Not really. Sam Marcy was a member of SWP, yes, but he fought SWP leadership over their failure to support the USSR, PRC, and DPRK.
He and others developed the concept of “global class warfare” in which the international bourgeoisie will work to stifle and snuff out any people’s movement. Knowing this, already-existing socialism must be defended by socialists across the world. Criticism may be made, but we must stand against imperialism.
PSL split from WWP and is a Marxist-Leninist party.
Criticism may be made, but we must stand against imperialism.
Even this has to be done with the utmost caution these days. The liberals, shameless as ever, delight to turn our every word into weapons for their agendas. Just earlier this week, they wielded Angela Davis’ opinion on voting for Joe Biden against us, while also conveniently ignoring her positions (things she’s known for I might add) on abolition and of course communism.
I basically hold the view that if someone wishes to criticize AES states they should do it to my face offline in a private setting or behind closed doors between comrades (also offline). Give the libs an inch and they will take a goddamn light-year. We’ve all seen what the precious nuance of the DSA types have led us to with regards to VZ and Bolivia.
PSL split from WWP and is a Marxist-Leninist party
Is it though? They make no mention of “Marxism-Leninism” in their official documents, but instead prefer the term “revolutionary socialism”. That, and they still uphold the doctrine of Sam Marcy to some extent.
As former leaders and members of Workers World Party, we defend that group’s historical tradition and mission, particularly that of its founder Sam Marcy. Although we believe that the Workers World Party leadership is no longer capable of fulfilling that mission, we still consider it to be a progressive organization with many honest activists.
I don’t think they go into detail as to why they split from WWP though.
If I recall correctly, Gloria La Riva had said something along the lines of the PSL neither being “Stalinist nor Trotskyist”, and they hesitate to make mention of the more controversial socialist leaders of the past and present.
While there may be quite a few Marxist-Leninists in the party, I don’t think that’s the official line. Then again, I’ve heard from quite a few comrades that there’s a disconnect between PSL cadre and leadership.
I can’t speak to why the party leadership chooses to describe the party as “revolutionary socialist” instead of “Marxist-Leninist”, but I’d wager that it’s a conscious decision to appeal to accurately describe their position to the broadest amount of people by not using jargon.
The communist movement is the United States is experiencing a resurgence, but we’re still small. It is important to organize, get people on our side, and grow the movement. Building bridges instead of burning them is likely why the choose to not talk about Stalin nor focus on the split from WWP.
The history of Marcy (supportive of USSR, PRC, and DPRK) as well as the party’s existing position on PRC display a principled stance towards AES.
Not really. Sam Marcy was a member of SWP, yes, but he fought SWP leadership over their failure to support the USSR, PRC, and DPRK.
He and others developed the concept of “global class warfare” in which the international bourgeoisie will work to stifle and snuff out any people’s movement. Knowing this, already-existing socialism must be defended by socialists across the world. Criticism may be made, but we must stand against imperialism.
PSL split from WWP and is a Marxist-Leninist party.
Even this has to be done with the utmost caution these days. The liberals, shameless as ever, delight to turn our every word into weapons for their agendas. Just earlier this week, they wielded Angela Davis’ opinion on voting for Joe Biden against us, while also conveniently ignoring her positions (things she’s known for I might add) on abolition and of course communism.
I basically hold the view that if someone wishes to criticize AES states they should do it to my face offline in a private setting or behind closed doors between comrades (also offline). Give the libs an inch and they will take a goddamn light-year. We’ve all seen what the precious nuance of the DSA types have led us to with regards to VZ and Bolivia.
Is it though? They make no mention of “Marxism-Leninism” in their official documents, but instead prefer the term “revolutionary socialism”. That, and they still uphold the doctrine of Sam Marcy to some extent.
https://www.liberationnews.org/04-08-01-party-socialism-liberation-html/
I don’t think they go into detail as to why they split from WWP though.
If I recall correctly, Gloria La Riva had said something along the lines of the PSL neither being “Stalinist nor Trotskyist”, and they hesitate to make mention of the more controversial socialist leaders of the past and present.
While there may be quite a few Marxist-Leninists in the party, I don’t think that’s the official line. Then again, I’ve heard from quite a few comrades that there’s a disconnect between PSL cadre and leadership.
I can’t speak to why the party leadership chooses to describe the party as “revolutionary socialist” instead of “Marxist-Leninist”, but I’d wager that it’s a conscious decision to appeal to accurately describe their position to the broadest amount of people by not using jargon.
The communist movement is the United States is experiencing a resurgence, but we’re still small. It is important to organize, get people on our side, and grow the movement. Building bridges instead of burning them is likely why the choose to not talk about Stalin nor focus on the split from WWP.
The history of Marcy (supportive of USSR, PRC, and DPRK) as well as the party’s existing position on PRC display a principled stance towards AES.
Shoot a message to PSL and ask them yourself! https://www.pslweb.org/join