====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On 12/04/2010 14:26, Louis Proyect wrote: > It all depends. In the late 1800s, socialism was a mass movement > that millions of workers identified with, even if they never held > membership. By the 1940s, this had changed fundamentally. Workers > either viewed themselves as Communist, with all the problems this > involved. Or they viewed themselves as socialists in the reformist > tradition. Tiny groups vying for their allegiance called > themselves socialist (or communist) as well but *never recruited > large numbers of workers*. So the basic raison d'etre for > launching a new socialist formation of this sort was never > fulfilled. The reason Camejo explored the idea of dumping the old > vocabulary was to force radicals to rethink how they connected to > the masses. He followed up the North Star Network with activity in > the Green Party, which for a brief time could have functioned as a > pole of attraction for Marxists in the U.S., just as Die Linke > does in Germany or other such groups in Europe. I think such > formations will play an increasingly important role until the > workers are ready in massive numbers to join a revolutionary > organization that looks nothing like the self-declared vanguard > parties of today. That is not to say that self-declared vanguard > formations cannot play a useful role today. They do. But they are > constitutionally incapable of breaking through their own > self-imposed sectarian glass ceiling. > > Sure, but there's a difference between the question of how radicals relate to the masses and how revolutionaries should do so. I'm in favour of forming broader groups that could be called any number of things. They certainly don't have to say 'socialist', or 'workers', or 'communist', or 'hammer' in their name. I was in a group that called itself 'Respect' for Christs' sake. And I agree with your basic point that such broad radical left formations will be important in the medium term, for much the reasons that you lay out. But within such formations, there will be revolutionaries of various kinds, perhaps organised as either a faction or a party. It is important that they are open about their politics - if they take their politics seriously, that is. The sentence in Snowdon's article that we're discussing rejected the use of the language of socialism in a left-wing group's name on the grounds that "it is the 21st Century". Well, yes it is. But the language of socialism does not inherently limit one's appeal, it isn't itself any more dated than the language of liberalism or conservatism (a lot less so) and it isn't what has held socialists back. The Scottish Socialist Party, eg, was not destroyed because it called itself socialist, but because it tore itself apart overt a Murdoch media witch-hunt. -- Richard Seymour Writer and blogger Email: leninstombb...@googlemail.com Website: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/leninology Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(writer) Book: http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
