"Socialists" Hail New Imperialist Commander-In-Chief

[fredbergen]

SP-USA spokesman and candidate praises the "social programs and democratic rights that now make up the fabric of our democratic society." SP-USA to imperialist commander-in-chief: "we are at your service."

http://www.votebrianmoore.com/Docs/Obama%20Congratulatory%20from%20Brian-11-14-08.doc

November 14, 2008

Honorable Barack Obama
President-Elect of the United States of America
Chicago, Illinois

Honorable President-Elect Obama:

Congratulations on your electoral victory to become the 44th president of the United States. Your campaign was hard-fought, and victory well-earned.

We wish you the best in your four-year Democratic Administration and hope and pray for the change you have promised to improve the nation’s economy and general well-being.

As the true Socialist in this race, I sincerely hope that you will be willing to make the type of changes that will achieve a meaningful re-distribution of wealth, and a sharing in the benefits equally for all Americans.

If we can be of any assistance in developing new ideas and programs for the country, we are at your service.

It was a pleasure competing against you, despite the limiting nature of the Socialist Party’s limited resources, lack of ballot access and national media recognition. However, we believe our ideas and programs, advocated and popularized in the first half of the last century under the inspiring leadership of Eugene V. Debs and Norman M. Thomas, led to the various social programs and human rights that now make up the fabric of our democratic society.

As Socialists, and as Americans, we earnestly hope that you will break from the safety of the status quo and follow in the grand tradition of men like Debs and Thomas in fighting for economic and social justice for all of the people of the United States, as well as our fellow citizens across the globe.

My telephone number is 352-686-9936, and e-mail address is [email protected], should you wish to communicate with us.

With deep respect for the position and mantle you are about to assume, we remain your humble servants as mutual citizens.

Respectfully, and Cordially,

Brian P. Moore
Socialist Party Presidential Nominee, 2008
Moore/Alexander Ticket ’08, www.votebrianmoore.com

[ZeroNowhere]

He did what?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

"We remain your humble servants?" Seriously, what the fuck, man? SPUSA is a waste of time.

[mykittyhasaboner]

As the true Socialist in this race,

:lol::lol::lol:

[Q]

What an idiot. How was this guy chosen again to be the candidate for the party? By its membership? Wonder what that tells us about the members :rolleyes:

[FreeFocus]

He, and probably the party, will never get any form of support from me again, not even critical support.

[RedSabine]

ok, ok, maybe the Socialist party candidate shouldn't have used the exact words that he did, but its not like he's now suddenly a counter-revoltionary bastard infidel deserving of our utmost contempt... hell, I'd hail Barack Obama, this is a somewhat progressive moment in history... I mean, I think that even if Obama wanted to implement the most progressive changes thusfar witnessed in American politics I don't think he cound due to the class interest of his party and the overall American representative state - but he certainy has more of a proletarian background making his overall consciousness more socialistic.

I think that the Revolutionary and Radical Left has to be more pragmatic... not giving in to the interests of the Capitalist class, but also not denying progress because it's not done in the name of Socialism or Communism. Progress is progress, no matter what name it has.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wait a minute.. you mean the guy who said "We want to pressure the major party candidates to move in our direction...." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1274349&postcount=11) during the campaign is now writing the President elect to say "If we can be of any assistance in developing new ideas and programs for the country, we are at your service"??

No way!

The reformism of most of the left in the U.S. has really come out into the open since the election of Obama (a time when its most important for communists to stand strong on our principles).

The ISO said "The sweeping victory of Barack Obama ... is a transformative event in U.S. politics."

The radical-posing PSL said "What is needed is a clear program focused on what the new administration should do to meet the needs of the working people."

The Progressive Labor Party apparently had people out registering voters for Obama!

Of course communists don't look at things in terms of what is "progressive" or not. There can be no more progress under capitalism! Capitalism is now a fetter on the advance of the human species, and that's the reason it must be swept away and replaced with a higher form of society: socialism. Communists look at things from a class perspective. Obama and the Democrats represent the capitalist class. Communists don't seek to council the capitalists on how best to run their state either. We recognize that when the capitalists have adopted socialist demands in the past, it was because of certain material conditions (e.g. prosperity that came out of rebuilding industry in the countries destroyed by WW2, seeking to dull the class struggle which heated up as a result of the Great Depression,e tc.); and we always point out that simply adopting one or two of the Socialist Party's platform demands temporarily does nothing to change the basis of capitalism, a system based on the exploitation of the working majority. Finally communists certainly don't promote the notion that capitalist can be reformed to "meet the needs of working people!" Those are the kinds of illusions we must dispel!

[Seven Stars]

The PSL also said "The president, regardless of which party or individual holds the office, is the Chief Executive Office of the capitalist state machine. This machine enforces a system of extreme and growing poverty among the working class, and extreme wealth for the capitalists, who accumulate their fortunes from the labor of working people. The capitalist state perpetuates racism, police repression, mass incarceration and endless war."

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10315

[Martin Blank]

The PSL also said "The president, regardless of which party or individual holds the office, is the Chief Executive Office of the capitalist state machine. This machine enforces a system of extreme and growing poverty among the working class, and extreme wealth for the capitalists, who accumulate their fortunes from the labor of working people. The capitalist state perpetuates racism, police repression, mass incarceration and endless war."


The radical-posing PSL said "What is needed is a clear program focused on what the new administration should do to meet the needs of the working people."

Translation: The capitalist state and system are bad, but we can pressure the person in charge to do what we want over and against the wishes of the class that put him in power.

Umm, what's that popular definition of "insanity" again? Oh, yeah!... "Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result each time."

[Seven Stars]

You should read their entire statement and not just pick out a part of a sentence.

[Pogue]

Wait a minute.. you mean the guy who said "We want to pressure the major party candidates to move in our direction...." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1274349&postcount=11) during the campaign is now writing the President elect to say "If we can be of any assistance in developing new ideas and programs for the country, we are at your service"??

No way!

The reformism of most of the left in the U.S. has really come out into the open since the election of Obama (a time when its most important for communists to stand strong on our principles).

The ISO said "The sweeping victory of Barack Obama ... is a transformative event in U.S. politics."

The radical-posing PSL said "What is needed is a clear program focused on what the new administration should do to meet the needs of the working people."

The Progressive Labor Party apparently had people out registering voters for Obama!

Of course communists don't look at things in terms of what is "progressive" or not. There can be no more progress under capitalism! Capitalism is now a fetter on the advance of the human species, and that's the reason it must be swept away and replaced with a higher form of society: socialism. Communists look at things from a class perspective. Obama and the Democrats represent the capitalist class. Communists don't seek to council the capitalists on how best to run their state either. We recognize that when the capitalists have adopted socialist demands in the past, it was because of certain material conditions (e.g. prosperity that came out of rebuilding industry in the countries destroyed by WW2, seeking to dull the class struggle which heated up as a result of the Great Depression,e tc.); and we always point out that simply does nothing to change the basis of capitalism, a system based on the exploitation of the working majority. Finally communists certainly don't promote the notion that capitalist can be reformed to "meet the needs of working people!" Those are the kinds of illusions we must dispel!

One of the best posts I have ever seen, very well done comrade, I agree wholeheartedly. Fuck reformist parties.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You should read their entire statement and not just pick out a part of a sentence.

Let's take it one step further and look at their politics and practice as a whole (heading the A.N.S.W.E.R popular front which builds illusions that war can be stopped under capitalism, that changes can be made so that resources can be used to meet human need in an imperialist country, and gives stage space to capitalist-party shills; starting an opportunist-reformist "Vote No Bailout!" campaign which encourages people to "Send a letter to their Congressional Representatives," running candidates in the capitalist Green Party, single-issue reformist organizing, calling for 'community control' of the police - thus building illusions in the police as anything other than a tool used by the rulers to oppress, defending anti-worker outfits in the name of "anti-imperialism" and "global class war," etc., etc., etc.). Then there can really be no question of their reformism.

[Revy]

Yeah, whatever. That's all I got to say. I'm sick of Fred and his constant bashing of this party.

This was a personal statement from Brian Moore. It was not approved by the party. We don't keep people on leashes and control their every action.

So, really, I don't care. I'm not going to attack any of your parties, no matter how small and inconsequential they may be. Good day!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Every time a criticism of the guy your party put forward as a candidate comes up here, a SPUSA member/supporters chimes in to use the supposed democracy of the organization as an excuse. If these are the kinds of things "party democracy" leads to, then it's clear another form of organization is needed.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

How is his support for Obama any worse than that of the "revolutionary leftist" hacks on this forum who openly announced their support for his campaign?

The part where he says that socialists will pray for Barry is especially loltastic

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

How is his support for Obama any worse than that of the "revolutionary leftist" hacks on this forum who openly announced their support for his campaign?

It's not.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Wait a minute.. you mean the guy who said "We want to pressure the major party candidates to move in our direction...." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1274349&postcount=11) during the campaign is now writing the President elect to say "If we can be of any assistance in developing new ideas and programs for the country, we are at your service"??

No way!

The reformism of most of the left in the U.S. has really come out into the open since the election of Obama (a time when its most important for communists to stand strong on our principles).

I am a bit surprised at his remarks, but I've been to your website, and you guys seem to be left-communists by having no minimum program whatsoever. :(

[Q]

Yeah, whatever. That's all I got to say. I'm sick of Fred and his constant bashing of this party.

This was a personal statement from Brian Moore. It was not approved by the party. We don't keep people on leashes and control their every action.

