The Progressive Labor Party

[Keyser]

Are there any RevLeft users who are either members/past members of the Progressive Labor Party (PLP), or who have had extensive dealings with them to know what they are about?

What is the PLP political line?

Is the PLP still active after 45 years or so of existence?

Does the PLP have members/branches outside the USA (the PLP considers itself a global party)?

After it's initial break with Maoism, is the PLP still critical of Maoism?

What stance does the PLP have to the existing socialist countries of Cuba and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea?

[Pawn Power]

Are there any RevLeft users who are either members/past members of the Progressive Labor Party (PLP), or who have had extensive dealings with them to know what they are about?

What is the PLP political line?

Is the PLP still active after 45 years or so of existence?

Does the PLP have members/branches outside the USA (the PLP considers itself a global party)?

After it's initial break with Maoism, is the PLP still critical of Maoism?

What stance does the PLP have to the existing socialist countries of Cuba and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea?

I know a few current member of the Party and a few former members as well.

If you want to know there political line, just go to their website.

They are still active, though much less since there haydays of the late 60's and early 70's. Though I guess that is true for many radical political organizations.

They claim to have branches outside of the US- in various countries in Latin America. Though, I think they are still most "active" in NYC and LA within the US.

Again, for the more theoretical questions, there is plenty of material on their website...which would reiterate the Party's line much better then I can.

I do believe they are critiqual of Maoism as well as Cuba and PRK. They don't consider either to be "communist."

[Martin Blank]

Are there any RevLeft users who are either members/past members of the Progressive Labor Party (PLP), or who have had extensive dealings with them to know what they are about?

What is the PLP political line?

Is the PLP still active after 45 years or so of existence?

Does the PLP have members/branches outside the USA (the PLP considers itself a global party)?

After it's initial break with Maoism, is the PLP still critical of Maoism?

What stance does the PLP have to the existing socialist countries of Cuba and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea?

Never a member of PLP, but I've dealt with them locally and nationally. They are an interesting, if very confused, group.

Politically, they are "post-anti-revisionist". In the 1990s, they declared that the path to a communist society does not go through "socialism" (I think by this they mean the mode of production distinct from communism, defined as "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work", and not the dictatorship of the proletariat, which some call "socialism"), and raise the slogan of fighting directly for communism. At the same time, they basically see the PLP becoming the singular motor force in a communist society: "Communism means the Party leads every aspect of society. For this to work, millions of workers -- eventually everyone -- must become communist organizers." (From PLP's "What We Fight For")

The PLP is still active in some areas: Chicago and New York mainly, but they have small cells in other places. They do a lot of work among African American working-class youth, many of whom they meet because a lot of PLP members are teachers in public schools.

In theory, PLP has members in other countries. Canada, Mexico, France and Venezuela have been mentioned in their press as places where they have "supporters". The validity of these statements, and, if true, the sizes of PLP cells in these places, are unknown except to PLP.

PLP has more or less charted its own course through the "Marxist-Leninist" currents, having criticisms of "anti-revisionism", "Maoism" and the "New Left" trends. If you're looking for details, I suggest going through their website: http://www.plp.org/.

As far as I know, PLP sees Cuba and DPR Korea as state capitalist. But, again, I would recommend consulting their website.

[Keyser]

If you want to know there political line, just go to their website.




Again, for the more theoretical questions, there is plenty of material on their website...which would reiterate the Party's line much better then I can.


I have looked at the PLP website and do know of their 'straight to communism' political line. Yet the PLP website is not that detailed in explaining this and simply gives a rather vague outline on this.

[DiaMat86]

How so? Is that based on your personal experience? What is confusing or why do you perceive PLP to be confused to be confused? Thanks!

[Chapaev]

The PLP are dogmatic, doctrinaire ultra-leftists that for some bizarre reason uphold Stalinism. Their failure to condemn Stalin's abuses results in a loss of credibility. They have an oversimplified, anti-intellectual approach towards theory. They are not a workers' party, as they are descended from the petit-bourgeois anarcho-Trotskyist currents of the New Left. Their petty sectarian approach on current problems serves to only split the ranks of the progressive movement.

