====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I think the key thing is that there has been motion when 2 or 5 years ago there wasn't much to reference. So in deference to Banjo Patterson: "There is movement at the station, for the word had passed around That the cult from oldey sect had got away." Since the genie is indeed out of the bottle it warrants accreditation where it is due and I think Nick suggests where some of that consideration belongs. However with all due respect to Bình Võ, I think Dan R has a point: Dan R WROTE: " Some tactical disagreements aside, he hasn't written a word concretely/practically on why people shouldn't be in the ISO except for the fact that we aren't following his particularly interpretation of how the experiences of Bolshevism should be applied to the US today." My point is that the road to Syriza -- or any local approximation thereof -- has not been charted and to insist that we'll get there through the weight of polemic alone is not practical. Some things need to be in motion. As I've pointed out elsewhere the fact is that over the last 20 + years the most successful (the only?) new left formations that have been formed internationally have tended to be either green parties ... or coalescences engineered or fostered by already existing socialist parties. -- BY ALREADY EXISTING SOCIALIST PARTIES. There doesn't seem to be a third way. There may be exceptions as some parties have grown in standalone mode following some radical re-adjustments (example: the Dutch Socialist Party after its embrace of the 'tomato' ) ...but to adopt a Luddite approach and insist our future has to be purged of 'Lenin' or ' Zinoviev' as a prenuptial imperative is really another form of schematism. The Sixties New Left made the same mistake when it chose to start all over again and all we got out of the purge (here in Australia and the US) were outfits like the SDS or a disdain for the long standing assets, esp working class links, of the communist parties. Part of the problem -- and this split in the UK SWP only feeds that perspective -- isn't so much anti-Zinoviev but anti-party. The irony is that as soon as you start to coalesce -- such as the with the Irish United Left Alliance or the Scottish Socialist Alliance or the Socialist Alliance in Australia or Britain or Syriza or...pressure builds from among the membership ranks to advance to party mode. But doesn't the pope shit in the woods? Then as soon as you coalesce -- even in ab hoc mode -- and do party like things, like stand candidates in elections, someone is gonna start agitating for the real McCoy. Just as thousands more are gonna assume you are indeed a party even if you seek to disown the label. Our collective problem has been that in most instances already existing Marxian affiliates resist that motion. But then,to be fair, Bolsheviks aren't fools. I don't think it is too much to ask that these new formations prove their worth before their template is replicated elsewhere. But for my money the runs are already on the board despite the massive teething problems we've had to deal with over the past 10 years. But what we have to do is set aside this mad argument that these initiatives are examples of indulgent reformism..that the only true revolutionary formation is 'our' boutique party resting on 'our' program and 'our' traditions. Call that Zinovievism if you like -- but to extrapolate from that that ALL existing parties aren't worth your investment is really a narrow POV. dave riley ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