So, really, I don't care. I'm not going to attack any of your parties, no matter how small and inconsequential they may be. Good day!

So, when he does something right it's because of the party but when he blunders it's a personal statement? What a pathetic defence.

[fredbergen]

Q collective, how is that different from the CWI supporting the immigrant-bashing national chauvinist Ralph Nader in the U.S., or the immigrant-bashing national chauvinist Dutch "Socialist Party"?

[zimmerwald1915]

I am a bit surprised at his remarks, but I've been to your website, and you guys seem to be left-communists by having no minimum program whatsoever. :(
Au contraire, it represents an unconscious realization by the SP that even their reformism has no chance of being implemented. Further, it represents a confession that the party is a dead letter.

[RedSabine]

Wait a minute.. you mean the guy who said "We want to pressure the major party candidates to move in our direction...." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1274349&postcount=11) during the campaign is now writing the President elect to say "If we can be of any assistance in developing new ideas and programs for the country, we are at your service"??

No way!

The reformism of most of the left in the U.S. has really come out into the open since the election of Obama (a time when its most important for communists to stand strong on our principles).

The ISO said "The sweeping victory of Barack Obama ... is a transformative event in U.S. politics."

The radical-posing PSL said "What is needed is a clear program focused on what the new administration should do to meet the needs of the working people."

The Progressive Labor Party apparently had people out registering voters for Obama!

Of course communists don't look at things in terms of what is "progressive" or not. There can be no more progress under capitalism! Capitalism is now a fetter on the advance of the human species, and that's the reason it must be swept away and replaced with a higher form of society: socialism. Communists look at things from a class perspective. Obama and the Democrats represent the capitalist class. Communists don't seek to council the capitalists on how best to run their state either. We recognize that when the capitalists have adopted socialist demands in the past, it was because of certain material conditions (e.g. prosperity that came out of rebuilding industry in the countries destroyed by WW2, seeking to dull the class struggle which heated up as a result of the Great Depression,e tc.); and we always point out that simply adopting one or two of the Socialist Party's platform demands temporarily does nothing to change the basis of capitalism, a system based on the exploitation of the working majority. Finally communists certainly don't promote the notion that capitalist can be reformed to "meet the needs of working people!" Those are the kinds of illusions we must dispel!

I think that it is absolutely immature and sectarian to discount progress if a red flag is not being waved. I agree wholeheartedly that the only way to fully emancipate humanity from the horrors of capitalism is a social revolution putting production for use as all production's highest concern. And I see a somewhat forceful, albeit peaceful as much as it can be, revolution as the prime way of acheiving this end.

NOW, I don't think much of anything will happen because Barack Obama is president, and I am by no means a supporter of Obama, but the main point behind this argument is the conservation of pragmatism in the class struggle, seeing that something good for the global proletariat is something good no matter what name is applied to the measure causeing the good. It is our duty as communists to always push forward for the abolition of the capitalist system, not to form ourselves into ideologically rigid sectarian groups who will not cooperate with any other groups because of a more or less small matter concerning overall revolutionary strategy or practice.

Progress is progress.
As-salaam-alaykum, comrade.

[zimmerwald1915]

NOW, I don't think much of anything will happen because Barack Obama is president, and I am by no means a supporter of Obama, but the main point behind this argument is the conservation of pragmatism in the class struggle, seeing that something good for the global proletariat is something good no matter what name is applied to the measure causeing the good. It is our duty as communists to always push forward for the abolition of the capitalist system, not to form ourselves into ideologically rigid sectarian groups who will not cooperate with any other groups because of a more or less small matter concerning overall revolutionary strategy or practice.
So the two burdens you have effectively set yourself to prove are: do Obama's policies represent a material gain for the working class; and will Obama's election lead to the development in the extent and maturity of the class struggle.

On both counts, the answer is "no". Obama's policies represent continuation of austerity attacks on the living conditions working class (carried out through reductions in entitlement programs and through cuts in grants given to states to fund their entitlement programs). They represent a "jobless recovery" in which banks and big businesses, helped by government capital, will see a return of profits but without a reduction in unemployment (though the bourgeoisie will probably try to show this through the manipulation of how "unemployment" is determined). They represent a continuation of imperialist wars.

Similarly, Obama's election, and the euphoria surrounding it, will probably produce a damper on the class struggle. His election represents a shot of epinephrine into the bloodstream of the electoral myth, and as confidence in the capacity of the political system to produce "change" increases, the percieved need for class struggle decreases.

[RedSabine]

I agree, As I stated in that quote, Obama is not a savior, but he is more psitive figure... I do not support obama.
I was simply arguing against the single-mindedness and, in my opinion, conscious disavowal of real-world conditions for the sake of ideology. This is a danger the worker's movement has to watch out for.

Also, I think that after this "obamamania" dissapates and this depression deepens that the Socialist movement will gain preeminence. But not without the concerted effort of all radicals and revolutionaries!

Salaam.

[chegitz guevara]

I am seriously, seriously, pissed. The NC is "asking" him to pull the letter down, pending a review by the NC.

[chegitz guevara]

I am a bit surprised at his remarks, but I've been to your website, and you guys seem to be left-communists by having no minimum program whatsoever. :(

No way, don't even try. There is no way this is justifiable. I won't try and attack someone else to get attention off of us.

[Martin Blank]

You should read their entire statement and not just pick out a part of a sentence.

I read their statement, and I read the statements of every single self-described socialist and communist organization in the U.S. (and a few from other countries) in the week after the presidential sweepstakes was over. The PSL statement is textbook leftist pressure group. They might talk about how capitalism is a rotten, exploitative and racist system, but they still seem to think it can be reformed ... if only Obama would listen to them.

[Q]

Q collective, how is that different from the CWI supporting the immigrant-bashing national chauvinist Ralph Nader in the U.S.,
I don't know about any immigrant bashing by Nader.


or the immigrant-bashing national chauvinist Dutch "Socialist Party"?
We do have our critique on this petty nationalistic and opportunist outlook the SP leadership has.

But this is off topic, as we're not talking about immigrant bashing.

[Martin Blank]

I don't know about any immigrant bashing by Nader.

I think he's talking about stuff like this:

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/naderpage.html


In his June 21, 2004, interview with Pat Buchanan (http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html) for The American Conservative, Mr. Nader said:

"Buchanan: The U.S. population now—primarily due to immigrants and their children coming in—is estimated to grow to over 400 million by mid-century. Would that have an adverse impact on the environment?


"Nader: We don’t have the absorptive capacity for that many people. Over 32 million came in, in the ’90s, which is the highest in American history.


"Buchanan: What would you do about it?


"Nader: We have to control our immigration. We have to limit the number of people who come into this country illegally.


"Buchanan: What level of legal immigration do you think we should have per year?


"Nader: First of all, we have to say what is the impact on African-Americans and Hispanic Americans in this country in terms of wages of our present stance on immigration? It is a wage-depressing policy . . ."

[Die Neue Zeit]

No way, don't even try. There is no way this is justifiable. I won't try and attack someone else to get attention off of us.

Fair enough, then (at least he's just the presidential candidate and not a National Committee person), comrade. :(

[chegitz guevara]

Well, I've stated my opinion, I should probably shut up until the NC decides how to handle this.

[Revy]

You see, action is being taken. I wonder where Fred will go with this.

"Socialists" Censor Own Candidate in Brutal Fascist Repression! :)

[Martin Blank]

You see, action is being taken. I wonder where Fred will go with this.

"Socialists" Censor Own Candidate in Brutal Fascist Repression! :)

Actually, they'd be more vicious and angular:

Fake "Socialists" Censor Their Candidate for Revealing Party's Reformist Politics

or

SPUSA Candidate Censored for Letting Their Reformist Cat Out of the Bag

or

While "Socialist" Moore "Prays" for Obama, SP Tells Him "Not So Loud"

... or something like that. Norden is good at writing headlines. He'll come up with something witty for Fred to post.

[chegitz guevara]

Ouch!

[Herman]

It's good to see that the National Committee is doing something about this idiotic statement by Brian Moore.

[PRC-UTE]

Q collective, how is that different from the CWI supporting the immigrant-bashing national chauvinist Ralph Nader in the U.S., or the immigrant-bashing national chauvinist Dutch "Socialist Party"?

No different

[Seven Stars]

I want to clarify my position here. I supported the PSL presidential campaign, and I liked the points they made in their post-election statement, but I do question how revolutionary they are, and will not give them my full support. I do not believe that any real change can come for the system in any way. And that we need to build a movement of workers, and for workers' liberation.

[PRC-UTE]

I want to clarify my position here. I supported the PSL presidential campaign, and I liked the points they made in their post-election statement, but I do question how revolutionary they are, and will not give them my full support. I do not believe that any real change can come for the system in any way. And that we need to build a movement of workers, and for workers' liberation.

well said :thumbup1:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And that we need to build a movement of workers, and for workers' liberation.

Sure thing comrade, but what you're describing is a far cry from what the PSL actually is or what it's trying to do. That's my point.

[Seven Stars]

Sure thing comrade, but what you're describing is a far cry from what the PSL actually is or what it's trying to do. That's my point.

I wouldn't rule them out completely, but I agree for the most part with you. The PoWR is the group that I share the most beliefs with, :cool:

[RedScare]

Ugh. Not good. I swear you guys get more sectarian all the time. I'll refrain from judging the entire party until I see what the NC does. Moore is one man, the NC is supposed to represent the whole party, from what I understand.

