Impressions of the WWP.

[Glitchcraft]

I've been reading up on the Workers World Party. I've got some of my own opinions forming but I'd like to hear what others say.

[nizan]

Alienation cannot be combated with alienated means.

[Glitchcraft]

Alienation cannot be combated with alienated means.

Um... what? I don't get it. Is this an attack on me or on them? There's WWP near my area. I've started reading up on them, any comments? Do you have articles I should read attacking or supporting their program? Any discussions on their stances?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

They are Marcyites. They can be criticized for their somewhat one dimensional anti-imperialism-support for Mugabe, Saddam, Assad, etc.They do have a presence in the LGBT movement and they seem pretty active in this area.

[RedCeltic]

The WWP broke off from the SWP in 1959 over a series of issues... one was their support for Mao's Revolution, another was their support for the Soviet invasion of Hungry. The SWP at the time was actually a Trotskyite group and not the Cuba fanclub it is today.

The WWP is very dogmatic and very pro Stalinist, pro Maoist and are well entrenched in the cult of soviet worship of the cold war era. They ignore the fact that no true "worker's state" would ever call out the army to put down striking workers as did the USSR.

The most militant and active organizers and party members split off to form the PSL who retain the same ideology but no longer felt the WWP was effective.

[nizan]

Um... what? I don't get it. Is this an attack on me or on them? There's WWP near my area. I've started reading up on them, any comments? Do you have articles I should read attacking or supporting their program? Any discussions on their stances?

If you read it as an attack on yourself, than it probably was relevant in that capacity.

Anyway, I doubt anyone has ever bothered to write a thorough critique of the WWP, there are far too many parties, leagues, organizations, and so on for all of them to warrant individual comment. These should suffice as a basic enough introduction.

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/tsots04.html

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

[nizan]

They also have something of a rather serious fetish for North Korea, it would seem.

"We were in Pyongyang, this beautiful city, the capital of the DPRK. It had been completely destroyed in the war. My goodness, if you could see it now."

"A stronger movement here would take some of the burden off the shoulders of the people and party of the DPRK. Until that situation changes, they will be forced to go on with what they have. They will persevere. There is no doubt about that. They are tough and strong.

Long live the DPRK!"

Terribly interesting stuff.

[RedCeltic]

that second link you posted nizan was a good read and quite on point!
Groups like the WWP are a dime a dozen.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

On international matters, Workers World used to be the evil twin of the Spartacist League (or was it the Spartacists who were the evil twin?). Marcy's theory of global class war doesn't sound particularly persuasive today, but it usually led them to the right conclusion (except, I think, in Hungary and in Iran - I don't know what the WWP line on Afghanistan was). With the demise of the old "socialist" bloc, they seem to have become a bit disoriented, and have extended their support to some rather questionable figures - Ahmadinejad for example.

Domestically, they seem to have done admirable work among LGBT people and against the Klan, but they seem to be highly attracted to popular front arrangements (I think Marcy broke with Cannon, formally, over his support for Wallace).

Here is an interesting factoid: a section of the SL actually joined the WWP, before allegedly finding Workers World to be too bureaucratic, splitting from them to form the Revolutionary Communist League (Internationalist). So there you have it - Spartaco-Marcyists. Despair.

[nizan]

On international matters, Workers World used to be the evil twin of the Spartacist League (or was it the Spartacists who were the evil twin?). Marcy's theory of global class war doesn't sound particularly persuasive today, but it usually led them to the right conclusion (except, I think, in Hungary and in Iran - I don't know what the WWP line on Afghanistan was). With the demise of the old "socialist" block, they seem to have become a bit disoriented, and have extended their support to some rather questionable figures - Ahmadinejad for example.

Domestically, they seem to have done admirable work among LGBT people and against the Klan, but they seem to be highly attracted to popular front arrangements (I think Marcy broke with Cannon, formally, over his support for Wallace).

Here is an interesting factoid: a section of the SL actually joined the WWP, before allegedly finding Workers World to be too bureaucratic, splitting from them to form the Revolutionary Communist League (Internationalist). So there you have it - Spartaco-Marcyists. Despair.

All fine and lovely, but does it really matter what the 30 or so militants determine as their 'line' on Iran and Hungary? You've spent enough time memorizing the flow charts of Trotskyist splits, no doubt, but perhaps it might do you a bit of good to pay some consideration to the actual nature of the militant and his organization, for once.

[Glitchcraft]

Well it matters to me if thats ok. There are WWP somewhat near me. So far my only options are ISO, SEP, WWP and SPUSA.
Ug.

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk 4

[blake 3:17]

The few WWPers I've met were really cool. Didn't see eye to eye on abstract issues, but on a bunch of very practical ones got on fine.

I'd be less concerned about what a group did 50 or 60 years ago, than what it does now.

[nizan]

Well it matters to me if thats ok. There are WWP somewhat near me. So far my only options are ISO, SEP, WWP and SPUSA.
Ug.

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk 4

I know where you are in your life at the moment, so far as political consciousness is concerned. You're a radical, and you think you're not doing anything, you think you're sitting around while the world collapses around you, and you don't like that. You stare at all the images of the smart bombs being readied for Syria, the decimated waste of the middle east, starving children in Africa and Detroit, of show trials against minorities and police brutality, and you just have to do something. Anything, really. And with as much thought, you've decided that you need to join a party. You're not quite sure which, the distinctions are all quite nebulous really, you probably weren't alive when most of them split apart from one another, in all probability.

But these details aren't terribly important. You just need a party to talk about revolt with, a means through which to vicariously assert your will to subversion which does not subvert too much. A branch meeting on a Sunday is doable, selling some papers is workable, a campus club is imaginable, revolution without the revolution is what you desire. There are so many options to choose from on the market, a vanguard for everyone, but once the purchase is made, all will be well. You'll soon find yourself fervently defending positions and stances you hadn't imagined relevant earlier with the incredible devotion known only to a consumer committed to a defense of his choice in product. The owner of a BMW defends the brand against Mercedes, the WWP member defends and defines himself in relation to the PSL and any number of other competing brands, so on.

Yes, it's not a terribly uncommon path to pursue, but, if you feel like saving yourself a year or so of ideological shit, pay some thought to my comments. The WWP is the same as any other shit militant party out there, that's it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well it matters to me if thats ok. There are WWP somewhat near me. So far my only options are ISO, SEP, WWP and SPUSA.
Ug.

I know how you feel, but one thing I would advise against is joining a group because they're the only group in the area. I almost ended up in the United Secretariat in this way, and I think even the former USFI member on this thread can recognise that this would have been a bad idea. By all means, learn about Workers World and the others, though.


The few WWPers I've met were really cool. Didn't see eye to eye on abstract issues, but on a bunch of very practical ones got on fine.

I'd be less concerned about what a group did 50 or 60 years ago, than what it does now.

I actually think Workers World was a more composed, progressive group 50 years ago, when Marcy was still alive and the "socialist" bloc relatively stable. Now they seem to side with whoever can present themselves as anti-imperialist, and not only that, they consistently blur the line between military support and opposition to imperialism and political support. That is bad enough in the case of the DPR Korea, but Iran?

[Hit The North]

Well it matters to me if thats ok. There are WWP somewhat near me. So far my only options are ISO, SEP, WWP and SPUSA.
Ug.



You'd be crazy not to hook-up with the ISO, given the choices available.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You'd be crazy not to hook-up with the ISO, given the choices available.

Hooking up with the ISO can cause rashes, theories about state capitalism and Ikhwan.

[Glitchcraft]

I'm not necessarily looking to join anyone. but if they are active in my area I'd like to know more about them.

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk 4

[KurtFF8]

I'm not necessarily looking to join anyone. but if they are active in my area I'd like to know more about them.

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk 4

Well it depends on what you're looking to do then. If you're looking to write a research paper or something then there are plenty of resources online and you can always meet up with them. If you're looking to do activist work then the best way to learn about these organizations is to just see what they're up to in your area and go check it out for yourself.

Opinions of folks on RevLeft will be based on vastly different experiences and ideological understandings of all of these groups. Know your own opinions before you interact with the organizations and judge for yourself.

[Teacher]

WWP are comrades who would have my support if they were in my area

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm a member of WWP and the only one with an active account on here. There's a wholeeeee lot of stuff in this thread so far that I could (and maybe should) respond too. I will try to go through all this stuff throughout the day the give an adequate response. Do you have any questions in particular? If you don't mind me asking what branch are you closest too?

[Glitchcraft]

I know where you are in your life at the moment, so far as political consciousness is concerned. You're a radical, and you think you're not doing anything, you think you're sitting around while the world collapses around you, and you don't like that. You stare at all the images of the smart bombs being readied for Syria, the decimated waste of the middle east, starving children in Africa and Detroit, of show trials against minorities and police brutality, and you just have to do something. Anything, really. And with as much thought, you've decided that you need to join a party. You're not quite sure which, the distinctions are all quite nebulous really, you probably weren't alive when most of them split apart from one another, in all probability.
.

