Sam Marcy, greatest Trotskyist ever!

[Intelligitimate]

I know sometimes I am hard on the Trots, but not all Trots are bad. Take the case of Sam Marcy.

From the very beginning, Sam Marcy stood out among other Trots by supporting the USSR during the Hungarian Uprising. During the Vietnam War, Marcy and his party were the first to organize protests, with such radical messages as "Victory to the Vietcong," earning him praise from Ho Chi Minh! Contrast this to the behavior of the Shachtmanites, who supported the US against the "Stalinist" Vietnamese.

In all the areas that really count, this Trotskyist never sided with imperialism. He was pro-Mao and pro-Castro, he supported the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, and was not fooled by Solidarity. Even though Marcy held traditional Trotskyist views of Stalin, he never made an issue out of it, believing the issue was not really relevant anymore. A true anti-sectarian! And now, the WWP, created by Sam Marcy, is definitely the largest and most influential thing calling itself socialist in America today.

Sam Marcy is truly an un-sung hero of the Left, that I think anyone, no matter what position, can appreciate this great human being.

[rouchambeau]

Holy fuck.

Siding against the workers during the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 is socialist?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

This guy seems like a really interesting character, i will have to read somthing about him to get a better idea.

:)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sam Marcy is a joke, as is the WWP. They support the Sudanese government, they support Milosevic, Hussein, and still deem China and Laos socialist.


And now, the WWP, created by Sam Marcy, is definitely the largest and most influential thing calling itself socialist in America today.The CPUSA is larger. The SPUSA is larger as well. The ISO is larger, but most of its members are "paper members". The SWP & RCP are both as big, or bigger than the WWP.

[TC]

I think Sam Marcy was brilliant and had a clear, marxist, geopolitical vision that few first world leftists are mature enough to grasp.



The CPUSA is larger. The SPUSA is larger as well. The ISO is larger, but most of its members are "paper members". The SWP & RCP are both as big, or bigger than the WWP.

That is really not true when you consider that the WWP has the bulk of its supporters and activists in FIST and IAC, it does not recruit for the WWP itself as all of the othe rparties you mentioned do, as it is a dedicated, militant cadre party with an internal security apperatus, it holds party members to a very high standard of dedication, militancy, and trustworthiness, you can't just sign up for it while you buy a newspaper like you can with the others. Instead people sign up for their supporters groups, which combined are far larger than any other far leftwing grouping in the united states.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You can't "sign up for RCP or SWP while you buy a newspaper" either.

And yeah, you're still wrong. When PSL split from WWP they took Answer with them.. and that was the biggest front the WWP had. FIST and IAC aren't as big, not even close.

Yeah.. the "militant cadre" of the WWP, who supported admitted "anti-communist" Henry Wallace's presidential bid and the Chinese government's actions in Tienamen Square! :lol:

[Wanted Man]

I can certainly respect their taking distance of Trotskyist dogma, and their consistent anti-imperialism. Why did the PSL split, though?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Because they didn't want to run a candidate in the 2004 elections.

[violencia.Proletariat]

What are the actual numbers on these parties? Are they even into the thousands?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

ISO has over 1,000 (mostly paper members).. WWP has about 300.. SPUSA a little over 1,000... RCP and SWP have several hundred. CPUSA has a few thousand.

[Red Heretic]

It's always amazed me that the popularization of Sam Marcy's leadership doesn't get attacked, while the popularization Bob Avakian is attacked relentlessly... Anyway, unlike the way that people try to attack and slander Avakian childishly without ever engaging his line, I am going to try to deeply expose what's wrong with Marcy's line here.


From the very beginning, Sam Marcy stood out among other Trots by supporting the USSR during the Hungarian Uprising.

Look, I don't think the Hungarian rebellion was some bastion of proletarian revolution, but the bottom line was that new class had developed within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This new ruling class ultimately represented the interests not of socialism, but of state capitalism and imperialism. The Soviet Union went from being a socialist country to a state-capitalist country which sought to exert imperialist influence.