[Forward Union]

SP-USA spokesman and candidate praises the "social programs and democratic rights that now make up the fabric of our democratic society." SP-USA to imperialist commander-in-chief: "we are at your service."

http://www.iphonesavior.com/images/2008/02/29/windows_vista_fail.jpg

[GPDP]

Moore is a fucking idiot.

'nuff said.

[chegitz guevara]

Let me ask a question. How do comrades feel the party should respond? I have my own thoughts on the matter, but I'd like to hear other comrades' opinions.

[Q]

Let me ask a question. How do comrades feel the party should respond? I have my own thoughts on the matter, but I'd like to hear other comrades' opinions.

If he stays on this position, he should go.

[RedStarOverChina]

With deep respect for the position and mantle you are about to assume, we remain your humble servants as mutual citizens.

Respectfully, and Cordially,

Brian P. Moore
Socialist Party Presidential Nominee, 2008
Moore/Alexander Ticket ’08, www.votebrianmoore.com (http://www.votebrianmoore.com)
This is the most embarrassing thing I'v seen since the Jesus Survive video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTBZceWqPSU

[Martin Blank]

Let me ask a question. How do comrades feel the party should respond? I have my own thoughts on the matter, but I'd like to hear other comrades' opinions.

Well, it's been a couple of years since I had anything to do with saying what the SPUSA should or should not do. My thought is something like this: "Moore's statement is his own and does not reflect the view of the party. We see Obama as a representative of the capitalist class, and as such have no interest in either assisting him to maintain capitalism, or in legitimizing his party and rule in the interests of the exploiting class. We regret Moore decided to publish this letter without consulting anyone in the party, and we believe that it not only does not reflect the view of the party, but reflects poorly on the person we chose to represent our party against Obama. We apologize to our members and to those who look to our party for any confusion this may have caused."

Whatever you come up with has to not only distance the SP from Moore and his statement, it also has to be a de facto censure of his action. You will have to be critical of his approach, as contained in the letter, and you, as a party, will have to stand on your statement of principles and not waver. In a sense, the party's statement will have to be an apology for the confusion, a distancing from and criticism of Moore's position, and another critique of Obama as the next chief executive of corporatist American capitalism.

You are going to have to let Moore account for his words on his own, if you want to salvage the reputation of the party ... and stave off that developing raid by the Internationalist Group on your membership. You're going to have to let him stand alone on this one. Anything less and it will look like you're covering for him ... and covering something up.

[fredbergen]

This is the most embarrassing thing I'v seen

More embarassing than Mao's army invading Vietnam in the service of the imperialists?

What the SP-USA should do: the SP-USA stands for nothing, and it is intended to stand for nothing and do nothing, as a "multi-tendency" social-democratic party. So there is no question of the whole organization doing anything of importance. Those who want a ballot-access mutual-support-league should ignore this scandal and hope it blows over by the next election. Those who want socialism should study the history of social-democracy and quit the SP-USA.

[JimmyJazz]

After those Fox News/Colbert interviews I can't say I'm shocked. How did a man who, according to Wikipedia, "became a socialist in 2007", get nominated by a party of (probably) lifelong socialist activists?

[Guerrilla22]

Is anyone really surprised by this?

[BobKKKindle$]

More embarassing than Mao's army invading Vietnam in the service of the imperialists?

Mao Zedong died in 1976, and by that point he had already become a figurehead who was incapable of making any radical decisions, because he was suffering from a lung infection, and power within the CCP had already fallen into the hands of people who wanted to reverse the gains which had been made under Mao's guidance during the revolutionary period, and turn China onto the capitalist road. The PRC invaded Vietnam in 1979, more than three years after Mao had died, allegedly because the PRC was facing border incursions from Vietnam. The most embarrassing thing in this thread is your poor grasp of history.

[chicanorojo]

You are going to have to let Moore account for his words on his own, if you want to salvage the reputation of the party ... and stave off that developing raid by the Internationalist Group on your membership. You're going to have to let him stand alone on this one. Anything less and it will look like you're covering for him ... and covering something up.

A raid of one? :D Good luck herding wild feral cats. :lol:

[chicanorojo]

... or something like that. Norden is good at writing headlines. He'll come up with something witty for Fred to post.

He writes for The Onion?? :D

[RedStarOverChina]

More embarassing than Mao's army invading Vietnam in the service of the imperialists?

What the SP-USA should do: the SP-USA stands for nothing, and it is intended to stand for nothing and do nothing, as a "multi-tendency" social-democratic party. So there is no question of the whole organization doing anything of importance. Those who want a ballot-access mutual-support-league should ignore this scandal and hope it blows over by the next election. Those who want socialism should study the history of social-democracy and quit the SP-USA.

What's that gotta do with me?

Get bent.

[Forward Union]

more fail pictures required

[chegitz guevara]

I just got off the phone with Brian Moore. He told me his intention was to do a two part letter, like Ralph Nader did. One is congratulatory, the other is going to lay into Obama. He was called away this weekend to attend the memorial to a recently deceased comrade in the communist movement and so hasn't finished the second part.

[Plagueround]

I just got off the phone with Brian Moore. He told me his intention was to do a two part letter, like Ralph Nader did. One is congratulatory, the other is going to lay into Obama. He was called away this weekend to attend the memorial to a recently deceased comrade in the communist movement and so hasn't finished the second part.

Tell him to hold of on sending the first one next time.

[KurtFF8]

Let me ask a question. How do comrades feel the party should respond? I have my own thoughts on the matter, but I'd like to hear other comrades' opinions.

I'd rather see something along the lines with what the PSL said. Obama's victory was indeed important, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he doesn't represent the interests of the working class and will continue the traditional role of the POTUS.


Tell him to hold of on sending the first one next time.

Indeed, I certainly hope that the SPUSA starts to realize that it's a socialist party soon (well I don't even know that they claim to be anymore with the "Voice of Democratic Socialism" banner at the top, which is often what reformist social democrats champion).

[DancingLarry]

One nice thing about being an anarchist is that it's an inoculation against getting hoodwinked into the fantasy that somehow some ambitious party politician on the careerist make winning an election has some non-zero meaning in terms of social justice and the liberation of labor.

[Oneironaut]

Gross!

[RebelDog]

Mao Zedong died in 1976, and by that point he had already become a figurehead who was incapable of making any radical decisions, because he was suffering from a lung infection, and power within the CCP had already fallen into the hands of people who wanted to reverse the gains which had been made under Mao's guidance during the revolutionary period, and turn China onto the capitalist road. The PRC invaded Vietnam in 1979, more than three years after Mao had died, allegedly because the PRC was facing border incursions from Vietnam. The most embarrassing thing in this thread is your poor grasp of history.

The most embarrassing thing in this thread is your idealism and lung infections and bad people who 'hijack' communism and your plain ignorance.

[mikelepore]

I'm not completely familiar with the news, but why is Obama described in this thread as "imperialist"?

He opposed the invasion of Iraq, which was an imperialist action. He's happens to lack the realization that, if you shouldn't have done it in the first place, then you should end it within in a few days by telling the soldiers to board planes and go home. He's taken in by the idea that, to stop doing something that you never should have begun at all, you have to "phase it out over sixteen months." A false belief, surely, but, as far as I know, that false belief is not the meaning of the word "imperialist."

[JohnnyC]

I'm not completely familiar with the news, but why is Obama described in this thread as "imperialist"?

He opposed the invasion of Iraq, which was an imperialist action. He's happens to lack the realization that, if you shouldn't have done it in the first place, then you should end it within in a few days by telling the soldiers to board planes and go home. He's taken in by the idea that, to stop doing something that you never should have begun at all, you have to "phase it out over sixteen months." A false belief, surely, but, as far as I know, that false belief is not the meaning of the word "imperialist."
He supports Capitalism, and capitalism on a global scale is imperialistic.He also supports war in Afghanistan.

[mikelepore]

One thing leads to another, but I'm not accustomed to hearing every link in the chain of events being called imperialism. During the step where one country says "let's confiscate another country's raw materials, markets and trade routes", that's imperialism, no doubt about it.

The war in Afghanistan, for example. There was a chain of events. The United States has military bases in something like sixty other countries, which is part of a long history of U.S. imperialism. An Islamic sect was angry about the presence of U.S. military bases so close to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. An attack was launched against the U.S. Those who launched the attack were trained and organized in Afghanistan. The government of Afghanistan gave them sanctuary pursuant to the never-require-a-guest-to-leave custom. The U.S. responded with a military overthrow of the government of Afghanistan. Is the last step in the chain of events imperialist because the first step was imperialist? If you consider the last step alone, any country would have done the same thing, any Marxist country included. If an attack against a Marxist country X were launched from another country Y, then X would invade Y. The reason for the last step, the invasion, wasn't "we want to confiscate your raw materials, markets and trade routes." The reason for the invasion is that the pattern of U.S. imperialism throughout the world has gotten the U.S. into one more situation that it can't extricate itself from. Maybe this is a semantic point. I apply the word imperialism to some of the links in this causal nexis, not to every part of it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

One thing leads to another, but I'm not accustomed to hearing every link in the chain of events being called imperialism. During the step where one country says "let's confiscate another country's raw materials, markets and trade routes", that's imperialism, no doubt about it.

That's because you dogmatically cling to ideas from the early Twentieth Century. Communist theory and practice has been greatly contributed to since the times of Marx, Engel and De Leon. History doesn't stand still.