Listen bro. You don't know me. So before getting up on that podium try understanding what I said.
"I've been reading up on the Workers World Party. I've got some of my own opinions forming but I'd like to hear what others say."
Where does this suggest I'm supporting or thinking of joining. If just talking down to people is your way of informing them I suggest you stfu and learn to read.

[Tolstoy]

Ill start with the negatives so I can end this on a positive note

I dont care for the party for its support of every tinpot dictatorship and the DPRK in the name of "anti-imperialism" and "self determination". While its old news now, I am troubled by the idea of supporting the USSR's invasion of Hungary, especially when you consider that the Hungarian workers were shouting Leninist slogans and such.

On the positive, they seem to do very well at recruiting from the proleterian masses rather than just campuses like the ISO does. They have also always held a very admirable stance in support of gay liberation, even when society viewed the queer liberation movement with total disdain

[Leftsolidarity]

The WWP is very dogmatic and very pro Stalinist, pro Maoist and are well entrenched in the cult of soviet worship of the cold war era. They ignore the fact that no true "worker's state" would ever call out the army to put down striking workers as did the USSR.



We are not "very pro-Stalinist". Especially if you look back on writings from the time there was sharp criticism of Stalin. How are we "well entrenched in the cult of soviet worship"? That we defend the USSR and other past/present socialist states? Do we walk around with massive Lenin or Stalin pictures or lack present day analysis? No, we are involved in the present day struggle and have consistently put out a weekly paper with news and our analysis of current events.


The most militant and active organizers and party members split off to form the PSL who retain the same ideology but no longer felt the WWP was effective.

Hardly. I'd like to know where you heard that.



They also have something of a rather serious fetish for North Korea, it would seem.

"We were in Pyongyang, this beautiful city, the capital of the DPRK. It had been completely destroyed in the war. My goodness, if you could see it now."

"A stronger movement here would take some of the burden off the shoulders of the people and party of the DPRK. Until that situation changes, they will be forced to go on with what they have. They will persevere. There is no doubt about that. They are tough and strong.

Long live the DPRK!"

Terribly interesting stuff.

How is that at all a "serious fetish"? We have had a number of people visit the DPRK, and one very recently I believe. It is a beautiful place if you don't only see the pictures the show on the news of grey nothingness. And until there is a stronger movement within the imperialist countries that is all the DPRK can do is continue to hold out and build themselves as much as they can. I don't find that terribly interesting, anyone who is an anti-imperialist should hold such a position.




Marcy's theory of global class war doesn't sound particularly persuasive today, but it usually led them to the right conclusion (except, I think, in Hungary and in Iran - I don't know what the WWP line on Afghanistan was). With the demise of the old "socialist" bloc, they seem to have become a bit disoriented, and have extended their support to some rather questionable figures - Ahmadinejad for example.



I don't see why the global class war wouldn't be just as persuasive today. If anything, the fall of the soviet bloc further shows how there is a class war on the international level with imperialists trying to raid anywhere that the workers aren't making profits for them. And I could be wrong but I believe the party supported the intervention in Afghanistan but I'm honestly not well-informed on that one. Our support for Iran is on an anti-imperialist basis not of believing they are a socialist country. Their sovereignty and self-determination is something to protect.


Domestically, they seem to have done admirable work among LGBT people and against the Klan, but they seem to be highly attracted to popular front arrangements (I think Marcy broke with Cannon, formally, over his support for Wallace).


What popular frontism do you think we partake in? We operate in united fronts and don't tie ourselves to bourgeois parties.

[nizan]

Listen bro. You don't know me. So before getting up on that podium try understanding what I said.
"I've been reading up on the Workers World Party. I've got some of my own opinions forming but I'd like to hear what others say."
Where does this suggest I'm supporting or thinking of joining. If just talking down to people is your way of informing them I suggest you stfu and learn to read.

I don't know you and I don't care to, but all of this accurate enough dialectically. You're shopping around for the commodity of 'revolutionary' ideology. It's a confusing process, and you're confused without knowing why, all the points I made are accurate enough when taken at the critical level.

Again, it doesn't matter if you were actually planning on joining, it's quite clear you had some serious interest in the group. You'd be what they'd probably call a 'contact' or a 'sympathizer', someone they might sell shit to, and, possibly recruit. That's all you are to the modern revolutionary party, that's all anyone has ever been to any ideology.

I wouldn't have to talk down to you if you refrained from indulging in these basic banalities.

[nizan]

How is that at all a "serious fetish"? We have had a number of people visit the DPRK, and one very recently I believe. It is a beautiful place if you don't only see the pictures the show on the news of grey nothingness. And until there is a stronger movement within the imperialist countries that is all the DPRK can do is continue to hold out and build themselves as much as they can. I don't find that terribly interesting, anyone who is an anti-imperialist should hold such a position.

If you step back from this for a moment and realize that you're saying the only way to be an anti-imperialist is to support what is essentially a proto-capitalist government (I say proto as while they replicate enough models of modern class dominance, they simply don't have the organic power of the commodity as a foundation for their ideological underpinnings, diffuse vs concentrated power with the former residing), you might find something of interest, even amusement, in this whole sordid affair.

Also, yes, brutalist architecture is so beautiful, I'm sure you get a hard-on when looking at the blueprints for Hitler's utopian design for a hypothetical post war Berlin too, same for Stalin's hall of the Soviets and its massive statue of Lenin at the top. Because good architecture upholds class power, as we all all know.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

"We were in Pyongyang, this beautiful city, the capital of the DPRK. It had been completely destroyed in the war. My goodness, if you could see it now."


This is all true. What the fuck is wrong with it? It is a beautiful city. For all their shitty politics you bring out a fucking quote saying the city is beautiful and restored well after the war? This is a fact...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I don't know you and I don't care to, but all of this accurate enough dialectically. You're shopping around for the commodity of 'revolutionary' ideology. It's a confusing process, and you're confused without knowing why, all the points I made are accurate enough when taken at the critical level.

Again, it doesn't matter if you were actually planning on joining, it's quite clear you had some serious interest in the group. You'd be what they'd probably call a 'contact' or a 'sympathizer', someone they might sell shit to, and, possibly recruit. That's all you are to the modern revolutionary party, that's all anyone has ever been to any ideology.

I wouldn't have to talk down to you if you refrained from indulging in these basic banalities.

most socialists would say that its important to be in an organisation. There is power in numbers. A good socialist group trains one to be an activist. Where else in our society can one read the Marxist classics and discuss? Where else can one get reading suggestions, learn about activist history, learn and discuss what went wrong and what went right? How does one learn to be an effective activist?

High schools and colleges don't teach people about the German Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, Portugal's Carnation Revolution, the Shanghai Commune,etc.

The OP was asking about a socialist organisation he had some interest in. why is this a bad thing?

[Leftsolidarity]

If you step back from this for a moment and realize that you're saying the only way to be an anti-imperialist is to support what is essentially a proto-capitalist government (I say proto as while they replicate enough models of modern class dominance, they simply don't have the organic power of the commodity as a foundation for their ideological underpinnings, diffuse vs concentrated power with the former residing), you might find something of interest, even amusement, in this whole sordid affair.

Also, yes, brutalist architecture is so beautiful, I'm sure you get a hard-on when looking at the blueprints for Hitler's utopian design for a hypothetical post war Berlin too, same for Stalin's hall of the Soviets and its massive statue of Lenin at the top. Because good architecture upholds class power, as we all all know.

Ok, Hitler is been brought into the discussion within your first response. I don't have an interest in discussing with you. Maybe you should go look at pictures of the DPRK. You might realize that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[nizan]

most socialists would say that its important to be in an organisation. There is power in numbers. A good socialist group trains one to be an activist. Where else in our society can one read the Marxist classics and discuss? Where else can one get reading suggestions, learn about activist history, learn and discuss what went wrong and what went right? How does one learn to be an effective activist?

High schools and colleges don't teach people about the German Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, Portugal's Carnation Revolution, the Shanghai Commune,etc.

The OP was asking about a socialist organisation he had some interest in. why is this a bad thing?

Maybe, just maybe, the end goal of being an 'effective activist' is relatively fucked to begin with. Are you actually thick enough to believe that all of the revolutions you mentioned were the result of professional party activists? Or, additionally, thick enough to think that they failed for lack of their professionalism in 'activism'?

Revolution will not be a shitty fucking protest thrown together by the CWI, no, it will be a new creation.

