Leftist Parties in the USA

[Jemdet Nasr]

So, I'm fairly new and I was interested in joining a party. My question is, what do you guys think of the leftist parties in the US, or the larger international parties? Any recommendations or criticisms?

[BIXX]

So, I'm fairly new and I was interested in joining a party. My question is, what do you guys think of the leftist parties in the US, or the larger international parties? Any recommendations or criticisms?


Some people here are members of a party but honestly to me (not even from an anarchist standpoint) they don't sound worth joining.

[Bala Perdida]

I talked to some people with PSL. They seem like decent people, and I like their stances on some issues. However, I can't say I support their stalinist-like views all too much. I wouldn't mind voting for them though, but their views, based on their newsletter, I don't share.

Also, EchoShock check your msgs!

[Stain]

Best would be to join a local radical organization and start mass work. I would personally stay away from national or international parties right now. I personally haven't found one worth joining.

[Revoltorb]

I recently (last October? I think?) joined SAlt and have been happy with the work we've been doing locally. If you'd like to know more, send me a PM.

[The Jay]

I don't think that there are any really good parties out there atm, but I'm probably going to have to wait a while to decide exactly what I'm looking for.

[exeexe]

If you wanna join a political party better join the libertarian party. At least they will liberate the gun market and be highly critical about what the state is doing. Whereas a leftwing political party will just end up in useless mass centralizing of the government and nothing will happen out there in the workplaces where you really want change to happen

[CaptainCool309]

I'm basically in the same position as the OP, and I was wondering, what do you guys think of the Communist Party USA? Would they be a good organization to join?

[Remus Bleys]

CPUSA is a bunch of liberals. It would be best not to join. If all you're given is liberal or marcyite parties (psl, wwp) then it would be best not to join any party at all.
I do not understand why so many people want to job an activist party so early and "burn out" on communism so early.

[Thirsty Crow]

I do not understand why so many people want to job an activist party so early and "burn out" on communism so early.
Probably because they're not familiar at all with a) how these are strcutured internally, b) which activities they conduct and how they do it and connected with it c) the phenomenon of burning out.

[Q]

So, I'm fairly new and I was interested in joining a party. My question is, what do you guys think of the leftist parties in the US, or the larger international parties? Any recommendations or criticisms?
Which 'larger international party' are you talking about? There aren't any.

The far left needs to deal with a huge issue: It's own completely irrelevancy due to its inability to unite based on a communist programme and on the principles of internationalism, democracy and independent worker class politics (without those no proletarian politics is possible).

The inability to deal with it has several causes (these are just a few):
- Divide-and-rule politics by the ruling strata of the state and the bureaucracies of the worker movement.
- The fact that almost all groups setup an organisation structure that is effectively of officially dominated by its leadership, which runs it like any proud bureaucrat would.
- Most groups focus on political homogenity. Dissenting ideas have little or no room to develop, let alone that a minority can openly start to work toward getting a majority behind these ideas.
- At a more mundane level: Unity would cost some jobs as lesser fulltimers would be needed.

This is nothing new and nothing particular to the situation in the USA. The international far left is in dire need of a complete overhaul.

We should aim for the left and through that build our influence towards the rest of our class. This means asking ourselves the big an important questions: What do we want? (programme) How do we want to achieve that? (strategy). This aiming at the mythical 'masses' that every group has not only adds incredible heaps of redundancy (every group having a publication saying more or less the same, for example), it also makes us not serious in the eyes of any politically aware worker.

My advise would be to study politics, join a group if you feel that it would help you in getting access to ideas, although archives like MIA (http://marxists.org/) considerably lower that barrier these days. Form a reader group and crystallise your ideas.

If you should want to 'be active' and organise this or that demo or sell a paper, etc., then there is a plethora of groups to choose from and it really depends on who is active in your area and whether you like their political fetishes.

Sorry for the somewhat long and maybe depressing rant. I just want to be honest. My group in the Netherlands, Communist Platform (http://communisme.nu/), recently launched and aims to rethink these 'big questions' on programme and strategy and aims in the first place towards the existing (far) left. Internationally, some more people are grouped around Marxist Center (http://marxistcenter.com/). But it has to be said that these projects are just in their infancy. For a more developed group, around very similar politics, you might find the work of the CPGB (http://cpgb.org.uk/) interesting.

[exeexe]

What do we want? (programme)

Its called a goal not a programme

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/programme
A set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term aim

What we want is the long term aim, that is the goal. The programme also contains how do we get that. So goal + strategy = a programme

[Stained_Class]

If you wanna join a political party better join the libertarian party. At least they will liberate the gun market and be highly critical about what the state is doing. Whereas a leftwing political party will just end up in useless mass centralizing of the government and nothing will happen out there in the workplaces where you really want change to happen

..... Are you serious? I can't believe I even have to say this, but the state is in the final analysis an enforcer of class rule and existing property relationships. Libertarians are not concerned (let alone critical) of this function of the state. It is literally the only function that they support.

