Log in

View Full Version : Largest Left Wing Party



CCCPneubauten
23rd March 2006, 01:59
Well, the title says it all....

Does anyone know the current membership rankings for "left" wing parties?

Eleutherios
23rd March 2006, 03:11
How do you define left?

BattleOfTheCowshed
23rd March 2006, 04:37
Well it highly depends on your definition of the Left. If you include reformist parties and have a rather wide definition of the Left then I guess it would be the Green Party.

Sankara1983
23rd March 2006, 05:44
This web page (http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.html) gives estimates of membership and cadres for several groups.

Membership:

25,000: Green Party
9,000: Democratic Socialists of America
2,000: Black Radical Congress
2,000: Communist Party USA
1,200: Socialist Party USA
1,000: Industrial Workers of the World
500: Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
150: Socialist Alternative
100: League of Revolutionaries for a New America
100: Maoist Internationalist Movement
50: News and Letters

Scars
23rd March 2006, 07:20
That website is very old and very inaccurate- they're not estimates, they're guesses.

Anyway, the IWW has roughly 2000 members, and it's growing.

MIM would have, at absolute maximum, 25 members.

The CPUSA would probably only have about 500, it's been nigh irrelivant since '56.

Abood
23rd March 2006, 07:38
Not a single orthodox marxist party? :o

Nothing Human Is Alien
23rd March 2006, 07:41
Actually the IWW has 2,500 according to recent reports.

Oh, and the CPUSA is the biggest "radical leftist" (yeah right) group in the US.

Severian
23rd March 2006, 10:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:53 PM
This web page (http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.html) gives estimates of membership and cadres for several groups.

Membership:

25,000: Green Party
9,000: Democratic Socialists of America
2,000: Black Radical Congress
2,000: Communist Party USA
1,200: Socialist Party USA
1,000: Industrial Workers of the World
500: Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
150: Socialist Alternative
100: League of Revolutionaries for a New America
100: Maoist Internationalist Movement
50: News and Letters
That's probably accurate as far as the top 4 or 5. After that it gets fuzzy; hard to reliably guess at things so small. They also leave out a number of organizations which are probably bigger than 150 members.

On the other hand, I'd be surprised if MiM or News&Letters have more than a dozen or so members. I've never met a member of either.

Then there's the issue of "what do you mean by a member"? DSA, for example, is less of an organization than a mailing list. The Black Radical Congress is more of an umbrella group, I think. But in some of the more radical parties, a member is a cadre, a highly dedicated activist.

**

If you ask about groups more radical than the CPUSA or the various social democrats: the larger ones probably include the International Socialists Organization, the Socialist Workers Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party, and the Workers World Party.

That's alphabetical order - I'm not going to try to rank them, and I chose those four based on activity, influence, running into them more than an estimate of their membership lists.

All these groups are small, of course; even the DSA or the Greens.

SmithSmith
23rd March 2006, 11:09
Why is the left so divided?

rebelworker
23rd March 2006, 13:47
Beause we have very different ideas about how to change the world.

Some of us work on the same campaigns, but we need different organisations to represent our politics.

IWW was listed in the Wall Street Journal as having 2500 members last week.

NEFAC has about 100 dues paying members in the Northeast, our sister org in the northwest probably has less than half that.

Including supporter collectives in the great lakes area, San Diego and Atlanta and scattered individuals we probably got 200-250.

I heard the ISO has about 1000, but their turnover is o high that that is extreemly hard to judge, from my experience with their canadian equivilant that probably translates to about 250 cadre(almost exclusivly students) 4-500 semiactive or turnover members and 2-300 names on lists that arnt really interested or inactive for a long time.

I think the RCP probably has about 2-400 members, but thats just a guess from what I know about a few regions. in general a handfull of older crazies with a large new influx of very young people.

SWP at between 150-250 is a bit more serrious and based in workplace organizing. Much older and experienced average membership than ISO or RCP, but on the way out.

WWP is probbly a bit bigger than the SWP, know for their high profile front groups, something the RCP would love to duplicate. My impression is that they dont talk alot about their realpolitics though, its all in the secretly leading about the masses for them.

SmithSmith
23rd March 2006, 14:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:56 PM
Beause we have very different ideas about how to change the world.

Some of us work on the same campaigns, but we need different organisations to represent our politics.


But this is why the 18/19 century communists, socialists, and anarchists lost. The were too busy fighting each other while the Right took advantage and conquered.