[nizan]

"Organize, raise the consciousness, educate, write, sell the paper, march, and, most importantly, organize! These are the anguished mating calls of modern delusion, calls far too hopeless to be worth the words they play with. These hollowed murmurs of ideology exist apart from integrated unity with their language of presentation- in the organizational revolution of today it can be said beyond refute that the leftist has simply made the discovery of transfusing the molding thought of the enlightenment, of alienation, into the language of 'revolt'. Nietzsche and others have long since outlined the ineptitude of language and its capacity alone to stand as a model of serious communication, but this lesson is not founded in the realm of recuperation, for it is the antithesis to its historical end. “Organize!” they cry, and it is hard to find anyone unwilling to spread this message. Whether in the name of God, a socialist world, or a mere rise in minimum wage, the concept of organization is composed with intent to recreate a solidarity lost in the organization of a world long since devoid of meaning. The only active ingredient to this organization, in terms of imitated comradeship, is the reproduction of images without background, images fit only for the alienated.

Unwilling to cede the confines of his age, the leftist cadre intervenes in the question of revolution unconsciously knowing full well that he cannot bring himself to risk defeat, and, more importantly, that he cannot risk exposure to a life beyond that which is governed by the past. Like his ancestry in the classical officer corps, he is perpetually a man of his past. His timidity exists in the commentary of perpetually well-intended revolutionary activity- he uses all the same words with all the same sincerity in his endless justifications for power, but the result remains all the same. The cadre profits, socially and economically, from his position of dominance over the industry of revolutionary organizing, and he bears a post which he does not wish to abandon. The cadre seeks to freeze history with all the same intents as the overtly declared reactionary- the only difference that remains is that the reactionary does not adorn his dress in red."

http://operationist.wordpress.com/

While we're all on the topic of how ever so important it is to join a party and to become an activist, perhaps this might be of some relevance.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Maybe, just maybe, the end goal of being an 'effective activist' is relatively fucked to begin with. Are you actually thick enough to believe that all of the revolutions you mentioned were the result of professional party activists? Or, additionally, thick enough to think that they failed for lack of their professionalism in 'activism'?

Revolution will not be a shitty fucking protest thrown together by the CWI, no, it will be a new creation.

Obviously capitalism is currently in severe crisis. just as obviously it has no way out. this is making life miserable for 100s of millions of people around the planet. Greece, Spain, Egypt, Syria, ad nauseum. Capitalism has outlived its usefulness to the human race. Arguably this occurred before the late 19th century but now its glaringly obvious.

So...if capitalism left when its due date expired, we would have had socialism decades ago, if not a century ago.

So what went wrong? What is your explanation for why we still live under this horrible system? Do you think capitalism will disappear by itself? Will the global working class spontaneously decide to overthrow it when they so far haven't done so?

I've briefly scanned though a few of the pdfs. I don't have time to read a long treatise now. Situationism is not uninteresting and there is a cultural dimension to revolution but the class needs a method.

[nizan]

Obviously capitalism is currently in severe crisis. just as obviously it has no way out. this is making life miserable for 100s of millions of people around the planet. Greece, Spain, Egypt, Syria, ad nauseum. Capitalism has outlived its usefulness to the human race. Arguably this occurred before the late 19th century but now its glaringly obvious.

So...if capitalism left when its due date expired, we would have had socialism decades ago, if not a century ago.

So what went wrong? What is your explanation for why we still live under this horrible system? Do you think capitalism will disappear by itself? Will the global working class spontaneously decide to overthrow it when they so far haven't done so?

I've briefly scanned though a few of the pdfs. I don't have time to read a long treatise now. Situationism is not uninteresting and there is a cultural dimension to revolution but the class needs a method.

Yes, always a question of use and value for the avid reader of '''Jacobin''' magazine.

Anyway, capitalism hasn't been destroyed, that's my reason for why we live under it. Capital, wages, class power, these will not disappear into the thin air they materialized from, they will indeed call for a negation, but this negation will not stem from any party or ideology of the left. Leftism is purely a call for a more humane capitalism written by humane liberals who have taken the logic of class power far too literally. They do not realize the thought of the enlightenment is rotten, long since festering in its own decomposition.

What went wrong? People like you were around in 1870, in 1917, in 1934, in 1968, so on, to talk about how the revolutionary struggle won't be able to win without a party, without discipline, without organization, without self sacrifice, without ideology. People like you were around to make a mockery of revolt.

And my apologies for the long texts without calls to WORKERS PROLETARIAN PEOPLES REVOLUTION following every sentence. Revolutionary theory isn't for everyone, particularly those leftists particularly concerned with their career in the defense of class society.

[RedCeltic]

We are not "very pro-Stalinist". Especially if you look back on writings from the time there was sharp criticism of Stalin. How are we "well entrenched in the cult of soviet worship"? That we defend the USSR and other past/present socialist states? Do we walk around with massive Lenin or Stalin pictures or lack present day analysis? No, we are involved in the present day struggle and have consistently put out a weekly paper with news and our analysis of current events.

I admit that it has been years since I have read the WWP newspaper, I used to actually read it online often as it is a well written paper in comparison to many other party newspapers of the type. I did not mean that you marched around with Stalin posters. Rather I am quite critical of the USSR and therefore some positions taken in the newspaper did not sit well with me.

Also, I must admit, the WWP during the Iraq war, was very good at organizing anti war demonstrations with ANSWER. I don't know if I every met someone from the WWP or not. I've met many militants from similar parties over the years. Many get very defensive when you criticize the USSR.




Hardly. I'd like to know where you heard that.

Merely my assumption from what I read of the PSL on their website and by the fact they ran a candidate in New York. I know you're going to say that running a candidate for president in the capitalist elections doesn't make a party more active or militant. That was only my impression.

[Leftsolidarity]

Merely my assumption from what I read of the PSL on their website and by the fact they ran a candidate in New York. I know you're going to say that running a candidate for president in the capitalist elections doesn't make a party more active or militant. That was only my impression.

WWP has run candidates for president many times and as recently as 2004 I believe. I don't have any issues with running a campaign around that as it has its purposes.

[RedCeltic]

WWP has run candidates for president many times and as recently as 2004 I believe. I don't have any issues with running a campaign around that as it has its purposes.


Might be so, I've never seen one on the ballot here in New York, hence my impression. The SWP did run a candidate in New York in 2004 who I did actually vote for despite of my impression of the SWP as being a big book club. I don't recall who was on the ballot in 2008 in New York, but 2012 Peta Lindsay was the only socialist on the menu.

[hashem]

WWP is a reactionary sect which praises fascist government.

[Tolstoy]

If you step back from this for a moment and realize that you're saying the only way to be an anti-imperialist is to support what is essentially a proto-capitalist government (I say proto as while they replicate enough models of modern class dominance, they simply don't have the organic power of the commodity as a foundation for their ideological underpinnings, diffuse vs concentrated power with the former residing), you might find something of interest, even amusement, in this whole sordid affair.

Also, yes, brutalist architecture is so beautiful, I'm sure you get a hard-on when looking at the blueprints for Hitler's utopian design for a hypothetical post war Berlin too, same for Stalin's hall of the Soviets and its massive statue of Lenin at the top. Because good architecture upholds class power, as we all all know.

Whats wrong with having good taste?

[blake 3:17]

I don't see how getting totally hing up on convoluted analyses of foreign governments is all that super important. It can be illogical. So what? Logic don't rule the world. I'm more concerned with practical action.

People I've met from WWP were very dedicated to fighting oppression & exploitation and were interested in movement building. This is based on limited experience, but I joined a group based on meeting a few people and being exposed to some ideas and doing some practical work.

Check it out. If it's not a good fit, then whatever. There's no group, party or movement which is perfect and none will be perfect. That's reality.

[Glitchcraft]

Thank you LeninaRosenweg, Semendyaev, and Leftsolidarity for your insightful, courteous comments.


On international matters, Workers World used to be the evil twin of the Spartacist League (or was it the Spartacists who were the evil twin?). Marcy's theory of global class war doesn't sound particularly persuasive today, but it usually led them to the right conclusion (except, I think, in Hungary and in Iran - I don't know what the WWP line on Afghanistan was). With the demise of the old "socialist" bloc, they seem to have become a bit disoriented, and have extended their support to some rather questionable figures - Ahmadinejad for example.


Ok so I have been searching the ICL website for the word "WWP" and have come across conflicting statements.
In the article Barack Obama Takes Helm of Racist U.S. Imperialism (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/929/obama.html)They say " (WWP) raved that Obama’s victory was “a triumph for the Black masses and all the oppressed,” writing in Workers World (20 November 2008):" Yet I cannot seem to find anything like that in their online archives located here: http://www.workers.org/pdf/2008/ (http://www.workers.org/pdf/2008/)
In fact the WWP seem to me to be saying that Obamas election will not be what everyone cheering thinks it will be. They make that point more than once.
I've found other discrepancies in the quotes by the ICL and the archive of WW but computer crashing has made this my second writing of this post and I just don't feel like typing it all again. I'm still reading so I will start bookmarking these instances.