[Q]

Its called a goal not a programme

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/programme
A set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term aim

What we want is the long term aim, that is the goal. The programme also contains how do we get that. So goal + strategy = a programme
Thank you for strengthening my post. Was there anything else you found in the Oxford dictionary?

But sarcasm aside, I agree that we need to be clear on what we mean by 'programme'. A lot of groups don't have an actual programme, that is, they don't have an actual programmatic document. What they have instead is a method which is crystallised in the leadership. Learning the programmatic method takes time, training and a membership willing to follow.

This has little to do with the original Marxist idea of what a programme should be. An actual document is important, as it aims outward and keeps the leadership in check. But even then is the question "what should it aim for?" and this is a source of much discussion. Being very concise: The communist programme should aim for: a) working class political hegemony; b) after that, the building of a communist society.

Some more reading, if people are interested:
- Programme: A compass to liberation (http://marxistcenter.com/2013/08/13/programme-a-compass-to-liberation/) - An article by me for Marxist Center, where I explain what a programme is in more detail.
- Party and programme study guide (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/study-guides/party-and-programme) - A set of articles of the CPGB I linked to earlier, where more context is given.
- The CPGB Draft Programme (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/about-the-cpgb/draft-programme) - A concrete proposal to the left, should it ever unite again into a communist party.

[exeexe]

Q

Thank you for strengthening my post.

Im happy to see you took my criticism positively


An actual document is important, as it aims outward and keeps the leadership in check.
Exactly, its also what the republicans are doing with the constitution.. To keep the state in check

Stained_Class (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=160482)


but the state is in the final analysis an enforcer of class rule and existing property relationships. Libertarians are not concerned (let alone critical) of this function of the state. It is literally the only function that they support.
I agree, and i also agree that a leftist political party would be supporting the state. Personally i dont vote and i would never dream of joining a political party. The battleground takes place outside of the state not inside in it.

[Left Voice]

The question I would the OP (and others interesting) is this - what exactly do you hope to gain or achieve by joining a party? I don't mean that in a dismissive way, but it's important that people understand what they hope to achieve by doing this. The little party that somebody chooses to join is unlikely to have a major role in any real-life revolution - this is something that people are going to have to come to terms with. Existing parties are neither large enough, nor significant enough, nor have wide enough appeal among the working class. Paying your party dues and attending meetings isn't going to make one jolt of difference to the working class.

That doesn't mean that joining a party is pointless - many comrades here are members of parties. But most join for personal reasons. Many have been active in parties for a long time, decades. Many see it at a forum to share and exchange idea and thoughts, discussing roles that could be played within actually existing worker struggles. Some see it as a forum within which they can further their own knowledge. Some join for social reasons.

These are all good reasons, and many other reasons exist. But if you're looking to join a party because you want to feel like you're involved in preparations for some kind of impending revolution, and believe that you'll be contributing towards the 'working class revolution' by coughing up membership fees now and again, don't bother. Instead, do your reading and research by yourself, keep abreast of real life worker struggles in your local area and across the world and take active part when you feel it is necessary.

You don't have to be a member of a party and give money to cranks just to be a communist.

[Stained_Class]

Q

Im happy to see you took my criticism positively
Exactly, its also what the republicans are doing with the constitution.. To keep the state in check

I agree, and i also agree that a leftist political party would be supporting the state. Personally i dont vote and i would never dream of joining a political party. The battleground takes place outside of the state not inside in it.

When I said that, I was mainly wondering why you seem to consider "libertarian" political parties a lesser evil (if this is not your position, please say so) when compared with left wing political parties. Is it their support for legal weed? Their opposition to the civil rights act? Some sort of accelerationism? Their opposition to gun control (as you mentioned)?

Given that you accept that the US libertarian party is not opposed to or critical of the state or its most basic functions, how do you rationalize your previous assertion that it is better than said parties, even from an anti-state perspective?

[exeexe]

Well first of all, my opinion is that radical left wing political actions belongs in many places but in the state it belongs not. If a radical leftwing political party "carried" the working class to a revolution there would be no hope for any positive revolutionary outcome. The working class must carry itself with revolutionary direct actions and through direct action taken by the workers the workers will develop a collective conscience of unity and a sense of independence (That we dont need bosses god and a political party) The workers can run the economy by themselves through direct action.
Autogestion!

