Socialist Alternative Supports Bernie Sanders

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

http://www.socialistalternative.org/2014/04/16/bernie-sanders-for-president-in-2016-2/




The “House of Representatives”, dominated by right wing Republicans elected in gerrymandered districts, is totally unrepresentative of ordinary people. Meanwhile, the Democrats under Obama have paid lip service to helping those suffering from the effects of capitalism’s crisis. But in practice they bailed out Wall Street and have caved in to the right on issue after issue. Disillusionment with the dysfunctional political system has led a majority of the US population to identify itself as “independent”.

Last fall, nearly 100,000 people in Seattle voted for an openly socialist candidate, Kshama Sawant. In Lorraine County, Ohio, a slate of labor-backed candidates most of whom ran independently of the Democrats, was swept into office. Now, potentially viable left and socialist candidacies are being announced in other cities. And within the Democratic Party itself, there is the emergence of a populist wing including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and newly-elected New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

This massive political opening on the left is what makes the announcement by independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, in interviews for Time and The Nation that he is seriously considering running for president, so significant. Socialist Alternative welcomes the fact that Sanders is seeking a dialogue with progressive and left activists inside and outside the Democratic Party about whether he should run, and, if so, whether he should run in the Democratic primaries or as independent left candidate.


Well that degenerated quickly

[slum]

can't tell if i'm laughing or crying tbh

[Lily Briscoe]

I'm not really sure why anyone should be surprised.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Points:
1) At least he's not a Democrat (though he caucuses with them).
2) Given how much of the American "left" fell in line behind Obama, this isn't so bad in comparison.
3) His 8 1/2 hour "Enough is enough! [...] How many homes can you own?" speech is kinda impressive in a way.

Points Against:
1) D00d is a social democrat who voted for the war in Afghanistan.

Uh . . . actually, that one point is probably enough.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Points:
1) At least he's not a Democrat (though he caucuses with them).
2) Given how much of the American "left" fell in line behind Obama, this isn't so bad in comparison.
3) His 8 1/2 hour "Enough is enough! [...] How many homes can you own?" speech is kinda impressive in a way.

Points Against:
1) D00d is a social democrat who voted for the war in Afghanistan.

Uh . . . actually, that one point is probably enough.

To my memory although there was a lot of confusion on Obama very few groups endorsed him but simply had confused positions. We've learned the lessons from Obama and yet SAlt is wiling to repeat them for a much less popular candidate that is hardly any more relevant than Ralph Nader.

[Geiseric]

Points:
1) At least he's not a Democrat (though he caucuses with them).
2) Given how much of the American "left" fell in line behind Obama, this isn't so bad in comparison.
3) His 8 1/2 hour "Enough is enough! [...] How many homes can you own?" speech is kinda impressive in a way.

Points Against:
1) D00d is a social democrat who voted for the war in Afghanistan.

Uh . . . actually, that one point is probably enough.

Did not know that. Thanks for the heads up.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

To my memory although there was a lot of confusion on Obama very few groups endorsed him but simply had confused positions. We've learned the lessons from Obama and yet SAlt is wiling to repeat them for a much less popular candidate that is hardly any more relevant than Ralph Nader.

To be fair, when Vermont secedes to form some sort of People's Marijuana Republic of Vermont, Bernie Sanders will probably be elected President for Life.

Like, I think he has a real support base outside of NGO-employees and college students, which isn't really true of Nader, I don't think.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

To be fair, when Vermont succeeds to form some sort of People's Marijuana Republic of Vermont, Bernie Sanders will probably be elected President for Life.

Like, I think he has a real support base outside of NGO-employees and college students, which isn't really true of Nader, I don't think.

Hmmm, you are correct that he does have a very real support base within his state but I am not sure how well he is supported outside of it, I've never encountered a sanderite but at the same time I've only recently moved to an urban setting where left politics exist so perhaps I can't really speak that much on the matter. But I think the general point, that they are selling themselves out more than others have for Obama, for a much less popular candidate, is true in this case.

[blake 3:17]

I'd vote Sanders in a heart beat. There's a friends of Bernie Sanders page here: http://www.bernie.org/

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I'd vote Sanders in a heart beat. There's a friends of Bernie Sanders page here: http://www.bernie.org/

Care to tell why?

[Prometeo liberado]

I don't know which is more laughable, Socialist Alternative supporting Bernie or the PSL supporting Roseanne Barr last go around.

[Skyhilist]

Bernie Sanders supports apartheid and therefore racism in Palestine and Occupied Palestine (Israel).

In a letter he said:

"I wholeheartedly support the new Obama administration is its commitment to expand our diplomatic presence in the region and to take a more active role in facilitating negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership."

So in other words, he supports Obama in doing absolutely nothing about apartheid in Israel.

Furthermore, he suggests that "Recently, this decades-old conflict spilled over once more as Israel launched a major military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip in order to counter Palestinian rocket fire into its cities and, more broadly, to significantly weaken Hamas rule in Gaza."

Bullshit. Israel's militarism had never been about self-defense, and only creates more hostility. In fact Hamas' actions are only a result of Israel's aggression and subordination of Palestinians.

Finally, he says

"A two-state solution must include compromises from both sides to achieve a fair and lasting peace in the region. The Palestinians must fulfill their responsibilities to arrest terrorists, confiscate terrorists’ weapons, dismantle terrorist organizations, halt all anti-Jewish and anti-Israel incitement, and recognize Israel’s right to exist."

Fuck that shit. How about arresting all the terrorists in the IDF. And really, halt all "anti-Israel incitement"? Yeah, those people who are treated as second class citizens and have their homes, livelihoods, and families destroyed for being Palestinian should just stop fighting and stand by while the capitalist governments pretend to be "working something out" as more villages are destroyed and more illegal settlements are built? Fucking ridiculous.

Bernie Sanders' positions on this issue (and likely quite a few others dealing with similar conflicts) perpetuates the racism of the Israeli apartheid state. Supporting Bernie Sanders is therefore supporting apartheid. So yeah, way to prop up ethnic discrimination there SALT. Fucking morons.

[consuming negativity]

Fuck it, at this point I'll happily take an actual social democrat over the usual alternatives. He wouldn't even have to do anything. He could literally just get into office and promise not to sign any bills or make any executive orders and be the best president of my lifetime.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Fuck it, at this point I'll happily take an actual social democrat over the usual alternatives. He wouldn't even have to do anything. He could literally just get into office and promise not to sign any bills or make any executive orders and be the best president of my lifetime.

to be honest I hope he wins and SAlt becomes influential so we can finally have social democracy, although that does not imply that I support them politically or as a strategy to achieve communism.

[KurtFF8]

I don't know which is more laughable, Socialist Alternative supporting Bernie or the PSL supporting Roseanne Barr last go around.

Hmm I can't find the PSL article where the PSL gave up its presidential campaign and just endorsed Barr.

[VivalaCuarta]

This is consistent with SAlt/CWI's mission to build new obstacles in the way of workers revolution. Ever since Nader's star faded, they have been looking for another "independent" bourgeois nationalist demagogue to chase after.

[Prometeo liberado]

Hmm I can't find the PSL article where the PSL gave up its presidential campaign and just endorsed Barr.

It happened in Los Angeles at the Peace and Freedom central committee meeting. Because of her age she had to quit in Cali. Her and Becker (who was on the committee) voted to back Roseanne over professed Socialist's that were also running, Stephen Durham, nominee of the Freedom Socialist Party and 
Stewart Alexander, nominee of the Socialist Party USA . Further they vowed to give full support in the state for her. I abstained then quit.

p.s. I doubt that the LaRiva/Becker Party really wants to put that shit on their website.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

to be honest I hope he wins and SAlt becomes influential so we can finally have social democracy, although that does not imply that I support them politically or as a strategy to achieve communism.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. I would love it if social democracy became an actual phenomenon in the States, if only so the American populace would no longer run in terror when they hear the word 'socialism'.

[VivalaCuarta]

Social democracy is not an economic system or an arrangement of forces between classes. It is a policy of representatives of the working class who seek to administer the bourgeois state, i.e. seek to defend bourgeois property, whatever that entails.

For a brief period, in order to stave off the threat of Bolshevism, that entailed some improvements in living conditions for the masses.

That period is over. YABM and Brandon are suffering from reformist illusions.

[Red Sun]

As far as I can tell, this article doesn't actually endorse a Sanders run for president. What it is saying is that if Sanders runs as an independent, it might make left wing politics more viable and widely discussed in the U.S., which would be a good thing. The article also does mention a number of the problems with Sanders, so I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that he's some kind of socialist messiah.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As far as I can tell, this article doesn't actually endorse a Sanders run for president. What it is saying is that if Sanders runs as an independent, it might make left wing politics more viable and widely discussed in the U.S., which would be a good thing.

Which is pretty much how American opportunists justify their support for bourgeois and reformist figures. The thing is, building class consciousness takes more than achieving this sort of marketing "victory", and consciousness is drastically undermined by groups that sow illusions in the ability of bourgeois figures to create a nicer, cleaner, eco-friendlier, more sensitive and enlightened capitalism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

That period is over. YABM and Brandon are suffering from reformist illusions.

There's a qualitative difference between what is within our material interests as members of the working class, and what merits political support as a means of advancing revolutionary communism. No one is saying that SAlt deserves political support, however considering the poor state of the social services, infrastructure and health care in the US it's mere posturing to say that I would like not to have these things for shear revolutionary credentials. Because yea, free healthcare is nice and I want it, but it isn't communism

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Social democracy is not an economic system or an arrangement of forces between classes. It is a policy of representatives of the working class who seek to administer the bourgeois state, i.e. seek to defend bourgeois property, whatever that entails.