As well they keep referring to ANSWER as a front group for WWP when it was my impression that ANSWER was associated with the PSL. If they were to say that ANSWERs politics tail the group they split from (WWP) that would be one thing but to claim it's a front group in a post split situation makes me sceptical of their accusations.
The only possibilities I can see are that either the WWP is altering its archives or the SL is falsifying their claims. I'm still reading.

In the article Lebanon: Down With UN Intervention! Israel Out Now! (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/875/lebanon.html)
They refer to the WWP as " press agents for the Hezbollah fundamentalists". After reading the article they are citing I can see where they draw this conclusion but it does seem to be based on the fact that they don't outright denounce Hezbollah as an Islamic anti-woman, anti-homosexual organisation instead focusing on their anti Imperialist stances. I'm on the fence about it. Does supporting anti-imperialist groups have to coincide with condemning their internal practices? I thought that Trotskys Theory of Permanent Revolution was to let Imperialised nations have the right to self determination. Did I misunderstand the old man? I do not claim to be any expert on Trotsky and actually have not been reading it that long at all. But if you could clear this up that would be greatly appreciated.

And to that I ask Leftsolidarity what exactly is the WWP position on Hezbollah? They're articles do seem to lack any criticism of the Islamic fundamentalist nature of the group. Is there an article I can read the full stance the WWP takes on this? They take such a strong stance on LBGT equality that endorsing Hezbollah does seem hypocritical.

Both of your input on this is welcome and appreciated.

ps. I would also like to apologize for the very brief incomplete posts on this thread I have made earlier. They were made from my phone using this silly tap talk app for the first time. I have since then decided not to post on any forum using a phone. Thumbs down for small phones and forum posts.

and now to address something less congenial.

[Glitchcraft]

WWP is a reactionary sect which praises fascist government.

Brilliant Analysis.


I don't know you and I don't care to, but all of this accurate enough dialectically. You're shopping around for the commodity of 'revolutionary' ideology. It's a confusing process, and you're confused without knowing why, all the points I made are accurate enough when taken at the critical level.


Please show me where I've said anything to support this whacked out theory you have?
Here I'll make it as clear as I can.
There's WWP in my area, I've been reading up on them, does anyone have any opinions? Where does this mean I'm shopping around for a group or that I'm confused.
You seem to be the one who is confused about what words actually mean. Asking for impressions or opinions is not support nor is it "confused without knowing why". How many times do I have to say it?
Why can't I be asking for opinions to see if I should oppose them? Why can't I be asking for articles to show where they are treacherous? But No, you know better don't you? Asking people for "Impressions" is obviously just me wanting to open my wallet to pour out donations and beg to join.



Again, it doesn't matter if you were actually planning on joining, it's quite clear you had some serious interest in the group. You'd be what they'd probably call a 'contact' or a 'sympathizer', someone they might sell shit to, and, possibly recruit. That's all you are to the modern revolutionary party, that's all anyone has ever been to any ideology.

Where is it quite clear? WHERE? learn to read you fucking ignorant troll. learn what words mean. Maybe my "serious interest in this group" is to put their feet to the fire and make them accountable for their actions. Maybe it isn't. But I have made no statements either way. So how the fuck do you know?

[nizan]

Brilliant Analysis.



Please show me where I've said anything to support this whacked out theory you have?
Here I'll make it as clear as I can.
There's WWP in my area, I've been reading up on them, does anyone have any opinions? Where does this mean I'm shopping around for a group or that I'm confused.
You seem to be the one who is confused about what words actually mean. Asking for impressions or opinions is not support nor is it "confused without knowing why". How many times do I have to say it?
Why can't I be asking for opinions to see if I should oppose them? Why can't I be asking for articles to show where they are treacherous? But No, you know better don't you? Asking people for "Impressions" is obviously just me wanting to open my wallet to pour out donations and beg to join.


Where is it quite clear? WHERE? learn to read you fucking ignorant troll. learn what words mean. Maybe my "serious interest in this group" is to put their feet to the fire and make them accountable for their actions. Maybe it isn't. But I have made no statements either way. So how the fuck do you know?

I'd love to respond to this, but it would appear I'm illiterate. Shame, really, I'm sure there was some really good shit in this post.

[SonofRage]

Well it matters to me if thats ok. There are WWP somewhat near me. So far my only options are ISO, SEP, WWP and SPUSA.
Ug.

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk 4

I was a member of the ISO about 10 years ago for a period of about a year. Pham Bihn's essay Thinking of Joining the ISO? (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=9055) matches my experience pretty well.

I was a member of the SPUSA for several years and resigned in disgust. There's a resent thread about them here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/thinking-joining-socialist-t182091/index.html?t=182091).

I think it's important to ask: What are you looking to get from these groups? Are you just looking for information on who is in your area or are you looking to be part of something? If it's the latter, where do you see yourself ideologically and what kind of work do you want to do?

[blake 3:17]

@Glitchcraft -- ICL aka Sparts thinks another Left group is wrong! With lots of evidence! Wow!

I think the one thing I can be grateful to the Sparts for is being the clearest caricatured example of Trotskyism as 'ressentiment'. It's been helpful to me curing myself of some of the hangovers of the more Luxemburgist Trotskyism I was a part of, where the grudges are just buried deeper.

As for the particulars, Obama's win was a victory. And Hezbollah is a total mixed bag -- part gangster, part revolutionary, part medical provider, part nationalist, part educator, part thug, part religious fundamentalist, part government deal maker... It is extremely heterogeneous.

[blake 3:17]

I think it's important to ask: What are you looking to get from these groups? Are you just looking for information on who is in your area or are you looking to be part of something? If it's the latter, where do you see yourself ideologically and what kind of work do you want to do?

I don't understand why people are in such a hurry to join a group. In a lot of ways some of these groups made sense before the widespread use of the internet.

I was at a comrade's house and she had just gotten a computer with web access and didn't know where to find a search engine (we didn't know the term 'search engine' (maybe didn't exist)) and another tech savvy comrade typed in 'harm reduction' for her because it was kind of scary.

Mostly you just met people at demos and traded phone numbers and maybe subscribed to a paper.

Lives agoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Glitchcraft]

@Glitchcraft -- ICL aka Sparts thinks another Left group is wrong! With lots of evidence! Wow!

I think the one thing I can be grateful to the Sparts for is being the clearest caricatured example of Trotskyism as 'ressentiment'. It's been helpful to me curing myself of some of the hangovers of the more Luxemburgist Trotskyism I was a part of, where the grudges are just buried deeper.

As for the particulars, Obama's win was a victory. And Hezbollah is a total mixed bag -- part gangster, part revolutionary, part medical provider, part nationalist, part educator, part thug, part religious fundamentalist, part government deal maker... It is extremely heterogeneous.

I actually am just asking for information. I've been reading on my own but after reading other threads like "impressions of the SEP" and "Thinking about joining the PSL" I thought this thread would more quickly point me to valid articles.
My entire reasoning was exactly as stated. I wanted to know what others thought. I did not realize that not having a clearly stated "I want to join" or "I want to oppose" stance was so problematic. In the future I will aspire to be more clear on my intentions of just purely asking for opinions or articles with clear stances. I don't say this cynically, I hope it does not sound that way. I found a fair amount of the discussions on this thread to be quite helpful in expediting the formulation of my views on this group. A function I believe that RevLeft is stated to provide.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As well they keep referring to ANSWER as a front group for WWP when it was my impression that ANSWER was associated with the PSL. If they were to say that ANSWERs politics tail the group they split from (WWP) that would be one thing but to claim it's a front group in a post split situation makes me sceptical of their accusations.
The only possibilities I can see are that either the WWP is altering its archives or the SL is falsifying their claims. I'm still reading.

In the article Lebanon: Down With UN Intervention! Israel Out Now!
They refer to the WWP as " press agents for the Hezbollah fundamentalists". After reading the article they are citing I can see where they draw this conclusion but it does seem to be based on the fact that they don't outright denounce Hezbollah as an Islamic anti-woman, anti-homosexual organisation instead focusing on their anti Imperialist stances. I'm on the fence about it. Does supporting anti-imperialist groups have to coincide with condemning their internal practices? I thought that Trotskys Theory of Permanent Revolution was to let Imperialised nations have the right to self determination. Did I misunderstand the old man? I do not claim to be any expert on Trotsky and actually have not been reading it that long at all. But if you could clear this up that would be greatly appreciated.

ANSWER was the front group for WW. When the PSL split they took ANSWER with them. WW now has another anti-war front group, I don't remember the name of it.

In the 90s and early 2000s United for Justice and Peace (UFJP or UJP) was the more centrist anti-war coalition-basically run by the CPUSA and liberal church groups.They tailed the Democratic Party and turned the anti-war movement off to elect Kerry, a pro-war candidate. ANSWER was the more radical group who opposed the Dems. ANSWER has been criticized for lack of democracy. Both groups were basically sidelined I think around 07/08.I don't know the current situation.

The PSL split from WW in 04. As I understand they took the San Fran, NY, and DC branches with them. I don't know what the split was about-it seems to have been personal issues rather than political.

The Yahoo group Leftist Trainspotters would have info on this, as well as zillions of other socialist organizations. I would take the ICL with a grain of salt,-their analysis has some general validity but they spend an enormous amount of time taking down other groups. They are super sectarian and snarky. I'm not saying they are wrong but don't take them too seriously.

Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution.This is complicated. It was developed by Trotsky in collaboration with Parvus (Alexander Helphand) a Latvian socialist, derived from some ideas of Marx.Basically the idea was that the bourgeois of Russia would not be able to carry out the historical tasks of their class-such as democracy and independent economic development. The Russian bourgeois was tied to both feudal landowners and foreign,esp. French capital.The Russia bourgeois couldn't have a 1789 French style revolution. It would be up to the Russian working class to carry this out. There was a complicated "synergy" between the thought of Trotsky and Lenin. In a nutshell since it would be up to the working class to carry out what were the "historic tasks"of the bourgeois in Western Europe, why stop at bourgeois democracy? The working class should go directly towards socialism.

The theory originally only applied to Russia but can be used to analyze countries in the "developing world". Venezuala and other countries, for example, ultimately won't be able to fully develop as long as they do not fully break from capitalism.

I do not know WW's view of the Theory of Perm Rev.I don';t know their orientation towards Hezballah. I would imagine they would give it critical support (something I would disagree with) but I could be wrong.

Trainspotters might help. Its a closed group, I think you have to ask to join but it has tons of info.
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/leftist_trainspotters/info

[Glitchcraft]

I'd love to respond to this, but it would appear I'm illiterate. Shame, really, I'm sure there was some really good shit in this post.
Good answer. Maybe you could just admit that you misunderstood my intention, misread my statements and stop judging people by what you think they are saying.

[blake 3:17]

I actually am just asking for information. I've been reading on my own but after reading other threads like "impressions of the SEP" and "Thinking about joining the PSL" I thought this thread would more quickly point me to valid articles.

My entire reasoning was exactly as stated. I wanted to know what others thought.

That's totally cool & yeah that's something this board can do in terms of sharing knowledge.

I'm not so sure that there are that many good articles or essays on the WWP.

And, yeah, actually I use Spart stuff on occasion for reference dates. They're fine archivists.

[RedCeltic]

In the 90s and early 2000s United for Justice and Peace (UFJP or UJP) was the more centrist anti-war coalition-basically run by the CPUSA and liberal church groups.They tailed the Democratic Party and turned the anti-war movement off to elect Kerry, a pro-war candidate.

Yes they did, and their rallies were nothing but an excuse for democrats to give speeches and say why we all need to vote democrat. During the 2004 march in NYC on the RNC Convention, every speaker was a democrat. I was there helping a roommate make a film of the events and had interviewed a member/organizer from UFPJ who claimed the Society of Friends (Quakers) were a major part of the organization. He did not mention the CPUSA which most likely would not be something they would wish to advertise.

[hashem]

Brilliant Analysis.

a government kills communists and suppresses worker class in Iran but WWP supports it. this is not a simple stupidity or ignorantness because Iranian communists wrote to WWP and explained the situation to them but WWP refused to answer or even mention this criticism to its followers. the letter of Iranian communists to WWP is available in this link (http://www.peykarandeesh.org/safAzad/pdf/HezbeDonyayeKargar.pdf) (since its a PDF file, i couldnt copy it but its on 6th page of this file).

so, WWP is deliberately supporting fascists. what else is left for an analysis? what other proof do you need to admit they are reactionaries?

[sixdollarchampagne]

Years ago, when I was in the Socialist Party, there was a big, well-organized Gay Pride parade in downtown Boston, and so a small number of us from the SP showed up with a big banner. We tried to join the demonstration, but a lady with a clipboard came up and told us that, since we had not paid a $75 fee to march as a group, we had to go "way to the back" of the demonstration, and a contingent of gay jocks starting yelling "Go back, Go back," at us. So we were standing on the sidewalk with our banner, deflated because we had been prohibited from joining the march at that point. Then the WWP showed up, with a big contingent defending Mumia Abu Jamal. We told the Marcyites what had happened, and they said we could march just behind them, and we did so, and no one from the march organizers dared say a word to us, since no one wanted to mess with Workers World. :) So I can't really be that critical of the WWP.

[Leftsolidarity]

Ok so I have been searching the ICL website for the word "WWP" and have come across conflicting statements.
In the article Barack Obama Takes Helm of Racist U.S. Imperialism (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/929/obama.html)They say " (WWP) raved that Obama’s victory was “a triumph for the Black masses and all the oppressed,” writing in Workers World (20 November 2008):" Yet I cannot seem to find anything like that in their online archives located here: http://www.workers.org/pdf/2008/ (http://www.workers.org/pdf/2008/)
In fact the WWP seem to me to be saying that Obamas election will not be what everyone cheering thinks it will be. They make that point more than once.
I've found other discrepancies in the quotes by the ICL and the archive of WW but computer crashing has made this my second writing of this post and I just don't feel like typing it all again. I'm still reading so I will start bookmarking these instances.


I literally did laugh out loud about this because (I've told this story here before) at the latest DNC we were doing a lot of the work to help organize the protests and other events going on. On the first day of events this group of Sparts walks in and sets up a table immediately putting up this big poster condemning all the other socialist organizations. First and foremost was WWP with a quote from Larry Hales about Obama's election. You basically made my point for me, we were differently not being cheerleaders for Obama and don't view him differently than other imperialist presidents in the role he plays.



As well they keep referring to ANSWER as a front group for WWP when it was my impression that ANSWER was associated with the PSL. If they were to say that ANSWERs politics tail the group they split from (WWP) that would be one thing but to claim it's a front group in a post split situation makes me sceptical of their accusations.
The only possibilities I can see are that either the WWP is altering its archives or the SL is falsifying their claims. I'm still reading.


The "front group" thing is always weird to me. I suppose they haven't heard of a mass organization before. WWP was heavily involved with starting ANSWER but when the PSL folks split they took the ANSWER stuff I believe and now it's them.


n the article Lebanon: Down With UN Intervention! Israel Out Now! (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/875/lebanon.html)
They refer to the WWP as " press agents for the Hezbollah fundamentalists". After reading the article they are citing I can see where they draw this conclusion but it does seem to be based on the fact that they don't outright denounce Hezbollah as an Islamic anti-woman, anti-homosexual organisation instead focusing on their anti Imperialist stances. I'm on the fence about it. Does supporting anti-imperialist groups have to coincide with condemning their internal practices? I thought that Trotskys Theory of Permanent Revolution was to let Imperialised nations have the right to self determination. Did I misunderstand the old man? I do not claim to be any expert on Trotsky and actually have not been reading it that long at all. But if you could clear this up that would be greatly appreciated.

And to that I ask Leftsolidarity what exactly is the WWP position on Hezbollah? They're articles do seem to lack any criticism of the Islamic fundamentalist nature of the group. Is there an article I can read the full stance the WWP takes on this? They take such a strong stance on LBGT equality that endorsing Hezbollah does seem hypocritical.

Both of your input on this is welcome and appreciated.


I'm actually not too certain. I'm not sure what branch you're near but I know the NYC comrades would be able to answer that question very well. But yes, supporting a group based off an opposition to imperialism isn't the same as supporting all their positions. The right of an oppressed nation to self-determination is something that we should always be supporting. I can dig around a bit to give a better response. I recently woke up and I get a lot of groups in that area confused with each other.

[Art Vandelay]

I think it should be obvious to anyone here, that any political group which upholds the DPRK as an existing form of socialism, isn't one to be taken too seriously. From what it sounds like, they're a dedicated activist group, but without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary action, and its quite obvious that WWP and the split PSL, have some very serious theoretical issues.

[khad]

without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary action, and its quite obvious that WWP and the split PSL, have some very serious theoretical issues.
The WWP/PSL split over the issue of whether to hold joint demos with UFPJ and their Zionists. It's kind of moot anyway since UFPJ later categorically refused to cooperate with ANSWER. Typical crap.

Feel free to ignore reality's constraints on your overactive imagination, though. You're doing a fantastic job.

[Art Vandelay]

The WWP/PSL split over the issue of whether to hold joint demos with UFPJ and their Zionists. It's kind of moot anyway since UFPJ later categorically refused to cooperate with ANSWER. Typical crap.

Feel free to ignore reality's constraints on your overactive imagination, though. You're doing a fantastic job.

I never commented on why the PSL/WWP split. In fact, neither group has ever publically stated the reasons for the split. I commented that both the PSL and the WWP uphold the DPRK as an existing form of socialism, which I've shown on this site in the past by sourcing their own material. That is why I stated they have very serious theoretical issues. Feel free to continue showcasing your lack of ability in reading comprehension though, you're doing a fantastic job.

[khad]

I never commented on why the PSL/WWP split. In fact, neither group has ever publically stated the reasons for the split. I commented that both the PSL and the WWP uphold the DPRK as an existing form of socialism, which I've shown on this site in the past by sourcing their own material. That is why I stated they have very serious theoretical issues. Feel free to continue showcasing your lack of ability in reading comprehension though, you're doing a fantastic job.
No more serious than every other group out there, including the one you see in the mirror.

without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary action
This statement is so demonstrably false it's not even funny. So what were the movements of 1832, 1838, and 1871, then? Where was their revolutionary anarcho lumpen queer-friendly true proletarian ideology?

[Art Vandelay]

This statement is so demonstrably false it's not even funny. So what were the movements of 1832, 1838, and 1871, then? Where was their revolutionary anarcho lumpen queer-friendly true proletarian ideology?

Do you honestly believe that any of the revolutions you are quoting are in anyway socialist or created a workers state? In fact you bringing this up rather elucidates my point in paraphrasing Lenin rather well. Those were certainly revolutions, however they weren't socialist, nor could they have been due to the fact that they had no socialist theory driving them. In fact the Paris Commune stands as a good example of the messiness which resulted without having a coherent frame work on the state and its role in the transition to socialism. That was entirely Lenin's point. That other revolutions don't need theory, they merely replace one system of alienated property relations with another. In these revolutions it was more the system of social property relations driving the course. A socialist revolution obviously needs theory in ways that other revolutions don't, because it entails the proletariat seizing direct control over society and putting an end to alienated property relations. If you want to argue that non-socialist revolutions don't need theory or that failed socialist revolutions lacked theory then be my guest. But I don't know who you're arguing with.

[Ann Egg]

i don't support any movement that doesn't advocate the revolutionary use of heroin

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

a government kills communists and suppresses worker class in Iran but WWP supports it. this is not a simple stupidity or ignorantness because Iranian communists wrote to WWP and explained the situation to them but WWP refused to answer or even mention this criticism to its followers. the letter of Iranian communists to WWP is available in this link (http://www.peykarandeesh.org/safAzad/pdf/HezbeDonyayeKargar.pdf) (since its a PDF file, i couldnt copy it but its on 6th page of this file).

so, WWP is deliberately supporting fascists. what else is left for an analysis? what other proof do you need to admit they are reactionaries?

Actually I'll try to give a shot at it. There was some issues in pasting but its legible. I think its always good to remember which side of the fence these people are on.

Workers World July 8, 2005
To Editor: Dear Sir, Madam,
Your Editorial of July1, 2005, concerning the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad in
the so called « presidential election » in Iran, has evoked a great astonishment among
the Iranians who have read it. Especially among the Iranian communists, democrats
and all honest women and men who have some objective knowledge of the dramatic
political, economic, social and cultural situation in Iran, and know something about the
bitter and sanguinary class struggle in this country during the past three decades: they
cannot conceal their sorrow, their fury and their indignation about the unjust and
erroneous position that you have taken in this affair. We say “sorrow”, because this
position does not come from a media depending on Republic Islamic of Iran or
imperialists who support this reactionary regime, but from a Party whose declared
positions are the emancipation of the working class, proletarian internationalism, and
solidarity with the oppressed peoples!
You are describing Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad as a “revolutionary”, “anti-capitalist”,
“Islamic socialist”, “anti-imperialist” and so on. You are portraying him as the “son of
a blacksmith” who came out of the Iranian 1979 revolution against the regime of Shah
and the US domination in Iran.
The fact is that he is neither a revolutionary, nor an anti-imperialist, nor anti-capitalist:
he is nothing but a most reactionary, anti-democratic, anti-revolutionary figure in the
political scene of Iran.
You are certainly aware of serious accusations against him as the responsible of
logistics support and as the head of the “reserve team” in the assassination of political
opponents of Iranian regime in Austria in 1989. At that time Rafsanjani was president
of Islamic Republic of Iran, and Ali Khamenei was, as he is today, the Supreme Guide;
Khamenei, Rafsanjani, were the principal commanders of this assassination, and the
same Ahmadi Nejad was one of the executers of this barbarous act, according to the
testimonies of a number of informed people (including certain ancient agents of
Iranian terrorist operations abroad), and the information and statements of a number of
human rights activists, some political figures in Austria, many independent journalists,
families and surroundings of the victims.
From a social class point of view, Ahmadi Nejad is a docile servant of capitalists and
other propertied classes. More precisely, he is a cynical lackey of the bureaucraticmilitary- religious faction of the bourgeoisie in Iran. This faction, in alliance with a
section of large merchants and commercial bourgeoisie, maintains the upper hand
inside the bourgeois class. It is in permanent struggle not only against the workers and
the toiling people, but also against other sections of the bourgeoisie for appropriating
the lion share in the profits extracted from the brutal exploitation of the working class
and toiling people, and in order to preserve and consolidate its political and cultural
hegemony in addition to economic supremacy

You are trying, in your Editorial, to describe Ahmadi Nejad as the popular antithesis
of Rafsanjani; the fact is that he is a creation of Rafsanjani and other high rank
officials of the Islamic Regime. It was Rafsanjani who promoted him as the governor
(prefect) of Ardebil province in the northwest of Iran. Their present rivalry and
competition can only be explained in the framework of the internal contradictions of
the ruling class and the reigning clique.
Ahmadi Nejad is not a “man of the people against the Establishment” or against the
imperialist domination and imperialist threats (as one can deduce from your Editorial),
he is not an “outsider”, on the contrary: he is a man of the Establishment, in other
words, an interchanging part of the state machine serving the Iranian bourgeoisie at
present.
According to you, the Iranian workers elected Ahmadi Nejad “for jobs, not the World
Bank. And the vote told the U.S.: hands off.” Despite your argument and your
conclusion, any objective and informed observer will assert that: a) the World Bank
does not have considerable investment in Iran and it is not going to do so in the near
future (especially if we take account of its new managing team), and b) the large
unemployment in Iran is not a result of the World Bank investment or policies in Iran
(for the fact that they have a negligible small role in Iranian economics and politics at
present); the large unemployment in Iran is a result of the laws of capitalist
accumulation and capitalist mode of production in general, accelerated by the
reactionary policies of the regime of Islamic Republic of Iran, and some powerful
tendencies in the ruling circles in favour of parasitic merchants and intermediaries
rather than productive industrial capitalists.
Consequently, the regime of Islamic Republic of Iran is the main obstacle in the way
of social progress, freedom and welfare of the people, and the main obstacle in the
way of the proletarian revolution in Iran. This regime and generally, the bourgeois
domination in any form, are the main lever and mainstay for the imperialist
domination in Iran. The reactionary internal and foreign policy of the Islamic
Republic of Iran feed and reinforce the reactionary policy of G. W. Bush, and his so
called “war on terrorism” which is the pseudonym of the US imperialist wars for world
hegemony, wars of imperialist expansion, annexation and domination.
You are talking of relatively large number of votes to Ahmadi Nejad. This is perhaps
the main reason that makes you attribute these votes to the workers, and at the same
time you buy demagogic electoral slogans of Ahmadi Nejad at their “face value”!
We cannot elaborate these issues in detail here however, we mention the following
points:

• No one in Iran admits the health and regularity of this election, excepted
perhaps the Supreme Guide, the Council of the Guardians of the Constitution –
a body essentially assigned by the former to filter the candidates – (in the last
elections it eliminated more than 1000 candidates and approved only 6, to
which the Guide himself added two other candidates!), everyone knows that
there were massive intervention and implication of military, paramilitary forces
and mullahs in order to “redirect” the votes in favour of Ahmadi Nejad.