TC
23rd March 2006, 14:06
Although they don't conceptualize themselves as 'partys' PETA and Green Peace are probably the largest in terms of both money and members on the left. The ACLU while technically a liberal organization is often in effect a leftist organization and they are probably even better funded and organized. The National lawyers Guild is leftist and probably fairly large given that it has a ton of indepdent lawyers everywhere.


As for the radical marxist left, i think the WWP and their factions and front groups and the Revolutionary Communist Party are probably by far the largest in terms of the numbers of activists they can get on the streets and they seem to have the largest 'presence' so to speak...but in terms of actual committed cadre members, maybe the Sparticus League and ISO have a similar amount...and when it comes to people who affiliate themselves the CPUSA is probably quite 'large' except in that, while the WWP party commands many more activists than it has members, the CPUSA has far fewer activists then it has members as most of its members are entirely passive supporters.

In any case thats my educated guess having been to dozens of demonstrations on the US east coast...it might be different in the west coast and mid west.

CCCPneubauten
23rd March 2006, 19:59
Well, I was looking for an orginization to join that A) has a strong membership and B) has a lot of things you get when you join with the party or group. I.e pin, book, newspaper, ect.

Any one know a good one?

Nothing Human Is Alien
23rd March 2006, 21:11
As for the radical marxist left, i think the WWP and their factions and front groups and the Revolutionary Communist Party are probably by far the largest in terms of the numbers of activists they can get on the streets and they seem to have the largest 'presence' so to speak...but in terms of actual committed cadre members, maybe the Sparticus League and ISO have a similar amount...and when it comes to people who affiliate themselves the CPUSA is probably quite 'large' except in that, while the WWP party commands many more activists than it has members, the CPUSA has far fewer activists then it has members as most of its members are entirely passive supporters.

No fucking way are the Sparts anywhere near the size of the RCP or ISO. The ISO has around 1,000 members, and the Sparts are smaller than the SWP which only has a few hundred members left.

вор в законе
23rd March 2006, 22:49
Why is the left so divided?

Dogmatism.

Jimmie Higgins
23rd March 2006, 23:11
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 23 2006, 10:58 PM

Why is the left so divided?

Dogmatism.
This is a little too simple of an answer. I think when groups or coalitions split, there are generally two different reasons:

1) Splits happen because of objective events which cause real differences in ideas of how to progress.

The Russian revolution had this effect and the left was divided in supporting the Bolsheviks or not.

I think what we have seen since the 90s has been the aftermath of the end of the soviet union. There is a political reallignment and reassesment because of a world event. I think that with the collapse of the USSR and the movement toward more overt capitalist forms in Maoist countries means it is no accident that Stalinist and Maoist groups have been on the decline while Anarchists and Trot groups have been growing larger in the 90s.

2) Splits happen when movements are in a downturn. This can be sectarian in nature... on faction blames another for the decline. I guess it depends on where you stand if you think a sectarian split is healthy or not.

During the anti-globalization movment, many marxist and anarchist groups had been working together in coalitions and, in my experience, in the downturn after 9/11, things got really bitter between radicals and groups who had worked together with much less friction when the movement was still growing.

In anti-afganistan-war coalitions I was in anarchists were blaming socialists and other anarchists for the decline and liberals were red-baiting all radicals and saying that the movement's decline was because radicals wern't patriotic enough and we scaring people off.

Scars
23rd March 2006, 23:19
Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 23 2006, 07:50 AM
Actually the IWW has 2,500 according to recent reports.

Oh, and the CPUSA is the biggest "radical leftist" (yeah right) group in the US.
Is that word-wide or in that states? Because if it's the states it means that there's been a 25% increase in membership in only a year or so!

I think part of the reason the left is so splintered is because the unwillingness to comprimise and, generally, the unwillingness to have internal 'factions'. Thus whenever somthing 'big' happens, for instance Yugoslavia or Kosovo, isntead of there being two or three internal factions that will disagree with one another over that issue, but will still agree with the base platform of the party, its methods, its goals etc they'll split into two parties who proclaim, more or less, the same things but will bitterly oppose one another. The best example of this would be the Trotskites (Trotskyists? Trotskyiteists?), you could easily form 90% of the parties into one big, united party- but there is so much bad blood between them (mainly because most of them are historically 'related' to one another) that this will never happen.

