Which socialist party in America should I join Holla Forums?

Which socialist party in America should I join Holla Forums?

DSA is succdem, but seems like the only viable alternative to the Democrats to become powerful…

Socialist Alternative seems alright but I hate the cloying adoration of immigrants

Bob Avakian is a nutcase and the Green Party is gay

The rest seem pretty irrelevant

Other urls found in this thread:


There is literally no reason to join any US political party.


Start a socred party instead.




If you're looking for electoral politics, don't bother. If you're looking for community organizing, attend a meeting or two as a prospective member and see if you like what they're doing.



DSA is the largest and even though the Harringtonites are still leading it, more radical voices are growing in its ranks.

CPUSA is the second largest (~5000 members) but they're basically broken and defeated and trying to form a "united front" with the fucking Democrats and all-but-endorsed Hillary Clinton during the primary. I've heard this meme that they're completely infiltrated by the FBI, but I don't actually believe it. They're too wishy-washy and defeatist to be in the grip of the Feds, if they were actually a COINTELPRO honeypot they'd be more actively engaged in terrorist acts and go on Fox News and talk about how we should kill all the white Christian small business owners.

SPUSA is the "traditionally" third largest party (I don't know where they stand now) and are a big tent socialist party. Big tent in a kind of bad way though, as in they're largely directionless, membership with them is basically paying dues to belong to a Facebook debate group.

IWW aspires to be a radical industrial union, but in reality operates more as a social anarchist federation.

SocAlt is basically the best trot party

PSL if you want to belong to a relatively large M-L party that isn't CPUSA and don't mind their Marcyism

Party of Communists USA if you want to belong to a more traditional M-L party that isn't CPUSA and don't mind a smaller size. And old people.

There isn't really a national party for Maoists if you don't want to belong to Bob Avakian's cult. There is a sort of building connection between Maoist cadres through this shared program called "Serve the People", so that's certainly something to keep an eye on if you're a Maoist.

Also, there's the Socialist Equality Party if you're a fan of WSWS and are allergic to social issues.

I hope that helped.

I know the Avakian cult is bad. But is it really that bad?


This is the heading of their website:

“If you want to know about, and work toward, a different world—and if you want to stand up and fight back against what's being done to people—this is where you go. You go to this Party, you take up this Party's newspaper, you get into this Party's leader and what he's bringing forward.”
Bob Avakian
BAsics 3:34

Note: I didn't add the bit citing BAsics like the fucking Bible to be ironic, they actually do that.

Seems unnecessarily verbose, but nothing too outlandish here.

If "BA" is really the world-class genius they claim, it may well be justified to quote his work in this way.

What exactly is the "Avakianite" line? What contributions or revisions did he make to Maoism that are worth spending the time to talk about?

[ n a t i o n a l s o c i a l i s t]

I don't see the problem

Have any more info about them? Never heard about them before.


the only correct answer.

do you plan on astrally projecting socialism using healing crystals? if not then you and the green party have a problem.

Already lost all their momentum, full of imperialists, cops, and feds.

They are Trots, but since you hate immigrants, maybe you should join the Democratic Asserites of America after all.

They are. Don't join a party in America, they are literally all bad in one way or another. Read Marx and Lenin, and carry out individual work while trying to build toward a real party. You're a piece of shit though so you won't do this.

Nope, PSL is the best party in America right now and it's still woefully inadequate. They could have some good local comrades though, so check them out. Just don't join.

I don't know. They call his ideas "the new synthesis of communism"

What do you think?

What about that Hoxhaist party of which Ismail was a founding member?
It sounds and looks extremly based. If I was a burger, I'd join them.

hoxhaism is dumb, and it probably has five members.

I don't think so. I looked a bit at their website, and they are active in a lot of areas in the US, their journal, Red Phoenix definitely has a bunch of authors, the platform they are running on seems reasonable. Their flag is probably the best communist party flag I've ever seen. Considering how utter shit the other American socialist parties are I'd say they are definitely the best choice. Unless you just wanna get into office and be a SocDem, in that case of course you should go to the Democrat Cops of America.

ok, did you find any good analyses? investigative reporting? in-depth party line? what's their strategy?