• From almost 48 million people qualified for voting, Ahmadi Nejad’s votes
counted about 17 millions and Rafsanjani’s about 11 millions: about 20
millions of the qualified population didn’t vote. How do you conclude that the
majority of the workers voted for Ahmadi Nejad? Statistically, it is normal to suppose that in 20 millions people (chosen randomly) there are more workers
than in 17 millions (also chosen randomly). Furthermore, a fraction of the 11
millions votes for Rafsanjani, was the vote of the workers (Rafsanjani has some
influence, though it is declining, in the so called “Islamic Workers Councils” –
governmental worker organization). So, there is no evidence that the majority
of workers voted for any candidate

• Ahmadi Nejad himself, and the parties and organizations who supported his
candidacy, had never pronounced anything against the private sector. The
leader of one of these very influential parties maintained recently that all state
enterprises should be privatised, except petroleum industry and state TV
broadcasting. One or two times Ahmadi Nejad said some phrases against the
high interest rate of private banks or the “gambling function” of stock exchange
market, but he rapidly corrected these “lapses”

You underline Ahmad Nejad’s modest class origin, we think that we don’t need
to mention to you that many people coming out of toiling people became
eventually their worst enemies: Mussolini and Hitler also had modest class
origins

We understand that you wanted to support what you thought might have been the
aspirations of Iranian working class and to reveal Bush administration’s reactionary
and war mongering policy. But, we think that solidarity with Iranian workers is
incompatible with the eulogies that you have made in favour of one of the most fervent
anti-communist and anti-democratic figures in Iran, who with his reactionary and
bloodthirsty mentors can only be compared with mullahs and generals in Indonesia of
1960’s and with the torturers in Chile, Argentina of military junta, Iran in the epoch of
Shah, Greece of Colonels, Spain of Franco, etc.
We hope that you will correct your erroneous position, and will show your solidarity
with the class conscious Iranian workers and genuine revolutionary forces who have
been engaged in a death or life struggle against the Islamic Republic of Iran., as well
as with the revolutionaries of other countries.
You can publish all or a part of this text on your site (and we encourage you to do it).
With the best regards
A group of Iranian communists

[Ann Egg]

Do you honestly believe that any of the revolutions you are quoting are in anyway socialist or created a workers state? In fact you bringing this up rather elucidates my point in paraphrasing Lenin rather well. Those were certainly revolutions, however they weren't socialist, nor could they have been due to the fact that they had no socialist theory driving them. In fact the Paris Commune stands as a good example of the messiness which resulted without having a coherent frame work on the state and its role in the transition to socialism. That was entirely Lenin's point. That other revolutions don't need theory, they merely replace one system of alienated property relations with another. In these revolutions it was more the system of social property relations driving the course. A socialist revolution obviously needs theory in ways that other revolutions don't, because it entails the proletariat seizing direct control over society and putting an end to alienated property relations. If you want to argue that non-socialist revolutions don't need theory or that failed socialist revolutions lacked theory then be my guest. But I don't know who you're arguing with.
yeah those stupid fucking dumbass idiot workers cant have socialism unless those brilliant upper class straight white cis-men tell them what to do, how to do it and when to do it. cant have socialism without the white guys leading the sheep to the promised land with the power of theory.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think it should be obvious to anyone here, that any political group which upholds the DPRK as an existing form of socialism, isn't one to be taken too seriously. From what it sounds like, they're a dedicated activist group, but without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary action, and its quite obvious that WWP and the split PSL, have some very serious theoretical issues.

But all you have done here is say that "This one position here I disagree with, thus they don't have revolutionary theory". Which is complete crap as a real analysis. Why not look into our other positions and the work we do as a party? Why not examine what real life implications our positions have instead of just a check sheet of what you think makes a party revolutionary enough or valid in your eyes? You disagree that we label the DPRK as socialist, what implication does that have in our work and role as a revolutionary party? It means the we will support the DPRK on their road of building socialism and defend them against imperialism. Is such a position so horrid as to justify saying that we lack revolutionary theory or that we aren't to be taken seriously? I would say that there are a whole lot of ways that WWP has advanced the struggle and the work we have done is not just petty activism.

[Art Vandelay]

yeah those stupid fucking dumbass idiot workers cant have socialism unless those brilliant upper class straight white cis-men tell them what to do, how to do it and when to do it. cant have socialism without the white guys leading the sheep to the promised land with the power of theory.

I hope this is trolling. Regardless it doesn't warrant a serious response, that is not at all what I stated.

[Art Vandelay]

But all you have done here is say that "This one position here I disagree with, thus they don't have revolutionary theory". Which is complete crap as a real analysis. Why not look into our other positions and the work we do as a party? Why not examine what real life implications our positions have instead of just a check sheet of what you think makes a party revolutionary enough or valid in your eyes? You disagree that we label the DPRK as socialist, what implication does that have in our work and role as a revolutionary party? It means the we will support the DPRK on their road of building socialism and defend them against imperialism. Is such a position so horrid as to justify saying that we lack revolutionary theory or that we aren't to be taken seriously? I would say that there are a whole lot of ways that WWP has advanced the struggle and the work we have done is not just petty activism.

Look I'm not trying to discount the work the WWP has done and I didn't say it was 'petty activism.' From what I can tell, both the PSL and the WWP seem to be extremely active parties and have drawn in a decent membership (as far as I'm aware). Having said that, I'm not going to sugar coat things. If a political party can have a theoretical position so horrid as stating the DPRK is an existing form of socialism, it absolutely represents and misunderstanding of what constitutes socialism, this has a direct impact on attempting to bring about socialism. I'm not saying the WWP/PSL are counter revolutionary. But the continuation of proper revolutionary theory is extremely important, especially during low periods of class struggle and no party has a monopoly on that. The PSL and WWP do not have a future as a revolutionary party of the proletariat, unless they fundamentally change their positions on a number of things. You can't, in the face of political arguments directed at your group, merely say "you're focusing on one positions, look at this other stuff.' If you want to explain to me, how the DPRK is a socialist state, then I'm all ears, but I'm not exactly going to hold my breath waiting for a compelling analysis.

[Fred]

On international matters, Workers World used to be the evil twin of the Spartacist League (or was it the Spartacists who were the evil twin?). Marcy's theory of global class war doesn't sound particularly persuasive today, but it usually led them to the right conclusion (except, I think, in Hungary and in Iran - I don't know what the WWP line on Afghanistan was). With the demise of the old "socialist" bloc, they seem to have become a bit disoriented, and have extended their support to some rather questionable figures - Ahmadinejad for example.

Domestically, they seem to have done admirable work among LGBT people and against the Klan, but they seem to be highly attracted to popular front arrangements (I think Marcy broke with Cannon, formally, over his support for Wallace).

Here is an interesting factoid: a section of the SL actually joined the WWP, before allegedly finding Workers World to be too bureaucratic, splitting from them to form the Revolutionary Communist League (Internationalist). So there you have it - Spartaco-Marcyists. Despair.
Hmm. I thought I was the comrade with all the Spartacist minutiae;)1. Somehow I missed that particular split -- when was it? Maybe early-mid seventies? I would guess it involved no more than two comrades, thus was not much of a split -- but please send me info (perhaps by pm).

As for the WWP. It has origins as comrades have pointed out, in the Trotskyist movement. Since I've been active politically, their politics are characterized by impressionism and Stalinophilia. Their position on Hungary was the main cause of their split from the SWP in the late 50s. That was the best example we have ever seen of what a political revolution against the bureaucracy would look like -- they came out on the wrong side of that one. Then they found Mao for a while still defending the USSR not only militarily, which is a Trotskyist position, but also politically. Historically they like to work in front groups like ANSWER. Their paper is boring to the point of being unreadable.

To the comrades that complain about "old arguments" regarding history. Beware! The worker's movement has been plagued by frequent repetition of the same mistakes with disastrous consequences. We MUST learn from our mistakes and to that end study history very carefully. It is foolhardy in the extreme to ignore history and program.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Hardly. I'd like to know where you heard that.

I've heard pretty much the same, but it was all in a bit of a "he said, she said" fashion. So if you don't mind me asking, why did the PSL split? I know the RCL(I) though that the WWP had become conservative after the Vietnam War, and I think that Communist Cadre tried to reorient your organisation toward Trotskyism, but I've never heard an actual explanation for the fairly major PSL split.


How is that at all a "serious fetish"? We have had a number of people visit the DPRK, and one very recently I believe. It is a beautiful place if you don't only see the pictures the show on the news of grey nothingness.

To some of us, it is a beautiful place even if they do. I'm quite fond of grey urban wastelands, probably as a consequence of growing up in one. I think most people object to your characterisation of the DPR Korea as socialist. And I mean, OK, I can understand the criticism, but I'm surprised at the vitriol with which the criticism is usually expressed, particularly given how other groups get so much leeway. But I digress.


And until there is a stronger movement within the imperialist countries that is all the DPRK can do is continue to hold out and build themselves as much as they can. I don't find that terribly interesting, anyone who is an anti-imperialist should hold such a position.

Which brings me to my next question; does the WWP recognise the existence of a separate bureaucratic caste? I ask because Marcy uses similar language in his article on Czechoslovakia, but that rhetoric is nowhere to be found in Workers World today.


I don't see why the global class war wouldn't be just as persuasive today. If anything, the fall of the soviet bloc further shows how there is a class war on the international level with imperialists trying to raid anywhere that the workers aren't making profits for them.

Alright, but that is not what Marcy and Copeland were arguing for, at least at the time of their fight with Cannon. If I have understood their texts in the internal bulletin correctly, they thought that the class struggle was carried over to the global level so that the "socialist" bloc represented the class interest of the proletariat. And, well... there is no more socialist bloc. I suppose one could argue that the class struggle had a global aspect in the sense that it manifested, in part, as the struggle between blocs (as I recall it, Cannon was not overtly opposed to this idea), but in this period of triumphant reaction, this aspect has all but vanished.


