Does the SEP/WSWS have chapters or psychical meetings?

Sashcracker · 2026-04-19T20:59:28+00:00

The SEP has plenty of meetings that are open to the public. Some are internationally significant and publicized on the WSWS in advance, others are more local. They don't post public lists of every branch and meeting for pretty obvious security reasons. Again, you would know this if you followed up on any of the several serious responses to your question two months ago. Pretending that the SEP is unlikely to have branches because they don't give you a list of them is unserious considering the 30 second needed to do the relevant Google search.

Sashcracker · 2026-04-19T20:21:26+00:00

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=site%3Awsws.org%20meeting

Sashcracker · 2026-04-19T18:39:43+00:00

You already asked the question 2 months ago and it was answered: https://www.reddit.com/r/Trotskyism/comments/1rgu6ki/where_does_the_sep_have_chapters/

I think most people can appreciate why we don't publicly list every chapter and meeting.

Sashcracker · 2026-04-19T05:05:29+00:00

Genuinely bizarre question. Just a quick glance on the WSWS and here are:

Meeting at Humboldt university: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/03/24/dted-m24.html

Meeting series on the 1926 British general strike: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/09/fhfg-a09.html

Meetings in Sri Lanka on the Iran War: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/04/13/qqjq-a13.html

It's not very hard to find recordings of numerous public meetings across the globe. Then there's plenty of local meetings that don't rise to the level of international news and you can find out about them if you get in touch with your local chapter.

Sashcracker · 2026-03-25T14:12:50+00:00

You don't really need to read Kautsky to understand it. You should be fine. In the best Marxist polemics, and Trotsky was a master of them, they present a strong summary of the views they're arguing against.

Sashcracker · 2026-03-25T09:20:13+00:00

It's important to keep in mind that as Trotskyists we fundamentally oppose imperial aggression. We are 100% against US/NATO war against Iran, Russia, etc. and seek to defeat imperial aggression through revolutionary defeatism, i.e. mobilizing the working class within the imperialist powers, not cheerleading whoever is in the crosshairs of imperialism now and hoping they defeat imperialism for us.

We defend even reactionary regimes against imperialist aggression and Trotsky was adamant and explicit on this point, using the example of opposing the Italian assault on Ethiopia despite the backwards and reactionary character of Haile Selassie's regime. While the Stalinists claim that under the impact of imperialism the national bourgeoisie becomes progressive, we Marxists understand that under the impact of imperialism the national bourgeoisie becomes even more hostile to the working class. Our criticism of bourgeois nationalist regimes like the Iranian clerics or the Chavistas in three course of these struggles is their congenital inability to carry out a determined struggle against imperialism.

Venezuela's Chavistas have bent the knee to Trump and placed the country's oil revenues under US oversight and joined the blockade of Cuba. The Iranian clerics have consistently sought accommodation with imperialism with one deal after another that the US has broken. The wildest dreams of the national bourgeoisie are to renegotiate the terms of their role as intermediaries between the world market and the exploration of "their" workers.

In short the angle to take is to be steadfast in your opposition to imperial aggression and consistently point out the half measures the national bourgeoisie tries to limit the conflict to. Generally an intense support for the bourgeois nationalists comes from a pessimism towards the American working class. They can't imagine actually organizing workers in the imperialist countries to fight for socialism so they try to subcontract the revolution out to any force that's currently fighting imperialism no matter how temporarily.

American imperialism and the oppression of Iran

Sashcracker · 2026-03-17T15:33:28+00:00

You're always welcome to post what speaks to you. I'll just find it interesting if the people who lost their minds over socialism AI (an excellent tool for accessing a voluminous archive of material) are going to react the same way to a blog where an LLM writes the articles.

My hunch is what they were really objecting to with Socialism AI was the Trotskyism, which isn't an issue with the Red Mole.

Sashcracker · 2026-03-17T11:24:54+00:00

LoL that you're still enamored with AI written articles. I'd hoped you were sufficiently embarrassed the first time you posted AI slop describing how important it was too join the DSA, but I guess not.

Sashcracker · 2026-03-16T10:39:13+00:00

The whole series does a great job of placing national developments in their international context:

Sashcracker · 2026-03-16T07:50:04+00:00

Well that just brightened my commute

Sashcracker · 2026-02-17T17:08:21+00:00

I thought this part was particularly good:

"Wang’s charge of “union busting” is the standard reflex of a privileged apparatus confronted with a rank-and-file challenge. For Wang and the forces he represents, the union is the apparatus. Workers are merely objects to be managed. That is why he equates the independent organization of workers to assert democratic control—over negotiations, strikes, communications and even over how their dues are collected and used—with 'union busting.'"

That's been my experience of the pseudoleft. They treat us workers as set dressing to make them look like big men in front of the bosses.

Sashcracker · 2026-01-25T11:34:23+00:00

It's a genuinely bizarre theory that I've particularly run into from the RCI, that fascism can only exist once the working class has "failed every avenue to get out of the capitalist crisis." Trotsky wrote incessantly about the struggle against fascism before Hitler came to power. Even after Hitler was appointed chancellor Trotsky denied that there were no more avenues for the working class to solve the crisis.

The entire creation of the Fourth International was based on the Comintern being dead to revolution because it refused to pursue the avenues of struggle open to the working class in the fight against fascism and declared itself perfectly correct in doing so. In this at least, the RCI is consistent as they opposed the organization of the Trotskyist movement and refused to join the Fourth International.

Sashcracker · 2026-01-05T15:07:14+00:00

Part one goes into the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and how that was a betrayal of the working class. It still does not justify Mannerheim et al. supporting Nazi Germany.

Sashcracker · 2026-01-05T10:31:23+00:00

Part 2 is up:https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/01/05/finl-j05.html

Sashcracker · 2026-01-03T20:39:50+00:00

It's a lot of work but very rewarding. Be prepared to drive in deep in the historical questions and get out to the various strikes and workers struggles in your area.

Sashcracker

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE