Interested in the PSL

[dsaly1969]

I live out in Tehachapi, CA and I'm looking at the various party options and am considering the PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation) or ISO (International Socialist Organization) or other options - would love to hear pros and cons perceptions of them.

I am looking to connect more with other comrades. I am registered with the Peace and Freedom Party in California which provides ballot access to a wide spectrum of socialist/leftist candidates, but am looking for a like-minded party for further Marxist study and collaborative activities.

My own Marxist approach tends to be nonsectarian but I have appreciation for some of the theoretical contributions of historical and current Marxist leaders like Trotsky, DeLeon, Mao, etc. - but that we should not be necessarily locked into the past and need to arrive perhaps at a new synthesis, strategies, approach, and possibly even labels to meet the needs of current developments. I do tend more towards a revolutionary rather than a reformist / social democratic approach ultimately but do not mind democratic reform efforts to alleviate suffering and to move towards the goal of a communist society.

[Sasha]

If the Psl members here are a indication the Psl is overrun with the worst kind of stalinoids, if your idea of activism is jumping to defence of "anti-imperialist" anti-worker bourgeois dictatorships you will have a ball, otherwise you might want to look for something better.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The PSL split from the Workers World Party, itself a split from the then-Trotskyist SWP. Today, most of their members apparently consider themselves Marxists-Leninists. I don't know why the PSL split from the WWP, but apparently the split wasn't principled, and the PSL remains influenced by the theories of WWP founder Sam Marcy, particularly the theory of global class struggle, an extension of the concept of class struggle to international politics that identifies two conflicting camps - the Soviet and the imperialist camp - as representative of, respectively, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Or that is how I understand it, perhaps a PSL or WWP member might be able to explain it better.

One of the good things about the PSL is that they make an active effort to recruit minorities, to keep themselves from becoming a party of bitter old white straight men. As for criticism, apart from the usual "well I don't agree with their theory", they seem overly fond of the Democrats sometimes. But they're also a very activist party.

Oh yes, and they defend the DPR Korea, which consistently annoys the liberals.

[Dabrowski]

I think the PSL's politics are summed up in what they wrote about the election of the current U.S. president, Barack Obama.

"What is needed is a clear program focused on what the new administration should do to meet the needs of the working people; to fulfill the expectations its campaign has created" (Liberation, 21 November 2008).

Marxists, on the other hand, present a clear program for workers action against the bourgeoisie, its parties and its governments.

Recently (Liberation, 8 May 2013) the PSL wrote that the proposed anti-immigrant "reform" bill that just passed in the U.S. Senate "would, in its present form, provide considerable relief to immigrant communities that have been struggling for years for legalization."

[dsaly1969]

It's interesting to get two opposing viewpoints. If there are alternate recommendations in terms of Marxist parties as well, please share. (I've live in Tehachapi which is near the Antelope Valley and Bakersfield as well as close enough to southern California to get there on a regular basis - i.e. the occasional weekend)

[Dabrowski]

My advice is that the revolutionary class, the working class, is an international class and the struggle for workers power can only be really grasped with an international perspective. The correctness of a Marxist propaganda group can only be evaluated by the test of events on an international scale.

Personally, I like many radical-minded young people started out by joining a group because it was the best-looking one in my local area (Workers World, pre-PSL split). It took a long and painful experience to learn that Marxism is incompatible with the typical parochial activist outlook that I had started with, and I ended up contributing years of work to an organization that much like the PSL, is an obstacle to workers revolution.

Now I am a supporter of the Internationalist Group, which is the only Marxist organization in the U.S. -- but don't take my word for it! Study all the different groups that claim to be revolutionary and keep asking questions, that is my recommendation!

[dsaly1969]

I will. I'll look into the Internationalist Group. I'm also looking into the International Socialist Organization (ISO). Perhaps I will have to make myself a chart.

While I am not a purist Trotskyist by any means, I appreciate many of Trotsky's contributions and hope that many groups derived from this tendency tend to have retained more of the revolutionary character rather than a more reformist one (a la CPUSA or SPUSA).

[Akshay!]

I don't know much about it, but if psycho is criticizing it, it must be doing something right! :lol:

[blake 3:17]

From my very limited understanding they're quite good on issues of gender and sexuality.

[Le Socialiste]

I will. I'll look into the Internationalist Group. I'm also looking into the International Socialist Organization (ISO). Perhaps I will have to make myself a chart.

I'm in the ISO, along with another user here, Jimmie Higgins. If you have any questions about the organization, feel free to ask myself or JH. :)

[dsaly1969]

I'm in the ISO, along with another user here, Jimmie Higgins. If you have any questions about the organization, feel free to ask myself or JH. :)

Oooh... ISO is behind the Socialism Conferences (aka WeAreMany.Org). I've been listening to the presentations from this and previous year conferences and have greatly enjoyed (and agreed with) much of the analysis. Yep, we may need to talk more about the ISO.

[Per Levy]

I don't know much about it, but if psycho is criticizing it, it must be doing something right! :lol:

from that logic homophobes, sexists, racists, the police, capitalism and much much more is doing something right then. also quite "helpful" post for this thread.

as far as i can say the psl is more reformist than revolutionary, they work together with reformists in their anti-war fronts and other things. they support, albeit "critically", many bourgeois dictators for the sake of anti-imperialism, while completly ignoring the imperialism of china or russia.

anyway, you might wait for rusty who is the most promiment psl member on the site for a pro statement.

[goalkeeper]

My advice is that the revolutionary class, the working class, is an international class and the struggle for workers power can only be really grasped with an international perspective. The correctness of a Marxist propaganda group can only be evaluated by the test of events on an international scale.

Personally, I like many radical-minded young people started out by joining a group because it was the best-looking one in my local area (Workers World, pre-PSL split). It took a long and painful experience to learn that Marxism is incompatible with the typical parochial activist outlook that I had started with, and I ended up contributing years of work to an organization that much like the PSL, is an obstacle to workers revolution.

Now I am a supporter of the Internationalist Group, which is the only Marxist organization in the U.S. -- but don't take my word for it! Study all the different groups that claim to be revolutionary and keep asking questions, that is my recommendation!

Quite a claim. But how is it that only a dozen or so people in a country of 320 million are actual/real Marxists?

[Prometeo liberado]

Besides shaky theory, the PSL is rife with egoism and a weak understanding of democratic centralism. Very active yet a meat grinder for unsuspecting cadres.

[Le Socialiste]

Oooh... ISO is behind the Socialism Conferences (aka WeAreMany.Org). I've been listening to the presentations from this and previous year conferences and have greatly enjoyed (and agreed with) much of the analysis. Yep, we may need to talk more about the ISO.

Yeah, I just got back from this year's conference last Sunday (it was amazing). There were great talks, debates, and opportunities to meet and connect with other people. We had comrades from Australia, New Zealand, Greece, Canada, Egypt, and the UK present, all of whom had a variety of perspectives to offer for the international Left. But I don't want to derail this thread (it's about the PSL after all ;)1). If you'd like to discuss these things further, feel free to contact me or JH. Or start a thread on the organization, if you're looking for a wider discussion.

[Dabrowski]

Open Letter to Supporters of the ISO
“Socialist” Excuses for Disruption of Labor Solidarity Forum

http://www.internationalist.org/isoopenletterilwu1202.html

The January 6 furor in Seattle has highlighted the increasingly charged relationship between the Occupy Wall Street movement and the official leadership of trade unions. The violent disturbance by officials of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) was directed not only against Occupy Seattle but particularly targeted ILWU militants speaking at the forum. Outrageously, several self-described socialist groups took up cudgels for the pro-capitalist labor bureaucracy. The egregious apology for the bureaucratic disrupters by the International Socialist Organization (ISO) has caused an uproar, including inside the ISO. Basically, there was a clash of opportunisms: two different “constituencies” the ISO was tailing after (Occupy and labor leaders) came into conflict. The ISO came down on the side of the labor bureaucracy. From Wisconsin to Washington, these social democrats seek to push the bureaucrats ever so slightly to the left. But when the capitalists and the pro-capitalist bureaucracy crack the whip, the ISO obeys.

[Q]

These threads are always a free-for-all and, judging the responses, this one is too.

My advise would be to work together with whatever group you're close by with, but perhaps keep a healthy distance until you're sure that group has something to offer you, that makes you comfortable. Perhaps even work with several groups, ask about their differences. These groups will try keeping to recruit you, but don't give in right away and take your time.

You have to understand that the far left is sadly divided into sectarian grouplets, all trying to reach some kind of "marketshare" in the working class. They all boast about their Unique Selling Points, like the ISO ("look, we're big!") or the Internationalist Group ("look, we're pure!"). It's all a huge waste of resources due to duplication of effort and will not achieve anything much in the long run as the working class does very well see in what state the far left is in.

What is needed is a single mass party-movement that is united around an an accepted upon programme, that is, a document that describes in broad strategic lines how to reach working class power and after that communism. That such a thing is accepted upon, not necessarily agreed upon, makes it open for democratic review and, as such, implies public debates and strong minority rights for members (to form public platforms around themes they find important). Only such a party can possibly begin the task of forming the working class into a class-for-itself, with its own political agenda of universal human liberation.

The far left today is far away from this situation: Most groups don't allow for public debates and mandate their members to toe a "line" to the outside world. This creates a group-think that either fits with you or does not. If it doesn't, you'll drop out again. If it does, you'll rise through the ranks, depending on your activity.

This all may sound a bit cynical, but I do think that while the left today is very much part of the problem, that it is also part of the solution. And you can learn a big deal from them politically, theoretically and organisationally albeit often in a skewed form. I advise therefore to keep your mind open to different ideas, because there's plenty out there.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Hey Q, are there currently any parties or organisations trying to build this mass party movement? And, what do you think leftists should do to help try and build one?

[Q]

Hey Q, are there currently any parties or organisations trying to build this mass party movement? And, what do you think leftists should do to help try and build one?
Very few currently see the need for one and where they exist they are small and dispersed. The very first step then is to keep an open mind, think outside the box of the group you're in, proactively educate yourself not necessarily staying inside the curriculum of the group you're in, have comradely debates with members of other groups but also debate with your fellow comrades and strive for more openness and critical review, work together where possible and, in the longer run, wage propaganda that we need unity, but not on the terms of any of the sectarian groups. We don't need a "Pax ISO" or "Pax IG", we need a class party.

Along these lines then can we redevelop a scientific culture of inquiry (not follow a set of dogmas), can our class be trained politically (instead of following this or that group of "leaders") and can we build that party-movement that our class so desperately needs. Communists can play a useful role in that, most are just not doing it right now.

[dsaly1969]

This seems to come back to my own nonsectarian position...

"My own Marxist approach tends to be nonsectarian but I have appreciation for some of the theoretical contributions of historical and current Marxist leaders like Trotsky, DeLeon, Mao, etc. - but that we should not be necessarily locked into the past and need to arrive perhaps at a new synthesis, strategies, approach, and possibly even labels to meet the needs of current developments. I do tend more towards a revolutionary rather than a reformist / social democratic approach ultimately but do not mind democratic reform efforts to alleviate suffering and to move towards the goal of a communist society. "



So how do we work within these various fragmented and sectarian organizations (really, the infighting among the various far-left groups remind me much of religious dogmatism and fundamentalism) to promote bridge-building and collaboration and eventual unity? (There can always been different groups formed within a larger umbrella around tendencies and strategies to suit different kinds of comrades.)

[Bardo]

I went through the PSL candidacy program and was involved up until I left the US last year. I didn't get a lot of time to participate as an active member, but learned a lot about the organization through the program.

The PSL is a ML party that operates internally on the principle of democratic centralism. I've never been very dogmatic as some structures and concepts of marxist-leninism appeal to me more than others, so naturally I found myself agreeing with some positions of the party and disagreeing with others. For instance, it's generally accepted within the party that the CCP has been sitting on the fence between a path to genuine socialism and capitalism after Maos death and has been ever since. Where as it's my belief that the CCP isn't even trying to run a facade of socialism anymore. They also view the Soviet actions of 1956 in Hungary as a necessity, which I can't agree with.

On the other hand, as noted above, the PSL is very involved in issues concerning racial, gender and sexual equality. They are very involved in anti-war and anti-imperialist movements, they sit on the national board for ANSWER.

Overall, I found the experience very insightful and organized. When I return to the US I will probably be rejoining as soon as I arrive.

[Le Socialiste]

These threads are always a free-for-all and, judging the responses, this one is too.

Yeah, I admit I feel kinda bad about that. I want to encourage Dsaly1969 to consider all of their options before deciding to join any organization (if that's what they want to do).

Dsaly, I suggest you work with the groups that are in your area. Get to know how they work and where they might fall short. Of course, these groups will keep trying to recruit you, but Q's right - take your time and to decide what fits best for you. I'll admit the ISO isn't the exception to this rule, unfortunately. (I'm not sure any organization is atm, actually.)


like the ISO ("look, we're big!")

Lol, we're not big. I think it's fair to say we're the largest revolutionary organization in the U.S. at this time, but in terms of real numbers we're still tiny (only 1,000 members or so, if that). But I get what you're saying. ;)

I'll keep this short: I agree with the bulk of what you're saying. You bring up a lot of valid points regarding the state and nature of the existing Left that beg addressing. I don't think we'll see any one organization rise from the ranks of the Left; indeed, it'll require active cooperation and collaboration amongst various groups in order for revolutionary socialism to regain some semblance of relevance in the lives of working people. A "Pax ISO" or "Pax IG" isn't what we need.

[Rusty Shackleford]

So I saw my name was dropped in this thread so I guess I'm due to respond. Sorry for being so late to this. Things have been, well, 'ugh,' for me.

The most basic thing I can tell you about PSL or ISO or whatever is to make physical contact with members of the organizations.

For contacting the PSL, and ANSWER, there is a Statewide Unity March against Police Brutality (http://www.answercoalition.org/la/events/1-year-after-anaheim-socal.html) being organized. It is happening THIS SUNDAY at 1PM.

This is an excellent opportunity to check us out.

As for the arguments against the party. This is revleft. Criticisms should be taken with a grain of salt. This place is rather volatile and nasty at times. No doubt you should also scrutinize a person's claim to correctness in person and online.

I have my own issues, but at the same time, the PSL to me at least has kept itself on point.

One thing that should also be taken into account is that people are people. Yes this is obvious, but no matter what organization you encounter, members will display their faults and flaws.

Broad-left unity into one organization is not going to happen though.

This was probably a dull response but I feel it is more important to actually contact people if they are in a situation like yourself in which you can at least occasionally go to where branches of organizations exist. There is also more to the organization than what you see in the newspaper or on the website.

[TheEmancipator]

Oh yes, and they defend the DPR Korea, which consistently annoys the real communists who actually want to be taken seriously.


fixed. :)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, if you want to be "taken seriously" by liberal public opinion, revolutionary politics is not for you.

[TheEmancipator]

Well, if you want to be "taken seriously" by liberal public opinion, revolutionary politics is not for you.

No, I want the proleteriat to take us seriously. They don't when we start supporting a regime that oppresses the proletariat and treats them as slaves in the name of the Juche ideology, that has completely abandoned any Marxist theory left.

This isn't even a question of "fuck bourgeois morality lol", its a question of certain members considering every single regime to have called itself socialist socialist, as long as it opposed the USA.

It shows immaturity and a complete lack of critical mind.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Needless to say, every communist group wishes to be taken seriously by the proletariat. That is not enough, however. The proletariat needs to accept a consistent Marxist programme. If a group sacrifices parts of the programme to gain short-term support, it has accomplished nothing. Tailists accomplish nothing.

I mean, you want mass support without an increase in class consciousness. That's not going to happen, not even if you pour ashes on yourself and beat your chest confessing to every "communist" crime imagined by Cold Warriors, not even if you ignore the Marxist programme in matters of sex and gender so as to not scare away the macho men, not even if you support Obama and the various Occupy movements, all of that will amount to nothing.

I think the PSL is, in the main, wrong. But that is something that needs to be discussed from the standpoint of Marxist theory, not the endless hue and cry over "evil" DPR Korea where people are "slaves".

[TheEmancipator]

Needless to say, every communist group wishes to be taken seriously by the proletariat. That is not enough, however. The proletariat needs to accept a consistent Marxist programme. If a group sacrifices parts of the programme to gain short-term support, it has accomplished nothing. Tailists accomplish nothing.

I mean, you want mass support without an increase in class consciousness. That's not going to happen, not even if you pour ashes on yourself and beat your chest confessing to every "communist" crime imagined by Cold Warriors, not even if you ignore the Marxist programme in matters of sex and gender so as to not scare away the macho men, not even if you support Obama and the various Occupy movements, all of that will amount to nothing.

I think the PSL is, in the main, wrong. But that is something that needs to be discussed from the standpoint of Marxist theory, not the endless hue and cry over "evil" DPR Korea where people are "slaves".

I've asked you time and time again to justify why you think North Korea should be considered a socialist state or why the PSL or your organisation refer to their brutal bourgeois dictator as "comrade Kim" yet you refuse, instead beating down strawmen, because you know that you'll get restricted if you start praising jucheism.

[Dabrowski]

I can't speak for comrade S. but the "Emancipator" (look how quickly he resorts to threats of administrative action to back up his feeble "arguments"!) is making the usual lazy liberal amalgam straw-man "argument." Trotskyists do not consider the DPRK to be a "socialist state," which is, to Marxists, itself a contradiction in terms. We do consider China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam to be bureaucratically deformed workers states, where the capitalist class was removed from power and dissolved as a class, where the basic elements of the means of production were nationalized, are not the property of any person or group of investors, and are operated according to a (bureaucratic) plan, not for profit, where the state does not guarantee the "rights" of capitalists to dispose of their capital but rather defends the nationalized economic property.

These social institutions are the property forms corresponding to a workers state, and would not need to be "expropriated" or fundamentally changed were the working class to take political power and establish a republic of soviet democracy in the place of the rule of the petty-bourgeois Stalinist cliques that are selling out these gains of the revolution and paving the way for capitalist counterrevolution. Just like we unconditionally defend the workers' unions against the bosses, regardless of and in spite of their treacherous, brutal, sell-out leaders, we defend the DPRK and the other remaining bureaucratically deformed workers states against imperialism unconditionally. This speech by the U.S. Trotskyist leader James P. Cannon (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1939/ussr.htm) is a good introduction to our position.

The Marcyites (PSL and Workers World) are generally very right-wing, ultra-reformist fake socialists. But what S. and I are emphasizing is that the usual social-democratic "criticism" of the Marcyites is right-wing, anti-Communist, pro-imperialist criticism. As we wrote back in 1990,


"Since their inception as a political tendency during the Korean war, the Marcyites have embraced the Stalinist bureaucracies, claiming that they were waging an inexorable and epochal battle against imperialism. Yet the regimes which sit on top of the deformed/degenerated workers states aren't committed to 'global class war' but rather to global class collaboration." (Workers Vanguard No. 505, 29 June 1990, back when WV was still Trotskyist.)

[TheEmancipator]

I can't speak for comrade S. but the "Emancipator" (look how quickly he resorts to threats of administrative action to back up his feeble "arguments"!)

I am not using the threat of administrative action, I'm saying you only stopped calling Kim Jong-Un "comrade Kim" on here because you guys don't want any trouble.

The rest of your posts has some compelling arguments, but I still fail to see why I should call Kim Jong-Un a comrade and regard NK as a socialist state when as you pointed out it isn't.

I'll add another question : what makes you think the degenerative workers state of North Korea is any better than the USA in regards to imperialist and nationalist doctrine?

[Dabrowski]

The "Emancipator":


Can't read.
Can't even read his own writing!
Nevertheless, writes.



I've asked you time and time again to justify why you think North Korea should be considered a socialist state or why the PSL or your organisation refer to their brutal bourgeois dictator as "comrade Kim" yet you refuse, instead beating down strawmen, because you know that you'll get restricted if you start praising jucheism.

(Emphasis added for the "Emancipator's" benefit.)

[Dabrowski]

I'll add another question : what makes you think the degenerative workers state of North Korea is any better than the USA in regards to imperialist and nationalist doctrine?

I don't have time to answer you but maybe you should ask your question to someone from Hiroshima, or Fallujah, or for that matter, any of the North Korean cities that the U.S. flattened and napalmed during its genocidal war (that would be all of them).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I've asked you time and time again to justify why you think North Korea should be considered a socialist state[...]

Because I don't. As comrade Dabrowski points out, Trotskyists generally consider the DPR Korea to be a deformed workers' state. The notion that the north Korean state is socialist is, if you ask me, fantastic. Yet it needs to be criticised from the left. That is something you are unwilling to do. In truth your statements about the DPR Korea are substantially the same as statements by Shachtman, or even Kirkpatrick.


[...]or why the PSL or your organisation refer to their brutal bourgeois dictator as "comrade Kim" yet you refuse, instead beating down strawmen, because you know that you'll get restricted if you start praising jucheism.

I am not a member of the PSL, of the WWP, or of any organisation at the moment. I sympathise with the SL and the IG, neither of which have called Kim Jong Il "comrade Kim". Nor am I enthusiastic about Juche - in fact, I consider Kimilsungism to be the right of most revisionist Marxist-Leninism. And I am not exactly enthusiastic about Marxism-Leninism.


I'll add another question : what makes you think the degenerative workers state of North Korea is any better than the USA in regards to imperialist and nationalist doctrine?

To us it is "better" (that is a horribly vague term - we support defending the nationalised economy against internal reaction and a political revolution to sweep away the bureaucratic caste) because we orient ourselves based on the fucking material realities in the sphere of production and not fucking words because we are fucking materialists.

The notion that North Korea is imperialist is simply borderline insane. Does the DPR Korea export capital? Where are the capitalist north Korean monopolies that drive this imperialism?

[Fred]

These threads are always a free-for-all and, judging the responses, this one is too.

My advise would be to work together with whatever group you're close by with, but perhaps keep a healthy distance until you're sure that group has something to offer you, that makes you comfortable. Perhaps even work with several groups, ask about their differences. These groups will try keeping to recruit you, but don't give in right away and take your time.

You have to understand that the far left is sadly divided into sectarian grouplets, all trying to reach some kind of "marketshare" in the working class. They all boast about their Unique Selling Points, like the ISO ("look, we're big!") or the Internationalist Group ("look, we're pure!"). It's all a huge waste of resources due to duplication of effort and will not achieve anything much in the long run as the working class does very well see in what state the far left is in.

What is needed is a single mass party-movement that is united around an an accepted upon programme, that is, a document that describes in broad strategic lines how to reach working class power and after that communism. That such a thing is accepted upon, not necessarily agreed upon, makes it open for democratic review and, as such, implies public debates and strong minority rights for members (to form public platforms around themes they find important). Only such a party can possibly begin the task of forming the working class into a class-for-itself, with its own political agenda of universal human liberation.

The far left today is far away from this situation: Most groups don't allow for public debates and mandate their members to toe a "line" to the outside world. This creates a group-think that either fits with you or does not. If it doesn't, you'll drop out again. If it does, you'll rise through the ranks, depending on your activity.

This all may sound a bit cynical, but I do think that while the left today is very much part of the problem, that it is also part of the solution. And you can learn a big deal from them politically, theoretically and organisationally albeit often in a skewed form. I advise therefore to keep your mind open to different ideas, because there's plenty out there.

The criticism of small left groups is true, in a way, but also misses the point. If you aggregated the entire left in the US, you would come up with a number probably way under 10,000 active members. So, the absence of a mass workers' party is not primarily about the inability of the far left to overcome its sectarian tendencies. It is about the extreme historical ebb of political consciousness that exists at the present time.

The different groups such as the PSL, ISO, IG, SL, etc. have competing programs. This is critical. The WWP/PSL has a long history of reformist politics combined with an increasing degree of Stalinophilia. The Marcyites emerged as a right split from the then-revolutionary SWP (US) in the late 50s. A key disagreement they had with the SWP was over the nature of the Hungarian workers' uprising in 1956, where they supported the USSR's crushing of the workers political revolution against the bureaucracy.

The ISO eventually emerged from a left-wing split from Max Shachtman's Independent Socialist League. This was led by Hal Draper -- they were initially called the International Socialists and eventually split with one part becoming the ISO (I think this was in the early 70s). If I recall, the split was very unclear politically). At some point the ISO became affiliated with the British SWP. IMO they are left talking social dems. They sometimes claim to be Trotskyist, but abandon two of Trotsky's absolutely critical positions. 1. Never give political support to bourgeois political parties or to political formations containing bourgeois parties (e.g., Popular Front governments). 2. defense of the deformed workers' states (fSU, China, Vietnam, etc.). The actions of their Egyptian group is very telling -- giving critical support to various reactionary formations and enthusing about the formless, non-proletarian "Arab Spring." That is what their program looks like on the ground.

My own opinion is that the SL or the IG are the only serious Trotskyist groups in the US with more than 10 members. Although comrade Dabrowski will have a stroke when he reads this, their political programs are almost identical. The SL has the advantage of being quite a bit larger and having a small, but more significant international presence. But the IG is pretty good. The International Bolshevik Tendency could be categorized as having very similar politics (they do), but I think the human material involved is so suspect that I would suggest avoiding them. Besides, I don't think they actually exist in the US anymore.

As other comrades have said, take your time making a decision -- check out groups locally, but also read the press of the different groups -- ask questions -- read some history. Good luck figuring it out.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The ISO eventually emerged from a left-wing split from Max Shachtman's Independent Socialist League. This was led by Hal Draper -- they were initially called the International Socialists and eventually split with one part becoming the ISO (I think this was in the early 70s). If I recall, the split was very unclear politically).

I think Draper left well before the split, and that the split was due to the increasing influence of the British SWP - the faction that would become the ISO was the one that was the most willing to abandon the theory of bureaucratic collectivism. Then the factions came to blows over the fact that the IS majority supported a bizarre Portuguese guerrilla movement, and the predecessors of the ISO were expelled.

[The Douche]

If you aggregated the entire left in the US, you would come up with a number probably way under 10,000 active members.

Why are you saying things like this? What is the left, and who are the people who count in your statistic?

I have been at events where the black bloc alone was comprised of 1000+ individuals. I helped organize an anti-war event that was attended by 100,000+.

I'm not one for the numbers game, honestly, I think that counting ourselves is silly, but I never understand why people try to make us out to be so much more marginal than we are. We (radicals and self-described revolutionaries) definitely carry an influence far beyond our own numbers.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Why are you saying things like this? What is the left, and who are the people who count in your statistic?

I have been at events where the black bloc alone was comprised of 1000+ individuals. I helped organize an anti-war event that was attended by 100,000+.

I'm not one for the numbers game, honestly, I think that counting ourselves is silly, but I never understand why people try to make us out to be so much more marginal than we are. We (radicals and self-described revolutionaries) definitely carry an influence far beyond our own numbers.

I think "the left" is supposed to mean educated, class-conscious communist cadres. I highly doubt that the anti-war event you helped organise was attended by 100 000 such people.

[The Douche]

I think "the left" is supposed to mean educated, class-conscious communist cadres. I highly doubt that the anti-war event you helped organise was attended by 100 000 such people.

Of course it wasn't.

That would be an somewhat uncommon use of the term. But ok. Normally when I hear the term "the left" as used by Marxists, I assume we're talking about the labor movement, activist circles, communists, possibly even NGOs/non-profits.

And that's a much larger chunk of the US population than 10,000. If "the left" means educated communist cadres, I think 10,000 is quite generous...

[Fred]

Why are you saying things like this? What is the left, and who are the people who count in your statistic?

I have been at events where the black bloc alone was comprised of 1000+ individuals. I helped organize an anti-war event that was attended by 100,000+.

I'm not one for the numbers game, honestly, I think that counting ourselves is silly, but I never understand why people try to make us out to be so much more marginal than we are. We (radicals and self-described revolutionaries) definitely carry an influence far beyond our own numbers.

Why so defensive? I was making a point about the organized left -- not people's less quantifiable sympathies. I am talking about active members of cadre organizations like the ISO, RCP, SL, etc. It is a guess -- I could be off by a mile and my point would still be accurate (let's say there are actually 20,000). Unless, like the far-right in this country, you want to count the Democratic Party as the "left," I don't understand how you could believe otherwise.

When I was a kid, my parents took me to an anti-war demonstration in DC where there were about 1 million people. But the US anti-Vietnam War movement dead-ended into the Democratic Party, in part because of the reformist left (WWP, SWP, CP) pushed for a single issue, classless political line about the war. The left, as such, was far bigger then, but still rather small. But it was growing.

[The Douche]

Why so defensive? I was making a point about the organized left -- not people's less quantifiable sympathies. I am talking about active members of cadre organizations like the ISO, RCP, SL, etc. It is a guess -- I could be off by a mile and my point would still be accurate (let's say there are actually 20,000). Unless, like the far-right in this country, you want to count the Democratic Party as the "left," I don't understand how you could believe otherwise.

When I was a kid, my parents took me to an anti-war demonstration in DC where there were about 1 million people. But the US anti-Vietnam War movement dead-ended into the Democratic Party, in part because of the reformist left (WWP, SWP, CP) pushed for a single issue, classless political line about the war. The left, as such, was far bigger then, but still rather small. But it was growing.

I was just asking you to define your terms. You're being defensive. The way you use the left makes sense and is not without precedent, but it is not the exclusive use of the term, is it?

For instance, when I say "the left" I am talking about a certain political sect which seeks to mediate and organize the struggles of the working class, and direct them towards their own political goals. This often includes people who describe themselves as communists.

Sometimes I see people on this board and elsewhere use the term to describe everything to the right of the GOP.

So please, don't mistake my asking for clarification for anything other than what it was.

[Leftsolidarity]

But the US anti-Vietnam War movement dead-ended into the Democratic Party, in part because of the reformist left (WWP, SWP, CP) pushed for a single issue, classless political line about the war.

Your lies are showing.....

WWP never pushed for a "single issue, classless political line" around the Vietnam War. The party was extremely militant around this issue and anyone who either A) has any sort of clue what they're talking about; or B) isn't just lying out their ass, would know that.

[Geiseric]

Hey Q, are there currently any parties or organisations trying to build this mass party movement? And, what do you think leftists should do to help try and build one?

I wouldn't bet on the "mass party movement" people really doing anything outside of the realm of discussions. There was at one point an actual workers party being formed in the U.S. but it kinda fell apart during the 90's, a result of the majority of the left being sectarian, and refusing to join and help with it. I'm kind of a youngster and I always got the creeps from PSL, WWP, and the other quasi stalinoid organizations in the bay area. I joined a group called Socialist Organizer based in the bay area, once I agreed with their program. It puts emphasis on a realistic praxis that puts mobilization of the rest of the working class above all of the other petty bourgeois, sectarian objectives put forward by most "leftist groups" which for some reason are always meant to grow the group itself, and not really mobilize anybody for any kind of movement.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Your lies are showing.....

WWP never pushed for a "single issue, classless political line" around the Vietnam War. The party was extremely militant around this issue and anyone who either A) has any sort of clue what they're talking about; or B) isn't just lying out their ass, would know that.

Actually, despite my disagreements with Leftsolidarity, I will say that the WWP does indeed have a less reformist attitude in theory and praxis regarding their activism. So I'll give them credit for that.

Anyway, I personally recommend that you check them out at least. One thing you have to note is that what makes the PSL unique amoungst the left is that it is the closest thing to a mass party with a basis in the working class. While the ISO is really big, it is important to note that their cadres contain alot of appeal in the left wing circles and not outside that. The PSL on the other hand almost got 10,000 votes in the last presidential election. Let me remind you that these weren't votes from the left, there were plenty of other candidates from the left that were running on the presidential level that I'm sure the left would rather have voted for. These were votes from the working class, and that's important. The ISO on the otherhand is too busy getting into sectarian snickering fits with Socialist Alternative to do anything with a basis in class. Meanwhile, I've never met a single PSL member who wasn't working class, they're all teachers, taxi drivers, waiters, and occasionally inner city students. Compare the class composition of the PSL to any other group and you'll see the difference.


This isn't to say that I support them, far from it most Marcyites know I have nothing but contempt for their politics. And I am going to most likely end up joining the New Communist Party (Organizing Committee) and if that fails maybe I'll get in contact with the local left comms or the Communist Voice Organization. But the programmatic critiques aside, what you need to realize is that it is easy to critique when you've done nothing yourselfs, and that's basically the state of the left and the people on revleft.

[Dabrowski]

Although comrade Dabrowski will have a stroke when he reads this, their political programs are almost identical.

Thanks for your concern for my health, Fred! But don't worry, a NYC heat wave can't kill me so a few comments on the web are no big deal.

I would only say that your oft-repeated position on this is functionally and politically equivalent to the rationalization for all sorts of "left unity" garbage. Why stop at just the IG and the SL? One could find many points of agreement between these two groups and the most revisionist sorts of social democrats. After all, we're all for socialism, aren't we? But what makes political differences fundamental, irreconcilable even, is not their net textual divergence but the different answers that these "almost identical" programs give to key questions of principle and strategy. Is there a Popular Front in Mexico? The SL/ICL says no, the IG/LFI says yes. Should we call for the defeat of U.S. imperialism in its present wars, and for workers strikes against the war? The SL/ICL this is "anti-Americanism" and has "no resonance." The IG/LFI says yes. Should communists demand independence for all colonies, such as Puerto Rico, Guadeloupe, Martinique? The SL/ICL says no, the IG/LFI says yes... etc. These are vital questions that involve the fate of millions of people -- not just a few words out of thousands that might very well be "almost identical."

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The criticism of small left groups is true, in a way, but also misses the point. If you aggregated the entire left in the US, you would come up with a number probably way under 10,000 active members. So, the absence of a mass workers' party is not primarily about the inability of the far left to overcome its sectarian tendencies. It is about the extreme historical ebb of political consciousness that exists at the present time.


This is not the point though. We do not seek to unite the current left on its sect-basis. What we need is a shift of culture in the left. I've seen user Q call it a cultural revolution in the leftist movement. Indeed uniting the sects would be merely a re-arranging of the sects. However what we want it is to break with the current sect-culture. When it has done that we can unite around a revolutionary programme as a class-party and rally more and more workers around the class-party, something which sects are unable to do.

Party-membership would, after unification, not be the sum of all former sect-members. When the left has made the decisive break with sect-culture it would attract many more strata of the working-class. Many hundreds of thousands that share socialist ideas would see reason to join a genuine unity initiative, a genuine class party.

Criticism of small-sects is not missing the point, it is essential for the organization of the proletariat as a class.

[Tjis]

This is not the point though. We do not seek to unite the current left on its sect-basis. What we need is a shift of culture in the lefte. I've seen user Q call it a cultural revolution in the leftist movement. Indeed uniting the sects would be merely a re-arranging of the sects. However what we want it is to break with the current sect-culture. When it has done that we can unite around a revolutionary programme as a class-party and rally more and more workers around the class-party, something which sects are unable to do.
Calls for leftist unity are nothing new. On revleft alone there's probably a few of those weekly. I don't think any serious leftist actually disagrees with unity either. Yet there's no unity to speak of.

Just writing a good programme is not enough to end sectarianism. The CPGB draft programme is their attempt at programmatic unity, which they hope will win over the entirety of the british left. Still, the british left is as fractured as before and there's absolutely no inclination to join the CPGB en masse. As it stands, the CPGB is just another sect, and their programme is just another sectarian attempt to draw in more members at the expense of other organisations.

The problem I see with 'programmatic unity' is that a programme doesn't exist in the abstract. A programme is always attached to an organisation, and a call for programmatic unity is always a call for communists of all other organisation to join yours. Is this not intrinsically sectarian? How does a 'cultural revolution' make it not so?

[Q]

Calls for leftist unity are nothing new. On revleft alone there's probably a few of those weekly. I don't think any serious leftist actually disagrees with unity either. Yet there's no unity to speak of.

Just writing a good programme is not enough to end sectarianism. The CPGB draft programme is their attempt at programmatic unity, which they hope will win over the entirety of the british left. Still, the british left is as fractured as before and there's absolutely no inclination to join the CPGB en masse. As it stands, the CPGB is just another sect, and their programme is just another sectarian attempt to draw in more members at the expense of other organisations.

The problem I see with 'programmatic unity' is that a programme doesn't exist in the abstract. A programme is always attached to an organisation, and a call for programmatic unity is always a call for communists of all other organisation to join yours. Is this not intrinsically sectarian? How does a 'cultural revolution' make it not so?
You are right when you say that we want to win people over to our position. There is little wrong with that. In wider society communists continually seek to win wider working class layers for communist politics. Likewise, those that are calling for programmatic unity, including myself, are well aware we need to win comrades to these ideas.

Putting it in a different way: Mass communist awareness is not a spontaneous product of capitalist society. However, incidental communist awareness is, as we see every day as new people join this forum for example or, for those active "out there", with new people joining this or that group. It is the task of communists then to win our class for these politics, merge them with the existing movement. Likewise, the insight that we need a different kind of left, one that is open, democratic, and programmatically founded, is currently a minority view within the far left. It is up to us to win the far left to them.

And a note on sectarianism: Winning people to ideas is in itself not sectarian. Sectarianism are those politics that only appeal to a section of the working class, not the whole. Groups that are built on a "unity of ideas" (pet theories, tactics, etc.) that don't allow (or make it very hard) to disagree with "the line" are the most common example of a sect, for exact the reason that they will only appeal to those workers that agree with the group and can then be "consolidated" as a loyal member of said group which is then equated with the communist cause.

It is hard to let people realise that there is a distinction between loyalty to a group and loyalty to the cause, let comrades see we really do share a lot and it is criminal that we're not united. That it is a nonsense that we don't debate our differences in a common organisation but instead split for the most silly reasons.

As for the CPGB: Their Draft Programme is meant to be a proposal for a potential future unity drive. The group has tasked itself to put forward the most advanced design that left unity can be founded upon. A programme that people can accept, even if they don't agree with every single point in it. Such a unity conference would of course decide upon the final programme, so nothing is set in stone, nor is it presented as an ultimatum. And if anything, the CPGB is lacking in recruitment, something that I don't think is necessarily a good thing. Their message could be put forward much stronger if a larger group was involved...

[Tjis]

To summarize your points:
- Communists need to be won over to the idea of openness, democracy and programmatic unity.
- Winning over people to ideas is not sectarian.
- Therefore, a call for openness, democracy and programmatic unity is not sectarian.

But as long as a non-sectarian left organisation remains an idea, it is not worth a lot. To be of any value you'd actually need an open and democratic organisation with programmatic unity, meaning that either an existing organisation becomes this ideal organisation, or a new organisation is founded. As Judas said (and I believe you agree with this), the idea is not to unite the left on sect-basis. In other words, it's not just merging a bunch of existing organisations. So what you actually propose is that members of every other leftwing group leave their organisations to either found a new one together or join the same existing one. This organisation better be pretty good if it wishes to escape the accusation of sectarianism.

In your point regarding the CPGB you mention that they want a unity conference to decide on a final programme. I'll assume this is something that you also want. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Now I see a few problems.
First, unity conferences don't just happen. They need to be organized, and in practice that means a small group will be doing the organizing. They will be the ones taking care of an initial infrastructure: ensuring there's a venue for real life meetings, a publication for discussion, ensuring the right people are invited to collaborate with the unification process, etc. Before any actual conference has taken place, already an organisation has grown facilitating it and to a large extent influencing it. How do you ensure that at this stage the project is sufficiently representative and that nobody is left out due to sectarian reasons? (Regarding the CPGB, it seems to me that this is the role they want for themselves. Their facilitating role ensures that their own programme would be featured prominently, and even if it's not necessarily a final text everyone else will just have to accept, it'd definitely have an advantage over any opposing views).

Second, a programme is not written by a conference. Before a conference can take place a programme must already be written. You mentioned that the CPGB programme is for such a conference. Suppose it is not the only programme forwarded at such a conference? Suppose that conflicting programmes are forwarded? Even assuming a non-sectarianly minded left we still all have various different and conflicting ideas on theory and strategy. If a conference wishes to decide on a programme then these conflicts need to be resolved somehow. This can happen either by watering down a programme to such an extent that it becomes acceptable for everyone, or by excluding all opposing camps but one. The first solution would make the new organisation useless, the second one would make it sectarian.

Finally, only one unification process should be taking place, or it's not really a unification process. But how do you ensure this happens? Suppose that more than one group starts a unification process around different programmes. Or suppose that a unification process splits later on due to widely different opinions. Then we end up with multiple parties, each open, democratic and organized around a programme, and still this situation would be sectarian.

So to summarize, I see a lot of ways a non-sectarian unification process can end up in a sectarian mess all the same. Simply having lots of people desiring a unified left and not thinking sectarian is no guarantee that organisations will actually become non-sectarian as well. So how are you going to ensure it will?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Finally, only one unification process should be taking place, or it's not really a unification process.

But how do you ensure this happens? Suppose that more than one group starts a unification process around different programmes.

The whole point of unification is not just to strengthen "the left". The point for unification, from a Marxist perspective, is Class organization. If a working class group initiates a campaign towards unity around its program, but does not aim for unity of the working class, then it is obviously geared towards gaining a following for its particular "tactical" points, still a bureaucratic sect with no interest in actual democratic working class organization. Needless to say, we want nothing to do with those kinds of 'unity' shouters.

We cannot have a drive towards programmatic unity without a drive towards class organization. They are intrinsically linked if we are to help move history along.

[Karlorax]

I don't understand the draw to groups like PSL.They just don't seem very interesting. Same old ML dogma. Same old running in circles.

[Tjis]

The whole point of unification is not just to strengthen "the left". The point for unification, from a Marxist perspective, is Class organization. If a working class group initiates a campaign towards unity around its program, but does not aim for unity of the working class, then it is obviously geared towards gaining a following for its particular "tactical" points, still a bureaucratic sect with no interest in actual democratic working class organization. Needless to say, we want nothing to do with those kinds of 'unity' shouters.

We cannot have a drive towards programmatic unity without a drive towards class organization. They are intrinsically linked if we are to help move history along.
I'm not sure I follow. How does the fact that this is to be a unity of the working class, rather than a unity of the left, ensure that only one such process happens at any one time? More than one group can have the bright idea to initiate the formation of an open and democratic party for the entire working class organized around a programme. And since the working class is so fractured, they might not even know about eachother initially. Then you have multiple groups, each with a separate infrastructure, each with different members discussing a different programme. Now what?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'm not sure I follow. How does the fact that this is to be a unity of the working class, rather than a unity of the left, ensure that only one such process happens at any one time? More than one group can have the bright idea to initiate the formation of an open and democratic party for the entire working class organized around a programme. And since the working class is so fractured, they might not even know about eachother initially. Then you have multiple groups, each with a separate infrastructure, each with different members discussing a different programme. Now what?

If both of these parties are truly democratic and stimulate debate, I think it wouldn't be that much of a problem to unite them. When one of the two is a sect that wants to hold on to sect-culture that's a whole other story.

[Tjis]

If both of these parties are truly democratic and stimulate debate, I think it wouldn't be that much of a problem to unite them. When one of the two is a sect that wants to hold on to sect-culture that's a whole other story.

Yes, if the projects are similar enough that that's definitely a possibility. But surely that is not a given? By the time a merger is discussed, the projects might have diverged to such an extent that a meaningful unity is not possible without one group abandoning all their work in favor of the other.

I guess my point for the last few posts has been that the problem is bigger than just a sect-culture. Sects don't just exist because people want to have them. Sects can arise quite naturally for various structural reasons that have nothing to do with sect-mentality. Ideology is not enough to combat this.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yes, if the projects are similar enough that that's definitely a possibility. But surely that is not a given? By the time a merger is discussed, the projects might have diverged to such an extent that a meaningful unity is not possible without one group abandoning all their work in favor of the other.

I guess my point for the last few posts has been that the problem is bigger than just a sect-culture. Sects don't just exist because people want to have them. Sects can arise quite naturally for various structural reasons that have nothing to do with sect-mentality. Ideology is not enough to combat this.

It was a given in your post when you said that they were democratic parties. Surely it will not automatically happen and there needs to be lot of debate back and forth between the two. But I think if they are truly non-sects that process will go much more swiftly than first combatting sects.

As for sect-culture, it is a part of the problem, a big part, of course other factors play a role too. However from the view of the left, I think that attacking sect-culture is most within our capabilities. Unlike other problems which tend to be more external, I think attacking sect-culture is one of the places we have to start. Along with explaining the need for programmes and even proposing forms and drafts of programmes. You having criticism of the CPGB draft-programme is great because that is exactly what we need in order to develop programmes of our own.

I think means to bring about unity could be polemical discussion about politics and party-organization with the other parties. Organizing days of debates and inviting all leftist-parties, regardless of tendency to prevent the question "who decides what's leftist?". All these things could help towards bringing unity, I believe.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I don't understand the draw to groups like PSL.They just don't seem very interesting. Same old ML dogma. Same old running in circles.

Sure, that can be a valid point. But also, what is the point of trying to re-invent the wheel or create intellectual societies. Or at worst, make theory-less activist groups that can be under the sway of any influence that seems 'revolutionary.'

What im trying to say is that just because MLism is 'old' doesnt mean its wrong. Not everything new is correct or great.

[Karlorax]

What im trying to say is that just because MLism is 'old' doesnt mean its wrong. Not everything new is correct or great.

Not everything new is correct or great. Good thing I didn't say that.

The world has changed since ML was developed. If you aren't making progress, then you try something new. Even the Maoists saw that. You adapt. PSL is another group being led in circles by old dogma.

I have a lot of respect for Marx and Lenin, but not for Marxist-Leninism, especially in its water-downed, dumbed-down, liberalized PSL/WWP-form.

[Leftsolidarity]

The world has changed since ML was developed. If you aren't making progress, then you try something new. Even the Maoists saw that. You adapt. PSL is another group being led in circles by old dogma.



I would say they are doing something right since they are the fastest growing socialist party in the US iirc. How has the world changed since MLism? It has developed in certain ways but all the fundamentals are still there. What is this "dogma"? Because honestly I haven't known them as the dogmatic type.


I have a lot of respect for Marx and Lenin, but not for Marxist-Leninism, especially in its water-downed, dumbed-down, liberalized PSL/WWP-form.