Also another reason why it would be better to not invest ressource on left wing parties is that i see it as resources that are wasted. Its like a dead end to me.

Then because its USA, i think the state should fix its massive debt. Doing this will have massive consequences because right now the system acts like there is no bottom. Its just spends and spends money like there is no day tomorrow. It will hurt but i beleive it will help everyone in the long term, also because the way the market is supposed to work is by regulating itself, but since there is endless amount of money the regulation is not working. This is probably a weak explaination, and i cant explain it right now, i will have to read about it. But i think thats how it is. Not sure.

Oh yeah that accelerationism. I usually call it the true ugly face of the state. If you leave the state alone, the state will reveal the true ugly face of itself and so people can see it. We can already see some of it now because of Edward Snowden with all that suivilliance going on. But more will come. This is how the state works.

And yeah guns. How could you be against guns? Maybe if you want a monopoly on violence and a desire for unjust privileges, but i dont believe in monopoly and privileges. Those are reactionary tendencies.
Power to the people as they say. Strong people dont need a leader.

I dont know about their opposition to the civil rights act?

[Stained_Class]

Well first of all, my opinion is that radical left wing political actions belongs in many places but in the state it belongs not. If a radical leftwing political party "carried" the working class to a revolution there would be no hope for any positive revolutionary outcome. The working class must carry itself with revolutionary direct actions and through direct action taken by the workers the workers will develop a collective conscience of unity and a sense of independence (That we dont need bosses god and a political party) The workers can run the economy by themselves through direct action.
Autogestion!

Also another reason why it would be better to not invest ressource on left wing parties is that i see it as resources that are wasted. Its like a dead end to me.

Then because its USA, i think the state should fix its massive debt. Doing this will have massive consequences because right now the system acts like there is no bottom. Its just spends and spends money like there is no day tomorrow. It will hurt but i beleive it will help everyone in the long term, also because the way the market is supposed to work is by regulating itself, but since there is endless amount of money the regulation is not working. This is probably a weak explaination, and i cant explain it right now, i will have to read about it. But i think thats how it is. Not sure.

Oh yeah that accelerationism. I usually call it the true ugly face of the state. If you leave the state alone, the state will reveal the true ugly face of itself and so people can see it. We can already see some of it now because of Edward Snowden with all that suivilliance going on. But more will come. This is how the state works.

And yeah guns. How could you be against guns? Maybe if you want a monopoly on violence and a desire for unjust privileges, but i dont believe in monopoly and privileges. Those are reactionary tendencies.
Power to the people as they say. Strong people dont need a leader.

I dont know about their opposition to the civil rights act?

Cool, thanks for the reply! I don't really agree with all of your reasoning (especially regarding accelerationism and your focus on fiscal/monetary policy), but we're getting really off topic here, so I'll try to message you about them.

However, their opposition to portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is well known. For example, this last year:

http: //talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/libertarians-on-paul-s-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable

Basically, they support the "right" of the property owner to discriminate against whoever they choose.

As for the OP, I haven't had that many interactions with members of socialist parties. The closest has been a couple of people who were members of the ISO. One of them enjoyed her time with the organization, and thinks that it's a good resource and does effective organizing. The other was grateful to them for radicalizing him, but was ultimately uninspired by their endless paper sales and lack of radicalism on their part.

[Left Voice]

You may also find that your own political views evolve as you do your own research and reading into theory and historical analysis.

For example, I generally think that the programme promoted by the CPGB-PCC is the most sensible and down-to-earth among most of the 'established' communist and socialist parties in the UK, to the extent where I have occasionally considered joining. I am still a regular reader of the Weekly Worker. However, the reality is that my own views have evolved over the past decade or so, to a point where they are not really compatible with the vangardism and focus on democratic centralism that is typical of pretty much all Leninist-derived parties and tendencies. I still have great respect for Lenin, but struggle to see how those ideas would be in any way compatible with a 21st century working class movement. I deplore the practice of labelling oneself, but I find myself fitting increasingly into the mould of a Libertarian Communist/Anarcho-Communist.

If I were a member of a party, no matter how much of a broad church the party claims to be, and no matter how much a party nominally encourages the expression of one's ideas, you will ultimately have to reconcile those ideas with those of the party. Dunno about you, but that is just not suitable for me.

