.They believe in Democratic centralism and hence seem to be saying "we will copy the soviet union political structure" To me that says, that even if they believe that Stalins purges were wrong they are willing to form a structure which would be likely to repeat the same mistake of allowing power to be concentrated in very few hands and maybe even one persons hands.

PSL does have a just line on national liberation, saying they support it however it in their about section but they seem to be giving support to both Russia and Chinas domination of other states and territories they have conquered. Basically they justify that by talking about US imperialism and other capitalist threats to the political borders of those two countries.

Clearly this is a contradictory line from PSL. For all of their writing on their about page they do not adequately deal with this contradictory position, at least not to my satisfaction.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I am not sure on their position here but for a direct answer you could just send them an email via their website; is what I did when I wanted to know what their position on Permanent Revolution was.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I am not sure on their position here but for a direct answer you could just send them an email via their website; is what I did when I wanted to know what their position on Permanent Revolution was.

Out of curiosity what was it?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Out of curiosity what was it?

Essentially that most of their members promoted Permanent Revolution over Socialism in One Country.

[Os Cangaceiros]

My understanding of their politics is that they probably would say that the purges at that time were a bad thing, but that the USSR still represented a progressive socialist force in the world, all the way up to the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Unclebananahead]

Would any PSL members on here care to contribute their thoughts? Or would the purges be a taboo subject to address? My own speculation is that their line (were they to articulate one) would be something to the effect of 'purges=bad, Soviet Union=overall good on balance when weighing its positives and negatives.' This as opposed to the usual Stalin-oid line of 'a necessary and correct liquidation of the gang of Trotskyite-Bukharinite-Zinovievite wrecker/saboteur/spies collaborators with fascism.'

Still, this is just speculation until some of the established PSL'ers here on RevLeft weigh in on this.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I think it is correct to assume that because of their roots in the then Trotskyist SWP, the WWP/PSL would be quite critical of the purges. Of course, they split from the SWP because Marcy and his followers defended the Soviet suppression of a political revolution that was going on in Hungary in 1956. After that they were a very Stalinophilic brand of Trotskyism. Well, going further, I would say that they quickly lost the distinction between military support and political support of Stalinist states.

[Unclebananahead]

So, is it then safe to assume that the PSL takes the same position that Marcy did on the 1956 Soviet intervention in Hungary? What about the 1968 intervention in Czechoslovakia? Also, what drove Marcy to support the intervention? Is it really true that he and some others left the SWP over this issue? Or did they leave over something else?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

So, is it then safe to assume that the PSL takes the same position that Marcy did on the 1956 Soviet intervention in Hungary? What about the 1968 intervention in Czechoslovakia? Also, what drove Marcy to support the intervention? Is it really true that he and some others left the SWP over this issue? Or did they leave over something else?

In terms of their possible position on Czechoslovakia I found this pamphlet on the WWP's website by Sam Marcy...

http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samczech/index.htm

[Geiseric]

The PSL comes from the WWP, which split from the 4th International after supporting the crushing of the Hungarian Uprising by the Red Army, so i'd assume they are more or less on Stalin's side, since they think the USSR was socialist during Stalin. That's what i've gathered thus far by talking to who (I think) a few of their members are, but I wouldn't quote me on it.

[Unclebananahead]

Sam Marcy writes:
"In an internationally publicized press conference on May 14, Deputy Premier Ota Sik told reporters that Czechoslovakia would accept Western capital for industrial "joint ventures" with state enterprises, and that it would be up to each state enterprise to negotiate with the capitalist companies."

Was this true?

[Red Commissar]

Just to begin this, I want to say I'm not a supporter of PSL or its policies, I think though it's important to emphasize its historical roots to understand it's current positioning on matters.


So, is it then safe to assume that the PSL takes the same position that Marcy did on the 1956 Soviet intervention in Hungary? What about the 1968 intervention in Czechoslovakia? Also, what drove Marcy to support the intervention? Is it really true that he and some others left the SWP over this issue? Or did they leave over something else?

The PSL arose out of a split of Marcy's Workers' World Party, but essentially a lot of their policies are the same. Never got a clear answer as to why they split with the WWP but most of the time I seem to get that it was more related to a leadership feud than anything concretely ideological. So as far as I see it, it's safe to say the PSL took the same position as Marcy on the Czechoslovakia issue because that wasn't a point of contention with the WWP.