Now how is the politics of WWP/PSL a "watered/dumbed-down" or "liberalized" form of Marxism-Leninism? I think you have just been throwing out words like "old dogma" and other bullshit that really doesn't mean anything at all. Have you had any sort of interaction with either party?

[Geiseric]

I would say they are doing something right since they are the fastest growing socialist party in the US iirc. How has the world changed since MLism? It has developed in certain ways but all the fundamentals are still there. What is this "dogma"? Because honestly I haven't known them as the dogmatic type.



Now how is the politics of WWP/PSL a "watered/dumbed-down" or "liberalized" form of Marxism-Leninism? I think you have just been throwing out words like "old dogma" and other bullshit that really doesn't mean anything at all. Have you had any sort of interaction with either party?

The reason you're fast growing is because you usually attract youth who don't know much about politics to your front groups, such as ANSWER, during which you spew your filth about supporting "socialists" ghadaffi and assad. The PSL is a house of cards which stays up because of your own feeling of self importance, you do more outreach than the sparts i guess but your group is both short sighted and sectarian.

[Rusty Shackleford]

So I ran into a Spartacist in Anaheim. Spartacists like to say they are the most advanced and correct in theory.

He was a living example of Revleft. I politely declined to buy Workers' Vanguard. Later on, he offered it to a comrade of mine. My comrade showed their PSL pin and said 'they're not leninist.' He began to say how he was a real leninist and so on. My comrade mentioned they had lived in the Soviet Union and he just trashed them on that as well.

Talking shit is fine, but the way this man did it gave me the creeps. He was not even engaging in discussion, just making walk-by insults and so on. This is what real leninism is, this is what the 4th international is, this is what Trotsky was all about, apparently.

The 'correcter than thou' marxists are ridiculous. They are the types who are stuck to old dogma and are living in the past. Most organizations today are generally with it. I dont know the last time a PSL article name-dropped 'Trotsky' or 'Stalin.' I don't read every single article, sure, but its a rare occurrence. Why? We are not stuck in the past.

But, this might be a cue to call us liberal! But, we do not hide behind Trotsky or any other 'revolutionary' to walk in step with the bourgeoisie in criticizing the soviet union or china or anyone else as not being socialist enough or at all. But do we criticize? of course! Yes, china is pretty much capitalist. Yes, the soviet union was a arrogant and chauvinist in its approach to other national parties. Yes, Cuba is introducing capitalist reforms, even Raoul or the entire communist party of cuba will agree, yes, they are a step back. But are we going to declare cuba an enemy of the working class? of course not!

And finally for the whole 'PSL is reformist.' If the bolsheviks demanding the impossible, democracy, from autocracy was reformist, then everyone is basically a reformist. Yes, that is an extreme example but the demands of radicals of the last century would look as yellow as a democrat today if taken in the wrong context.


Ill write more, i have to go for now. this is not spell checked or checked for errors mind yall.



The reason you're fast growing is because you usually attract youth who don't know much about politics to your front groups, such as ANSWER, during which you spew your filth about supporting "socialists" ghadaffi and assad. The PSL is a house of cards which stays up because of your own feeling of self importance, you do more outreach than the sparts i guess but your group is both short sighted and sectarian.
Nice slander. Mentioning that Assad is a member of a socialist tendency (Baathism is a self described form of arab-socialism) does not mean we are declaring him a marxist. Menitoning Qadhaffis green socialism does not mean we equate him to being a communist. Mean while, most other organizations talk down to people with their high-brow academic approach to politics and theory. Theres a reason no one chants 'proletariat' or 'dialectical materialism.' its not popular language. it would be ridiculous to attempt to do so regardless.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yes, china is pretty much capitalist. Yes, the soviet union was a arrogant and chauvinist in its approach to other national parties. Yes, Cuba is introducing capitalist reforms, even Raoul or the entire communist party of cuba will agree, yes, they are a step back. But are we going to declare cuba an enemy of the working class? of course not!

Why not? If it quacks like a duck and so on, so forth; if it is what it is, then it is what it is, is it not? Calling an enemy of the working class an ally is simply disingenuous. You're either for it or against - degrees, obviously, but if you cling to a name or a assertion made with nothing to back it up - this and that movement called itself socialist at one point - and nothing they do against the global working class can ever make them enemies, that is simply ridiculous. Sorry to do this, it's that stupid law and whatever, but the National Socialists called themselves socialists too, and they were none the more socialist for it.

[Leftsolidarity]

The reason you're fast growing is because you usually attract youth who don't know much about politics to your front groups, such as ANSWER, during which you spew your filth about supporting "socialists" ghadaffi and assad. The PSL is a house of cards which stays up because of your own feeling of self importance, you do more outreach than the sparts i guess but your group is both short sighted and sectarian.

I'm not in PSL. I'm in WWP. I have my disagreements with PSL (obviously) but I will defend them against nonsense arguments and when people attack their correct positions.

"Front groups"? You mean mass organizations? Mass organizations are supposed to attract those who don't know much about politics and want to become involved, that's their purpose. It's to help people fight back on issues that are important to them while developing them through the struggle to broaden their outlook to a revolutionary and anti-capitalist one.

[Fred]

Thanks for your concern for my health, Fred! But don't worry, a NYC heat wave can't kill me so a few comments on the web are no big deal.

I would only say that your oft-repeated position on this is functionally and politically equivalent to the rationalization for all sorts of "left unity" garbage. Why stop at just the IG and the SL? One could find many points of agreement between these two groups and the most revisionist sorts of social democrats. After all, we're all for socialism, aren't we? But what makes political differences fundamental, irreconcilable even, is not their net textual divergence but the different answers that these "almost identical" programs give to key questions of principle and strategy. Is there a Popular Front in Mexico? The SL/ICL says no, the IG/LFI says yes. Should we call for the defeat of U.S. imperialism in its present wars, and for workers strikes against the war? The SL/ICL this is "anti-Americanism" and has "no resonance." The IG/LFI says yes. Should communists demand independence for all colonies, such as Puerto Rico, Guadeloupe, Martinique? The SL/ICL says no, the IG/LFI says yes... etc. These are vital questions that involve the fate of millions of people -- not just a few words out of thousands that might very well be "almost identical."
Glad to hear that you held up okay in last week's scorcher. Walking down the street with "a breeze" made me feel like I was simply in a convection oven.

I seem to have missed where the ICL does not call for the defeat of US imperialism. (Haiti being a notable and totally incorrect position) And the idea of the SL as social patriots is also pretty far-fetched. These are vital questions that you raise, but encompass almost all the programmatic differences of the organizations. Labor strikes against a war is a tactic, btw. Nothing that could not be contained within a single democratic centralist group. So your programs are ONLY 99% identical. There are some differences. That is not the same as saying that the SWP says it is for socialism, so we should fuse. Not even close, comrade

So it is my opinion that there is little political justification for having separate organizations. Both groups are deeply invested in "exposing" the other for their ostensible crimes against Marxism. So it ain't happening short of a major political upsurge of the left in this country. When that happens, I think you'll find a way to work together.

[Geiseric]

You're changing the subject bro. You guys openly support capitalists from other countries.

[Leo]

I live out in Tehachapi, CA and I'm looking at the various party options and am considering the PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation) or ISO (International Socialist Organization) Well, I'll tell you this much: if you are thinking of joining one or the other of those two, you shouldn't join either, or any other organization for that matter yet. Their politics are clearly very diferent, and before figuring out where you stand, you shouldn't decide with whom you should stand. But by al means read what they write, criticize them, discuss with them, and of course with other organizations.

[blake 3:17]

Nobody likes the Sparts. I like one these days cuz he was normal to me on the streetcar a year back.

I've only known one guy from WWP -- this is well before the split -- and he'd be 80 now. Pretty cool. Jewish New Yorker active in Palestine solidarity and Mumia work 10 or so years ago. Very supportive of young people in movements and not interested in trying to control them. Did strike me as a little sectarian in that he didn't know a lot of other people of the same generation in the same movements in the same part of the city. Maybe just shy.

[Human Liberation Front]

I've looked into the PSL and I'm not entirely impressed with them. There's also the Workers International League that might warrant a look at. They're campaigning for a Mass Party of Labor based on Trotskyism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You're probably thinking of the Morenist International Workers' League - I was under the impression that they've been declining since their split from Lambert. They're an average group, as far as ideology goes, a bit too close to Mandelism (says the crazy pseudospart) and their ideas on an anti-imperialist united front come dangerously close to popular-frontism at times.

[Fred]

You're changing the subject bro. You guys openly support capitalists from other countries.

You are correct about going off-topic for a moment. Your accusation of the groups supporting capitalism is both unfounded and you give it no support. Great post. Perhaps this should be part of another thread, but it is a serious, if specious, charge.

As for supporting bourgeois governments here is a quote dated 4/14/13 from La Verite, organ of the incorrectly named "Fourth International."


The Fourth International and its sections have always stood unconditionally at the side of the Venezuelan people and government when the Chavez government adopted measures that broke with imperialism, however modest they may have been, and when it was subjected to hostility or threats by US imperialism and its lackeys.

What the fuck is "breaking with imperialism"? When they do something counter to the interests of the US you support the government of Venezuela? That is a totally screwed up formulation. It is an excuse to pander to the popular leftish/bonapartism of Chavez and Maduro.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Nice slander. Mentioning that Assad is a member of a socialist tendency (Baathism is a self described form of arab-socialism) does not mean we are declaring him a marxist. Menitoning Qadhaffis green socialism does not mean we equate him to being a communist. Mean while, most other organizations talk down to people with their high-brow academic approach to politics and theory. Theres a reason no one chants 'proletariat' or 'dialectical materialism.' its not popular language. it would be ridiculous to attempt to do so regardless.

Labour and social-democratic parties are mostly part of the so-called Socialist International, does this make them socialist? Indeed, the regime in Tunisia was also part of the SI, so does this mean Tunisia was socialist as well? I think it is very dangerous to equate states such as Cuba or the DPR Korea with states whose material basis is thoroughly capitalist beneath a thin veneer of "national" or religious socialism of some sort. This does not mean that the defense of such states against imperialist predation should be abandoned, but the necessity of a social revolution needs to be emphasised at all times.

Also, presenting a consistent Marxist programme to the labouring masses is not "looking down" on them.

[Binh]

The best thing you can do is join both and see which you like better (if you like either of them). I've written a lengthy critique (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=9055) of the ISO and its methods but ex-PSL people have told me that most of what I say applies with equal force to PSL.

I wish you the best of luck!

[Leftsolidarity]

The best thing you can do is join both and see which you like better (if you like either of them). I've written a lengthy critique (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=9055) of the ISO and its methods but ex-PSL people have told me that most of what I say applies with equal force to PSL.

I wish you the best of luck!

I would say that this is not really a good idea. The politics of those parties are pretty drastically different (especially on international issues). Also, I highly doubt that the PSL (being a cadre organization) would be cool with one of their members being in the ISO. I bet the ISO wouldn't like that much either.

I think it'd be a good idea to hang around both parties and see how you feel about them but joining both to see which you like is not very sound advice.

[Geiseric]

You are correct about going off-topic for a moment. Your accusation of the groups supporting capitalism is both unfounded and you give it no support. Great post. Perhaps this should be part of another thread, but it is a serious, if specious, charge.

As for supporting bourgeois governments here is a quote dated 4/14/13 from La Verite, organ of the incorrectly named "Fourth International."



What the fuck is "breaking with imperialism"? When they do something counter to the interests of the US you support the government of Venezuela? That is a totally screwed up formulation. It is an excuse to pander to the popular leftish/bonapartism of Chavez and Maduro.

Breaking with imperialism means not supporting any imperialist governments. Was nationalizing the oil in venezuela an imperialist move? No it was a socially progressive one, which we support, and international capitalists as well as the ones in Venezuela didn't support. However he was forced to do that by the venezuelan people themselves, so it, by nearly everybody worldwide except for you, was accepted as a partial success seeing as it raised the standards of living for many venezuelan people and showed them what they were capable of when they mobilized. How was the nationalization a "populist measure" when the ones who benefit the most from it are the working class?

[karlbrosky]

I hate to seem like I'm parachuting in, but I told myself I'd start being active on RevLeft the next time I saw something I felt like I could contribute to so here it goes.

I concur with the posters who feel the CPGB(PCC)'s twin goals of ending the sect culture that hinders the development of communist unity and of building a mass workers' party-movement. These are tasks that need to be undertaken in North America as well. As far as the ISO and PSL goes, it's likely you're attracted to them because they're perceived as "doing something" - both have a (deserved) reputation of activism, broad repertoires of literature, regularly updated online media covering a wide array of topics, etc.

The problems arise, as others have already pointed out, in the undemocratic, bureaucratic-centralist rather than democratic centralist internal regimes. Pham Binh's article "Thinking About Joining the ISO?" is a good briefing on that sort of thing. Bureaucratic centralism as the rule of a petty-bourgeois-esque stratum of learned high priests of communism is how you arrive at such distorted things like enforced conformity on every historical question since 1848 as a litmus test for membership - like the PSL's insistence that China is a socialist country, for example.

Their other main problem is the lack of perspective on building up the institutional strength of the working class as a class through workers' economic, cultural and social organizations. The 'movement' side of the 'revolutionary party-movement' is what prevents the hard work and commitment of mass activism from dispersing, such as is unfortunately the case today. It's what lays the groundwork for mass socialist consciousness among members of our class.

If these comments ring true to you, I recommend discussing them with ISO and PSL representatives to see what their responses are. Unfortunately I suspect that any cadre member entrusted with recruitment duty is also quite invested in the sect mentality that sees people like you as a piece of the market-share to be "won" at the expense of competing socialist organizations. By all means, work with them, study their politics, etc. If you end up joining one, consider fighting for internal democracy and a principled unity / party-movement perspective within the organization!

Now, for the obligatory plug for my own organization: you may want to consider looking into the New Communist Party of America. We're the group that does Anti-Capitalist Radio if you're familiar with it. We base ourselves on all that good stuff I wrote above this paragraph and regard ourselves as politically close to the CPGB / Weekly Worker. We're a small organization with limited resources, but we do what we can both "on the ground" work and in terms of engaging with other Marxists. If it helps, our Constitution allows for people to join the NCPA without resigning from their current organization.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Human Liberation Front wrote:
I've looked into the PSL and I'm not entirely impressed with them. There's also the Workers International League that might warrant a look at. They're campaigning for a Mass Party of Labor based on Trotskyism.

Then a comrade replied:
You're probably thinking of the Morenist International Workers' League - I was under the impression that they've been declining since their split from Lambert. They're an average group, as far as ideology goes, a bit too close to Mandelism (says the crazy pseudospart) and their ideas on an anti-imperialist united front come dangerously close to popular-frontism at times.

I think there is a bit of a confusion here. The WIL, Workers International League, is the US representative of Grantism, a tendency that always supports the pro-war, imperialist British Labour Party, which all Grantists dogmatically believe (that is, without any evidence), can be dragged to the left.

I was in the WIL in New England for a while, and the people in that organization were first rate, but the politics of the WIL and Grantism in general, mean that, where possible, workers and young people are sent into reformist organizations, like the German Social Democracy, or the Labour Party, where the Grantists spend their entire political careers, in effect, trying to convince the Social Dems to become leftists. So the WIL, and Grantism in general, is a complete waste of time.

I am not able to name a single leftist organization in the US, other than, maybe, Socialist Action, that is worth supporting. The ultra left sectarians, of the SL and the IG, are a road to nowhere IMO, and the bigger groups, like the ISO, got to be bigger by being friendly to Democrats – the ISO called Obama's election, a "transformative" event, and the ISO where I used to live, actually organized transportation to the Democratic Party "One Nation" election campaign rally in DC a few years ago. As for the "Marxist Leninists," both editions of Freedom Road backed Obama, as did, I think, Workers World, so they are sweet on the Democrats, too.

I think in the US, we may still be waiting for the appearance of a sane, principled leftist group.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ah, my mistake. Yes, the IMT section in the United States is formally the Workers' International League, but everyone I know just calls it Socialist Appeal after their newspaper. The International Workers' League (Fourth International) is a separate organisation.

[Art Vandelay]

Simply put, any organization that upholds the DPRK as a form of actually existing socialism (WWP, PSL), is shit.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Addendum:


I was in the WIL in New England for a while, and the people in that organization were first rate, but the politics of the WIL and Grantism in general, mean that, where possible, workers and young people are sent into reformist organizations, like the German Social Democracy, or the Labour Party, where the Grantists spend their entire political careers, in effect, trying to convince the Social Dems to become leftists. So the WIL, and Grantism in general, is a complete waste of time.

I am not able to name a single leftist organization in the US, other than, maybe, Socialist Action, that is worth supporting. The ultra left sectarians, of the SL and the IG, are a road to nowhere IMO, and the bigger groups, like the ISO, got to be bigger by being friendly to Democrats – the ISO called Obama's election, a "transformative" event, and the ISO where I used to live, actually organized transportation to the Democratic Party "One Nation" election campaign rally in DC a few years ago. As for the "Marxist Leninists," both editions of Freedom Road backed Obama, as did, I think, Workers World, so they are sweet on the Democrats, too.

I think in the US, we may still be waiting for the appearance of a sane, principled leftist group.

Well, I think that the two groups you term "ultraleft sectarians" are among the few principled organisations in the United States. Both have made mistakes, of course, and the SL/ICL in particular seems to have become disoriented in the last two decades, but they represent the best tradition of American Trotskyism. The chief problem is that they have not been able to absorb splits from left-centrist organisations; possibly due to their tactics, possibly due to the general "leftist" milieu in the United States. The Spark is another good organisation.

There is also the Workers' Party in America. Now, they're not a Trotskyist group, and I think their tactic of excluding the middle strata is not conductive to party growth (though it is certainly better than attempts to actively tail the middle strata), but I think that on many questions, their position is more principled than that of many Trotskyist groups.

[Jimmie Higgins]

the bigger groups, like the ISO, got to be bigger by being friendly to Democrats – the ISO called Obama's election, a "transformative" event, and the ISO where I used to live, actually organized transportation to the Democratic Party "One Nation" election campaign rally in DC a few years ago. As for the "Marxist Leninists," both editions of Freedom Road backed Obama, as did, I think, Workers World, so they are sweet on the Democrats, too.

I think in the US, we may still be waiting for the appearance of a sane, principled leftist group.Just to clarify, the ISO does not support Obama or the Democrats.

There's real differences in our approach and how we see trying to subjectivly help revive opposition and struggle - this is not one of them, we are principlly against the Democrats, it's one of the reasons I joined and it's basically informed a lot of how we approach things: "how do we help break people from supporting the Democrats; how do we try and argue against the Anti-Bush orientation of the anti-war movement towards a position independant of the Democratic Party; how do we help coalesse a broader left-of-dems formation with allies; etc. Not supporting the Democrats is one of the conditions of membership in the ISO and stated in our points of unity. We published an introductory text in 2008 about how the Democrats exist to drive social movements into the ground! To argue that we are larger (which in reality means that we are the minnow that's slightly larger than the other minnows in the lake) and that must be due to some kind of trickery is IMO disengenuous because rather than take political differences seriously, it just tries to explain them away.

And the "One Nation" rally involvement was a one-off thing at a time when there's wasn't much going on politically (left of the tea-party) in which we were part of a "Socialist contingent" with some of those other groups including Socialist Action, who you think is worth talking with. I wasn't there and I don't think it ended up doing much for the groups involved or in getting a bigger hearing for socialist politics among regular people, but that orientation, to try and convince Obama supporters, is generally correct - we should be wanting to win regular supporters of things that they thought Obama stood for towards more independant action and organizing.

Only the CP to my knowledge see Obama or the Democrats generally as something which will help move things forward. I'm pretty sure most other groups interact with Obama supporters in the hopes of winning them AWAY from supporting the Democrats. There's really no negative consaquence in sect-terms for supporting the Democrats these days because of the lack of any movement that would hold such groups accontable - because of this, it's pretty easy for groups who want to support the Dems to do so openly and confidently. If a group wanted to do so, what's to stop them... criticism from the Sparts or other groups? So the ISO's opposition to the Democrats (which we see support for them as one of the MAIN hurdles to developing struggle in the US) is based on trying to encourage independant class and social struggle that can go beyond the bounds of bourgeois politics.

But this is why the best advice to people in regards to thinking about becomeing active in a group: listen to what other people have to say, listen to criticisms (though take internet rumors with a grain of salt) but then ask people in that group and then decide for yourself.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Just to clarify, the ISO does not support Obama or the Democrats.....

The ISO provided transportation for workers to attend the Democratic Party "One Nation" campaign rally – that's support for the Democrats.

The cover of the ISO's magazine, ISR, issue 63, dated January 2009, in the wake of Obama's election, which can be seen at http://isreview.org/issue?page=2, has the headline, "Politics and struggle in a new era," and the Obama campaign slogan, "Yes, we can," is right there on the cover – that's support for the Democrats.

Oh, and the article published by the ISO, "Join the socialist contingent," urging workers to attend *the Democrats' "One Nation" rally in DC*, (that's support for the Democrats, by the way), never once calls on workers to break with the Democrats by voting for a socialist candidate in 2012, because the ISO never says, "Workers, break with the Democrats," and that's support for the Democrats, too.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The ISO provided transportation for workers to attend the Democratic Party "One Nation" campaign rally – that's support for the Democrats.Again, it was part of a socialist contingent which included Socialist Action and Socialist Alternative. That is not "support for the Democrats" and the Socialist Contingent stated that they wanted to go and find allies, but also argue that Obama would not fufil what people wanted of him.


The cover of the ISO's magazine, ISR, issue 63, dated January 2009, in the wake of Obama's election, which can be seen at http://isreview.org/issue?page=2, has the headline, "Politics and struggle in a new era," and the Obama campaign slogan, "Yes, we can," is right there on the cover – that's support for the Democrats. You mean the cover story which reads:


No one can deny the enormous impact that Obama’s election has had, raising expectations for change, inspiring workers, and bringing hope to African American and other minority communities. But the antiwar movement must come to grips with the reality that Obama’s cabinet appointees and explicit foreign policy proposals are far from antiwar. Obama has promised to retain tens of thousands of U.S. troops and private mercenaries after “withdrawal” from Iraq as a residual force to provide security. He has also repeatedly promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan and continue supporting Israel’s occupation of Palestine. He may conduct U.S. policy with more diplomacy and humanitarian aid, but Obama’s goals do not represent a break with decades of U.S. imperial policy.

And the ISR issue after the election issue with this cover:
http://isreview.org/sites/default/files/legacy/images/cover61.jpg


Oh, and the article published by the ISO, "Join the socialist contingent," urging workers to attend *the Democrats' "One Nation" rally in DC*, (that's support for the Democrats, by the way), never once calls on workers to break with the Democrats by voting for a socialist candidate in 2012

So the call should have asked workers to vote for a non-existant Socialist candidate? Here's what the statement which was a Socialist contingent statement says starting in the 2nd paragraph:



We are proud to join this march to demand jobs, to demand an end to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and for a society that is fairer, more equal and more just. We believe it important to be in the capital on that date to help create a counterweight to Glenn Beck, the Tea Party and Republicans, their reactionary politics, ruthless economics and their racism.

We do not, however, share the goals of the AFL-CIO, the NAACP and other organizations which hope to achieve jobs and justice by supporting Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in the national elections on November 2.

We believe that it has become quite clear now that neither Democrats nor the Republicans are capable of solving the country's three great crises--the economy, the environment and the wars--in a way that will be good for the American people. The goals of a full-employment economy, real environmental sustainability and peace cannot be achieved by our capitalist system and the corporations motivated only by profit. We need a new direction toward a new system.


the ISO never says, "Workers, break with the Democrats," and that's support for the Democrats, tooExcept in our points of unity statement:



We actively support the struggle of workers and all oppressed people for economic, political and social reforms, both as a means to improve their conditions and to advance their confidence and fighting strength. But reforms within the capitalist system cannot put an end to oppression, exploitation or ecological devastation. Capitalism must be replaced.
The structures of the present government grew up under capitalism and are designed to protect capitalist rule. The working class needs an entirely different kind of state--a democratic workers' state based on councils of workers' delegates.
We do not support candidates of capitalist parties like the Democrats or the Republicans. We support genuine left-wing candidates and political action that promotes independence from the corporate-dominated two-party system in the U.S.

And then in a series of articles designed for new members or prospective members that was published in SocialistWorker.org that explains our points of unity:


One of the key tasks of socialists today, therefore, is to wean radicalizing elements away from misplaced hope in the Democratic Party, the party that has traditionally absorbed and muzzled radical sentiment that might lead toward an independent working-class political party.

Besides all this evidence - compared to a few phrases and a protest (divorced from the arguments being made in their entirity) - there's the 10 years of my personal experience.

So these arguments that fly in the face of the actual arguments made, personal experience, what actual ISO members say in general (and now one is telling you directly) are misinformed sectarian conspiracy theories. Really to me, it's like trying to debate a tea-partier who says that Obama is a Socialist no matter what the actual evidence is. They believe it and everything they see, they will interpret to fit their pre-existing notion. Don't be like that. There are pleanty of REAL issues that other leftists disagree with us on and us them. Lets leave these sorts of dirty arugments to the top-down sectarians to the past - let's concentrate on real differences in strategy and tactics and analysis.

[nizan]

Save yourself a year or so wasted on paper sales and skip the party deal completely. It looks appealing and sexy, no doubt, all that serious work with building the party, attending branch meetings, so on, but you're really just working for free at a particularly shitty small business with some rather well-defined methods of fostering adherence to a static ideology of complacency. Joining a party is in all actuality one of the least revolutionary activities you could indulge in, the brilliance to the modern party is it's categorical inversion of this reality.

http://libcom.org/library/militancy-ojtr

http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html

[Binh]

I would say that this is not really a good idea. The politics of those parties are pretty drastically different (especially on international issues). Also, I highly doubt that the PSL (being a cadre organization) would be cool with one of their members being in the ISO. I bet the ISO wouldn't like that much either.

I think it'd be a good idea to hang around both parties and see how you feel about them but joining both to see which you like is not very sound advice.

Who cares what either group thinks? This is about what the person who started the thread thinks. Do you let McDonald's tell you you can't eat at Burger King?

[Leftsolidarity]

Who cares what either group thinks? This is about what the person who started the thread thinks. Do you let McDonald's tell you you can't eat at Burger King?

Why they hell would you join a party if you don't care what they think and plan to go against their rules? You're example is comparing apples to oranges and has absolutely no relevance.

Idk about the ISO as much but the PSL is a cadre organization and joining them while joining a different self-described Leninist party makes absolutely no sense. Not only would they probably not allow that (I would sure hope they wouldn't) but the politics of each are so completely different that you would clearly have no purpose in either organization if you think you can be in both at the same time.

[Binh]

Why they hell would you join a party if you don't care what they think and plan to go against their rules?

There's no rule against being a dual member or against be an ex-member of a competing group, is there?

[Leftsolidarity]

There's no rule against being a dual member or against be an ex-member of a competing group, is there?

Ex-member of course not but dual member I'm 99% sure would not be allowed. I'm not going to say 100% because I'm not a member but I know they are very similar to WWP and any Leninist cadre party worth their salt would not allow that. Especially with another group that has very different stances.

[Le Socialiste]

Joining both orgs would be a ludicrous idea (though I'm not sure it matters what we say anymore seeing as we might've scared the OP off with all this back-and-forth). It makes better sense to simply engage with both groups, see how they operate, ask the tough questions, and assess things from there. Go to actions with them (if there are any occurring), engage in meetings and study groups, have one on one conversations, etc. This makes a hell of a lot more sense than actually joining.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Like i said before, attend meetings and contact the PSL or the ISO or whatever else. Find out for yourself. Also, your views will change with experience and study.


And no, dual membership, unless an exception is made, is not allowed.


Obviously im rooting for the PSL :cool: being a member is completely voluntary

If you do end up on sticking with the PSL learn about us and if you want to join you will get a period of more in-depth study of our politics and socialist theory and some histroy and stuff like that in what is called a candidacy period.

self study is greatly encouraged

[Binh]

Ex-member of course not but dual member I'm 99% sure would not be allowed. I'm not going to say 100% because I'm not a member but I know they are very similar to WWP and any Leninist cadre party worth their salt would not allow that. Especially with another group that has very different stances.

Probably correct, but I'm certain there's no rule against it. If anything, it would show how meaningless "rules" are in "Leninist" groups.

[Leftsolidarity]

Probably correct, but I'm certain there's no rule against it. If anything, it would show how meaningless "rules" are in "Leninist" groups.

I'm certain you're incorrect. Do you have anything to go on besides assumptions and tendency attacks? It's called party discipline.

[Kassad]

There's no rule against being a dual member or against be an ex-member of a competing group, is there?

The PSL's Constitution states that you cannot be a member of another "socialist" organization at the same time as being a member of the PSL. They've got to get their due money somewhere (other than the donations they solicit posing as "bring the boys home" liberals through their ANSWER "Coalition").

[Kassad]

Ex-member of course not but dual member I'm 99% sure would not be allowed. I'm not going to say 100% because I'm not a member but I know they are very similar to WWP and any Leninist cadre party worth their salt would not allow that. Especially with another group that has very different stances.

And let's be honest here. The PSL is not similar to WWP. It is absolutely identical regarding all political questions. At this point, it's a race to see which organization can produce more front groups and print more yellow "[Obama], we need jobs, not war!" signs. I spent a good three years in that pitiful organization. Wrong side of the barricades.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Addendum:

... There is also the Workers' Party in America. Now, they're not a Trotskyist group, and I think their tactic of excluding the middle strata is not conductive to party growth (though it is certainly better than attempts to actively tail the middle strata), but I think that on many questions, their position is more principled than that of many Trotskyist groups.

I am fairly certain that the Workers' Party is the creation of a gentleman who has created several other organizations, all of which have the same characteristic: they have no existence, outside of the internet. If I were still working, I would bet a paycheck that the same thing is true of the Workers' Party. Sorry to burst your bubble. :)

[Leftsolidarity]

And let's be honest here. The PSL is not similar to WWP. It is absolutely identical regarding all political questions. At this point, it's a race to see which organization can produce more front groups and print more yellow "[Obama], we need jobs, not war!" signs. I spent a good three years in that pitiful organization. Wrong side of the barricades.

I wouldn't disagree that our political positions are pretty much completely identical; but that's nothing that I can apologize for because we didn't split from them. Iirc I believe I was told that they did take a different position on Haiti around the time of the split. I could be wrong, though.

It's always nice to hear from just someone who has nothing to offer other than sectarian jabs (we have mass organizations like many other parties, not front groups), complaints about the color paper we use, and endless negativity now that they're no longer involved.

Wrong side of the barricade? I'm sorry, who's on the other side? We're on the side against the pigs and the capitalist system, if you think that is the wrong side then have fun with the other folks.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Kassad makes it sound like Cadres beat dues money out of membership :laugh:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am fairly certain that the Workers' Party is the creation of a gentleman who has created several other organizations, all of which have the same characteristic: they have no existence, outside of the internet. If I were still working, I would bet a paycheck that the same thing is true of the Workers' Party. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Haha, ouch. Well, in my defence, I don't live in America, so I can't really assess the facts on the ground. And I thought one-man sections were the silliest things ever, that shows how inexperienced I am, I guess.

[Art Vandelay]

I wouldn't disagree that our political positions are pretty much completely identical; but that's nothing that I can apologize for because we didn't split from them. Iirc I believe I was told that they did take a different position on Haiti around the time of the split. I could be wrong, though.

It's always nice to hear from just someone who has nothing to offer other than sectarian jabs (we have mass organizations like many other parties, not front groups), complaints about the color paper we use, and endless negativity now that they're no longer involved.

Wrong side of the barricade? I'm sorry, who's on the other side? We're on the side against the pigs and the capitalist system, if you think that is the wrong side then have fun with the other folks.

Well I must admit that, sadly, Kassad's comments were spot on. Already implicitly, you've stated that your party's split with the PSL was completely unnecessary. I know this probably sounds ironic coming from someone in a trotskyist party, but the idea that a fundamental split within the WWP/PSL came from an issue which largely had no tangible impact to the class struggle, is a reflection of their line (which I admit Trotskyist parties, albeit not all of them, have a history of splitting over such irrelevant differences). That being said, a true testament to how a Trotskyist party (which the WWP/PSL stem from a bastardized version of) would of handled such an internal debate, would be how the SWP handled the Shachtman state capitalist theory in the late 30's.

As far as the wrong side of the barricade comment, he's absolutely correct, irregardless of whether or not I think you're a cool guy, so don't take this as a personal jibe, but quite frankly any party who upholds the anti-workerist regime of the DPRK as an actual existing form of socialism, as both the PSL and the WWP do (and as I've demonstrated on this board in the past by quotes to their own literature) has their head so far up their ass that they've come to the point where they confuse nationalization with worker's control and socialism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Wrong side of the barricade? I'm sorry, who's on the other side? We're on the side against the pigs and the capitalist system, if you think that is the wrong side then have fun with the other folks.

WWP in New York.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr4ghNn8vX0

If this is the right side of the barricades, where a protest is merely ranting incoherent nonsense that is hard enough to follow like some street preacher rambling on about the end times, then... DPRK isn't on the side against capitalism.

[Popular Front of Judea]

It's funny that when it comes to our organizations the left behaves like the classic petit bourgeoise. Small businesses established around charismatic individuals, ready to split at the slightest provocation. The history of Trotskyism makes sense from a small business perspective. Work for the firm until you learn what you need to learn, raid staff and set up your own firm. And thanks to the internet there are the sole proprietor sects. We so need some mergers in this industry. I don't know about the sole mass party that everyone talks about but some oligopolistic consolidation would be good.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But everyone else's goods are shit. Well, mostly.

[Art Vandelay]

It's funny that when it comes to our organizations the left behaves like the classic petit bourgeoise. Small businesses established around charismatic individuals, ready to split at the slightest provocation. The history of Trotskyism makes sense from a small business perspective. Work for the firm until you learn what you need to learn, raid staff and set up your own firm. And thanks to the internet there are the sole proprietor sects. We so need some mergers in this industry. I don't know about the sole mass party that everyone talks about but some oligopolistic consolidation would be good.

Its a reflection of low periods of class struggle, as our irrelevancy increases, we turn on ourselves. Having said that it is of my opinion that any future mass party will inevitable include many organizations which have grouped together and set past petty historical differences aside, as the struggle heightens.

[Bea Arthur]

Probably correct, but I'm certain there's no rule against it. If anything, it would show how meaningless "rules" are in "Leninist" groups.

As one of the most ardently anti-Lenin posters on this forum, I can tell you that you don't appear to know what Leninism even is. It seeks to control your whole life in a cultish way by subjecting your wallet, your sex life, your diet, your very capacity to breathe, to the party. The party calls this discipline, and claims it is the only way for the party to acquire leadership over entire social movements it in reality has no business interfering with. Why do you think so many Leninist orgs are just cults in the spirit of Bob Avakian and Jim Jones?

