[Marxism] Socialists Unite: Statement from Workers World Party & FIST

Dayne Goodwin daynegoodwin at gmail.com
Sat Jul 10 06:37:35 MDT 2010

Although Joaquin's point here is that neither side in the PSL split from WWP
would give
a public explanation for why this split was 'necessary'...

fwiw, somewhere i got the impression that the split came about because of
over organizational priorities roughly between WWP cadre who were leading
ANSWER in relatively successful antiwar work versus WWP cadre who insisted
it was time to focus on running the ritual WWP presidential election
campaign.  a political difference of this nature
may have overlapped with differences on (the importance of) confronting the
Democrats - as Joseph suggests - with those who became PSL perhaps arguing
at the time a broad-movement building rationale for de-emphasizing electoral
confrontation with the Dem's.

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Joaquín Bustelo <jbustelo at bellsouth.net>wrote:

> On 7/9/2010 2:39 PM, Joseph Catron wrote:
> > it was widely-understood in 2004 that
> > the split stemmed from Workers World's nomination of John Parker as its
> > presidential candidate, with Terese Gutierrez as his running mate, while
> the
> > PSL faction wished to leave its ballot line blank in deference to the
> > "Anybody But Bush" Kerry supporters.
> Neither workers world nor pissel gave any explanation for the split, and
> at least looking at the online publications of both sides at the time,
> the differences seemed nonexistent.
> I find it hard to credit that the split was about an episodic difference
> over the tactical stance to take in the 2004 election. There was a
> debate in Solidarity that year over whether to endorse Nader and Camejo
> or give the election a miss, and I think all involved would have
> considered splitting over something like that to be completely bizarre.
> Why would you go through all the rigamarole of establishing a new group
> over a difference that was going to vanish in a few months? And the PSL
> ran its own presidential candidates in 2008, confirming that if there
> really was a difference as described in 2004, it didn't amount to much.
> Thus we have only the clear statement made by the fact of the split
> itself: that despite extensive political agreement, the pissel folks
> considered the WWP loyalists to be such miscreants or incompetents that
> it was better to break with them than to remain in the same group. And
> the inference to be drawn from this, which is that the leaderships of
> the two sides failed to reach an accomodation or agreement on a modus
> vivendi that would have avoided the break, even though there appeared to
> be an ample basis of agreement on political positions on which to base
> such an accord.
> Joquín

More information about the Marxism mailing list