What do you think of PSL?

Quote:

You see plenty of leftist support the "Green movement" in Iran or state they are against imperialism, the Greens and the Iranian government and are for a non-existant mass workers movement.

I'm sorry but i really can't understand this? Can you reiterate?

Quote:

Ironically you state that the NEP didn't make the USSR capitalist. As I mentioned with the four Pillars of Socialism (btw not a party line but a theme that I have personally noted) all still exist in Cuba. There are a variety of reasons Cuba implemented the reforms such as the decline in nickel prices, increased food prices, devestating hurricanes, renewed imperialist aggression from the US & EU, ect.

It didn't make it Socialist either.
And yes these Cuban reforms don't have much to do with NEP which i already talked about in that other thread in the Cuban forum.

Quote:

More than likely it would provide ample ammo to the sterotype that Marxists support a cult of personality. Since you agreed that holding up dead people's faces at rallies doesn't amount to shit (other than were not afraid of Marxism), I don't see the point. If an individual ceases to become an individual and becomes a symbol of the struggle or movement than I don't see a problem of that. i.e. Che (anti-imperialism) or the recently murdered Trayvon Martin (police brutality). Holding up pictures of people like that is helpful because it isn't about that individual, it is about the symbol that they have come to represent. Dagoth Ur mentioned holding up pictures of historical American revolutionaries and I can't even imagine currently holding up a picture of someone like Sam Marcy (founded much of the theory the PSL is based on).

A cult of personality, decades after the person in question had deceased? The point is in theory, not potraits of people.
And what does Trayvon have to do with police brutality?

Quote:

Of course their theories are relevent, we are a M-L party. As stated the "dead white people/philosophers" is something of a saying.

Dead white males or Dead White European Males (DWEM) is a derogatory term that refers to a purportedly disproportionate academic focus on contributions to historical and contemporary Western civilization made by European males.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_white_males

Remember, this is how you referred to the classics of Marxism. This is extremely suspicious from my point of view.

Quote:

It is important to educate the masses; however, it would be absurd to show an interested person Das Kapital, Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism or even the Communist Manifesto. What the newspaper does is offer an easy way to get the masses enraged at the currently system, the fruitlessness of the Democratic Party, the need for systematic change, ect. For further education we have our own Party literature, educational forums and candidacy classes for our cadres. It is about using the right tools for the right job.

Aside from Das Kapital, these are all works no one should have problems understanding. And you have several "simplified" versions of Kapital out there. That's no excuse. Lenin said "learn,learn,learn".
And you yourself said here that "further education" (anything that's not about "enraging the masses" i guess?) is offered only to those affiliated with your Party. This is all very sinister.

Quote:

Furthermore I do not see the point in reinventing the wheel. Basic/classic Marxist literature is readily available at libraries or online. I will restate that the masses will not support socialism just from reading a book.

Yes, i'm sure absolute beginners will find all those thousands of texts on MIA.org extremely useful.

Quote:

In a capitalist society damn near everyone is oppressed; however, it is important to note that various peoples undergo more severe forms of exploitation other than the standard wage slavery. People of colour, LGBT, women, ect.

What? Exploitation is the extraction of surplus labor from the workers. That's why a Black Gay Atheist Feminist worker on a conveyor belt in a sardine-packing factory is as exploited as her White Protestant colleague at the same conveyor belt.

Quote:

That is absurd and a compete lie. For all intents and purposes the Republic of Cuba was a colony of the USA. The M-26-7 was similar to the later Sandinistas in that it was a multi-tendency/class organization. The armed struggle was against Batista/Samoza (the individual not the system). Fidel could have easily support half assed vague reforms that he previously promised. He could have kept power and made himself wealthy. He chose not to and chose the path of extreme difficulty of pissing off the largest Empire on the plant that was 90 miles away. 600+ assassination attempts, the brink of nuclear war, and a 50+ year economic blocade? Loz, your previous statement is complete bullshit. There is no other way of stating it. And I haven't even mentioned the struggles of the various factions within the M-26-7 to fight for socialism and a better world.

