What do you think of PSL?

And how do the recent "reforms" undertaken by the Cuban "Comparty" fit into this image of Cuba being a revolutionary socialist country?

It doesn't even mention the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact they speak of "administering the economy in the interests of working and poor people". This is Leninism?

It's certainly not. The "poor" are not a class.
Lenin:

Quote:

The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won, and maintained, by the use of violence, by the proletariat, against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.

"Administering the economy in the interests of working and poor people" is what they have in, say, Sweden on Norway.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Better than being part of some tiny Trot "party".

@loz: You are a reactionary for attacking existing socialist states no question about it. You're just like a Trot, dismissing and attacking any group who doesn't meet your ridiculous notions of what socialism are. There is a difference in being critical and attacking.

You know the ISO is the largest party, right? And I'd rather be in a 'tiny trot party' attending rallies for actual working class struggles than telling everybody 'hands off x bourgeois state' and rooting for some obscure left wing in that state (which is really a left wing of capital).

Brezhnevites support any national bourgeoisie as long as it opposes their current enemy, and call anything with a red flag and compatible with them 'socialist'. frag the DPRK, China, and Cuba. They aren't socialist, they never were, they're simply nations that were or are under assault from imperialism. All 3 are moving away from even the M-L idea of socialism.

The PSL wants to resurrect a long dead communism that only existed when what M-Ls call 'revisionists' ruled and so did their concept of actually existing socialism.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Loz wrote:

And how do the recent "reforms" undertaken by the Cuban "Comparty" fit into this image of Cuba being a revolutionary socialist country?

The "reforms" are insignificant to fifty plus years of anti-imperialism, moral and material support to socialist revolutionary movements throughout the third world, and material support to third world countries.

^
What Conscript said.

Quote:

The "reforms" are insignificant to fifty plus years of anti-imperialism, moral and material support to socialist revolutionary movements throughout the third world, and material support to third world countries.

No they aren't.

Loz wrote:

No they aren't.

In what ways aren't they? Just because they don't line up with your ideals? I'm mostly for any movement that is opposed to capitalism and for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Doesn't matter if Maoist, Trotskyist, etc.

How does the fact that China assisted DPRK or N.Vietnam change the fact that it's a capitalist country now?

Maoist China doesn't have the same ideals and aims as present day China.

Last time i chacked it was Mao who started kissing up to world imperialism (Nixon in Peking etc) and inventing "Three worlds theories" and so on...
Anyway it doesn't really matter.

Loz wrote:

Last time i chacked it was Mao who started kissing up to world imperialism

Won't argue with that but the U.S. met Mao half way, the Soviets were a far greater enemy than the Chinese.

Good. The PSL in my view is the best progressive organisation in the USA with the best chance of actually achieving anything useful. The rest are for the most part either Social Democrats (or leaning in that direction) or too small and sectarian to matter.

Soviet192491 wrote:

They're the only party to my knowledge that isn't revisionist.

There are plenty of anti-revisionist parties in the USA such as APL, PLP, the Sparts, ect. I'd argue the difference between the PSL and others is that the PSL is much more active nationwide in day to day working struggles. Other groups tend to be concentrated in certain areas.

Loz wrote:

If they aren't revisionist how come they hail Cuba as a "revolutionary socialist" country?

Defend revolutionary Cuba!

The Party for Socialism and Liberation considers the defense of revolutionary Cuba one of the principal responsibilities of socialists in the United States. Since its 1959 revolution, Cuba has provided the world with a stirring example of what a people can accomplish once the working class seizes political power from the tiny minority of capitalists. The PSL participates in campaigns to free the Cuban Five, to extradite the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles and to end the U.S.-imposed blockade of Cuba.

Although isolated and attacked by the United States, and despite the economic underdevelopment inherited from its colonial past, revolutionary Cuba has eliminated illiteracy, fostered cultural life, promoted equality and provided free health care for all.

Conscript wrote:

Bunch of brezhnevites

Thanks for the contribution to the thread. You detailed criticism of the PSL was extremely insightful and look forward to reading more of your posts.

Since I still don't know what the hell you are talking about and you've made this statement in multiple threads without backing up your one liner, the only info I found was this: Brezhnevite: 1.A supporter of Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev (1906-1982), General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1964 to 1982.

Loz wrote:

Brezhevites at least had the formal decency to put up pictures of Lenin.

So if the PSL goes to rallies with more pictures of Marx, Engels, Stalin, ect. they will be more revolutionary?

I fail to see how promoting dead white people would promote the party, intensify class divisions or in general promote anything progressive in the day to day struggles workers and oppressed people are involved in. It is one of the things a lot of the older parties have a hard time dealing with.