For a brief period, in order to stave off the threat of Bolshevism, that entailed some improvements in living conditions for the masses.

That period is over. YABM and Brandon are suffering from reformist illusions.

I might grant you that the period of social democracy improving the standards of workers, but what reason do we have to believe that small Trot sects who have been trying to jumpstart the 4th international for however many decades (by writing polemics against one another and against the stalinists) are about to have their period? I can sympathize with the CWI's desire to find a strategy out of irrelevance and political purgatory though I do disagree with the tactic of jumping behind Bernie Sanders.

[Alexios]

look at this thread

[Red Sun]

The thing is, building class consciousness takes more than achieving this sort of marketing "victory", and consciousness is drastically undermined by groups that sow illusions in the ability of bourgeois figures to create a nicer, cleaner, eco-friendlier, more sensitive and enlightened capitalism.

I agree, but I think that one can critically support reforms that will make the lives of workers better while at the same time pointing out that these reforms will not ultimately solve the problems workers face. At most, Bernie Sanders would be a springboard for arguing why people like Bernie Sanders are not enough.

[VivalaCuarta]

Electing a bourgeois politician is not a reform.

We have enough "people like Bernie Sanders." We have enough bourgeois politicians. We have too many of them, and too many fake socialists who support them. Enough already.

Ralph Nader, Ukrainian NATO/Nazis, British anti-immigrant chauvinists, Irish Ulster Orange terrorists, Boris Yeltsin: the problem is not that they are "not enough" ... of anything. They are enemies of the working class. CWI tries to drum up working class support for them. Enough of that!

[Loony Le Fist]

Elections and reforms will not change anything because the ruling elite no longer fear the people. Trotsky was right about permanent revolution. We must withdraw support for the corporate state (easier said than done) and form our own support systems. There must be sit-down strikes. Only through non-violent insurrection can we ever defeat the collusion of the elite and the state to finally bring revolution. The corporate state's weakness is in its need for compliance from working people. If they withdraw their support, the state ceases to have power (of course, easier said than done).

While I don't reject the idea of voting in politicians like Sanders who can provide relief to the working class, we should be under no illusions they have any obligation to the people. Actual revolution, or at least the credible threat, are the only means through which we can exert pressure on elites to enact lasting reforms. Nonetheless, we must always be looking forward towards a true workers state. The transformation cannot simply stop when reforms are passed. The pressure must never let up. Permanent Revolution.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Elections and reforms will not change anything because the ruling elite no longer fear the people. Trotsky was right about permanent revolution. We must withdraw support for the corporate state (easier said than done) and form our own support systems. There must be sit-down strikes. Only through non-violent insurrection can we ever defeat the collusion of the elite and the state to finally bring revolution. The corporate state's weakness is in its need for compliance from working people. If they withdraw their support, the state ceases to have power (of course, easier said than done).

While I don't reject the idea of voting in politicians like Sanders who can provide relief to the working class, we should be under no illusions they have any obligation to the people. Actual revolution, or at least the credible threat, are the only means through which we can exert pressure on elites to enact lasting reforms. Nonetheless, we must always be looking forward towards a true workers state. The transformation cannot simply stop when reforms are passed. The pressure must never let up. Permanent Revolution.

Trotsky used the term "permanent revolution" to denote the thesis that in regions of delayed capitalist development, the local bourgeoisie is too weak and dependent on imperialism to carry out a democratic revolution, and that the petite bourgeoisie lacks the economic independence to form a true class party that would be able to act as an independent political force - therefore, the tasks of the democratic revolution can only be carried out by the proletariat. This is a rejection of the stagist conception that neo-colonies and similar regions need a democratic revolution and after that a socialist one.

And he certainly never advocated peaceful revolution - in fact he dedicated a few major works to the question of revolutionary violence.

Finally, what is the corporate state, what is the elite? These are not class terms. Socialists don't just fight Northrop-Grumman, they fight Ma and Pa stores and all kinds of capital as well.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Only through non-violent insurrection can we ever defeat the collusion of the elite and the state to finally bring revolution. The corporate state's weakness is in its need for compliance from working people. If they withdraw their support, the state ceases to have power (of course, easier said than done).

Seems ridiculous to try to take on the state with its military complex through non-violent means. How are you going to control it anyway? Peace police delegates at every peaceful sit down?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Seems ridiculous to try to take on the state with its military complex through non-violent means. How are you going to control it anyway? Peace police delegates at every peaceful sit down?

Chris Hedges, cloned a quintillion times and equipped with state-of-the-art black bloc detection kit.

[KurtFF8]

It happened in Los Angeles at the Peace and Freedom central committee meeting. Because of her age she had to quit in Cali. Her and Becker (who was on the committee) voted to back Roseanne over professed Socialist's that were also running, Stephen Durham, nominee of the Freedom Socialist Party and 
Stewart Alexander, nominee of the Socialist Party USA . Further they vowed to give full support in the state for her. I abstained then quit.

p.s. I doubt that the LaRiva/Becker Party really wants to put that shit on their website.

So what you are actually referring to is (essentially internal) political drama within the Peace and Freedom Party primary rather than the PSL actually endorsing Barr for president. Because the PSL continued its presidential campaign after the events you're referring to even in California.

[Loony Le Fist]

Trotsky used the term "permanent revolution" to denote the thesis that in regions of delayed capitalist development, the local bourgeoisie is too weak and dependent on imperialism to carry out a democratic revolution, and that the petite bourgeoisie lacks the economic independence to form a true class party that would be able to act as an independent political force - therefore, the tasks of the democratic revolution can only be carried out by the proletariat. This is a rejection of the stagist conception that neo-colonies and similar regions need a democratic revolution and after that a socialist one.


Thank you for the background. I probably meant it more how Marx meant it. Though I always tend to associate the term, permanent revolution, more with Trotsky for some reason.



Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution)
Marx used it to describe the strategy of a revolutionary class to continue to pursue its class interests independently and without compromise, despite overtures for political alliances, and despite the political dominance of opposing sections of society.




And he certainly never advocated peaceful revolution - in fact he dedicated a few major works to the question of revolutionary violence.


Right. I don't advocate a violent revolution. There are more efficient and less bloody ways of achieving our goals. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to self-defense, however.



Finally, what is the corporate state, what is the elite? These are not class terms. Socialists don't just fight Northrop-Grumman, they fight Ma and Pa stores and all kinds of capital as well.

Northrop-Grumman has a lot more capital than Ma and Pa. They are more a threat to me. I would argue it's a lot easier to convince Ma and Pa to fight for the cause of worker ownership. Trying to get Northrop-Grumman involved in revolutionary activity probably wouldn't go so well.

So when I say corporate state, I mean the current oligarchy government in the US. When I say elites, I mean those with money and power who influence the politics.

Does that clear things up?

[synthesis]

Northrop-Grumman has a lot more capital than Ma and Pa. They are more a threat to me. I would argue it's a lot easier to convince Ma and Pa to fight for the cause of worker ownership. Trying to get Northrop-Grumman involved in revolutionary activity probably wouldn't go so well.

It's a lot harder to organize Ma and Pa's wage laborers, though, and Ma and Pa know that. The petit-bourgeois can come along as individuals, of course, but as a class their role is wholly reactionary, perhaps even more so than the haute bourgeoisie.

More generally, I think you're buying too much into conciliatory social-democratic rhetoric, that the problem is these capitalists and these politicians rather than the entire institution of class society.

[sixdollarchampagne]

When Bernie first ran for the US Senate, he had the endorsement of multiple powerful Democratic Party politicians, as Wikipedia relates:

"Sanders entered the race on April 21, 2005. New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, endorsed Sanders … Sanders was also endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and Democratic National Committee Chairman and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. Dean said in May 2005 that he considered Sanders an ally who 'votes with the Democrats 98% of the time'… Then-Senator Barack Obama also campaigned for Sanders in Vermont. Sanders entered into an agreement with the Democratic Party, much as he had as a congressman, to be listed in their primary but to decline the nomination should he win, which he did."

That's how close the "Independent" politician Sanders is to the Dems; he's the kind of "Independent" that US Senate Democrats can live with.

If Sanders runs for President, it will be a dream come true for the US Communist Party, since he is an ally of the Democrats in the Upper Chamber of the US Congress, while claiming to be "independent," just like the CPUSA.

It would be fascinating to know if the (non) "Independent" Sanders ever voted against the US Department of Defense appropriations bill in the Senate or the House. I would bet a month's income that he never has, so Bernie is certainly not "independent" of imperialism and militarism, but one of their supporters. In cheerleading for Bernie, "Socialist Alternative" should really be embarrassed at their own opportunism.

That "Socialist Alternative" is acting as a shill for Bernie is an utterly undeniable sign of their degeneration, as is the astonishing formula that they use, "progressive and left activists inside and outside the Democratic Party" – in other words, the "left" includes (at least) a sliver of the pro-war, utterly bourgeois, imperialist Democratic Party heavyweights. Freaking astonishing!

[Prof. Oblivion]

Why does it matter what ~20-30 people support or don't support?

[Sea]

I remember reading her wiki article when this was still news (ahem) and it said something to the effect of:


Kshama Sawant is a [...] Trotskyist

I just nodded my head a little like, yeah, at least wikipedia get some things correct.

[Prometeo liberado]

So what you are actually referring to is (essentially internal) political drama within the Peace and Freedom Party primary rather than the PSL actually endorsing Barr for president. Because the PSL continued its presidential campaign after the events you're referring to even in California.

