USA Political Parties

Actually, at the first glance, I don't really see a difference between them and, say, your average anarcho-communist. Anarcho-communism is probably really the label that fits them best.

Well, KW, they do have a point. After all, the stranglehold of bureaucratization that took place under Stalin and Mao did lead to some serious reversals and errors. However, I wouldn't equate them with anarchists. I see their position more as a revival of Syndicalism, or classic American Marxism of the DeLeonist variety. I've read through their literature in the past and been astounded at how closely some of it mirrors the ancient (turn of the last century) SLP "Socialist Industrial Union" platform. That being said, I do think abandoning Socialism is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bath water. Jumping straight into Communism without the buffer phase of Socialism is far too radical a leap for the average man on the street to understand, and could lead to very ugly counter-revolutionary activity.

Quote:

Jumping straight into Communism without the buffer phase of Socialism is far too radical a leap for the average man on the street to understand, and could lead to very ugly counter-revolutionary activity.

...without a state to fight it. So basically this is committing the same mistake of hippiedom as anarchism tends to espouse.

That's the legacy of the 60's for you. They think that killing every cop and every politician is going to open the doors wide open for the new revolutionary government to step in and assume control. Meanwhile in Middle America...

Correction. The PLP does not believe in the socialist stage, true, but they do believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, a period in which the state still exists and is used against class enemies. They also believe that the great majority of people should be well educated before the revolution, if possible, so that the change from privilege and competition to complete equality is as smooth as possible.

Fitzy wrote:

Correction. The PLP does not believe in the socialist stage, true, but they do believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, a period in which the state still exists and is used against class enemies.

Except for the abolition of currency and the wage system, it basically comes to the same thing. The state will exist for a century or more until humanity is ready to do without one.

Quote:

They also believe that the great majority of people should be well educated before the revolution, if possible, so that the change from privilege and competition to complete equality is as smooth as possible.

Very unlikely. Revolutions are nearly always made by vanguards (even the Founding Fathers of the USA were essentially a vanguard), and the time to strike is never known beforehand. The Revolution will probably occur before the average man on the street even knows what is happening, and be presented as a fait accompli to a populace the majority of whom will disapprove. 90% of Socialist education will occur after the Revolution.

I actually agree with you. A vanguard makes alot more sense.

[libertarian]Join the Democratic Party because it's full of Marxists, anarchists and all kinds of leftists.[/libertarian]

No, seriously join the PSL because it seems to be the most progressive party of the list and unlike the CPUSA doesn't seem to forge alliances with mainstream parties.

I was in the SPUSA, but I often voted SWP in federal elections. They were the only left party on the ballot.

SWP was on the ballot for 5 states in the 2008 presidential elections, SPUSA was on 7 and the PSL was on the ballot for 12 states (the most of any leftist political party). WWP supported the Greens who were only on the ballot for 32 states.

In Louisiana we had only the SWP and the Greens, in the last election. I was asked to be an elector for a SPUSA candidate, but he wasn't even on the ballot here.

That's interesting. According to wikipedia, the PSL was on the ballot for Louisiana along with the SWP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... lot_access

Well that's egg all over my face. My memory is faulty. I was remembering the election of 2004, not 2008.

Wow, I just read one of my own posts from over a year ago, and I still agree with it entirely. Doesn't happen very often.

Red Rebel wrote:

Actually they are. In 1919 the moderate socialists expelled the pro-Bolshevik socialists within the Socialist Party. Those radicals formed another party the Communist Labor Party, the predecessor of the CPUSA. I'd argue that the CPUSA is in a similar situation as the moderate socialists of the Socialist Party in 1919. Impressions of the CPUSA convention is a good read from several CPUSA members who disagree with the current reformist leadership.

The link no longer works, but it's still here. Another interesting piece here. And of course one need only browse through ML Today for more articles of this nature.

What they all seem to show is a direct movement towards liquidation by the leadership. When you get rid of basic things like the paper, membership cards (and in the future even the very name) of a communist party, and when you hand your archives to the ruling class without consulting your members, what exactly is left? Some kind of "left-wing think-tank" to keep the leaders of the former CP employed, as we've seen in all the countries where CP leaders liquidated their parties through the usual cloak-and-dagger scheming in 1989-1991.

What I don't get is why these angry members don't seem able to do something about it at the moment. Surely in the communist party, when executives consistently fail, their members can just vote them out? Or delegate people who aren't sycophantic lackeys to the next National Convention to elect a new National Committee? I mean, a glance at the CPUSA's Constitution shows a lot of opportunity for bureaucratic rather than democratic centralism for a leadership, but surely there are always possibilities. Just consider, for instance, Article VI, section 2 on the rights and duties of CPUSA members:

Quote:

A member shall strive to attend all club meetings. Members shall continually strive to improve their political knowledge and their understanding of Marxism-Leninism, to take part in the discussion of Party policy, to initiate activities, to work of the aims and policies of the Party, and to seek to win new members to its ranks. They shall also read, circulate and help improve Party publications. All members shall circulate the press and make work with the press central to their mass activity.

If leadership figures really are saying that Marxism-Leninism is a "foreign doctrine" and actively try to censor it out of all discussions, then they shouldn't even be fragging members! That brings you straight to the article about "disciplinary procedures". Quite frankly, these guys centered around Sam Webb should consider themselves lucky it's 2012 and not, say, 1936 or so. Back then, "communist leaders" like that would have been invited to Moscow, dragged out of the Comintern guesthouse into blinded cars around 3 AM, and shot by the NKVD in some basement. Obviously, I don't endorse that kind of thing. Post-WWII, however, they would have at least received a nasty letter.

Matthijs wrote:

Wow, I just read one of my own posts from over a year ago, and I still agree with it entirely. Doesn't happen very often.

The opposite just happened to me. ): The PLP is awesome, but a little childish.