Loz wrote:

Quite correct, however i don't think that there are any "existing socialist states".

[...]

My notions? Nonsense. Socialism can go forward and it can (and, in every historical instance, did) go back. Which is what's going on in Cuba and DPRK.

I never got when leftists stated this. When oppressed people are fighting back (from anti-imperialism to OWS) so many leftist become pessimistic. They complain about how every struggle is not perfect to their own special definition of how the struggle should be. Libya recently comes to mind. In their darkest hour since the overthrow of the monarchy the vast majority of self proclaimed leftists (who never really talked about Libya) all of the sudden had a huge laundry list of complaints and grievences against the Libyan government. These leftists views ranged from supporting NATO & rebels, to supporting a non-existant working class movement to combat the rebels and the Libyan government to being neutral. Irreguardless few people had the strength in the face of a massive anti-Libya media campaign to come out against NATO imperialism. I, and the PSL, view solidarity with oppressed people as being pretty damn important and a major part of what being a communist is about.

Going back existing socialist states such as the DPRK and Cuba, many leftist wash their hands clean of having the duty of solidarity with oppressed peoples. While the USA intensifies it's blockade on Cuba and provokes the DPRK with war games, many leftists come up with a variety of reasons not to support those oppressed people. Congrats. You've proven that Cuba and the DPRK aren't perfect. Maybe these so called leftist feel the need to seperate themselves from the struggle. Perhaps you need to retreat into theory, after all if your perfect utopia never exists, there is no way you can be wrong. Whenever someone confronts you about previous historical attempts at socialism, you can simply wash your hands by saying "they were not socialist."

Loz wrote:

PSL hails Cuba as a "revolutionary socialist country" which it of course isn't and never has been.

That is ignorant at best. Multiple other words I'd rather use but they'd probably be removed. The M-26-7 was a multi-class anti-Batista movement; however, by looking simply at the armed struggle you completely miss class struggle where the Communist Party played a leading role in transforming Cuba into a socialist state between 1959-1962. I highly suggest reading J.P. Morray's The Second Cuban Revolution. It does an astounding job at explaining the transformation the Cuban Revolution from a national bourgeoisie movement to a socialist revolution.

Loz wrote:

It implies that they have different (read:anti-Marxist) views of what socialism really is and what it's supposed to be like.

[...]


But their articles show their "Marxism" well enough.

Liberation newspaper is written by people in the struggle for people in the struggle. It is not some theoretical Marxist journal.

Generally the PSL's criteria for a socialist state are:
1. The old state/government was smashed by the workers/peasants.
2. Public ownership of the means of production.
3. Centralized economic planning (i.e. people before profit).
4. Government administered monopoly on foriegn trade.

Loz wrote:

I would if i didn't have to pay 10 dollars for it...

Then read the damn thing online.

Loz wrote:

And how do the recent "reforms" undertaken by the Cuban "Comparty" fit into this image of Cuba being a revolutionary socialist country?

There are multiple threads on this topic in the Cuba forum. The articles I would post already have a thread.

Loz wrote:

It's certainly not. The "poor" are not a class.
Lenin:

Dogma much? Complaining that we don't have enough Lenin stickers? Maybe we should make the word "Marx" appear in every article of our newspaper.

Conscript wrote:

Brezhnevites support any national bourgeoisie as long as it opposes their current enemy, and call anything with a red flag and compatible with them 'socialist'. frag the DPRK, China, and Cuba. They aren't socialist, they never were, they're simply nations that were or are under assault from imperialism. All 3 are moving away from even the M-L idea of socialism.

I forget where Mao stated this (iirc it was On Contradiction) but he stated that there are two levels of antagonism. Using China as an example, Mao stated that the primary struggle was against Japanese imperialism and that it overtook the antagonism between the Chinese ruling class and oppressed classes. I'll look it up when I have more time.

Loz wrote:

How does the fact that China assisted DPRK or N.Vietnam change the fact that it's a capitalist country now?

Because you come off as condescending? You sound like, in your various rants, you are belittling the historical signifcance of the movement.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

That ^ and because only reactionaries attack Cuban socialism.