The PLP have also grown since the beginning of the 'War on Terror' from about 200 members to about 500-ish. In addition they have a wider racial diversity than many leftist parties of North America, which are almost all 95% white.

amanondeathrow
23rd March 2006, 23:36
The PLP have also grown since the beginning of the 'War on Terror' from about 200 members to about 500-ish. In addition they have a wider racial diversity than many leftist parties of North America, which are almost all 95% white.
Do you have a source for this?

BattleOfTheCowshed
23rd March 2006, 23:45
The ISO and the RCP are bigger than those estimates I think, both growing significantly in the recent past. I would peg the ISO at 2,000+ (although they have a very high turnover rate as has been said) and the RCP at about 1,000. I highly doubt the Spartacists have more than 150 members nationwide. The estimates for the WWP also seem to be a bit high, they have a very high presence on the left because of their front groups and organized protests, but their numbers are lower than people think I suspect. The list also omits the recent group that broke-off from the WWP, the Party of Socialism and Liberation which has grown considerably. Regardless, I would say that there are probably more people who consider themselves Marxist or Anarchist and are unaffiliated or anti-authoritarian than these numbers suggest.

Scars
23rd March 2006, 23:51
Originally posted by Dee's [email protected] 23 2006, 11:45 PM

The PLP have also grown since the beginning of the 'War on Terror' from about 200 members to about 500-ish. In addition they have a wider racial diversity than many leftist parties of North America, which are almost all 95% white.
Do you have a source for this?
Several PLP members and associates that I've talked to.

Jimmie Higgins
24th March 2006, 00:02
I am not familiar with the Prog Labor Party... I thought they were the LaRouchies (who are definately not Leftists).

Nothing Human Is Alien
24th March 2006, 00:09
No they're not at all.. but they may have worked with LaRouche's National Caucus of Labor Committees in the 70's (when they were still claiming to uphold Trotskyism).

They came out of the SDS in the 60's. They say socialism is the reason that the revolutions in the USSR and China were reversed, and that we need to go "straight to communism" (or at least what they view to be communism).

*edit: They actually came out of a split from the CPUSA, but got strong after work in the SDS.

TC
24th March 2006, 00:17
Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 23 2006, 09:20 PM

No fucking way are the Sparts anywhere near the size of the RCP or ISO. The ISO has around 1,000 members, and the Sparts are smaller than the SWP which only has a few hundred members left.
Where there are a lot of Sparts in Boston, certaintly they have far more visibility in the campuses, streets, harvard square and the protests than SWP. In fact i don't think i've ever seen more than a couple SWP members at a time and then only at protests sponsored by the WWP. But maybe the SWP is larger elsewhere i don't know.

But yah clearly the ISO, RCP and WWP (and their split, and their FIST student group) are larger. I think though its hard to tell exactly how big the WWP is if you don't have personal contacts with them because a lot of their members work for front groups and other organizations, rather than representing themselves as WWP...whereas the ISO always identify themselves as such at rally's. I met someone at a protest once who i had no idea was a WWP comrade until i asked him what his take on them was some time later :-p. They don't seem to really actively solicit people to join either (though that might be different in other chapters).

Scars
24th March 2006, 02:32
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:11 AM
I am not familiar with the Prog Labor Party... I thought they were the LaRouchies (who are definately not Leftists).
The PLP desended from the Progressive Labour Movement, which desended from a Maoist off-shoot from the CPUSA. They played a significant role in the SDS and eventually took control of it, before it fell apart.

PLP politics are strange, I'll give you that. A mixture of Anarcho-Communism, Maoism and Marxist-Leninism.

Severian
24th March 2006, 09:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:20 PM
I think when groups or coalitions split, there are generally two different reasons:

1) Splits happen because of objective events which cause real differences in ideas of how to progress.
......

2) Splits happen when movements are in a downturn. This can be sectarian in nature... on faction blames another for the decline. I guess it depends on where you stand if you think a sectarian split is healthy or not.
I think this is basically right. There are real, significant differences...but a lot more groups than significant differences.

Sectarianism is a product of being isolated, in a mostly hostile or indifferent environment, like when the class struggle is in a downturn. Splitting over insignificant crap is one of many symptoms of sectarianism.

None of these groups is a true party in the sense of leading a major part of the class; they're at best a propaganda group trying to break out of a semi-sectarian existence.

****

I guess other posters have mostly agreed with my short list there.

If someone was going to do a really serious comparison of the different groups, I'd suggest they compare the circulation of the newspapers. For membership figures, you have to guess or take an organization's word for it, and membership means something different for different groups. But any newspaper sent through the mail is legally required to run a statement of circulation once a year.

But if anyone's done that, I haven't seen it.

