[Marxism] Re rumored split in WWP/ANSWER -- FYI only! (it's long...)

DHE cuibono at rcip.com
Sun Jun 20 14:02:23 MDT 2004

[ Disclaimer: While I have my differences with the WWP & also the ANSWER
leadership, I think I'm probably closer to their take on things than to any
of these "commentators", whose criticisms, (which in some cases do carry a
degree of validity) IMHO reflect a variety of shallow understandings of the
problems we are all faced with. I forward this for your information re what
may turn out to be an important development in the antiwar movement. I
thought of deleting some of the pro-Kerry silliness, etc., in the interest
of brevity -- but then decided to leave it in as potentially useful
sociological data. --dhe]
{Warning: This fwd contains positive references to the Tweedle-crat
presidential candidate and other material unsuited for viewing by children
of voting age. Be sure that adult guidance is provided.}

  WWP - ANSWER split in the works

 posted by Reverend Chuck0 on Sunday June 13 2004 @ 05:13PM PDT

  WWP - ANSWER split in the works
June 13, 2004

Sources tell Infoshop News that there has been a split within the Workers
World Party (WWP), a New York-based Marxist-Leninist organization that
initiated and controlled the International A.N.S.W.E.R. anti-war coalition.
The split expelled most of the members of the WWP in the Bay Area
(California), including long-time WWP leader Gloria LaRiva. The split
apparently involves disagreement about the direction of the A.N.S.W.E.R.
coalition, including a move by A.N.S.W.E.R. activists to turn the coalition
towards more pro-Kerry activism. Signs are pointing to an impending divorce
between the Workers World Party and A.N.S.W.E.R.

me writes on Sunday June 13 2004 @ 05:56PM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
good news
 writes on Sunday June 13 2004 @ 06:08PM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
"including a move by A.N.S.W.E.R. activists to turn the coalition towards
more pro-Kerry activism"
Good news? Or more leftist bullshit?

mj writes on Sunday June 13 2004 @ 06:45PM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
Ouch! Purged by your own front group!
To "nameless"-- It is slightly good news. Not that these people want to
support the DP over the WWP--that is basically no improvement in model of
action. I doubt that's why "me" or anyone is happy. What's good news is that
the WWP loses a significant media platform and way of recruiting
unsuspecting people (while the Dems don't gain anything noticable).

Hope this split goes through!

woah writes on Sunday June 13 2004 @ 09:17PM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
how is this even possible? it's like splitting hairs...

me writes on Sunday June 13 2004 @ 09:38PM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
it's good news, because answer is really a collection of small local
chapters, under the answer banner. If they break away from wwp it will allow
more freedom, and flexiablity to the local chapters. Sure many of the
smaller answer groups will support kerry, but thats only because the rank
and file answer members supported kerry in the first place. Answer always
was a clearing house of naive liberal college students, but atleast they can
make up their own minds now.
completelyandutterlyanonymous writes on Sunday June 13 2004 @ 10:16PM PDT:
[ reply | parent ]
It's just that the spook community hates Bush so much that they've
collectively decided to boycott their fronts for this election... that goes
for the "Stalinists" in ANSWER.
Who said that?

I didn't say that?

Did you say that?

pr writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 12:14AM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
What fool puts Stalinists in " inverted commas"? They ARE proud avowed
Stalinists for whom no credible evidence of them being fronts for anyone or
anything apart from maybe Kim Il Jong has surfaced. No wonder you want to
stay anonymous...your an idiot. This is great news because it could make
ANSWER much more effective as an anti-war outfit and much harder to dismiss
out of hand. Warheads hate that.
 history lesson writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 09:59AM PDT: [ reply |
parent ]
Proud, avowed Stalinists? It might be a good idea to check your facts before
you spout off. The roots of the WWP or Trotskyist. WWP originated as a split
off of the Socialist Workers Party under the leadership of a guy named Sam
Marcy. They used to have a huge mugshot of Trotsky on the cover of every
issue of their newspaper. They ditched some of the overt Trotsky imagery
shortly after getting dissed by a group called the Provisional Organizing
Committee (a breakoff of the CPUSA whose membership included Harry Haywood
and many other important Black and Latino former CP leaders). The main
difference between the WWP and most of the Trotskyist movement is that the
WWP offers "objective support" to the so-called socialist states. This
explains their misguided support for North Korea. This does not necessarily
make them Stalinists.
I don't know if the WWP still considers itself a Trotskyist party, but with
Trotskyism at its roots I certainly doubt that they will ever become "proud,
avowed Stalinists".

On another note, the childish gloating seen on this thread is sickening. If
this story is true, a split and the resulting weakening of forces on the
left is a cause for celebration for no one but the ruling class. I have huge
disagreements with the WWP (probably different than those of many here,
however). This does not mean that damage done to their organization is a
good thing.