This occured because of the contradictions and dynamics which were deeply embedded in the CPSU. The threat of capitalist restoration is something that always exists in socialist countries until communism is achieved, because there are contradictions between the party and the proletariat, and contradictions between imperialism and socialism.

When Khruschev rose to power, he directly represented the interests of the new class which had developed inside of the party, and which sought to convert the Soviet Union into an imperialist empire. Nikita Khruschev was a revisionist; communist in name, capitalist in reality.

Time after time, the actions of the Soviet Union were batantly those of revisionist imperialism. From attacking Hungary, to supporting Tito's revisionism which had already developed in Yugoslavia, to constructing the Berlin wall, to invading Afghanistan, to threatening to use nuclear weapons against China, to market reforms and profit based motives for workers. This was revisionism!


Contrast this to the behavior of the Shachtmanites, who supported the US against the "Stalinist" Vietnamese.

The who???


In all the areas that really count, this Trotskyist never sided with imperialism.

Unfortunately, that just isn't true. Revisionist imperialism from former socialist countries is still imperialism.


He was pro-Mao and pro-Castro

This too, is a revisionist position. Cuban national liberation was ultimately devoured and stamped out by the revisionist and imperialist Soviet Union. That is why Castro actively attacked Mao, and Chinese socialism. Castro was essentially being used as a tool for Soviet imperialism (not just against China, but also to spread Soviet imperialist influence throughout Latin America and Africa).

Supporting both Castro and Mao is the same as supporting Khruschev and Mao. There was a fundamental class contradiction that was concentrated between those leaders.


A true anti-sectarian!

Upholding revisionism isn't "anti-sectarian," it's capitulationism. Would you uphold Deng Xaioping, who restored capitalism in China, as a part of anti-sectarianism?


And now, the WWP, created by Sam Marcy, is definitely the largest and most influential thing calling itself socialist in America today.

No, it isn't.

First of all, if you're looking for the largest party that simply calls itself socialist or communist, then it's the revisionist CPUSA. Even the WWP's recent split party, the PSL, is larger than the WWP.

Anyway, I consider the largest genuinely communist party in the USA to be the Revolutionary Communist Party.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Lennie [email protected] 12 2006, 05:21 AM
RCP and SWP have several hundred.
wtf? First of all, the RCP's number of members is not known. Second of all, it is very, very difficult to join the RCP. From what I've seen, tens of thousands of people work with them, but very few of them are members because it requires so much dedication to join that party.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"WTF" what? The RCP has a few hundred members. Just cause they don't want the number of members they have known doesn't mean it isn't.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

From what I've seen, tens of thousands of people work with them

Where are you getting this number? Are you talking about the reformist liberals that "work with them" in WCW?

[Intelligitimate]

Red Heretic, it seems you are some sort of Orthodox Maoist, and I definitely do not support the "Soviet social imperialist" line on the USSR. A document I would recommend is Ludo Martens' www.wpb.be/icm/2005/selected_reading_list/Dir95_India_Seminary_LudoM_1995_EN.doc+on+certain+ aspects+of+the+struggle&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1]On (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:YZMjFAzSad4J:[url) certain aspects of the struggle against revisionism: For the unity of all communists in defence of proletarian internationalism[/url].

[Hit The North]

I think you have to be dubious when a stalinst is praising a trotskyist.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:03 AM
From the very beginning, Sam Marcy stood out among other Trots by supporting the USSR during the Hungarian Uprising
Yay!

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:20 PM
Red Heretic, it seems you are some sort of Orthodox Maoist
An orthodox Maoist? As opposed to what? A revisionist Maoist???