As for Marcy himself, he started off in the SWP having joined it because of his dislike of the CPUSA and the positions of the international. As far as I understand it his support of the interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia was essentially the ortho-trot position on the USSR turned up to 11. That is, the USSR with all its bad as a degenerated workers' state, should be given critical support against imperialism. Marcy saw Hungary as something that would ultimately weaken the Eastern Bloc and thus benefit the United States and the west, so he took his position accordingly.

Marcy and co. left on their own terms owing to his differences with the SWP not just over the Hungary issue but differences on China, Korea (he saw the war as not merely an imperialist conflict but a front in the class war), and US politics (Marcy's support for Wallace's run under the Progressive Party ticket, for example, which he saw as a Popular Front). Marcy developed this "Global Class War" position, that the USSR should be defended against imperialism to ensure the success of a global class war, rising on the backs of anti-imperialist movements that would upend Stalinist leadership at some point.

It seems that these differences between Marcy and SWP emerged earlier with the Korean War, where the SWP officially took the position of neutrality while Marcy felt that both Mao's China and the DPRK were genuine Workers' States to be defended against imperialism. He didn't seem to take offense to the party's position on Stalin and the purges, and in fact seems to try and go further on emphasizing the necessity of ejecting Stalinists from positions of power.

The position taken on Czechoslovakia was similar to that in Hungary, that a counter-revolution was in progress and threatened the socialist movement at large. This is a similar position that they would take with the Eastern Bloc and I guess more recently the "anti-imperialist" position regarding other countries like Iraq and Ethiopia in the 1980s.

The "Global Class War" stuff Marcy did started in the 1950s, and the first run of it in 1953. You can still see a lot of his orthotrot positions in it.

A later reprinting of his original text on the "Global Class War". (http://archive.org/details/TheGlobalClassWarAndTheDestinyOfAmericanLabor)



The Soviet Union is a contradictory phenomenon. It is a revolutionary social system with a counterrevolutionary leadership. Comrade Cannon expounds on the concentration camps, frame-ups, etc. What he says is true. But this truth alone is insufficient.

There was a time when we were practically the only group in the labor movement consistently explaining this truth from the revolutionary point of view. But today the bourgeoisie has seized upon ;his aspect of the Soviet state and broadcast it to the four corners of the earth. Today this is practically aii the American worker hears. It is drummed into his ears day in and day out by the tremendous capitalist apparatus of radio, television, the press and the pulpit. He identifies the reactionary aspect of the Soviet Union with the entire social system, just as the capitalist class wants him to do. Hence, it is ail the more obligatory to emphasize the other side of the Soviet Union, its class character, its new social system. It is necessary to explain that it is a living, viable workers' state, an historic gain of the working class, a conquest to be defended.

Unfortunately this is not at all indicated in Comrade Cannon's pamphlet. Nor is it indicated in his Los Angeles speeches, which are replete with references to the planned economy of what is characterized as the "nationalized sector" without mentioning that we defend the boundaries of this "sector." We are taking too much for granted if we assume that the American workers will gather that we defend the Soviet Union, by merely rendering acknowledgement of a superior type of economy.

It is not so much that we have to emphasize the defense of the USSR from the point of view of military defense, although that too wilt be of importance at a later date. Most important in the emphasis of the defense of the USSR is its pointed method of shewing to which class camp we belong. By continually emphasizing defense of the USSR as well as China and Eastern Europe, we make crystal clear that we are an inseparable part of the entire world camp. It is in this connection that the posing of the defense of the USSR is more important and more urgent in our propaganda and agitation than ever before.