[DiaMat86]

The PLP are dogmatic, doctrinaire ultra-leftists that for some bizarre reason uphold Stalinism. Their failure to condemn Stalin's abuses results in a loss of credibility. They have an oversimplified, anti-intellectual approach towards theory. They are not a workers' party, as they are descended from the petit-bourgeois anarcho-Trotskyist currents of the New Left. Their petty sectarian approach on current problems serves to only split the ranks of the progressive movement.

You don't know shit about PLP. Your analysis is contradictory, "Stalinsts decended from "AnarchoTrots"; how ridiculous. "They are not a workers' party" Really? Have you seen the latest Challenge? Do you know the story of SDS? PLP is at the point of production not the internet. PLP is out on the streets every mayday with red flags and Fight For Communism banners in NYC and LA. I am glad I stumbled onto this website just to rebut your pernicious comment.

[Martin Blank]

How so? Is that based on your personal experience? What is confusing or why do you perceive PLP to be confused to be confused? Thanks!

I am going to guess (and you can correct me if I am wrong) that you are a supporter of the PLP. I think that's great, if it is the case; there are enough people here asking questions about the PLP to warrant such a presence.

I think the confusion begins with the role of the PLP -- and a party in general -- after the revolution, and especially in communist society. On the one hand, the PLP rejects the very social anomaly that demanded an omnipresent and omnipowerful party (the "socialist" mode of production), which is correct. On the other hand, the PLP takes the political, economic and cultural forms that grew out of that bastardized social system and attempts to graft them on to a communist society. In my view, the only thing that can result from such a grafting is a repetition of the worst elements of the "socialist" mode of production ... and, in the end, a failure to achieve anything beyond even the most immediate goals of the transitional system.

Parties, especially communist parties, are expressions of classes and sections of classes. This means that, as classes are abolished and disappear, so does the need for organized parties. A communist party only has a purpose up to the point when communism is reached; it has then outlived its usefulness and must, by necessity, be dissolved in favor of a new arrangement and organized expression. "Strengthening the party" during the transition from capitalism to communism is the opposite of what is to be done. Yes, the party should continue to grow and develop, but as it does, it will necessarily become less and less of a party per se, and more of a conscious association of producers; it will find itself "withering away" like the state, dissolving its concrete functions into working people's councils and assemblies and devolving its educational role to cultural and social-relations commissions. As democracy-as-governance is superseded by democracy-as-daily-practice, the party's political role becomes superfluous, until it reaches the point where the very concept of a communist party becomes reactionary.

The last vestiges of a communist party may not completely disappear until the question of bourgeois right is resolved and communist society advances from its lower to higher phase, but it will certainly not be anything like what we consider to be a communist party today ... and it will certainly not be anything akin to an organization that "leads every aspect of society". It will be the free association of producers, as Marx called them, that will fulfill that role.

[DiaMat86]

PLPs goal is to be a mass party rather than a vanguard party. The remark about the Party leading all aspects of society has to be thought of in that context. When almost everyone is in the Party, and money is gone, what will be the incentive to deceive and cheat anyway? The leaders and the led can be equals because their interests are not contradictory. Two key errors in the struggle for socialism was the creation of the "red bourgeosie" and wage differentials. The Left faces a difficult period now but PLP is still growing and advancing internationally. The Party is doing quite well compared to other red groups I have worked with. Check out the latest Challenge. It is published every two weeks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

PLPs goal is to be a mass party rather than a vanguard party. The remark about the Party leading all aspects of society has to be thought of in that context. When almost everyone is in the Party

I see that our position regarding the composition of the "party" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html) is identical. I like that. :thumbup1:

[Dros]

The PLP has a delusional view of revolution and what it will take to actually reach a Communist epoch in human history.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, I do disagree with their World Socialist Movement stance regarding the lack of an economic transition, their retention of the French-socialist fetish for egalitarianism, and their overemphasis on inter-imperialist rivalry over class struggle, a lot of everything else they uphold sounds good. :)

[DiaMat86]

The PLP has a delusional view of revolution and what it will take to actually reach a Communist epoch in human history.