Capitalism, as a world system, reached its highest form (imperialism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/imperialism-t59302/index.html)) several decades ago. A handful of the most powerful countries dominate the rest. They are imperialist. The United States is the most powerful imperialist country in the world. Obama is the new chief executive of that imperialist country. His actions and decisions will be made on the basis of what he thinks is the best way to preserve the capitalist system and serve the interests of the capitalist-imperialist ruling class. Past-presidents from his party, the Democratic Party, which to be clear is a capitalist party, have started more wars that presidents from the other party of capitalism (the Republicans). It's fair to call him an imperialist.

[ZeroNowhere]

That's because you dogmatically cling to ideas from the early Twentieth Century.
That's an impressive argument, I must say. :rolleyes:

[PRC-UTE]

That's an impressive argument, I must say. :rolleyes:


You quoted a small extract. What about the rest of his post?

[zimmerwald1915]

Capitalism, as a world system, reached its highest form (imperialism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/imperialism-t59302/index.html)) several decades ago. A handful of the most powerful countries dominate the rest. They are imperialist.
That's a vulgar definition of imperialism, though. A better one, and one that takes in all countries instead of some arbitrarily decided "big" countries, is that trying to increase ones sphere of the world market is imperialism.

[ZeroNowhere]

You quoted a small extract. What about the rest of his post?
I agree that the US is imperialist, etc, I just disliked that bit. ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

One thing leads to another, but I'm not accustomed to hearing every link in the chain of events being called imperialism. During the step where one country says "let's confiscate another country's raw materials, markets and trade routes", that's imperialism, no doubt about it.

Mike, you may be interested in reading this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-theory-imperialism-t69324/index.html

The material here is based on Lenin's "popular outline":

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

[chegitz guevara]

"Socialists" Hail New Imperialist Commander-In-Chief (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialists-hail-new-p1285610/index.html#post1285610)

[smart-ass mode]Maybe Fred meant this letter (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm)[/smart-ass mode]

[chegitz guevara]

A response from Brian,



Monday evening, November 17, 2008

Matt, Eric, Marc, Peter, Steve, Maggie, David M, Greg and David S, etc.:

I did not become aware of the criticisms of my congratulatory letter until Sunday night, upon my return from Palm Beach.

I spent the weekend visiting my mother-in-law and attending the memorial of a socialist/communist friend who had to flee the country (from the US government) to Mexico in 1952 and 32 years later returned in 1984. He was my mentor and confidant these past 7 years and contributed to all of my campaigns in Florida, from 2002 thru 2008.

Adversely impacting your notes Sunday evening was the news of my aunt's death in California, making her the third member of the same family to die in three months (my younger cousin, and my uncle and aunt).

Sunday evening I completely missed Matt's letter and request, and only saw it tonight. However, I perused the others, along with the California news.

I am leaving for California Wednesday morning for the Thursday funeral, and will return next Sunday evening, November 23rd.

My congratulatory letter to President-Elect Barack Obama was done out of respect, proper manners, common courtesy and civil dialogue. It was done out of dignity for the office and its responsibilities even if I do not respect the man, nor what he stands for nor what has been done destructively by the various administrations in the last 8 to 16 years, nor, for that matter, in the last 100 to 200 years.

The dimension of the historical fact of a black man becoming president for the first time in our nation's history also added to the importance of a congratulatory expression as well.

In all of my campaigns I have congratulated the winner, in a similar manner. When I ran against Mayor Marion Barry for DC Mayor, I called him a tyrant (as reported in the Washington Post) and a few other unsavory names, in addition to labeling his conduct as unethical and illegal. Yet, I congratulated him in the end.

That was also true of my other opponents, no matter how disingenuous or corrupted they were.

Norman Thomas carried on a correspondence and was in contact with Franklin Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt his entire four terms. John Kennedy dialogued with Bayard Rustin and Lyndon Johnson with Martin Luther King, despite the turmoil and tensions of race relations with the White House.

Our presidential campaign affected the dialogue significantly in this 2008 national campaign, despite our small size and nasty image.

I have a different view of applying politics than some who criticized me from their hard left line or doctrinaire perspective. We do not have to be virulent or belligerent toward our enemies in the political world. I believe our method is stronger, more insightful and wiser, and will achieve the party's desired results better and faster than exhibited in others notes. I submit that no party platform nor principles were violated. In fact, they were enhanced.

Maggie Phair got it right: "READ the letter. Brian asks Obama to consider socialist ideas. Maggie"
I was misrepresenting stands held by me or the party in my letter? Where does it say or imply that?
"Praying for him?" "Humble servant?" Is that what is embarrassing, as if it implies we are in a lower class or in their class? Not where I come from or how I was raised. It shows strength, cunning, mutual respect, confidence and belief in oneself. Or maybe it is Fred Bergen and his friends who are embarrassing us?
Several weeks ago, right after the campaign, I decided to write two letters, one congratulatory to Obama, with all the nice frills, like a sly fox; and a second one, on my blog, in an open letter to Mr. Obama laying out our broad, systemic, radical proposals and his contradictions.
Your thoughts are welcome and invited. It should be up by the middle of next week.
Cordially,
Brian
Following is an article in Maclean's Canadian magazine….they quoted us prominently, and in a manner that some would like.
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/12/how-obama-survived-the-smears/

[Yehuda Stern]

So

1. Richter tried to avoid the question by NHIA, although quite legitimate, by blabbing something stupid about a "minimum program";
2. Q-collective has successfully forgotten that Nader is anti-immigrant (and really, why shouldn't you? Why let the sentiments of some brown people interfere with using Nader to "fight for a workers' party"?)
3. Moore is covering his own ass, badly, by using ridiculous excuses and stories about communist friends from distant lands;
4. The party is covering its ass, also badly, by claiming that Moore is "just a candidate," while the rest of us have to stop and wonder - who picked this candidate?

The only person who came out respectfully out of all this is chegitz, who had the courage to be honest about this travesty. I hope for him that he doesn't fall for Moore's cheap excuses, and that he learns the necessary lessons out of this miserable affair.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I fully agree (there's a first time for everything).


That's a vulgar definition of imperialism, though. A better one, and one that takes in all countries instead of some arbitrarily decided "big" countries, is that trying to increase ones sphere of the world market is imperialism.

Says you and the handful of people who make up the "communist left" (another group stuck in the past). Of course which countries are imperialist (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, France, Japan, Australia, Canada, Italy, and to a lesser extent, Belgium) are not determined arbitrarily, but through careful examination and this criteria (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=908429&postcount=1). But simply claiming that "every country is imperialist" allows you to wash your hands of international conflicts and avoid having to defend any country (and especially the proletarian states) from imperialist attacks. It's much easier, requires no backbone, and allows you to pose as partisans of the working class while doing nothing (or more accurately, abstaining from doing what needs to be done).

[chegitz guevara]

The following is the statement by our Vice-Presidential candidate, Stewart Alexander.


Socialists Expecting Business-as-Usual from President-Elect Obama

By: Stewart A. Alexander

November 18, 2008

It has been two weeks since a majority of Americans went to the polls to cast their votes electing Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States. However, socialists nationwide are not joining the celebrations; socialists believe Obama’s victory is only a win for the capitalist ruling class and a setback for working class people.

Beyond the title wave of liberal Obama fanfare that has engulf much of the nation, Obama’s election only represents a changing of the guard to usher in a new administrator for the capitalist ruling elite. As a result of his election Barack Obama is now beholden to big business and the corporate contributors that paid his way to victory.

Matt Erard, with Socialist Party USA, notes that Barack Obama’s electoral victory “was established with the largest intake of corporate contributions ever received by any candidate in world history, within the framework of a corporate two-party system established to ensure that the only truly determinative option voters have, at best, is choosing which functionary of the ruling class they wish to represent them.” It is important to note that the capitalist elite invested more than $600 million toward Obama’s victory and billions more on television, radio, and print media.

Now, only days after the election, President-elect Obama is moving within the old Washington establishment to carve his pathway as president; recruiting his team of leaders and advisors from the Clinton and Bush administrations. His choices are already offering a glimpse into the future of his presidency.

Socialists, throughout the U.S. and the world, have been strongly opposed to the occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan; an occupation that has resulted in over 4,800 U.S. casualties and more than 1.2 million deaths in these two war torn nations. Barack Obama has already made clear that it is his desire to keep Robert Gates as Defense Secretary in his administration. Obama has offered no indication that he will take any positions to end the U.S. involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan; to the contrary, Obama has taken the position to protect the interest of the capitalist ruling class which will push U.S. militarism to greater limits in the Middle East and throughout Western Europe.

Socialists are also opposing the bailouts of big corporations that are now threatening a national and global financial meltdown. These bailouts have been designed by the capitalist ruling class, using public funds to protect the profits and interest of Wall Street and the billionaires of the world. Barack Obama has supported the bailouts of the Bush administration and has indicated that he will support another stimulus package that is now being urged by President Bush.

In early 2008, President Bush backed a $168 billion stimulus package that was an economic disaster; these public funds offered no relief to the millions of U.S. families that are now struggling to keep their homes, to keep food on the table and to pay their bills. Now the $700 billion economic bailout, that was also backed by Obama and rushed through Congress, is already being question by many of the nation’s top economic analyst, with serious doubts whether the funds will ease the current economic crisis.