By consistently and persistently elaborating our defensist position on the USSR, Eastern Europe and China, we are affirmatively showing our class solidarity with our class camp. Now since the issues of conciliationism toward Stalinism, and Stalinophobia are being raised, is not this the best way to demarcate and differentiate ourselves from Stalinism—to crushingly answer these mutually opposing accusations, to show that we not only fight Stalin but are the most vigorous, most loyal and most determined defenders of the USSR?
This general point is a hundred times more valid in relation to China and Korea. Aside from the initial error that was made in our approach to Korea, the clearcut character of the struggle on the Asian continent as a class struggle, as a struggle between imperialism and the world-wide working class and its allies among the oppressed colonial peoples is still not being made clear enough or sharp enough to demarcate us from all varieties of pacifists, liberals, or Stalinist supporters. We must make plain that in the struggle in Korea, or any other place on earth, between the two class camps, we pursue a line of revolutionary defeatism. Moreover—and this is very important from the point of view of our differentiation from the Stalinists and all sorts of pacifists—we wish to facilitate the victory of our side, our class side, regardless of its temporary leadership. At the same time, we mercilessly expose all the reactionary, wrong, inadequate policies pursued by the Kremlin and foisted upon the leaderships of the colonial masses in Asia, and counter-pose the revolutionary, Leninist-Trotskyist line to victory. It is to be noted that the Minority's attack on Comrade Cannon's pamphlet does not refer to this vital question.
Tito's break with Stalin was in itself, as an initial step, progressive and revolutionary. But for us to project the further perspective of possibly converting the Titoist Communist Party into a genuine revolutionary party was simply a lapse into utopianism. However, certain externa; and purely superficial events and pronouncements of the Tito regime impelled our co-thinkers to believe that nothing less than a conversion of the Tito party into an adherent of our movement was in sight. In a lead article in the Militant, the May Day Manifesto of the Yugoslav CP was hailed as "the second greatest event in the history of the working class movement." Actually this Manifesto had nothing in it whatever that would warrant such a conclusion except a phrase about "a return to the road of Lenin" without indicating what the road was.

The biggest lesson, however, was with respect to the unconditional independence of our party. The Tito episode was really a case in point. No one raised it except myself in the above letter. If the Majority comrades feel that the unconditional independence of the party is so important in the current controversy. I should think that was the time to have, raised it— at a time when we ran the danger of becoming the tail to Tito's kite. Tne Titoist movement had no real appeal to the working masses anywhere in the world, precisely because the Titoists had no Internationalist perspective and offered nothing to the communist workers abroad which was even a shade different from what the Stalinists and reformists offered. The other important factor in Tito experience is that it offered the happy alternative of circumventing the struggle against Stalinist movements everywhere by a "new independent road." Would that that were so! Unfortunately, that was the case. It indeed would be a happy alternative if it had objectively existed, but it did not.

In our struggle to vanquish Stalinism, we cannot chart out an illusory independent read whereby would avoid them. Our path towards the masses on a world scale, and to a narrower extent in the USA, blocked by the Stalinists; and it is in mortal combat (and not aversion) that we will come out victorious. at of course does not depend on our efforts alone but on the turn in the objective conditions, which are opening all over the world. An attempt to chart out on the American arena an independent road is just as necessary on the world arena. As Comrade Cannon said in 1G40 to Comrade Trotsky, "The Stalinists are a problem. We've got to get them out of the road." We cannot do this by circumventing them, or excluding ourselves, by seeking an illusory independent road toward the American workers. We must meet them in combat, in irreconcilable struggle, with the recognition that they are a global class current, that their defeat will be the product of the joint efforts of all the workers and oppressed peoples in our entire class camp. This will be done and it can be done."

To repeat:
The Tito experience showed that it was wrong to project false hopes based on non-existent conditions.

It is just as false that we chart out an independent course towards the American workers without reckoning with the global class current of Stalinism. We must invade their arena, always conscious that we are fighting a global social phenomenon. We must orient toward the American working class as a sector in global camp which is indissolubly bound to that camp and- dependent on it in no less degree than the entire camp is dependent on it.

On the other hand we must not conceive the Stalinist milieu in this country as merely "an area for dutiful work" "an area where there are advanced people" or proceed on the basis "that the labor movement is dormant". Whether the labor movement is dormant or insurgent, our work, our struggle against Stalinism must go on, not merely because we think it is good for recruiting, but because we are in revolutionary competition with them as one global class current against another for hegemony of the world camp of all the proletarians and oppressed peoples.