That's very deep. What do you uphold to be the correct view? What will it actually take? PLP says, "Capitalism inevitably leads to economic catastrophes and war. In the midst of economic catastrophe the Party must organize at the point of production in industrial work to diminish the ruling classes' ability to combat the party internally. Using base-building strategies to take control of reform organizations and the military in the theater of world war the Party can take state power. This is possible when the masses of workers are won to communism."

[Dros]

That's very deep.

I know.;)


What do you uphold to be the correct view?

Maoism.


PLP says, "Capitalism inevitably leads to economic catastrophes and war. In the midst of economic catastrophe the Party must organize at the point of production in industrial work to diminish the ruling classes' ability to combat the party internally. Using base-building strategies to take control of reform organizations and the military in the theater of world war the Party can take state power. This is possible when the masses of workers are won to communism."

Right. As I said, delusion.

There are so many problems with this alleged strategy. First of all, they negate the importance of the socialist phase. I don't even know where to begin on this one.

Secondly, the idea that capitalism leads to economic catastrophe hasn't been shown true for thirty years. Capitalism is certainly uneven and often unstable in development. Capitalism certainly causes wars and numerous other tragedies for the masses of people. The idea that the party works at the point of production is also profoundly idealistic, outdated, and revisionist. The idea that this strategy will mitigate the ability for the Bourgeoisie to supress the party is comical at best. Base building is also, in my opinion, a theory that is now only appropriate for the third world as it assumes certain things about the bourgeois state (unevenness) that simply don't exist in the first world. And then, the final step that they have is taking over the bourgeois military and reform organizations after the masses are won to Communism. This is equally humorous. How is this going to happen?! How are they going to "win over" the bourgeois military?! How idealist!

PLP theory represents a complete bread with Marxist science and a venture into idealism so pronounced that it boarders on the absurd.

[DiaMat86]

I know.;)



Maoism.



Right. As I said, delusion.

There are so many problems with this alleged strategy. First of all, they negate the importance of the socialist phase. I don't even know where to begin on this one.

Secondly, the idea that capitalism leads to economic catastrophe hasn't been shown true for thirty years. Capitalism is certainly uneven and often unstable in development. Capitalism certainly causes wars and numerous other tragedies for the masses of people. The idea that the party works at the point of production is also profoundly idealistic, outdated, and revisionist. The idea that this strategy will mitigate the ability for the Bourgeoisie to supress the party is comical at best. Base building is also, in my opinion, a theory that is now only appropriate for the third world as it assumes certain things about the bourgeois state (unevenness) that simply don't exist in the first world. And then, the final step that they have is taking over the bourgeois military and reform organizations after the masses are won to Communism. This is equally humorous. How is this going to happen?! How are they going to "win over" the bourgeois military?! How idealist!

PLP theory represents a complete bread with Marxist science and a venture into idealism so pronounced that it boarders on the absurd.


First of all, they negate the importance of the socialist phase. History shows that socialism is a pre-capitalist phase.


Secondly, the idea that capitalism leads to economic catastrophe hasn't been shown true for thirty years. Really? There were bread riots in Haiti over the summer. Lehman Bros, Bear stearns and Fannie may and FreddyMac are bankrupt. More to follow. China holds hundreds of billions in US debt. They bought it KNOWING it would turn out to be a bad investment. This was to prevent the demise of the US economy too rapidly. To break the fal


The idea that the party works at the point of production is also profoundly idealistic, outdated, and revisionist.No it's not any of those things, especially not revisionist. The power of the worker is labor power. A work stoppage at a power plant can darken a whole city. Organizing in factories is never outdated


The idea that this strategy will mitigate the ability for the Bourgeoisie to supress the party is comical at best. I don't know, a general strike is a big distraction. Especially if critical industries like war production are affected.


Base building is also, in my opinion, a theory that is now only appropriate for the third world as it assumes certain things about the bourgeois state (unevenness) that simply don't exist in the first world.I see a lot of unevenness in the United States. Base building is a cycle of organizing and consolidating people around the party's ideas. This concept applies everywhere.