What you're doing is trying to show just one side of the coin here. Fact is is that Becker, as a member of the Central Committee, pledged his "full support" within Cali. He went on to say as the PSL would probably not push for it's members to "write-in" Peta's name that the PSL would offer to support Roseanne. The extent of support only turned out to be getting people to register. This is classic Becker/Lariva/PSL, always hedging their bets. As a/the leader of the PSL why would he not abstain? Answer, because everyone at that meeting thought that Barr was going to pump MUCH money into the race and everyone was abandoning any sense of ideology and principles to be part of it. When it became very apparent that campaigning was something very real and expensive she all but gave up. Even poor old Stewart Anderson resigned in disgust.

[VivalaCuarta]

On the PSL imbroglio in the PFP: blocking with Roseanne Barr to deny the FSP or SP candidates the PFP nomination wasn't worse than any other possible maneuver in that middle class populist party. Roseanne was just as much a socialist and a revolutionary as the other contenders from the PSL, FSP and SP were. That is to say, not a socialist at all.

[Prometeo liberado]

On the PSL imbroglio in the PFP: blocking with Roseanne Barr to deny the FSP or SP candidates the PFP nomination wasn't worse than any other possible maneuver in that middle class populist party. Roseanne was just as much a socialist and a revolutionary as the other contenders from the PSL, FSP and SP were. That is to say, not a socialist at all.

If the entire membership of the PSL were in that room to see and hear what was said by Peta and done by Becker that party would cease to exist.

[FSL]

As far as I can tell, this article doesn't actually endorse a Sanders run for president. What it is saying is that if Sanders runs as an independent, it might make left wing politics more viable and widely discussed in the U.S., which would be a good thing. The article also does mention a number of the problems with Sanders, so I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that he's some kind of socialist messiah.

"so I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that he's some kind of socialist messiah"
"it might make left wing politics more viable and widely discussed in the U.S., which would be a good thing"

If people wanted to support him because they thought he was a socialist messiah they'd be wrong but at least their heart would be in the right place.
Anyone who wants to support him because "left-wing politics might become more viable this way" is just as wrong and his heart is wherever his reasoning skills are.




Sadly, I have to agree with you. I would love it if social democracy became an actual phenomenon in the States, if only so the American populace would no longer run in terror when they hear the word 'socialism'.

Social democracy is an actual phenomenon in France and people seem to want to hear more about Lepen as a result. Social democracy is and has been a phenomenon in a myriad of places so there is no reason to assume what might happen. Just read up.

[B5C]

Sorry, but SALT isn't endorsing Bernie Sanders for a President 2016 run. SALT is basically telling him to run independent is better than running as an Democrat. In 2016, it would be easier for him to join as an Democrat because he can get funding and get onto the debates. Since the media only covers the presidential & primary debates of the two parties.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sorry, but SALT isn't endorsing Bernie Sanders for a President 2016 run. SALT is basically telling him to run independent is better than running as an Democrat. In 2016, it would be easier for him to join as an Democrat because he can get funding and get onto the debates. Since the media only covers the presidential & primary debates of the two parties.

Why is SAlt telling Sanders anything?

[VivalaCuarta]

The less it becomes possible to mobilize the workers’ votes for one or the other of these two old bourgeois parties, the more impelling and powerful will become the urge of the workers to found a party of their own or to seek a substitute for it. That mood of the workers will create a condition wherein American capitalism will objectively require a pseudo-radical party to divert the workers from a party of their own. This development, in my opinion, will most likely precede the development of a mass fascist party. America will most likely see a new radical bourgeois reform party before the development of American fascism on a mass scale.


That is what really happened in the Thirties, in a peculiarly distorted form. Roosevelt revamped the Democratic Party to serve the role of a pseudo-radical, “almost” workers party. By that he choked off entirely, for the period, the development toward an independent labor party. The Roosevelt “New Deal” became a sort of American substitute for the social program of the old, social democracy. Is a repetition of that performance likely within the framework of the Democratic Party? I doubt that very much. I think there can be only one Roosevelt episode. The whole trend since his death has been in the other direction.


Next time, the role played by Roosevelt—which was a role of salvation for American capitalism—will most likely require a new party. In the essence of the matter that is what Wallace’s party is. Wallace is the, as yet, unacknowledged, candidate for the role of diverting the workers’ movement for independent political action into the channel of bourgeois politics dressed up with radical demagogy which costs nothing. That is what we have to say, and that’s what we have to fight—vigorously and openly, and with no qualifications at all. We have to be 100% anti-Wallaceites. We have to stir up the workers against this imposter, and explain to them that they will never get a party of their own by accepting substitutes.


The slogan: “Build An Independent Labor Party!” is a slogan for the class mobilization of the workers. In some incomprehensible way this seems to have been transformed in the minds of some comrades as a mere demand to break the two-party system of the capitalists. This is not the same thing at all. It means merely a bourgeois party shake-up and not a class alignment.


Now, a break-up of the two party parliamentary system in America is undoubtedly a good thing. It destroys the fetish of the trade union bureaucracy to the effect that it is impossible to operate on the political field outside the traditional pattern. Splits in the two old bourgeois parties are bound to shake up the labor bureaucracy, loosen things up and create a more favorable situation for agitation for the formation of a labor party. But this break-up of the two-party system and splits in the bourgeois parties come about under the pressure of social crisis. These are not our tasks. Bourgeois parties are not the arena for our operation. Our specific task is the class mobilization of the workers against not only the two old parties, but any other capitalist parties which might appear.


--James P. Cannon, founder of Trotskyism in the U.S., in 1948

[Loony Le Fist]

It's a lot harder to organize Ma and Pa's wage laborers, though, and Ma and Pa know that. The petit-bourgeois can come along as individuals, of course, but as a class their role is wholly reactionary, perhaps even more so than the haute bourgeoisie.


How so? They don't have as much invested in the system as more powerful elites do. Perhaps they are reactionary now, but opinions are fluid. We need to cast a wide a net as possible and appeal to as many people as possible. That doesn't mean we need to change what we stand for. We need to change the messaging. Make it appeal to as many people as possible. We have enough enemies already--we need more allies.

I am a member of the PB. And I saw the light. Right now, I'm not doing so well financially, considering that minimum wage laws don't really apply. Personally I think I can use my experience to change the minds of others too.



More generally, I think you're buying too much into conciliatory social-democratic rhetoric, that the problem is these capitalists and these politicians rather than the entire institution of class society.



While I don't reject the idea of voting in politicians like Sanders who can provide relief to the working class, we should be under no illusions they have any obligation to the people. Actual revolution, or at least the credible threat, are the only means through which we can exert pressure on elites to enact lasting reforms. Nonetheless, we must always be looking forward towards a true workers state. The transformation cannot simply stop when reforms are passed. The pressure must never let up. Permanent Revolution.


On the contrary, I agree that the entire institution of capitalism and the overall political system is flawed. But I also acknowledge that the system must be dismantled in stages. You have to have a movement before we can even think about worker emancipation. We have to withdraw from the capitalist system, and expect reprisals from the enemy. Self-defense will be a necessary element of this.

Revolution is necessary. But it is not inevitable. It must be made to happen.

I don't think picking up guns and fighting our enemy directly where they are strongest is a good idea. I think a better idea is cutting them off. The way I imagine revolution is not with direct attacks on the enemy. Rather, I see it as people cutting the state and capitalist systems off. Forming independent communes and worker cooperatives. Withdrawing from the state and forming our own systems, and expecting them to come after us for depriving them of fuel for the engine of capitalism. Action. Not voting. It can be done in stages. It can start right now.

[synthesis]

How so? They don't have as much invested in the system as more powerful elites do. Perhaps they are reactionary now, but opinions are fluid. We need to cast a wide a net as possible and appeal to as many people as possible. That doesn't mean we need to change what we stand for. We need to change the messaging. Make it appeal to as many people as possible. We have enough enemies already--we need more allies.

This is exactly what we don't need to do. Focusing on how to "market" socialism is a dead end road at best. Particularly, trying to "market" it to "people," rather than the working class, is a pretty good indicator that a petit-bourgeois agenda is being followed.


I am a member of the PB. And I saw the light. Right now, I'm not doing so well financially, considering that minimum wage laws don't really apply. Personally I think I can use my experience to change the minds of others too.

First off, the petite-bourgeoisie in many parts of the world can be worse off than their respective working class, particularly with the rural-urban divide in developing countries. But, again, Marxism has nothing to do with "seeing the light," "changing the minds of others," or "appealing to as many people as possible." On a macrosocial scale, it is about material interests, and the petite-bourgeoisie has very different interests from the working class.


On the contrary, I agree that the entire institution of capitalism and the overall political system is flawed. But I also acknowledge that the system must be dismantled in stages. You have to have a movement before we can even think about worker emancipation. We have to withdraw from the capitalist system, and expect reprisals from the enemy. Self-defense will be a necessary element of this.

What does this mean, "withdrawing from the capitalist system"?


I don't think picking up guns and fighting our enemy directly where they are strongest is a good idea. I think a better idea is cutting them off. The way I imagine revolution is not with direct attacks on the enemy. Rather, I see it as people cutting the state and capitalist systems off. Forming independent communes and worker cooperatives. Withdrawing from the state and forming our own systems, and expecting them to come after us for depriving them of fuel for the engine of capitalism. Action. Not voting. It can be done in stages. It can start right now.

Marxist revolution is the smashing of the state and the construction of a proletarian replacement, not "cutting off capitalist systems" or "withdrawing from the state" - again, I have no idea what that even means. "Forming independent communes and worker cooperatives" - this can be done, has been done, and is being done in the capitalist mode of production, and does nothing to challenge it.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the way you have conflated the working class with "the people" in your quote is extremely problematic, to say the least. The petite-bourgeoisie is a class enemy of the proletariat; individuals can be allies, sure, but to say that their interests are the same is a complete perversion of Marxist theory.