Prove that it's a lie.
Castro himself said that he wasn't even a socialist at the time of the overthrow of Batista.

Quote:

For two decades overwhelmingly there has not been a debate on American capitalism. There was no "other" system, there was no debate. The economic collaspe and OWS has done wonders brining that debate back to the USA. I believe I answered the educational purpose of the newspaper vs. other education means previously. Also first time I've been accused of being a Blanquist.

You can "debate on capitalism" 24/7 for 50 years. Look at the thousans of anti-capitalist sites out there.
But only solid Marxist theory is really revolutionary.

Quote:

There was more to the four pillars of socialism than simply state control. Try again.

Your "pillars" someone from your party came up with one day don't matter. That's not scientific socialism. Socialism is but a transitionary period.
A fascist country can theoretically satisfy all four of these arbitrary criteriums.

Loz wrote:

I'm sorry but i really can't understand this? Can you reiterate?

Wiki. I was replying to your statement that "we" support Iran against imperialism. There are factions within the broader left who support the Greens or a non-existant mass labor movement (anti Green, anti government and anti imperialism).

Loz wrote:

It didn't make it Socialist either.
And yes these Cuban reforms don't have much to do with NEP which i already talked about in that other thread in the Cuban forum.

Then what is your definition of socialism? Also can you link me to the Cuba thread.

Loz wrote:

A cult of personality, decades after the person in question had deceased? The point is in theory, not potraits of people.
And what does Trayvon have to do with police brutality?

Correct. A problem/issue that has arisen within single party leninist states is the cult of personality. Because the party operates within the bounds of democratic centralism party members tended to associate themselves with party leaders, which lead to the rise of factions within the party such as Stalinists and Trotskites. Capitalist propaganda has done a lot of work portraying socialist countries as personal dictatorships. I don't see a problem with subcribing to various historical Marxist leader's theories without prancing around with pictures of them.

The ugly history and repressive role of Neighborhood Watch. I guess on a technicality Trayvon wasn't murdered by the uniformed police, just "auxiliaries of the state."

Loz wrote:

Dead white males or Dead White European Males (DWEM) is a derogatory term that refers to a purportedly disproportionate academic focus on contributions to historical and contemporary Western civilization made by European males.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_white_males

Remember, this is how you referred to the classics of Marxism. This is extremely suspicious from my point of view.

Using that definition, I would not completely disagree. Originally, as previously stated, I used it just as a saying. I don't see it as a bad thing to pump some local revolutionary blood into the struggle (as Dagoth Ur mentioned Debs and Haywood for the USA). This doesn't mean that the classics of Marxism are irrelevent but even in the 21st century I'm still told I should move to Russia because I'm a communist..

Loz wrote:

Aside from Das Kapital, these are all works no one should have problems understanding. And you have several "simplified" versions of Kapital out there. That's no excuse. Lenin said "learn,learn,learn".
And you yourself said here that "further education" (anything that's not about "enraging the masses" i guess?) is offered only to those affiliated with your Party. This is all very sinister.

1. One of the reasons I love Liberation, it is simple to comprehend. In my experience, organizing as a communist with the PSL, I have had little use of advanced Marxist theory. Simple bullet points and slogans are much more effective. I'm not saying that theory is not important or irrelevent but taking classic works and putting them in contemporay context is something that Liberation does well.. although we probably won't win any journal awards for citations.
2. There are educational parts of the PSL that are only open to PSL members or candidates that is true. Being a party member is not and should not be the same as being a member of the S-E, for example. That being said there are plenty of oppurtunities for further education beyond Liberation newspaper. At my "local" for example we do forums (usually with a guest speaker) to further educate community members. We are also engaged in study groups on university campuses.

Loz wrote:

Yes, i'm sure absolute beginners will find all those thousands of texts on MIA.org extremely useful.

One of the things I enjoyed about the candidacy program of the PSL was highlighting sections of historical text. By the time started to affiliate with the PSL I already read the majority of texts provided to me; however, certain sections/chapters were highlighted. I found this usefull.