OTOH: that would probably understate Workers World's influence, since they operate more through front groups (calling rallies). Open propaganda in their own name, like their newspaper, is secondary.

Nothing Human Is Alien
24th March 2006, 10:13
Yeah, but even then you have groups like the CPUSA who say they circulate a number much higher than actually gets out. They include bundles they send to supporters in their numbers, and many of those papers head for the trash.

Xanthus
24th March 2006, 10:22
I'd suggest that perhaps size of party isn't the best consideration. The quality of a Marxist organisation is first of all judged by program, tactics, and traditions, and only secondly by membership.

I'd suggest that the best Marxist tendancy, and the one most able to grow in the future is actually a small and new one, the Workers' International League (http://www.socialistappeal.org/).

Take a browse through some of their material, compare it to the other options mentioned, and decide for yourself.

Severian
24th March 2006, 10:23
That's a point, CdeL...I think it'd be a flawed estimate but still better than most of 'em out there.

Black Dagger
24th March 2006, 13:20
and B) has a lot of things you get when you join with the party or group. I.e pin, book, newspaper, ect.

This made me laugh for some reason, you make these parties sound like special clubs, you get lots of 'things when you join' :P

bezdomni
24th March 2006, 22:08
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:08 PM
Well, I was looking for an orginization to join that A) has a strong membership and B) has a lot of things you get when you join with the party or group. I.e pin, book, newspaper, ect.

Any one know a good one?
I am a member of the Worker's International Leage.

Our websites are:
Socialist Appeal - Organ of the WIL (http://www.socialistappeal.org/)

In Defense of Marxism (http://marxist.com/)

Youth for International Socialism (http://www.newyouth.com/)

WellRed- Books, Pins, Stickers, Shirts and More! (http://www.wellredusa.com/)

Hands Off Venezuela! Campaign (http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/)



For more information, if you are interested in joining: Join the WIL! (http://www.socialistappeal.org/join.html)

Hope this is what you were looking for comrade!

TC
24th March 2006, 22:49
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 24 2006, 01:29 PM

and B) has a lot of things you get when you join with the party or group. I.e pin, book, newspaper, ect.

This made me laugh for some reason, you make these parties sound like special clubs, you get lots of 'things when you join' :P
:lol: yah that is pretty funny


and yet...


Please mail a check for annual dues of $24 ($12 for high school and unemployed). Within 2-3 weeks, you will receive in the mail: 1 free issue of the YCL magazine Dynamic, a YCL pin, a new members packet.


I guess that answers his question, should join the Young Communist League...you get a YCL magazine and a special YCL pin!!!


Too bad they're not issuing super-cool Mcarthy red scare style Communist Party Membership Cards anymore or perhaps you have to pay extra to be a 'card-carrying member.'

bezdomni
24th March 2006, 23:03
I have met some old CL members and I have met some young YCL members.

I find none of them to be impressive or worthwhile.

I therefore surmise that the entire Communist League is not worthwhile.

Geez, they have steep dues. I only pay $6.25 a month (hourly wage). Nobody really gets upset when I forget or can't pay that month either.

We sell our newspaper for a dollar an issue and the pins cost $2.00

You could get the same package from WIL for

Hourly Wage + $2.

So if you make minimum wage, that's $7.50. :lol:

What a rip off!

Scars
24th March 2006, 23:37
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 24 2006, 01:29 PM

and B) has a lot of things you get when you join with the party or group. I.e pin, book, newspaper, ect.

This made me laugh for some reason, you make these parties sound like special clubs, you get lots of 'things when you join' :P
My IWW membership book thing is my only form of ID, so don't knock it too much! :lol:

As for membership dues, I think that they are important, I don't think that an organisation should have to function on donations alone. But this said I think that some organisations have stupidly high dues. I like the IWW system (and I always have, right back to when I was an Orthodox Maoist) with a graduated system, that way everyone can afford to be a member and everyone pays a roughly equal percentage of their income (this probably works out to be around 0.0001% of your income, or possibly lower. lowest group is $6US a month, highest is $18US a month)

Nothing Human Is Alien
24th March 2006, 23:52
Nah it's higher than that. You pay $6 if you make $1000 a month, that's about 0.6% I think.

Monthly dues in the FPM are 0.5% of your monthly wage, which isn't bad at all.