[synthesis]

Man, what is it about SAlt threads that brings out all the apologists for the petite-bourgeoisie? (Rhetorical question.)

[Loony Le Fist]

This is exactly what we don't need to do. Focusing on how to "market" socialism is a dead end road at best. Particularly, trying to "market" it to "people," rather than the working class, is a pretty good indicator that a petit-bourgeois agenda is being followed.


I suppose the solution is to keep it trapped in the ivory tower then. Now that's a dead end road.



First off, the petite-bourgeoisie in many parts of the world can be worse off than their respective working class, particularly with the rural-urban divide in developing countries. But, again, Marxism has nothing to do with "seeing the light," "changing the minds of others," or "appealing to as many people as possible." On a macrosocial scale, it is about material interests, and the petite-bourgeoisie has very different interests from the working class.


Who was talking about Marxism? I'm talking about worker ownership and workplace democracy. We can't even begin to talk about economic theories until we have an actual movement.



What does this mean, "withdrawing from the capitalist system"?


I explained this later, as you will acknowledge, and then attempt to criticize.



Marxist revolution is the smashing of the state and the construction of a proletarian replacement, not "cutting off capitalist systems" or "withdrawing from the state" - again, I have no idea what that even means.


Fascinating you say that, because then right after you suddenly say...



"Forming independent communes and worker cooperatives" - this can be done, has been done, and is being done in the capitalist mode of production, and does nothing to challenge it.


...Which is precisely what I meant by "withdrawing from the state". It has done nothing to challenge it, because it has not happened on a wide enough scale. It needs to happen at a broader scale. If there is no response to repress from the bourgeois, that means it didn't go far enough.

Perhaps this comes down to ideological differences. I am anti-statist as well as a leftist.



Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the way you have conflated the working class with "the people" in your quote is extremely problematic, to say the least.


Sorry that is so problematic for you. It seems that in your view, leftist ideas aren't supposed to appeal to anyone but people that earn wages. That leaves out homeless people, and those like Engles who were independently wealthy. My mistake for thinking leftist ideas should appeal to as many people as possible, and not just to a particular class. :rolleyes:



The petite-bourgeoisie is a class enemy of the proletariat; individuals can be allies, sure, but to say that their interests are the same is a complete perversion of Marxist theory.


Wow. Sorry to have perverted the theory of the all-mighty Marx! I must go now on a pilgrimage to Moscow, go to Teatralnaya Square, bow to the statue of Karl Marx, seek penance, and, with tears streaming down my face, ask for forgiveness. Give me a break, dude! :laugh:

I am all ears to hearing how superior your ideas for advancing the left's cause are. :rolleyes:

[Tim Cornelis]

I suppose the solution is to keep it trapped in the ivory tower then. Now that's a dead end road.

No one's arguing that.


Who was talking about Marxism? I'm talking about worker ownership and workplace democracy. We can't even begin to talk about economic theories until we have an actual movement.

Then you need a paradigm shift toward the realisation that a post-capitalist society is a multi-faceted social transformation of all social institutions, not just a change in management. We can't build a movement and then argue whether we should have social-democracy, market socialism, or communism. Our aims should be clear and apparent prior.



...Which is precisely what I meant by "withdrawing from the state". It has done nothing to challenge it, because it has not happened on a wide enough scale. It needs to happen at a broader scale. If there is no response to repress from the bourgeois, that means it didn't go far enough.

It doesn't go far enough unless it's a social revolution, in which case forming communes and cooperatives is a moot point.



Sorry that is so problematic for you. It seems that in your view, leftist ideas aren't supposed to appeal to anyone but people that earn wages. That leaves out homeless people, and those like Engles who were independently wealthy. My mistake for thinking leftist ideas should appeal to as many people as possible, and not just to a particular class. :rolleyes:

Communism is a proletarian class movement. (Petite-)bourgeois individuals may join as individuals.


Wow. Sorry to have perverted the theory of the all-mighty Marx! I must go now on a pilgrimage to Moscow, go to Teatralnaya Square, bow to the statue of Karl Marx, seek penance, and, with tears streaming down my face, ask for forgiveness. Give me a break, dude! :laugh:

Marxism, as you showcase, is necessary to understand clearly the task of revolutionism.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Sorry that is so problematic for you. It seems that in your view, leftist ideas aren't supposed to appeal to anyone but people that earn wages. That leaves out homeless people, and those like Engles who were independently wealthy. My mistake for thinking leftist ideas should appeal to as many people as possible, and not just to a particular class. :rolleyes:

And here I was thinking communism was about ending class society.



Wow. Sorry to have perverted the theory of the all-mighty Marx! I must go now on a pilgrimage to Moscow, go to Teatralnaya Square, bow to the statue of Karl Marx, seek penance, and, with tears streaming down my face, ask for forgiveness. Give me a break, dude! :laugh:

Instead of reacting like a child to a certain formulation, you could try to defend your view. How do you see the petite-bourgeoisie on the same side of the proletariat except in some abstract way against "corporations" or "the state"?

[synthesis]

I suppose the solution is to keep it trapped in the ivory tower then. Now that's a dead end road.


Sorry that is so problematic for you. It seems that in your view, leftist ideas aren't supposed to appeal to anyone but people that earn wages.

I guess you missed the memo about historical materialism. Communism is not about "leftist ideas" but about material and class interests.


Who was talking about Marxism? I'm talking about worker ownership and workplace democracy. We can't even begin to talk about economic theories until we have an actual movement.

"Worker ownership" and "workplace democracy" are meaningless catchphrases of the bourgeois pseudo-socialist.


That leaves out homeless people, and those like Engles who were independently wealthy. My mistake for thinking leftist ideas should appeal to as many people as possible, and not just to a particular class. :rolleyes:

The "homeless" (which is kind of a first-world construct) are either lumpenproletarian or precarian, and either way this doesn't violate the schema provided to you.

And yes, it is your mistake to conflate class analysis with "leftist ideas." The idea that communists should try to attract "the independently wealthy"... I don't even know what to say about that.


...Which is precisely what I meant by "withdrawing from the state". It has done nothing to challenge it, because it has not happened on a wide enough scale. It needs to happen at a broader scale. If there is no response to repress from the bourgeois, that means it didn't go far enough.

It will never happen on a wide enough scale, because there is no class basis to it. Your argument here is the height of petit-bourgeois tactical diversion.


Perhaps this comes down to ideological differences. I am anti-statist as well as a leftist.

This means absolutely nothing - it is almost hilariously devoid of meaning.


I am all ears to hearing how superior your ideas for advancing the left's cause are. :rolleyes:

Communism has nothing to do with "advancing the left's cause." Its only concern is furthering the interests of the international working class.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Why is SAlt telling Sanders anything?
They're not, I very much doubt Sanders has even glimpsed at the Socialist Alternative website. The article, badly written though it is, seems to basically be arguing that Sanders running independently of the Democrat machine would be indicative of not only discontent with the two party system but also show some of the potential for left-wing working class representatives to run themselves. Sanders is a figure nominally on the 'left' of politics in the US so it's a positive sign that he perhaps feels confident enough to stand independently as it could pave the way for Socialist Alternative candidates to stand more broadly in the future.

[Loony Le Fist]

And here I was thinking communism was about ending class society.


And how, pray tell, do you end classless society without framing your ideas in a more relevant way so that they get through to people? That is the whole point.



Instead of reacting like a child to a certain formulation, you could try to defend your view. How do you see the petite-bourgeoisie on the same side of the proletariat except in some abstract way against "corporations" or "the state"?

I responded to zealotry with precisely how it should be responded to. With mockery. What would be the point of rebutting Marxist jingoism? Marx was a great thinker, but no one is a prophet.

[Loony Le Fist]

No one's arguing that.


I certainly hope not.



Then you need a paradigm shift toward the realisation that a post-capitalist society is a multi-faceted social transformation of all social institutions, not just a change in management. We can't build a movement and then argue whether we should have social-democracy, market socialism, or communism. Our aims should be clear and apparent prior.




It doesn't go far enough unless it's a social revolution, in which case forming communes and cooperatives is a moot point.




Communism is a proletarian class movement. (Petite-)bourgeois individuals may join as individuals.


Completely agree on all counts.



Marxism, as you showcase, is necessary to understand clearly the task of revolutionism.

How can you be so sure? Because Marx said so?

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

As usual, the people on Revleft are blowing this way out of proportion. :rolleyes:

A few sentences about how it would be positive if there was a shift to the left and people broke away from the two party system seem to be enough to set off a bout of left wing namecalling. It's simply mindboggling to me how one can even interpret the statement made by SAlt as an endorsement of this Sanders guy in any way or form, it clearly isn't. :confused:

At this point it just feels like people are looking for excuses to call other organisations social democrats, beorgeois, or whatever the hell they feel like. Usually while they're calling for left unity...

Also, why do people on here seem to think "Social democracy" describes what SAlt is striving for? Is it their methods, their pamphlets, their statements, what's written on their website? Would you rather they set up little city guerilla groups all over the US or call for armed resistance to the state? Would that make them good communists? Please enlighten me as to how a party is supposed to behave.

[VivalaCuarta]

Dear Metal Head.

Here are a few of the few sentences I read in SAlt's article:


As a first step, we would urge Bernie to organize a genuinely representative national conference of progressive, community, and labor organizations to discuss the way forward in late 2014 or early 2015. This conference could become the focus to galvanize all those who want to build a new authentic working-class politics in America. Such momentum would, we hope, persuade Bernie Sanders to take the historic step of running as an independent left candidate for the presidency in 2016.

These particular sentences happen to be the article's conclusion!

So when Giant Monkey Man says SAlt is not telling Sanders to do anything, he is only correct in the sense that the article reads more like begging than telling, at least to my eye.