Loz wrote:

What? Exploitation is the extraction of surplus labor from the workers. That's why a Black Gay Atheist Feminist worker on a conveyor belt in a sardine-packing factory is as exploited as her White Protestant colleague at the same conveyor belt.

Debs had a quote (paraphrased, early 20th century) that went something like "socialism has nothing special to offer the negros." His point was the one that you made, capitalism frags all workers equally. In reality various groups face additional forms of oppression upon exploitation (I might have misued the words in a previous post). These oppressed groups will benefit from socialism disproportionately
more. i.e. a white worker in socialism will no longer have to deal with slavery but a black worker will no longer have to deal with wage slavery AND racism.

Loz wrote:

Prove that it's a lie.
Castro himself said that he wasn't even a socialist at the time of the overthrow of Batista.

With and exception of Havana, Cuba was a third world country (capitalist unequal development). Why would a national bourgeoisie piss off the strongst imperialist and defacto colonial master the USA in order to gain a profit?

For the record I'm citing J.P. Morray's the Second Cuba Revolution. The Cuban bourgeoisie were incapable of doing shit, the American bourgeoisie owned Cuba. When the Cuban PEOPLE revolted against the puppet of Batista a variety of organizations and classes were involved in the struggle. The M-26-7 (along with other allied organizations; however, at the end of the armed struggle against Batista the M-26-7 was the most powerful group) defeated Batista. The bourgeois demands Fidel made in History Will Absolve Me were uncapable of being meet because of Cuba's defacto colonial status (similar to the moderate demands of Guatemala in 1954). M-26-7 became polarized. Communist just went on to sieze land in Cuba and the bougeois elements of the M-26-7 demanded that Fidel take action. Fidel demanded UNITY within the M-26-7 and alienated the bourgeois anti-communist elements. Thus you saw folks like Urrutia politically outmaneuvered and because of the historic (Cuban pre-revolutionary Republic is consistent of the loser of elections taking arms against the victory party and seeking USA assistance because of American imperialist dominace of Cuba. The Cuban bourgeoisie did not seek economic power but political power) weakness of the Cuban national bourgeoisie they turned to the USA for help. This was Cuba's October Revolution.

Loz wrote:

You can "debate on capitalism" 24/7 for 50 years. Look at the thousans of anti-capitalist sites out there.
But only solid Marxist theory is really revolutionary.

You misread what I meant. The most recent inhernent economic downfall in capitalism is the first time since the USSR existed where there is open mass debate on capitalist as a system.

Loz wrote:

Your "pillars" someone from your party came up with one day don't matter. That's not scientific socialism. Socialism is but a transitionary period.
A fascist country can theoretically satisfy all four of these arbitrary criteriums.

Incorrect, a fascist movement is not one by the oppressed masses but a move by the ruling class.

RR, you know fidel went to the US first, before being pushed to the soviets? It's not like he declared himself a communist from the start, that was his brother and che..

Batista wasn't well-liked by the US either, he was a bourgeois nationalist that seized large amounts of property and nationalized it.

Quote:

Incorrect, a fascist movement is not one by the oppressed masses but a move by the ruling class.

Of course you're right about this.
However your "pillar" says : The old state/government was smashed by the workers/peasants.. That's all fine and well. But, IMO at least, it certainly makes up for the possibility that the "old state" was smashed by "workers/peasants" ( and who exactly filled the ranks of NSDAP in 1933 if not these "workers"?) and then taken over by the fascists. Look at Yugoslavia post-1945.

And i want to know what exactly are these "pillars" based on? What theory?
Where does the DOTP come into play? Where is Communism in all this?

I'm sorry but you should really try to elaborate on these pillars. Your Party surely didn't just make them up without any Marxism to substantiate its positions with?

Quote:

You misread what I meant. The most recent inhernent economic downfall in capitalism is the first time since the USSR existed where there is open mass debate on capitalist as a system.