We cannot proceed to vanquish Stalinism on the American arena merely on the basis of its American peculiarities.
Perspective on the American Revolution

"In the present epoch", said Trotsky in the Third International after Lenin, "to a much larger extent than in the past, the national orientation of the proletariat must and can flow only from a world orientation and not vice versa. Herein lies the basic and primary difference between communist internationalism and all varities of national socialism"

The above words of Trotsky in no way contradict his statement that "America is the foundry where the fate of man will be forged." I quoted this last statement and elaborated on it in the memorandum which was presented to the 1950 Convention. To some comrades, the remarks seemed to be out of place because the discussion was on Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia. But I felt they had a relevance to the discussion as I feel they have a relevance to the present one. However they cannot be lifelessly applied to the American scene. Only the comprehension of hte dialectical inter-unity of both these Trotsky concepts and their concrete application on the field of the American class struggle, will serve to accomplish our historic tasks.

I would assume from the above that he agrees with the criticism of the Soviet Union in the 1930s, whether or not this has been retained in the current PSL's position I don't know but I believe they have. For Czechoslovakia, he was watching the events before the opposition and came out against the Dubcek government and such, seeing them as a "fruit" of Soviet revisionism.

http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samczech/czech/czech02.htm

By Sam Marcy

JULY 31, 1968 -- This article is being written while the talks between the Soviet and Czech leaders are still in progress. Regardless of the outcome of these talks, it is plain that a counter-revolutionary turning point in Czechoslovakia has been reached. Only the speedy and determined intervention of the Czechoslovak working class can reverse this process. Unfortunately, this seems to be very unlikely at the present because the very leadership presently at the head of the workers has done most to accelerate the process of bourgeois restoration in Czechoslovakia. This took root a long time ago.

It was the January meeting of the Czechoslovak CP leadership that brought everything to a head. Very little has come out in the way of detail of what happened at the meeting except that Novotny, himself a moderate revisionist, was replaced by Dubcek, a more extreme revisionist.

At first it seemed only a change in degree, a substituting for an old-line revisionist one that would take one or two more steps in the process of bourgeois restoration. What happened since January, however, is that a virtual political counter-revolution seems to have culminated which goes far beyond almost anything seen in Eastern Europe, with the possible exception of Yugoslavia. If matters continue the way they are proceeding right now, Czechoslovakia may move farther in the direction of capitalist restoration than even Yugoslavia.

Under the mask of "liberalization" and "democratization," the Dubcek leadership has taken giant steps to dismantle the socialist basis of the economy, has widened and deepened the capitalist "free market" in the country, has indiscriminately generalized material incentives to the upper, privileged layers of the population and has in effect substituted bourgeois economic methods of distributing national income for what were strong socialist economic beginnings. The capitalist market is now to be the primary lever in running the economy and the socialization of industry and centralized planning is to be subordinated to it if not abolished. This is not said in so many words, but that is the direction in which events are moving, and they are moving fast. Marcy seems to have also been warm towards China under Mao, and saw the Deng Xaoping reforms as a restoration of capitalism. But they still gave it critical support during the Tienanmen Square events for the same reasons as the support for the Soviet Union above.

That was written before the Warsaw Pact intervention in August, but it essentially shows the views of Marcy on this matter. They also provided some of the "anti-imperialist" support for Iraq and the Ba'ath, the Ethiopian Derg, and other groups under the same reasoning that defeats for these countries would mean gains for the capitalists, and therefore a set back for the global class war. This informs their current position on foreign events.

I'm not sure at what point did Marcy and co. shift from this orthotrot perspective to the current position of the WWP and by extension the PSL.


Sam Marcy writes:
"In an internationally publicized press conference on May 14, Deputy Premier Ota Sik told reporters that Czechoslovakia would accept Western capital for industrial "joint ventures" with state enterprises, and that it would be up to each state enterprise to negotiate with the capitalist companies."

Was this true?

From a New York Times Article in May 15th 1968, which covers this "internationally publicized press conference"




"PRAGUE'S LEADERS OUTLINE REFORMS; NEW CHARTER DUE

Premier and Two Deputies Hold News Conference - Stress Citizens' Right

ECONOMIC CHANGES SET

Western Capital Welcomed - Law Being Drafted on Freedom of the Press

By TAD SCULC
Special to The New York Times
Prague, May 14th - Premier Oldrich Cernik and two Deputy Premiers announced at a news conference here today a far-ranging program of political and economic reforms. They also said Czechoslovakia would welcome foreign investment in industry...

