What do people know about this group:
http://www.plp.org/
Devrim
May 25 2007 08:21
May 25 2007 13:43
Some info about them here:
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/the-progressive-labor-party-anti-nationalist-marxists-leninists
May 25 2007 17:12
They were only Maoist for awhile in the '60s. They were part of the larger "anti-revisionist communist' left in the USA in the '60s/'70s period. They strongly emphasize communism in the sense of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." They still exist as a small group in the USA. Their people colonized in industry back in the '70s/'80s period. They used to have a number of people in the hospitals and on the transit system here in San Francisco, and also in Los Angeles.
May 25 2007 17:17
They're totally still around here. They're known for their militancy in antifa campaigns.
May 25 2007 17:22
well, Boston was a big stronghold for PLP back in the '70s.
May 25 2007 18:12
They've been discussed on here before. They're notable for having (around '67/8 I think) having rejected nationalism). They extended the critique to include black identity politics (under the rubric 'black nationalism), leading to an abrupt and embarassing about face for their many student groups which were involved in supporting struggles under precisely this slogan at the time.
They were one half of destroying SDS... the other half being the rest of SDS - well the majority of the leadership and those who followed them, behind the Weathermen faction.
Even in the late '60s, I believe they were fairly 'soft Maoist' - if I understand that term properly. IIRC they were no longer supportive of the PRC by that time.
All my info is from Kirkpatrick Sale's book SDS.
May 25 2007 18:19
They organize transnationally.
May 25 2007 20:02
Progressive Labor Party is, in my opinion, the most important revolutionary organization in North America, and developing throughout South America. The most recent CHALLENGE http://plp.org/cd07/cd0523.html#May%20Day%20in%20Latin%20America has an article of them expanding into Paraguay.
They fight for:
Quote:
We fight to be a mass party, not a cadre elite. The communist organization of society requires the active commitment of millions of workers who understand it, agree with it, struggle to advance its ideas, and vow to make it succeed.
Quote:
Communism means abolishing nationalism. One working class, one party, one world.Communism means abolishing racism by building multi-racial unity and internationalism.
Communism means abolishing sexism.
I really like them because, unlike the state supporting anarchists that saturate NEFAC and other organizations, they clearly fight against all forms of nationalism. I find if problematic to support any organization that would support a nation state, or allow members in that support nation states.
This is their "Manifesto" or line:
http://plp.org/pl_magazine/rr4.html
Quote:
Under the banners of its revolutionary communist party, the working class must arm itself and fight to win power. After the Party has led to the seizure of power, the working class must remain armed. To win and hold power, the working class must develop its own Red Army. After workers win political emancipation in one area, the bosses and their agents there and elsewhere will attempt a comeback. Workers need this Red Army to take the offensive against the bosses and crush them. When workers' militias, which will exist everywhere to defend the revolution, need help, the Red Army will provide it.The Red Army of an area where workers hold power will also assist workers fighting for revolution in other areas. As communism spreads across the world and classes eventually disappear, the need for violence by workers and their party against the capitalist enemy will diminish. This development will correspond to the collapse of the capitalists and their ideas. When workers and communist principles rule the world, when capitalist forces have become extinct, the need for workers' violence will wither away.
We want a society whose workers run everything in the interests of the world's workers. We want a system that encourages every worker to become involved in running society; that trains everyone to act for the common good and does not indoctrinate people to "look out for number one;" that opposes placing selfish interests above the social needs. We want society to help each person grow, to correct mistakes, to encourage honest evaluation and self-evaluation. We want a system that stamps out such capitalist ideas as racism, male chauvinism, anti-communism and anti-worker attitudes. We want to wipe out the drug addiction that ruins millions of young workers' lives. We want to defeat religion. Religion serves only the interests of the rulers, who use it to mystify workers so that conditions stay as they are. We want a system that corrects or punishes capitalist behavior.
They advanced their line here:
They negated all of their "front groups", and have taken a position much more in line with classical anarchist communism where they enter into the workplace and link the struggles together. This document, seen in the light of the earlier document illustrates a nice progression of theory.
If we understand reformism to be capitalist ideology that seeks to contain the class struggle through channels of diffusion, scapegoating, and economism, then this document makes sense. Malatesta said that we should reform in the manner that we liberate territory from the bourgeoisie. That reforms limit their maneuvarability, but that we should be building a fundamentally different social relationship, communist social relationships.
I like the progression from 4 - 4.5.