This is not flamebait.

 Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 11:33AM PDT: [ reply |
parent ]
The "childish gloating" in this thread is perfectly understandable, as
anything that makes the WWP go away and other of its ilk is a good thing for
working people. Thanks for the history lesson, but most people here
understand that the ruling class was never threatened by the WWP. That's the
main problem with the WWP and their disruption of activist movements: they
water dissent down so it can be safely marginalized.

prole cat writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 04:13AM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
What's the story on the Mexico Solidarity Network (the unfortunantly
acronymed MSN)? I understand they are part of the ANSWER coalition. Are they
controlled by WWP? Are they Stalinists? Or perhaps just marxists working
with other groups wherever they can find points of agreement? I have had
varied experiences in my dealings with them...
 Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 08:32AM PDT: [ reply |
parent ]
The Mexico Solidarity Network is not run by the WWP. It is associated with
the ANSWER coalition thanks to a person working under the same roof as MSN
who has been a strong supporter of the WWP.

bostonian writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 06:51AM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
"And whatever you think about ANSWER, you cannot deny that they are
phenomenal organizers." Yeah, because they hijack and piggy back on other
people's work. They are "great organizers" cause they have the resources
available to them. I am sick of seeing ANSWER go to a mass demo and take
over the whole thing in their name b/c they have the bigger megaphone and
the truck to drown and trample over other org's.
If organizing is viewed as that, then I don't want to be called an organizer
myself. To me organizing is more than a method for structure and logistical
compostion of a group, it entails a philosophic/idelogical commitment as
well. "Be the change you want to see in the world" and all that, you know??

pr again writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 07:47AM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
Rereading the article I retract my use of " great". This sounds like
something long overdue is being done, in getting Marxist loons out of the
peace movement but then becoming more " pro Kerry," WTF!??? Kerry wants to
ESCALATE the war much as Democrat LBJ did in Vietnam. Any new ANSWER that
emerges out of this should prefer Bush / Cheney in 04 to be credible, tho
neutrality would probably be more realistic. Kerry in terms of warmongering
is WORSE than Bush and he represents a clear and present danger. He is a
criminal enemy of peace. As far as voting in elections goes the Euro's have
shown the way - no mandate for anyone.
 writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 03:31PM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
"great organizers"? of what? boring marches that never stopped a damned
thing? yeah, i'll really miss all those permitted marches where peace police
shoved me off the sidewalk while some robot was shoving a donation can in my
face. ugh.
thee doctor writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 07:00PM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
and here is the problem. people are saying that this is a good thing that
WWP is experiencing a split with some ANSWER rank and file, yet the reasons
for the split are only outlined in a simple and cursory manner. substantial
differences are not mentioned.
i hate the WWP and their "objective" Trot politics - politics that someone
acuratly outlined as a bizzare turn to supporting actual Stanlinist
regiemes - but, i fail to see how this split is "good". by turning away from
WWP towards a more "suppport Kerry" position is just as conservative. do you
anarchists support Kerry over Marxism? Thats the vibe.

the Dems have the "anybody but Bush" line. So many anarchists have a knee
jerk "anybody but the Marxists" line.

maybe this new move on the part of ANSWER rank and file will actually
democratize the overall body, lessoning the influence of the WWP cult and
possibly creating more horizontal, and democratic control of the movement.
but this is just speculation, and if the rank and file is actually adopting
more "support kerry" politics, this may actually be a move that brings
ANSWER under Dem party influenece - and that may be pretty crappy and not
that great in the end. which cult do you work with, WWP or the Dems.

 Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 09:56PM PDT: [ reply |
parent ]
Another group of people supporting Kerry is not exactly a welcome
development, but if ANSWER is taken over by rank-and-file activists who want
to work on the election and this eliminates the WWP from the movement, that
is OK with me. Boring protest events will still be organized by activists,
but dissent overall in the USA will benefit if the conniving folks at the
WWP are relegated to becoming just another marginal leftist sect.