Again: SAlt is calling on the "independent" Democrat senator Sanders to call a conference to rope labor into an "independent left" campaign.

Independent of what? Not of the bourgeoisie. What SAlt wants is for Sanders to help it to create another trap, another obstacle for the workers.

[Zukunftsmusik]

And how, pray tell, do you end classless society without making your framing your ideas in a more relevant way so that they get through to people? That is the whole point.

To you, perhaps it is. Personally, I don't really see this as a problem of reaching out to enough people or reformulate or thoughts in a more relevant way. Your original statement was specifically leaving out class. You end up with some magic formula where propaganda -> ???? -> FULL COMMUNISM.


I responded to zealotry with precisely how it should be responded to. With mockery. What would be the point of rebutting Marxist jingoism? Marx was a great thinker, but no one is a prophet.

Wet juvenile dreams about street fights or whatever are bad, sure. You weren't just mocking zealotry, though. You were specifically laying down non-violence as a principle, which is a pipedream because 1) how will you stand up against a state whose surveillance and control over the population just continues to grow and 2) it ignores what violence really is, how it occurs and in what relation it stands to class society and class struggle. You can't just wish violence away.

[Loony Le Fist]

I guess you missed the memo about historical materialism. Communism is not about "leftist ideas" but about material and class interests.


To me leftist ideas are precisely about material and class interests.



"Worker ownership" and "workplace democracy" are meaningless catchphrases of the bourgeois pseudo-socialist.


So now worker ownership of the means of production (which I shortened to worker ownership) and workplace democracy are now meaningless catchphrases of the bourgeois? I thought workers revolting and taking control of their workplaces was the very heart of what many here are trying to accomplish. Seriously? :ohmy:



The "homeless" (which is kind of a first-world construct) are either lumpenproletarian or precarian, and either way this doesn't violate the schema provided to you.


Ok.



And yes, it is your mistake to conflate class analysis with "leftist ideas." The idea that communists should try to attract "the independently wealthy"... I don't even know what to say about that.


Again, I pose the question: was Engles not himself independently wealthy?



It will never happen on a wide enough scale, because there is no class basis to it. Your argument here is the height of petit-bourgeois tactical diversion.


Detaching from systems of power and hierarchy automatically have a class basis to them. What is the diversion here? It is a simple fact that the capitalist system is an engine that runs on money. Deprive that system of money through separation and detachment and it comes down. It's not the only means I support, but it is what I find to be the most effective solution.



This means absolutely nothing - it is almost hilariously devoid of meaning.


Ok.

Anti-statist - Means I don't think there should be a centralized state or any unjustified hierarchical power structures.
Leftist - Means I want to abolish capitalism, private property, and empower workers.

How's that?



Communism has nothing to do with "advancing the left's cause." Its only concern is furthering the interests of the international working class.

Well I say that the left's cause is furthering the interests of the international working class. Ergo advancing the left's cause is equivalent to furthering the interests of the international working class.

[Loony Le Fist]

To you, perhaps it is. Personally, I don't really see this as a problem of reaching out to enough people or reformulate or thoughts in a more relevant way. Your original statement was specifically leaving out class. You end up with some magic formula where propaganda -> ???? -> FULL COMMUNISM.


Incorrect. I said that it will require a complete withdraw from systems of power. The formation of independent systems of sustenance outside of the capitalist system. It will require worker revolt through sit-down strikes and slow-downs. And it will require self-defense when the state retaliates. I mentioned this in several posts. You are free to verify this. That is the "???" that you are referring to.



Wet juvenile dreams about street fights or whatever are bad, sure. You weren't just mocking zealotry, though. You were specifically laying down non-violence as a principle, which is a pipedream because 1) how will you stand up against a state whose surveillance and control over the population just continues to grow and 2) it ignores what violence really is, how it occurs and in what relation it stands to class society and class struggle. You can't just wish violence away.

The mockery was in direct response to this



The petite-bourgeoisie is a class enemy of the proletariat; individuals can be allies, sure, but to say that their interests are the same is a complete perversion of Marxist theory.


I am against violence. I'm not opposed to self-defense. What you are talking about is violence against a tyrannical state apparatus. That is no longer violence, it is self-defense. I have stated repeatedly that the state will retaliate with force against any revolt, even a non-violent one. That is where self-defense comes in. I completely accept self-defense as very necessary. Please provide the quote where I have stated otherwise.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Incorrect. I said that it will require a complete withdraw from systems of power. The formation of independent systems of sustenance outside of the capitalist system. It will require worker revolt through sit-down strikes and slow-downs. And it will require self-defense when the state retaliates. I mentioned this in several posts. You are free to verify this. That is the "???" that you are referring to.

The "????" refers to the fact that you seem to think that simply "spreading leftist ideas" will create communism. The question marks refer to the fact that it's a complete mystery to me what happens between spreading of ideas and revolution. Other than that, I'm not sure how to respond to this. How are your trajectory of how a revolution happens anything else but your own neat ideas? Are your ideas based on any generalisation from actual historical movements at all? Do you seriously think one can sit- and slow-down towards communism?


The mockery was in direct response to this

Sorry, I was mixing up what we were talking about with some other stuff you had said (possibly in another thread?). To get back on the original topic: could you give a defense of your view on how the petite-bourgeoisie as a class has the same interests as proles?

[Loony Le Fist]

The "????" refers to the fact that you seem to think that simply "spreading leftist ideas" will create communism. The question marks refer to the fact that it's a complete mystery to me what happens between spreading of ideas and revolution. Other than that, I'm not sure how to respond to this. How are your trajectory of how a revolution happens anything else but your own neat ideas? Are your ideas based on any generalisation from actual historical movements at all? Do you seriously think one can sit- and slow-down towards communism?


No. But I certainly think that withdrawing from systems of control, hierarchy and power does.

Sitting-down and striking is better than what we are doing now. Look at the BLS statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkstp.t01.htm) yourself. There have been almost no strikes since the 1980's in the US. Obviously strikes alone aren't the end all be all. There must be more, but that is a primary step--worker ownership and control.

This would almost guarantee a fight with the state. There must be resistance. Police cannot simply be allowed to drag protesters away in vans or squad cars. It has to be done strategically, the encounter must be recorded, and posted publicly. Preferably resistance must be widespread and general. Make the police call the whole precinct down, and make sure there is video.

The problem is that there has been no historical precedent for what is actually necessary for the overthrow of this type of state. A state that has massive militarized police forces. The first prong is withdrawl from the state apparatus and commerce. For situations where this is not possible, resistance via disruption. But there has also never been a time in history where videography is so accessible and information so easy to distribute.

The idea is to minimize conflict, and where it is necessary, to turn conflict in our favor since the state is very strong at using violence. By using video recordings of the encounters and demonstrating the brutality, even if we lose an encounter, we can win sympathy in the hearts and minds of people through powerful imagery. And if we are able to fight off those that would seek to commit acts of violence against our cause, that also serves as a rallying tool as well. In any event, we must always expect violence from the state and plan accordingly.



Sorry, I was mixing up what we were talking about with some other stuff you had said (possibly in another thread?). To get back on the original topic: could you give a defense of your view on how the petite-bourgeoisie as a class has the same interests as proles?

What I think I said was that it is possible to sway members of the PB. I suppose that would no longer make them PB. I'm using this definition of PB from Wikipedia.



Wikipedia
Petty bourgeoisie (literally small bourgeoisie), is a French term (sometimes derogatory) referring to a social class comprising semi-autonomous peasantry and small-scale merchants whose politico-economic ideological stance is determined by reflecting that of a haute (high) bourgeoisie, with which the petite bourgeoisie seeks to identify itself, and whose bourgeois morality it strives to imitate.


The idea is to propagandize the PB, to deprogram them from wanting to identify themselves with the bourgeois. To make them realize that the capitalistic machine is simply one that provides them with false hope. Because that is precisely what the PB buys into. Give them the red-pill so to speak.

I'm not saying this task is easy. But I feel it is worth it. After all, I awoke from the false hope of capitalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Basically, the problem is that you do not see things in class terms. Communists aim to organise the proletariat for the overthrow of the state - and the proletariat can be a minority, depending on the society in question. This is because only the proletariat has the social power to overthrow class society.

What you propose instead is "winning hearts and minds", a tactic completely devoid of class analysis, which is obvious from your idealist analysis of the petite bourgeoisie (the petite bourgeoisie is the middleman class, situated between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie - strictly speaking the class of small proprietors, those who own the means of production but do not extract enough surplus value to be freed from the need to work, but sometimes extended to the stratum of foremen, overseers and professionals), and your notion that the revolutionary workers should respond to police violence by... filming it. OWS did that, and it turned out so great, didn't it?


A few sentences about how it would be positive if there was a shift to the left and people broke away from the two party system seem to be enough to set off a bout of left wing namecalling.

Because this is the same sort of rhetoric that groups like SAlt have used in the past to support Nader, and other bourgeois politicians, and it is only slightly different from the rhetoric these opportunistic groups have used to call for support for Obama.



Also, why do people on here seem to think "Social democracy" describes what SAlt is striving for? Is it their methods, their pamphlets, their statements, what's written on their website? Would you rather they set up little city guerilla groups all over the US or call for armed resistance to the state? Would that make them good communists? Please enlighten me as to how a party is supposed to behave.

I would rather they called for a revolutionary workers party independent of the bourgeoisie and of bourgeois politicians like Sanders.

[Loony Le Fist]

Basically, the problem is that you do not see things in class terms. Communists aim to organise the proletariat for the overthrow of the state - and the proletariat can be a minority, depending on the society in question. This is because only the proletariat has the social power to overthrow class society.


Do you have an example of a society where the proletariat is the minority?