I definitely do not support the "Soviet social imperialist" line on the USSR. A document I would recommend is Ludo Martens' www.wpb.be/icm/2005/selected_reading_list/Dir95_India_Seminary_LudoM_1995_EN.doc+on+certain+ aspects+of+the+struggle&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1]On (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:YZMjFAzSad4J:[url) certain aspects of the struggle against revisionism: For the unity of all communists in defence of proletarian internationalism[/url].

Look, do you want to debate Sam Marcy's line or not? If you think Sam Marcy's line is correct, then let's actually discuss it. I took time to write a long and thoughtful critque of what you (and Sam Marcy) were putting forward, and you just wrote me off and gave me a link.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

t's always amazed me that the popularization of Sam Marcy's leadership doesn't get attacked, while the popularization Bob Avakian is attacked relentlessly...

What?? The amounts of "popularization" aren't even remotely close. One could subscribe to the WWP's publications for a year and never hear about Sam Marcy. Contrast that with the RCP, who's last two issues carried front (and back!) pages proclaiming that Bob Avakian's ground breaking speeches and talks, that must be listened to, were now available.

The WWP has no chants like the RCP chant, that goes "The earth is a shakin', follow Bob Avakian!"

The WWP has never claimed anything like the RCP, who said "If you want to see a revolution, you've got to know Bob Avakian".


That is why Castro actively attacked Mao

:lol: Maoists still can't get over the legitimate criticisms Cuba raised against Mao in the 70's. Of course, they never address the actual criticism itself. China was backing counter-revolutionaries (who the U.S. imperialists were also backing!!!) in places like Angola and Somalia, and had warm relations with neo-fascists like Marcos in the Philippines.

And of course, we have to first remember that all of this came after Fidel, Che, etc. al. called for a resolution to the Sino-Soviet split; for the USSR, China, and all other socialist countries to drop the rhetoric and hostility, and to dedicate all they could to the Vietnamese people in their struggle against imperialism, and to oppose imperialism generally.


Who?

The Shachtmanites were followers of Max Shachtman's theories.. like "bureaucratic collectivism" and that Stalin (and "Stalinists") constituted a new ruling class (which was not the working class, or the capitalist class, but the "bureaucratic class"), thus rejecting Trotsky's "degenerated workers' state". They did not want to defend those states, and infact saw them as imperialist.

They split from the SWP in the late 30's or early 40's (I'm not sure the exact year) and formed their own party, "The Workers Party".

Late in life, Shachtman would go far to the right (and gain the backing of the Social Democrats), and claim that the "Stalinist states" were worse than the imperialist ones. For this reason they backed the U.S. in the Viet Nam war, and in their attacks on Cuba, USSR, etc. Alot of the adhereints of Shachtman at this time went over to become neoconservatives (which they were never that far to began with).


to invading Afghanistan

I suggest you study your history. What do you know about the Saur Revolution? Do you know that the popular government of Afghanistan asked the Red Army to come to their aid in their life or death battle against U.S./Saudi/Pakistani-backed reactionary islamacists; to protect the gains that workers, farmers, and women had made under the revolution. It was in the interest of the international working class for the Red Army to help defeat these reactionaries.


Anyway, I consider the largest genuinely communist party in the USA to be the Revolutionary Communist Party.

And you also think it's the only genuinely communist party.

[Red Heretic]

What?? The amounts of "popularization" aren't even remotely close. One could subscribe to the WWP's publications for a year and never hear about Sam Marcy.

From what I've seen, most editions of the Worker's World publications contained articles by him while he was still alive. The above post however is a perfect example of blatant popularization of his leadership.

There is nothing wrong with popularizing proletarian leadership for reasons I have explained in previous threads. I was simply pointing to the irony that no one was freaking out about the original post of this thread. If the name "Sam Marcy" was substituted with "Bob Avakian," there would be a lynch mob of people saying things like "we're going to kill that Leninist with a baseball bat" like we heard several RAAN members saying the last time Avakian was discussed on this forum.


Contrast that with the RCP, who's last two issues carried front (and back!) pages proclaiming that Bob Avakian's ground breaking speeches and talks, that must be listened to, were now available.

