Sorry, Hari. You're right in reminding me that we've plowed the same ground
many times over. Thanks for patiently going over it once more, and I'm again
glad to see we're aligned on some of the ongoing strategic issues if not on
past Soviet history.
We also seem to be on the same page regarding "entryism" when you write: " Some
Marxist-Leninists may say it is a question of either-or. I have never adopted
that viewpoint. Any Marxist know you have to be where the people are." I
likewise regard it as a tactical rather than a principled question.
Intervention is justified when there is a large and growing dissident faction
opposed to the leadership and direction of a left-centre party; it otherwise
becomes a futile exercise and diversion from time spent organizing where may be
more promising opportunities elsewhere. I know some former comrades who have
been spinning their wheels in the NDP trying to recreate the Waffle for a half
century.
I regard being open about your "communism" the same way. It depends to who and
in what circumstances. We've also had this discussion before, but without
coming to agreement. Outside of a revolutionary period, it's more likely IMO
to distance rather than attract even the most advanced workers. At best, it
will leave them indifferent. It is more a matter of educating individual
activists with whom you come in contact through common struggle than appearing
to promote a split ("independence") in an open forum where most members, even
those seeking its reform, still retain confidence in their organization.
That's how I've always understood Lenin's position with respect to the Labour
Party orientation in WITBD and Marx and Engels' earlier injunction against
appearing to "form a separate party opposed to other working class parties",
(leaving aside the issue of whether today's union-backed mass parties in the
West can still properly be called "working class" parties). Closer to your
political home, t he turn from the Third Period Policy to the Popular Front
also recognized that CP militants necessarily had to be more circumspect about
their affiliation to avoid state repression and political estrangement from the
the mass of activists seeking reform rather than revolution in the unions and
other social movements. The CPUSA under the Comintern's direction elevated
this organizing principle to political support for the Democrats through the
New Deal and WWII until the postwar onset of the Cold War. It was strongly
criticized by Trotsky and his supporters. Am I wrong to assume from what you
have written that you would also have opposed this policy?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#40185): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40185
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117257520/21656
-=-=-
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.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
