I was thinking about this when another trotskyist was criticizing the PSL for not taking a position on the Stalin-Trotsky debate.

The crucial differences today between Marxist-Leninists and Bolshevik-Leninists are either historical position, or pertaining to strategy in backwards countries (even though there the differences are minor and mostly about Russia). There insofar I am a Trotskyist.

However, in developed countries the Stalinist-Trotskyist split seems ever so useless. Is there any point in splitting over historical position, what to call a now non-existent state? Can't this confined to inner party debate, or, like the PSL does it, almost ignored? Does this debate affect at all our revolutionary strategies? It seems to me it's assumed an almost aesthetic role.

I see no reason why Stalinists, unless they are all opportunists looking for a career in a revolutionary government, would be opposed to abiding to a single party platform upholding the Leninist method, empowerment of the soviets, and internationalism (of the kind that doesn't subordinate the movement). We all agree the USSR wasn't what we wanted.

What do you guys think?

My experience with Stalinists is that most of them are embedded deep in the Democratic Party, a bourgeois party and the party of our class enemy. That said, I see no reason why trotskyists can't work in a united front on specific action with the PSL or Workers World or other such party formations. The differences are real and they both tend to apologise for anti-worker dictatorhsips in the name of anti-imperialism.

In the case of Freedom Road, which has been attacked by the FBI, I think our support for them agaisnt the FBI must be unconditional and unwavering-whatever the differences may be.

The differences between us and the Stalinists are real and not just historical. To give you 3 instances where the politcy of the main Stalinist party the CPUSA is an obstacle to working class action. 1. They particpate in the Democratic Party and are uncritical of Obama. 2. They play a poisonous role in the antiwar movement by opposing mass mobilization and advocating for reliance on the Dems, 3. in the unions they very often play a class collaborationist role. Thye always take the most reformist and least revolutionary road.
.

Er, you just listed stalinist parties that don't do any of the 3. Also, stalinists usually don't do any of the 3, that's something unique to the CPUSA which shifted to the right. The PSL, at least, doesn't take a reformist line or play a class collaborationist role in unions.

I usually hear stalinists *****ing about the revisionism of the CPUSA. I don't know if it's a good example of modern ML

I agree Conscript that the CPUSA isn't the best example of other "MLers" but it is only a more extreme example. The PSL hypes Charles Barron and his Freedom Party, but that Party is only a out-group of the Democratic Party (Barron will do stuff like "endorse" the PSL's NYC mayoral candidate at a PSL event, but on his website and such tell people to vote for the Democrat). In other words, they aren't "uncritical" and do not just say "vote Democrat" but this is just one instance of how they evade a clear fight for working class political independence.

You say the PSL doesn't play a class collaborationist role in the unions. Where is your evidence of this? Where is their public record of union work? The WWP certainly plays such a role. Not as the CPUSA does, no, again not that extreme and explicit but just last year WWP played a big role in my local's "fight" against layoffs (in other words the WWP helped them "look" militant while avoiding an actual mass struggle). Do you really think the PSL functions differently than that or do you have any evidence that they do?

Further the "Leninist left" (International Socialist Organization, Solidarity, the
Progressive Labor Party, and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization) did work together on union work in Chicago--and fucked it up: http://www.lrp-cofi.org/pdf/ctu_052111.pdf.

I'm sorry, but here you are employing a logical fallacy. The burden of evidense is on you: Does the PSL play a class collaborationist role? Can you prove it?

"I'm sorry, but here you are employing a logical fallacy. The burden of evidense is on you: Does the PSL play a class collaborationist role? Can you prove it?"

What is the logical fallacy? Conscript claimed they did not. I questioned the claim. I did not spell out all my premises because I thought they key one is obvious: the PSL tends to act like the WWP which it recently split from for unexplained reasons.

Also, I think a key to playing a role in unions--where one can be open about it which in much of where the PSL is active it could--is that there be a public record of the union work for the workers' movement to evaluate. On its own, I would argue the lack of such a public record (when security, etc. doesn't make such difficult) is evidence against a far left tendency playing a revolutionary role in the unions.

The logical fallacy is that you're saying the opponent of a claim has the burden of proof, which makes no sense. The guy above said the PSL played a class collaborationist role in unions, him and anybody else who believe so must prove it. You can't have it the other way around.

I don't know about the WWP, but its a fallacy to say whatever the WWP does the PSL does. I'm interested if they do do such things though, all the more reason for me to join Socialist Alternative

Isn't the biggest difference now the matter of democratic centralism rather than bureaucratic centralism? I know the Stalinists I've interacted with have pretty much given up on "socialism in one country" (not that they'll admit it), but they're still pretty damn "top down" in their thinking.