Quote:
Thirty years ago, we mistakenly believed in "good" and "bad" nationalism. RR3 (1971) finally put that one to rest. This was a major contribution to rebuilding the world communist movement. Our line is, "One world, one class, one Party." In response to nationalism and to anti-immigrant racism we say, "Smash all borders." We don't say, "Smash some borders." We don't say, "Some of the workers of the world, unite." Our class has learned from bitter experience that there is no halfway or reform solution to nationalism and racism. Our internationalist call is for all of the workers of the world to unite under the leadership of one Party, the Progressive Labor Party.While we have steadily moved in the direction of rejecting all compromise with capitalism, our practice has maintained the illusion of "good" and "bad" social reform. There are no capitalist solutions to racism, fascism, or war. There are no "good" borders or bosses. There is no "good" nationalism. And there are no "good" reforms.
In its desperate twilight, capitalism grows increasingly reckless and oppressive. As it inevitably shows its fascist and warmongering face, there are fewer illusions about reform. The racist brutality of fascism and the mass murder of imperialist war affect every worker. This universal intensified oppression and mass murder call out-- and will increasingly cry out -- for revolutionary action. They lay the basis for the communist solution: build the Party.
Communism stands in stark contrast to the bosses' cruel system. Without exception, no matter what the struggle, the only concern of communists must be to build PLP and to build it around the ideas of communism.
The PLP equates building the Party with building for communism. Their vision of the Party as a "mass party of millions committed to fighting for communism" is, in my opinion, a welcome addition to the left.
May 25 2007 20:18
but they envision the party itself taking power. in that respect they have not deviated from their original Marxism-Leninism. they envision this party running things, running the Red Army. where have we heard that before?
NEFAC does not support nation-states, by the way.
May 25 2007 20:44
Are you a member then Wangwei? And if not, why not?
May 25 2007 21:04
wangwei wrote:
unlike the state supporting anarchists that saturate NEFAC
This is a plain lie.
May 25 2007 21:38
Quote:
"One world, one class, one Party."
That right there bothers me. What does PL plan on doing when objectively working class people have other ideas about how to organize their lives?
May 25 2007 21:43
This actually isn't the first time "wangwei" has tried to spread outright lies about NEFAC on this board. In this thread s/he alleged that NEFAC came out of the SWP, and never hesitated or responded when I called him/her on it.
May 26 2007 01:15
In DC the PLP has a lot of activists in AFGE. The fed/gov workers union thats so backwards the plp are the bright spot.
May 26 2007 01:30
wangwei wrote:
Progressive Labor Party is, in my opinion, the most important revolutionary organization in North AmericaI really like them because, unlike the state supporting anarchists that saturate NEFAC and other organizations, they clearly fight against all forms of nationalism.
Original nutter
May 26 2007 03:21
i followed that link to their paper, and it's pretty embarassing
May 26 2007 13:08
In the article on the mayday cop riot in LA i found this gem:
Quote:
Even as they ran from the cops’ bullets, many stopped to take PLP leaflets.
My god, working class families are fleeing police bullets and the "vanguard party" is handing out leaflets?
Several eye witness reports told of groups of radical youth, cop watch was specfically mentioned in at least one, assisting elderly people and those with children to safety. I quess that's not revolutionary. Better to write a tough statement about how it'll all be different after the party is in charge.
May 28 2007 21:24
http://www.plp.org/communist/stalinssuccesses.pdf
"Stalin's successes, humanity's gains".
They still publish this. I would say this means that they are still Stalinists.
May 29 2007 13:20
I'm sorry if it appears that I'm attacking NEFAC for no reason. I really like a lot of what the organization's position paper says, but there is clear contradiction between what their position paper states, and the position of some of the members that post here. There is support of nation states within NEFAC because of their members support for national liberation movements, black nationalism, cloaked trotskyism, and just outright support for existing states, like Venezuela from members. I've read, and am in full agreement, their position paper on Nationalism, but I have found members on here, many of them, who support nationalism. This makes me question the validity of the organization.
As far as the SWP comment, I was wrong, so there was no need to defend my position. I get the Trot parties all mixed up, and I knew that many members came from the ranks of trots. I did some research on them, and found that the organization did not come from the trots, but many members did, so why would I defend a wrong position? My apologies.
Quote:
What does PL plan on doing when objectively working class people have other ideas about how to organize their lives?
Depends on whether or not "the objectively working class people" put their individual wants ahead of any other worker's needs. In that case, they will be treated in the same manner that they treat their fellow workers. If they create a state in opposition against other workers, and do not see themselves as part of the whole of the working class, then they are enemies of the working class. I believe in the absolute rule of the dictatorship of the working class. None will ever put their individual interests in antagonism to the general needs of society, that's the capitalist mode of production.
Quote:
I would say this means that they are still Stalinists.
Yup. They are. But they take a pretty critical view of him and that period of the Soviet Union. I wish it was a more critical view, but they're taking a position that the bourgeoisie seeks to discredit the gains of the Soviet state with a critique from the right. It's much more complicated than all reducing to Stalin's fault.
Quote:
Are you a member then Wangwei? And if not, why not?
