Why did Workers World and Socialism and Liberation split?

[heiss93]

Does anyone know why Workers World and Socialism and Liberation split? I don't want to raise animosity, but I assume that there has to be some justification for the split.

Also the whole politics behind International Answer is very confusing.

I've worked with a variety of parties and I certainly see WWP as being the most action oriented. PSL seems similar although I've never worked with them in person. I'm really impressed by their website and technical skills. And the fact that they call everyone before any events seems to be a harbinger for their organization as a whole. Again I haven't had much contact with PSL but the little I've seen is very impressive. And they were only formed in 2003 yet they are already at the level of major Marxist parties such as CPUSA, RCP, WWP etc.

Besides political differences my main criticism of PSL would be that they do very little at least on their website to state what their theoretical beliefs are. The other parties are pretty up front. PSL has almost no theory on their webpage.

Neither of them emphasizes their Trotskyist origins, PSL has almost no mention of Trotsky although they continue to uphold Sam Marcy. PSL also praises Soviet industry from the 1930s without mentioning Stalin. They take a complex line on China. They go further than the CPUSA in saying that Deng was an open capitalist. At the same time PSL and WWP have launched the most vigorous defense of China. While China is very complex, it is quite a juggling act to call Deng a capitalist and defend China.

Theres a lot I like about both parties although I do have some major ideological differences. However as far as praxis is concerned WWP and PSL seem to be the most effective.

As far as I know no one on Revleft is a strong supporter of either party. The Maoists call them Trots and the Trots call them Stalinist.

Those are my thoughts on both parties, and if anyone has any more info please let me know.

[chegitz guevara]

I've heard two reasons, one from someone outside the party, one from someone in the party. The reason I heard outside the PSL was that the comrades that formed PSL were opposed to running a candidate against Kerry. I personally find that difficult to believe.

From my PSL comrades, it was a struggle over leadership. After Marcy died, some of the older leaders felt entitled to be the new leaders, while those who created PSL wanted the leadership decided democratically, with real debate preceding the election. I don't know an WW comrades, so I don't know their side of the story.

What I do like is that neither organization slagged the other and they didn't carry out the usual polemics that most splits carry out and then unload on the rest of the left, as if we'd care.

[Saorsa]

What I do like is that neither organization slagged the other and they didn't carry out the usual polemics that most splits carry out and then unload on the rest of the left, as if we'd care.


But if they'd done that at least the reasons for the split would be more clear.

[Red October]

I know many WWP people, but I'm still not clear on the PSL split. From what one WWP member I know said, it was a struggle over leadership, but they framed it along racial lines, saying that one faction of the party insisted a black man must lead the party, while another faction wanted some white guy to be head, and that faction split to be PSL. I really don't know if that's true or not, it's just what I heard. Are there any WWP or PSL members on here?

[Random Precision]

I've heard that it was essentially a struggle between the people in ANSWER and the rest of the WWP. A comrade joked that the PSL people had to sue the WWP for ownership of all the phone numbers they used for the different front groups in the coalition after the split.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I'm a supporter of the PSL. I was told by current members of PSL who had been with Workers World since 1989 until the split in 2004 that it was basically because Workers World wasn't being democratic within the party. Personally though I really don't think there was any real reason for a split. There's alot of personal animosity between cadre of both groups. For example man in WWP told me PSL/ANSWER were government spies.

Both parties run basically the same if you're looking at them from the outside except I'd say the PSL is much more democratic and inviting then WWP. Also WWP at least here in NYC is just a couple of mostly old cadre, while PSL is a bunch of young people

[heiss93]

It seems strange though that if the split was over elections, the PSL is the one running candidates in 2008, and to my knowledge the WWP is not.`

In 2000 WWP votes were actually larger in Florida, then the margin Al Gore lost by.

[Wanted Man]

I don't think we're ever going to get a conclusive answer. At least, not on RevLeft.

[Red October]

I don't think we're ever going to get a conclusive answer. At least, not on RevLeft.

Not unless we find someone here who's a member of either party who can shed some light on this. I know a lot of WWP folks, I'll ask them about it, though I doubt I'll get a balanced answer.

[chegitz guevara]

Both WWP and PSL say it was over a struggle over the leadership.

[heiss93]

This is the only split I'm aware of that had absolutely NOTHING to do with ideology. The news stories of Liberation, and Workers World are nearly identical. It seems like such a waste when leftist parties have such limited resources to begin with, that there has to be 2 parties covering the same line.

Although perhaps the debate over tactics will have important consequences. The PSL really reaches out to the community and makes a strong effort to expand and make contacts. This probably what has impressed me most about the PSL. The PSL also has a very youthful leadership, with many members in their 20s running for elected office.

Although WWP does have FIST and IAC which are more youth based.

The PSL 2008 election campaign has followed the CPUSA strategy of the 1930s. Unlike the RCP they have no concentrated their fire on Obama, while producing nothing positive. And yet unlike pro-Obama forces they have used this election to really build the party.

The fieldwork of the PSL is their main strength so if the old WWP leadership was holding back and restraining some of the energy. Then I could see some justification for the split.

Onebrick you stated some of your reasons for supporting PSL after your break with the RCP. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on what you like about the PSL.

[heiss93]

What kind of activities does FIST do?

[heiss93]

I think its admirable that neither WWP and PSL descended into bitter polemics, tearing each other apart and that at least officially they recognize they are both on the same side.

Still by maintaining the same theoretical and political positions and not giving any reasons at all for its' split, the PSL does give the impression that the split was over "nothing".

Especially the debate over elections. In several places its been said that the WWP wanted to campaign in 2004 and the PSL didn't. Yet in 2008 PSL has campaigned and WWP has not.

I'm sure that its not impossible to simply state the differences between both parties in a civil manner instead of leaving it a mystery. That just opens it to the kind of speculation we are engaging in right now.

[heiss93]

Just wondering does anyone know in relative membership terms how PSL and WWP compare to each other? I think the portion of WWP that sided with PSL is relatively small, but I have heard that most PSL members today were never with WWP. My impression is that WWP is probably still far larger and more powerful organizationally, nut I would like to hear opinions.

Yet another theory:
The split was a result of a dispute which took place in the leadership of the
Los Angeles branch of the WWP. It was over the national question. Those who
left to form a new party believe that the WWP have distorted Lenin's National
Question by granting more priviliges to their black comrades; the WWP regarding
the black community in the US as constituting an oppressed nation with the
right to self determination. The faction which split felt that inside the party
everyone should be equal, that it is only outside the party that Lenin's
National Question applies.

Scot
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w30/msg00143.htm

[Red October]

Yet another theory:
The split was a result of a dispute which took place in the leadership of the
Los Angeles branch of the WWP. It was over the national question. Those who left to form a new party believe that the WWP have distorted Lenin's National Question by granting more priviliges to their black comrades; the WWP regarding the black community in the US as constituting an oppressed nation with the right to self determination. The faction which split felt that inside the party everyone should be equal, that it is only outside the party that Lenin's National Question applies.

Scot
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w30/msg00143.htm

I think this is true, or at least part of the split. What I've heard from WWP folks is that they insisted on having black comrades in the leadership because they believe white people can't lead the struggle in America. I'll be with some WWP people this weekend though and I'll ask them in more detail.