Revive the SLP


Join a union instead.


Join the IWW instead my man

Good post, I'm going to redistribute that glorious image


"First of all, since this strategy relies on the assumption that unionized workers are the "advanced" elements of the working-class (since they are the most organized, since they have the most experience with fighting capitalism, etc.), and thus relies on a specific theory of insurrection, it is unable to grapple with the fact that unionized workers not only constitute a minority of workers but that their consciousness may in fact not be advanced. That is, unionized workers represent a privileged layer of workers who have historically been able, at least at the height of the union movement, to buy their way out of proletarianization and live a petty-bourgeois lifestyle. Now, with the union movement under attack by the austerity measures of the crisis, while these workers might be in the process of being reproletarianized, the trade union movement is fighting for a return to Keynesianism and the historic compromise between labour and capital (that is, they are fighting to maintain their integration with capitalism) rather than demonstrating the kind of advanced consciousness that they are supposed to possess––they are not fighting for communism, nor are they interested as a whole in doing so. This problem is, as aforementioned, historically been labelled economism and has been understood, from Lenin to the present, as the result of trade union consciousness."

"Secondly, the strategy of focusing primarily on the trade union movement––along with other social democratic and connected movements––is that it leads to the liquidation of revolutionary politics wherein one tails a primarily social democratic movement that is only interested in reform. Although communist groups may be able to avoid looking reformist by waving the red flag and proclaiming some commie slogans, what usually happens in practice is that the need to construct an autonomous revolutionary organization is replaced by the desire to pursue immediate (and limited) gains. More than one organization has lost itself in the trade union movement, or at best maintained an independent theoretical presence while doing nothing but reformist and short-term struggle in practice, whether these organizations be those who follow Hal Draper's endorsement of such liquidation, or those organizations that believed they could build a party by entering the union movement en masse. These latter organizations, such as Canada's Workers Communist Party [WCP], were destroyed in part because of this strategy––which is why there are so many former communists who are now union bureaucrats acting just as the union bureaucrats of the past, the very bureaucracy they attempted to challenge during those days when they entered the unions."

"Thirdly, the "hard core" of the proletariat, the section of the masses that a communist movement should be focusing on, is not generally located in the trade union movement. As noted by the first point, it is more accurate to think of unionized workers as a privileged section of the working class in comparison to the majority of workers in a given society. Although it has become unpopular in some circles (usually those circles who have built their reputation on naming the union movement revolutionary) to use the term "labour aristocracy", we also have to take into account the structural implications of imperialism on the working class movement; one doesn't even have to accept that the entire working class movement at the centres of capitalism has been affected by imperialist super-exploitation to at least accept, on a crude empirical level, that the union movement has obviously benefited from imperialism. One would have to be a liar or intentionally myopic to ignore the fact that unions invest money in stocks, bonds, and finance-capital in order to pay for the benefits and pensions divvied up amongst their workers. Hence, the union movement at the centres of capitalism is a conflicted movement that, while possibly being reproletarianized now, has been at the forefront of embourgeoisification for a very long time."

"When we take these problems together we should be able to recognize that a revolutionary movement capable of fighting capitalism cannot afford to submerge itself in the trade union movement but must, on the contrary, build itself into an independent organization that, if and when it intervenes in the trade union movement, it does so in a fully autonomous manner. Such a movement should also refuse to treat the unionized workers as the advanced section of the proletariat, instead organizing those who actually experience the kind of proletarianized life, and thus demonstrate a proletarian consciousness, that the union movement has succeeded in burying over so many decades of "social peace" and imperialist-based reforms. None of this is to say that we cannot and should not engage with reformist movements in a non-reformist manner, only that we truly need to demarcate a revolutionary movement from a trade union movement. There will always be, after all, social democrats who will tirelessly work to build and develop reform movements; a communist movement will lose its way if it tails these organizers––especially since, lacking any contradictions, they might be better at this kind of work. Our involvement with such movements, if and when it is necessary, should be one of intervention determined by the strategy of organizing a parallel revolutionary movement that will not focus its time on reformist goals."