Yes, and most of it is against "crony capitalism" or what not. Solid Marxism is now needed more than ever.

Quote:

In reality various groups face additional forms of oppression upon exploitation (I might have misued the words in a previous post). These oppressed groups will benefit from socialism disproportionately
more. i.e. a white worker in socialism will no longer have to deal with slavery but a black worker will no longer have to deal with wage slavery AND racism.

I've already mentioned before that "oppression" is quite an unclear term. It's often used, from what i saw, to obfuscate class struggle.
A Gay CEO of a big company is, according to some on the Left, being "oppressed".

Quote:

One of the things I enjoyed about the candidacy program of the PSL was highlighting sections of historical text. By the time started to affiliate with the PSL I already read the majority of texts provided to me; however, certain sections/chapters were highlighted.

That's all good and well, but how much are the masses immersed into all this?

Quote:

I don't see a problem with subcribing to various historical Marxist leader's theories without prancing around with pictures of them.

This talk of "subscribing" to ideas is a cult of personality as well. It's not not about "subscribing" to ideas of this or that person, it's about what's correct and what's not correct, what's revolutionary Marxism and what isn't revolutionary Marxism.

Quote:

Then what is your definition of socialism? Also can you link me to the Cuba thread.

I don't have "my" definition of socialism. I know for sure that i'm not up to that task. Socialism , i think, is a transitionary period.
It's about either going towards Communism or back to Capitalism.
And i can't find that thread right now, but there's one in the Cuba forum (Praxi's thread on an interview with some Cuban official).

@Conscript, what is your point?
@Loz, will reply tomorrow or Sunday (depending on how the Champions League goes).

Sorry for the late response.

Loz wrote:

Of course you're right about this.
However your "pillar" says : The old state/government was smashed by the workers/peasants.. That's all fine and well. But, IMO at least, it certainly makes up for the possibility that the "old state" was smashed by "workers/peasants" ( and who exactly filled the ranks of NSDAP in 1933 if not these "workers"?) and then taken over by the fascists. Look at Yugoslavia post-1945.

And i want to know what exactly are these "pillars" based on? What theory?
Where does the DOTP come into play? Where is Communism in all this?

I'm sorry but you should really try to elaborate on these pillars. Your Party surely didn't just make them up without any Marxism to substantiate its positions with?

Old thread on the pillars.

Responding to your first point. Workers and peasants have always played a role in class struggle. As previously stated, the pillars aren't in any PSL book and merely from speeches that I've heard other comrades give. To clarify, the first point would imply leadership of the workers in overthrowing the previous state.

All states are dictatorships of the ruling class. When the workers seize the state they are the dictators. Also they are the pillars of socialism, not communism.

Loz wrote:

Yes, and most of it is against "crony capitalism" or what not. Solid Marxism is now needed more than ever.

Agreed.

Loz wrote:

I've already mentioned before that "oppression" is quite an unclear term. It's often used, from what i saw, to obfuscate class struggle.
A Gay CEO of a big company is, according to some on the Left, being "oppressed".

Wage exploitation is most common bond that unites the working class. It would be incorrect; however, to state that a white worker would benefit equally from socialism as a black worker. A white worker is freed from wage exploitation in socialism; whereas, the black worker is freed from wage exploitation and racism.

The results of the Civil Rights struggle were bourgeois in nature. They asked for and recieved equal rights. This was essentially so the black bourgeoisie could be on a similar plane as the white bourgeoisie. It did not eliminate racism. The current LGBT struggle is similar in nature asking for equal rights without dealing with LGBT bigotry. Arguably these are the historic tasks of the bourgeois governments.

Loz wrote:

That's all good and well, but how much are the masses immersed into all this?

Not a big fan of responding to a question with a question but what do you suggest? I'd argue that it is the parties duty to make these historic texts simplfied and the word spread.

Loz wrote:

This talk of "subscribing" to ideas is a cult of personality as well. It's not not about "subscribing" to ideas of this or that person, it's about what's correct and what's not correct, what's revolutionary Marxism and what isn't revolutionary Marxism.