Dave Antagonism writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 08:28PM PDT: [ reply |
parent ]
The split would be good, if it was a product of growing radicalisation (
what ever the political label it happened under). However if it is a split
due to political demoralisation and a retreat into liberalism, then that is
nothing to cheer about. Unless of cause the cheering is also a product of
demoralisation- i feel better because a compeditor racket (the WWP) is doing
worse than my racket (the ideology of capital A anarchism) cheers Dave
 Jonathan Nil writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 10:33PM PDT: [ reply |
parent ]
"Retreat" into liberalism? I echo the previous poster, as far as I can tell
ANSWER has from the start been based on a pretty liberal platform. Perhaps
by default rather than design, because liberal is apparently what you get
when you have a white 'left' organization with no defined politics and an
'open to everyone coalition' model.
But I've never understood what the ANSWER front organization was supposed to
get the WWP. What the WWP actually thought they were going to get out of it,
what the point of it was as far as the WWP folks who set it up were

I don't know if it's particularly good news that their front organization is
trying to abandon them for a liberalism without hidden presumably
revolutionary puppetmasters behind it (puppetmasters who never seem to have
a firm grasp of the strings, unless they MEANT it to be a liberal
organization from the start, which they very well might have---like I say,
I've never figured out what the heck the WWP thinks it's doing. They
probably don't want me to know anyway)---but it ain't hardly bad news

 Reverend Chuck0 writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 11:17PM PDT: [ reply |
parent ]
ANSWER, as a front group for the WWP and the WWP's other main front group,
the International Action Center, reflected the WWP apolitical line. More
than a few activists over the years have pointed out the curious apolitical
nature of the WWP and its fronts. Just about every other left party group is
upfront about their politics. But the WWP was about organizign protests for
the sake of protests.
"I've never understood what the ANSWER front organization was supposed to
get the WWP."

Neither do many of us. What's the point of a front group? Was the WWP trying
to establish its covert leadership in ANSWER as influential activists in
"the movement"?

me writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 08:29PM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
"So many anarchists have a knee jerk "anybody but the Marxists" line."
I can't speak for most anarchists, but I'd rather have a mildly repressive
weak government committing small scale genocide, than a total police state
that kills 50 million people in 5 years(see china). Its a matter of tatics
and as some would say "tatical matters are moral matters".

I oppose all governments, but it doesn't follow that all governments crimes
are on the same scale.

also wwp may claim to be leftist, but if leftism means death
squads,oppression, state capitalism and the worship of the rulers, leftism
can fuck off and die, just like national socialists, and three pathers.
Putting the word "workers" in your name doesn't make you correct.

pannekoek05 writes on Monday June 14 2004 @ 09:38PM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
Look I'm not going fundraising for Kerry or anything but at least he's got a
97% scorecard from the LCV, and he lead a senate fillibuster of the artic
refuge vote. For the marginal improvements in environmental policy I think
its worth voting for Kerry. I know Clinton's policy sucked alot, but it was
many miles better than Bush's. I think we can get alot more done
environmentally with Kerry + direct action then with Bush + direct action.
the doctor writes on Tuesday June 15 2004 @ 07:47AM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
ugh, the real pannekoek was an anti-electoral/anti-parlimentary communist
who oppossd both the Right, and the left and reformist social democrats.
kerry is an expresion of a wing of organized capital - da ruling class. he
is for the same agenda of Bush just a different style of management. a vote
for Kerry is a vote for a new administration by capitalist interests. he may
be a "nicer" guy than Bush, but he will continue the same war, the same
capitalsit global restructuring, the same repression here at home. and like
Clinton, despite the friendly and down home charissma life for the poor and
oppressed wont be better. Clinto got more cops, more prisons, slashed
welfare and continued the sanctions on iraq, repatriated fleeing Hatians,
and generally was a pig.

geez, i thought i was on an anarchist we site not a Democrat party front

as for my comment about knee jerk anarchists, i still maintain that. i hate
governmemnt and so called communist regiems have committed horrible
atrocities, but my poit was more about how so many anarchists think that
maybe things will be better if Kerry was in. well, Toto we aint in kansas
anymore and this current era of war and repression, outsourcing and possible
crisis aint gonna retreat. if anarchists could make a stand, politically,
then maybe we could help steer this house to fall on all the wicked
witches - east and west.

thee doctor aka Dorthy

pannekoek05 writes on Tuesday June 15 2004 @ 08:37AM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
Look I'm sorry I even posted on this thread, it really isn't the right forum
of discussion, I just wanted to see what would happen if I challenged a view
parroted by many an anarchist (and I got the typical response that I'm not a
real fan of pannekoek) I thought that I knew Kerry wanted to escalate the
war, continue the march of globalization, build more prison space for drug
offenders, and give more toys to riot cops was included in the post.
Discussion about elections and infoshop is turning out to be alot like the
Satanic Verses and Islam, it will get a Fatwa declared on your ass if you
bring it up.
I tried limiting my post just to the environment because I realized Bush and
KErry are the same a-holes essential on mostly everything. Here is one of my
reasons why I would at least punch a hole for Kerry (taking about 15 minutes
of my day and giving me good exercise biking to the polling place) What's
protecting alot of the roadless forest land left was Clinton's executive
order that road construction be stopped, but Bush is exempting almost every
forest from this protection and also is giving discretionary power to
governors to exempt forests at their whim (though no authority to protect
forests!). I was assuming Kerry would enforce Clinton's order, or dare I say
even beef it up because he had a better record in the senate
environmentally. Now if Bush were in office another four years (assuming
that the anarchists in the country didn't get like 70% of voters to boycott
the election for an explicitly anarchist ideological agenda) direct
actioners would have their fucking hands full protecting every forest in
America at once, they already do have their fucking hands full doing other
things too. We can't spike every tree in the forest and I don't think people
would come out of the woodwork to torch every logging camp. Direct action so
far has its limits because alot of people who would do it have to hold down
a job to help support others and can't just drop everything they do to go
become a militant molotov thrower. If we're ready to spike the forest and
slash tires to protect the old growths shouldnt we be willing to at least
punch a hole out?