[Red Economist]

I haven't joined a party, and Left voice has pretty much spelt out why. I'd like to add though that if your going to join a party, you need to be serious about the fact that means you want your country to go communist. it stops being a theory and you have to start thinking in terms of how to justify specific policies either as goals for reform to mobilizing support or else as for an 'actual' revolutionary government (which in the UK is at least decades away).
Imagine your sitting down with a friend and try to think about what your saying, why and how much detail or evidence you can use to support it and what they're objections would be and the evidence they can use to support that objection. I like the 'theory' but it still feels like an empty shop-window and I am just not well-informed enough to say "yeah, I think this could work". I expect you would have to have strong convictions and be emotionally quite tough to face rejection and/or hostility from strangers if you go out canvassing or to a rally etc, as for most people "communism" or "socialism" just doesn't register as a possibility.
So in a way, being able to "come out" as a radical/communist amongst friends and family is the first step to making a public commitment such as joining a party. Most of them will know that it is of interest (as they've glanced at what books your reading, websites your visiting, or make jokes about your Che t-shirt, etc), but it may take them aback that it isn't just a "phase" you're going to grow out of and you really do mean it.
If your uncomfortable with friends or family members knowing, and these are the people who like being around you (but parents are generally counter-revolutionary assholes- that's the first battle of the revolution most people face), joining a party to put yourself out in front of strangers who will be less sympathetic is a no.

[Q]

However, the reality is that my own views have evolved over the past decade or so, to a point where they are not really compatible with the vangardism and focus on democratic centralism that is typical of pretty much all Leninist-derived parties and tendencies. I still have great respect for Lenin, but struggle to see how those ideas would be in any way compatible with a 21st century working class movement. I deplore the practice of labelling oneself, but I find myself fitting increasingly into the mould of a Libertarian Communist/Anarcho-Communist.
I agree that 'vanguardism' and 'democratic-centralism' are highly troubled terms that I rather tend to avoid completely. That the CPGB still uses them (occasionally) is more of a remnant of their past than anything else. In the past (if you read their literature of the late 1980's and early 1990's) you still see a positioning like "we're the real Leninists" and they've dropped that as well.

I think we need to look beyond the use of certain words and look at how they are used. But that being said, I would just use 'democratic' as opposed to 'democratic-centralist' (there is no qualitative difference between them in my view and it avoids confusion). Our Dutch group hasn't settled an 'official' use of these yet, but I very much doubt we'd ever move to adopting 'democratic-centralism', 'vanguardism', etc. (if we ever actually settle on the 'official' use of language, which would be a little silly in my opinion).


If I were a member of a party, no matter how much of a broad church the party claims to be, and no matter how much a party nominally encourages the expression of one's ideas, you will ultimately have to reconcile those ideas with those of the party. Dunno about you, but that is just not suitable for me.This is something I don't get: I'm sure you agree with the principle that a majority decides on a specific action and that the minority keeps the right of public criticism? So what is the problem here? Are you outright denying the possibility of collective discipline and action-as-a-bloc?

[Left Voice]

Those are definitely good points. I guess my view is coloured by the perception that within centralist organisations, the right of the minority to criticise can often be nominal because action still has to be carried out in unity. "Freedom of discussion, unity in action" and all that. I don't have any issue with that per say - that's democracy. But it goes back to asking yourself what you hope to achieve though joining a party. If an environment where your own views and learning is shelved in favour of sticking to a party line, then it might not be the most productive place to broaden one's knowledge of communism. If it is precisely this unity in action that a person desires, then a party might be the right place for it. As long as, y'know, you're not under the illusion that the mass global working-class revolution will be lead by the New Revolutionary Communist Party of South West St. Ives Cornwall (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) and simply see it as a forum to be able to do things with like-minded people.

I guess more broadly, much of the actually existing tendencies, divisions and factions come across as so stifling because of the baggage attached to each of them. For example, if I were to identify as a Libertarian Communist and join such an organisation, it would be seen as untenable to also respect Lenin due to the historical divisions between the two tendencies. I might myself still recognise the hugely influential role that Lenin played, appreciate a large amount (if not all) of what Lenin contributed to communist theory and be able to view the development of Leninism within a historical context... but I'd ultimately open myself up to criticism from party comrades that I'm a closet ML. The old 'Dead Russians' line is tired and overused, but I can't help but think that joining a party and paying the associated dues would seem like a much more worthwhile venture if I was to join in order to fight for working class causes rather than argue about the past for the millionth time.

[ashtonh]

To be completely honest one of the major ones the CPUSA is a pushover social-democrat capitalist figurehead. While they claim communism they follow the line of rhetoric based on the democratic party. Now the democrats are better than the republicans but a communist party should vote communist.

[Q]

But it goes back to asking yourself what you hope to achieve though joining a party.
In the current environment of a landscape littered with micro-sects, that's a personal question. As for our group, we started Communist Platform because we felt that combining our forces would make us more effective in starting a campaign for communist politics in the worker class movement. Even despite our very small size and our very recent launch date, I think we already made a small impact in the last few weeks (on Facebook, on May Day, on the Marxism Festival organised by the Dutch branch of the SWP) because we now have a website and a magazine that acts as a pole around which we can discuss and debate.