Then what is your point? Make Liberation look like Workers Vanguard with pictures of Marx and Engels everywhere? Not to hate on Workers Vanguard; however, I'd argue that Liberation is much more "user friendly."

Loz wrote:

I don't have "my" definition of socialism. I know for sure that i'm not up to that task. Socialism , i think, is a transitionary period.
It's about either going towards Communism or back to Capitalism.
And i can't find that thread right now, but there's one in the Cuba forum (Praxi's thread on an interview with some Cuban official).

k...

It been on my to do list to reply to the Alarcon thread.

Quote:

Responding to your first point. Workers and peasants have always played a role in class struggle. As previously stated, the pillars aren't in any PSL book and merely from speeches that I've heard other comrades give.

It gets even better... so the definition of socialism depends on what speaker takes the stage? Where is the theory?

Quote:

When the workers seize the state they are the dictators.

No they're not. DOTP is not some "ordinary" dictatorship.

Quote:

Also they are the pillars of socialism, not communism.

Of course, it'd be pointless to write about "pillars" of communism.

Quote:

Wage exploitation is most common bond that unites the working class. It would be incorrect; however, to state that a white worker would benefit equally from socialism as a black worker. A white worker is freed from wage exploitation in socialism; whereas, the black worker is freed from wage exploitation and racism.

But your election video meantions "workers keeping the profits to themselves". I'm not well versed in political economy, but how can there be profit if there's no wage labor / exploitation as you said?

Quote:

I'd argue that it is the parties duty to make these historic texts simplfied and the word spread.

You just have to be careful not to pervert them.

Quote:

The results of the Civil Rights struggle were bourgeois in nature.

Because that was a bourgeois-democratic movement. Civilized countries had solved these issues decades before America did.

Quote:

Not to hate on Workers Vanguard; however, I'd argue that Liberation is much more "user friendly."

Take care not to put form before content.

Loz wrote:

It gets even better... so the definition of socialism depends on what speaker takes the stage? Where is the theory?

I like the pillars because they are a short easy way to "classify" if a state is socialist. If you want more detail on what are view of socialism is read our Party Program.

Loz wrote:

No they're not. DOTP is not some "ordinary" dictatorship.

Explain/expand.

Loz wrote:

But your election video meantions "workers keeping the profits to themselves". I'm not well versed in political economy, but how can there be profit if there's no wage labor / exploitation as you said?

Looking for a lesson in Marxist economics in a 2 minute election clip are we? The current system of wage slavery has the capitalist reap huge profits/surplus value. Eliminate the wage slavery system of exploitation and the workers reap the full profits of their labor the former profits of the capitalists.

Loz wrote:

You just have to be careful not to pervert them.

And has the PSL done this?

Loz wrote:

Because that was a bourgeois-democratic movement. Civilized countries had solved these issues decades before America did.

It was a historical example. The LGBT struggle is a modern example.

Loz wrote:

Take care not to put form before content.

AHUY. Anger, Hope, Urgency, You. Most of Liberation's articles are centered around this philosophy if you have heard about it before (personally I never heard of it until I attended a workshop on writing for Liberation). The newspaper is simply to get folks feet wet. Further education is available via our books and educational forums.

Quote:

I like the pillars because they are a short easy way to "classify" if a state is socialist.

Well at least it's short and easy.

Quote:

If you want more detail on what are view of socialism is read our Party Program.

I can't find it. Post it here for us, please. Is that the 10 dollar one? It's a bit confusing...

Quote:

Quote:

Explain/expand.

DOTP is not a "dictatorship" in the sense of a small clique controlling everything.

Quote:

Looking for a lesson in Marxist economics in a 2 minute election clip are we?

No, but you should avoid saying such stuff, because it is ambigous at best.

Quote:

Eliminate the wage slavery system of exploitation and the workers reap the full profits of their labor the former profits of the capitalists.