I never discuss what I do online. I am in complete solidarity with them.
Quote:
My god, working class families are fleeing police bullets and the "vanguard party" is handing out leaflets?
I found that funny too, but did you read the rest of the paper? There's a lot of good information in it, and it doesn't all reduce to that.
Quote:
but they envision the party itself taking power.
The point is what they envision as the Party. A vanguardist position is that only an elite cadre should be in the party, whereas their position is that everyone should join. They envision the Party as the new society with a fundamentally different social relationship. Gramsci(I think, I'll check when I get home) said that all of society works to get people to believe that they are in the ruling class Party and their interests are their own interests. So, their concept of the Party is the concentration of the new society.
I'm not saying that their perfect, as I don't think any one organization anywhere has figured out the secrete recipe for anarchist communist revolution. But, I see them as the most advanced organization in North America, by far.
May 29 2007 13:33
wangwei wrote:
Quote:
Are you a member then Wangwei? And if not, why not?I never discuss what I do online. I am in complete solidarity with them.
That's a yes then.
May 29 2007 16:30
wangwei wrote:
and I knew that many members came from the ranks of trots [...] the organization did not come from the trots, but many members did
Two. Two members were once upon a time in the Revolutionary Socialist League which was a pro-anarchist split from the IS. (Ironically, those two were also in Love & Rage, in the What We Believe faction, which defended a "pure" anarchist line on race against the current within that organization that upheld the STO/Race Traitor/BTR analysis of white-privilege.)
Two isn't "many," so cut the crap.
It's clear that you're rehashing this NEFAC-are-soft-nationalists canard as a smokescreen to distract from your own organization's absurd politics.
If some of us are a little too patient with particularism in the social struggle, it's because we understand it's in reaction to "unite-and-fight! (behind our party)" bullshit of Stalinists like you.
May 29 2007 16:40
Quote:
I really like a lot of what the organization's position paper says, but there is clear contradiction between what their position paper states, and the position of some of the members that post here. There is support of nation states within NEFAC because of their members support for national liberation movements, black nationalism, cloaked trotskyism, and just outright support for existing states, like Venezuela from members.
This is a lie. The person who posted under "rise" supports Venezuela, but is not in NEFAC.
Anyways I remember 3 months or so ago, you saying you thought NEFAC was one of the most important organizations around - what changed?
May 29 2007 16:50
Quote:
Two isn't "many," so cut the crap.It's clear that you're rehashing this NEFAC-are-soft-nationalists canard as a smokescreen to distract from your own organization's absurd politics.
If some of us are a little too patient with particularism in the social struggle, it's because we understand it's in reaction to "unite-and-fight! (behind our party)" bullshit of Stalinists like you.
??? I don't know where this attack is coming from.
The two members that I know of that came from the Trots, though they took a more left position than the class traitors in Love and Rage, are pretty nationalist now. I read the Utopian, I'm not sure which year, whether last year's or this. But, in it, there was a large article justifying why anarchists should support nationalism. NEFAC may not be soft on nationalism in its position papers, which I think is a great position paper and that I like a lot, but members in their practice advance nationalism. That's a very large contradiction. I'm not sure how NEFAC deals with that contradiction, but they do.
I think that NEFAC is one of the most important organizations in the world, It's easily in the top 5 that I support. I don't think they are the most advanced in North America though. I think that they contribute a great service to North America's movement, especially Espicifismo and Dual Power, to name a few.
Rise wasn't in NEFAC? I'm glad that we cleared that up then. I feel somewhat better about NEFAC now, though I still don't understand the nationalism.
As far as the PLP is concerned, which is what this thread is on, I see them as more advanced than NEFAC because they provide a Marxist/Leninist theoritical foundation for a direct fight to Communism. I like their use of the dialectic, and their unwavering stance on nationalism. I don't know of any other organization that is opposed to nationalism and has its members comitted to it.
May 29 2007 17:13
BBC Repeats Nazi Lies About Soviet Famine of 1932-33
How can you talk about 'very large contradictions' in NEFAC, whilst hoping that uber-Stalinists will lead the fight for anarchist-communism?
May 29 2007 18:54
wangwei wrote:
Quote:
Two isn't "many," so cut the crap.It's clear that you're rehashing this NEFAC-are-soft-nationalists canard as a smokescreen to distract from your own organization's absurd politics.
If some of us are a little too patient with particularism in the social struggle, it's because we understand it's in reaction to "unite-and-fight! (behind our party)" bullshit of Stalinists like you.
??? I don't know where this attack is coming from.
The two members that I know of that came from the Trots, though they took a more left position than the class traitors in Love and Rage, are pretty nationalist now. I read the Utopian, I'm not sure which year, whether last year's or this. But, in it, there was a large article justifying why anarchists should support nationalism. NEFAC may not be soft on nationalism in its position papers, which I think is a great position paper and that I like a lot, but members in their practice advance nationalism. That's a very large contradiction. I'm not sure how NEFAC deals with that contradiction, but they do.