What you propose instead is "winning hearts and minds", a tactic completely devoid of class analysis, which is obvious from your idealist analysis of the petite bourgeoisie (the petite bourgeoisie is the middleman class, situated between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie - strictly speaking the class of small proprietors, those who own the means of production but do not extract enough surplus value to be freed from the need to work, but sometimes extended to the stratum of foremen, overseers and professionals), and your notion that the revolutionary workers should respond to police violence by... filming it. OWS did that, and it turned out so great, didn't it?


I will quote my position, since you are arguing with a straw man.



This would almost guarantee a fight with the state. There must be resistance. Police cannot simply be allowed to drag protesters away in vans or squad cars. It has to be done strategically, the encounter must be recorded, and posted publicly. Preferably resistance must be widespread and general. Make the police call the whole precinct down, and make sure there is video.


I did not say that protesters should simply allow themselves to be dragged away. I said they must resist, and the encounters must be filmed. They must be widespread.

OWS didn't turn out well firstly because the police responded far more brutally than anticipated. Secondly, because they weren't strategic enough and they didn't have focused goals. Any future resistance movement must learn from their mistakes and expect this kind of resistance from authorities and respond appropriately with counter-resistance.

EDIT: And let me just add, OWS wasn't a worker strike, though I grant there are similarities.

I'm going to assume you understand class analysis better than me. What insight does it give us into this situation that would not otherwise be gleaned by using any other ways?



Because this is the same sort of rhetoric that groups like SAlt have used in the past to support Nader, and other bourgeois politicians, and it is only slightly different from the rhetoric these opportunistic groups have used to call for support for Obama.


What I'm saying is that there needs to be a multipronged approach. What harm does it do to participate in revolutionary activity while simultaneously using the political process at the same time? There is no reason you cannot do both.



I would rather they called for a revolutionary workers party independent of the bourgeoisie and of bourgeois politicians like Sanders.

No disagreement here. But I think it needs to go further. It can't just be a party, it has to be a widespread general strike of the entire population.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Do you have an example of a society where the proletariat is the minority?

Bhutan, Mali, most of Europe, the United States.


I did not say that protesters should simply allow themselves to be dragged away. I said they must resist, and the encounters must be filmed. They must be widespread.

And this is the problem - what is filming supposed to accomplish? "Generate sympathy", no doubt, but sympathy is worthless in a revolutionary situation. And any effective method of resisting the police would be highly illegal, and filming it is police work. If you see someone with a camera, more likely than not they're a police agent.


OWS didn't turn out well firstly because the police responded far more brutally than anticipated. Secondly, because they weren't strategic enough and they didn't have focused goals. Any future resistance movement must learn from their mistakes and expect this kind of resistance from authorities and respond appropriately with counter-resistance.

OWS didn't turn out well because it was a movement of the petite bourgeoisie against their impoverishment, as headless and powerless as the class it sought to represent, behind populist slogans about "the 99 percent" (ugh).


I'm going to assume you understand class analysis better than me. What insight does it give us into this situation that would not otherwise be gleaned by using any other ways?

That the petite bourgeoisie is powerless, and that seeking to ally with the petite bourgeoisie or the "good" bourgeoisie is a fast way of getting nowhere.


What I'm saying is that there needs to be a multipronged approach. What harm does it do to participate in revolutionary activity while simultaneously using the political process at the same time? There is no reason you cannot do both.

Use the political process to do what? Get a bourgeois politician elected? Sure, you can do that - but you've abandoned revolutionary politics then. The revolution requires that the proletariat breaks with the reformist illusion that the "good" bourgeoisie can help them, creating a "better" capitalism.


No disagreement here. But I think it needs to go further. It can't just be a party, it has to be a widespread general strike of the entire population.

Good luck getting "the entire population" to do anything.

[synthesis]

To me leftist ideas are precisely about material and class interests.

Ugh. You really don't seem to be understanding here. You seem to think that we can get the petite bourgeoisie as a class to abandon their material interests which are contrary to those of the proletariat and often more reactionary than the haute bourgeoisie itself simply through "spreading leftist ideas." So obviously you aren't considering class interests if you think that the problem is simply that socialism hasn't been "marketed correctly."


So now worker ownership of the means of production (which I shortened to worker ownership) and workplace democracy are now meaningless catchphrases of the bourgeois? I thought workers revolting and taking control of their workplaces was the very heart of what many here are trying to accomplish. Seriously? :ohmy:

No, what we are trying to accomplish is the wholesale abolition of class society. Worker cooperatives, which is basically what you're describing, has nothing to do with overthrowing the capitalist mode of production.


Again, I pose the question: was Engles not himself independently wealthy?

First, you seem to think that "being independently wealthy" is a class in and of itself. Maybe not, but that's an undercurrent of your argument here.

But more importantly, Engels was a communist in spite of his class background; you're arguing that we should be "modifying our message" to appeal to people from his class background. I don't understand how you don't see the distinction here.


Detaching from systems of power and hierarchy automatically have a class basis to them. What is the diversion here? It is a simple fact that the capitalist system is an engine that runs on money. Deprive that system of money through separation and detachment and it comes down. It's not the only means I support, but it is what I find to be the most effective solution.

How on earth is it the most effective solution? I mean, what evidence has led you to this conclusion?

Look, people (again with the lack of class analysis) can "withdraw from capitalism," but it's not like they can just magically will themselves farmland and machinery to produce their own goods. The means of production, the land and the factories are already under bourgeois control. So you'd only attract the minority of the working class that doesn't have a family to feed or debts to pay.


Ok.

Anti-statist - Means I don't think there should be a centralized state or any unjustified hierarchical power structures.
Leftist - Means I want to abolish capitalism, private property, and empower workers.

How's that?

...I know what the words themselves mean. The way you were using them in that context was completely devoid of any coherent meaning. You're basically saying that you reject class politics because you're "an anti-statist leftist." In practice this is exactly why petit-bourgeois pseudo-socialists are class enemies. They might agree with the problems that are challenged by the communist analysis, but as soon as the revolution heats up, you'll start hearing "hey, guys, capitalism is bad, but this red terror thing is just as bad or worse" because it's too authoritarian/immoral/un-Christian.


Well I say that the left's cause is furthering the interests of the international working class. Ergo advancing the left's cause is equivalent to furthering the interests of the international working class.

You could say that, but it would be in contradiction to everything else you've said in this thread.

____


At this point it just feels like people are looking for excuses to call other organisations social democrats, beorgeois, or whatever the hell they feel like. Usually while they're calling for left unity..

I guarantee you neither I nor Zukunftsmuzik nor Tim Cornelis (nor Vincent West, I'm assuming) are arguing or have recently argued for "left unity." It is widely recognized as a bullshit method of bulldozing the important differences in theory and praxis of the various communist tendencies.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I guarantee you neither I nor Zukunftsmuzik nor Tim Cornelis (nor Vincent West, I'm assuming) are arguing or have recently argued for "left unity." It is widely recognized as a bullshit method of bulldozing the important differences in theory and praxis of the various communist tendencies.

Perish the thought. I'm a(n unofficial) Spart; we don't want unity among ourselves if that means fibbing on matters of principle. In fact we can laugh about the infinite splits of Trotskyist parties, but splits are an important part of keeping the party revolutionary. If some of our comrades part ways with the revolution, we part ways with them. If we can't work together, we work separately. What these "left unity" attempts boil down to is gathering all sorts of groups, from the merely centrist to... it wouldn't be polite to continue, really... and uniting them on the basis of a least-common-denominator programme, usually in support of some bourgeois politician or another.

They're also based on the rather suspect principle that a bunch of shit stops smelling if it's a really big bunch of shit.

[synthesis]

Perish the thought. I'm a(n unofficial) Spart; we don't want unity among ourselves if that means fibbing on matters of principle. In fact we can laugh about the infinite splits of Trotskyist parties, but splits are an important part of keeping the party revolutionary. If some of our comrades part ways with the revolution, we part ways with them. If we can't work together, we work separately. What these "left unity" attempts boil down to is gathering all sorts of groups, from the merely centrist to... it wouldn't be polite to continue, really... and uniting them on the basis of a least-common-denominator programme, usually in support of some bourgeois politician or another.

They're also based on the rather suspect principle that a bunch of shit stops smelling if it's a really big bunch of shit.

For me the main problem is this assumption that if leftists could just put aside their differences and work together, we could accomplish the abolition of class society! Historical materialism be damned! It assumes that communist ideologues or "the left" are the foundation of communist revolution, rather than the working class itself. If any one tendency has the correct politics, that will reflect in the way that the working class becomes more militant against class society, with or without leaders or formal organization - and thus it doesn't accomplish anything to try to find "the lowest common denominator" of those politics if each tendency's political framework is more than the sum of its parts.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

For me the main problem is this assumption that if leftists could just put aside their differences and work together, we could accomplish the abolition of class society! Historical materialism be damned! It assumes that communist ideologues or "the left" are the foundation of communist revolution, rather than the working class itself. If any one tendency has the correct politics, that will reflect in the way that the working class becomes more militant against class society, with or without leaders or formal organization - and thus it doesn't accomplish anything to try to find "the lowest common denominator" of those politics if each tendency's political framework is more than the sum of its parts.

I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I think you underestimate the conscious human element, particularly the revolutionary leadership, in the revolution. I think the failure of the revolution in Germany, in Italy, and elsewhere where spontaneist currents were particularly strong among the left wing of the former social-democracy, shows that it is dangerous to underestimate the need for revolutionary leadership.

But this leadership can only be provided by a class party - not a collection of various groups primarily composed of declassed members of the intelligentsia at best. And the class party is built on the basis of a proletarian programme - not by taking "the left" as it currently exists and uniting the disparate groups that claim to be socialist. And the size of the party is secondary - the Bolsheviks were by far the smallest of the main socialist and allegedly socialist parties on the eve of the Revolution.