Ok. I don't understand this.
How do you intent do end "wage slavery" that is wage labor? And what exactly do you mean by "profit"?

Quote:

And has the PSL done this?

Might be.

Quote:

It was a historical example. The LGBT struggle is a modern example.

LGBT movement is a bourgeois-liberal movement, no doubt about that.

What i meant by masses are the widest popular masses (millions that can't and didn't attend meetings) and what i meant by theory are, among other things, the classics of Marxism.

Quote:

There are still laws in the USA about openly speaking a pro insurrectionist stance. Just take this into consideration.

It would be surprising if this wasn't the case.

Loz wrote:

I can't find it. Post it here for us, please. Is that the 10 dollar one? It's a bit confusing...

The third time this is being posted in this thread...

Ironically, your first response was that it did not go into enough Leninist theory and now it is confusing.

Loz wrote:

DOTP is not a "dictatorship" in the sense of a small clique controlling everything.

In other words, what I previously said: "All states are dictatorships of the ruling class. When the workers seize the state they are the dictators."

Loz wrote:

Ok. I don't understand this.
How do you intent do end "wage slavery" that is wage labor? And what exactly do you mean by "profit"?

Wages and Profit

Loz wrote:

Might be.

Best argument against the PSL you've come up with yet.

Quote:

Ironically, your first response was that it did not go into enough Leninist theory and now it is confusing.

Thanks for posting that program, but could you, like, quote the relevant parts from it for whatever argument you might have here.
Because i'm more interested in what exactly is the PSL basing its "views of what socialism is" on. In the theory behind it.

Quote:

In other words, what I previously said: "All states are dictatorships of the ruling class. When the workers seize the state they are the dictators."

Yes but the workers aren't "dictators" in a sense that each and every one is "dictating" something. What a horrible term to use (and you complained about the term "proletariat" being "compromised" or something in today's America). DOTP doesn't have anything to do with "dictators" running things.

Quote:

Wages and Profit

I think i posted that exact thing some days ago. Your point? What about the "how do you intent do end wage labor?" part? What about PSL talk about profit "that will stay with the workers"?

Quote:

Best argument against the PSL you've come up with yet.

I'm not interested in sectarian bickering.
Post some your examples of this "(I'd argue that it is the parties duty to make) these historic texts simplfied..."

Quote:

Is it really going to kill you to actually read the program, Loz?

You are right indeed.
I now read the whole program, here are my comments.

Quote:

.
Socialism is the necessary stage between capitalism and communism. The full achievement of socialism will require the development of the economy to meet the fundamental needs of the working class and the population as a whole. It will also be marked by the fading away of classes and class antagonisms. This cannot happen overnight.

Stalin noted that the final victory of socialism is possible only othe world scale. Why is this not here? Why is the role of other imperialist superpowers like China and the EU ignored?

Quote:

.
Achieving fully developed socialism, a goal that has not yet been achieved anywhere, will open the way to communism and the end of class society. Communism will also mean the “withering away” of the repressive state, which only came into being with the rise of class society.

What exactly is meant by "fully developed socialism"?

Quote:

The primary function of the new government shall be planning and administering the economy in the interests of working and poor people, as set forth below, and implementing the measures to fulfill those interests.

No, the primary function of socialist planning is the futher development of productive forces and building up the material basis of socialism and communism. Not just "administering the economy in the interests of poor people".

Quote:

There shall be primary government institutions created guaranteeing representation of all nationalities inside the United States. In recognition of centuries of national oppression and systematic exclusion, and to protect the interests of all, the new government structures would be constructed to assure equal representation from all nationalities in the United States.

Does the PSL consider Blacks, Indians and Hispanics as nations?

Quote:

The exploitation of labor for private profit shall be prohibited.

What about "socialized profit"?

Quote:

The new government shall recognize the inviolable right of all oppressed nations to self-determination with regard to their means of gaining and maintaining their liberation. In the United States, this includes the right of self-determination for African American, Native, Puerto Rican and other Latino national minorities, the Hawai’ian nation, Asian, Pacific Islander, Arab and other oppressed peoples who have experienced oppression as a whole people under capitalism.