I think that NEFAC is one of the most important organizations in the world, It's easily in the top 5 that I support. I don't think they are the most advanced in North America though. I think that they contribute a great service to North America's movement, especially Espicifismo and Dual Power, to name a few.
Rise wasn't in NEFAC? I'm glad that we cleared that up then. I feel somewhat better about NEFAC now, though I still don't understand the nationalism.
As far as the PLP is concerned, which is what this thread is on, I see them as more advanced than NEFAC because they provide a Marxist/Leninist theoritical foundation for a direct fight to Communism. I like their use of the dialectic, and their unwavering stance on nationalism. I don't know of any other organization that is opposed to nationalism and has its members comitted to it.
Two members of nefac who were part of a trot group in the 60's and held a hard line traditional anarchist position in the demise of love and rage are the many former trots in nefac? You sir are a fucknut.
May 29 2007 23:32
I'd prefer two former trots to a party of current stalinists anyday.
May 30 2007 04:34
MJ wrote:
If some of us are a little too patient with particularism in the social struggle, it's because we understand it's in reaction to "unite-and-fight! (behind our party)" bullshit of Stalinists like you.
"pro" and anti national liberation anarchists unite and fight Stalinists.
May 30 2007 10:59
I regard a Marxist-Leninist theoretical foundation as detrimental to " direct fight to Communism", but that's just my opinion.
May 30 2007 13:16
I guess I've been misunderstood in why I compared NEFAC to PLP. I consider NEFAC to be the second most advanced revolutionary organization in North America. They've done such a great job disseminating theoritical information, I wouldn't know anything at all about Espicifismo if it weren't for them.
I see NEFAC and PLP as two distinct negations. NEFAC is taking anarchism into organization, which is very important, especially with its emphasis on coordinating activities and revolutionary theory. PLP is negating the opportunism that saturated the old socialist movement, though they haven't yet embraced an anarchist outlook, they are fighting directly for a stateless society, and that's a quantum leap for Marxist-Leninists who fought for a state. I don't think any one organization has it all worked out.
I applaude NEFAC for its two (or three I'm not sure) offspring in California and the northwest. I see them as a very important revolutionary force in North America, and I hope them the best. Those comrades from NEFAC that I've met, though steeped in Nationalist politics, are bringing a healthy dose of material reality to the anarchist movement -- negating non-violence, advancing the need for armed violence, and workplace organizing. NEFAC is heading in the right direction. I consider myself a critical supporter of them, because I criticize their nationalism while applauding the many right things that they've done.
I don't consider them as advanced as PLP, but I recognize that the PLP has a LONG way to go as well. I don't think it's as simple as "Stalinists" vs. "Anarchists". I consider that kind of thinking nondialictical, mechanical, and detrimental to the revolutionary anarchist communist movement. IF an organization is dedicated to fighting for a stateless egalitarian society, then all the theoritical and practical elements contingent upon making that society occur are a necessary outgrowth of that movement.
I see the PLP as important because their theories can help all of the Marxist Leninist organizations to break free from their tunnel vision and see that they don't need to build front groups, make deals with capital, support natinal lib movements, and to organize internationally. They can help move the M-L milliu to the left, and that's very very important to the world revolutionary movement.
I don't see the difference between a "mass Party of millions, and eventually everyone working together to build a stateless society", a "general union of anarchists working together to build a stateless society through federations", and a massive syndical or union as the motivating agent horizontally building within organizations to destroy the state, negate capital, negate the mode of production, and make the working class the only "ruling class" in a classless society. I don't see how any struggle apart from an organized struggle can destroy capital.
I've not met any anarchist organizations that have the vast potential of NEFAC in North America, and I lump all of the marxist, marxist-leninist, maoist, trot, orgs that fight for socialism together as revisionists. The struggle should not be for socialism, as that's just part of capital. I fully believe that the fight must be a direct fight to communism, and that the socializing of society must be done with the goal of communism. Malatesta said that the day of the revolution should be the first step towards the new society, and that's my position.
Oh, in case you were wondering my top five:
1.) PLP
2.) FdCA (I'd make them one if they used the dialectic, but they are definately an important organization.)
3.) Zabalaza
4.) WSM
5.) NEFAC
May 30 2007 18:26
Thats really weird. A nutty stalinist group and four platformist groups.
Can comment on articles and discussions
Hmm I didn't think were still going but same name and similar politics so I guess they are...Progressive Labor Party are often credited with destroying Students for a Democratic Society in 68 and 69.
'Maoist' (but not Third Worldist) split from CPUSA in early 60s, some involvement with a riot in Harlem in 64 or so.