[synthesis]

I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I think you underestimate the conscious human element, particularly the revolutionary leadership, in the revolution. I think the failure of the revolution in Germany, in Italy, and elsewhere where spontaneist currents were particularly strong among the left wing of the former social-democracy, shows that it is dangerous to underestimate the need for revolutionary leadership

So you think that those revolutions (and by extension the world revolution) would have been successful if the workers had just rejected spontaneism and accepted the principles of centralized leadership? I'm curious as to how you reconcile this with historical materialism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So you think that those revolutions (and by extension the world revolution) would have been successful if the workers had just rejected spontaneism and accepted the principles of centralized leadership? I'm curious as to how you reconcile this with historical materialism.

I don't see why I would have to reconcile anything - obviously historical materialism recognises subjective factors in addition to objective factors. Otherwise the struggle for class consciousness would be pointless. And the appearance of spontaneist currents denotes a class consciousness that has still not developed in full, that is still under the deforming influence of bourgeois ideology. Of course, there were many Bolshevik workers in Germany, in Italy etc. - but there was no leadership capable of forging these workers into an instrument of the revolution. The objective conditions were certainly sufficient for the revolution - they have been for some time now.

[synthesis]

I don't see why I would have to reconcile anything - obviously historical materialism recognises subjective factors in addition to objective factors. Otherwise the struggle for class consciousness would be pointless. And the appearance of spontaneist currents denotes a class consciousness that has still not developed in full, that is still under the deforming influence of bourgeois ideology. Of course, there were many Bolshevik workers in Germany, in Italy etc. - but there was no leadership capable of forging these workers into an instrument of the revolution. The objective conditions were certainly sufficient for the revolution - they have been for some time now.

But couldn't it have been that Bolshevism was what worked for communists operating in the conditions of Russia, and that workers in Germany and Italy saw (rationally) that spontaneism was what worked best for them in their own conditions, but their revolution was defeated anyway, owing to other material conditions? I guess it strikes me as idealist to say that a definitively communist revolution fails or succeeds because of the ideological subset of Marxism that the working class has chosen to follow.

Also, just so we're clear: you're arguing that spontaneism represents "the deforming influence of bourgeois ideology"? Because that seems like a recipe for a "tu quoque" shitfest.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But couldn't it have been that Bolshevism was what worked for communists operating in the conditions of Russia, and that workers in Germany and Italy saw (rationally) that spontaneism was what worked best for them in their own conditions, but their revolution was defeated anyway, owing to other material conditions?

Sure, you could say that, but what sort of conditions might those be? In Germany, for example, the situation was much better, for the proletariat, than in Hungary, half-occupied by Entente armies, with a smaller percentage of the proletariat, significant ethnic tensions etc.

Yet the revolution in Hungary succeeded, before succumbing to the Entente intervention - but in Germany, the bourgeois state was never smashed, the revolution didn't really get off the ground.


I guess it strikes me as idealist to say that a definitively communist revolution fails or succeeds because of the ideological subset of Marxism that the working class has chosen to follow.

Perhaps - but that wasn't my point. I am saying the tactics employed by the revolutionary movement impact the success of the revolution.


Also, just so we're clear: you're arguing that spontaneism represents "the deforming influence of bourgeois ideology"? Because that seems like a recipe for a "tu quoque" shitfest.

Not necessarily - I mean, I realise that the spontaneists in turn think that Bolshevism is the result of bourgeois ideology etc. I'm not going to get mad over something like that. But yes, I would say that spontaneism, and an aversion to centralism and discipline in general, are the product of bourgeois ideology, particularly liberalism.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

So when Giant Monkey Man says SAlt is not telling Sanders to do anything, he is only correct in the sense that the article reads more like begging than telling, at least to my eye.
Continue interpreting it however you want. Nothing I could write would convince your type otherwise. You remind me of a scene from Ten Days that Shook the World where John Reed describes the conclusion of a speech at the remnants of the Duma:

'The hour of resolutions has passed... Let those who have no longer faith in the Revolution retire... To establish a united power we must again restore the prestige of the Revolution... Let us swear that either the Revolution shall be saved - or we shall perish!' The hall rose, cheering, with kindling eyes. There was not a single proletarian anywhere in sight...


I would rather they called for a revolutionary workers party independent of the bourgeoisie and of bourgeois politicians like Sanders.
They do. That's the main call of the CWI across the world: to build a mass party of the working class to fight for our own interests as opposed to supporting bourgeois parties. The tactics we use to galvanise support for the notion and to organise within our class vary depending on the situation on the ground. Some people in Socialist Alternative obviously think that appealing to that milieu of workers that support 'progressive' politicians like Sanders would be a good base to build upon. I'm not so convinced but I do know that the workers' movement in the US has been virtually gutted for the past thirty years and it needs to start somewhere.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

They do. That's the main call of the CWI across the world: to build a mass party of the working class to fight for our own interests as opposed to supporting bourgeois parties. The tactics we use to galvanise support for the notion and to organise within our class vary depending on the situation on the ground. Some people in Socialist Alternative obviously think that appealing to that milieu of workers that support 'progressive' politicians like Sanders would be a good base to build upon. I'm not so convinced but I do know that the workers' movement in the US has been virtually gutted for the past thirty years and it needs to start somewhere.

Do you genuinely think the present state of the workers' movement is worse than it was after WWII? I don't think that's a realistic assessment. Yet after WWII, the American Trotskyists explicitly refused to give any support to "third-party" candidates like Wallace. The SWP grew fine despite that - or rather because of that.

Because this is not a matter of tactics - the SAlt aren't trying to appeal to the workers to break from Sanders, from what I've seen, they're trying to convince them that they like Sanders, and that by extension people who like Sanders should like them. But that's not a principled tactic, they aren't exposing Sanders for what he is - they're trying to win sympathies instead of militants.

[synthesis]

Sure, you could say that, but what sort of conditions might those be? In Germany, for example, the situation was much better, for the proletariat, than in Hungary, half-occupied by Entente armies, with a smaller percentage of the proletariat, significant ethnic tensions etc.

Yet the revolution in Hungary succeeded, before succumbing to the Entente intervention - but in Germany, the bourgeois state was never smashed, the revolution didn't really get off the ground.

I think that it's hard to conclude that it's possible for any one person to have considered every decisive factor in historical matters such as these. But saying that workers in Germany chose spontaneism owing to their material conditions, and that their revolution was defeated because of other material conditions, seems like the only possible Marxist (historical materialist) approach to the subject.


Perhaps - but that wasn't my point. I am saying the tactics employed by the revolutionary movement impact the success of the revolution.

Sure, tactics matter, but they're not the be-all and end-all or even the primary factor. The success is ultimately dependent on the material conditions in which the revolution is taking place. The best tactics in the world couldn't save the current form of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, because the conditions are not conducive to it. So it is with all matters of tactical analyses.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think that it's hard to conclude that it's possible for any one person to have considered every important factor in historical matters such as these.

Perhaps not, but surely you could look at the major indicators - the balance of forces, the economic situation, the presence of interventionist forces etc. I mean, if we continue like this, we will conclude that everything happens due to material conditions but we can't say what those conditions are, which isn't particularly helpful.


But saying that workers in Germany chose spontaneism owing to their material conditions, and that their revolution was defeated because of other material conditions, seems like the only possible Marxist (historical materialist) approach to the subject.

Here I must protest that historical materialism doesn't erase the role of consciousness - and, again, saying that ultimately everything reduces to material conditions is true, but non-informative. Of course the turn to spontaneism was partly the product of real material circumstances - but faced with the same circumstances (imperialism, the formation of the labour aristocracy and bureaucracy), the workers of Russia and Hungary turned to discipline and centralism.


Sure, tactics matter, but they're not the be-all and end-all or even the primary factor. The success is ultimately dependent on the material conditions in which the revolution is taking place. The best tactics in the world couldn't save the current form of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, because the conditions are not conducive to it. So it is with all matters of tactical analyses.

But the difference is, the material prerequisites for socialism already exist. In fact if we go by this sort of mechanicist determinism, we should already be living in the socialist society.

[synthesis]

Also:


But yes, I would say that spontaneism, and an aversion to centralism and discipline in general, are the product of bourgeois ideology, particularly liberalism.

So you must also argue that every form of anarchism is "the product of bourgeois ideology, particularly liberalism," correct?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So you must also argue that every form of anarchism is "the product of bourgeois ideology, particularly liberalism," correct?

Most forms of anarchism - certainly not that of Nechayev, if he can be called an anarchist, Bakunin or the later Makhno, but most of them, yes.

[synthesis]

Perhaps not, but surely you could look at the major indicators - the balance of forces, the economic situation, the presence of interventionist forces etc. I mean, if we continue like this, we will conclude that everything happens due to material conditions but we can't say what those conditions are, which isn't particularly helpful.

I'm not arguing for some sort of historical agnosticism. It's just a fancy way of saying that I'm too tired and my brain isn't functioning properly enough at the moment to get into debating the historical specifics of post-WWI Europe right now. Maybe tomorrow, if the thread is still in the same place it is now.


Here I must protest that historical materialism doesn't erase the role of consciousness - and, again, saying that ultimately everything reduces to material conditions is true, but non-informative. Of course the turn to spontaneism was partly the product of real material circumstances - but faced with the same circumstances (imperialism, the formation of the labour aristocracy and bureaucracy), the workers of Russia and Hungary turned to discipline and centralism.

I disagree, of course, that the working classes of Russia and Hungary and those of Germany and Italy were in the exact same material conditions or that they could be as such and still come out with two completely different approaches to communist revolution.