I see. This is nothing but nationalism. This is separatism that would break the US into impotent, "racial" countries.

Quote:

The new government shall institute a program of reparations for the African American community to address the centuries of unpaid slave labor and super-exploitation.

No comment. Why would the non-Black people have pay for slave labor?

Quote:

All U.S. colonies shall be granted independence, including Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the Mariana Islands. The new government shall honor all treaty obligations with Native nations, and shall provide restitution for land and resources stolen by the capitalist U.S. government.

Nonsense. It's better to have a socialist Puero Rico in a union with the US than a tin-pot "independent" state. Bolsheviks liquidated the "Democratic Republic of Georgia" and other such pupper-states.

Quote:

The new government shall institute programs on the basis of proletarian internationalism to help overcome the ravages of U.S. imperialism that have exploited the people, resources and economies of other countries with an emphasis on sovereignty, solidarity, revolutionary assistance and reparations.

Nonsense again. East Germany refused to pay any reparations for the Holocaust, why would socialist America pay reparations to, i don't know, Iraq?

Quote:

Our starting point in assessing the state of the class struggle in the United States is the world situation. The U.S. ruling class, its government and its military establishment together constitute the most powerful and destructive force in the world today. It is the main obstacle to real progress in the “developing world.” Since emerging from World War II as the leading world power, the fixed aim of U.S. international policy has been unrivaled global domination.

Imperialism is a "worldwide system". It's not something run by Washington.

Quote:

Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders never anticipated that the Russian Revolution would be forced to go it alone.

This is an outright lie.

Quote:

“Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of
capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several
or even in one capitalist country, taken singly. The victorious proletariat
of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its
own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world,
the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of
other countries … A free union of nations in socialism is impossible
without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle by the socialist
republics against the backward states.”

Lenin

Quote:

But U.S. imperialism increasingly views China not just as a market and source of labor, but also as a strategic competitor. The prospect of an eventual U.S. war with China is openly discussed by sectors of the U.S. ruling class, which views China as a potential future challenger of U.S. global domination.

Oh god...

Quote:

In a state that falsely poses as the paragon of “democracy,” political prisoners like Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier and the Cuban Five, to name just a few, have been sentenced to execution or life imprisonment.

The Cuban Five are spies who have been caught. Shit happens, move on.

Quote:

As an oppressed nation within the United States, the Black population continues to lag behind the majority white population in every social index. Black, Latino and other communities of color still occupy the most exploited segment of the working class, facing grinding poverty, unemployment and low wages compounded by racist violence and police-state terror.

Blacks and Hispanics are not oppressed nations that have a right to "self-determination" (which in reality means a Greater Mexico, and bankrupt and miserable "Black" and "White" America).
http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/ ... Nat96.html

Quote:

We have already examined in Alliance 22, the views of Marx and Engels on the formation of the USA and the Civil War in the USA, and their views upon USA slavery. We noted that both Marx and Engels talked only in terms of a single unitary nation, the USA, and not in terms of a multi-national state.

Quote:

Capitalism has already done that in America. The only task left is putting the productive forces in the control of the workers. This isn't 1917 Russia.

There is always much to be done still. America has already lost a lot of its industrial potential.

Quote:

Nation: a community with a common ancestry, ethnicity, language, culture, etc.

But i'm talking about the nation in a Marxist sense, as Stalin defined it. The article i posted goes into more detail.

Quote:

It's a rhetorical redundancy. Stop nitpicking.

You'd be right about me nitpicking had Red Rebel not said that the PSL wants "the workers to keep the profit to themselves".

Quote:

Why do I get the feeling this is the only context that you would equate "the right of nations to self-determination" with "nationalism"?

No. I don't support "self-determination" of Kosovo, Chechnya or East Turkestan. Which is why the Bolsheviks didn't support the "self-determination" of the so called Ukrainian People's Republic and so on.
There is no point in breaking up America along ethnic lines, that's as unprogressive as it gets.
It would only harm the struggle for socialism and communism in America.