Doing the same as an individual is far more difficult if not nearly impossible.


If an environment where your own views and learning is shelved in favour of sticking to a party line, then it might not be the most productive place to broaden one's knowledge of communism.
If that were the case, then you're absolutely right. I'm just arguing that from my experience with the CPGB group, with their Weekly Worker, I don't think this is the case.


I guess more broadly, much of the actually existing tendencies, divisions and factions come across as so stifling because of the baggage attached to each of them. For example, if I were to identify as a Libertarian Communist and join such an organisation, it would be seen as untenable to also respect Lenin due to the historical divisions between the two tendencies. I might myself still recognise the hugely influential role that Lenin played, appreciate a large amount (if not all) of what Lenin contributed to communist theory and be able to view the development of Leninism within a historical context... but I'd ultimately open myself up to criticism from party comrades that I'm a closet ML. The old 'Dead Russians' line is tired and overused, but I can't help but think that joining a party and paying the associated dues would seem like a much more worthwhile venture if I was to join in order to fight for working class causes rather than argue about the past for the millionth time.
Two things here:
1. If you were to be expected to actually toe that line, then I agree you'd need to criticise such a stance to 'dead Russians'. Sanctification is a disease on the left.
2. That being said, we obviously need to learn from the past and this means, where necessary, reinterpreting it. The last decade of research into the Second International for example has been highly useful I would argue, as it helps (re)discover a strategy that actually works in building a class-for-itself that strives for a different kind of society. It also helped putting the 'dead Russians' into context, which if only that would be the result, would also be very useful.

[Left Voice]

I feel bad for citing the CPGB-PCC as an example actually because my later points were intended to be more general rather than specifically talking about them. I have a huge amount of respect for the CPGB-PCC, the way they position their party and how they encourage a broad range of thoughts within the Weekly Worker. They are the closest to what I would want to see from a communist 'party' and it's a shame that more left parties don't follow their lead. They have a way to dealing with the past that others have struggled with (and in the case of the SWP, struggling to deal with the present).

I guess my overall point to the OP was to maybe not consider joining a party until you're 100% sure on what your views are rather than being in the middle of a learning process (and lets face it, most of us always are), and even then - think about what you hope to achieve by doing it. Don't join a party just because you feel you should be a member of a party.

[Neoteropoeos]

I don't want to encroach too much on this topic, as the OP started with the original aim of evaluating US parties, but what do people in the UK feel about Left Unity, the new party? Is it worth looking into?

[Q]

I don't want to encroach too much on this topic, as the OP started with the original aim of evaluating US parties, but what do people in the UK feel about Left Unity, the new party? Is it worth looking into?
Left Unity has several platforms within it which are vying for political hegemony:

- The Communist Platform (http://communistplatform.org.uk/) is the platform setup by the CPGB after a Socialist Platform conference meeting last year refused to accept amendments to the platform text.
- The Socialist Platform (http://leftunity.org/socialist-platform-statement-of-aims-and-principles/).
- The Left Party platform (http://leftunity.org/left-party-platform-statement/).
- The Class Struggle Platform (http://leftunity.org/the-class-struggle-platform/).

And maybe some more. The Weekly Worker has quite a few articles on Left Unity and its platforms (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/categories/party-programme/left-unity/left-unity-group), which are quite informative. But, overall speaking, it seems that the 'realpolitik' rightwing, organised around the Left Party platform, has dominance right now.

So if you join, inform yourself on what currents there are and if you agree with any. If you find yourself in a minority, join a principled opposition. I do think Left Unity is worth joining, but only from a critical proposition. I'd join the Communist Platform myself straight away.

Moderator action: You correctly remark that the title is vague. I added "in the USA" to make it clearer.

[Left Voice]

Despite the initial promise and some continued optimism from some people, I'm struggling to see how it could ever become a revolutionary socialist party. The roots give it away - formed by Ken Loach based on the success of the Spirit of '45 film about establishment of the NHS and nationalisation of utilities after World War 2. As a result, it primarily sets out to recreate 'old Labour'. From the outset, the creation of the party was inspired by a nationalisation of services rather than on the basis of class conflict.

