Progressive Labor Party

wangwei come clean, how many back issues of Barricada! do you own?

???

I had to google it. Are you saying that I support the FSLN? I despise nationalism. See, comments like this is why I support the PLP, as they take a definitive stance against nationalism of all forms.

I'm sorry MJ, I don't know what gives you the idea that I would ever support any national lib organization. I know that I've made some mistakes about NEFAC, hopefully all of which have been corrected, but I don't think you know what you're talking about to assert that I would support that organization.

I argued emphatically against someone who supported the FARC using the same argument that I would use against the FSLN.

I'm not the one that has a problem with nationalism. Nationalism is the religion of the state. You can't support nationalism in ANY form, and then say that you oppose the state in all forms. That's a formal, nondialectical, contradiction.

Barricada was a collective and publication that joined nefac. For a short time the publication became an official publication of nefac. Mostly riot porn mixed with some decent articles.

He thinks I was asking about "Barricada" the FSLN daily newspaper.

I still have the "cop killer" issue somewhere.

I'm sorry, I didn't know about that Barricada! My sincerest apologies.

I've only really known about NEFAC for a couple years now, and I've read the NEA since then. I haven't been able to get down to my local anarchist bookstore to pick one up yet, but I have some free time now so I'll pick one up this week.

But, other than the normal flinging of "stalinist", what experiences have others had with the PLP and what do others think of it?

its only a normal flinging of stalinists, because they are stalinists.

I mean, come on - they support Stalin. It doesn't get any worse.

OH wait have you heard of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party? They're doing a lot to move the libertarian and green parties away from pacifism and towards armed conflict, and the national socialist movement to the left. And that can only be a good thing, right?

If anyone knows where I can get a cheap copy of this book, please email me.
--------------------------------------------------
The New Labor Radicalism and New York City's Garment Industry Progressive Labor Insurgents During the 1960s
Revised Edition
Author(s) - Leigh David Benin
Series: Garland Studies in the History of American Labor

Area: History
List Price: $100.00
ISBN: 0815333854
Publisher: Routledge
Publication Date: 11/1/1999
Pages: 336 pages
Trim Size: 5-1/2 x 8-1/2

Binding(s): Cloth

PLP were active in Chicago and Northwest Indiana in 1996 or so. I got involved with them for a while there, never officially joined but attended a day-long "cadre school." I'm embarassed about it now but I was 18. I think they're nuts. They had a MayDay march in 1996 that had a turnout of about 200 or 300 people and about 100 people at a big rally at a church or a school afterward. They were pro-Stalin at the time, democratic centralists (or maybe just plain centralists) and were definitely not libertarian communists. Later in the 90s after I wasn't connected with them anymore, other people I knew in Chicago said that PLP was targeting student labor organizing (anti-sweatshop stuff mostly) for entryism but was succeeding only at making a lot of younger students cry by calling them racists for allowing a people of color caucus to meet separately. I don't know who their base is - I met a college professor, some students who worked part time jobs, and a nurse from the party. I never found out what other people's jobs were. They did seem to have more members or periphery who weren't white than did a lot of other vanguardist groups in Chicago, that seems to be the case for most Maoist groups. They (or at least some of them) also did a lot of antifa kinds of stuff, in a pretty direct uncompromising aggro sort of way. IMHO that's the best thing about them.

Nate you missed a lot on libcom... apparently a lot of the UK people would agree with the PLP that a "people of color" caucus divides the working class and furthermore is racist because it says everyone who isn't white is equivalent.

Yup MJ, the PLP were correct in illustrating the divisive nature of racism through the vehicle of "people of color" caucuses. Racism must be fought in all of its forms. Mutual aid and unity in opposition to race can be built through the solidiarity of a class analysis against capitalism.

People on this site didn't believe me earlier when I explained that given the consistently racially determined history of the American working class, "unite and fight" is a Stalinist slogan here while libertarians tend to be more patient about people organizing autonomously first and then uniting. Here's an example.

Clarification, as of 5/26/2007 US NEFAC meeting, Rise is now a supporter of NEFAC. Unanimous with 2 abstentions, I believe. His politics in regards to Venezuela as discussed.

I dunno, I'd say they pretty much bring social awkwardness to new heights on the radical left. Nice enough people I suppose, but I always get the distinct impression when I talk to any of them that there was a collective mandate to get all the members to drop off their meds or something. Lots of glazey eyed stares and twitching...

(Further clarification, supporters aren't expected to agree with us the way members are.) Hey has anyone told him?

IF he's in can someone talk flint into letting me quit? Association with NEFAC's many theoretical deviations is bringing me down.

Hmm... the notion of using Leninism against nationalism seems interesting, and, assuming that my goal is to push Israeli leftists into internationalism, using the PLP's developments seems like a good start... I've been thinking of translating their `69 anti-nationalism pamphlet translated into Hebrew, wonder if it's worth the effort.