Yes, but beware that basically all USA unions are reactionary, and many (all affiliated with AFLCIO) are literally run by the feds or CIA. Your number one enemy in union organizing is the union leadership itself, and a communist union organizer must clarify the antagonisms between the rank and file and leadership at every opportunity, while explaining how it's related to capitalism and imperialism.

Even though the unions are reactionary and imperialist, communist workers should still infiltrate them and agitate from within. Many unions are still some of the highest concentrations of workers, and the rank-and-file is largely NOT labor aristocracy and has little hope of becoming part of it. If you dismiss union organizing, you are making exactly the error that Lenin described in Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. There are of course some other places where workers are highly concentrated as well (such as prisons, soup kitchens, the remaining large workplaces), and communists should also seek to work and agitate there.

A bunch of anticommunist ansynds. Modern IWW is a total joke, and the organization was basically dead by 1920.

Dude, unions a completely neutralized and are fully integrated into the capitalist system, even when they achieve something. Union work is extremely depressing and boring these days, and labor market "flexibilizations" have changed a lot. The best chance to engage in union work that actually matters is in privatized public transport, because there you can actually have impact with strikes, but since it's burgerland there isn't much public transport in general.

With a party you have better and more variable options to agitate. You can use the internet, college campuses, hijack protests, join debates, improve communities and generally have a broader approach. It's also easier to get headlines. There is this saying: "Bad press is better than no press", if you run arround with a USSR flag you'll be talked about, and anti-communists don't know the Streisand effect. Many criticize the CPGB-ML for their Stalin banners on May Day, but answer me this: Do you know a party who makes the same amount of headlines and talks to bourgeois journalists which is of the same ridiculous small size?

Not to brush you aside or anything, but I'd trust radicalized union members to actually implement Marxism over armchair leftists who will debate theory 24/7.

Keyword being "radicalized". I'd agree with you, until such an event happens.

Socialist Action all the way baby - best by farrr comrades

the absolute state of tanks

SEP seems like they have the best political line to me, but I don't see any American party that seems remotely like an incipient revolutionary movement.

Weird bc my branch of the IWW is very communist

I contacted the APL with a request to join but received no response!

How long has it been?

Seriously? The APL isn't dead. This would suck beyond belief!

Form the Holla Forums Coalition.

American Party of Labor and Party of Communists USA are the only two I've seen that seem decent.

If you don't want to vote for them that's fine, but as a socialist I'll be voting for the largest openly socialist party in the US. With all of these splintered groups (CPUSA, SPUSA, etc.) we just water down our votes. If we can't all unite under a common party then we will be silent. This whole notion that you shouldn't vote for a party that won't win because you disagree with one or two points they make is fucking stupid. The far right and center right have no problem with this, and it will always cripple us if we do not settle on common ground.

Hi Shareblue,
They only pretend to give a shit to appeal to suburban white women. When you are a third party every vote adds up fast. If you critically examine their platform, all of their views are otherwise scientific, and they are the largest anti-capitalist party in the US.

Anyone else have experience with the Socialist Equality Party? I worked with this guy at my college campus for like 6 months, he was kinda weird and I think we scared off any potential supporters when we talked to students cause we're both autistic tbh. I'm also amazed every time at how hardline they are against all idpol, any sort of fighting for social issues whatsoever. Their publication, the wsws has tons of articles defending actors and politicians accused of harrassing or assaulting someone, they say that the metoo movement should be opposed at every level, instead of saying that its good in some ways and bad in others, same thing with BLM. It's all too creepy for me, I'd personally consider somewhere between reddit and the SEP on idpol. What are your guy's experience.

Their newspaper seems to be active.

Don't do this.

About a month. It's possible I fucked up the application somehow. I will apply again.

Spread leftist ideas in a casual way as opportunities present themselves. Maybe print out some fliers.

If I remember correctly didn't the SLP run in the 2016 election? Are they still active?

That's a long read. Is there a shorter summary anywhere?

I don't know what political parties are good, just posting because of 20th Century Boys.