The open nature of the party means there's plenty of room for revolutionary comrades to operate, which is why it has been utilised as a potential forum for change by many parties. The aforementioned CPGB-PCC operate the Communist Platform within the party as an effort to promote a truly socialist agenda. Unfortunately the seems to operate in opposition to the upper echelons of the party who are essentially trying to appeal to disaffected Labour voters and trade unionists, trying to distance themselves from the so-called 'looney left'. The CPGB-PCC published an article about this in this week's issue of the Weekly Worker, it is a must-read.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1009/left-unity-arms-and-our-moderate-speaker

Despite early promise, the most astonishing thing is how quickly the party has pulled a Labour Party and shifted to the right. All they will become is yet another 'socialist' Social Democratic party that will leech votes from Labour, and are essentially doubling up on the role already being played by Red Labour within the Labour Party itself. In my opinion, they are of no interest to revolutionary socialists. But if you do join, the Communist Platform seems to be where it is at.

[Q]

I don't want to encroach too much on this topic, as the OP started with the original aim of evaluating US parties, but what do people in the UK feel about Left Unity, the new party? Is it worth looking into?
As you asked about this, I thought this article (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1010/left-unity-what-safe-spaces-lead-to) would be interesting:


I waded into this morass with a two-line email, pointing out that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ was kind of a progressive thing. Literally five minutes later, comrade Parker replied; apparently, the topic was no longer “suitable for discussion on this list”. Shortly afterward, we were informed that the list was now being moderated; anything political, or “comments which imply any form of blame or criticism to any members of the list”, would be blocked. This action was taken by an ‘ad-hoc committee’ formed behind the backs of the membership.

[...]

Sadly, reports from elsewhere in the country suggest a similar pattern. Claim and counter-claim being used as a substitute for open political debate, or to clamp down on it altogether. A mindset which will get LU precisely nowhere and, worse, make us a laughing stock.
Things don't seem to be developing well. Maybe a to be expected result for the SWP crisis and if so, very troublesome for how the left is going to develop in the years to come.

[Left Voice]

That article demonstrates the inevitable problem that any 'broad church' party will face. The concept of a unified left sounds positive and even necessary in the face of the domination of the capitalist right and the illusion of their unity. However, it falsely assumes that the analyses of the problems and what needs to be done are already somewhat shared among the left and all that is necessarily is a little bit of compromise. While there is a fair bit of obsessions with dead Russians, it's incorrect to claim that these are the only issues that divide the left.

The problem with a 'broad church' party is that it inherently results in a lack of firm faith in the basis of the party's politics. In a political world where ideas will be challenged, criticised, dragged through the mud, disregarded as unrealistic, 'looney', or detached from the real world, it is imperative that any such 'party' (in a broad sense) has a programme with a firm ideological basis that can withstand and overcome such criticism. Internal debates and discussions should take place not to maintain some warped sense of ideological 'purity' and party unity of thought, but so that the programmatic weaknesses are addressed.

The problem with broad churches like Left Unity is that this firm programmatic basis (the kind of firm programme pushed by the Communist Platform) is discarded in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. For all the self-identification of 'comrades' to the right of Left Unity as 'socialist', anything that resembles a truly socialist basis for action is swept under the rug in favour of a so-called 'common sense' approach. They clearly lack faith in their own politics to the extent that they're afraid of scaring people away. Hence the shift towards old Labour-style social democracy and all of the contradictions that this entails.

Maybe this is just a problem with parliamentarianism itself, and the general trend of abandoning one's own principles for the sake of votes.

[Killer Enigma]

If you learn Marxist-Leninist, I'd suggest looking at: Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Workers World Party, and the League of Revolutionaries for a New America.

[exeexe]

Cool, thanks for the reply! I don't really agree with all of your reasoning (especially regarding accelerationism and your focus on fiscal/monetary policy), but we're getting really off topic here, so I'll try to message you about them.

I just wanna point out a thing i just read which tells that having a fiscal/monetary policy will bring and end to capitalism
http://davidharvey.org/2011/07/the-vote-to-end-capitalism/



A startling conclusion follows. A vote against further debt creation is a vote to end capitalism! Fortunately or unfortunately (depending upon one’s political point of view) the Koch Brothers and the Republican Party cannot see that. Marx had always hoped that rebellious workers might end capitalism. So far they have not succeeded. So maybe the Koch brothers and the Republican Party can succeed where the workers have so far failed. Marx might not have been too surprised at that. As he also gleefully noted, individual capitalists operating in their own self-interest often take actions that collectively threaten the continuity of capitalism as a whole.


But again as you said this is getting out of topic..-

[exeexe]

I also said this, but because the edit doesnt work ill have to put it in a 2nd post:

also because the way the market is supposed to work is by regulating itself, but since there is endless amount of money the regulation is not working. This is probably a weak explaination, and i cant explain it right now, i will have to read about it. But i think thats how it is. Not sure.