What is wrong with promoting those talks? Did you have any criticism of the content of those talks? There is a thread discussing them if you are interested: here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54131)

Those talks were overwhelmingly insightful, and provided concrete analysis of the development of US imperialism, as well as many other very important questions.

Would it have been ok to advertize those new talks if the advertizement had been only on the front page? Or does the advertizement have to be half page to be ok? This criticism is completely subjective!


The WWP has no chants like the RCP chant, that goes "The earth is a shakin', follow Bob Avakian!"

Neither does the RCP. That particular chant you are referring to is not an RCP chant. It was written by an youth in the RCYB years ago, and it is not an official chant of the RCYB either.


Maoists still can't get over the legitimate criticisms Cuba raised against Mao in the 70's. Of course, they never address the actual criticism itself. China was backing counter-revolutionaries (who the U.S. imperialists were also backing!!!) in places like Angola and Somalia, and had warm relations with neo-fascists like Marcos in the Philippines.

This has nothing to do with criticisms of Mao. The RCP has repeatedly criticized alot of the international policy of the People's Republic of China. I'm not sure specifically about the cases of Angola and Somolia, but as far as I know, the Chinese Communist Party supported the Communist Party of the Phillipines (which is Maoist) and which ousted Marcos!


And of course, we have to first remember that all of this came after Fidel, Che, etc. al. called for a resolution to the Sino-Soviet split; for the USSR, China, and all other socialist countries to drop the rhetoric and hostility

A resolution to the Sino-Soviet split? Why the hell would anyone want a resolution between socialism and capitalist restoration/revisionist imperialism?

The Soviet Union was not socialist, and a "resolution" to the Sino-Soviet Split would have ultimately meant allowing China to be subjected to Soviet imperialism like Cuba and so many other countries were. Hell no!

I don't know about you, but I don't think that defending socialism from capitalist restoration is just "rhetoric."



I suggest you study your history. What do you know about the Saur Revolution? Do you know that the popular government of Afghanistan asked the Red Army to come to their aid in their life or death battle against U.S./Saudi/Pakistani-backed reactionary islamacists; to protect the gains that workers, farmers, and women had made under the revolution. It was in the interest of the international working class for the Red Army to help defeat these reactionaries.

The government of Afghanistan was a comprador ruling class of Soviet imperialism, just like that of Cuba.

The problem with your methodology here is that you're assuming that the revisionist and imperialist Soviet Union was controlled by the proletariat, which it wasn't. The invasion of Afghanistan wasn't about helping the international proletariat, but about defending the interests of Soviet imperialism, which was under attack by US imperialism.

[Intelligitimate]

Red Heretic,

It seems to me your understanding of Maoism is limited. For instance, Mao also supported Tito (which was a mistake), nor did he support the Hungarian uprising.

Frankly, the idea of "Soviet socialist imperialism" is a nationalistic idea devoid of any Marxist analysis. To quote Ludo Martens:

"There never existed in the Soviet Union a "state monopoly capitalism" more centralized and better organized than in the US. The Russian people did not live under a "Hitlerian style dictatorship" and the non-Russian peoples did not suffer from a "tsarist form of national oppression". It is Yeltsin who installed a "Hitlerian style dictatorship" and the difference with respect to the revisionist regime of the seventies is evident to all the workers of the ex-USSR. During the seventies, the CCP never published a scientific, materialist and dialectical analysis of the Soviet economical and political realities, in all their complexitiy. The arguments of the CCP was mostly based on historical analogies, of limited value, and on arbitrary extrapolations starting from some aspects of Soviet reality."

[Maynard]

If he truly believed in all of that, what exactly makes him a "Trotskyist"? The fact he supported Trotsky over Stalin or what?

[Severian]

Exactly, Maynard. That someone would describe Marcy and the Workers World Party as "Trotskyist" just shows how meaningless that word is today.