Discussing economic problems, Mr. Cernik and Mr. Sik, who is this country's leading liberal Marxist economist, announced plans for changes that contrast sharply with orthodox communism.

The economy is to be reorganized to become competitive both domestically and in Western export markets.

The reorganization calls for a creation of a central policy-making economic body. But at the same time there is to be a complete decentralization of industry and management, granting full autonomy to individual state enterprises and forcing them to compete for credits and markets.

Free enterprise will be permitted in "personal services", Mr. Sik explained that individuals could provide services as private businessmen if they worked alone or with their families, though they might also employ "one or two apprentices".

Subsidiaries to noncompetitive enterprises will gradually be removed.

Mr Sik concedes that this might cause temporary "social problems" and some unemployment, but said that the workers would be absorbed by other enterprises.

SUBSIDIES TO END

It was the announcement of Czechoslovakia's desire to operate economically with the west that sersved to emphasize the new regime's determination to break away from the Communist bloc's economic patterns.

Mr. Sik said that Czechoslovakia would accept Western capital for industrial "Joint ventures" with state enterprises, although it will be up to each enterprise to negotiate with "capitalist companies".

He said offers of this type were already coming in from France, West Germany, Italy, and other Western European countries.

Discussing what he and Premier Cernik described as Czechoslovakia's desire to contribute economically to the "European continent", Mr. Sik said that one of this country's goals- but also "the hardest nut to crack"- was achievement of convertibility for Czech currency- the crown.

He said that such convertibility must result from economic productivity and not from arbitrary measures.

I found this article through my university database in the ProQuest Historical Newspapers database. The entry is named "PRAGUE'S LEADERS OUTLINE REFORMS; NEW CHARTER DUE: PREMIER AND TWO DEPUTIES HOLD NEWS CONFERENCE -STRESS CITIZENS' RIGHT ECONOMIC CHANGES SET WESTERN CAPITAL WELCOMED -- LAW BEING DRAFTED ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS PRAGUE'S LEADERS OUTLINE REFORMS". I can give you a pdf of that article if you want to read the whole thing but can't access it.

From Marcy's original positions he didn't seem to defend the purges and took the Trot position on them. What I don't know though is whether this was retained as the WWP became distinct party. Only thing I can judge from is the actions of some users here who are members of the PSL, but even then they don't generally get overly involved on Stalin-related threads.

[Prometeo liberado]

You have to understand what the culture of the PSL tries to be, and it's nothing if not about putting in street work. I would guess that if one were to poll the membership 80% of it's members would have no idea what you were talking about. The Becker's and La Riva don't give a shit and would probably give some vague analysis that wouldn't answer this question. Quite often during the Cadre educational meetings the history of the struggle and of the Soviet Union as well are very glossed over in the interest of time. Shit I remember meeting people, members with more than a year in, who did not know what ML was about or who Hoxha was or what a tendancy was. The way it should work is that the membership should be hashing this shit out and running it up the ladder towards an official position of the Party.
The question posed here is no different than asking a dozen janitors what the chemical makeup of bleach is.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So, is it then safe to assume that the PSL takes the same position that Marcy did on the 1956 Soviet intervention in Hungary? What about the 1968 intervention in Czechoslovakia? Also, what drove Marcy to support the intervention? Is it really true that he and some others left the SWP over this issue? Or did they leave over something else?
Marcy was a leading SWPer in the Youngstown branch. He was a steelworker, I believe. The split was not just about the Hungary revolution, it was also about a general orientation toward Stalinists and Stalinism. Somewhat surprisingly, they did not join forces with Pablo and the Usec which were, at the time taking about decades or even centuries of deformed workers states. They also did not go out of the SWP with the Cochrane group, that split in 1953 because they wanted to have a stronger orientation to the CPUSA. Unlike Cochrane's group, which constituted about of fifth of SWP. Marcy and his followers were very small group. I would love to see their opposition bulletins if they ever produced any. My guess is that they did not as I have never heard of them. Marcy wrote about a position that he called, "Global Class Warfare." I don't know much about it. Their paper, Worker's World, has always been the driest and most boring paper this side of the Weekly Worker.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Comrade Commisar, I appreciate your informative post, but you are wrong about the US SWP's position on the Korean War (maybe confusing it with the Cliffites position). The stood militarily with North Korea while giving no political support to the Stalinist Bureaucracy of Kim Il Sung.