Aaah and i found a good explanation, see last post

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

So, I'm fairly new and I was interested in joining a party. My question is, what do you guys think of the leftist parties in the US, or the larger international parties? Any recommendations or criticisms?

If you're not Wobbly then I'm terribly sorry. ;)

[USAneedsCommunism]

The leftist labor communist parties of many countries is so weak and/or so unexistant that many oppressed people are forced to either vote for the lesser evil capitalist right-wing parties (Like the democratic party of USA and the capitalist social-democratic party of Michelle Bachelet of Chile), or to join one of the many social-democratic reformist parties like The Green Party in USA, The Socialist Party of USA, Socialist Alternative Party and many other social-democratic parties. Because there are very few real socialist parties in most cities of America. Many states in America do not have socialist parties at all, the most socialist parties in many cities of USA is the green party









So, I'm fairly new and I was interested in joining a party. My question is, what do you guys think of the leftist parties in the US, or the larger international parties? Any recommendations or criticisms?

[USAneedsCommunism]

Red: yeah you are right, and what you said in your post about how most people are pro-oppressrs and only a few are anti-oppressors like the movies The Matrix is very true. The extreme fear, the extreme weakness, the extreme anti-fighting spirit of the majority of humans has been very powerful all the way since ancient empires. In fact I think that one of the main real causes of why we don't have communist marxist workers governments (dictatorships of the proletariat) is fear. If most humans wouldn't be so super-scared, people would reach their 100% brain powers, their personal dreams and goals and the world would be a paradise.

But unfortunately we live in a global mental hospital of scared people. I used to be a supporter of Ron Paul and I had like 20 car bumper stickers of Ron Paul for president 2012, and I remember that I offered some of those Ron Paul bumper stickers to some friends. And they rejected it, because Ron Paul was too much anti-status quo, anti-war.

Bob Avakian, the president of the revolutionary communist party of USA, said in one of his audio speeches at bobavakian.net, that many parents of young kids, and teenagers, do not want their children and teens to lift weights at all, because they are scared that their sons could be too aggressive looking for the american society, too aggressive for the cops.

It is fear that drives leftists in USA to support Obama, Bernie Sanders and Elizaberth Warren (who are capitalist reformists and not politicians in favor of a Bolshevik Revolution, The Paris Commune and a government like the Bolivarian Government in USA, with an agressive president nationalizing corporations and teaching people in his speeches about the importance of book-reading and philosophy (like Hugo Chavez used to do)

It is fear that's an impediment for poor americans to quit relying on garage sales, e-bay and working 4 extra hours a day in order to be able to pay their monthly bills, instead of joining communist marxist parties. Just like it is fear that drives many obese people away from dieting and exercising. Fear agauinst pain and fear against hunger pangs.

Most humans are scared animals

So having said all this, a marxist communist in favor of a Paris Commune and a Bolshevik workers state in USA cannot know the word "fear" at all, he has to evolve and morph into a super warrior, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year


.




I haven't joined a party, and Left voice has pretty much spelt out why. I'd like to add though that if your going to join a party, you need to be serious about the fact that means you want your country to go communist. it stops being a theory and you have to start thinking in terms of how to justify specific policies either as goals for reform to mobilizing support or else as for an 'actual' revolutionary government (which in the UK is at least decades away).
Imagine your sitting down with a friend and try to think about what your saying, why and how much detail or evidence you can use to support it and what they're objections would be and the evidence they can use to support that objection. I like the 'theory' but it still feels like an empty shop-window and I am just not well-informed enough to say "yeah, I think this could work". I expect you would have to have strong convictions and be emotionally quite tough to face rejection and/or hostility from strangers if you go out canvassing or to a rally etc, as for most people "communism" or "socialism" just doesn't register as a possibility.
So in a way, being able to "come out" as a radical/communist amongst friends and family is the first step to making a public commitment such as joining a party. Most of them will know that it is of interest (as they've glanced at what books your reading, websites your visiting, or make jokes about your Che t-shirt, etc), but it may take them aback that it isn't just a "phase" you're going to grow out of and you really do mean it.
If your uncomfortable with friends or family members knowing, and these are the people who like being around you (but parents are generally counter-revolutionary assholes- that's the first battle of the revolution most people face), joining a party to put yourself out in front of strangers who will be less sympathetic is a no.

[Brutus]

Give it a fucking rest TrotskistMarx.

So having said all this, a marxist communist in favor of a Paris Commune and a Bolshevik workers state in USA cannot know the word "fear" at all, he has to evolve and morph into a super warrior, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
What the hell is this shit? Communists are meant to be some Übermensch type figure, above the herd? Pathetic elitism.