It is likely the Obama presidency will be a continuation of the present Bush White House; expanding U.S. imperialism and more repression for working people. It is also likely that working people will experience the greatest economic downturn this nation has experienced within the past 100 years and the world will witness the rebirth of the Cold War.

Barack Obama has offered no indications that he is prepared to make any major shifts from the present Bush White House; Obama is only a new face for the oppressors of the working class.

For more information search the Web for Stewart A. Alexander.

http://StewartAlexanderCares.com (http://stewartalexandercares.com/)
http://www.sp-usa.org/
http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/economics.html

[RedScare]

Much better.

[Yehuda Stern]

Of course which countries are imperialist (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, France, Japan, Australia, Canada, Italy, and to a lesser extent, Belgium)

Some obvious ones are missing - Israel, Russia, Portugal, South Africa, etc.


The following is the statement by our Vice-Presidential candidate, Stewart Alexander.

... which says nothing of Moore's statement.

[Revy]

With certainty I don't think we will be running Brian Moore again. We usually don't run Presidential candidates more than once anyway, but I think many were justifiably disappointed with how he presented himself.

[Foxtrot]

Sell out. Yikes.

[KurtFF8]

With certainty I don't think we will be running Brian Moore again. We usually don't run Presidential candidates more than once anyway, but I think many were justifiably disappointed with how he presented himself.

You could of course focus on running candidates in local/state/congressional elections where the candidates have at least a remote chance of winning or gaining more visibility other than an obscure media interest (that is if you want to continue engaging in bourgeois politics)

[PRC-UTE]

I fully agree (there's a first time for everything).



Says you and the handful of people who make up the "communist left" (another group stuck in the past). Of course which countries are imperialist (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, France, Japan, Australia, Canada, Italy, and to a lesser extent, Belgium) are not determined arbitrarily, but through careful examination and this criteria (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=908429&postcount=1). But simply claiming that "every country is imperialist" allows you to wash your hands of international conflicts and avoid having to defend any country (and especially the proletarian states) from imperialist attacks. It's much easier, requires no backbone, and allows you to pose as partisans of the working class while doing nothing (or more accurately, abstaining from doing what needs to be done).

that's it, well said. they sit on the sidelines adopting a moral pose as more proletarian than thou, while actually not taking part in the defence of workers who are under occupations and attacks by imperialists.

*cue left communist calling me a gangster*

[Die Neue Zeit]

Given the content of Moore's apology letter, I say let bygones be bygones (and let the Internationalist Group discredit itself further with cheap-shot attacks :lol: ).

[Die Neue Zeit]

So

1. Richter tried to avoid the question by NHIA, although quite legitimate, by blabbing something stupid about a "minimum program";

NHIA didn't pose any question to me at all. He was directing his question at the SP-USA, when I stepped in and rebutted accusations of "reformism" with the PoWR's lack of a minimum program (the PoWR comrades should feel free to correct me by directing me to such program website).


3. Moore is covering his own ass, badly, by using ridiculous excuses and stories about communist friends from distant lands;
4. The party is covering its ass, also badly, by claiming that Moore is "just a candidate," while the rest of us have to stop and wonder - who picked this candidate?

OK, so not just the Internationalist Group hopping in on the fun, then. :rolleyes:

[Yehuda Stern]

NHIA was talking about Moore, and you replied by saying something completely useless about the minimum program (no one but Jacob Richter has a finished 'minimum program' ready for use at any time). As for "hopping in on the fun," yes, it's always fun when opportunists expose themselves and embarrass themselves. That you are still so willing to defend Moore despite his lame response is not surprising, but is somewhat pathetic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

NHIA was talking about Moore, and you replied by saying something completely useless about the minimum program (no one but Jacob Richter has a finished 'minimum program' ready for use at any time). As for "hopping in on the fun," yes, it's always fun when opportunists expose themselves and embarrass themselves. That you are still so willing to defend Moore despite his lame response is not surprising, but is somewhat pathetic.

No, NHIA said "The reformism of most of the left in the U.S. has really come out into the open since the election of Obama (a time when its most important for communists to stand strong on our principles)," and so I interpreted that as being an attack on the minimum program. Therefore, I went to the PoWR's website.

Now, as for me having a "finished minimum program," quit the tailist-in-sectarian-garbs crap. :glare: The intended programmatic work illustrates only internationalist demands based on two programmatic criteria. Who the hell am I to know the specific peculiarities of each country to "summon" specific minimum demands for such? :rolleyes:

[fredbergen]

This isn't just a Moore gaffe. It's a "socialist" party that would run a Brian Moore for president. Moore's defense: he was talking out of the right side of his mouth and hasn't gotten around yet to balanceing it by talking out the left side.

Even if Brian "Lock 'em Up" Moore had found the time to criticize the new imperialist commander-in-chief after kissing his ring, there would be nothing socialist about it. Liberals want a different, more "humane" policy for the capitalists and present their program as advice or "criticism" of the rulers. Socialists want to end the rule of the capitalist class by presenting a program of struggle against the capitalists (of both parties) to the workers and oppressed.

[fredbergen]

[smart-ass mode]Maybe Fred meant this letter (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm)[/smart-ass mode]

So far, according to you, Brian Moore is Malcolm X, Jesus, and now Karl Marx. And what revolutionary war against slavery is Obama currently commanding? That's right, he's a partisan of reactionary imperialist war. Something that real Marxists oppose.

[Yehuda Stern]

No, NHIA said "The reformism of most of the left in the U.S. has really come out into the open since the election of Obama (a time when its most important for communists to stand strong on our principles)," and so I interpreted that as being an attack on the minimum program.

This sort of 'interpretation' would only come to someone who insists on not understanding that which has been said to him.


Now, as for me having a "finished minimum program," quit the tailist-in-sectarian-garbs crap.

Well, you criticized the PoWR for not having a finished minimum program, so it seems that you consider that as an important thing. But then again, since the whole thing was just excuse-engineering for the SPUSA, maybe I shouldn't hold your word to it.

[Leo]

Says you and the handful of people who make up the "communist left" (another group stuck in the past). Of course which countries are imperialist (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, France, Japan, Australia, Canada, Italy, and to a lesser extent, Belgium) are not determined arbitrarily, but through careful examination and this criteria (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=908429&postcount=1). But simply claiming that "every country is imperialist" allows you to wash your hands of international conflicts and avoid having to defend any country (and especially the proletarian states) from imperialist attacks. It's much easier, requires no backbone, and allows you to pose as partisans of the working class while doing nothing (or more accurately, abstaining from doing what needs to be done).


that's it, well said. they sit on the sidelines adopting a moral pose as more proletarian than thou

We never say anything as such. Obviously every current that claims to be proletarian thinks they are proletarian current, is there something wrong with this? We don't think we are the only proletarian current but we do have an understanding of a class line.

People accuse us of doing nothing. We are on the other hand active in proletarian movements, that is strikes, student movements for class demands, workers demonstrations, and we also actively condemn all imperialism and all nationalisms. We are also trying to spread the discussion for clarification about communist theory and tactics in among proletarian elements as much as our modest means allow us. Some of our comrades are taking immediate risks by maintaining militant activity due to the places they are living in.

We have a different analysis and definition of imperialism that is based on Luxemburg's analysis rather than the very distorted version of Lenin's analysis put forward by Stalinists and Trotskyists which can't be claimed to be the only definition of what imperialism means. We don't support national liberation because we see it as harmful to the interests of our class and can give examples of every "heroic" national liberation struggle you mention in last century.

We consider what you folks call "proletarian states" to be nothing but capitalist states that are completely integrated into world imperialism while maintaining and pursuing their tiny ambitions. We can discuss this. On the other hand it is not fair to accuse us of "doing nothing" because we don't support allegedly "proletarian" states which we see as nothing but capitalist.

We are ready to discuss everything, every criticism, but don't expect us to take you seriously when you say we do nothing, or "don't do what needs to be done" because we completely disagree with the analyses that you have without discussing the analyses.

And of course if you entire criteria for determining whether a state is imperialist is about a hundred years old, it is merely ironic when we are accused of being "a group stuck in the past".


while actually not taking part in the defence of workers who are under occupations and attacks by imperialists.

Taking part in defense of workers = supporting nationalist movements? Who is going to defend the workers from the nationalists then?


*cue left communist calling me a gangster*

:lol: We really broke your heart didn't we?

In any case, there was never anything personal said (since we know nothing about you individually), our criticism was about your and your organizations politics what your political tendency has been involved with.

[black magick hustla]

But simply claiming that "every country is imperialist" allows you to wash your hands of international conflicts and avoid having to defend any country (and especially the proletarian states) from imperialist attacks. It's much easier, requires no backbone, and allows you to pose as partisans of the working class while doing nothing (or more accurately, abstaining from doing what needs to be done).

Actually, it requires a hell of a lot more backbone that paying lipservice to the trendy leftist idea of "anti-imperialism". The whole issue of "defending proletarian states" might sound like some statement requiring a tremendous spine, but it is very common along the non-american left. The people I knew in the mexican section of the ICC have received threats from the left for exposing an internationalist platform in a place where the left is dominated by stalinist left-nationalists.

I think the whole issue of "doing nothing" is not an argument, to be fair.

And the "communist left" never aimed to create a huge organization. We believe workers can organize themselves.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What is this "Progress is progress" bullshit?
Seriously, read Obama's goddamn platform. It's not progressive.
Now is the time to fucking increase the pressure, and push harder. Expose all that "Hope" and "Change" rhetoric for what it is - empty slogans that don't even stand up against a five-minute look at what Obama has actually said, policy-wise. Empty promises? I fucking hope so! If Obama doesn't live up to sending more troops to Afghanistan, it's fine by me.