I think the fact that they split over Hungary, in opposition to precisely what Trotsky was talking about when he spoke of "political revolution," was very telling.

That current members of the PSL don't know or care about the history of their own tendency suggests it is an extremely unserious group

[Grenzer]

I don't know much about it. Their paper, Worker's World, has always been the driest and most boring paper this side of the Weekly Worker.

Right on man! You at least have to hand it to the Sparts, the tired out and cliché revolutionary posturing and sloganeering that make up the headlines of the Workers Vanguard invariably elicit a few chuckles.

http://anokchan.com/b/src/134845076888.jpg

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Right on man! You at least have to hand it to the Sparts, the tired out and cliché revolutionary posturing and sloganeering that make up the headlines of the Workers Vanguard invariably elicit a few chuckles.
Comrade, did someone from the SL steal your girlfriend or something? Your oozing antagonism, sometimes with and sometimes without political content is pretty strange. I have read mountains of left press, and whether or not you agree with the sparts, WV has been among the very best over the decades. Are there any COs that you prefer?

[Red Commissar]

Comrade Commisar, I appreciate your informative post, but you are wrong about the US SWP's position on the Korean War (maybe confusing it with the Cliffites position). The stood militarily with North Korea while giving no political support to the Stalinist Bureaucracy of Kim Il Sung.

Marcy's point as I understood it from what I read is that he rejected their criticism of North Korea as just a Stalinist puppet and rather as a legitimate expression of a workers' movement like he did with Mao's China, on level with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. This was different from the SWP's official position as far as I'm aware- while they were obviously opposed to the US's actions in North Korea they didn't support the Kim il-Sung government either. This is where the difference was between Marcy and the party's official position- he supported the North Korean government rather than opposing both and stating that they should broadly support the Korean working class while being critical of the North Korean government.


Hands of Korean People's Right to Decide Own Fate!" Militant, July 3rd 1950

The "calculated risk" taken by the American imperialists in connection with the Korean events has at a single stroke revealed their true character. They have acted in a way that leaves no doubt about their immediate and predatory aims. Meanwhile, of course, they continue to mouth phrases about "safeguarding world peace,""defending the rights of small nations against aggression," "acting to implement UN's ceasefire order".

Through the moves of his puppet regime in North Korea, Stalin has supplied the capitalist rulers in this country with the desired pretext. They have eagerly seized upon it not only to force a showdown in Korea "up to the 38th parallel," but also to take simultaneously a whole number of steps, summed up in Truman's enunciation of his "new foreign policy" for the whole of Asia. These new moves go far beyond what they are already doing in Korea.

...

LET THE KOREANS DECIDE

There is only one way in which the Korean question can really be solved and that is by permitting the Korean people to settle their own fate. Let them decide, free from both the Kremlin and from Washington.

Neither side, of course, has the slightest intention of permitting this. In the UN even the moderate proposal that the North Koreans be allowed to present their case was voted down, obviously by command of Washington.

What the Kremlin proposes to do now about Korea remains unclear. It has proclaimed its "neutrality", that is, left open for itself an avenue of retreat. If they decide it best suits their interests and purposes, the Stalinist bureaucracy will try to convert Korea into the same sort of testing ground for war techniques and weapons as was the case in Spain before the last war.

Or they may ruthlessly sacrifice their own native puppets along with the whole Korean people, as they did not so long ago in the case of Greece. If they decide to reply in kind, even if on a far more modest scale than has been done by Washington, it means, of course, world war.