Currently any attempt at revolutionary propaganda or agitation is futile. Class struggle is all but dead in Europe and the US. The best we can do is wait for it to pick back up again, and try to get rid of nutters like the above, so that when the time comes we won't have people like TrotskistMarx patronising the revolutionary proletariat by claiming that they need to cross the tightrope from ape to superman and quoting Bob fucking Avakian.

[Jemdet Nasr]

Wow, this old thread. My politics have really changed in the 2-ish months since I posted it. Thanks to everyone who posted though.

[Q]

Wow, this old thread. My politics have really changed in the 2-ish months since I posted it. Thanks to everyone who posted though.
Two months is old? I think your own ideas might still very much be in flux then.

Anyway, it is an interesting thread for others too, looking for similar answers.

[Jemdet Nasr]

I think it's less of a flux and more of a development. But yeah, it was a very fast development. I blame it on the fact that prior to that I wasn't very political at all.

[Q]

I think it's less of a flux and more of a development. But yeah, it was a very fast development. I blame it on the fact that prior to that I wasn't very political at all.
Just to clarify: I wasn't meaning anything negative when I said 'in flux'. Developments can go very slowly until something qualitatively changes and suddenly everything is moving. This is sometimes referred to as a paradigm shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift). It can make two months look like ages ago when you're in one.

[exeexe]

Wow, this old thread. My politics have really changed in the 2-ish months since I posted it. Thanks to everyone who posted though.
Yeah indeed change comes fast if you are prepared to take down your guards or to question what you have been told :)

[Five Year Plan]

Despite the initial promise and some continued optimism from some people, I'm struggling to see how it could ever become a revolutionary socialist party. The roots give it away - formed by Ken Loach based on the success of the Spirit of '45 film about establishment of the NHS and nationalisation of utilities after World War 2. As a result, it primarily sets out to recreate 'old Labour'. From the outset, the creation of the party was inspired by a nationalisation of services rather than on the basis of class conflict.

The open nature of the party means there's plenty of room for revolutionary comrades to operate, which is why it has been utilised as a potential forum for change by many parties. The aforementioned CPGB-PCC operate the Communist Platform within the party as an effort to promote a truly socialist agenda. Unfortunately the seems to operate in opposition to the upper echelons of the party who are essentially trying to appeal to disaffected Labour voters and trade unionists, trying to distance themselves from the so-called 'looney left'. The CPGB-PCC published an article about this in this week's issue of the Weekly Worker, it is a must-read.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1009/left-unity-arms-and-our-moderate-speaker

Despite early promise, the most astonishing thing is how quickly the party has pulled a Labour Party and shifted to the right. All they will become is yet another 'socialist' Social Democratic party that will leech votes from Labour, and are essentially doubling up on the role already being played by Red Labour within the Labour Party itself. In my opinion, they are of no interest to revolutionary socialists. But if you do join, the Communist Platform seems to be where it is at.

You are a quick study, comrade. To have figured them out so quickly is quite impressive. Yes, you have captured the very essence of the CPGB-PCC and what any political formations, operating on the basis of the same principles, will be. Watering down politics to create the broadest umbrella possible consonant with a written document with programmatic demands that members of the organization have absolutely no obligation to engage in actual class struggle around, apart from effusive "theorizing" in their weekly organ.

By the way, the CPGB is not a "party," even by their own admission, if I am not mistaken. They are what I would call a propaganda group, and a not-so-great one at that.

[Q]

You are a quick study, comrade. To have figured them out so quickly is quite impressive. Yes, you have captured the very essence of the CPGB-PCC and what any political formations, operating on the basis of the same principles, will be. Watering down politics to create the broadest umbrella possible consonant with a written document with programmatic demands that members of the organization have absolutely no obligation to engage in actual class struggle around, apart from effusive "theorizing" in their weekly organ.

By the way, the CPGB is not a "party," even by their own admission, if I am not mistaken. They are what I would call a propaganda group, and a not-so-great one at that.
Amazing how people can thank such database clutter as useful.

Which was that amazing "party" that you're in again? By your own standards this is just pots and kettles.

But then again, the CPGB is not following your standards. Like you said, it is not a party, but a campaign to refound the communist party. To achieve that, it aims to unite the left and this in turn necessarily means turning everything upside down. Hence the focus on open debate (resulting, incidentally, in one of the best publications the far left has to offer - rising far above the mindnumbing standard of being against cuts this and demonstration that) and political critique on the far left.

Ontopic: One group that hasn't been mentioned yet and is rapidly maturing is the Red Party (USA) (http://red-party.com/). This group is inspired by the CPGB and aims for similar goals in a US context. It might be worth checking out.