And then, the final step that they have is taking over the bourgeois military and reform organizations after the masses are won to Communism. This is equally humorous. How is this going to happen?! How are they going to "win over" the bourgeois military?! How idealist Actually, its the exact opposite of idealist, materialist. It's how the Bolsheviks did it, they organized the military. Specifically, when the military was called back from the front to enforce martial law around St. Petersburg the Bolsheviks were able to exploit the long hard work they did in the military. The soldiers turned the guns around.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

I don't know much about this issue. I'm just woundering if some one can tell me apart from their political views, do they do good for the worker? do they stand up for their rights and benifits? Does it cost to much to be a member?:confused:

[Martin Blank]

PLP's goal is to be a mass party rather than a vanguard party. The remark about the Party leading all aspects of society has to be thought of in that context. When almost everyone is in the Party, and money is gone, what will be the incentive to deceive and cheat anyway? The leaders and the led can be equals because their interests are not contradictory. Two key errors in the struggle for socialism was the creation of the "red bourgeoisie" and wage differentials. The Left faces a difficult period now but PLP is still growing and advancing internationally. The Party is doing quite well compared to other red groups I have worked with. Check out the latest Challenge. It is published every two weeks.

I understand your argument and appreciate the reply. However, I would still say I have concerns about the formulation, based on what I wrote previously. Yes, a proletarian party has to grow and encompass masses of working people if it is to be an organization worthy of the name, but at the same time it has to empower all workers, in and out of the party, to take the lead in their own liberation. That's the issue here. The party cannot and should not substitute itself for the class as a whole. That's the best way to build that "check and balance" to keep from developing a "red bourgeoisie", as you put it.

It was Marx who said that the task of the liberation of the proletariat belongs to the workers themselves. The role of the communist party is to aid working people in this task by providing political guidance and leadership, as well as education in how to achieve the tasks, but not by doing it for them. History shows that such substitutionism, regardless of how large or massive the membership of the party, has resulted in the formation of that "red bourgeoisie". This is what happened in the USSR in 1919-1920, when the factory-shop committees were dissolved in favor of one-person management.

Incidentally, I do read Challenge fairly regularly. You might be interested in reading Working People's Advocate, our newspaper. We publish it three times a week now. We also produce Workers' Republic, our quarterly journal, and will be restarting The Communist Monthly soon.

[DiaMat86]

I understand your argument and appreciate the reply. However, I would still say I have concerns about the formulation, based on what I wrote previously. Yes, a proletarian party has to grow and encompass masses of working people if it is to be an organization worthy of the name, but at the same time it has to empower all workers, in and out of the party, to take the lead in their own liberation. That's the issue here. The party cannot and should not substitute itself for the class as a whole. That's the best way to build that "check and balance" to keep from developing a "red bourgeoisie", as you put it.

It was Marx who said that the task of the liberation of the proletariat belongs to the workers themselves. The role of the communist party is to aid working people in this task by providing political guidance and leadership, as well as education in how to achieve the tasks, but not by doing it for them. History shows that such substitutionism, regardless of how large or massive the membership of the party, has resulted in the formation of that "red bourgeoisie". This is what happened in the USSR in 1919-1920, when the factory-shop committees were dissolved in favor of one-person management.

Incidentally, I do read Challenge fairly regularly. You might be interested in reading Working People's Advocate, our newspaper. We publish it three times a week now. We also produce Workers' Republic, our quarterly journal, and will be restarting The Communist Monthly soon.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll check out those papers. I think somebody fixed my post above. In the Ira Gollobin thread somebody named KnowIra posted a "link" to a site created by his bourgeois daughter to defame him because he didn't will her money. If that is the only post that user has submitted and you agree with me about the content of the site, will you move that poster to OI or delete it?

[Martin Blank]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll check out those papers. I think somebody fixed my post above. In the Ira Gollobin thread somebody named KnowIra posted a "link" to a site created by his bourgeois daughter to defame him because he didn't will her money. If that is the only post that user has submitted and you agree with me about the content of the site, will you move that poster to OI or delete it?

I'll look into it right away.