pannekoek05 writes on Tuesday June 15 2004 @ 08:44AM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
Then again of course our votes don't count worth shit so I might instead
just bike out to the forest preserve and hug my favorite tree, this was more
of me waxing on why I have problems campaigning others not to vote this
 writes on Tuesday June 15 2004 @ 09:47AM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
WWP not stalinists? okay, perhaps they dont come out and say "hi, we're
stalinists. we're down with genocide, totalitarianism, etc etc." tho they do
support regimes that do do that stuff. and if by horribly ironically
hilarious turn of events in history WWP did come into power in the US, they
would more than likely not hesitate to commit these same crimes. they see
things like this: things are horrible now, so basically any and all means
are justified in changing things. and if anybody tries to stop us from doing
what we think is right and necessary, then we're also justified in doing
whatever we want to them too. guess what: that's stalinism wish a small 's'.
  writes on Tuesday June 15 2004 @ 11:05AM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
Uh....no. Thinking that any means are justified in the process of achieving
change does not equal Stalinism. If this were the case, the world would have
seen many more Stalinists, many of whom would have lived long before Stalin.
Stalinism means support of the political doctrines of Stalin (e.g. socialism
in one country, a highly totalitarian interpretation of the concept of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, a particular take on the 'national
question', etc.). The term could also be accurately used as a description of
the official doctrines and policies of Soviet marxism during the Stalin era.
Just throwing the term around to describe anyone you don't like and who
doesn't pass your anti-authoritarian litmus test isn't helping anyone. As I
mentioned earlier, the WWP has its roots in Trotskyism. While you might not
acknowledge a difference between these two sets of politics (Trotskyism and
Stalinism) many people surely do.
One final thing. You describe how the WWP 'see things', but do nothing to
back up your assertions. Can you refer me to any texts in which the WWP
states that they believe any and all means are justified in 'changing
things'? How about ones in which they write about how they will be justified
in doing whatever they want to anyone that gets in their way? If no such
texts exist, can you please walk me through the thought process that leads
you to feel justified in these assertions. I would appreciate the

 Reverend Chuck0 writes on Tuesday June 15 2004 @ 02:11PM PDT: [ reply |
parent ]
The WWP aren't Stalinists and it doesn't do anybody good to just call them a
name and leave it at that. The WWP has held a range of views, most of them
based on Trotskyism, but the important thing to remember about the WWP is
that they are a vanguardist, authoritarian left sect. Their ideas and
politics aren't just obsolete, they are so abhorrent that the WWP has been
forced to lurk int he background while they created front groups like the
International Action Center and International ANSWER. They conspire to take
over social change movements--they failed to do this with the
anti-globalization movement, but they were ready when dissent shifted to
anti-war activism. The WWP was helped by the fact that many of the anti-war
activists had been old school leftists who hadn't been exposed to the
anti-authoritarian practices and ideas of the successful anti-globalization
The WWP is a classic leftist sect, practicing repudiated politics and
annoying activists with their schemes. The WWP is a top-down organization,
one that isn't interested in democracy, transparency, or creating an
egalitarian movement. It's a good thing that they are self-destructing and
finally fading from activism.

e writes on Tuesday June 15 2004 @ 12:42PM PDT: [ reply | parent ]
Just out of curiousity, since we're on the subject, does anyone know if
Ramsey Clark's (IAC, WWP) book 'the fire this time', about Iraq war I, is
Its kind of disgusting sometimes reading it, the way he tries to make Saddam
Huessein (sp?) sound like some kind of poor demonized real innocent guy.
However, if true, the parts about the conduct of the US military are pretty

Its sitting behind my couch because I dont know if I should believe it.

i remember now writes on Tuesday June 15 2004 @ 12:46PM PDT: [ reply |
parent ]

 Post a Comment
   Remember my information (uses cookies)
* HTML tags are allowed.
* Your email will not be made public.

Back to Infoshop Page | Contact Us | Communities | What\'s New | FAQ | News
| Site Map | Search


More information about the Marxism mailing list