Atlas Swallowed
25th March 2006, 12:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:11 AM
I am not familiar with the Prog Labor Party... I thought they were the LaRouchies (who are definately not Leftists).
I do not think Lyndon LaRouche knows whether he is left or right. I wonder if he knows that he is fucking nuts :) Can&#39;t decide if I want to join his or Raels cult, decisions <_<

rebelworker
25th March 2006, 15:50
This is going out to all the WIL heads,

Are you sertious???????????

Ok where is your mothership? What happened in Great Britan to your flagship org, once the envy of trots everywhere?

Have you heard of the poll tax rebellion?

Ill give you a hand, it happened in that period inbetween the time the millitant was at the top and the period after when they started to re ublish stuff after the split....

Read up on it, the parties behavior was horrific, they didnt disapear for no reason.

The leadership got pissed off when the working class decided they were going to organise the largest rebellion against the state in the western hemeshphere in modern times withtout waiting for the vanguard to lead them.

So what did they decide to do in response, organise harder?

Nope they went public in the beurgoise media denouncing working class militants in the thousands for defending themselves against a brutal police onslaught.
They even went as far as sayong they would work with the police to root out "troublemakers", name names and all that.

I would serriously doubt that this is the kind of revolutionary tradition that you all want to be part of, I suggest you do some independant research, I recomend "the Poll Tax rebellion" by Danny Burns and then jump ship and statr all over.

A briliant example of the negeative outcome of centrlised self serving power.

Im sure you are all dedicated rev&#39;s(thought i have heard some rediculous stories about the fightback central comitte), Im sure you can find better ways to send your time than proping up the legacy of intelecual self proclaimed vanguards working against the interests of th working class.

In Solidarity,
rebelworker

Scars
26th March 2006, 04:32
Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 25 2006, 12:01 AM
Nah it&#39;s higher than that. You pay &#036;6 if you make &#036;1000 a month, that&#39;s about 0.6% I think.

Monthly dues in the FPM are 0.5% of your monthly wage, which isn&#39;t bad at all.
I gave up maths when I was about 14- can you tell?

Who the hell is Lyndon LaRouche anyway? I&#39;ve never heard of him.

321zero
26th March 2006, 05:48
Who the hell is Lyndon LaRouche anyway? I&#39;ve never heard of him.

Google him, you&#39;re in for a treat.

Atlas Swallowed
26th March 2006, 12:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:41 AM
Who the hell is Lyndon LaRouche anyway? I&#39;ve never heard of him.
Perenial presidential candidate, cult leader, former Marxist and conservative(do not know what his current ideology is besides insanity), felon, conman, our only hope against alien invasion. Along with Rael and David Icke can be concidered one of the three wisest men in the universe.

Xanthus
26th March 2006, 16:32
Originally posted by rebelworker+Mar 25 2006, 07:59 AM--> (rebelworker @ Mar 25 2006, 07:59 AM) This is going out to all the WIL heads,

Are you sertious???????????

Ok where is your mothership? What happened in Great Britan to your flagship org, once the envy of trots everywhere?

Have you heard of the poll tax rebellion?

Ill give you a hand, it happened in that period inbetween the time the millitant was at the top and the period after when they started to re ublish stuff after the split....

Read up on it, the parties behavior was horrific, they didnt disapear for no reason.

The leadership got pissed off when the working class decided they were going to organise the largest rebellion against the state in the western hemeshphere in modern times withtout waiting for the vanguard to lead them.

So what did they decide to do in response, organise harder?

Nope they went public in the beurgoise media denouncing working class militants in the thousands for defending themselves against a brutal police onslaught.
They even went as far as sayong they would work with the police to root out "troublemakers", name names and all that.

I would serriously doubt that this is the kind of revolutionary tradition that you all want to be part of, I suggest you do some independant research, I recomend "the Poll Tax rebellion" by Danny Burns and then jump ship and statr all over.

A briliant example of the negeative outcome of centrlised self serving power.

Im sure you are all dedicated rev&#39;s(thought i have heard some rediculous stories about the fightback central comitte), Im sure you can find better ways to send your time than proping up the legacy of intelecual self proclaimed vanguards working against the interests of th working class.

In Solidarity,
rebelworker [/b]

Originally posted by [email protected]

Militant was in the leadership of the movement because they were on the forefront day in day out campaigning against it - not just on the day of 31st March.

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


The Rise of Militant
At the National Union of Teachers (NUT) conference, a Militant supporter recounted that he "was only allowed to speak to one harmless sentence of my poll tax resolution - the NEC ruled the rest out of order because it called for non-payment." (8)

The fact that Militant was the backbone of the non-payment campaign was of course an additional reason for opposing this motion. The conference had actually voted in favor of strike action against redundancies. Jobs were threatened by the implementation of the local management of schools policy (LMS) and by poll tax capping.