Give me a reason to believe that the police state will be any less thorough in cracking down on radicals under Obama, and then we'll talk.
In the mean time?
Fix/Fuck Shit Up!

[chegitz guevara]

... which says nothing of Moore's statement.

It's not about Moore's statement. It's just a different statement by a different candidate.

[PostAnarchy]

This is disgraceful :(

[chegitz guevara]

You could of course focus on running candidates in local/state/congressional elections where the candidates have at least a remote chance of winning or gaining more visibility other than an obscure media interest (that is if you want to continue engaging in bourgeois politics)

Well, that's an interesting thing. One of the things Moore did well as to get a lot of media attention, even before McCain and Palin started calling Obama the Socialist Candidate. Granted, once the latter happened, I think anyone would have gotten the attention Moore did. But in 2007, all we knew is that he'd already raised thousands of dollars and that he'd already been covered by the media just for seeking our nomination. That and the anyone but Eric Chester sentiment, made it possible for Moore to win the nomination.

Eric is an excellent spokesperson for the ideas of socialism, but he has an abrasive manner that has alienated him from other organizations, as well as our own comrades. In addition, there is a strong belief by the right wing of our party that Eric is trying to become the party dictator, and that running him for President would have been akin to coronating him.

Stewart Alexander is a nice guy, but no one knew anything about him, other than that he was a member of Peace and Freedom. None of the others who tossed their hat in the ring showed up for the convention.

On the basis of this experience, though, I'm going to suggest changes on how we select our Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. First, an official vetting committee, which will investigate every person who wants the nomination, so we don't have any unpleasant surprises. Second, I think candidates ought to be members of the socialist movement for a certain number of years, so they've had time to study and understand the politics and philosophy of socialism. Third, we need to concentrate more on movement and party building and less on ballot access. Fourth, as the effective party spokespeople, much tighter reigns should be held on what the candidates say or write. Written statements, at least, ought to be vetted by the party to avoid what just happened.

[chegitz guevara]

The following is a letter from one of the leaders of the Debs Tendency (to which I belong). He is also a member of the National Committee (an alternate, not a delagate, IIRC).



Brian,

I'm sincerely sorry to hear about the recent deaths in your extended family and extend my condolences to you over those recent losses. But you are continuing to ignore the fundamental point about this statement and there is no excuse for it. I do think it's problematic for a socialist candidate to send such a congratulatory message to his capitalist party opponent and thereby frame the substantively rigged capitalist two-party electoral system as legitimate. But the fact that you wrote a congratulatory statement to Obama is not the major problem. The major problem is that, within the content of this statement, you are misrepresenting the SP - and blatantly attributing such misrepresented positions to the SP - on the most critical of issues.

First of all, as I previously cited, you're attributing a form of national patriotism to the SP that the Party fundamentally and officially rejects. Most egregiously, however, you are working to sow the illusion that a candidate of the Democratic Party is capable of carrying out meaningful change in the interests of the U.S. working class. Expressing the SP's bedrock position against this notion and promoting a mass and decisive break by working people from the Democratic Party is one of the foremost reasons the SP runs campaigns to begin with. With the recent and ongoing success of the U.S. ruling class' co-optational needs that led to the selection of Barack Obama as the Democratic Party standard-bearer in 2008, the repudiation of this mythology, now continuously perpetuated by every section of the bourgeois "progressive" movement, is perhaps the foremost task of the SP in the current period. The fact you suggest socialist positions to Obama does not make the statement more tolerable, it makes it exponentially worse!

To have our own presidential candidate, in the post-election message read by every visitor to his website, falsely attribute to our Party the complete opposite of the central message its presently working to convey, cannot be called anything other than an outright betrayal! The consequences of such a betrayal are not limited merely to the misrepresentation, but are also resulting in countless former supporters of the SP now withdrawing all such support and castigating the party under the false impression that the statements you mis-attribute to the Party actually represent its positions!

You state that you've put out similar congratulatory messages after all your past electoral campaigns. Well that's fine and well Brian, but in your past electoral campaigns you were not claiming to speak for a political party holding positions that are antithetical to the ones you were expressing. You were also not making such congratulatory statements within a historical context in which a scalding political climate had pushed the entire Democratic Party establishment to heighten efforts to rake millions of outraged working people and youth back into the two-party fold to the extent not witnessed since the New Deal. The SP is not simply another bourgeois vote-seeking party that respects and legitimizes the capitalist institutional framework within which it operates in such tactical pursuits. It enters elections to undermine such institutions while aiming to build a thoroughly independent movement for a revolutionary transformation of society. In keeping this statement up, you are directly undermining the most salient political message the SP has to express in the current period and doing so with enormous consequence. This is not to mention completely reversing the message you yourself have expressed throughout the campaign.

It is thoroughly unprincipled and enormously damaging to continue to keep this statement on the front page of your campaign website. I urge you once again to do the honorable thing and remove it.

Comradely,
Matt Erard

[The Intransigent Faction]

The following is a letter from one of the leaders of the Debs Tendency (to which I belong). He is also a member of the National Committee (an alternate, not a delagate, IIRC)...(etc.)

Bravo.

[Revy]

Well I did join in on the criticism of Brian Moore myself on the email listserv for SPUSA members. So what I wrote on the first page was really just me being defensive. I really do have a problem with it.

But you must understand that we did not approve or publish this statement and we made it clear to him we were shocked by it. The post-election statement we did publish on our website (socialistpartyusa.org) was the one by our Vice Presidential candidate, Stewart Alexander, criticizing Barack Obama.

We in no way saw this coming. I don't care if you want to criticize Brian Moore for this, that is what we are doing, but please don't use it to take potshots out on our party. I hope you can see statements like comrade Erard's and realize how we really are.

[kollontai]

I was troubled by the sycophantic statement as well, but it was pretty clear all along that Brian could do little more than recite pamphlet rhetoric; this letter once again proves how little he gets it.

He certainly turned out to be an unfortunate choice for the party, which had few other options, but to be honest, the only ones who have taken or will take any notice to this letter are other leftests who probably already have a firm stance regarding the SP-USA. Any members who agree with the principles of the party likely find the message to be inappropriate.

To think his role as our presidential candidate makes his personal reformist position somehow trump our core beliefs is ridiculous. He is not speaking for us, he is not speaking for me.

[Random Precision]

Posts by PRC and Devrim dealing with Ireland split to History.

[Revy]

I was troubled by the sycophantic statement as well, but it was pretty clear all along that Brian could do little more than recite pamphlet rhetoric; this letter once again proves how little he gets it.

He certainly turned out to be an unfortunate choice for the party, which had few other options, but to be honest, the only ones who have taken or will take any notice to this letter are other leftests who probably already have a firm stance regarding the SP-USA. Any members who agree with the principles of the party likely find the message to be inappropriate.

To think his role as our presidential candidate makes his personal reformist position somehow trump our core beliefs is ridiculous. He is not speaking for us, he is not speaking for me.

Exactly. We are moving forward. As a party we welcome all revolutionaries who would like to reinvigorate the party as a mass party. Some might believe we have too many social democrats, but it's obvious the social democrats are jumping ship because of the influx of revolutionary socialists. Does that mean we'll become a "Trotskyist" party? No, it simply means we will become a broad-based platform for socialism and against capitalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The current circumstances show just how immature the right-splittist "social-democrats" in the U$ are, unless they're outright Blairites (in which case, screw them). I mean, their German counterparts are "peacefully coexisting" with the revolutionary tendencies... all within Die Linke!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Linke#Currents_and_tendencies

[Revy]

Well the social democrats in Die Linke probably are much more to the left. Most of the social democrats have left the SPUSA already, especially in 2007. These were people who wanted the SPUSA to become a supporter of the Greens and even the Democrats instead of being a socialist electoral force. After they left, they started the "Social Democratic Party of America", which only exists on the Internet. But the SDPA endorsed Barack Obama, further showing why it was a good thing these people left. This tendency is reflected in DSA, a proclaimed "socialist" group which was one of the splits of the Socialist Party of America, which also is very supportive of the Democrats. I liken them to a tumor. If they leave, we lose members, sure but we come out of the situation healthier and more ready to grow.

I would actually urge all those who have problems with the SPUSA to join and become loyal partisans of this party. I'd be in favor of even letting you start a Trotskyist tendency (faction), if you want. This is our goal, a broad-based revolutionary democratic socialist party of Marxists, Trotskyists, Left Communists, etc.

[Pogue]

Most disgusting thing ever.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade stancel, I was referring to the few remaining "social-democrats" (or perhaps "democratic socialists" a la Reynolds) in the SP-USA. I am well aware of the right-splittist Obama wankers who left beforehand (and good riddance). ;)

Speaking of "social-democrats," perhaps you guys should "enter" the CP-USA (a la the ultra-entryist IMT) and poach away at their membership (at least those who don't like voting for the Democ-RATS all the time). :D

[Pr0d1gy]

Some of the rhetoric in here is disturbing.

The revolutionary left lacks the political capital for the sort of sectarian stance that is displayed here, to ever hold foot in the U.S.A.. Rightly or wrongly, the average citizen in the United States still believes in the validity of the economy ("american dream"), and thus in the validity of capitalism itself.