But there is a power in the world today other than either the power of the ruthless American billionaires or of the monstrous Stalinist bureaucracy. That is the power of the mass of the peoples themselves. The example of Yugoslavia shows that it is possible for people even in a small country, caught in the middle between these two giants, to pursue a course independent of both. This is what I mean by "neutral", I didn't mean it in that they didn't take an active position in the war but rather chose not to support neither the United States/NATO or North Korea and China and by extension the Soviet Union. Marcy's position was different from this in the respect that he felt that they should have given support to the government in North Korea regardless of its nature.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Okay, further investigation reveals that the SWP's (US) initial position was not to militarily defend the North Koreans against the South and the US. This was corrected after a couple of weeks when Party leaders (esp. Cannon) intervened.

[Ocean Seal]

Verbal warning, that's off topic, and a one liner, not acceptable for the learning board.
Its honestly probably the most relevant sentence with regards to this debate. What more is there to be said, most likely this is an uncomfortable question that the PSL avoids.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Its honestly probably the most relevant sentence with regards to this debate. What more is there to be said, most likely this is an uncomfortable question that the PSL avoids.

Admittedly the douche did have a good point, I should have been more polite. So I'll try to restate what I meant in a way that doesn't offend.

The whole rationale behind Trotsky's exile wasn't because he was some sort of great humanitarian, but because he disagreed with Stalin's line on the peasants. After he exiled Trotsky, he soon realized that Trotsky was right and reversed his position. But comparing the two isn't the point.

The point is that we live in the 21st century and that we need to update our socialism for the new era. This doesn't mean revisionism, it just means making our economic theory more reliant to the actual realities of capitalism (Imperalism does not exist anymore if one follows the capital exportation definition proposed by Lenin) and we need to modify our political rhetoric to reflect the needs of the current working class. We need to talk about what exists today, the issues that buzz in the mind of every worker and deeply affect the quality of his life. Stalin's USSR simply isn't one of those things, capitalism is however, and deserves our full and undivided attention.

And I apologize for the poor manners of my other post. The merit of a point does not excuse any flaws in its delivery.

[Prometeo liberado]

I would argue that the PSL doesn't necessarily avoid the question so much as they just don't care. It is irrelevant to the daily workings of the party. TBH it's only relevant if, after a long day of doing nothing, you have time to muse about more nothing. The average member is probably between 18-26. For many this is the first time they have engaged in revolutionary politics. No one cares because no one knows that they are supposed to care. Right or wrong they deal in the here and now.

[hetz]

For many this is the first time they have engaged in revolutionary politics. No one cares because no one knows that they are supposed to care. Right or wrong they deal in the here and nowWe must invite them to revleft then, people have to know about tendencies.

[Prometeo liberado]

I thinks it's important to understand how topics like these are viewed to many would be activist. It's very much akin to the College of Cardinals debating the sanctity or lack of in regards to Joan of Arc, or whether the gaze of St. Anthony was angel inspired. Does the flock wait with baited breath for every decision? Will the believers stand idly by until the issue of what constitutes marriage is universally accepted? Or will the flock merely give a cursory nod to their intellectual elite and go about their lives trying to get to heaven? The people simply want to live and be secure from the ills that crush them. They may or may not get there. But if we hope to get a more coherent and organized approach to making it happen then splitting hairs and arguing the relevance of whether Judas was inspired or a backstabber gains nothing yet destroys so much. IMO.

[Prometeo liberado]

We must invite them to revleft then, people have to know about tendencies.

Do they have to know about tendancies or have to know of their own importance? If it's the former please elaborate. And please by all means "invite" them here, get them away from actual street work. Let me know how this outreach works.

[hetz]

I was being facetious. :D

[Unclebananahead]

So, when PSL members are out in the street, promoting socialism, eventually somebody is gonna ask, 'well isn't that what they had over there in Russia?' or something to that effect. What sort of response are they supposed to give? Are they supposed to respond with whatever *they* think is the truth? Suppose this person receives an answer from the PSL member out on the street that day on that subject, and then later on encounters another member on a different day, and out of curiosity asks a question in a similar vein, and that person similarly answers with what they believe to be true. If their answers don't match up, wouldn't that suggest to this person that the PSL is confused about what it believes?