So I guess it would then be hypocritical to demand you tell me what you think the material conditions were that led to the difference in tactics and, presumably, to the failure of world revolution because of it. But that's what I'd ask you in different circumstances.


But the difference is, the material prerequisites for socialism already exist. In fact if we go by this sort of mechanicist determinism, we should already be living in the socialist society.

I would argue that the "material prerequisites" for communism being present and the "material conditions" necessary for a successful international communist revolution are two different things and should not be conflated.

[The Feral Underclass]

Most forms of anarchism - certainly not that of Nechayev, if he can be called an anarchist, Bakunin or the later Makhno, but most of them, yes.

If not the anarchism of Bakunin or Makhno, what are you referring to?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not arguing for some sort of historical agnosticism. It's just a fancy way of saying that I'm too tired and my brain isn't functioning properly enough at the moment to get into debating the historical specifics of post-WWI Europe right now. Maybe tomorrow, if the thread is still in the same place it is now.

Fair enough.


I disagree, of course, that the working classes of Russia and Hungary and those of Germany and Italy were in the exact same material conditions or that they could be as such and still come out with two completely different approaches to communist revolution.

I never meant to say that the conditions were the same - only that those conditions that led to the adoption of spontaneism by the left socialists in Germany also existed in Russia and Hungary. I think you are presenting here a fairly rigid determinism that is alien to Marx's method.


So I guess it would then be hypocritical to demand you tell me what you think the material conditions were that led to the difference in tactics and, presumably, to the failure of world revolution because of it. But that's what I'd ask you in different circumstances.

The formation of privileged strata of the proletariat - of the labour aristocracy and bureaucracy (I almost wrote "labour bourgeoisie" - it's early in the morning and I have another bout of insomnia). To an extent, the inexperience of West European left socialist cadres (but this was also the case in Hungary).


I would argue that the "material prerequisites" for communism being present and the "material conditions" necessary for a successful international communist revolution are two different things and should not be conflated.

Alright, that is true. But if we ignore the subjective conditions, there have been numerous times when the balance of forces was on the side of the proletariat - most recently in the seventies. If we accept what you seem to be saying - that the revolution proceeds deterministically from favourable material conditions - it should have happened already.


If not the anarchism of Bakunin or Makhno, what are you referring to?

Malatesta, Pouget, Goldman, Meschi and others.

[The Feral Underclass]

Malatesta

Just no.


Pouget, Goldman, Meschi and others.

I don't really understand how you are coming to the conclusion that these people exhibit liberalised understandings of centralism or discipline...

[blake 3:17]

Do you genuinely think the present state of the workers' movement is worse than it was after WWII?


The strike wave of 1945-1946 (also called the Great strike wave of 1946)[1] was a series of massive post-war labor strikes from 1945 to 1946 spanning numerous industries and public utilities. They were the largest strikes in American labor history.[2][3]
...
Others included strikes of railroad workers and "general strikes in Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Stamford, Connecticut; Rochester, New York; and Oakland, California." In total, 4.3 million workers participated in the strikes. According to Jeremy Brecher, they were "the closest thing to a national general strike of industry in the twentieth century."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_wave_of_1946

[KurtFF8]

What you're doing is trying to show just one side of the coin here. Fact is is that Becker, as a member of the Central Committee, pledged his "full support" within Cali. He went on to say as the PSL would probably not push for it's members to "write-in" Peta's name that the PSL would offer to support Roseanne. The extent of support only turned out to be getting people to register. This is classic Becker/Lariva/PSL, always hedging their bets. As a/the leader of the PSL why would he not abstain? Answer, because everyone at that meeting thought that Barr was going to pump MUCH money into the race and everyone was abandoning any sense of ideology and principles to be part of it. When it became very apparent that campaigning was something very real and expensive she all but gave up. Even poor old Stewart Anderson resigned in disgust.

So my argument is "one side of the coin" and yours relies on something you heard in a meeting about what the PSL was "probably" going to do? Gotcha.

I'm still waiting for something more substantial than this that demonstrates that the PSL endorsed Barr outside of the Peace and Freedom Party internal battle you're referring to here. Had the PSL actually endorsed Barr, you would think they would have at least published an article or something right? Yet something tells me you won't find said article because it was never written.

[synthesis]

Sorry it's taken me this long to get back to this thread.


The formation of privileged strata of the proletariat - of the labour aristocracy and bureaucracy (I almost wrote "labour bourgeoisie" - it's early in the morning and I have another bout of insomnia). To an extent, the inexperience of West European left socialist cadres (but this was also the case in Hungary).

So by extension you are essentially arguing that the world revolution failed because of "the formation of privileged strata of the proletariat" and "the labor aristocracy," given that these are the factors that, you argue, led to the adoption of spontaneism by the German and Italian working class, and therefore the factors that caused the revolution in Western Europe to fail and the revolutions in Russia and Hungary to "degenerate."

So the problem, according to you, is that the German and Italian working classes had it too good to become real revolutionaries (i.e. to become disciplined and accept centralized leadership) - or at least enough of them were so - that their revolutions failed. This seems like a sort of bowdlerized Third-Worldism.


Alright, that is true. But if we ignore the subjective conditions, there have been numerous times when the balance of forces was on the side of the proletariat - most recently in the seventies. If we accept what you seem to be saying - that the revolution proceeds deterministically from favourable material conditions - it should have happened already.

Well, if I did apply such a fatalistic analysis, your criticism still wouldn't apply. This analysis would argue that even though "the balance of forces was on the side of the proletariat," the "favorable material conditions" obviously weren't so favorable as to enable a communist revolution, or else it would have indeed happened.

But I think you have the wrong idea about the broader differences in our analyses. I'm not arguing that subjective (i.e. idealist) factors should be ignored, I'm arguing that the subjective factors are still a result of objective material conditions, not this fantasy wherein the world revolution of the working class only hasn't succeeded because they're too undisciplined and their leadership isn't centralized enough.

[Prometeo liberado]

So my argument is "one side of the coin" and yours relies on something you heard in a meeting about what the PSL was "probably" going to do? Gotcha.

I'm still waiting for something more substantial than this that demonstrates that the PSL endorsed Barr outside of the Peace and Freedom Party internal battle you're referring to here. Had the PSL actually endorsed Barr, you would think they would have at least published an article or something right? Yet something tells me you won't find said article because it was never written.

Hmm. PM'd you an internal P&F e-mail where Peta says it. I was there when Becker voted for Roseanne AND reaffirmed what Peta said. I could go on and tell you that fire is hot and you would never believe it unless the PSL told you to believe it. As for not "publishing" it. Don't know and don't care. If the Holocaust was never published would that mean it never happened? Maybe your issue is with your party and the way it makes grand proclamations in a closed room then says nothing to it's cadres?
Sorry little buddy but them are the facts.
Shit, e-mail Becker. I'm sure your leaders are very accessible.

[KurtFF8]

As I said in the PM, nothing you said contradicts anything I've said here. I never denied that there were some internal political maneuvering within the Peace and Freedom Convention.

The PSL may well have made a sort of temporary alliance with Barr in that context but that doesn't change the fact that the PSL continued to run its own campaign in California.

[Kassad]

It's one thing watching the Socialist Alternative folks squirm to rationalize their blatant social-democracy in regards to Sawant and Sanders, all the while calling for a plethora "Occupy candidates." It's a whole different realm of hilarity when Roseanne Barr is talking about how much she loves Peta Lindsay on Twitter after they tried to make a political power play to get in on the celebrity bandwagon.

I just hope that it's made clear that the Barr situation wasn't even one of the more serious bureaucratic and reformist maneuvers the PSL have made in recent years. However, it is one of the funnier ones.

[Killer Enigma]

The Left ought to distance itself from Sanders. His influence is definitely moving a lot of workers further to the left, and it's made people consider, use, and even embrace the term "socialism," even though Sanders' brand is to the right of many social democrats. The problem is lining up behind Sanders, who voted for the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, in addition to supporting the Zionist state of Israel, is that his progressive domestic policies give cover to the opportunists in the people's movements - mostly NGO and non-profit staffers who are eager to buy out activists and push them into doing electoral/lobbying work. The most potent weapon the Left has to combat opportunism is its anti-imperialism.

Frankly though, I'm a little aghast at how sectarian some of the attacks on Sawant have been. I despise Trotskyism, and I have very little in common with SAlt, but its like some people can't recognize a cool thing that happened in Seattle that objectively gave momentum to the now-successful Fight for 15 campaign and the reform movement in the Machinists that coalesced around the Boeing contract.

To me, the jury is still out on Sawant and SAlt's strategy, but it's just needless sectarianism to slam them. Their electoral strategy is streets ahead of anything the PSL has put together. That's the more interesting comparison because while both SAlt and the PSL claim to participate in elections to raise consciousness about socialism, rather than getting elected, PSL's ridiculous strategy of running a mosaic campaign for the Presidency with legally unelectable candidates hasn't produced even a victory as small as Sawant's. Moreover, I can't think of a discernible impact the PSL made on any struggle through their electoral work. SAlt's impact on Fight for 15 and Boeing is just objective fact, even if you want to say it was slight. Anyone who was at Labor Notes 2014 can tell you that. And ironically, I probably have more in common line-wise with the PSL...

[Prometeo liberado]

As I said in the PM, nothing you said contradicts anything I've said here. I never denied that there were some internal political maneuvering within the Peace and Freedom Convention.

The PSL may well have made a sort of temporary alliance with Barr in that context but that doesn't change the fact that the PSL continued to run its own campaign in California.

So you agree there was an alliance. Now if you can PSL your way into saying that an alliance is not an endorsement well then the sky must be plaid in that world. Knock'em dead little buddy.