Truly, only in failed states can extremism really spread; so a different approach is needed.

For those who wish for Obama to fail, while I understand your premise, I find it flawed. He is perceived here as being THE hard left. Not even a social democrat, they indoctrinated working class considers him about as left as you can get, so for him to fail, will only disenchant the misinformed American proletariat, with the leftist movement.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The revolutionary left lacks the political capital for the sort of sectarian stance that is displayed here, to ever hold foot in the U.S.A..

In other words, we're not "big enough" to have principles or stand by them.

In other words: opportunism.


For those who wish for Obama to fail,

It's not about "wishing him to fail" ... or succeed. It's about recognizing what he is and who he represents.

Obama is a capitalist politician and soon to be chief executive of the most powerful imperialist country the world has ever known. The Democrats are a capitalist party. Communists fight for the independence of the working class from its exploiters and their paties as a necessary step in the fight for the overthrow of the capitalist class and establishment of the rule of the working class -- even when we have to "go against the grain."

[Pr0d1gy]

In other words, we're not "big enough" to have principles or stand by them.

In other words: opportunism.

Pragmatism.

You can have your principles and goals, and they would be best served by how you can best help those in the working class. You can best help them by presenting to them the concepts which we seek to espouse, in a manner that they will actually listen to. It's not really opportunistic as much as it is realistic.

All I am suggesting is a bit of a color change when it comes to some of the harder rhetoric.




It's not about "wishing him to fail" ... or succeed. It's about recognizing what he is and who he represents.

Well I did read a post earlier where someone wanted him to fail, so as to further damage the U.S. state, and I just feel that based on his political perception, that that would be bad for the leftist movement overall.



Obama is a capitalist politician and soon to be chief executive of the most powerful imperialist country the world has ever known. The Democrats are a capitalist party. Communists fight for the independence of the working class from its exploiters and their paties as a necessary step in the fight for the overthrow of the capitalist class and establishment of the rule of the working class -- even when we have to "go against the grain."

And the best way to do this is to get the working class to accept you. Some of the harsher rhetoric alienates you.

[Revy]

Some of the rhetoric in here is disturbing.

The revolutionary left lacks the political capital for the sort of sectarian stance that is displayed here, to ever hold foot in the U.S.A.. Rightly or wrongly, the average citizen in the United States still believes in the validity of the economy ("american dream"), and thus in the validity of capitalism itself.

Truly, only in failed states can extremism really spread; so a different approach is needed.

For those who wish for Obama to fail, while I understand your premise, I find it flawed. He is perceived here as being THE hard left. Not even a social democrat, they indoctrinated working class considers him about as left as you can get, so for him to fail, will only disenchant the misinformed American proletariat, with the leftist movement.

I completely disagree with your statement. It doesn't matter if many see Obama as being radical left, he is not and that is what matters. It is views like yours which will disenchant the proletariat because it chains them to the Democratic Party. As the term goes on the capitalist, imperialist nature of the next President will become painfully clear to many, and disillusionment will arise. It is our goal to turn those people to socialism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well I did read a post earlier where someone wanted him to fail, so as to further damage the U.S. state, and I just feel that based on his political perception, that that would be bad for the leftist movement overall.

Any talk of Obama's "success" or "failure" abstracted from his role in society is useless.

Obama is the commander and chief of the world leading imperialist power. His "success" means the success of imperialism and world capitalism.

[Pr0d1gy]

I completely disagree with your statement. It doesn't matter if many see Obama as being radical left, he is not and that is what matters. It is views like yours which will disenchant the proletariat because it chains them to the Democratic Party. As the term goes on the capitalist, imperialist nature of the next President will become painfully clear to many, and disillusionment will arise. It is our goal to turn those people to socialism.


And how exactly will my views disenchant them? My views are that he is not a radical in the least. What I am saying is that depending on how his presidency is perceived by the American public, it will probably directly affect their future acceptance or reluctance, of more legitimately radical left wing politics.

[Pr0d1gy]

Any talk of Obama's "success" or "failure" abstracted from his role in society is useless.

Obama is the commander and chief of the world leading imperialist power. His "success" means the success of imperialism and world capitalism.


In the short term. However in the long term, his success in combination with his perception, may open the door for actual political upheaval, once the generic label of "socialism/leftist" loses more of the negative connotations that the terminology has gathered in America.

[Revy]

Comrade stancel, I was referring to the few remaining "social-democrats" (or perhaps "democratic socialists" a la Reynolds) in the SP-USA. I am well aware of the right-splittist Obama wankers who left beforehand (and good riddance). ;)

Well I'm not a fan of McReynolds either.

[RedScare]

Is there much of a Trotskyist tendency within SPUSA?

[Revy]

Is there much of a Trotskyist tendency within SPUSA?
No. But there are Trotskyists in the party and on the National Committee.

But if they wanted to start one, I'd support their right to. And they could join an international since some of them allow groups within parties to join instead of parties. I know the CWI does - but they may have to drop Socialist Alternative, if that's even possible. I think a Trotskyist tendency of the SPUSA would make a much better member than Socialist Alternative since SAlt endorsed Nader. In the 30's, Trotskyists in the Workers Party led by James Cannon join the Socialist Party of America as a faction. But the social democratic leadership expelled them. The youth group of the SP, Young People's Socialist League, actually left the party because of that (YPSL now is part of the SPUSA). Maybe it could call itself the "Cannon Tendency".

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know I don't want to meddle into Trotsky-sect infighting, but maybe a group affiliated with the United Secretariat (the Mandelites) would be nice.

[Enragé]

Q collective, how is that different from the CWI supporting the immigrant-bashing national chauvinist Ralph Nader in the U.S., or the immigrant-bashing national chauvinist Dutch "Socialist Party"?

Though the SP should be confronting racist tendencies alot more, and alot more strongly, they in no way themselves bash immigrants. As for nader, didn't know he did that, and seeing what you say about the SP i doubt it is true.

[Martin Blank]

Pragmatism.

You can have your principles and goals, and they would be best served by how you can best help those in the working class. You can best help them by presenting to them the concepts which we seek to espouse, in a manner that they will actually listen to. It's not really opportunistic as much as it is realistic.

Pragmatism is an ideology perpetuated by the capitalists in order to get people to do exactly what you're doing now: capitulate to and accept the status quo. There is no honor or value in pragmatism. It is, by definition, the "do nothing" method of interacting with the world.


All I am suggesting is a bit of a color change when it comes to some of the harder rhetoric.

Yeah -- from red to a soft yellow.

[Martin Blank]

I know I don't want to meddle into Trotsky-sect infighting, but maybe a group affiliated with the United Secretariat (the Mandelites) would be nice.

As far as I remember, there are some members of the Fourth International Caucus (the Mandelite group in the U.S.) of Solidarity also in the SPUSA.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Thanks! :thumbup1:

[Revy]

Well I don't know much about all the internationals. If the CWI as an international organization supported Nader, then that pretty much throws them out of consideration as far as I'm concerned....I just don't know which internationals would even allow a group within a non-explicitly-Trotskyist party to join, but I know the CWI does, that's why I mentioned them. I do like their UK section, but I dislike their US section.

I don't know personally of anyone from Solidarity in the SPUSA. As a group they would strike me as great - except they don't care about endorsing socialists. Solidarity allows members to have dual membership with the SPUSA, but that's where any relationship ends. In 2000 they endorsed the SPUSA's candidate, but only alongside Ralph Nader. In 2004 they endorsed Nader again, and in 2008 they endorsed Cynthia McKinney. For that reason I can't support them.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's for one very simple reason: if they can't be the "vanguard," then nobody else can (hence why the IMT isn't "entering" into the Democratic Socialists of America, the United States Labor Party, the Green party, and the "social-democratic" CP-USA, much less the SP-USA).

[chegitz guevara]

Is there much of a Trotskyist tendency within SPUSA?

The Debs Tendency of the SPUSA is not a Trotskyist tendency per se, but most Trotskyists (I know of) in the SPUSA are members and most members are Trotskyist.


Though the SP should be confronting racist tendencies alot more, and alot more strongly, they in no way themselves bash immigrants. As for nader, didn't know he did that, and seeing what you say about the SP i doubt it is true.

We should be doing a lot of things more, and we should be doing it openly as members of the SPUSA. On this issue, however, I think the only thing we can be faulted for is not being more public about the work we do. For example, the national secretary does a lot of work around anti-fascism, while I have done organizing around police brutality in Miami (towards Black people, and in Miami that includes Haitians and other West Indians), and antoher comrade in San Diego has even had a shotgun pointed in his face in the desert by the Minutemen. We were also involved in the Coalition of Immokalee Workers from the very beginning. That's just off the top of my head.


I don't know personally of anyone from Solidarity in the SPUSA. As a group they would strike me as great - except they don't care about endorsing socialists. Solidarity allows members to have dual membership with the SPUSA, but that's where any relationship ends. In 2000 they endorsed the SPUSA's candidate, but only alongside Ralph Nader. In 2004 they endorsed Nader again, and in 2008 they endorsed Cynthia McKinney. For that reason I can't support them.

I'm a dual member, as are not a few of the members of the Debs Tendency. Solidarity has swung rather far to the right. I now hear from the left of Solidarity the same arguments I hear from the right of the SPUSA. I don't really consider Solidarity to be revolutionary or socialist anymore, but just the left-liberal wing of the Green Party. There are, however, some revolutionary comrades still in the organization who still have illusions in it, which is the only reason I haven't let my membership lapse.

