World Socialist Movement

[Comrade-Z]

So...I think I'm in love with the World Socialist Movement. This is pretty much the organization that I've always dreamed of, at least on paper:


*They explicitly discuss the role of self-interest in politics:

"The World Socialist Movement claims that only the vast majority, acting consciously in its own interests, for itself, by itself, can create socialism.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/how...s_different.php

"No. Socialism isn't based upon altruism. Socialism will work even if everyone suddenly decides that they dislike everyone else. Supporting socialism involves recognizing the fact that the current system just doesn't work for most people. Socialism will be a society in which satisfying an individual's self interest is the result of satisfying everyone's needs. It is enlightened self-interest that will work for the majority."
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/faq.php


*They oppose the theory of leadership.

Leaders, Get Lost!

"The WSM opposes any vanguardist approach, minority-led movements, and leadership, as inherently undemocratic (among other negative things)."
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/how...s_different.php

"Who is your leader?

The World Socialist Movement doesn't have a leader, and nor do any of the Companion Parties, because leadership is undemocratic. If there are leaders, there must be followers: people who just do what they are told.

In the World Socialist Movement, every individual member has an equal say, and nobody tells the rest what to do. Decisions are made democratically by the whole membership, and by representatives or delegates. If the membership doesn't like the decisions of those it elects, those administrators can be removed from office and their decisions overridden.

Only when people have real, democratic control over their own lives will they have the freedom that is socialism."
"How will socialism be established?

Socialism can only be established by a vast majority of people deciding it wants to establish socialism. Therefore, the World Socialist Movement puts forward the socialist case so that people can decide for themselves.

Once the vast majority makes the decision in favour of socialism, then it will elect socialist representatives or delegates to prove its majority, and to serve as a temporary focal point to administer the elimination of capitalism and the creation of socialism. But it won't be, and could not be, the elected representatives or delegates who create socialism, it will be the people of the world as a whole.

The vast majority of the people of the world are working class, so socialism will be established by the working class. It also means that ordinary people will have to do all of the work required. The capitalist class isn't going to do it, and professional socialists (whatever they might be) aren't going to do it. The only way to establish socialism is for people to work for it."

"The World Socialist Party rejects the theory of leadership."

"Neither "great" individuals nor self-appointed "vanguards" can bring the world one day closer to socialism. The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself."
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...riendid=9850384

"Although the SPGB claim to follow Marx's precepts, they claim to follow them simply because they are correct in their own right, not because Marx was a special individual, sometimes quoting his own contention that Je ne suis pas un Marxiste (I am not a Marxist)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Par...in#Organisation


*They are marxist and materialist.

"We believe that a scientific approach and understanding by the working class are necessary to establish socialism.

1.
* [Others] generally support emotionalistic campaigns, in which logic and rational analysis are ignored.
* Any group which wants people to follow their leadership is unlikely to promote real understanding. What needs to be understood if one is just following the leader and doing what one is told?"


*They regard supernatural explanations as obsolete.

"[The WSM] claims that religion is a social, not personal, matter and that religion is incompatible with socialist understanding."
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/how...s_different.php
"Socialists hold that materialist explanations of human society and the rest of nature supersede supernatural ones. A religious perspective won't necessarily prevent anyone from striving to abolish capitalism and its evils, and the ethical elements of religious teachings may even be what first make many people aware of the injustices of a class-divided society. But they don't in themselves lead to an understanding of the causes of such injustices. (More often than not, religious institutions themselves justify and commit them.) The world socialist perspective is in any case essentially post-religious, because the case for socialism hinges on the scientific use of evidence. Socialists therefore look on supernatural explanations as obsolete."
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...riendid=9850384


*They neither promote, nor oppose, reforms to capitalism (non-reformist).

[The WSM] promotes only socialism, and as an immediate goal.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/how...s_different.php

"The route of trying to change capitalism, or 'reform,' is the one that has been taken by most people who have wanted to improve society. We do not deny that certain reforms won by the working class have helped to improve our general living and working conditions. Indeed, we see little wrong with people campaigning for reforms that bring essential improvements and enhance the quality of their lives, and some reforms do indeed make a difference to the lives of millions and can be viewed as 'successful'. There are examples of this in such fields as education, housing, child employment, work conditions and social security. However, in this regard we also recognise that such 'successes' have in reality done little more than to keep workers and their families in efficient working order and, while it has taken the edge of the problem, it has rarely managed to remove the problem completely. What we are opposed to is the whole culture of reformism, the idea that capitalism can be made palatable with the right reforms, By that, we mean that we oppose those organisations that promise to deliver a programme of reforms on behalf of the working class, often in order that the organisation dishing out the promises can gain a position of power. Such groups, especially those of the left-wing, often have real aims quite different to the reform programme they peddle. In this, they are being as dishonest as any other politician, from the left or right. The ultimate result of this is disillusionment with the possibility of radical change.

If you are convinced, however, that groups or parties promising reforms deserve your support, we would urge you to consider the following points.

1. The campaign, whether directed at right-wing or left-wing governments, will often only succeed if it can be reconciled with the profit-making needs of the system. In other words, the reform will often be turned to the benefit of the capitalist class at the expense of any working class gain.
2. Any reform can be reversed and eroded later if a government finds it necessary.
3. Reforms rarely, if ever, actually solve the problem they were intended to solve.

In other words, although individual reforms may be worthy of support, the political strategy of reformism—promising to win reforms on the behalf of others—is a roundabout that leads nowhere. Those wanting to improve society should seriously question whether capitalism offers enough scope for achieving lasting solutions to the vast range of social problems to which it gives rise. Of course, some improvements are made and some problems are alleviated. Yet new kinds of problem also arise in a society which is changing ever more rapidly, seeking new ways to make a profit."
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/rev...n_or_reform.php


So, in general, I like what they are doing. I think I might check them out. Does anyone have any experience with this organization?

[Leo]

I heard things about them... The most interesting one being a phrase like "You don't join the WSM, you're born into it (&#33". They are a little cultist if you want my opinion. They are too soft for my style to be honest, but other than their position about parliamentarianism, I don't oppose their positions and I do check their articles occasionally.

[Leo]

Their rejection of nationalism should be noted:

"Before almost all else we Socialists are internationalists. We belong to the international working class. Our grievance is international; our only hope is international, and our enemy is international also."

[Enragé]

I talked to a member who was speaking on Speaker's Corner in London. Very interesting fellow, very good speaker. I took home one of their pamphlets. Its a good organisation but very sectarian, its like "we dont work together with other parties because WE'RE RIGHT AND THEY'RE NOT!", period.
And they see that change should come through socialists voted into power, and then enacting socialism

[Rawthentic]

Well, that is reformism and should be opposed.

[The Bitter Hippy]

is it truly reformism if they abolish the parliamentary system after they they get power? not that that'd ever happen.

[Xiao Banfa]

The leader of this party (Adam Buick) visited my city. I went along to the seminar, and it was really vague and impractical.

They take a sectarian wreckers' approach to everything. Socialism needs to be brought about with socialist parties and trade unions developing a war of position and a revolutionary strategy.

Electing a bunch of old guys to parliament to abolish the state is a pretty wierd theory.

There are no leaders, follow me!

[Leo]

Well, they are reformist, but every single left wing party that participates in the elections is much more reformist than they are. I am, of course, completely against parliamentarianism and participating in elections, and trying to get elected democratically has been this parties organizational method for about a hundred years. I heard that they were pretty interesting people to talk in person; because they don't have any organizational questions so they can talk about how communism will be in a pretty serious and creative way, which is apparently pretty fun to do, not useful of course...