Actually, I've found a Cuban socialist party which is critical of the Castro government. It's called the Democratic Social-Revolutionary Party. I think that the overwhelming difference between democratic socialists, and Communists, in America, is whether or not they support Castro. As for me, I'm still undecided. One one hand, I've heard, and read, some positive things about his rule. But then, on the other hand, on a personal note, my mother's colledge Spanish teacher was a Cuban emigre. He told her that Castro's a terrible man, who's mean to the people. So I'd really like to visit Cuba someday, in order to see for myself what it's like. I think that the U.S. government should let me. After all, if it's as bad as folks say, when I return, I will write a critical critique of it. And it would be far more credible coming from a left-winger like me. I mean, if a rightist, such as Bill O'Reilly was allowed to tour Franco's Spain, and then write in his book,"A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity", that he found it's fascism to be nasty, then why shouldn't I be permitted to do likewise, if Castro's Communism is oppressive. So as for now, I'm just withholding judgement. I do consider myself to be a Marxist, but I do not want to automaticly support a regime just because it's left-wing. That would be like how the John Birch Society has supported right-wing dictatorships, such as Franco's, and Pinochet's, just because they were anti-communist, in my opinion. Now as for what I make of the PSL. From what I've read, they're a schism of the Workers World Party. In general I'm opposed to political sectarianism. So I've just decided to remain independent of any particular party, as I do not wish to choose one over the others.

Jason24 wrote:

Actually, I've found a Cuban socialist party which is critical of the Castro government. It's called the Democratic Social-Revolutionary Party. I think that the overwhelming difference between democratic socialists, and Communists, in America, is whether or not they support Castro. As for me, I'm still undecided. One one hand, I've heard, and read, some positive things about his rule. But then, on the other hand, on a personal note, my mother's colledge Spanish teacher was a Cuban emigre. He told her that Castro's a terrible man, who's mean to the people. So I'd really like to visit Cuba someday, in order to see for myself what it's like. I think that the U.S. government should let me. After all, if it's as bad as folks say, when I return, I will write a critical critique of it. And it would be far more credible coming from a left-winger like me. I mean, if a rightist, such as Bill O'Reilly was allowed to tour Franco's Spain, and then write in his book,"A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity", that he found it's fascism to be nasty, then why shouldn't I be permitted to do likewise, if Castro's Communism is oppressive. So as for now, I'm just withholding judgement. I do consider myself to be a Marxist, but I do not want to automaticly support a regime just because it's left-wing. That would be like how the John Birch Society has supported right-wing dictatorships, such as Franco's, and Pinochet's, just because they were anti-communist, in my opinion. Now as for what I make of the PSL. From what I've read, they're a schism of the Workers World Party. In general I'm opposed to political sectarianism. So I've just decided to remain independent of any particular party, as I do not wish to choose one over the others.

Most of this sounds reasonable enough on face value. Some comrades however, such as myself, are attracted to the idea of geo-political realism. We understand that we don't have the luxury of neutrality or actively supporting Imperialist criticism and invasions, especially with the wellbeing of the local people in mind. Sometimes you have to pick the smaller pile of shit.

Quote:

Defend revolutionary Cuba!

I am against imperialism in the case of Cuba, Iran, DPRK and Angola.
However Cuba is neither revolutionary nor socialist.

Quote:

So if the PSL goes to rallies with more pictures of Marx, Engels, Stalin, ect. they will be more revolutionary?

No, but it clearly shows that you're afraid of doing this.

Quote:

I fail to see how promoting dead white people would promote the party, intensify class divisions or in general promote anything progressive in the day to day struggles workers and oppressed people are involved in. It is one of the things a lot of the older parties have a hard time dealing with.

What does race have to do with anything?
And without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary action.

Quote:

When oppressed people are fighting back (from anti-imperialism to OWS) so many leftist become pessimistic.

What exactly are those "oppressed people"?

Quote:

Going back existing socialist states such as the DPRK and Cuba, many leftist wash their hands clean of having the duty of solidarity with oppressed peoples.

Nonsense. Everyone or almost everyone here defends these nations against imperialist intervention.

Quote:

It does an astounding job at explaining the transformation the Cuban Revolution from a national bourgeoisie movement to a socialist revolution.

Yes, it may have had something to do with the USSR being hungry for expensive sugar...

Quote:

Liberation newspaper is written by people in the struggle for people in the struggle. It is not some theoretical Marxist journal.

Again, without revolutionary theory...

Quote:

Generally the PSL's criteria for a socialist state are:

What does this have to do with Marxism? A bourgeois state can (and there were plenty of them in history that did) fullfill all these criteria, even the first one.
All that is not socialism.

Quote:

Dogma much?

What dogma? Are you scientific socialists or not?

Quote:

Because you come off as condescending? You sound like, in your various rants, you are belittling the historical signifcance of the movement.

I'm certainly not doing that. China is, today, more significant than it had been 40 years ago.