[chicanorojo]

The Debs Tendency of the SPUSA is not a Trotskyist tendency per se, but most Trotskyists (I know of) in the SPUSA are members and most members are Trotskyist.

The DT does not label itself Troskyist. I am member of DT and don't care much for labels. Marxist or Revolutionary socialist are fine. I do see DT as a revolutionary socialist or marxist tendency.



I'm a dual member, as are not a few of the members of the Debs Tendency. Solidarity has swung rather far to the right. I now hear from the left of Solidarity the same arguments I hear from the right of the SPUSA. I don't really consider Solidarity to be revolutionary or socialist anymore, but just the left-liberal wing of the Green Party. I've been a member of both SP and Soli since 1990. Soli is still a good socialist organization, IMHO. Has good mag, many members active in Labor, produces excellent pamphlets on ranging issues, etc. The main problem with Soli, and one I've been harping for a long time w/i it, is two-fold. One, it's never been an organization that sees itself as an end to itself. Cuz of this, you get folks that are only temporary in the organization and "waiting" for that next It organization. Which leads to an organization waiting for the next It Mass workers movement. In Solidarity it meant going from the Labor Party to a vague Independent Political Action to a hard entry into the GP. All the while not really concentrating more time on building Solidarity.

[Revy]

We should be doing a lot of things more, and we should be doing it openly as members of the SPUSA. On this issue, however, I think the only thing we can be faulted for is not being more public about the work we do. For example, the national secretary does a lot of work around anti-fascism, while I have done organizing around police brutality in Miami (towards Black people, and in Miami that includes Haitians and other West Indians), and antoher comrade in San Diego has even had a shotgun pointed in his face in the desert by the Minutemen. We were also involved in the Coalition of Immokalee Workers from the very beginning. That's just off the top of my head.

I think that was in response to someone who was talking about the SP in the Netherlands.

But I agree, we could be a lot more active.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Debs Tendency of the SPUSA is not a Trotskyist tendency per se, but most Trotskyists (I know of) in the SPUSA are members and most members are Trotskyist.

Comrade, given what the article below has to say about the label "Trotskyist," what kind of "Trotskyists" are those in the Debs Tendency?

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/640/macnair.htm


In my July 13 and August 3 articles I argued that the sort of Marxist party we need is one in which it would be possible for a Trotskyist faction or factions (or, for that matter, left/council communists, or genuine Kautskyites) to fight for their ideas, but not one which had a pre-commitment to Trotskyism; and I suggested that aspects of the Critique call created a danger of such a pre-commitment.

Comrades Matthew Jones and Hillel Ticktin have argued that by criticising Trotskyism I inevitably align myself with Stalinism and ‘stages theory’. Comrade Barry Biddulph, on the other hand, argues that my position really is a form of Trotskyism, with the demands which I (and CPGB generally) argue are part of a minimum programme being really (Trotskyist) “transitional demands”.

‘Trotskyism’ has three possible meanings. The first is its meaning in the common usage of those who are ignorant of the substantive political and theoretical arguments of organised and self-identified Trotskyists. In this sense ‘Trotskyism’ means (1) rejection of ‘socialism in a single country’ in favour of world revolution; and (2) opposition to the dictatorship of the bureaucracy, both in the USSR and similar states, and in the trade unions and other parts of the workers’ movement, in favour of radical workers’ democracy and accountability from below.

In this sense I am a Trotskyist and so are the comrades who founded the CPGB (Weekly Worker); and, indeed, the comrades were already ‘Trotskyists’ when, as The Leninist, they were explicit opponents of Trotskyism in favour of arguments close to those of the Leningrad Opposition led by Zinoviev and Kamenev. Real Stalinists, of course, called the Leningraders ‘Trotskyites’, and within the terms of this common-usage meaning of Trotskyism, they were right to do so. Similarly, when George Galloway called the SSP ‘Trots’ he meant that they favoured some degree of internal democracy in their party and the accountability of elected representatives.

The second sense is the meaning which I have used in criticising Trotskyism, and which Alex Callinicos used in his (very different) criticisms in his book Trotskyism (1990). In this sense ‘Trotskyism’ is the body of political and theoretical ideas which is common to the organised movement which Trotsky established, the Fourth International founded in 1938 and its predecessor groups from 1931. In this sense ‘Trotskyism’ means the following:

(1) the theses of the first four Congresses of Comintern, including the ‘21 conditions’ and the split with social democracy and the ‘centrists’; soviet power; revolutionary defeatism; the leading role of the party and its ‘Bolshevik’ character; the united front policy, including the anti-imperialist front; and the workers’ government slogan;

(2) world revolution, as opposed to socialism in one country and ‘peaceful coexistence’;

(3) permanent revolution in pre-capitalist and colonial countries, as opposed to separate stages of capitalist and workers’ revolutions;

(4) defence of the USSR as a historic conquest of the working class, combined with the struggle for political revolution against the Stalinist bureaucracy;

(5) rejection of the Stalinist ‘people’s front’ policy of subordinating the working class in an alliance with the ‘national’ or ‘democratic’ bourgeoisie; and

(6) the idea that the extreme crisis of capitalism (the ‘death agony’) means that the division of the socialist programme into maximum and minimum programmes is superseded, and hence the ‘transitional programme’.

In this sense I am no longer a Trotskyist - but nor is comrade Ticktin. In reality, of course, almost the whole of the self-identified Trotskyist movement has abandoned at least part of this political platform.

The parts which remain - generally the party conception, the permanent revolution and the ‘united front’ in some form, and anti-imperialism - remain in a very dilute way. Comrades recruited into Trotskyist organisations since the mid-1970s have rarely read the documents which originally defined their political tendency, and the older comrades who read them in their youth have usually forgotten what they said. What remains is a tradition and a ‘common sense’ which is almost immune to contrary evidence, as, for example, in Dave Craig’s (or Alan Thornett’s, or Alex Callinicos’s) concept of the united front.

The purpose of my long series on strategy (and also of my shorter 2004 series on imperialism) is to try to get comrades to think seriously about the origins of their present ‘common sense’ ideas of this sort. As such, it inevitably criticises ‘Trotskyism’.

Comrade Ticktin argues that these ideas cannot properly be associated with Trotsky. Certainly in their modern, dilute, ‘common sense’ form this is in some sense true. But their origin in the Trotskyist movement is in documents Trotsky wrote or drafted and - in some cases - put to the vote. And it is in choices Trotsky made, after he had in 1933 denounced the Comintern as dead for the purposes of world revolution, about who to work with and who to split with in the western workers’ movement. Building a movement on the platform of the six points listed above was Trotsky’s choice in the 1930s. If he had set out to build a movement taking out some of these commitments it would almost certainly have had broader appeal. It is therefore perfectly fair to call adherents of this organised political movement ‘Trotskyists’, as many call themselves.

[...]

The third possible sense - and the sense I think comrades Ticktin and Jones are using - is to speak of ‘Trotskyism’ in the same sense in which it is very common to speak of ‘Marxism’: that is, not as a concrete political project, but as a body of theoretical ideas.

[...]

If it is a correct interpretation, it leaves out the left and council communists, whose ideas could still be true, since they were in no way committed to socialism in one country, stages, or the worker-peasant alliance. If anything, writers in this tradition have (in my view correctly) criticised Trotsky for making inappropriate concessions to these ideas. Now, of course, from the 1930s the left and council communists had much less global political impact than the Trotskyists, and they remain today much weaker as an organised movement; but this is to move from the terrain of theory to that of political projects, in which case we would have to return to the arguments of Trotskyism as a political platform (above). From the late 1960s on, moreover, the theory of left and council communist writers has been reprinted and translated and has had considerable impact on ideas current on the left.

Equally, the fact that the Kautskyans collapsed into state loyalism (and eventually collapsed altogether) does not in itself mean that Kautsky’s and Martov’s Marxist objections to the course followed by the early Soviet regime - or those of Luxemburg and Levi - can be taken to be false theory. Kautsky and Martov may have been wrong for reasons which do not prove Lenin, Trotsky and their co-thinkers right. As long as the line of Soviet-defencism and political revolution seemed plausible, the rest of Trotsky’s arguments about the early Soviet state were also plausible. Once this line collapsed in 1989-91, it ought to have called into question also the theoretical arguments at least of Terrorism and communism and of The permanent revolution (as opposed to those of Results and prospects).

Moreover, to the extent that authors defend the central theses of Stalinism - ‘socialism in one country’, the party monolith, ‘stages theory’, ‘national roads’ and the people’s front - they cannot be Marxists, because these theses are inconsistent with the fundamentals of Marxism. But it is possible for an author to be personally committed to these theories, and yet to write Marxist theory which ignores their implications. This becomes truer, the more the field of the author’s work is distanced from the immediate needs of political engagement. Thus, for example, the work of Hill on the English bourgeois revolution, of Hilton on medieval peasant struggles, or of de Ste Croix (Class struggle in the ancient Greek world) are genuine contributions to Marxist theory in spite of being written by authors who were politically Stalinists or fellow-travellers.

[Naturally, the article goes on to repeat criticisms of The Transitional Programme.]

[UlyssesTheRed]

Yeah, dude. Marx wrote a congratulatory letter to a President leading an anti-slavery revolution. That totally means that Marxist revolutionaries should send congratulatory letters to the CEO of Imperialism, Inc.

Your grasp of syllogism is not so great, dude.