I encountered the PLP in the 70s. I was in the US (Boston?) and I passed by a couple of them running a stall in the street. I had a short discussion with them and bought their paper. Being young and naive, I gave them my address thinking there was no danger of them bothering me in the UK, but a few weeks later a young guy with a sports jacket, tie and brief case turned up on my front door announcing that he was from the PLP. I can't remember what I said to him but I terminated the interview as quickly as I could.

The one spark of interest I had found in them was that they had started calling the Chinese Stalinists a red bourgeoisie. I had encountered groups in Europe (such as the short lived Manifesto group in Sweden) who had split from Maoism towards communist positions, partly influenced by the Shen wu-Lien tendency in China, whom the PLP also talked about, I think. But on reading the PLP paper it seemed clear to me that they were still Stalinists through and through, openly defending Stalin and the 'socialist USSR' before 1956. No less Stalinist was their outward appearance and manner - 'we're going to the workers so we have to have short hair and wear conservative clothes'. A bit of a cult in fact. Doesn't Bookchin mention them in his 'Listen Marxist' pamphlet?

From all accounts the PLP has changed its positions quite a bit but has it really changed its nature? It is very rare for entire political groups to move from the counter-revolution to the proletariat.

Yeah as I understand it "Listen Marxist" was an intervention in response to theirs.

But I don't think they would be any less counterrevolutionary if they grew their hair long.

I don't understand how a group can be pro-Stalin and defend-the-Soviet-Union-ist on the one hand, and anti-nationalist/anti-statist on the other. This is a genuine question to anyone who knows: how do they attempt to square that circle?

But not entirely impossible. Recall that Engels moved from being a business agent to being a proletarian revolutionary. Individuals can be redeemed, why cannot organizations?

There are cases, such the Dutch group around Sneevliet which if I recall broke out of left social democracy and took an internationalist position during the second world war. But the more long established groups are, the deeper their involvement in the state apparatus, the more difficult it is to make the break. It's hard enough for individuals, but with groups there's a whole collective history in the service of capital. In any case, as lumpnboy says, if the PLP still defend Stalin, they haven't become internationalists. And as MJ put it, they may grow their hair but this won't make them any less Stalinist.

I'm glad Tree thinks Engels was a proletarian revolutionary, but the case isn't comparable. He was a classic case of what it talks about in the Manifesto, of elements from the ruling class throwing in their lot with the workers, but in those says it was much easier to move from defending the bourgeois revolution from a radical point of view (like Marx prior to 43/44) to defending the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie was a revolutionary class once....but that's another discussion.

Well I don't know how deeply a given fringe left political party in the US could actually be connected to the state apparatus. It's not like you could actually expect to get any candidates through an election, etc.

Alf dont the ICC and IBRP have good relations with the World Socialist Website folks?

It's a good resource for news etc but if we're talking about the same thing it's a Trotskyist site and we have no political relation with them. I would think the same would go for the IBRP.

MJ: in our view the extreme left wing of capital (Trotskyists, Maoists, etc) is part of the state, via its role in the unions and larger left parties. Obviously this is rarely a formal or legal arrangement. It's a question of their function.

What's a "larger left party"?

MJ, thanks for filling me in what I missed on Libcom. If you would give me more regular and thorough updates I wouldn't have to read as much of this site. Work on that for me, would you? Also, can you send me the link to the thread where you made the argument against "Unite and Fight"? It's quite funny for libertarian commies outside the US to end up echoing the slogans of US authoritarians and social democrats (not that there's really a difference between those two I guess)

Wangwei, you say "Racism must be fought in all of its forms." Let's say I'm white and a racist and I'm a member of some organization. Let's say I'm not of the explicitly pro-racist ideology type of racist, let's say I'm a person with some racist attitudes and behaviors that I don't recognize as racist. Let's say I also have a few other people I'm close to in the organization who are white and are racists like me. Let's say our behavior disrupts the group and drives out members color? How do you stop me?

Here's how: you and a group of likeminded members confront me. To do so effectively, you need a plan. To formulate that plan, you need to meet some time when I'm not present and where none of my fellow racists are present. Make sense? Simple right? Let's call this Function 2.

But ... at least some members of the organization are a) white and therefore not affected directly or in exactly the same way as members of color and b) possessed of unexamined ideas about race such that they're not quite as aware as they should be of race and how it operates. People who are members of both categories are not going to be the best at noticing behavior like mine. So how do you or other members of the organization realize that my behavior is a problem?

By getting members who are not of type a) and b) to pay some attention to the dynamics of the group. Let's call this Function 1.

Among other things, a people of color caucus is a body in an organization that exists to help carry out Functions 1 and 2.

Well you really have to read this whole thread, from start to finish. But on page 20 I said:

Before you start arguing internal caucuses you should also give this one a close read.

And this one is good as a chaser. (I was disappointed nobody really responded to my "The two questions at the heart of the matter" post on pg. 3...)

There you owe me a beer. Good to have you back!