One more thing. Louis wrote:
*As much of Trotsky's Marxism sticks with me, he never grasped how damaging Zinoviev's "Bolshevization" Comintern was. Organizational principles have to flow from the mass movement, not from schemas or formulas such as Zinoviev cooked up.* I agree but I think this doesn’t grapple with the main problem of Zinoviev’s and Trotsky’s concerns. How do you build an International that doesn’t fall into the betrayals of the Socialist International? How do you create an program of international solidarity within a socialist movement with democratic *and* revolutionary ideas, with internal revolutionary discipline *and* equalitarian practice that is not cult like and doesn’t rely on constant excommunication. In simple words, how do we have revolutionary discipline *and* democratic practice within each party *and* within an international party as a whole? Such international revolutionary discipline and democratic practice must not just be between parties as corporate constituents but within the whole international. That is true if we are to build a real international organization with solidarity in practice. Jerry On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 11:17 AM Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/11/21 11:03 AM, Jerry Monaco wrote: > > > I’ve wondered all my adult life about this question. But I think every > Trotskyist groupuscule had its own version. To take on the task seriously > and with humility, thinking about the contingencies of thought and > Trotsky’s combination of stubbornness and feeling for reality would be more > than difficult. > > I spent 11 years in the SWP, a group that Trotsky regarded as his flagship > section. I saw it degenerate into a bizarre cult-sect that adapted to the > Trump presidency. > > After leaving the group in 1978, I became part of a informal tendency > trying to leave sectarianism behind. As much of Trotsky's Marxism sticks > with me, he never grasped how damaging Zinoviev's "Bolshevization" > Comintern was. Organizational principles have to flow from the mass > movement, not from schemas or formulas such as Zinoviev cooked up. > > Over 20 years ago I began grappling with the "organizational" question, > with 117 articles collected here: > > http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization.htm > > This > <http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization/lenin_in_context.htm> > will give you a flavor for my approach: > > Let us review the aftermath of the 1928 world congress of the Comintern. > Bukharin lost power to Stalin. Stalin then unseated Jay Lovestone, > Bukharin's supporter and leader of the American Communist Party, and turned > over party leadership to William Z. Foster, a Stalin loyalist. > > There was another American Communist leader by the name of James P. Cannon > who went his own way and aligned himself with the Trotskyist Left > Opposition. > > Cannon was born in Rosedale, Kansas in 1890 and joined the Socialist Party > in 1908. He then also joined the anarcho-syndicalist IWW three years later. > In the IWW Cannon worked with Vincent St. John, "Big Bill" Haywood and > Frank Little as a strike organizer and journalist. He switched allegiance > to the newly formed Communist Party in September 1919 and won an election > to the Central Committee in 1920. He served on the Communist International > Presidium from 1922 to 1923. Next he headed the International Labor Defense > from 1925 to 1928. > > After he declared for Trotskyism, the CP expelled him. Along with Max > Shachtman and Martin Abern, he went on to form the Communist League of > America, the first American Trotskyist group. This group eventually > developed into the contemporary Socialist Workers Party, a tiny group that > has disavowed any connection with Trotskyism. > > Cannon set the sectarian tone of American Trotskyism at its infancy. In a > speech to the New York branch of his movement, on December 23, 1930, Cannon > defined the relation of the opposition to "class" and "vanguard". > > 1. The Communist Party was still the vanguard, but the Trotskyist > opposition was the "vanguard of this vanguard." > > 2. The task of the opposition was to make the "opposition line the line of > the proletarian vanguard." > > Cannon invoked Trotsky's words to support his approach. "The revolutionary > Marxists are now again reduced (not for the first time and probably not for > the last) to being an international propaganda society....It seems that the > fact that we are very few frightens you. Of course, it is unpleasant. > Naturally, it would be better to have behind us organizations numbering > millions. But how are we, the vanguard of the vanguard, to have such > organizations the day after the world revolution has suffered catastrophic > defeats brought on by the Menshevik leadership hiding under the false mask > of Bolshevism? Yes, how?" ("The Militant", 1929) > > Has there ever been an "ideological" vanguard, Trotskyist or otherwise? > The answer is no. This is an idealistic conception of politics that has > been disastrous for Trotskyism throughout its entire existence. A vanguard > is a goal, not a set of ideas. The goal of the vanguard is to coordinate > the revolutionary conquest of power by the workers and their allies. > Building a true vanguard will require correct ideas but these ideas can > only emerge out of dialectical relationship with mass struggles. To > artificially separate a revolutionary program from the mass movement is a > guarantee that you will turn into a sectarian. > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#7915): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/7915 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/82013043/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