And I could be wrong but I believe the party supported the intervention in Afghanistan but I'm honestly not well-informed on that one. Our support for Iran is on an anti-imperialist basis not of believing they are a socialist country. Their sovereignty and self-determination is something to protect.

Of course, no one (except for Matgamna, who does not post on RevLeft, and Binh who oddly enough does post) supports imperialist wars. So I have no problem with, for example, the many WW articles titled "Hands off Iran!" or something to that effect. But articles like "US activists meet with Iranian president" (http://www.workers.org/2010/us/iran_1007/) are another thing entirely. In the entire article, not once do you criticise the Iranian bourgeois regime, its treatment of workers, union militants, women, LGBT people and so on - in fact you try to downplay the serious human rights abuses in Iran. Now, I don't for a moment think that you actually support the internal regime in Iran - that would be against everything you have done in the US - but you seem to blur the line between opposing imperialism and supporting bourgeois governments under threat from imperialism.


What popular frontism do you think we partake in? We operate in united fronts and don't tie ourselves to bourgeois parties.

Well, the descriptions of ANSWER, SANE and similar united fronts you have participated in have led me to think that they operated similar to popular fronts, not with the participation of the entire Democratic Party but endorsing particular Democratic politicians.


I don't see how getting totally hing up on convoluted analyses of foreign governments is all that super important. It can be illogical. So what? Logic don't rule the world. I'm more concerned with practical action.

Well, the complete failure of the International, and later the United, Secretariat to make a Marxist analysis of Nicaragua had some very practical consequence for the political climate there, wouldn't you say?


They refer to the WWP as " press agents for the Hezbollah fundamentalists". After reading the article they are citing I can see where they draw this conclusion but it does seem to be based on the fact that they don't outright denounce Hezbollah as an Islamic anti-woman, anti-homosexual organisation instead focusing on their anti Imperialist stances. I'm on the fence about it. Does supporting anti-imperialist groups have to coincide with condemning their internal practices? I thought that Trotskys Theory of Permanent Revolution was to let Imperialised nations have the right to self determination. Did I misunderstand the old man? I do not claim to be any expert on Trotsky and actually have not been reading it that long at all. But if you could clear this up that would be greatly appreciated.

The Spartacist League and Workers World have been at loggerheads over Lebabon ever since the civil war - Workers World thought it was a class struggle, the Spartacists that it was a communal conflict. And the theory of permanent revolution implies that only the proletariat can lead a thorough struggle for democratic rights, which includes self-determination and freedom from imperialist predation. Trotskyists can, and in some cases should, extend military support for Hezbollah - but not political support, and we should struggle to build a revolutionary proletarian movement independent of bourgeois parties. As for the WWP and HA, again, I don't think anyone in Workers World thinks that theocracy is great or that homosexuals in Lebanon should be killed. But they sometimes seem scared of criticising groups like Hezbollah, lest they end up supporting the imperialists in some way.


As for the particulars, Obama's win was a victory.

For who? God's sake, for who? For people in undeveloped regions of the world? How? Do Obomber's drones kill more kindly than those sent by Bush? Women? Obama sold their reproductive rights almost as soon as he was elected, and very cheaply at that? Black people? I don't think having "one of their own" as Chief Jailer and Chief Cop has helped black workers one iota.

[Fred]

But all you have done here is say that "This one position here I disagree with, thus they don't have revolutionary theory". Which is complete crap as a real analysis. Why not look into our other positions and the work we do as a party? Why not examine what real life implications our positions have instead of just a check sheet of what you think makes a party revolutionary enough or valid in your eyes? You disagree that we label the DPRK as socialist, what implication does that have in our work and role as a revolutionary party? It means the we will support the DPRK on their road of building socialism and defend them against imperialism. Is such a position so horrid as to justify saying that we lack revolutionary theory or that we aren't to be taken seriously? I would say that there are a whole lot of ways that WWP has advanced the struggle and the work we have done is not just petty activism.

9mm has a point here. If your analysis of North Korea says that it is SOCIALIST at this time, that is absurd -- it bespeaks fundamental theoretical disorientation. In the case of the WWP and PSL, it speaks to their Stalinophilia, which is really the raison d'etre of the organization. The Orthodox Trot position, is to defend the DPRK militarily, but with no political support -- a huge difference. It is one thing to say that there is something to defend there, it is another entirely to laud the nepocracy of the Kim's as "socialism." Marxism, that is not.

[Thirsty Crow]

Which brings me to my next question; does the WWP recognise the existence of a separate bureaucratic caste?
I'm sorry about the digression, but this has intrigued me for quite a while.

How do Orthodox Trots theoretically elaborate, and justify, what seems to be an ahistorical transposition of a term used to refer to Indian pre-capitalist society to a supposed workers' state? Any works on this? Or has it become a catch phrase without any theoretical content?

[Fred]

@Glitchcraft -- ICL aka Sparts thinks another Left group is wrong! With lots of evidence! Wow!

I think the one thing I can be grateful to the Sparts for is being the clearest caricatured example of Trotskyism as 'ressentiment'. It's been helpful to me curing myself of some of the hangovers of the more Luxemburgist Trotskyism I was a part of, where the grudges are just buried deeper.

As for the particulars, Obama's win was a victory. And Hezbollah is a total mixed bag -- part gangster, part revolutionary, part medical provider, part nationalist, part educator, part thug, part religious fundamentalist, part government deal maker... It is extremely heterogeneous.

Hmmm, your core disgust for the Sparts does ooze out now and again, doesn't it? But the SL doesn't exactly need to gild the lily with the WWP/PSL.

To the OP -- the ICL usually quotes from the press of the group in question that they are polemicizing against. And they are reasonably straightforward in their criticisms. Snarky? Yes, well maybe more than they ought to be given the state of their own organization, but usually on point.

Comrade Blake hates the group because they have the gall to consider themselves THE ones with a correct political program. When the ICL discovers a group that is reasonably like minded they seek to fuse with them. That has happened a fair number of times over the past 45 years. But yes, they don't seek to build an amorphous broad "left." And they don't enthuse over movements that support stuff that is antithetical to revolution.

And what do you mean, Obama's victory was a win? Surely not for the working class and oppressed.

[Rurkel]

How do Orthodox Trots theoretically elaborate, and justify, what seems to be an ahistorical transposition of a term used to refer to Indian pre-capitalist society to a supposed workers' state? Any works on this? Or has it become a catch phrase without any theoretical content?
I think it's just used as a synonym for "social strata".

And yeah, Obama's win might be a mildly positive sign/indicator, but it's certainly not a victory for the left, working class, etc. etc.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think it's just used as a synonym for "social strata".

Which would still require an approach to how social strata are constituted and the significance of this constitution.

Though, that is far from a justification of the use of the term itself.

[Fred]

Which would still require an approach to how social strata are constituted and the significance of this constitution.

Though, that is far from a justification of the use of the term itself.

It is a good question -- caste has a tertiary meaning of just being a social strata. But I would agree that in English, at least, it is not a very good word to describe the Stalinist bureaucracies (except maybe in North Korea, where it does seem at the highest level to be hereditary).

Just to drift further afield, the term caste, has been used to describe blacks in the US by a fine theorist, Richard Fraser. He actually fought against the developing position in the SWP US favoring black nationalism. Some of his works are available through Prometheus Library (ICL archival library). I think it works much better -- because it underscores the hereditary nature of race.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Maybe a bit off topic but there was mention in this thread of a group which split from the Sparts, joined WW and then split again. I have a document I downloaded somewhere, I forget, written by someone calling themselves "Communist Cadre"and was put out by "Workers and Oppressed Unite" in 1979.

It seems they wanted WW to return to what they regarded as orthodox Trotskyism, split and regarded Mao's China as Trotskyist. It seems they were Marcyite-Maoist-Trotskyist.
They have interesting polemics with James Cannon, Sam Marcy, Murray Weiss and others.I don't think I'd agree with their stuff but historically its fascinating.

Its on my other device but if anyone's interested PM me.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It is true that in the most common English usage, the term "caste" carries connotations of endogamy and ritual significance. But it is likewise true that the term "class" carries connotations of income stratification. Obviously this does not mean that the Marxist, scientific notion of class is wrong, although using the word "class" often leads to misunderstandings. Likewise with "state" and so on.

I don't think castes, in the orthodox Trotskyist sense, are the same as strata - in fact, most castes seem to be made up of several strata (which I understand as subgroups of a class defined by their functional role in the economy - the "foreman stratum" of the petite bourgeoisie for example). There is quite a difference between a high military officer and a functionary in the secretariat of the WPK. Nor are castes simply groups of strata - they are groups of strata that determine the character of the entire economy of an area. For example, the economy in the DPR Korea is characterised by the existence of the bureaucratic caste, the economy of the United States by the colour-caste composed of Black people, and so on.