[Prometeo liberado]

If their answers don't match up, wouldn't that suggest to this person that the PSL is confused about what it believes?
What the PSL is confused about is an whole other thread. Don't get me started. As for what they would say in that situation is the same pat answer that most members of Communist Parties would give. Vague shit about capitalist encirclement and revisionism. And the always popular "If you ask me why it didn't work in the former SU then you are assuming that capitalism 'works' here". Ask two different people on two different days just about anything and I assure you that you'll get two different answers. The point that you are missing is that no one will ask, in depth about purges unless they are looking for an answer they already have or are looking for a tendency fight. Either way working people find all this beneath them. It just won't change the price of milk.

[Geiseric]

Working people actually do care about past failed attempts at socialism, and if we don't learn how things messed up last time, we are more likely to make the same mistakes. That's just how I see it, I mean degenerations of revolutions aren't unique with Russia. It makes us seem more legitimate if we display an understanding of history above the level of a high schooler as well, and that means applying materialism to our analyses having to do with pretty much anything. We can't just say wha people want to hear, if the question comes up, and it will, we need to say what's correct, namely that stalin represented the degeneration of the russian revolution, which ultimately led to its downfall. Capitalism is still the real evil tough, since the stalinist bureaucrats became the new mafia and capitalist class in russia.

[Prometeo liberado]

Blah, blah....the new mafia,...Stalinist bureacrats...blah, blah. Same old record. Do you honestly think that with so much time gone by and so many endless conversations on this subject that a "correct, namely that Stalin represented the degeneration of the Russian revolution" line will finally give clarity to the working class? My god! Just call it what it is. Not until your version of what is correct will the reason for the downfall of the SU be resolved. And let me ruminate here for a second, by this happening the movement will, in some cathartic way hoist itself up by it's bootstraps and get over the Wednesday of our existence? Whatever it is you think is right all I'm saying is the PSL doesn't know or care.

But we get it, not a fan of the political stylings of Comrade Stalin. We get it already. Just help us figure out how to get past wanting cheaper milk and petrol, because we get it already. The tendency's will bicker while the rest of the world suffers on.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Can't imagine that the PSL's "know-nothing" approach to historical controversies in revolutionary history will benefit their party in the long run. Workers are likely expect some type of coherent explanation with respect to the failure of the Soviet Union before they would support the PSL or any any workers' political party. Even if politically engaged workers initially are satisfied to limit their interest to the "bread and butter" issues such as the price of milk, it seems unlikely that they would move beyond this "trade union" level of consciousness toward becoming revolutionary militants without becoming interested in some sort of narrative regarding Soviet history. The PSL may be unwilling to provide such a narrative, but most other leftist groups have a definite position on the nature of the Soviet Union and would be happy to fill the void left by the PSL's non-answers.

[Prometeo liberado]

Can't imagine that the PSL's "know-nothing" approach to historical controversies in revolutionary history will benefit their party in the long run. Workers are likely expect some type of coherent explanation with respect to the failure of the Soviet Union before they would support the PSL or any any workers' political party. Even if politically engaged workers initially are satisfied to limit their interest to the "bread and butter" issues such as the price of milk, it seems unlikely that they would move beyond this "trade union" level of consciousness toward becoming revolutionary militants without becoming interested in some sort of narrative regarding Soviet history. The PSL may be unwilling to provide such a narrative, but most other leftist groups have a definite position on the nature of the Soviet Union and would be happy to fill the void left by the PSL's non-answers.

You assume that what they are committed to is a socialist future the way you see it. Wrong. You assume that they try and recruit "workers". Wrong. The reason they don't provide an in depth narrative on this subject is because that would pigeon hole them. Don't forget that not to long ago they were trots. And as for recruiting workers, well just go to any of their open Friday night meetings and you'll quickly see that the working class is defined as those between the ages of 17-24. At the communist meeting in Brussels shortly after becoming a Party they read a statement in which they used the word "youth" some 11-15 times in regards to prospective membership. The leadership is extremely active yet it's motives are very self-preservationist and have nothing to do with tendency or vision. And this is the tragedy as they are so street active that something could have come from it. I and others have asked all these questions again and again, al for not. Nothing to see here folks, keep on moving.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I have often thought that leadership self-preservation lay behind a good of the sectarianism of the contemporary left. Imagine Jack Barnes or Bob Avakian trying to get a job. ROFLMAO. Thanks to Jbeard for his first-hand perspective of sectarianism PSL-style.