Hi Mark: This could go on forever, but we obviously basically disagree! Most of the early matters on which Camejo writes (i.e his interpretation on Stalin) have been discussed without any resolution. I do not expect there to be this until the archives are more fully opened. I will simply say that in my opinion he is wrong in his interpretation.
As for the rest on the esoterica of the Trotskyist splits, I cannot say to be honest. I have not really been that interested, but his account seems to make sense. Nonetheless, I might nibble - but I won't take a full bite - on what perhaps you intend as a rejoinder. Namely: Camejo: "For instance, the term democratic-centralism now means to most people a bureaucratic, undemocratic, if not utterly dictatorial, organizational structure because that is what most organizations calling themselves democratic centralist were like." -> My comment - I think he is right here. I think we can learn from that experience. I think it did become that, but my interpretation of why and how that happened is indubitably different from Camejo. I think the party was taken over by what I call hidden revisionists. and, here, where Camejo says: "It is wrong to make statements like: “Any attempt to start with a politically heterogeneous, loosely organized group, to try and win a mass base, and then try to turn it into a tight Bolshevik-type party, would end in disaster. It wouldn’t have revolutionary politics.” Or, “But there’s never been a case of a loose organization without trained cadres ever being able to lead a socialist revolution.” First of all, Lenin’s party did begin with a politically heterogeneous, loosely organized group, which did win the masses, the Second International. And then Lenin did succeed in building within such an organization a more cohesive formation…." -> My Comment: I think his interpretation of the London Conference at which the Bolsheviks confronted the Mensheviks is not quite clear. This was an ideological and a political-organizational confrontation. Camejo then drifts off into NZ politics, on which i do not know much. As for Cuba, I suggest that might be better in a separate discussion. Frankly, please forgive my terminology of the "shame faced materialist”. I am brushing off an indigestible piece I wrote during the COVID years on philosophy, and Engels’s phrase is one that is haunting me. I see it in a lot of current philosophy, and I guess I am extrapolating it at times into setting it does not fit. So unreservedly I apologise - I was just full of that phrase. But it was full of BS to pass it on in that manner. But it did seem to me that you were being ‘ agnostic ’. Again to re-phrase it - present an alternative that is truly workable and has a probability of doing what we want. Namely, inspire, lead, and make the socialist revolution. Be well and good night. H -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#40834): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40834 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117948992/21656 -=-=- 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