The NUT right-wing general secretary, Doug McAvoy, had been trying to make the union give up the strike weapon. He therefore reacted to the resolution by trying to frighten delegates and the membership at large by claiming that the resolution for strike action was "a Militant plot". Anita Dickinson, NEC member-elect, answered McAvoy&#39;s charges point by point.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/litera...itant/ch40.html (http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/militant/ch40.html)


But in the end it was Militant who brought the war to Thatcher. The anti-poll-tax campaign remains the chief battle of the tendency – they being the ones who had the extraordinarily audacious idea of launching a campaign of civil disobedience, inciting people to refuse to pay the new tax. In Scotland the campaign became a massive affair, the main role being played by Tommy Sheridan, a particularly charismatic and combative militant, who was thrown in prison for refusing to pay the poll tax. He was far from being the only one: while 18 million Britons followed the call for non-payment, dozens of Militant supporters were jailed.

http://www.le-militant.org/engdeutch/militantlabour.htm


Hmm... nice try. Militant grew by leaps and bounds during the poll tax campaign. Infact they grew too fast which was one of the reasons the membership could be tricked into thinking that Peter Taffe was a reflection of the tendancy.

By the way, no arguments whatsoever about the collapse of Militant / Socialist Party except for one thing... the collapse occured after the theoretical leadership was kicked out in a grab of power by Taffe.

At the time Militant was 8000 strong and had multiple MPs, however, Taffe ran the tendancy into the ground while the real leadership of Militant was busy building the beginnings of Socialist Appeal / IMT / WIL.

Revolutionary Dave
26th March 2006, 16:40
Socialist Appeal? They are minute compared to the SP.

Scars
26th March 2006, 23:40
Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed+Mar 26 2006, 12:44 PM--> (Atlas Swallowed @ Mar 26 2006, 12:44 PM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 04:41 AM
Who the hell is Lyndon LaRouche anyway? I&#39;ve never heard of him.
Perenial presidential candidate, cult leader, former Marxist and conservative(do not know what his current ideology is besides insanity), felon, conman, our only hope against alien invasion. Along with Rael and David Icke can be concidered one of the three wisest men in the universe. [/b]
He&#39;s....definately unique and most definately has nothing to do with the PLP&#39;s ideology.

bezdomni
27th March 2006, 00:53
I second Xanthus&#39; comments. Well done.

LaRouche is a dolt. Someone always manages to slip a copy of his paper to me at protests. He pays for it himself, apparently. The guy espouses ruling class ideology in a particularly incoherent manner. I perceive LaRouche in the same manner that I suppose Rosa L. perceives Hegel.

If someobody offers you a copy of his paper, just say no. Or better yet, punch them in the face.

I wish I could give a part of an article from his paper, but I&#39;ve since recycled it.

Oh well.

ÑóẊîöʼn
27th March 2006, 07:00
wELL HE GUYS&#33;

Atlas Swallowed
27th March 2006, 15:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:02 AM
If someobody offers you a copy of his paper, just say no. Or better yet, punch them in the face.
Or join his cult. Cults are fun for the whole familly, everyone should join one. The more idiotic and insane the better. I am still pissed that "Heavans Gate" left without me. I had the Nikes the jogging suit and the bad haircut and was ready to go. I could be cruising in outerspace right now with some cool aliens but here I am typing. Do not even have the technology to transfer my thoughts to the screen. Stupid backwards assed earthlings :rolleyes:

Dr. Rosenpenis
27th March 2006, 21:29
Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 23 2006, 02:47 AM
Not a single orthodox marxist party? :o
communist league and international working people&#39;s association

flyby
27th March 2006, 21:55
At the risk of restating the obvious: I agree with those who said what is most important is what a party stands for, not is relative size ranking at any point.

In non-revolutionary times, some non-revolutionary "left" organizations may be larger (superficially) -- including because sometimes because they have a largely "paper" membership (like CPUSA, DSA, and the Green party).

But as Mao said "ideological and political line is decisive. With a correct line, if you don&#39;t have fighting forces, fighting forces will come. With an incorrect line, even if you start with fighting forces, you will lose them."

My personal interest is with the RCP, which has proven a remarkable ability to both dig into this important current situation, and maintain its revolutionary bearings and line.

http://revcom.us