The Party for Squalor and Limitation is no different. They prostrate themselves before the Kims as the ruling dynasty imposing anti-imperialist "discipline" on their unfortunate countrymen by sending them to work camps. If you don't follow suit, you'll be expelled and left to start your own splinter cult.

Learn more about Leninism before you post, Binh!!!

[Rusty Shackleford]

As one of the most ardently anti-Lenin posters on this forum, I can tell you that you don't appear to know what Leninism even is. It seeks to control your whole life in a cultish way by subjecting your wallet, your sex life, your diet, your very capacity to breathe, to the party. The party calls this discipline, and claims it is the only way for the party to acquire leadership over entire social movements it in reality has no business interfering with. Why do you think so many Leninist orgs are just cults in the spirit of Bob Avakian and Jim Jones?

The Party for Squalor and Limitation is no different. They prostrate themselves before the Kims as the ruling dynasty imposing anti-imperialist "discipline" on their unfortunate countrymen by sending them to work camps. If you don't follow suit, you'll be expelled and left to start your own splinter cult.

Learn more about Leninism before you post, Binh!!!

I spend my money the way i see fit.
I have sex with whom i see fit.
I eat what i see fit.
Hell, i can even breathe freely!

I must not be in a leninist organization then.
Read less orwell and actually experience these organizations.
Your fairy-tale of leninism is strangely enough putting me on the same side as Binh who as everyone knows, got beef with us. :lol:

Also, claims to adhering to Juche are met with cringes. Ive seen them and and the cringes were hilarious.

[Le Socialiste]

As one of the most ardently anti-Lenin posters on this forum, I can tell you that you don't appear to know what Leninism even is.

I have a strong suspicion of where this is going...


It seeks to control your whole life in a cultish way by subjecting your wallet, your sex life, your diet, your very capacity to breathe, to the party. The party calls this discipline, and claims it is the only way for the party to acquire leadership over entire social movements it in reality has no business interfering with.

While some so-called 'Leninist' organizations have twisted the meaning of democratic centralism and other key concepts with appeals to 'discipline' and top down rigidity, these are not inherent within Leninism (in fact, Lenin himself opposed these things).

That said, some of what you've listed here is simply absurd, being incompatible with the ideas argued for by Lenin in his time.



Why do you think so many Leninist orgs are just cults in the spirit of Bob Avakian and Jim Jones?

Neither of those are examples of Leninist organization...


Learn more about Leninism before you post, Binh!!!

One could easily say the same of you, Bea Arthur.

[Martin Blank]

I am fairly certain that the Workers' Party is the creation of a gentleman who has created several other organizations, all of which have the same characteristic: they have no existence, outside of the internet. If I were still working, I would bet a paycheck that the same thing is true of the Workers' Party. Sorry to burst your bubble. :)

I'll take that bet.

You want to know what's really interesting about this lie? It really only exists here on RevLeft.

Yes, we're a small organization -- less than 50 members -- and we don't run to every little protest that takes place (work schedules tend to make that difficult sometimes). But it is rather insulting to our members to say they don't exist.

[Tolstoy]

I feel I should suggest Socialist Alternative. Parties like the WWP and the PSL like to back up every tinpot, thug run bourgeois dictatroship possible under the guise of opposing imperialism

[Sentinel]

We so need some mergers in this industry. I don't know about the sole mass party that everyone talks about but some oligopolistic consolidation would be good.

Some orgs perhaps could merge, this would be ones that split over no longer relevant issues or non-issues to begin with. But those constitute a minority I believe, the particular case of the PSL and WWP does sound like one but I'm not educated enough on the subject to make a statement.

But many have actually gone separate ways due to very concrete and pressing issues having to do with approach to class struggle. However, mergers of orgs aren't the only option.

The answer is cooperation in federative mass parties that would allow different tendencies and still be able to fight together on a common, uncompromisingly anti-capitalist program.

[Martin Blank]

POSTSCRIPT: After thinking about this for a bit, I realized that I have a lot more to say about this....


You want to know what's really interesting about this lie? It really only exists here on RevLeft.

Yes, we're a small organization -- less than 50 members -- and we don't run to every little protest that takes place (work schedules tend to make that difficult sometimes). But it is rather insulting to our members to say they don't exist.

Even if it were true that the Workers Party was only one or two people and most of its existence at the moment was online (a point that can only be conceded in the realm of the hypothetical), so what?

How does that invalidate our political program?

How does that preclude future growth and activity?

It seems that the entire slander/libel about us being an "internet-only" organization is meant as a distraction from answering the political arguments we make.

Yes, we have an active presence online. We make no apologies for utilizing modern technology to our advantage and making a conscious effort to use the Internet to promote our politics and organization. The real question here is why other organizations don't maximize their presence in the one communications medium that doesn't require large sums of cash to effectively use.

For that matter, when it comes to having a disproportionately larger presence on the Internet, a lot of it is due to the fact that we have a small number of members (of which I am one) who are physically disabled and can no longer do the kind of boots-on-the-ground activity they did for decades. As a result, they've turned their energies to education and agitation on the Internet. Is the sneering about our activity on the Internet motivated in some small part by a bias against the disabled? It certainly looks that way.

Personally, I have been more than tolerant in allowing this slander/libel to continue, mostly because of my own self-loathing over the fact that I can no longer carry out the physical activity I used to do. But I'm not going to let it slide any more.

Disabled communists should not be attacked because they can't do physical activity. Their politics matter as much as anyone else's.

[Popular Front of Judea]

A rather textbook example of cadre organization gone awry -- in miniature.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-league-t64401/index.html Hang in there until #15. It will all start making sense.



I'll take that bet.

You want to know what's really interesting about this lie? It really only exists here on RevLeft.

Yes, we're a small organization -- less than 50 members -- and we don't run to every little protest that takes place (work schedules tend to make that difficult sometimes). But it is rather insulting to our members to say they don't exist.

[Martin Blank]

A rather textbook example of cadre organization gone awry -- in miniature.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-league-t64401/index.html Hang in there until #15. It will all start making sense.

I don't know what your point is in bringing up a thread from six years ago about an organization that no longer exists. Is this just another personal attack?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Interesting that noting the connection between the former (?) Communist League and the WPIA is seen as a personal attack by you...


I don't know what your point is in bringing up a thread from six years ago about an organization that no longer exists. Is this just another personal attack?

[Popular Front of Judea]

H.M/M.S./? : As someone who subsists on a Social Security Disability check I so agree. No one would fault you for creating your own political consultancy. No doubt you have plenty of experience to share. (It would also look better on a LinkedIn profile.) But creating an off the shelf revolutionary party? Really?


Disabled communists should not be attacked because they can't do physical activity. Their politics matter as much as anyone else's.

[Martin Blank]

Interesting that noting the connection between the former (?) Communist League and the WPA is seen as a personal attack by you...

I have no problem with talking about the political questions that were raised in that thread. But I suspect that your motivations in posting that link have very little to do with the issues of fighting sexism, interventions in liberal protest movements or the role of reactionary "anti-imperialism".

[Martin Blank]

As someone who subsists on a Social Security Disability check I so agree. So what does this have to do with "sole proprietor" political organizations?

Because people like you are conflating the two.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Care to elaborate?


Because people like you are conflating the two.

[Martin Blank]

Care to elaborate?

Certainly.

Let's start with a simple question: What proof do you have, or does anyone else have, for claiming we're a "one-person"/"Internet-only" organization?

The answer is none. In fact, all of the evidence (photos, articles, personal anecdotes, etc.) points to the contrary. Indeed, even when this slander/libel was first hatched six years ago by those who were expelled from the Communist League, it was proven false -- and not by me, but by people who had done work with us and had met us in person. (If you go back and read the thread to which you linked, you'll see that.)

And yet, the lie persists. Why? From what I can tell, the only reason this continues to come up is because I'm the most visible member of the Workers Party on the Internet, and thus I'm an easy target for Internet-based attacks and trolling. I mean, it's either that or you just enjoy slandering/libeling/lying to people.

If it is because I handle the Internet work for the Party, and am thus the member with the highest profile, then the reasons why I am able to do a lot online become an issue. That brings us to the fact that I am physically disabled and have the time to devote to online activity.

The Internet is not a toy. It is a communications medium, just as much as radio, television or print. Yes, we maximize our presence, and we're lucky to have the skills and resources available to us to do it. This includes the time to devote to improving and perfecting our use of the Internet as a platform for promoting and discussing our politics. A large share of that work happens because my physical disability allows me the time to use the writing, graphic design and desktop publishing skills I have on behalf of the Workers Party.

I cannot imagine that the basis of these criticisms is not mere jealousy over the fact that we have these skills available to us, or just a matter of you all being a bag of dicks. I tend to think better of you all than that. So, if it's not mere sour grapes, and there's no evidence to support the "sole proprietor" slander, then what is the basis for attacking the Workers Party this way?

All that's left is a reactionary view of self-described socialists, communists, anarchists, etc., who are disabled as being "fake revolutionaries" -- a view that stems from bourgeois ideology and the belief that being disabled means you have no value. I've seen more than my share of so-called "comrades" take this attitude toward fellow members who were disabled. It's rarely conscious, but it exists nonetheless.

[Popular Front of Judea]

H.M./M.S./?: Give us a break. Until you stated so on this thread no one least of all me knew you were disabled. All that I knew until today is that you have "admirers" on a cross-tendency discussion group. The internet indeed is a tool. Amazing what an internet search will pull up these days.

Oh and I am still working through the thread in question. As of now I am up to #58. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=993896&postcount=58

[Kassad]

This thread has gotten way off topic, which is nothing new on here. So let's be frank.

Miles, why is your organization worth paying more attention to/joining than every other sect (start with the PSL maybe?) in the bunch? Personally, I believe those who can't defend old positions will never conquer new ones. Especially if the old positions have nothing in common with a revolutionary program anyway.

With all the neo-Kautskyite calls for "left unity" that I see these days, based on a lowest common denominator program, which any thinking leftist should see is just recycled historical garbage being thrust into the fore to keep people away from seriously fighting to cohere a fighting revolutionary organization that could actually tear through the ruling class' armor and not just put dents in it, I think it's necessary now more than ever to stand for a revolutionary tradition.

And to all those preaching for their silly class collaborationist "mass organizations" (which tend to do just about anything to get Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and xenophobes like Ralph Nader on their stage), all I have to say is this: when it comes to all those "why can't we be friends" socialists or those seeking to build their silly sectlets without programmatic foundations should keep Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/letters/73_06_20.htm) in mind:

"One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for 'unity.' Those who have this word most often on their lips are those who sow the most dissension... [Those] who have provoked all the splits, scream for nothing so much as for unity. Those unity fanatics are either the people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything up together into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again in much more acute opposition because they are now all together in one pot... or else they are people who consciously or unconsciously want to adulterate the movement. For this reason the greatest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues are at certain moments the loudest shouters for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the unity shouters."'

So what's yours?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Actually the thread remains semi on track. The OP was asking about joining the PSL and the discussion progressed onto a general one on what qualities one should look for when joining an organization. One historic issue with leftist organizations -- especially of the Leninist type -- is the accountability of the leadership to the rank and file members.

[Le Socialiste]

Can't believe I'm saying this, but Kassad's right - this thread has strayed far from its original purpose of inquiring about the PSL. What we have in its stead is shameless promotion of one's respective groups (something I've been guilty of myself) and endless shit slinging. Since the OP has received plenty of pros and cons regarding PSL membership (which was the primary reason for this thread's existence), it is now time to put this thread out of its misery: Thread Closed.