Quote:

Imperialism is never progressive. We can't impose socialism on Puerto Rico by making it a subject state.

Yes it is, as Stalin wrote in The problems of Leninism.

Quote:

The third contradiction is the contradiction between the handful of ruling, "civilized" nations and the hundreds of millions of the colonial and dependent peoples of the world. Imperialism is the most barefaced exploitation and the most inhuman oppression of hundreds of millions of people inhabiting vast colonies and dependent countries. The purpose of this exploitation and of this oppression is to squeeze out super-profits. But in exploiting these countries imperialism is compelled to build there railways, factories and mills, industrial and commercial centres. The appearance of a class of proletarians, the emergence of a native intelligentsia, the awakening of national consciousness, the growth of the liberation movement -- such are the inevitable results of this "policy." The growth of the revolutionary movement in all colonies and dependent countries without exception clearly testifies to this fact. This circumstance is of importance for the proletariat inasmuch as it saps radically the position of
capitalism by converting the colonies and dependent countries from reserves of imperialism into reserves of the proletarian revolution.

And it would be counterrevolutionary not to help the revolutionary element in Puerto Rico crush the "national bourgeois / pro independent" ones.
Self-determination makes sense only as long as it doesn't go in the way of class struggle and the revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_i ... of_Georgia

Quote:

US hegemony makes it so imperialism is for the most part done in US interests.

Yes, but nevertheless it's a worldwide system. Why is the PSL silent on this? Where is the mention of Chinese and EU imperialism?

Quote:

You're kidding, right? You know full well that Lenin expected revolutions in Germany and the like to accompany the Russian Revolution. It was only after those revolutions failed that he said the below.

Please don't twist my words. Of course Lenin expected the revolution in Western Europe, but the PSL says that "Lenin never anticipated that the Russian Revolution would be forced to go it alone. That's something completely different. Lenin of course expected the revolution in Germany but he also clearly anticipated the possibility for Russia to be vanguard of socialism in Europe.
And no, you're wrong since the work where i got this quote from was written in late 1915.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... aug/23.htm

Quote:

Are you going to deny the truth in that? US global hegemony is reaching its twilight and China is one of the prime competitors for its former position. The chance actually open conflict is very slim, but the two are bound to come into conflict in the future.

But they're talking about it as if that would be a good thing!

Quote:

That's only because they've exported it to other countries. It's not a matter of building up productive forces, it's just a matter of localizing what already exists.

So they would move all these factories back from China?

Quote:

But that's not what they're talking about, so that's irrelevant.

So they're not talking about a nation in the Marxist sense? That could explain a lot.

Quote:

For the ump-teenth time: Nation and nation-state aren't the same thing. No one has advocated what you're talking about, you just jumped to that conclusion because your definition of nation is skewed.

When socialists talk about "the self-determination" of nations it usually implies the struggle for a separate state,no?

Quote:

Stalin's wrong. Or he's being a demagogue. Either way, his justification for imperialism is colored by liberal ideology.

How is he wrong? Is what he wrote there not true?

Quote:

I really don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you had to go through to distinguish those two.

Yes but i proved your point wrong because the article was written in 1915 and therefore it's evident that Lenin saw the possibility for Russia to be the first socialist country, despite the path Western Europe took.

Quote:

Clearly you don't understand what hegemony means. EU imperialism will be subservient to US imperialism because it is the dominant power in the capitalist world system. As for China, it's imperialist ambitions are relatively new.

World imperialism is an intricate and inter-connected system. The US might still be the most powerful country in the world but i doubt that it's a hegemon of world imperialism. It's economy is how tightly tied to China's and so on and so on.

Quote:

I don't see how releasing Puerto Rico from US control gets in the way of class struggle.

It gets in the way of class struggle in PR which would inevitably be endagered by domestic nationalist reaction and imperialism.

Quote:

I don't see where you got that from.

Maybe i got that wrong...